ProphecyBlog.net - Latest Comments

Re: The Islamic Antichrist?

Joe Haynes — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:51:17 -0000

Just in case someone is tempted to take the above argument seriously, I wanted to show briefly that Y'Shua Saves' theory, though interesting, is seriously flawed. It does not make sense of the text of Scripture, but rather sounds appealing because it links a whole bunch of different passages together SUPERFICIALLY and then uses that superficial patch-work to try and make the reader see similarities with Islam. Before I show one reason why that doesn't work, let me say that I do believe Islam is mentioned in the book of Daniel--just not in chapter 7. Islam is the main offender in Daniel 8... the little horn that grows out of one of the four horns of the goat. But Y'shua Saves, in his post above, is arguing that Islam is the fourth beast in Daniel 7 which does not fit.
His first point was that only Islam devoured the 3 empires which came before it. But the text of Daniel 7:12 specifically says the fourth beast does NOT devour the earlier three beasts. "As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time." (Dan 7:12 ESV)
His second point is that if one keeps reading Daniel 8-12, the context will show that the fourth beast must be connected with the Seleucid kingdom (the northern part of the divided Greek Empire). Again, while the text later in Daniel does describe the Seleucids in some detail, there is nothing in any of those chapters (8-12) linking the Seleucids to the fourth beast of Daniel 7. Just because chapter 8 follows chapter 7 does not mean chapter 8 is about the same thing chapter 7 was about, and so on with chaps. 9-12. That is an incredibly superficial argument which actually just skims over the text of the Bible without taking any of the details seriously.
Y'Shua Saves' third point is that the Man of Sin is also Assyrian. I laughed out loud when I read that because "the Man of Sin" is only mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2, without any mention of Assyria whatsoever.
If you believe the Bible is God's Word, then you can't just make stuff up like that. The approach Y'Shua Saves has used in his above post is a bit like one of those ransom letters in old movies: made by cutting out words from various newspapers and magazines and then gluing them together to make a message. Serious students of Scripture cannot cut and paste out-of-context bits of the Bible to make it say what one wants it to say. But the nice thing about that approach is that it takes very little actual study. It does not require serious study of the passage, the context, the details of the grammar, syntax and choice of words. Obviously Y'Shua Saves has some knowledge of history, but the approach itself does not require any knowledge of the Bible's historical setting.
I hope, Y'Shua Saves, that my response here does not discourage you. Chances are you'll just write me off as ignorant or as not willing to give your theory a chance. But I hope that instead you take this as a challenge to go back to the drawing board and do some serious study in the book of Daniel. I hope it motivates you to become a better exegete, letting the point of every passage determine your interpretation of that passage rather than letting your preconceived theory determine how you read each passage.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Joe Haynes

Re: Worshipping the Image of the Beast

Leon Brooks — Fri, 14 May 2010 11:01:08 -0000

I was impressed when I noticed that Joseph Ratzinger's June wish-list matched Historicist predictions almost bullet-for-bullet, then December's proposed Copenhagen Treaty (the real Treaty, not the flimsy Accord thingy they settled on) mirrored it clearly.

Re: The Islamic Antichrist?

Y'Shua Saves — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:05:34 -0000

The fourth Beast of Daniel is clearly the Islamic empire, and the ONLY empire to have devoured the 3 kingdoms before it. Also, if you continue reading Daniel it describes NOT the Roman empire, but that the Beast comes from the (Seleucus) Northern Kingdom of the Grecian Empire (See Daniel chapters 8-12). This includes Iraq, Syria, Iran etc.. The Man of Sin is also considered Assyrian, meaning reining from Iraq (Ancient Assyria).

ISLAM IS, UNDOUBTEDLY, THE BEAST FROM THE SEA in Revelation 13:1-10 and Daniel 7:7-28. Islam is mentioned in Revelation 11:2 and Ezekiel 40:2 as having the southern outer courtyard (Dome of Rock) where the Holy Temple will be rebuilt. Muslims will trodden under foot Jerusalem for 42 months as the Word states. The Islamic nations given to the Antichrist & The Beast (Islam) are also mentioned in Psalm 83, Ezekiel 28, 30 and 38. The feet of the statue made of Iron (Sunni) and clay (Shia) mentioned in Daniel 2 and the 10 toes being the 10 Islamic nations listed in all of the above verses plus Revelation 17:12-17.

