The last two weeks in Iran have witnessed the 4th annual Mahdi conference. The long Prophesied Islamic Savior. Some interesting observations from the conference.
Said Larijani: "The time of the supremacy of one religion over another is not over, and Islam is promised final victory. The Islamic Republic and other Islamic governments need to prepare for the Mahdi's governance by promoting justice and development and, although we have long-distance missiles, we are not war-like." Larijani clearly believes that history is not over. And in a clear rebuke to those adherents of Mahdism who see it as purely peaceful, Larijani quoted Imam Muhammad Baqir, a famous scholar from early Islamic history, who said that "there must be bloodshed and jihad to establish Imam Mahdi's rule."
In the crux of his address, Larijani posed the question, "Why are the Americans having such problems in Iraq, and the Zionists in Lebanon?" Those Western academics, analysts, and politicians trying to banish the word jihad from the lexicon need to heed his answer: "Because their power is only a façade, and jihad scares them--they are afraid to risk it. They say Hamas and Hezbollah are 'terrorists' because they do not understand jihad. This is the West's major weakness: that they do not have their own religious-based jihad, as we Muslims do! In fact, Mahdism has three pillars: spirituality, rationalism, and jihad."
Is Mahdism, then, necessarily violent?
In the view of Iranian leaders like Ahmadinejad and Larijani, the peace of the Mahdi will be that of a victor striding over a battlefield strewn with his enemies.
Long before the Islamic Revolution, Shiite clerics had ruled that in the absence of Imam Mahdi, offensive jihad could not be waged--only defensive jihad. Hence Larijani's remark that Iranian long-range missiles would be purely "defensive." But the doctrine of defensive jihad has its own troubling aspects: It can be waged in the Mahdi's absence; treaties and truces with dhimmis (Christians and Jews, who enjoy second-class status under Islamic law) can be broken at will; Muslims who cooperate with non-Muslim occupiers of Muslim land can be killed; and, most alarming, there are even fewer limits on the types of warfare that can be employed in defensive jihad than in offensive--in effect sanctioning the use of WMDs.
The Tehran conference verified what I have long suspected: that the Islamic Republic of Iran is using Mahdism as a pan-Islamic ideology to challenge Saudi Arabia. And it is succeeding. A recent University of Maryland poll indicated the most popular Muslim leaders in the Arab world are Hassan Nasrallah, Lebanese Hezbollah leader; Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria; and Ahmadinejad--non-Sunnis all.
Full article here:
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Utilit … =13C052F48
For all its wealth, power and ruthlessness through centuries, the Catholic Church never succeeded in establishing the Papacy as the single head of Christendom, far less of the world. Wouldn't you say that any attempt to establish a single head of Islam would be similarly doomed to failure? Islam is no more united than Christendom was/is. Arguably less so.
Paraglider - whether or not it is doomed to failure is not the point. The point is the attempt to unify. But bear with me please in my explanation as I attempt to explain both side's spiritual view and the political real world view - in one story. I don't believe I have ever stated that Islam will unify under one head worldwide. I have stated that elements of Islam say that. They quote the Koran and the Hadith when they do so and it is obvious from reading those sources that's what it says. The quotes above from the Mahdi convention in Iran 2 weeks ago say so. And the comments made before the convention - on the video - also say so. It is a regular drumbeat of all Islamists. So, as far as the discussion goes they believe it and are always in a state of attempting it.
I, as a Christian, read what they say, and see a strong similarity to what the Bible says about the very same scenario - and notice a difference. The story is the same - but the outcome and the methods are different.
The prophecies in the Bible do not say this future leader will unite the world in an Islamic Body. The Koran and Hadith do. The Bible says it takes the whole world to defeat it. (If it takes the world to defeat it - it follows it does not rule the world in totality) It rather says, a group of 10 nations surrounding Israel AFTER it returns to its land (and then it gives the names from 2500 years ago) will unify, be of one spirit and hate an entity called the Great Whore. That Whore is a backsliden religious entity whose major claim to power is its commercialism. It buys the world's goods, it receives them by ships, it made the whole world rich, it originally loved the God of the Bible and in its final stage it persecutes Christians who testify of Jesus. (Those are very plain verses in one chapter that describe it that way).
It is unknown if this state of affairs is today next month or 50 years from now.
So how did the Catholic Church get involved in that fairly plain and simple depiction? For one, in the 1500's that's what it appeared to be.
In the past - Bunyon, Wesley, Luther, Issac Newton and many other Protestants believed this (Whore) entity to be the Catholic Church - and they in different amounts of agreement - believed the other to be Islam (or the Ottoman Islamic Turk as they called them). They did not make this up. One must remember that prior to the Reformation the common Bible was only in the hands of the Catholic Church. Further more, it was written in Latin a dead language. Only the Clergy or Latin readers could understand it.
The Reformation and it's explosive growth from translating the original source documents of the Bible into the common languages of the day - exposed the leaders and the people to the original words long hidden from common knowledge. This in turn quickly led them to the prophetic books and in them - they looked up and saw the world they lived in. However, they generally did not believe they were living in the last days the way we think of it.
They had no problem in seeing the Papacy as the Whore and it fills their writings - and these views were passed down in varying interpretations to the denominational Protestants as they filled the new world. The centuries long struggle within Christianity to return it from Catholicism to its primitive roots were consistently thwarted by the Papacy and during the reformation it intensified. The intensity of the Counter Reformation merely solidified in their minds the truth of their interpretation. During these same years the Turks were at war with Europe in many different ways. In the 1700's the Turks were at the very gates of Vienna and Europe lay bare with it's fall imminent. But both sides of Christianity stood in defense and rallied before they resumed their own historic battle.
After the Vienna battle the Turk Empire slowly declined. But it was none the less the favored Protestant explanation of what would attack Christianity in the end. In their minds, the recent 500 year history against Both Catholicism and Turkish Mohammedanism - proved to them they were facing what the Bible called the Antichrist. This is why you see several of the founding fathers of America (Including John Q Adams) depict both the Turks and the Papacy in so derogatory historical context. They were Protestants and they were exhibiting their denomination's prophetic view which went back 200 years. (I have posted their letters and quotes elsewhere)
With the fall of the Turkish Islamic Caliphate in 1923 Islam was no longer a coherent unified Political power - and so fell out of favor as the explanation for the attacking 10 nation confederation. With Islam gone as a unified political body - an unprecedented event in the 1300 year history of Islam - the Protestant West came more and more to believe - that the Catholic Church was BOTH - the 10 nation confederacy and the Whore.
