King Charles is crowned king

And now my response based on the FACTS of what the definition of conspiracy according to several dictionaries (which have all conspired to agree...sorry a little joke there)

Acknowledging that there are many current conspiracies afloat. That is true. That however, does not make them true and saying God provided this one, is what? A prophetic utterance? Just another conspiracy?

So you personally believe that a person must acknowledge the existence of 'one major conspiracy' or they are not facing the facts?

I will leave you and others to disseminate the absurdity of that statement, taking into account the actual definition of the word conspiracy

Oh here you again trying to force your pseudo mod powers on people

Just say you wish to censor responders who disagree with you

Yes. There are valid sources and they have been suppressed deliberately. We'll get into this later.

No we won’t.

This is a typical comment from one who refuses to face the facts. So no matter what evidence is presented you will continue to bury your head in the sand and say "Oh no, there are no REAL conspiracies. just conspiracy theories!" AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSPIRATORS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE. On the other hand if you want the truth (and that should be every Christians goal), then you will say "Let's examine the evidence objectively and not listen to the propagandists or ignore reality". There has been a ton of "gaslighting" over the last little while so that people never see the reality.

That's willful blindness so I will not bother.

That sounds like a conspiracy right there! Almost sent chills down my spine it did

I never said that no conspiracy is ever real. That would be your typical comment from someone who is so busy planning their next response that they skim over what the other person said and come back with what a balloon is filled with (hot air in case the knowledge of what that might be escapes you)

I actually have no problem with people discussing conspiracies that are left as just that even if people loose sleep over trying to prove they true.

BUT and as I have mentioned several times now

There is a major problem with someone presenting a conspiracy theory like this:

OP claims he is hearing from God which means he considers himself a prophet and is speaking for God. The presentations in this thread are not in scripture and are the result of people CONSPIRING to create the impression that it surely must be Charles III

So like I said, present a conspiracy if it floats your boat, but saying you listen to God while doing so is extremely subjective and becomes part of the conspiracy itself.

So maybe take a chill pill and focus on what I actually have said...maybe read the thread before diving in without checking out just how deep the waters are lest you hit your noggin on the bottom.

No, that is a distortion of what I said, this is what liars do, they twist what people say.

What I said is that we live by every word of God, the Bible is the one that speaks about false prophets, false Christs, and counterfeit Christs known as antichrists. I will trust God concerning these words. I am told they are a light to my path, they are food, they are crystal clear water. Your posts by contrast are muddy, junky and murky. This post is simply an example.

Instead of answering the question why you are so desperate to change the topic, telling people to stop talking about the Bible on a Christian Forum, and doing everything in your power to change the topic. Why?

And a big giant HELLO to everyone here

Since this is a CONSPIRACY, why wasn't it posted in the forum appropriate for that category? Instead we are introduced to the actual reason for the op which is to discuss the op's conspiracy theory concerning Charles and not the fact he was crowned king

Right. I direct quote you and then you come back with a denial of that direct quote.

You are only fooling yourself. You are desperate for me to stop denying the power of the power of your conspiracy which should be in the conspiracy forum and not here.

Because the first post was a news story about King Charles being crowned king, is that what you are calling a conspiracy theory?

Later we discussed his Heraldic Achievements, are you calling that a conspiracy theory?

We also talked about a statue that was made called "Savior of the World" that depicts Charles as a angelic/demonic being. Is that what you are calling a conspiracy theory?

We talked about his birthday.

Where oh where is there anything on this thread that can be considered a conspiracy theory?

Just one more desperate attempt by you to stop us from discussing King Charles and everything we know about him.

LOL! You are really funny when you make things up.

I am calling your conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory. Most people would understand that.

And now you will have to excuse me because I have the evening ahead of me in preference to this thread. Tomorrow is another day should I choose to say more. I think this thread may be dying anyway.

No you didn't.

This is a direct quote: "Why are you so desperate to change the subject and get people to stop talking about the antichrist? I am not going to listen to you, I will listen to God and He tells us that we live by every word of the Bible and that includes the words about the Antichrist."

Jesus says clearly that we live by every word of God, a reference to the Bible. Are you saying that Jesus is not God? Are you saying that the Bible is not the word of God? If not then why are you saying I am claiming to be hearing from God as though this is something that you and others cannot read and hear?

