The problem with prophecy

Eschatology is an inexact pursuit, it’s fraught and is one of the primary reasons I stepped back to that which, if not provable, at least seems to have evidence for it, e.g. that what was going on in Rotherham and Telford with those girls and the rape gangs was indeed happening.

At every stage along the way, there is fierce denial, e.g. controlled demolition of WTC7, unjustified denial in the context of the NIST denials and outright lies, also given what people at ground level initially testified to.

Ditto with David Kelly. There is also something very wrong with the way Diana was handled.

Then we get into iffy areas such as JFK where the single bullet theory is utter tosh. Other parts may or may not stand up but some of the things claimed at Warren were just not so.

The moon landing is one where I don’t think either side has enough to be conclusive.

The Crusades are far easier, with a look at extant documents, especially the one showing the behaviour of the Franks at Constantinople – these were bloodthirsty barbarians with crosses on their tunics. Christian? In the sense that everyone in today’s hegemony must be “welcome refugees” or else you’re arrested, so everyone was nominally Christian then, possibly most may have been so in that theocracy.

Which is not to say the hospices were not effective and in the modern day, the Salvos were the precursors, also Bethesda etc. My mother and aunt were nurses in such places for the sick and needy, though I’d hardly describe those two as religious – we spoke not of religion and politics at home. There was just a general culture about at the time which was not, for example, jihadi or godless sick like today.

And part of that field was eschatology, though church services never, as I recall, touched on tricky things like that – it was all love thy neighbour and so on. A sea captain may have been described as a “good Christian gentleman”. He may or may not have been, didn’t stop him issuing rum, using the lash and let’s not think of that other horror. That topic will be addressed in a subsequent post.

Coming back to the eschatology, there are many candidates for the antiChrist, each with its intriguing support. As for me, I haven’t a clue which is or isn’t the way it will be, though there are clear signs that this society we’re now in can’t be sustained this way, but that’s hardly religious – blind Freddy can see the writing on the wall at this current rate.

The following is a brief look at some of the thinking on the endtimes and in particular, the antiChrist I’ve been accused of being. Lol, methinks the AC would be a bit more clever and devious than I’ve been but let’s see.

Also, there are verses saying that there have been and will be many ACs … or is that many beasts or is that many false prophets? Others are better read than I am on the topic.

Some things:

# The beast rises up out of the sea (Revelation 13:1). Meaning it rises up among many nations, tongues and people (Revelation 17:15).

# The dragon gives the beast it’s ‘seat and authority’ (Revelation 13:2). Revelation 12 confirms that the dragon is satan and also the nation of Pagan Rome (it was Pagan Rome who tried to kill the ‘man child’, Jesus Christ).

# The beast would receive a ‘mortal wound’ which would be healed (Revelation 13:3). Meaning this kingdom would be conquered at some stage, and lose its power. But would then be revived into a power again.

# The AC or beast has no regard for women, is supposedly accepted by the Jews and rebuilds the Temple, then desecrates it.

Seems to me the Donald fails the woman test but hey, maybe it’s a smokescreen.  He has been touted, especially by the left who don’t believe in this thing anyway.

Most of those with an interest in this on the Protestant side see it as the Pope and the Vatican.  There have to be three kingdoms rooted out and the Heruli, Vandals and Ostrogoths fit that bill if it’s the Vatican at issue.

There’s another candidate I’m thinking of, just stirring it up a bit:

Two Royal Families in Great Britain claim and have claimed of them to be descendants of Israel. These are the current House of Windsor and the House of Stewart. Both these have what is called the Holy Bloodline of Judah [from which ancient Judaism states their Messiah MUST herald from].

Charles [Charles Philip Arthur George] and William [William Arthur Philip Louis] are both Arthurs … although Princes who use the name Arthur have a record of mysteriously never reaching the Throne.

The account of Arthur as a Future King who will return again, leading his people to victory at a time of their greatest peril, is thought to have its origins in the 5th-6th century defeat of the Celts by the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain.

King Arthur died from a “mortal wound to the head”, having his skull crushed in battle from a sword at the Battle of Camlann between 516-550 AD. It then becomes another note of intriguing interest that both the Biblical Beast and the legendary Arthur “are mortally wounded”, then seemingly recover.

Both are said to return, leading the world to a Millennial peace.

There is written upon Arthur’s tomb: “Here lies Arthur, the Once and Future King.”

There happens to be ONE other royal personage who also had this ‘mortal wound’ to the head and then recovered and he did this in 1992.

This next bit has been disputed:

In “The Illustrious Lineage of the Royal House Of Britain” (First Published in 1902 by The Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd., London), the authors easily trace Prince Charles’ lineage back to David and beyond.

The College of Heralds (London) has also traced Prince Charles to be the 145th direct descendant of King David. This claim was also made, in May of 2000, in a documentary on Israeli television.

Charles also claims descent from Islam’s prophet Mohammed.

That bit I saw, long ago.

