Emmanuel Macron - the Antichrist?!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phil D.

ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Ray Comfort, a classical dispensationalist, gives reasons why he believes this could be the case... (the first 3:30 gives the gist of his thought)

 
The traditional Reformed answer to this question is the correct one. When you are wrong this often about who the antichrist is, you should perhaps reconsider your underlying methodology.
 
Anyone who isn't Pro-Christ is Anti-Christ.

I don't mean to be pedantic, I really don't. And what you say is 100% correct in the reality of the spiritual realm. Ultimately, anyone who is not (invisibly) with Christ is (invisibly) against Christ.

But most anti-christs are very much "Pro-Christ" in their teachings. So much so that - were it possible - even the elect would be deceived.
 
The Anti-Christ of the day, frequently, is one’s current political enemy. Many would argue Macron is an attractive leader. However, in what world does Schwab appear as an ‘Angel of Light?’

As Rogan has said, Schwab dresses like a villain from Star Wars.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0018.jpeg
    IMG_0018.jpeg
    79.9 KB · Views: 8
I read that Trump tower is 666 feet high and Jared Kushner owns 666 Fifth Ave too.

And G W Bush made devil signs with his hands….or was that hookem horns for UT? It’s too hard to stay current
 
But seriously... (!) It helped me to learn that the Greek 'anti' doesn't mean against, as we're used to thinking in English, but basically means 'standing in the place of.' So antichrist doesn't describe someone who is opposed to Christ but who takes on the role of standing in his place.
 
I read that Trump tower is 666 feet high and Jared Kushner owns 666 Fifth Ave too.

And G W Bush made devil signs with his hands….or was that hookem horns for UT? It’s too hard to stay current

George W: "Seethat right there? I made the devil signs right there. Now everyone knows."

World Economic Forum: "They think you did hookem Longhorns though."

GW: "Oh ... is that good or bad? Am I supposed to be obvious? or what's a word for not obvious? .... (taps earpiece) shuttle? ... no, subtle .... yeah was I supposed to be obvious or subtle?"

WEF: "We are sending our courier Mr. Epstein to the White House. Please arrange a flight to the Island for further instructions".
 
It also seems questionable equivalency-identity is often made between scriptural references to "antichrists," "beast," and "man of sin/son of perdition."
 
Last edited:
860ftr.jpg
 
They could not even manage to spell his name right.

Macron does have ambitions to be a peacemaker on the world stage. He tried to stop the Russia / Ukraine war and was the only Western leader who could still get an audience with Putin. But to me he lacks the necessary gravitas. Plus, he didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize just for being elected the way Obama did.
 
They could not even manage to spell his name right.

Macron does have ambitions to be a peacemaker on the world stage. He tried to stop the Russia / Ukraine war and was the only Western leader who could still get an audience with Putin. But to me he lacks the necessary gravitas. Plus, he didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize just for being elected the way Obama did.
France has always tried to stay a global, colonial power. They don't like being under anyone's boot. Starting to understand the English every time I open up a history book...
 
France has always tried to stay a global, colonial power. They don't like being under anyone's boot. Starting to understand the English every time I open up a history book...
Yeah he is probably trying to reassert France's presence on the global stage at a time when the USA seems to be retreating, etc. They've continued to meddle in former colonies of theirs in Africa, but he seems to be trying to get involved in places where the French haven't been a player in 50 years or more. The Suez Crisis basically marked the end of Britain and France as powers who would try to undertake that sort of action on their own.

They did not go along with the Iraq War (maybe for the right reasons but maybe also for reasons that were somewhat less than pure) so some might view that favorably.
 
At this point, you probably could get a fair number of Roman Catholics to sign on to the historic teaching of the Westminster Confession as to who is the Antichrist. Particularly over in East Texas these days.
 
Listening to this kind of thing targeted at different people is what made me bail on dispensationalism. There have been many antichrist leaders down through history. The best fit for the beast is Nero.
 
Listening to this kind of thing targeted at different people is what made me bail on dispensationalism. There have been many antichrist leaders down through history. The best fit for the beast is Nero.
So at the time of Nero, the specific person targeted was.... Nero?

:think:
 
The Beast and the antichrist are two separate entities. Nero has been just about the worst world leader. Hitler is a very close second. Nero specifically targeted Christians, throwing them to lions while crowds watched, burning them as torches to light streets and other horrible deeds. It was commonly accepted that Nero was the beast until fairly recent times.

As for the AntiChrist, as taught by the 1647 Westminster Confession, is the Pope. He puts himself in the place of Christ, not necessarily in opposition to Christ. There have been some popes that have been adored, and there have been others that have been downright evil.

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. (WCF 25.6) 1647
 
The Beast and the antichrist are two separate entities. Nero has been just about the worst world leader. Hitler is a very close second. Nero specifically targeted Christians, throwing them to lions while crowds watched, burning them as torches to light streets and other horrible deeds. It was commonly accepted that Nero was the beast until fairly recent times.

As for the AntiChrist, as taught by the 1647 Westminster Confession, is the Pope. He puts himself in the place of Christ, not necessarily in opposition to Christ. There have been some popes that have been adored, and there have been others that have been downright evil.

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. (WCF 25.6) 1647
I agree with you completely. My statement was just a jest directed at your previous comment.
 
I agree with you completely. My statement was just a jest directed at your previous comment.

Hahaha, there should be an emoji for someone eagerly getting popcorn for the oncoming blitz and then dejectedly setting it back down when it doesn't happen. Hahahaha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top