You didn't quote me, you paraphrased in a way that implied I said something I didn't say. It was sleazy and despicable.

You still have not answered the question of why you are so desperate to attack this thread though it is becoming more and more desperate and despicable.

Is this a conspiracy theory?

Obviously King Charles being crowned king of the British Empire is not a conspiracy theory, nor is his birthdate which is six months after Israel was born and therefore closely corresponds to Jesus being born six months after John the Baptist. After all if he is "the Antichrist" then he needs to be a counterfeit of Christ. The fact that the royal family claims to be descendants of King David and the fact that Rabbis have agreed with that claim is also easily researched and proved to not be a conspiracy theory. He just became the head of the Anglican church, that is not a theory. Also he converted to Islam and has a Phd in Islamic studies, that is not a theory. This does position him to be viewed by both Jews and Islam to be the coming one they are looking for which is what Evangelical christians would call the Antichrist (counterfeit Christ). He is also probably the richest man on Earth since "technically" the land of Canada, Australia and New Zealand belongs to the crown. Even ignoring those technicalities his wealth is estimated well north of $40 billion. None of this can be the conspiracy theory, lets consider some of the other points.

Consider his heraldic achievements:

First note that mythological animals and imaginative creatures, monsters and hybrids are popular devices in heraldry and, in heraldic language, are referred to as "beasts."
This beast on the left-hand side of Charles' coat of arms has the head and mouth of a lion, the body of a leopard, and the feet of a bear. Typically in heraldry, lions have only three claws per foot while bears will have four or five. This lion has four claws and thus resembles those of a bear. Traditionally in heraldry, the lion has represented England, however Prince Charles' heraldic representation is totally unique in history even differing from that of his mother's, Queen Elizabeth, whose lion has the typical three claws per foot.

(Rev 13:2 KJV) And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

These are facts, both the verse in Revelation 13 and this hybrid creature. So that can't be the conspiracy theory.

Note the design around the lion's neck. This image is called the "eldest-son label" and has been described by Tim Cohen (The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea, pg. 124) as "three parallel horns which are, in a manner of speaking, 'plucked out by the roots' (i.e., turned upside down)." The eldest-son label is a "distinctive mark" of all succeeding Princes of Wales. Other members of the British royal family have labels that have more than three descending "horns." There are a total of five eldest-son labels on the coat of arms: on the left-side lion, the head lion, the unicorn, the red dragon, and at the top of the center shield where 10 lions are depicted.

(Dan 7:8 KJV) I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Again, these are all facts, no conspiracy theory here.

This region presented on the left is from the top of Charles' shield and is thus called the "head" of the overall coat of arms. Pictured is another lion with the eldest-son label around its neck standing on top of a crown and a "gold helm." The helm is made up of seven curved bars or "horns." These seven horns, along with the three horns from the eldest-son label make a total of 10 horns in the head region of the coat of arms.

(Dan 7:20 KJV) And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

Note that Daniel speaks of 10 horns in his head, i.e., singular head, not plural. The word for "head" here is the Aramaic noun "resh" which corresponds to the Hebrew "rosh." It often refers to the head as a body part, or could be that of an animal or statue. It sometimes refers to a leader or "chief" as well.

To the right of the head of the coat of arms is a representation of a unicorn. "In heraldry, this unicorn represents not only Scotland, but also a counterfeit Christ" (Cohen, pg 184). Symbolically, the unicorn in the past has represented Alexander the Great (Dan 8:5, goat with one horn) and Antiochus Epiphanes, a type of anti-Christ (Dan 8:9, "a little horn"). Mythologically, the unicorn probably originated in ancient Babylon and today is a symbol adopted by New Agers to represent "a great world leader" whom they expect to bring world peace to earth. Interestingly, in "Christian" symbolism, the unicorn has also represented the Virgin Mary.

In heraldry, and even historical representations, the unicorn's eyes are round and black, i.e., no visible eye-whites. (Queen Elizabeth's heraldic unicorn is depicted as thus.) Charles' design has the eyes shaped more like those of a human with noticeable eye-whites, (although not easily recognized in this particular copy.)

(Dan 7:8 KJV) ...and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Note the chain leading from the unicorn and connecting it to the base of the arms (directly above the red dragon.) In heraldry this chain functions as a "restrainer" (cf. 2 Thess 2:6-7).



