Enter Stage Left, Right, Above, Beneath, Front, Rear and Center: Antichrist

Seems like just recently, a matter of mere months maybe, I've become aware of developments in the world and the church that are all moving toward the final stage setting for the Day of the Lord, the last act of the great drama of Planet Earth. The internet radio ministries I've linked on the right margin are my main sources of this information and anyone who wants to follow all this only needs to go and listen to as many recent broadcasts as you can. Also go to You Tube and watch Chris Pinto's films. [Actually, older broadcasts are as good as the recent ones].

I get the feeling that these events themselves have in fact been proliferating, and that may well be the case. It's like watching the stage hands rushing to get the props in place just before the curtain goes up on the final Act. But on the other hand it may only be that I've become aware of them. The movies by Chris Pinto, for instance, have been out for years and deal with historical events going back centuries, but I've only been learning about them recently.

The main movement is in the direction of the Catholic Church: "Protestants" who are really Catholics (the Archibishop of Canterbury), and Protestants who are leaning toward Rome. Emergent Church tending in that direction. Glenn Beck is a Mormon but there are Christians who say he is a Christian nevertheless, David Barton being one of them. Beck has been getting together with the Pope, and his wide audience gets a pretty heavy dose of ecumenical philosophy, the hope of bringing all the religions under one worldwide religion. Which will of course be headed by Rome.

I've been hearing a lot about the Jesuits recently, who are engaged in all kinds of intrigues on behalf of Rome, political as well as church-related, who apparently even pretend to be Protestants, or whatever seems to be required, all in the service of bringing as many as possible under the Pope.

I've believed for years that the papacy is the Antichrist system. I haven't been completely convinced that the final Antichrist will be the last Pope though that is still a very strong possibility* -- at the very least the Vatican is going to have some kind of dominating position in the finale of Planet Earth -- but lately I feel like I'm watching the machinery in operation to bring about a one world religion with the Pope at its head, whereas previously I just figured it would all come together somehow or other.

What we thought were solid trustworthy Protestant organizations have shown themselves to be soft on Rome. Billy Graham used to seem like one of the most solid evangelicals, but it became apparent years ago that he's been feeding people who convert in his crusades back into the Roman Church if they identify that as their church, directly consigning them to Hell. Then there's Pat Robertson. It's not that I'm a great fan of his but he's a prominent evangelical, and I recently heard a snippet of a program of his in which he claims that the Catholic Church is a Christian Church.

He's also a Mason, and that's another line of influence on the church and the world that I've been learning a lot about recently.

Maybe the most startling revelation for me recently was that George Washington was not only a high-degree Mason -- it's not that I didn't already know that but I've learned a lot more about implications of that fact -- but converted to Catholicism hours before he died.

Then there is this recent revelation that Wycliffe Bible Translators, which works all around the world bringing the gospel to unreached peoples by giving them a Bible in their own language, has been changing the wording of key theological tenets of the Bible in order to make it more acceptable to Muslims. Not "Son of God" for instance because Muslims always think in carnal terms about that. Well, of course, so does EVERYBODY who doesn't believe the word of God. The virgin birth was one of the main objections of the American founders, as it is for oh lots and lots of Bible rejectors today as well, figuring in most debates with the big name atheists for instance. The Mormons simply blasphemously embrace the carnal notion of God being a man who physically impregnated Mary. So there's no excuse for changing the wording, it only falsifies the gospel message and in doing that they deprive the Muslims of the true gospel, the gospel that people down the centuries have been willing to die for, the gospel that would actually save them. This way the Muslims can consider themselves to be "followers of Isa," their false version of Jesus, and continue in their Muslim rituals, and not put themselves in a compromised position within their Muslim community. By doing this, the once-venerable missionary organization is now making the sort of soft converts to a lifeless "Christianity" that would easily put themselves under Rome. That hasn't been suggested in anything I've heard so far, it simply hits me as a likely development as so many other political and religious streams are flowing in that direction these days.

