The EU superstate- Future Base of Antichrist by Alan Franklin

Some think this may refer to same sex marriage as well. I find interesting Luke 16:34 “I say to you: in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

In former times, it was not uncommon for men to sleep with men and for women to sleep with women in a non-sexual way. Abe Lincoln did it. Even The Three Stooges are shown sleeping together without any sexual connotation.

"Genesis 6:1-8

When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and the daughters were born to them, the sons (angels) of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose..........."

Yes and this is what is to reoccur again prior to the return of the REAL Christ. Has not happened yet.

If you step back and look at that scripture, what is it really saying? To me, it looks a lot like genetic engineering. Not necessarily in the modern sense but what you have is an offspring that are significantly different from either parent. You might call the nephilim a hybrid offspring, an unnatural offspring.

More grist for the Premillenial mill.

I'd be willing to bet Charlamagne was branded the Anti Christ in his day.

Ronald Wilson Reagan was supposed to be the Anti-Christ, too, because his first, middle and last names each had six letters.

Every Christian since the formation of the church has believed he lives in the end times. Frankly, I'm skeptical of any and all claims that anyone has any knowledge about anything related to "the end times".

We've been living in the end times for nearly two millenia, after all. Joel's prophecy was that "in the last days" God would "pour out [his] Spirit on all flesh," which Peter said was fulfilled at Pentecost in Acts 2.

However, not all of us have the notion in our heads that "the end is near."

Isn't that basically what I said?

Isn't that basically what I said?

Uhh, yes it is. Sorry. I replied to the wrong post. lol.

I think that God will gently guide us towards the signs and give us the tools to be prepared. We will not be left out to dry.

"If you step back and look at that scripture, what is it really saying? To me, it looks a lot like genetic engineering. Not necessarily in the modern sense but what you have is an offspring that are significantly different from either parent. You might call the nephilim a hybrid offspring, an unnatural offspring."

There has been some 'engineering' allowed, and unfortunately most have no idea what Genesis really tells us. But hey it is Written that it is not given for all to understand for their own protection and our Heavenly Father is in control and He knows where all His children are. I just plant seeds, and continue to seek understanding for the rest of the picture.

"We've been living in the end times for nearly two millenia, after all. Joel's prophecy was that "in the last days" God would "pour out [his] Spirit on all flesh," which Peter said was fulfilled at Pentecost in Acts 2.

However, not all of us have the notion in our heads that "the end is near.""

Joel said a whole lot more than this, and what was fulfilled at Pentecost was the 'Comforter' was sent just as Christ told them it would be. The rest of the specifics of Joel's prophecy have not happened yet. Interesting that the Spirit would be poured upon "all" flesh yet only a remnant would the Lord call out.

An interesting prediction, although there are several problems with it.

You are correct, in of itself the mention of two men in the same bed is nothing to be concerned about but in light of what passes for the culture in Christian nations today, it is a interesting possibility that the passage has a deeper meaning.

Something to keep in mind about your point:
"Wouldn't that mean that one man was saved and the other lost? In which case they couldn't be practicing sodomites -- both would be lost."

The above is a Catholic view of the effects of sin not a Protestant. The Protestant (in general) believes once saved always saved. I am not suggesting the Protestant has license to sin (Catholics make a mistake in assuming this) but the Protestant admits a man who converts may commit serious sins but is not in danger of loosing God's saving grace. While the Catholic believes sins can separate ourselves from God and via the Sacrament of Confession we are restored to God's grace. For the Protestant (in general) private confession is sufficient.

So what does this say about the passage. I do not know, I do not even know if the passage refers to Homosexuals but I do know Christ knew what would be happening in our own day and may have been giving us hope that even our worse sins can be forgiven. All is not lost even now. After all King David committed adultery with another man's wife, got he pregnant then conspired to have the very loyal man killed to cover up the crime. Murder like homosexuality is one of the four sins that cry up to heaven. Few in the old Testament were as blessed with God's grace as King David. If his contrition was enough to forgive sins than there is hope for us. If you want to know what I think should be made of this passage then this is it.