This belief was reinforced by a new apocalyptic view in a movement called Dispensationalism. That view held that the future 10 nation unity was in Europe not Islam, led by the Papacy which would embrace a charismatic leader who would attempt to take over the world.
The 10 nations in this view have changed quite a bit over the years. They admit that the nations must surround Israel - but they have them absorbed by an enlarged EU - or a world brought under 10 governing bodies as also most conspiracy one worlders believe. Never the less - saying this is so - doesn't make it so. You must remember that these were ideas attempting to explain a world without Political Islam - since that is what for centuries had been the distinguished interpretation.
As Political Islam seemed to disappear from the pages of history, this view gained a very loose and speculative broad acceptance. What made the view entrenched was the insertion of Dispensatinalism and it's associated anytime Rapture teaching - into the Scofield Bible - which became the Bible of choice for the Moody Bible College and many other fundamentalist Protestant denominations.
As the next couple of generations grew up and came into the Church - they had never heard of the earlier teaching which had it's foundations in the Reformation. They only learned of the Catholic Church as the Antichrist and so you have the many who seem to still hold to this and teach it and use it in their arguments on TV and even here in the forums. Many of them do not know they are teaching a view only 120 years old. It does not affect their fundamental Christianity since it is only a doctrine and in any event - it is not a historic teaching. It's just very popular especially with the commercialization of Dispensationalist views in the very popular "Left Behind Series."
There has always been a large group of the Protestants which never believed in Dispensationalism. They are called Historicists and they are kin to the names above (Newton et al). They have always held to the former view and this view is regaining explosive acceptance and re-examination in light of the internet and the resurgent Politcal Movements within Islam to make it once again a unified Poltical state. A Caliphate.
Now in none of this is the idea of a one world Catholic Body - or a One World Islamic body necessary in order for prophecy both Islamic and Christian to begin to be fulfilled. It is only necessary to have 2 entities that hate each other - one supporting Israel and the other opposed to it - as both sides claim in their prophecies will be in the last days.
This is not Islam against Christianity or vice versa. It is Islam overtaken by Islamists - and Christianity overtaken by apostates. It is a confederated 10 nation Empire taken over by a destroying Savior - opposed by an apostate pseudo-Christian commercial entity. Inside both at the times of the wars are Primitive Style Christians which are persecuted and killed. They refuse to be absorbed by the leaders of either side in pledges of allegiance - as each side attempts to consolidate its power over the world.
That may be more than you wanted to know but what we are coming to in the Conservative Christian Movement is the realization that it was more like the Reformers said and that nothing has changed - it only appeared that way. That Political Islam will come to dominate the nations surrounding Israel as originally thought.
So why do so many Conservative Christians fear the Papacy? History for one. But the main modern reason is the Catholic Church's insatiable drive to unify Christianity under one Body - headed by Catholicism. This has been a centuries long goal of the Papacy as you know. But it has it's own story.
The Holy Roman Empire was greatly weakened by the plagues of the 1300 and 1400's. This in turn allowed the earliest rumblings of the Reformation to come about. Once the Reformation split Europe in half, Catholicism was in decline in Europe. The French Revolution intending to become an atheist state based on reason alone - expelled the Papacy and slaughtered the monks and priests. This general movement was fully accomplished when Napoleon banned the Papacy and its political power from the face of Europe and forcibly reduced the Pope to the Vatican grounds. This state of affairs lasted for over 100 years. (But most people do not know this history)
In 1862 the Papacy was the only world body to recognize the Confederate States as a Nation as part of their strategic goal to reemerge from the Napoleonic exile. They later made agreements with Mussolini. It is a peculiar circumstance indeed that finds BOTH a resurgent Political Catholicism and a resurgent Political Islam. Both appeared dead as political bodies - and yet now have immeasurable momentum.
So what has the Papacy done in its return to the world stage in the 20th century? It has become a moderate force for unity of not only the Historic Christian religion - but of ANY religion. In 1962 at the Vatican council - the church threw off 1500 years of doctrine in its bid to modernize. Part of the modernity was its central place in the WCC (World Council Of Churches - a United Nations ORG). This body is attempting to unify the world's religions into a greater religious group which agrees on basic doctrine along a Liberal Humanist line.
But in order to do so it has left the basic doctrines of the historic Christian Church. It now says ANYONE can be saved. Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Pantheists etc. THAT is quite an astonishing assertion and one that plays well with modern liberalism but clearly not with Conservative Christianity.
So why is all this important? Because this religious process is extremely well advanced. In your assertion that the Catholic Empire never did rule the world - you are right. But the Catholic Church as the ultimate unifier of the world's religions - DOES. And it has attached itself to the United Nations and the European Union as its principle representative of RELIGION. If the North American Union - of Mexico, Canada and the US comes to be - the union will be a predominantly Catholic entity. This Union seems inevitable and if so it will change the religious political landscape forever.
Since Catholicism has 1 billion members and is headed by one body - with one leader - it already stands by default as the world's greatest unified religious body. It's absorption of liberal Protestant denominations as co members of the council - weakens Fundamentalist Protestant Theology and undermines its ability to ultimately stand against it. Fundamentalists of all types have no head and have no body - most stand alone - and much of today's churches are POST Denominational. They have no denomination the Bible being their church.
Combined with this rapid absorption of Protestantism, the Papacy is just a year or two away from unifying with the Eastern Orthodox Churches from which they split 1000 years ago. This is another event begun in 62. Soon - all Catholicism - East and West will be unified, Liberal Protestanism will be absorbed, many facets of peaceful Islam have joined and many other bodies as well. There are several hundred and any Google will show how comprehensive this work is. It's in the papers everyday and it seems so harmless. In a post Christian Europe - and almost America - what difference does it make? But it is making all the difference in the world because even though we are in a post Christian world - we are heading into a New World Order of religion none the less. The Catholic Church is doing today with theology what it never did by conquest.
And it is completely married to Western Political structures.
SO if you can see what has happened - you may be able to understand why the Protestant world is divided into Liberal and Conservative camps. The Liberal camp is and has been embracing this ONE WORLD RELIGIOUS entity - and conservative Protestants stand in adamant and staunch opposition to it. They will never change their minds.
