MovieChat Forums > Left Behind (2001) Discussion > I believe The Antichrist will be a Clone...

I believe The Antichrist will be a Clone!!!


Well first I need to rant about how people view cloning to being with, most people thanks to fiction still think cloning means growing an exact duplicate of someone in a test tube.

Cloning is artificial reproduction, it is replacing the role played by the semen with an artificially created embryo made from a sample of genetic material of some individual, an egg, a womb and a mother is still necessary. Though the womb the clone is nurtured in may not be of the same woman that the egg came from.

Now, I should state that I believe there has been secret experimenting with cloning since long before Dolly, I believe clones more successful then Dolly where probably made in secret during the 50s at least.

Now, the first key to how I came to this Biblical interpretation lies in Revelation 17:8-11.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is......... And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Now, most of my favorite Bible teachers are wrong in identifying these kings, they insist that they refer to seven world Empires, four of which are the four Beasts of Daniel, problem is that doesn't work for many reasons, Rome did not truly end it continues today and is being reunited, that's the point of the 4th Beast prophecy, there is no seventh empire, just different balances of power between pieces of Rome (Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Greece, Turkey/Ottoman, Syria, Egypt).

But more important the whole context here is clearly implying to me seven individual kings, Roman Emperors, one of which is contemporary with when John wrote Revelation.

Now there are two different views among Christian scholars as to under which Emperor John wrote Revelation, the most popular view is under Domitian, but some are convinced it was under Nero, I used to firmly hold to the Domitian camp. However I've been becoming slowly more open to the Nero view.

What a compromise set in between? you might ask? First, all statements about Revelation place it's Authorship during a time of Imperial Persecution Nero and Domitian are the first 2, and it Trajan is to late, but his Persecution was kind of the mildest anyway, Aurelius is way to late. Revelation is quoted by Clement before 100 A.D.

Now remember, John is writing in the reign of the 6th and 2nd to last of the 7, and the 7th is clearly identified as having a very short reign. So far that can apply to both, Nero was succeeded by Galba (Less then a year) and Domitian by Nerva (About 2 years) both pretty short reigns.

What's really ironic is how if Domitian is the intended contemporary ruler then the first of that seven is Galba's successor (Licinianus is often ignored in the history of the year of Four Emperors, but he did reign very briefly). Now generally Nero is said to only have four predecessors, but technically the Julio-Claudian dynasty starts with Julius Caesar.

The first 14 Roman Emperors where
Julius-Augustus-Tiberius-Caligula-Claudius-Nero-Galba
Otho-Licinianus-Vitellius-Vespasian-Titus-Domitian-Nerva

But also maybe the very brief reigns of the "year of the four emperors" don't count at all, they where basically usurpers. Perhaps John was starting with the first new Emperor after the Church age began.
Caligula-Claudius-Nero-Vespasian-Titus-Domitian-Nerva
Which would make it possible for Caligula-Nero to be among the relevant 7 either way.

So the passage says The Beast is the 8th king, and is "of the seven". The word translated "of" here can also mean "from" or "out of". Could it mean a clone?

The view that Nero was the Antichrist was very popular in the early Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Christian_tradition
Preterists use this to support their view. But what they forget is what went with that was the belief that Nero didn't actually die but would return. This myth wasn't limited to people that didn't like Nero, fact is Nero was popular with most of the common people of Rome who where hoping he'd come back.

Otho had a vague physical resemble to Nero and tried to present himself as a new Nero. A person pretending to be Nero appeared in 68-69 A.D. in Greece. Another during the reign of Titus 79-81 and was entertained by the Parthians. And a third appeared 20 years after Nero's death during the reign of Domitian, he to had Parthian support.
Tacitus, Histories II.8, Dio, LXVI.19.3, Suetonius, LVII, Tacitus, I.2

Dio Chrysostom (40-115 A.D.), a Greek philosopher and historian, wrote "seeing that even now everybody wishes [Nero] were still alive. And the great majority do believe that he still is, although in a certain sense he has died not once but often along with those who had been firmly convinced that he was still alive."
Dio Chrysostom, Discourse XXI, On Beauty
That predates all known Christian sources on the subject.