Then there is our President Obama with his leftist and Muslim affiliations, and most of all his lack of a verifiable claim to be qualified for his office, the latest indication in that direction coming through a mailman from twenty years ago who recognized him as the "black foreign student" the Ayers family were putting through school, who also told him that he was one day going to be President of the United States. He also ran for office with a chorus of messianic type adoration behind him (which I blogged on at Faith's Corner). Doesn't scripture say the Antichrist will come to power by "intrigue?"

And then there are all the secret societies I couldn't take terribly seriously until Chris Pinto's films put enough historical fact to their existence and their nefarious plots to convince me. The Masons first of all, the Illuminati -- oh you can just name the usual suspects, they're all there and all working in cahoots to bring the world under a "benevolent" dictator or one world political system and a universal religion. The Jesuits are a secret society too.

Oh and check out the "Georgia Guidestones" if you want to see the plan spelled out in so many words. Number one suggests a lot of bloodshed.

And then there are the warnings of a possible imminent disaster in the US I also recently blogged on. And the Middle East situation COULD soon turn into World War III which is also on the agenda.

We're almost eleven years from 9/11 and I'm not up on God's timetable for His judgments against a nation or at least against America, but the only way we could escape would be with a massive movement of repentance by the churches and that isn't happening.

Come soon, Lord Jesus.

==================================
* According to an ancient prophecy by "Malachy" the last Pope is to be the very next one, after the current Benedict, and he's to be called "Peter the Roman" (which I blogged on some time back at Faith's Corner). Such a prophecy doesn't have to be taken seriously, of course, but it's interesting to consider that there might be truth to it, and the timing is certainly right for the emergence of the Antichrist, which makes this Peter the Roman a fine candidate for the role. I understand that the Catholic Church has been trying to spin this prophecy to claim that this Peter the Roman may well be the Antichrist but that in that case he'd have become Pope through the machinations of anti-Catholic Masons. However, the prophecy itself makes Peter out to be a hero who will suffer great persecution, and Malachy was a good Catholic himself.

Israel & Replacement Theology: "What about 'forever' don't you understand?"

I think I've made it clear that politically I'm on Israel's side and consider the "Palestinian" claims to be trumped up by the leftists.

However, I'm not as clear on the theological question of "replacement theology." I do know that some who are on Israel's side object strenuously to the idea, understanding it to mean Israel has been replaced by the Church, thereby negating Israel's claims to the land. They base much of their argument on the scripture which says the covenant God made with Israel was everlasting.

Gen 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

The relevant passages do read as if the land was given forever, but obviously this can't be since the earth itself isn't to last forever:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I assume they have some way of reconciling this, but it seems to me the only sufficient way of reconciling it is to understand that the everlasting covenant with Abraham didn't refer to the literal physical land but to spiritual Zion:

Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.

The New Testament teaches that those who are of faith are children of Abraham and inherit God's covenant with him. The flesh does not inherit, only the spirit. We look to the spiritual Zion, the city whose builder and maker is God, not to earthly Israel.

Just as did Abraham, as Hebrews 11:10 says. He "sojourned" in the "land of promise," living in a tent, never as a resident of the land, never receiving the fulfillment of THAT land, although God had promised it specifically to him, as well as to his descendants. This alone hints that the land is a symbol or a type of a better "land," which the New Testament brings out more clearly.

HOWEVER: Insofar as the promise pointed to the physical land there is no doubt that God did give it to Abraham and his descendants and therefore nobody else has a claim to it. The covenant with Abraham, unlike the covenant that came through Moses, was unbreakable. The Israelites broke the covenant through Moses but the Abrahamic covenant is everlasting and unbroken. So it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the literal physical land of Israel which was given literal geographic boundaries by God, does belong to the Jews. Even though that land isn't going to be everlasting.

But now we are not talking about the heirs of the promise to Abraham, but to "Jacob," ("supplanter, layer of snares", says Strong's Concordance, the descendants of Abraham "after the flesh" and not after the spirit. Jacob was his given name, but God renamed him "Israel" ("prince with God") after he had finally come to the point of complete dependence on God.

Christians, who inherit the heavenly Jerusalem, have no interest in earthly Israel, and that includes saved Jews as well. But scripture speaks of a "time of trouble" for "Jacob" which many interpret to be yet future, and it is "Jacob" who now lives in Israel, earthly Israel of the flesh.