So let me then say - that is why you hear the Western nations talk so much about Peaceful Islam. Not that there isn't such a thing - there clearly is. BUT peaceful Islam's entrance into this world religious body is VERY WELL advanced and the Western nations see it as their lever to combat Radical Islamist Islam. The Western world through the UN - is making the world safe - by unifying the nations into a Capitalistic and RELIGIOUS unity.
That's the plan and every world body says so. All Western political commentaries suggest it - and most bodies within the UN affirm it. It's not a secret world order to take over the world - it is in plain sight and very aggressive.
The Radical Muslims see it. All their writings say they see it and call it what it is - the attempt of the Christian West to dilute Islam and bring it into the 21st century as a reformed belief along with all the other reformed beliefs. It's right there for everyone to see. That is why they are fighting it and they are calling the peaceful Muslims attempting to unify with it infidels. They do not differentiate. Anything embracing this unified Globalized Capitalistic Religious body is an infidel - even if they are Muslim.
THAT is what these statements above at the Mahdi convention really mean when they are talking about the West's plans for ultimate Globalization being thwarted. They are saying that Primitive 7th century Islam is the ultimate world unifier and the world will see it when the Mahdi comes. They are preparing the nations since they see his arrival as imminent. They are also saying that the time of one religion over another has not ended. ( ie, Christianity continuing to dominate the world as in the last 500 years and into a worldwide future which intends to absorb peaceful Islam and bring it into an apostate Western Form - while fighting to destroy primitive Islam as practiced by the Islamists.)
In other words - they are saying this plan by the West to unify the world into a Pseudo Monotheistic Christianized harmonized one world capitalistic body is doomed to fail. That Islam takes over in the end - and then they quote their prophecies and see themselves as Jihadists.
Finally - if I haven't bored you or the others reading here - can you see more completely - why both the Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims want to stop this world body from forming even as we see it happening before our eyes. That is why in our country homeschooling is exploding, why the political debate is explosive and why social agenda issues have become explosive as we see the traditional values of the Protestant Heritage diluted from a sea of modernity - the ends of which in their minds - leads to the scenario above.
The Christian reaction is political - but the Islamist's reaction is violence. There appears no way out of this conundrum on either side of the East West divide.
Of course the cynical view is to say a pox on both your houses - but that's why there are no temples built for cynics. I would think a more rational view would be to see things the way they are - that these forces are massive, historical and beyond this little forum. But in the least - we may try to understand them and prepare for the eventuality of their appearance.
Many have said I am trying to scare people. But that is naive. These movements are much bigger than snide remarks. Even if my world view is wrong. Even if my religion is wrong. Even if I were attempting to make people afraid; it still does not answer the question at the top of this forum - do you think that Mahdism as believed by Islamists - is the movement called the Antichrist?
The idea of personal interpretation of the Bible has led to some 3,000 denominations all with different ideas. A lot of which leads to hating one group or another, as we can see above in Prophecy Teacher's long post. Which is directly opposed the the second tenant of the New Covenant, to love thy neighbor as thyself. This is a product of the Reformation. And now we see it continued with so-called christian Republican far right McCainiac war mongers. The profile of the new recruit "sock puppet" (that slanders God's name) also proves this point.
Explosive growth for sure, the Reformation in what is now Germany did not stop until half of the population was dead. About 8,000 dead priests and nuns in Rome the very first day it broke out.
I have heard this claim that the Bible was long hidden from common knowledge too many times and it is just bunk. Martin Luther was originally a Catholic priest, he and all priests before him had access to the Bible. The fact that everything before the invention of the printing press had to be hand written made it impossible for everyone to own a Bible. Most of the population could not read or afford a hand written copy anyway. Latin is still the language of Rome. The fact that the Mass could be heard in Latin anywhere in the Christian world made it possible to understand the Mass no matter where Christians traveled and the Latin Mass was and still is understood. With Martin Luther's writings against the Jews it contradicts the fact that he followed the Torah (which the Jews did not canonized until some years after the Resurrection of Christ) to relegate the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical) books un-numbered to the back of his Bible, which originally included the book of Revelations and one other that were returned about 80 years later. The first King James Bible included the Apocrypha books. It wasn't until later that the writers of the King James Bible moved them to the back of the Bible then in 1827 removed them. The fact that Martin Luther was moving these books around kind of flies in the face of you PT saying that the Catholic Church was hiding anything from anyone.
You make it sound like Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press was a Reform hero. But in reality Gutenberg was a Catholic.
Contrary to popular belief the King James Bible was not the first English translation of the Bible in 1611. The English translation of the New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims, France in 1582. The English translation of the Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay, France in 1609. Hence the name of the Douay Rheims Bible. The reason for the publication was because the Catholic faith was outlawed in England, Scotland, Ireland and Whales at the time and remained outlawed there until around 1800. The Douay Rheims Bible was smuggled to the Catholic faithful during this time which no doubt leads to the popular belief that the King James Bible was the first English translation. This also flies in the face of you PT saying that the Catholic Church was hiding anything from anyone.
They certainly believed they were living in the last days in London in 1666 with the plagues and the great London fire.
Who is sunni or non-sunni doesnt matter at all.All are muslim leaders.Iranian president is my favorite leader.Up to know he has not made any wrong and a good leader for graet iranian nation.He is doing the best for his country without harming others.Its just a tactic to divide muslims.What the need does occur to call shiete islam or sunni islam.No there is only one islam and it doesnt have any categories.
Is the Islamic Mahdi the Antichrist? Is not the generation of hatred the antichrist?, if Christ is love. The arabs are coming the arabs are coming seems to be your constant theme. Seems I heard it all my life, the commies are coming, the commies are coming, and then bin laden is coming, bin laden is coming. What you seem to do is generate and promote hatred of Arabs. Of course your fanatics exist. PT I say are you the same as them, and thus: are you not yourself an antichrist?
Prophecy Teacher speaks the TRUTH, knolyourself.
Do you hate freedom so much, that you would question an honestly asked question from a seeker of knowledge?
VOICE of CHRIST
VOC: You been here what - 54 minutes - & by Jesus - ya know everything.
Six hours later it does not get any lighter. Christianity and freedom? Gimme a break!