Included in the Scriptures above are:

Iraq, (Asshur, Assyria, Ur)
Iran, (Elam, Persia, Mede, Midia),
Turkmenistan, (Magog)
Afghanistan, (Persia)
Palestine, (Philistia)
Lebanon, (Tyre, Acco)
*Turkey, (Gomer, Hatti, Tibal, Tubal, Meshech, Togmarah, Magog, Anitolia, Asia Minor, Home to 7 churches [Rev 2 & 3] *SEAT OF SATAN)
Jordan, (Edom, Ammon, Moab, Amalek)
Libya & Northern Africa (Put)
Suddan (Cush)
Kuwait (Ur)
Saudi Arabia (Arabia, Dedan, Sheba)

Syria (Damascus will be destroyed)
Egypt (which the Antichrist will conquor and pilfer from)
Saudi Arabia, (Dedan, the Antichrist will come & destroy government of Saudi Arabia, pilfering her wealth and oil)

Ishmaelites (Muslims) & Hagarties are ARABS.

All Islamic countries. Islam makes up 25% of the world's population (2 Billion strong) and control the world's oil. There is no doubt at all that Islam is the beast!!

Re: The Islamic Antichrist?

Joe Haynes — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:39:49 -0000

The one text that I think could possibly point in that direction is Daniel 11:45.
Daniel 11:45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.

But in my view it seems very unlikely that the papacy will relocate from the Vatican or that a one-world religion is in the making. I just don't see that in Scripture.

And that's the bottom line: we need to look to Scripture to see what is predicted there and then examine events as they unfold to see if they fit Scripture's prediction. I don't think it's wise to put too much stock in what Rome plans, what the White House plans, what the E.U. plans, etc.

Re: Flags of the Vatican

Eric — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:09:44 -0000

In reality, since the Pope & Papacy do not preach the true gospel, they are a true friend to nobody!

Re: The Islamic Antichrist?

Adam — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:53:09 -0000

Joe,

I hear alot of talk about the Pope wanting control of Jerusalem and more importantly the Temple Mount.
Do you give any weight to this? Do you think the Papacy leading an interfaith movement on the Temple Mount, (kinda like they did in Italy in 1986 where John Paul 2 said that all the religions repersented were worshipping the same God) could take place on the Temple Mount?
Do you give any weight to the idea that the Roman Catholic church wants to move its head quarters from Rome to the Jerusalem?

Re: Worshipping the Image of the Beast

Joe Haynes — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0000

Well Abigail, thanks for the compliment on the blog. The rest of your post looks a lot like spam. If Clement's "perspective" is "extemporaneous" then it's not worth listening to. No one would be happy with a turkey dinner that had only been in the oven for five minutes. No wonder Clement has "gained... notoriety".

Re: Even Chuck Norris Is Afraid of Obama’s “One-World Government”

Joe Haynes — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:55:00 -0000

Minnesoduh,

Before I respond to a couple of your points let me say this: I do not sit in judgement of you or brand you personally as "the harlot of Rome". I try and be careful to keep my observations from the Bible directed at the Roman Catholic Church as a whole, not at its individual members. The way, then, that I feel toward you is probably no different than the way many loving and devout Catholics have felt for centuries when sending missionaries to foreign lands where the name of Jesus was not known. There is no judgementalism in that, in spite of what political correctness would have us believe. It is my hope that through the news preached about Christ in the New Testament you might believe it, trust it, and look to Jesus only for your salvation: since He is, as you put it, the only "Savior."

Having said that, let me try and point out a couple of key errors in what you wrote so that if your ears and mind are open you might possibly be corrected and come to a better knowledge of the Bible.

Your first point was that God "asked [you] not to judge". But in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 the Apostle Paul reminded the Christians in Corinth that they were supposed to judge those inside the Church but not those outside the Church: "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'" So if you don't want me to judge you then you are admitting you are "outside" the true Church of Christ. Of course, the judgement Paul is talking about is not final condemnation but a careful critique according to Scripture of the morals and beliefs of other Christians.