The point is there CAN'T really be a "replacement" of Israel by the Church because these are two different things, or two different levels. The Church is of heavenly Jerusalem and this world is "passing away." HOWEVER, the Old Testament dealt with a literal fleshly people and a literal physical land, and although the fulfillment of the promise of God is in reality a spiritual or heavenly fulfillment, it may well be that God has further plans for Jacob and for earthly Israel. The point would be that the entire earth belongs to God and His dealing with Israel and in fact His whole plan of redemption, are meant to bring honor and glory to Himself on this Planet Earth, even through all the heathen of the world who are at enmity with Him, and THAT part of His plan is not yet finished.

1 John 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Paul writes poignantly of the temporary blinding of Israel so that the Gentiles might be saved:

Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

And this tells us that besides showing the whole world who He is and that He reigns over all things, He WILL also save "all Israel," and clearly all this is yet future.

But it is ALL tending to this point: Those who are saved are saved to the heavenly Jerusalem. Flesh cannot be saved in its current condition. Those who are not born again, who remain flesh, remain unsaved and can only be destined for the lake of fire.

So all those scenarios I keep running across about an ULTIMATE separate destiny for earthly Israel and the Church just don't make sense. Salvation of Jew and Gentile makes us both part of the Church AND part of the heavenly Jerusalem. It may be that there will be a period -- even the Millennium? -- in which Jesus reigns over earth from earthly Jerusalem -- but this can only be a temporary dispensation.

But then there is also to be a new heaven and a new earth and I've never been sure how to fit all these things together:

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I'd like to see these points addressed by those who defend that point of view.

"Replacement theology," Israel and the Antichrist

Listening this morning to a talk at a conference in Israel, a conference of mostly pro-Palestinian / anti-Israel Christian leftists, in which this talk was apparently the only one from the opposing point of view.

Apparently the leftist Christian position is based on what is called "replacement theology," the idea that the church has replaced Israel, from which theology the leftists get their hatred of Israel, their arguments that Israel is an apartheid state mistreating the Palestinian people who are the true heirs of the land and so on and so forth.

I don't see the connection. The leftist position, Christian or non-Christian, is just obviously wrong historically and ethically quite apart from whatever theology they appeal to.

There never was any Palestinian people, that is an invention of the haters of Israel. The settling of what eventually became the Jewish state began back in the 19th century when the area known as Palestine had no national identity whatever and no population indigenous to it. Mark Twain visited it and described it as a desolate wasteland. There were a few scattered Arabs and there were also some Jews, mostly in Jerusalem, who had been there from time immemorial. If occupation of the land at that time has any bearing on the argument the Jews have a better claim to it than the Arabs.

The Jews who moved into the area from Europe set about building up this desolate wasteland. What became known as the Palestinian people were Arabs from many of the surrounding Arab nations who came to work for the Jews in this building up. As the Jews succeeded in making the area livable they became the targets of growing hostility from the neighboring Arab nations. When these nations declared war on Israel just as it became a state they simultaneously warned the Arabs living there to escape for their own protection. They did escape and they became the refugees that were ultimately renamed "Palestinians." A whole bogus supposed history was bestowed to make them appear to be the legitimate heirs of the land that had become the Israeli state, and I have the impression that some of them even believe their own lie. Their own Arab people would not absorb them but left them as refugees in order to be a thorn in the side of Israel. Attempts to resolve the situation keep failing because the "Palestinians" have always refused whatever concessions Israel has made to their demands for a state. The reason they refuse is that they hate Israel, period, and want Israel gone, period.

I've written about this more in other posts. The point is that the leftists are motivated by hated of Israel and have no legitimate basis for their hatred and their support of this bogus "Palestinian people." What they call apartheid tactics against the Palestinians, such as a wall that keeps them out except at certain guarded checkpoints, are nothing but attempts by Israel to defend themselves from repeated attacks by the "Palestinians," rockets they fire daily into Israel among other acts of hostility. The whole Palestinian / Leftist claim is a big fat lie. Yet somehow they've managed to make most of the world believe it.