But no one wants to discuss the above statements made by the Highest leaders of the Iranian Islamic Republic. Right?
There it is - black and white.
This topic can not be framed as a Christian - Islamic - paradigm. Although both sides have their prophecies predicting this Mahdi - the Koranic version is one of war and then peace - and the Christian version is one of a war against Christianity - and then peace when the Mahdi is defeated.
There is a very striking difference in the world view of each. Whether one believes it is prophetic or not is irrelevant. The two sides believe it. It can not either be said that saying it might happen - ACTUALLY - makes it happen - as some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Any more than Noah building an ark and saying it would rain - actually made the event happen.
The real discussion should reside in the FACT that the Iranian Republic is Mahdi delirious - and the highest leaders of the land - believe this Mahdi's appearance is imminent. They are PREPARING for him by attempting to unite the Islamic world in a greater confederated alliance against the Western world with it's dominance of the world through it's Military, Cultural and Political mechanisms.
To say the Bush Administration is the catalyst for these things - belies the historical FACT - that the Iranian Islamic Revolution has stated since 1978 what it believes and it's methods ever since have never wavered.
Today, we find ourselves facing a very determined Theocracy - attempting to unify the Ummah of the Muslim world. Further, it supports terrorism in many manifold forms as it's chosen weapon. This method at the least suggests a greater conflict of terrorism - if the Republic were ever to actually make it's plan manifest.
So once again - what do you think about THAT?
I did, but not in the way you wanted. So you didn't respond. That's normal
Paraglider - it is not normal at all. Stop that. I have to go watch a movie with my daughter. I'm just in a hurry. I'll visit with you in a little bit. I saw your post and am very interested to talk to you about it.
Following are excerpts from two main Tehran Friday sermons at the TehranUniversity campus. In one, delivered today, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is Iranian Expediency Council chairman, former president, and the main political rival of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that the big powers are using the nuclear issue as an excuse to confront Iran. 
In another, from August 15, 2008, Iranian Assembly of Experts member Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said that when the Mahdi arrived, there would be "[real] globalization" and "Islamic revival will sweep over the entire world." He added, "Not a single house will remain on the face of the earth... unpenetrated by Islam."
Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, August 15, 2008: When Mahdi Appears, "Islamic Revival Will Sweep Over Entire World"
"Globalization will only be realized when the days of the Mahdi come. The world of arrogance will take its dream of globalization to the grave. But in the days of the Mahdi, [real] globalization will definitely come to pass.
"God sent His Messenger in order to spread the just religion, so that His religion [Islam] would overcome all other religions.
"By 'overcome,' I am not referring to the superiority of the logic of Islam, because in this sense, it is already superior.
"[I am referring to] a tangible victory.
"Not a single house will remain on the face of the earth
"unpenetrated by Islam.
"The claim that the time has passed when one religion ruled the world runs counter to the Koran and the [Islamic] tradition. Not only has the time not passed, but the Islamic revival that we are witnessing today is moving in this direction, and Allah willing, this Islamic revival will sweep over the entire world, when the Mahdi appears.
Please watch video clip of meeting..
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp? … mp;ak=null
Their rhetoric is truly frightening, and no doubt they will use their ideology to motivate their people and armies if war comes. However, third world dictatorships with delusions of grandeur tend to underestimate the West. I suspect they will find out the hard way when cruise missiles begin systematically dismantling every piece of their infrastructure.
What they perceive as a weakness, namely our modern pluralistic and increasingly tolerant society, is in fact our strength. The West will not crumble because of Iranian military adventures.
Just compare our societies and economies. Iran and Saudi Arabia are rich with oil, but beyond that they have not developed their economies. They languish in backwardness. I cannot think of any innovation or technological achievement coming out of Iran for the past few centuries.
Umm, sounds strangely familiar... Are you talking about the USA?
I get your point, and there is no doubt that the Western democracies have been and are guilty of doing bad things including starting wars of agrression. But I know of no modern Western leader (Bush included) that proposes a world war to convert the so called infidels. I find the attitude of Iran and similar dictatorships much more threatening to the western way of life.
I perhaps should have said in my earlier post that the one major weakness of the West is to drift towards cultural relativism and not being able to see degrees of evil. In the face of evil and aggression, it has become trendy to say - "we are no better". Yes western society has its problems and as you point out we have done our share of war mongering, but in my view we are making social progress while Iran, and its neighbours such as Pakistan are not.
For example. This article talks about how several women and teenagers in Pakistan were killed by being shot and then buried while still alive because they had the audacity to want to marry men of their own choice. Obviously violence happens in our society too. The difference is that in this case, the actions of the killers was defended by a member of parliament who stated:
"These [killing women for disobeying their male elders] are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them," Israr Ullah Zehri, who represents Baluchistan province, told The Associated Press Saturday.
In Iran, people are routinely condemned to death just for being homosexual, or committing adultery.
In Iran, a leading cleric recently announced that having a female flag bearer at the olympics was a "heresy" which would hinder the appearance of the Mahddi: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022139.php
What does this have to do with the issue of war which started the discussion? My point is simply that this is a backwards society stuck in the feudal middle ages. A society which, despite its obvious backwardness, believes that it is superior and aspires to greatness through the stated goal of destroying western society. A society which strives towards acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Unlike the nuclear detente that existed between the USSR and USA, in which both sides could be expected to act rationally and avoid nuclear war, because a war would destroy them both (the old Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine), we cannot be so certain about Iran acting logically if it gains nuclear weapons. At least not by our standards. Judging from the rhetoric coming from Iran's leaders, a war against the west seems to be desirable in their eyes. And for that we should take their threats seriously.
I see your point, too
However, I don't share it. With all the rhetoric Muslim side demonstrates, it were USA who actually started the full-blown war on the Middle East, which I am afraid has good chances of becoming the WWIII. Also, USA to date is THE ONLY country in the World that actually used nuclear weapons against another country. Way back when I was a child, my parents taught me to look at deeds, not words...
Whom should we fear more?
Your examples just illustrate why USA is such a danger for the World. Those countries have their own cultures, different from Western, their own laws and traditions. You want them to follow your laws and traditions. Most people are like that, not only in USA of course. I can say exactly the same about the Muslim side, or any other country for that matter. The problem is - one cannot impose his culture on people of different culture without FORCING them. But only USA currently have enough power to think it might succeed in such an endeavor...