Your second point was that Jesus Himself did works and left us an example to follow. Quite right. But it is not the doing of works that distinguishes the New Testament Gospel from the Roman Catholic misinterpretation of it, it is the purpose and goal of those works that is the distinguishing mark. Christ Jesus did not work in order to save Himself from the wrath of God. He is God incarnate and needed no salvation. However, you and I and all the rest of humankind are sinners having fallen far short of the glory of God...
(Romans 3:23 "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God")
...and in desperate need of saving from the wrath of God on account of our sin...
(John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.).
As Jesus teaches in John 3:36, the solution is not works but belief. That is because works cannot save...
(Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.)
...but can only teach us about our sin. The purpose of the Law is to teach us about sin in order to bring us to repentance. If works can save you then you do not need the Savior and then Jesus did not need to be born, and He certainly did not need to die on the cross. But He was born and He did die because you and I do need a Savior for the reason that our works cannot save us. So since it is only Jesus who can save us, and not we ourselves by anything we do, then how do we get saved by Him? In other words, how does His salvation get applied to us?
Again in John 3, Jesus was pretty clear...
(John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.)
God loved, God gave, (Jesus died and was raised) and all we do is "believe in Him" in order to "be saved through Him".
But in case you still think this is twisting Scripture, Paul is even more clear that God did the work of salvation, in Christ, and we are saved not by working but by believing/trusting in what God has done:
Romans 3:23-25 ...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
And again, Paul confirms that we are saved, i.e., "justified" or "counted righteous" (from Greek "dikaiousthai", "counted righteous", related to the noun "dikaiosune", "righteousness") not by works we do but rather faith in Christ's work:
Romans 3:28 "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

In the very next chapter Paul clarifies that being justified is a gift of God to the one who believes/has faith (from the Greek "pisteuo", "to trust, believe, have faith") and that justification is the act of God by which our sins are not counted against us (the result of Jesus' substitute death for us--our sins were counted against Him). I'll finish this point with a longer quote from Paul where he makes it clear that salvation by works was never the purpose of the Law, or God's intention, even in the Old Testament:

Romans 4:1-8 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

So if you want Jesus to be your Savior, as you put it, then you do so not by "following" His example, but by obeying His call to believe:
John 14:1 Believe in God; believe also in me.
John 3:14-15 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."
John 5:24 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 5:38-40 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

You originally brought up the question of "works" as a Catholic thing. I said that the difference between Catholicism and biblical Christianity is the goal and purpose of works. I've tried to make it clear that in the Bible works cannot save a person, only faith in Christ can save. However, once such a person is saved by faith in Christ, the Bible is very clear that good works are the evidence and fruit of true salvation. Not the means by which salvation is earned, but the result of salvation that is received. The true Christian does good works, not out of fear or of a determination to atone for sin, but out of gratitude and freedom.

So I encourage you to believe in your Savior and, if you do so, to let the chips fall where God has promised they will fall.

Re: Even Chuck Norris Is Afraid of Obama’s “One-World Government”

Lone Texan — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:53:00 -0000

I'm a practicing Roman Catholic who thinks of Protestantism pretty much the same way you think of my brand of Christianity. I try to be a little less judgemental though, since He asked me not to judge.

Just curious. YOu seem to think "works" are a Catholic thing. I tend to think of them more as a "Jesus" thing. Jesus worked. He performed miracles. He did His Father's will. He served as an example of how I should live my life, not as a celestial "get out of jail free" card.

You can twist yourself into Biblical circles to prove that I am the harlot of Rome. I'm just going to follow my Savior and let the chips fall where they may.

God Bless from a devout Catholic.

Re: Worshipping the Image of the Beast

clintlangelaar — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:52:07 -0000

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your detailed response. Sorry I have not responded earlier . . . I had to think over your response for a while. Your explanation of Daniel 11 makes a lot of historical sense; I was wondering if you wouldn't mind my asking you some more questions?

You stated that Daniel 11:34 refers to the rise of Constantine. Does verse 34 mean that Constantine was helpful for the early Church when it says "when they stumble, they shall receive a little help"? If so, that would imply that Constantine is being played by both sides, right? Would he not be a vehicle for the early Church (by the spreading of the gospel across Roman lands) as much as he is a vehicle for the Antichrist (the rise of the Pope and the hijacking of the Christian faith)?

I'm starting to see, based on the text, that the Antichrist is a dynasty of men with a certain position and not a social movement, philosophy or type of government. I think I am getting the Antichrist mixed up with the frog like spirits that come from the mouth of the dragon in Revelation 16:13. If so, does this mean that the dragon is a general symbol of all the individual men who rule as the Antichrist, and that their lies (like teaching celibacy) are symbolized as frog like spirits?