There is a bizarre Rabbinic Jewish tradition. According to the Talmud, Nero went to Jerusalem and shot arrows in all four directions. All the arrows landed in the city. He then asked a passing child to repeat the verse he had learned that day. The child responded, "I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel" (Ez. 25,14). Nero became terrified, believing that God wanted the Temple in Jerusalem to be destroyed, but would punish the one to carry it out. Nero said, "He desires to lay waste His House and to lay the blame on me," whereupon he fled and converted to Judaism to avoid such retribution. [Talmud, tractate Gitin 56a-b] Vespasian was then dispatched to put down the rebellion.

The Talmud adds that the sage Reb Meir Baal HaNess, a prominent supporter of the Bar Kokhba rebellion against Roman rule, was a descendant of Nero. There is no other example of the Talmud claiming a prominent Rabbi to be descended from a Gentile ruler.

But back to he Christian viewpoint, Domitian was the 2nd Emperor to persecute Christians, and because of that many Christians at the time thought he was Nero resurrected somehow, or perhaps possessed by the same demon(s).

The Ascension of Isaiah (Second century apocrypha) 4:2 says "the slayer of his mother, who himself this king, will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html

The Sibylline Oracles, IV, 119-124; V.137-141; V.361-396 appear to claim that Nero did not really die but fled to Parthia, where he would amass a large army and would return to Rome to destroy it.

Lactantius (310 A.D.) wrote that Nero "suddenly disappeared, and even the burial-place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen. This has led some persons of extravagant imagination to suppose that, having been conveyed to a distant region, he is still reserved alive; and to him they apply the Sibylline verses."
Lactantius, Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died II
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-15.htm

In 422 Augustine of Hippo, City of God XX.19.3 said "he now lives in concealment in the vigor of that same age which he had reached when he was believed to have perished, and will live until he is revealed in his own time and restored to his kingdom." where he referring to secular belief in Nero's return actually. He goes on to comment on those Christina still believing Nero would be the Antichrist, but he himself rejected that theory.

Another historical Detail of Nero often overlooked is what's compelling here. Most Pre-Christian Roman Emperors where cremated, their bodies burned completely leaving only ashes behind. However Nero was an exception, probably the only one. Acte had Nero buried in the Mausoleum of the Domitii Ahenobarbi, in what is now the Villa Borghese (Pincian Hill) area of Rome.

What that means is he and he alone of the 14 possible candidates could possibly have remains still around today, that maybe (Though it is an off chance) could be in good enough condition to extract genetic material from. That I know of this Tomb hasn't be discovered by modern Archeology yet, but it might have been and kept secret, who knows.

However, material that old, if it could be obtained at all, would no doubt be in a very deteriorated condition. Remember the frog plot point from Jurassic Park? That point of that was the DNA code needed to be completed, spliced slightly with something else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_splicing

Already there has been much experimentation with combining DNA of different kinds of animals, who naturally could never reproduce together. Even involving Human DNA. Lamb/Goat hybrids, glowing monkeys made by splicing them with starfish DNA, and of course growing Human ears on Mice. And that's just what we know of, not including what's been kept secret. If you study cryptology then you know lots of weird sightings of animal that appear to be different animals combined together have been popping up in the last 50 years, chubacabra being the most famous, but also Batsquatch.

Now, the beginning of Bible Prophecy in Genesis 3:15, where Yeshua's first Messianic title if The Seed of The Woman, but also implied int he verse is the possible 1st title of The Antichrist, The Seed of The Serpent. Further allusion to this is possibly in Isaiah 14:29
for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.
So, could Nero or which ever Human DNA is used be spiced with that of a serpent? (Biblical Serpents are more than just snakes, the word is interchangeable with dragon, and could refer to any lizard, reptilian or amphibious animals, dinosaurs included, (and there is some reason to believe the ancient world would have also counted Scorpions as Serpents) I think so.