Of course it will not. The only result this can produce is WWIII. And if we really go there, this war will be fought on American soil, too...
I am not saying that Western culture is the best, or that we should impose our values on others, necessarily. But sometimes cultures go wrong. Just as we should look at the flaws in our own society, we should be able to look at the flaws of others. To ignore abuses and irrational behaviour simply because other cultures are entitled to be different is to abdicate any moral authority.
Let's imagine that there existed a country where it was considered normal and right to kill and eat other human beings. Perhaps anyone with blonde hair was considered a delicacy.
This country would have its own culture, of course. Their laws not only allowed cannibalism, they made it a religious and legal duty to hunt down and kill blonde haired people. Of course, they had a very highly developed cuisine and this country was quite proud of its cook books and recipes. Their restaurants served humans in all kinds of creative ways. This country looked down on the west as degenerate for harbouring blonde haired people. This country of cannibals believed that it was their destiny to bring the Cook Book to the world and it dreamed of the day when its armed forces were strong enough to bring down the degenerate West and its blonde haired puppet masters (who secretly run the world by the way).
Any criticism of their way of life was met by accusations of Western imperialism and aggression. How dare we question their Cook Book and the 1001 recipes. Anyone who questions the sacred recipes must die! Its religious leaders ordained death sentences against anyone who dared question the Cook Book and blaspheme against the Holy Cook, the founder of their laws and culture.
This is an absurd example, of course, but I mean to illustrate a point, which is that just because something is normal in a society, does not make it right. There are basic norms of human behaviour and decency which transcend national borders.
Surely in this example we could say that these people, and this hypothetical country were mad, barbarians. And would it be wrong to try to stop these abuses, even if force were necessary? Sometimes it is necessary to confront evil.
By the way, I am not American.
Let us not imagine this scenario, because it is not historical.
I think you are wrong in attempting to link cultural practices with moral authority in the way that you have done.
I would agree if you said that we had the moral authority to thwart any direct or indirect military advances or posturing by other countries who were attempting to invade our culture and replace it by force.
Your moral authority reads almost like a 21st century version of Manifest Destiny coupled with imperialism and a tad of Social Darwinism.
My point in using a non-historical, but extreme example was to show the fundamental flaw in cultural relativism. If all cultural practices must be accepted, as just being different but morally equivalent, then it follows that even in the case of a Cannibal Society we would not have the moral authority to say that eating people is not okay (provided, as you suggest, that they left us alone and did not invade us).
By the way, the example is not completely unhistorical. Some South Pacific islanders practiced cannibalism into the 1800's. If they had not stopped but instead continued to the present day, would we be forced to say that their cannibalism was okay because this is something they have always done and any attempt to convince them otherwise smacks of manifest destiny and social darwinism?
If I get enough people together and form our own country based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Holy Cook Book, would it be okay if we served up some Soylent Green ?
I am sure that the answer is no. So I hope too that we can agree that burying women up their heads and then stoning them to death because they committed "adultery" by simply talking to another man (as often happens in Iran) or hanging men because they are gay (as also happens routinely in Iran) is indeed a backwards and primitive way to behave and will hopefully be replaced with more humane behaviour through social evolution.
By the way, my comments are not meant as a critique of Islam as such, but rather the oppressive theocratic governments.
There is such a country, except it is not blond haired people - is is albinos. They are hunted down, murdered and/or mutilated for body parts. Some are eaten. Inedible parts (e.g. hair) are woven into the fabric of fishing nets for its magical luck-bringing properties. Legs are hacked off with machetes because the femur of an albino is particularly prized.
But because this country is sitting on no reserves of oil or uranium, we don't confront this evil. Instead we demonise oil rich countries to justify oil theft.
I hope you are being facetious. If not, please let me know where this is. As an albino myself (though not many people know my identity because I hide behind carefully applied makeup) I am particularly afraid of Albino Eaters. I would hate to stumble onto this country by mistake.
I exaggerated slightly by implying that the practice is State policy. Of course it is not. However, it is real, and growing, in Tanzania. Check out this article, and don't visit the country without your make-up. http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes … 71120.html
Misha I think makes valid points. Though maybe Islam wasn't actually saying that they would come and destroy our homes, but that the message would be preached so that everyone would know them and what they believe.
The same thing is said for christians as well, they say the message will be preached throughout the world.
I personally don't believe that the East would do such a thing unless incited to do so because America wants to protect itself from "possible" threats. So who knows the whole thing could because America is also a very paranoid country and the East is a very paranoid country.
At least it seems this way to me. I think we need better communication, but niether leaders of thiers nore ours trust that each would keep their word.
I think the hole thing is creepy and scary, and not that I like to talk about prophecy so much because I don't want those things to happen ever!...
But also when it comes to that prophecy stuff, I though I understood that the talk of wars were nothing to worry about. I could be wrong, probaly am wrong.
You don't really sound like one
I definitely understand what you are saying, and there were times when I was thinking exactly like you. However, my life experience hinted me to re-think my approach. Nowadays I think that using force in such cases is not beneficial on balance, to both sides.
I would just let them be. I don't feel being qualified to objectively decide what cultural trait is good and what is bad on a great scale of things, and which is worse and which is better. I won't say they are mad, or barbarians, I would just say - this is their way of life...
If oppressive Theocratic Governments were able to gain enough tactical power through surrogates in the Middle East - such as Hezbollah and other groups - would we then be justified to question their intentions in relation to ours? If Turkey's leaders turned it into a Theocratic State similar to Iran's - which the President has said he wishes to do - then how many states would have to become Oppressive Theocratic States - before we began to understand we are talking about actions instead of rhetoric?
If we were to decide - in that future hypothetical scenario - that the events had gone past a point of no return - what if anything could we be morally justified in doing?
For example: Iran's rhetoric turns into a wider allied movement with Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq (after the withdrawal) with the intention of enforcing Islam in their narrow interpretation - on the adjoining Muslim nations - and with the intention of spreading it worldwide - as their meetings, rallys and foreign policy state?
Or what if - it is not enforced - but rather the Muslim nations of the Middle East in some unknown configuration start voluntarily unifying along the lines of the Iranian Theocratic State's model - with the same view of the Mahdi and Mahdism?