I’m assuming that the reason the date 606 AD is stated as the beginning of the 1260 years of dominion of the Antichrist is because that is when the Papacy achieved absolute rule over all of Christendom. My history is not the best; what happened to the Papacy in 1866 AD? Is it when concepts like pluralism and sphere sovereignty were introduced into European society?

Re: Worshipping the Image of the Beast

Joe Haynes — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:28:59 -0000

On the passage in Daniel 11:36-39, rather than give a long explanation of the context, let me quote myself from the piece, "Interpreting Daniel" available here: http://ow.ly/HnsL . Grab your Bible and follow along from verse 30 (the text has been talking about Antiochus Epiphanes at this point)...

<quote>
Verse 30 the Roman Senate sent ships to force Antiochus to leave Alexandria alone. He was so furious about that defeat that he sent Appolonius to take his vengeance out on the Jews (1 Macabees 1:30; 2 Macabees 5:24).
Verse 31 "forces from him will arise" refers not to Antiochus' armies but the word "from him" (mimenu) usually means "than him" as in Genesis 48:19 where it is used to say that the younger brother shall be greater "than him"--not from him. So in verse 31 it means "forces other than his shall arise" or "after him forces shall arise" or "apart from him other forces shall arise", meaning the rise of the Roman Empire. this verse includes a brief reference to AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.

The rest is, as they say, history. Verse 33 speaks of the early church spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles ("the many") in the face of persecution and martyrdom. Verse 34 predicts, with great economy of words, the conversion of the Empire to "Christianity" under Constantine, in the fourth century, but points out that it will be a corrupt form of Christianity, or "hypocritical". Verse 35 acknowledges that the centuries following the rise of Catholic Christianity would bring suffering for the saints: not what Christians would have expected in the optimistic decades of the fourth century! Verse 36 explains why: the new Roman leader, that is the ecclesial head of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, or the "Pope", will be fundamentally anti-Christian. He will exalt himself as "God on Earth". And he would "prosper" for a long, long time. Verse 37 shows the true spiritual reality behind the Roman antichristian Popes: they do not serve God at all, but themselves. They teach celibacy, in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. Instead, in verse 38, we see that their ambition is for strength, power and wealth.
</quote>

Verse 36 describes the new "head" of Rome as bad indeed, claiming superiority in authority over every spiritual authority and even saying "astonishing things" against the true God, prospering for a long time in what is called an "indignation". Verses 37-39 detail his "indignations" and career in very succinct form, with just enough prophetic detail to recognize when it is fulfilled but not enough to predict how it will look when the time comes.

As to whether this "antichrist", or what the text calls a "king", is an individual or a type or an idea, the text itself gives the clues. As you read verses 3-20, you can see that the text moves the prophecy along with the continuous reference to "he", even though verse 3 introduces Alexander, verse 5 the contests between his four successor generals, the longlasting struggle for supremacy between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, all the way to the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes in verse 21. Even when power is transferred to a new ruler, the text continues calling him "he", sometimes referring to all the Seleucid rulers in succession as "he" or all the Ptolemies as "he". So "he" is a way of the prophecy referring to a line, or dynasty, of rulers. The text also indicates when a dynasty is broken and replaced by a new dynasty which takes up the title "he": e.g., verse 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 16, 21, 31, etc.

The chapter begins with the rule of the kings of Persia and ends with the Popes of Rome, the Atlantic Powers/NATO/ or the USA, and a northern power, possibly Arab nations headed by Turkey (as with the Ottomans) or Syria, or possibly Russia. So there is no time when the Antichrist is pictured, anywhere in Scripture, as ruling through a global government. But Scripture does attach a very definite time period to the reign of Antichrist, if by "reign" you mean the time when the saints are "given into his hand" (Dan 7:25), it shall be for exactly 1260 years (on the prophetic scale of a year for every day in prophecy). It's possible this was fulfilled in the secular or temporal power of the popes from 606 AD to 1866 AD.

