"Nostradamus talks about Mabus as the third antichrist. To me that looks as a combination of Bush and Obama. Or Bush and Osama. The first antichrist was Napoleon and the second one was Hitler."
Gee, the Bible only has one anti-christ, Nostradamus has three - what? Wasn't one enough? And its hard to see either Napoleon or Hitler as men of peace.
And you can't have a combo anti-christ. Its like the end of all time, not a sandwich. There is little doubt among scholars who study the stuff that the BoR - or as its called in its original Catholic version - The Book of the Apocalypse, that what all that is referring to is the Roman Empire, they just wrote it in a code/ allegory, as Rome tolerated little to no dissent. That book refers to one, and only one anti-christ, after all how many princes of darkness can be running around anyway?
And what are the signs? War, famine, disease, plagues, and civil unrest - wow, tough call that one. When have those things not been true?
Again I say, for the hundreds, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people who have professed the end time their combined, total batting record is zero. Zip. Nada.
Every millennium was to be the end, until it wasn't. Every change of the centuries was going to be, until they changed and nothing happened. Countless cults over the years have given all all their earthly possessions and gone out to wait only to face what must be a pretty big disappointment.
And Mabus? Could be a May Bus, or perhaps Madonna and Busby Berkeley - the end time as an S&M chorus line deal. Or it could be Moe, ABba and US? Really, we could play with all that forever and come up with all sorts of nonsense, and that's what any and all of Nostradomus is, nonsense. Never been proven right, can't be proven wrong.
Or, since its known that Nostro like anagrams, it could be any one of thousands of combinations, with my favorite being SAMBU, which is close to Sambo, which may mean the anti-christ is being chased around a tree by a tiger, or perhaps eating pancakes off of some freeway exit. And both explanations make about as much sense as any other. And, as anyone who has ever been to a Sambo's restaurant will tell you, your pretty close to hell on earth.
P.S.
And our legal system was pretty much in place, from English Common Law long before Napoleon rode off to Waterloo. The U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788 and went into effect in 1789. While Napoleon staged a coup d'état in 1799, and installed himself as First Consul, and five years later (1804) became the Emperor of the French. But hey, if you are the anti-christ, perhaps time travel is within your power (but the wisdom of invading Russia in the fall, well even the almighty and eternal prince of all darkness can make bad choices I guess.)
PSS
So far as has ever been proven, blasphemy is a victimless crime.
and, somewhere in the whole end-time deal old Epicurus (341-270 B.C.E.) raised his ugly old Greek head to ask (again)
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