At what point do we say hey; this isn't a fantasy any more - it is a real historical event that threatens the stability and security of the West? This by the way - is historical and there are numerous precedents for it - in Islam. And it was done in times when the West did not threaten them as a culture or religion.
Wow. I thought you were kidding. This is really sad. And a sad commentary on the human race, that such barbarism and superstition endures. I guess the cult of the Holy Cook Book may find some disciples after all.
That article is called "Turkey bows to the dark side".
It ends like this "Years from now, Ahmadinejad's visit to Istanbul will be remembered as the tipping point at which the West lost Turkey, and Turkey lost its soul."
So I think it's fair to deduce the leanings of the writer. It is, after all, in an Opinion column.
The writer is disposed to see Turkey's hospitality towards Iran as the end of the West's relationship with Turkey.
A more circumspect writer might have seen it as the opening of a bridge to Iran.
I'll respond to your first post a little later. On the Turkey article - it is written from the perspective that the leader has said he wishes to make Turkey an Islamic Republic along the Iranian Line. He and many of us - see this as a first step towards making many of the Middle Eastern countries Republics along the Iranian Line. If so - then what they may be opening up is a can of worms.
It doesn't hurt to have an opinion about it either way. But if you look at the past relationship of Iran to the US - since the Revolution; we have at the very least a microcosm for concern rather than hope - I would think.
Yes, and on the same day, in the news you'd have noticed that talks have again started in reunifying Cyprus as part of the plan to remove obstacles to Turkey joining EU. Turkey is an ambivalent state, pulled both ways. It's unwise to stop dialogue from the west unless you want to push them towards Iran.
I couldn't agree with this more. TURKEY is the key to all of it. Which way will it ultimately go? (according to the Islamic prophecies - it eventually goes Islamic and is part of the union of the Caliph/Mahdi)
And according to the Ezekiel Prophecies - it is one of the 10 nations which unifies and comes against Israel.
So both Islam & Bible Prophecies agree - from opposite views.
Prophecies aside - the EU's 2 major states - France and Germany are dead set against having Turkey in the Union. One of the reason the Mediterranean Union was formed by Sarkozy (France) was to bring Turkey into a broader Mediterranean/EU group - first. In my mind - it is second best and convinces Turkey they will never be let into the EU. What we may be seeing is Turkey seeing the handwriting on the wall - and thus - it's seemingly sharp turn towards Russia/Iran/Syria. (Read the first paragraph at this link)
Whatever it is - I think we'll know for sure soon.
I am in the Antiques business. A woman friend of mine has been going there for 17 years, many times per yr - her husband is Turk - and says the last 7 years have completely changed Turkey from a staunch secular state to a more traditional Islamic state - and it's rapidly moving farther. She loves Turkey and Turks but now she feels out of place when she walks down the streets. She's blonde and campy. She's irreligous. Could care less about God.
The recent Supreme Court rulings against the Secular Generals also bears this out. No one can quite figure out how to get them into a Christian Heritage EU.
Prophecy Teacher - That's a long post.I'll respond to it but not in kind, for the following reasons:
1. You've made a study of historical detail which I have not, so, without doing more research than I have time for, I can't comment on the validity of your history.
2. You indulge heavily in historicism, and not only historicism but theological historicism. As I'm sure you know, historicism is a belief in 'forces' at work through history, such forces being dominant over the people who enact the parts. Theological historicism takes this a stage further in interpreting historical events (retrospectively) as the fulfillment of biblical prophesy. As I think you know, I reject both forms of historicism, especially the latter, as logically untenable. I have read Popper's 'Poverty of Historicism' and consider it the nail in the coffin of both these flawed approaches. I commend it to you without reservation.
OK - at the very start of your post you say:
-The prophecies in the Bible do not say this future leader will unite the world in an Islamic Body-
This is hardly surprising. They also don't refer to Communism or Capitalism. There's a very good reason for that - rather like Islam, they hadn't been invented. They also don't refer to Buddhism. It had been invented, and for centuries, but as local parochial 'prophets' the biblical guys had never heard of it. When they talk about the 'world' they mean their little bit of it.
Later you go on to mention Bunyan. I like John Bunyan. The Pilgrim's Progress is a riot and the best thing ever to come out of Bedford Jail. The characterisation, action and imagination, coupled with the quaint early Englishness of it all, make it stand out as a true classic of literature. But Bunyan had the sense not to prophesy. It was historical and allegorical, but he confined himself to one man's spiritual journey through life, negotiating giants, lions, Appolyon, Giant Pope, etc. He (John Bunyan) is buried in Bunhill Fields, London's Non-Conformist cemetery, less than 30 yards from William Blake and Daniel Defoe. Every day, people leave flowers on Blake's grave. Nobody bothers with Bunyan much. I always give him a nod, for old times' sake. Just across the road is John Wesley's house and chapel. I passed this way every day for a year (on foot). Nice spot. But the Johns, Bunyan and Wesley, are dead. Their time has passed.
Samuel Wesley and Samuel Sebastian Wesley wrote some of the best non-Catholic church music that we have to this day. I'm willing to bet that without his musically brilliant family, John's Methodism wouldn't have made half the inroads it did.
But show me the prophesy that says Methodism shall be carried on wings of song.
The Reformation as you say, led to the dissemination in modern language of scripture. Not least because there was nothing much else to disseminate. The only people copying manuscripts had been monastic scribes. They'd have loved to have transcribed Shaw's Man and Superman, but it hadn't been written yet. It was inevitable, therefore that there would be an extended period of obsession with deconstructing Catholic teachings in the light of newly acquired information. But show where the printing press was prophesied? Not in Jeremiah.
And so on and so forth. There is no such thing as prophesy. Historicism is void.
Today, we have an unfortunate number of people of various persuasions who believe in Biblical or Koranic prophesy. Some, as you correctly point out, believe it incumbent on them to help their preferred prophesies to come to fruition. The chances are they will all fail because misguided and fanatical people usually do fail. They might, like Hitler, have a period of apparent success, but, like Hitler, they will sow the seeds of their own downfall in the hatred and contempt they generate in the hearts of those whom they oppress. So much is simple.
So, "do you think that Mahdism as believed by Islamists - is the movement called the Antichrist?"
As Someone once said - "The words are yours"
It is common sense that Luther a Catholic Monk - and any clergy could read the Bible in Latin. But the common people did not - and originally Luther had no idea of other ways of looking at the scripture in ways the Catholic Church did not. It happened over time. These new ways were logically deduced. You may believe they deduced them wrongly - but I am not here to debate salvation or church theology - and won't. Prophecy only.