Re: Worshipping the Image of the Beast

clintlangelaar — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:42:39 -0000

I was wondering . . . I understand Daniel 11:36-39 as describing the attributes and personal characteristics of the anti-christ (I could be wrong). The Westminster Confession of Faith attributes the Pope of Rome as the Antichrist. Since there have been hundreds of them (Popes), Daniel 11:36-39 seems to be describing not one particular Antichrist, but a type of man that fits the Antichrist description. Could the Antichrist description in Daniel 11 not only apply to the hundreds of Popes that have ruled in Rome, but to whole societies or nations of people that also fit the bill in Daniel 11?

The reason I ask is because it seems to me that the reign of the Antichrist is not really a particular time where one man rules though a global government, but a time where people's hearts become very hard and whole nations follow deceptive philosophies akin to the Antichrist. The only biblically historical example I can think of off-hand that fits these charactistics is Jezebel's reign in Israel during Elijah's ministry.

Re: Even Chuck Norris Is Afraid of Obama’s “One-World Government”

Joe Haynes — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:24:55 -0000

@Blake
Thanks Blake for your comments. Yes, quite right that most Christians today (and at all times) tend to walk by sight and not by faith. That's the Christian struggle of having two natures battling (Romans 7). But we are called to live by faith, "the just shall live by faith." Romans 5:17.
I can see that you're upset--I mean no offense to Catholics, just praying that many will leave the Roman Catholic Church and embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ as promised throughout the Old Testament and as preached throughout the New Testament.
As Paul says in Romans 4,

Romans 4:4-8 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

And again, showing how righteousness is obtained by a Christian, Paul makes things very clear in the next chapter:

Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Paul quotes in chapter 4 from Genesis 15:6 where Abraham was counted legally righteous before God not by anything he did in terms of works or anything else, but on the basis of simply believing God would do what He said He would do. David confesses the same kind of faith in Psalm 25:11, "For your name's sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great." And Isaiah prophesies the work of God that would one day provide the basis for God to count or reckon righteousness to people who believe: the substituting righteousness and death of Jesus. His death was in the place of our death that we deserved because of sin; His righteousness is credited to us just like how in the Old Testament, a spotless lamb was a pure sacrifice to satisfy God's requirement for holiness. Jesus' perfect righteousness is given to believers and His death covers believers' sin.

Isaiah 53:4-6 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

And again in Isaiah 53:11, "...by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."

So the Gospel that was rediscovered by the Protestants in the 16th century was no new invention: it was the faith of the earlier fathers and of the apostles and of the prophets. It was the Roman Catholic Church that perverted this Gospel and re-inserted a requirement of good works as the basis by which a person becomes good enough for God.

It is not merely an assertion of mine that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church, the "harlot of Babylon" according to Revelation 17. It is the result of careful study interpretation of Scripture. Daniel 7 predicts 4 great empires on the Earth following Daniel's prophecy: Babylon, Persian, Greece and Rome. He foresees the Roman empire divide into a commonwealth of 10 kingdoms. From among those ten kindoms, shortly after they come into existence, another different sort of kingdom emerges that wages war against the saints of God and utters blasphemous boasts. In history this is straightforward: the Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD. By around 600 it had been replaced by a commonwealth of 10 kingdoms in Western Europe. At about that time another kingdom, different from the rest, emerged and gained dominion over the other ten: this was the religious/ecclesial "king" of the city of Rome, the Pope. Revelation 18 pictures this "Antichrist" riding the false-church (i.e., "prostitute" is a false bride, and the New Testament Church is described as a true "bride" in Revelation 21:2, 9, & 22:17), called "Babylon". This is fulfilled by the Pope "riding" or usurping the place of Christ as the "Head" of the Church.

Re: Even Chuck Norris Is Afraid of Obama’s “One-World Government”

Blake — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:31:12 -0000

and one more thing, its YOU who calls the Catholic Church counterfeit christianity. Besides, protestants only go by the New Testament, while Catholics go by both the Old AND New Testament.

Re: Even Chuck Norris Is Afraid of Obama’s “One-World Government”

Blake — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:17:11 -0000

but isnt that what most christians do nowadays? walk by sight and not by faith. Let me ask you a question. If God told you to jump off a cliff and he insisted you do, and that you go to hell if you didn't, would you?