At the base of the coat of arms is the heraldic symbol of Wales, the red dragon. The flag of Wales, approved in 1953, pictures a red dragon on a green and white flag with the motto "Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn," meaning "The red dragon gives the lead" (Cohen, pg 196). Note that the eldest-son label is around the neck of the dragon, thus associating it with Prince Charles.
Opposite the red dragon is Charles' badge as the heir-apparent to the British throne. It consists of three ostrich feathers surrounded by a crown with the motto Ich Dien. The meaning of Ich Dien is "I serve" in German. In old Welsh, Eich Dyn, as some believe the motto is a corruption of, is "Your man." The motto and ostrich feathers are associated with "the Black Prince" (Edward III's son). Reading the motto and symbols from right to left, the following message is possibly conveyed :

Ich, the Black Prince, Dien the Red Dragon
(I, the Black Prince, serve the Red Dragon)

Nope, all facts, no theories, and certainly no mention of any conspiracies here. So then why would someone claim there is a conspiracy theory, you ask them where it is and they think that is a joke?

2023 Plan EXPOSED! [What They Don't Want You to See]

I don't think King Charles is the antichrist. His kingship just makes him a figurehead of the monarchy but he actually has no ruling power. It's the Parliament that welds the power in the UK. Plus he's too old to be the antichrist. King Charles has been around forever waiting for his mother to die. Plus he's not all that excited about being king. I think he will hand over his kingship to Prince William within a certain number of years and just retire.

No, it's someone else in European politics. Maybe one of the MEPs in the European Parliament or someone connected to it. Remember, the antichrist starts "small", but rises to great power very quickly and with only a small group. So maybe he's being kept hidden and then will come to power when Satan and the globalists thinks the time is right (when it's actually God's timing).

❧

King Charles is the one who is behind the Great Reset. He was the one who presented this as the plan prior to Klaus Schwab. He is the most influential person behind the green new deal. All the leaders of the world have given him credit for the success and influence of this movement. King Charles is the most influential and beloved world leader among the Muslims. He has a Phd in Islamic studies and converted to Islam. This is why he is so influential in the peace treaties with Muslim nations. He also was the one behind the Pope pushing Laudato Si which includes a plan to rebuild the Jewish temple. It turns out that King Charles is the most powerful and influential world leader that no one knows about. In one year he has over 500 meetings and you can see him with every world leader at one point or another. He also oversees 17 charitable organizations. Basically the wealthiest king over a fourth of the earth that has been operating behind the scenes for fifty years.

Is this actually true? I know it's common belief, but where is the law which states the King (or monarch) has no power, and it's really the parliament which has the power, and if such a law does exist, from where does this law derive its authority? There are many colonies still in existence that derive their legal basis/constitution from the power and presence of the monarch (i.e. the Queen, her heirs and successors). If the monarch actually has no ruling power, all these colonies are living a legal lie, effectively in anarchy.

If the monarchs really had no power, I think there would have been much more of a murder investigation into them around the death of Princess Diana. Although, I accept that there were likewise no investigations into Jimmy Savile, the high-ranking pedophile ring member, and he wasn't royalty (although he was allegedly good friends with the prince). One way or another (i.e. by legitimate means or illegitimate), I think the royal family still hold a lot of power.

No one thinks that Bill Gates is powerless and yet King Charles is far richer than him, has far more charitable organizations and has been far more influential in the UN. He is also a 33rd degree Mason.

According to the Bible the lesser is blessed by the greater, Bill Gates was knighted by the British monarchy.

I think it is fair to say he is far more powerful than Bill Gates.

Politicians come and go, so I think it is fair to say he is far more powerful than them, his position and power are not dependent on the vagaries of popularity.

Remember the Antichrist is referred to as the "little horn" meaning little power. I think the reason that King Charles can be so influential is because he has "little power".

I would also point out his policy of being all things to all people. How can he be so influential with the Pope when he is the head of the Anglican church? Because he embraces ecumenism. Same reason he is influential with the Dalai Llama. Before being crowned the Prince of Wales he learned to speak welsh. That endeared him to them. Likewise he has a Phd in Islamic studies and converted to Islam, that endears him to them.

He has extensive military training so can speak intelligently with the military, something they can respect.

He has built a sustainable town and has been producing organic food for over 20 years so he is seen as legitimate with the green movement.