Luther's revolution began at his University with his students, faculty and then the city where his first followers were from. My points were much simpler than what you are attempting to show. You are defending Catholicism and I am showing common language understandings created Prophetic doctrines. I'm not trying to defend any or oppose any. I am showing that that is what led to the Historical Method of interpretation of PROPHECY. (My entire post was essentially that. That that method began the Protestant view of who the Whore and the 10 nations were. THAT is my only point.
Luther did not understand the book of Revelation. It is the only book he did not do a commentary on. But he said IF IT COULD be understood - it would most likely have to be understood as a historical view of church history past and future. OTHERS -over the next several decades did that - and the Historical Method was birthed.
In my post - I said they did not believe they were in the end times THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT IT.
A printing press does not care if it is a Catholic or Protestant printing press - so what is the point of showing that Guttenburg was Catholic? My point was that the press is what allowed Luther to make his views heard to the common man. And then the common man responded.
Will Durant - the greatest Historian of the 20th century also says emphatically - that without the printing press - the reformation would have been impossible. (Durant was an atheist -so he doesn't have a religious bone in the dog fight)
So it was the press which spread the views of both Grace and Prophecy that ultimately led to a wider revolution in thinking - which ultimately led to the Historical Method.
So my points are simple. I was talking about prophecy ONLY and how the Historical Method came to be. I wasn't saying it was a Catholic thing or a Protestant thing - or even - that I believe in the Historical Method which I don't. My point was the method produced the interpretation of the Papacy as the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation and who they thought the 10 nations were - and from that proof - explained it's history to the present day. I think I did an excellent job in doing it. I think people need to understand it in order to talk to Protestants who discuss Prophecy and end times which so many do.
You are welcome to defend Catholicism but I will not debate it. Nor will I debate Protestantism. But I'll talk about Prophecy all day long.
Finally, the Historical Method is a complex way of explaining all of church history in mostly PAST historical events - such as Mahommedism, Papacy, plagues wars etc. I did not go into detail because I only wanted to show the long historical duality of Papacy and Islam - and how it relates to Mahdism and the Antichrist - which is what our discussion is about.
But thanks for the printing information - some of that I didn't know. The Geneva Bible with extensive footnotes was the first English Bible - not the King James years later.
Why would you say just the Papacy? If you are going to say that you might as well say Christianity in general has similarities with Islam. There is bound to be similarities seeing Jews, Muslims and Christians were once none as the people of the book. Actually Freemasons are closer to duality with Islam. They even where Arab close (33rd degree shriner).
I believe Muslims call the antichrist the dajjal so Mahdism can't be to the antichrist I don't think. I've also read that Muslims believe that Jesus will return to overthrow the dajjal or antichrist which is similar to Christianity.
Quote from this site http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Mahdism
"The Mahdi will be preceded by al-Dajjal, a Muslim antichrist, who will be slain by Jesus. This belief is not rooted in the Qur'an but has its origins in Jewish ideas about the Messiah and in the Christian belief of the second coming of Jesus."
Same story as Christianity, the antichrist has to show his face before the second coming of Jesus Christ.
So if this is the case then it looks like you don't need to fret about the Mahdi if you are looking forward to the second coming of Christ.
But we should get it from a Muslim.
Question to Muslims?
Does Mahdism in Islam mean the same as Jesus Christ in Christianity?
Is Mahdi Jesus or someone else?
You misunderstand my point.
Protestants saw Islam and the Papacy as fulfilling prophecy - against them. And in the last days these two forces would essentially rule the world.
Islam and the Papacy have not gone away. They are both ancient - the POLITICAL POWER of both was lost - Islam with it's Caliph - and Papacy with it's Pope - both appeared to have been vanquished with Napolean for the one - and WW1 for the other.
And here we are - 21st century - they are BOTH ascendant again.
Islam attempting Political unity - under a Caliph/Mahdi
Papacy attempting religious unity as head of the Churches
They don't have anything in common - but they are still here - when neither should have survived - AS POLITICAL POWERS.
That's drawing a long bow - I don't think the Pope would seriously covet ownership of the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Exclusive Brethren, let alone the Shinto, Buddhist, and Hindu billlions.
You are right Jenny, the Pope does not covet ownership of the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Exclusive Brethren, Shinto, Buddhists, and Hindus. At least not while they are in that religion.
But Prophet Teacher is right when he says this,
Some people get them mixed up.
1) Unity of Christians of all Denominations is the World Council of Churches.
Quote from it's web site http://www.oikoumene.org/en/who-are-we.html
"The World Council of Churches (WCC) is the broadest and most inclusive among the many organized expressions of the modern ecumenical movement, a movement whose goal is Christian unity."
The unity is among all Christian denominations that believe in the Trinity. Let's face it the original goal of the universal church from the time of Christ, about 2000 years ago has been to bring the Word of God to all people and nations. And as the Bible says we are to be as one. That does not mean that a Catholic can practice their faith in say a Methodist Church. But the Catholic Church now believes that all Christian denominations that believe in the Trinity are part of the universal church, even if they do not know it themselves, simply because they speak the Word of God. How can the Catholic Church not believe that when most Christians do not even know the history of the Reformation, they can't be blamed for it. A denomination means a part of, whether it is in full union or not.
2) Unity/Harmony of all religions - even non Christian ones is the Spirit of Assisi.
I'd like to specifically quote these sentences from this commentary on the Spirit of Assisi http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features … _oct06.asp
"Benedict himself refers to this issue in his Regensburg Lecture. What seems to be meant is rather that when a religion appears to justify arbitrary violence, it must be rejected as a false religion. Only true religions are heralds of peace."
The Spirit of Assisi was troubling to many Christians including Catholics and myself. Especially when we seen a Hindu worship preformed at, of all places the Chapel at the Fatima Shrine a couple of years ago. A lot of Catholics just refused to believe this even happened seeing it is against our First Commandment, "to not put other gods before Me". But it did happen and it was on Portuguese news broadcasts. How could Catholics that believed it happen not think that it was a desecration of the Chapel at the Fatima Shrine. Since then the Chapel at the Fatima Shrine has been re-consecrated. But the rector of the Fatima Shrine was clearly in error for allowing it to happen to begin with.