Prince Charles’ Coat of Arms and Crest was designed for him by the British College of Heraldry, using a system of guidelines over 500 years old. It contains ALL the Biblical symbols of the Beast. It has a dog supported by a roaring lion and a unicorn, (called a wild beast with a straight horn, a wild oxen, or ‘little horn’).

On Prince Charles’ Coat of Arms are representations of the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. These are the animal symbols for France, the leopard; Germany, the Bear; and England, the lion. These nations represented the western arm of the Holy Roman Empire.

His Coat of Arms contains ten heraldic beasts, which is a first for the British Monarchy. All previous British Monarchs had either three or six, but none have ever had ten.

Prince Charles has a red dragon on his coat of arms from the flag of Wales. At his investiture as Prince of Wales in 1969, he sat on a chair with a large red dragon emblazoned on it.

During the ceremony, his mother said:

“This dragon gives you your power, your throne and your own authority.”

His response was:

“I am now your Liege-man, and worthy of your earthly worship.”

Another symbol on Prince Charles’ Coat of Arms is that of The Order of the Garter. The Order of the Garter is the parent organisation over Freemasonry. 

On June 26th 1994, Charles announced that when he becomes king he will relinquish the monarch’s role as head of the Church of England. He said he would rather be seen as “defender of the faiths,” rather than “defender of the faith.”

On June 2nd 1953, with the knights of the garter carrying and holding the canopy over her head, Elizabeth II was anointed and crowned as “Queen of Thy people Israel”.

In 1992 just before the full unification in 1993) Charles applied to the EU (European Union) to be made King of Europe. He was turned down by the European parliament.

According to Prince Charles:

“I am sure that many people consider that the United Kingdom is in an ideal geographical and historical position to act as an interpreter and mediator between the United States and Europe.”

Prince William was born in London at 9:03 pm, on June 21, 1982 at St Mary’s Hospital in London. His birth took place just after a solar eclipse at the Summer Solstice.

On June 3 1991, at the age of 9, Prince William received a near fatal head wound when struck on the head by a golf club and was close to death, diagnosed with a depressed fracture of the skull.

Both he and Harry are chipped in the wrist.

There’s another interpretation of ‘mortal wound’ from which the beast or little horn recovers.  The UK lost its power to the EU and now, after March 29th?

Some put Chas himself but really, he does seem out of it now – for a start, he does have “regard for women” – one woman at least.  In my long book, I make it Wills and yet the AC is meant to be charismatic.

Harry was so for a while but Megs has killed this off.

Maybe it’s this Beto in the States, an utter nutter and also a sicko.  What about Macron?  Popular?  Soy Boy in Canada? Can’t be a woman, so Horizontal Harris is out, ditto AOC.

Someone from the entertainment world?  Ronald was flawed and it came out, the Kennedys were cursed … hmmmm, who else?  Do we know anyone called Arthur?

Seems to be a new one in the Netherlands now who has arisen from nowhere.  Maybe.

Thierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy party, which has gained attention for its Euroscepticism, campaigned against open borders politics and against what he calls “climate-change hysteria,” winning 86 seats across the Dutch regions. The victory put his party ahead of even the ruling mainstream conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which achieved 80 seats.

Interesting, eh?

3 comments for “The problem with prophecy

  1. dearieme
    March 22, 2019 at 17:52

    “defeat of the Celts”: no ancient writer, Greek or Roman, referred to the ancient peoples of the British Isles as Celts. The idea was invented in the 17th century.

    They did, in whole or in part, (as far as is known) speak languages that are classed nowadays as Celtic. It’s worth noting that by far the biggest samples of “Celtic” languages come from the British Isles. All there is on the Continent by way of early evidence is place names plus a few inscriptions.

    It’s not particularly clear what the Greeks meant by “Keltoi”. I assume it’s a bit clearer, but only a bit, what the Romans meant by Gauls.

    The upshot is that there are historians who simply don’t believe that there ever was a Celtic people united by culture, language, and kinship. They take the view that Iron Age Europe should be analysed without assuming a priori that Thou Shalt Identify a Celtic ‘Ethnicity’ or ‘Race’. Some of them point out that notions of a Celtic invasion of Britain and Ireland has no supporting evidence.

    If something so apparently central to British and Continental history is indeed a load of tosh, what value could you possibly attach to the sort of mumbo-jumbo that you discuss here?

    • March 22, 2019 at 19:09

      The idea was invented in the 17th century.

      Or to be precise – June 21st, 1792, with a group of bards on Primrose Hill.

      That in the post was written by an American.

  2. Andy5759
    March 22, 2019 at 23:09

    I was told that the ancient Greeks referred to any northerners as Keltoi. That covers a lot of different people. The modern Celt serves as a convenient label for “not English”, or another stick to beat us with. I’m used to it.

    There was a story doing the rounds a while ago which claimed that every US president has been distantly related to the English Royal line. If true, that indicates the possibility of a hidden/occult familial connection spanning the globe and centuries.

    It would be nice to know who the Them are, how to identify them. Fat lot of good that will do anyway. Knowing your enemy is one thing, having the means to defeat them is another.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.