[Shortly before the attack on Iraq, I
did state Saddam Hussein could be "Roi Reb," since his name means "he
who rebels": the prophecy was that he would prove AN (not *the*)
antichrist so false that he would put many people in conflict
together.]
Does that not tell you assumption is a very easy trap to fall into?
I wasn't assuming, I was postulating. If that was taken as a green
light for the invasion, it was not me making the assumption, because I
command no army; widespread conflict does not sound like a good thing
to me - I was not recommending any attack. The Antichrist of
Revelations is not someone I would consider attacking either: his fate
is delineated as being handled by the Messiah; and it is the
blasphemous honor given him which is the real danger.
Mistaken presumption from accurate prophecy is a basic theme in
Shakespeare's tragic play "Macbeth," but this is not to say it is
always a mistake for leaders to heed prophecy. President Clinton had
the option of diverting the Cassini spacecraft from its Earth fly-by,
which could have altered the course of history: there might have been
no Istanbul quake in 1999 if he had done so - we will never know, and
I doubt the data to be obtained from the Huygens probe will be worth a
single human life. I don't believe we are capable of preventing the
Nostradamian prophecies from occurring: I have never stated something
I proposed as possible did not happen because the timeline was
changed; but I have suggested certain astrological conditions could be
setting up further incidents without being synchronized with their own
events.
Le chef de Londres par regne l'Americh,
L'Ile d'Escosse tempiera par gelee;
Roi Reb auront un si faux Antechrist
Que les mettra trestous dans la melee.
X.66 [note, not VI.66] obviously mentions America, strange in itself,
in a false rhyme with Antichrist, even more curious. The first
portion has been related to the Revolutionary War, with the commentary
that Scotland was "tempered by frost" in 1776 for line 2: I personally
find this rather unconvincing, preferring to leave open the
possibility of some future fulfillment. Line 3's "Roi Reb" was
translated by Leoni not as "Rebel King," but "King and Reb," which is
probably because "auront" is the future plural of "avoir": so he
derives, "King and Reb will face an Antichrist so false..."
My interpretation of line 3 incorporates an implicit "they" to explain
the pluralization of the verb "to have," without the idiomatic
transference into the concept of "facing," arriving at an entirely
different reading which allows for punctuation that may be missing.
Rebel King - they will have an Antichrist so false
That it will put them all into the conflict together
Having been accused of being the Antichrist myself after my 31 October
1999 came true (as far as V.86 line 2 allowed), I am particularly
sensitive to this issue, and wish people would actually read the
appropriate passages of Revelations and see if they reasonably apply
to the person being attacked with this label of ultimate wickedness
before trying to utterly destroy their lives out of fear, disbelief,
confusion, or whatever. There are specific points given, which if
pursued to their natural conclusion, would probably lead to someone
quite popular and even beloved, which is what makes the apostasy he
engenders so enormously successful and unlikely to be perceived as
such (another requirement - widespread shock when his identity is
finally revealed). The test of Revelations is one that most people
will fail, because the harder they try to succeed without
comprehending the truth, the further they dig themselves into the pit.
Consider the dangers being posed by the current terrorism: in their
attempts to acquire converts and influence policy through violence,
they cannot escape in each instance fulfilling Christian prophecy,
thereby exposing their efforts as futile and misguided. Even if such
a movement topples every nation and achieves the universality it
desires, it would truly have gained the world but lost its soul.
.
|
|
| User: "Doug Haxton" |
|
| Title: Re: Major Occurrences Reviewed Esoterically |
05 Apr 2004 12:54:53 AM |
|
|
(Eagal) wrote in message news:<81d2acae.0404041000.41af58b2@posting.google.com>...
President Clinton had
the option of diverting the Cassini spacecraft from its Earth fly-by,
which could have altered the course of history: there might have been
no Istanbul quake in 1999 if he had done so - we will never know, and
I doubt the data to be obtained from the Huygens probe will be worth a
single human life.
This is without a doubt the most idiotic thing I've read on the usenet
in a long, long time.
I know I'm going to regret asking this, but please tell us: how does
diverting a space probe from making a fly-by of the Earth prevent an
earthquake from occuring?
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