By the way I believe the Catholic view of the effects of sin is the correct one and I think in many ways even Protestants indistinctly react as a Catholic despite themselves. Remember one thing about the Catholic view of Sacraments they are not totally absolute, even Baptism. There is the doctrine of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Even someone in mortal sin may have their sins forgiven by Heaven without confession but the position is "We do not know the state of a man's soul" However I suspect the contrition must be Holy and pure as was King David. Since most of us fall short the Sacraments provide a lighter burden. So for the sake of being practical go to confession (IMHO).

Re: "Link, please?"

Do you mean about the sermons? It was in a book I was reading at my local library. I can not remember the name but the premise of the book was to suggest the Catholic Church might have reformed itself with out the Protestant Revolution. If gave a cross section of sermons and lectures across Europe of people calling on the Church to reform. I found the premise unconvincing because all examples provided were people writing AFTER the trouble with Monk Luther was well under way except an Englishman named Cabot (not sure if I remember his name correctly) and our friend Savonarola. Savonarola was the best example and the sermon was a good one and it mentioned the Antichrist as a Pope, but then he was excommunicated and he was charged with Heresy and he was convicted and he was burned at the stake for his crimes. I suspect the art community considers this his just deserve for his sins (not liking the art). As for me the art community hardly has credibility to condemn the man but until I have time I will withhold judgment especially since he is being considered for sainthood.

The problem with the canonization process is they are considering all sorts of people these days including Martin Luther of all people. //eyes rolling//

... the premise of the book was to suggest the Catholic Church might have reformed itself with out the Protestant Revolution...[but] all examples provided were people writing AFTER the trouble with Monk Luther....

What about Huss and Wycliff? They were before Luther, too. Luther said, "I have taught and held all the teachings of John Huss, but thus far did not know it. In short we all are Hussites and did not know it!"

The problem with the canonization process is they are considering all sorts of people these days including Martin Luther of all people. //eyes rolling//

But if your infallible pope proclaims him a Saint, you must accept it. And there was a Catholic/Lutheran accord signed in 1998 regarding a common view of salvation by grace. Hmm...

The plus side of papal infallibility, of course, is that the Vatican supported the South in the Civil War ;-)

Re: "What about Huss and Wycliff? They were before Luther, too. Luther said, "I have taught and held all the teachings of John Huss, but thus far did not know it. In short we all are Hussites and did not know it!" "

The problem is these fellows were Heretics in fact the problem with many of the heretics is they do not agree on important issues. Say Heretic "A" from 3rd Century and Heretic "B" from the 13th agree on one issue (take your pick what issue) without a doubt they disagree on a different issue of great importance. You can go from age to age picking this heretic and that like hoping rocks across a the centuries but you have no seamless garment. Your doctrine waxes and wanes with each and every issue. So much for the unchanging nature of God. So much for Christ's warning "if a angel from Heaven teaches a new doctrine do not follow". There is no Protestant doctrine that is unchanging and constant from the time of Christ.

Re: "But if your infallible pope proclaims him a Saint, you must accept it. And there was a Catholic/Lutheran accord signed in 1998 regarding a common view of salvation by grace. Hmm... "

Infallible is not all encompassing. The Papacy of JPII never claimed to speak infallibility during his entire tenure. This would include the accord you speak about. I do know it does not cover matters of discipline. Ergo an excommunication is never Infallible or any other form of correction for misdeeds. That should give Queen Elizabeth I some small comfort. But I really do not know if it covers the canonization process. I suspect it does but you will have to ask someone with more info than I on this issue. Besides it hasn't happened yet.

While we are on the subject I would like to point out the opinions expressed by saints are not binding on the faithful, nor are their private revelations. When the Church makes them a saint they are supposed to have checked into any reason that would make them unqualified and at least you can be sure their words were not Heretical but that would mean a Martin Luther and a John Knox could not be a saint. Since none of these have been made saints that is an issue I do not need to worry about right now.

Re: "The plus side of papal infallibility, of course, is that the Vatican supported the South in the Civil War ;-)"

//sigh//
Alas this is not covered by the dogma of infallibility either.