Re: Even Chuck Norris Is Afraid of Obama’s “One-World Government”

Joe Haynes — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:09:14 -0000

Yes, but not only "pre-Christ Jewish fanaticism", also mid-first century Jewish fanaticism. I think the basic reason for this is what Augustine addressed in The City of God. Jews and Christians have garnered quite a reputation for confusing the true Kingdom of God with kingdoms of men. At various times men from both groups have tried to establish an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem, in Rome, in Constantinople/Byzantium, in Munster, in London, in Washington D.C., in Jonestown, in Waco, etc. It is the most human instinct, though entirely sinful, to walk by sight and not by faith.

Re: Even Chuck Norris Is Afraid of Obama’s “One-World Government”

Clint Langelaar — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:53:19 -0000

Do you see a strange parallel between Christian fear-mongering today and pre-Christ Jewish fanatacism? Both groups try to point to God through socio-political factors or events instead of the written word of God. I wonder what is so alluring to us (other than our own deprived nature) that we put stock in sensationalist socio-political events over faith and grounded relationship in God?

Re: The Islamic Antichrist?

Clint Langelaar — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:27:51 -0000

That was a good post, Joe. I haven't had the three "frog like spirits" explained in that way before. I'm curious, what would the third frog spirit be? Would it be a competing ideology within either the West or the Middle East (your post explained that communism was interpreted as one possibility)? Or is it one of the overarching philosophies of the Far East?

By ideological legacies are you refering more to some of the philosophical undertones that have become the foundational pillars our our two cultures (like self determination and individualism in the West and the Ummah or the shared collective identity of the Middle East)?

Re: The Islamic Antichrist?

Joe Haynes — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:20:53 -0000

Thanks for the comment Clint! To your question, yes and no. Yes, more Christians are and will be persecuted (at least in the West) by secularism than Islam. No, this does not mean that Islam should be ruled out as a "mode with which Christians will be persecuted". My post here http://historicism.com/prophec... described the three "frog-like spirits". The spirit from the mouth of the dragon (Rev 16:13) is a satanic ideology--it could be BOTH "secular-humanism" and then "radical Islam", since BOTH are anti-Christian ideologies. In any case, many historicist scholars have seen a parallel persecution, in the west under the Roman Catholic Church (Daniel 7) and in the east under Islam (Daniel 8). Both of those persecuting powers have fallen from their historic zenith of power (the "Holy Roman Empire" on the one hand and the Ottoman Empire on the other). But what remains as potent anti-Christian forces are the ideological legacies of both Empires.

Re: The Islamic Antichrist?

Clint Langelaar — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:13:37 -0000

If the 11th horn can be interpreted to be the Pope of Rome, would it not be more logical to conclude that Islam will not be the mode with which Christians will be persecuted, but secularization? It seems to me that the catholic church is much more capable of being secularized than being manipulated by Islam. Currently Western Europe is pursuing increased secularization as a way to curb increasing Islamic influence in their own countries.

Re: Welcome!

A. H. Phillips — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:04:20 -0000

Joe, a million thanks for making Romanism and the Reformation by H.G. Guinness available on your website. I stumbled upon it while I was a missionary in Peru and realized that I was living in essentially a pre-Reformation Catholic culture there. That book really helped me understand the prophecies about the popes, and now I promote it as much as I can. I am encouraged to find like-minded historicists online such as yourself. Blessings in Christ, Andy

Re: Flags of the Vatican

Scot — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:51:10 -0000

Outstanding catch. How about the Pope doffing his red shoes to enter the Dome of the Rock? Talk about a prophetic intersection, the Roman prince of princes discussing the 'universal' acknowledgement of the 'one God' at the site of the abomination of desolation. Although the six people who read this blog are probably the only ones who noticed. Peace out dog.

Re: “Don’t you believe in the Rapture?”

Scot — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:59:02 -0000

Thanks for the blog. I'll be the fifth blogger for this site. The historicism school of thought opened my eyes and answered a ton of nagging questions. I can now rattle off church history quickly. I now can engage Jews, Catholics and atheists in more meaningful discussions. Peace

Re: Zero hour to What?

JM — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:57:54 -0000

Thank you for being a consistent witness.

Re: Welcome!

Pastor Steve Coates — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:36:35 -0000

@Joe Haynes
Blessings!

Just a little note - a ministerial to which I am a member, has had one of it's directors teaching a course on "Historical Interpretation Of Prophetic Scripture"
By Pastor Jim Gordon www.ercf.ca
Ministerial www.anchorministerial.org