Well, I hope I've peeked the interest of many.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

reply

That all sounds like a stretch...

Reference to the "Serpent" in this case is clearly alluding to satan and evil.

The Anti-Christ will need to be of Jewish descent and claim to be born in Bethlehem... otherwise, how else is he supposed to convince the Jewish Faith that he is their messiah?

reply

if you read the books..

Carpathia is a clone

reply

Modern Jews deny the Bethlehem Prophecy is Messianic.

I think The Antichrist's Mother will have a mixed heritage, some Jewish, some European Royalty claiming decent from Merovee, maybe some Arab calming decent from Fatima as well.

When the chips are down... these "Civilized" people... will Eat each Other

reply

I still firmly believe that anitchrist will be a role that Satan himself plays. In 2nd Thes he's called the Son of Perdition and only one entity at this time has been sentenced to die and that's Satan. He will sit on the throne in Jer proclaiming to be God just as in Isiah it proclaims "Lucifer" will do the very same thing. So they would have to be the very same person. Angels throughout the Bible have always been called "men" and it's the same thing for Satan.

reply

Satan is Predition, The Antichrist is his Son.

www.RonPaul2012.com

reply


Interesting little tidbit for you to knaw on.....

1. Bible prophecy 101 here guys.

Beasts represent kingdoms, powers etc
Woment represent churchs.

Revelation show a harlot ( woman) riding a beast ( church ). A church controlling a kindgom.

BTW: after those kingdoms were split, the visigoths, ostrogoths and vandals all rebelled against the "official roman dictates of doctrine" and were wiped off the map. ( uprooting three? )

2. Paul used the word Naos ( sp? ) for the word temple when he said that the antichrist would sit in the temple of God and claim to be god. He used the exact same Naos when he told the followers " YOU are the temple of God. "
The bible calls only one other Son of Perdition. That.... was Judas. Did he attack from outside the church, or did he betray from within?

3. Says antichrist will make war with the saints and prevail for 1,260 years. A very public and publicized apology was made a few years ago, acknowledging the horrible things done we know of so well, from the year 538 A.D. to the year 1798 A.D. when power was removed for a time by Napoleons general. Wanna do that math on that one?

There is a WHOLE lot more, and very specific, but just wanted to leave a little bit to make one pause.



Cass is hard on a meat suit........*sigh*

reply

I'm not sure what point you are making here about Judas is. The context of the subject here is clearly our gathering back to Christ as stated in 2nd Thes. And then Paul goes on to say that day shall not happen until a falling away (apostasy) and the man of sin, the son of perdition (apoleia) be revealed sitting at the temple proclaiming to be God. Judas never proclaimed anything like that. We are given a first witness (The bible many times gives two witnesses) to this event in Isaiah. And it's clearly Lucifer/Satan (Apollyon) that does it. I know some think that Judas is the son of perdition but this verse in 2nd Thes clearly shows that he is not. In John Jesus doesn't name Judas by name but is simply saying only one at this point is lost for sure and that is the son of perdition. And now we see in 2nd Thes who that definitely is.

Also, in regards to Revelations John is taken in spirit to the Lord's Day. So we are talking future here.


reply

No Apollyon is not the same person as Satan, their distinct separate entities.

reply

Apollyon is the Greek name for Satan. (Strong's 623 in the Greek) He is the destoyer. Just as Abaddon is the Hebrew name for him. He is the angel of the bottomless pit.

reply

Satan is not Bound in the Abyss unitll after the Tribulation, he can't be Apollyon.

I've actually written a dissertation on why I believe Apollyon/The False Prophet is Judas.

reply

Religions would be more accurate, but even that's off.

The Harlot represents all False Religion in my vie,w not any specific one.

The Woman of Chapter 12 is the Nation of Israel, and the Bride of Christ is the Church.

There is no "1,260 years" that's Day=Year theorizing which is UnBiblical, this time period is the 2nd half of the 7 year Tribulation.

reply

[deleted]