Infallibility has very specific aspects to it, current events and local wars do not fit the bill unless they are centered around a doctrinal issue.

So much for the unchanging nature of God. So much for Christ's warning "if a angel from Heaven teaches a new doctrine do not follow". There is no Protestant doctrine that is unchanging and constant from the time of Christ.

The same can be pointed out re: certain Catholic doctrines, eg. Icons were condemned at one point, then permitted later. The whole complex of Marian doctrines has undergone considerable "development" since the time of Christ also.

BTW, Huss' original beef was that the Church was denying the cup to the laity, and the cup was required for salvation: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life..." The Orthodox, to their credit, have preserved the cup. The RC church started denying the cup.... when, exactly?

Well, you know the saying: If you find the perfect church, don't join it.

Re: "The same can be pointed out re: certain Catholic doctrines, eg. Icons were condemned at one point, then permitted later. The whole complex of Marian doctrines has undergone considerable "development" since the time of Christ also."

I don't think a case for that can be made. I assume you refer to Iconoclasts? They were largely in the East (Byzantium) and were rejects both in the west and the east. There have been lots of Heresies that had a season but were rejected. All were an attempt to teach a new doctrine and all were eventually declared Anathema. Except Communism which was not dealt with at Vatican II due to pressure from the Soviet Union. It was a condition to allowing the Orthodox observers attend.

As to Marianology development is not doctrine. In 1858 the Church defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It defined it, the church did not invent it in 1858. All through history the Church has met and defined a Dogma but it must be an old doctrine first going back to the Apostles. Even the Church of England agreed on this last Dogma relating to the Blessed Virgin Mary and said so a few years after. I learned of the Immaculate birth as a child in Episcopal Sunday school as a small kid.

Re: "BTW, Huss' original beef was that the Church was denying the cup to the laity, and the cup was required for salvation: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life..." The Orthodox, to their credit, have preserved the cup. The RC church started denying the cup.... when, exactly?"

First off the body and the blood are completely present in every drop of wine and in every crumb of the Host. Even the smallest drop of wine give all that is in a whole cup or a whole paten of Host. This is what the Church teaches, this is (I suspect) the reason you are not supposed to go for communion more than once a day. You can hear and assist at many Masses each day and at each you receive grace for yourself as well as the whole world but more wine and more bread does nothing except reflect your doubts for all to see.

As to when the church stopped the wine, they don't for the reasons I cite above but as to the practice from a worldly perspective the Church has given the wine in the past and they do now in the Novus Ordo Catholic Churches. This practice offers no problem for the Traditional Catholic unless receiving the Body and Blood of Christ under both species is deemed NECESSARY. The notion that both is MORE correct is the root of the fight over this issue. As for myself I think it is a bit of a misplaced squabble since it is not wrong in practice but can be wrong if people insist.

I will give you an example where the notion can get the ill educated in trouble. A while back there was a big fight over a young girl who is allergic to wheat gluten. Her local diocese offered her the option of a small tiny bit of the Host OR she could have just a sip of wine. One or the other or both would have been just as good (Theologically) as a big old sip and a whole loaf of bread but the family insisted she get a special host (looking like all the other people get) make out of rice flour. Now this would appear to be the same but in fact is not the same at all. Had the family been satisfied with what was offered she would have met her religious obligations without deminishment and still not endangered her health but appearances were more important to the family than the religious doctrine.

The real reason for communion under one species (the Host only) is ease of distributing while maintaining the sacred dignity. One drop of wine on the floor requires a respectful method of cleaning up (you don't want alter boys stepping in the split wine/aka body and blood of Christ) The same goes for the bread but that is a whole lot easier to pick up in a holy manner than cleaning up wine. It is also easier to give and faster (a legitimate consideration in large Churches or gatherings). One of the big beefs of the Tradition Catholic about the New Mass is over the ever increasingly cavalier attitude toward the Eucharist. Compare kneeling to receive vs standing consider the traditional host vs whole wheat bread with leavening together with bread crumbs everywhere. Remember Christ's body and blood is in every single crumb and it becomes clear why we have a cow about these practices.