But what does any of this have to do with "replacement theology?" Those who argue against this theology, as the speaker does I've been listening to this morning, emphasize the idea that God's covenant with Israel is still in force because it was everlasting, and it's a covenant that entitles them to the land as well as a covenant to make them the people who will bless the whole world as carriers of the word of the true God and His Messiah.

I have to admit that I don't have a thorough understanding of the scriptures in this situation, but from what I think I understand about it I'm not on either side theologically. I could change my mind but for now it goes like this: I do not believe the church has "replaced" Israel, but I do believe the church is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant God made with Israel. We ARE the "new Israel" through the Messiah, the people of God. The Messiah Himself is the fulfiller of the covenants, He is the blessing to the Gentiles God wanted Israel to be. All that is fulfilled. The land promised to Israel is the "other country" Abraham and others looked to according to Hebrews 11, not an earthly land.

This does NOT mean that God doesn't still have a role for Israel the literal physical land. At the very least we know that scripture promises a huge conversion of Jews to Jesus Christ at the very end of time. But beyond that, it is utterly impossible that the Jews could be on the land and it not be God's will, even though they are still not IN God's will themselves. That physical land is clearly going to be the center of the end times scenario that is probably going to play out very soon. It's most likely going to involve a huge war, a bloodbath, out of which will emerge, if he doesn't preside over it from the beginning, a personage known as the Antichrist who will have the worldwide rule that was coveted by the earlier antichrists such as Hitler.

I don't know what to make of the various theologies that give separate roles to the Jews and the Church. I don't see scripture for that myself. I see scripture saying we are one people, Jew and Gentile, we are all the Church and we are all Israel.

And yet it does seem to be that God may have separate dealings with his original chosen people as these end times unfold. I get this probably more from the current world situation and history than from scripture, though I'm sure there is scripture for it, I'm just not adept at exegeting it.

The leftist position is evil, period. Israel is in the defensive position, not the aggressor position. All this is simply setting the stage for the grand finale showdown between Satan and Christ. It's not going to be fun, there will no doubt be millions of martyrs, but the end result will be the worldwide rule of Christ.

No doubt there are plenty of specifics that I'm overlooking, though I think my position is general enough that they won't contradict anything I've said. I could be wrong.

"Replacement theology" is skewed, there is no replacement but there is fulfillment in the Church, which includes both Jew and Gentile. But nothing in this way of looking at it denies the right of Israel to exist, or that the Jews are still God's people in a historical sense, and it certainly doesn't justify the lying claims for this bogus "Palestinian people" which is just an invention of Satan in his neverending quest to destroy God's people and plans. The leftist "Christians" are just going to be part of the Antichrist's worldwide religion in the end.

Coming Soon to a Planet Near You

When the Antichrist comes will he be like the traditional Maitreya, the messiah expected by the Buddhists, who looks like an Asian with kinky African hair?* Or more like a Middle Eastern man as one would expect of the Imam Mahdi, the messiah figure expected by the Muslims and heralded by Ahmadinejad? Which is also what Benjamin Creme's long-heralded Maitreya more or less looks like, as well as a familiar false image of Christ.

Whatever, he's got to be just about to appear. I suppose he'll mostly be known by his occult powers rather than his looks, but his looks must figure in there somewhere.

==============

*The feature of kinky hair plus black skin, which is also a characteristic of many painted Maitreya images, links him to Krishna (which means "black") and most particularly links him all the way back to Nimrod, son of Cush, who was identified by Alexander Hislop in his Two Babylons as the first Antichrist and the type of all the gods of the world since then. Hislop brings it all down to the Roman Catholic Church as the channel for all the old pagan religions, Mystery Babylon. The "Virgin Mary" demon (who has appeared all over the world this last century) is his candidate for The Beast. And the Protestant Reformers identifed the papacy as the Antichrist system. So we have no shortage of sources for the final evil leader of the world, Satan's masterpiece. Whoever it is will no doubt have to be able to unite all the various messiah expectations under one banner somehow or other.

Some of my old posts at Faith's Corner on this general theme are here.