Going back to what Pope Benedict said "when a religion appears to justify arbitrary violence, it must be rejected as a false religion" must include any parts of militant Islam as well as Christians, particularly Christian Zionists or any other group that calls itself a religion but preaches war.
I watched Palin's speech last night and you could clearly read "more war" into her speech at the same time she refers to herself as a Christian hockey mom. I thought the speech was scary. Pope John Paul said that God will punish the perpetrators of the Iraq war. If the Republicans get in in November and start more wars I have no doubt that Pope Benedict will say something similar to what Pope John Paul said. In the Bible we learn that in the end days there will be wars and rumors of wars and false prophets. If the Republicans get in and start more wars then the Republican christain right will be know as false prophets. The excuse that the best defense is a good offense only applies in sports like football and hockey. When applied to war this term means that you are the aggressor, you are starting the war, just like we seen in Iraq.
3) But there is a third option. And I'm sorry Prophecy Teacher but this third option, the Fatima story or Heaven's Key To Peace <snipped link to money-making forum> can not be taken out of the equation.
In 2000, when Pope Benedict who was then Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, some how the Fatima story and Heaven's Key To Peace got relegated to the past. Mean while millions of Catholics had been waiting for God's Heavenly request to be performed properly for decades. For some reason God's Heavenly request has been shelved to be replaced by ecumenicism, even though the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council of the 1960 has shown very few "fruits" (this was not meant to be a pun).
A lot of people believe that there is not much time left for God's Heavenly request to be performed properly. The consequences of not performing God's Heavenly request properly are dreadful. God's Heavenly request is a very simple procedure. This is not just a concern for Catholics. Every person on this planet whether they be Atheist, Hindu, Agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian or whatever has a right to petition the Pope to request that Heaven's Key To Peace <snipped link to money-making forum> is properly performed. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. What could it hurt? Please consider it.
So, we just have to make money? lol
How very christian of you
Although, at least you are honest about it Make Money..........
* Wanders off in to the distance muttering "scumbag, lying christian, money lenders......" *
If only you hadn't left that link to earn-cash-make-money-online.cun.....
' the past relationship of Iran to the US - since the Revolution; we have at the very least a microcosm for concern rather than hope - I would think.' US Britain overthrows the gov of
Iran 1953, installs the Shaw and the Savac, the most brutal secret police in the world at the time. Iranian revolution. US
promises aid if Saddam Hussein attacks Iran. One million was it that were killed. US invades Iraq. US in Afghanistan. US in the gulf, with maybe the biggest naval armada ever, right now. Yes, 'at the very least a microcosm for concern rather than hope'.
I can't argue with any of that and won't. My post did not draw the position we are right or they are wrong. It pointed out reactions - which I didn't express clearly enough. (I think)
Or better; if the US left the Middle East and let Iran alone - what kind of state would it be? Would it then leave Israel alone? Would it then leave the US alone and drop it's rhetoric that we are the personification of evil? Would it give up it's goal of a greater Fundamentalist Sharia Based Middle East? Probably not - and we are not the cause of that.
So only the context would change. I know you and paraglider would differ with this and I understand that. I truly understand your point of view on this. But I think Iran's regime has a lot more to do with Fundamentalism and Mahdism more than American Policies. No doubt our policies have a lot to do with the predicament we find ourselves in - but I believe the predicament exists regardless.
If you have read some of my hubs on the subject - you'll see that many have believed this Russian Islamic Fundamentalist axis MUST form - and draw the world into an total East West split. It is not a new idea; it goes back to at least the 50's. Take a look at this other article - and tell me if we are seeing the point of view of the author - or are we seeing a real strategic shift in the Middle East. I would be very interested in reading your point of view.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … 1108.story
Yeah for sure when Russia is brought into the picture. That is what they are saying on the 2nd and 3rd web pages in this article.
http://www.earn-cash-make-money-online. … pic=1457.0
But the article goes on to say that there may be a solution to avoid any war. I've read what you have written. I'd appreciate it if you read the rest of the article. It certainly would not hurt to try the solution whether it worked or not, don't you think?
"The Mahdi will be preceded by al-Dajjal, a Muslim Antichrist, who will be slain by Jesus."
Hi Mike. In Islam al-Dajjal is not Muslim - he is Jewish. In other Muslim beliefs - he is not a person but a belief. And finally, in others, He is both a person and a belief.
According to Islamic Prophecy - The Antichrist has one eye. Some take that to mean it is a Jewish Leader with one eye. Other muslims have speculated that he is a Jewish Leader who leads the Western world in an evil carnal belief system.
In any event, the Radical Islamists perceive America as the Antichrist and Israel as a smaller Antichrist. In their belief system - they believe the Jews run the world anyway. So the speculation goes that a Jewish leader will arise to rule the Western world from Israel - and he is either one eyed or the system is one eyed since it is evil and does not see the true religion -Islam. (The two real ones and the spiritual one - since the West does not see Islam it is blind - one eyed)
Jesus - in Islam - IS NOT - the same as Jesus in Christianity. In Islam his name is ISA. Isa is a prophet - the most revered besides Mohammad. ISA/Jesus preformed miracles, lived on earth and was taken into heaven alive without dying. Judas died in his place on the cross. Isa/Jesus was not God - and he was not the son of God. He was only a man. He will come back at the end days to the minaret of a Mosque in Damascus Syria on a Friday while prayers are going on - will live out his interrupted life for 40 more years. When they see him - they will instantly recognize him and ask him what to do.
He will immediately go to Israel and slay the Jewish Antichrist at Lydda (about where the Tel Aviv airport is). After this - Isa/Jesus will meet with the Mahdi, the righteous Caliph - who will be at Gibralter in a Jihad war. When offered the highest place - Isa will decline and bow at the feet of the Mahdi and become His prophet and do great miracles. At that point - the Islamic world unites - and attacks the forces of Antichrist - and Rum (Rome) will fall.
In a nutshell that's it.
The Bible shows the events happening the opposite way. The world will be brought into a world war that will kill 3/4ths of the world's people by an Antichrist (who denies Jesus was God) and who has a False Prophet who does great miracles and the miracles deceive the world into following the Antichrist. This Antichrist and the false prophet attempt to kill all Christians, Jews and anyone who does not take their mark and worship their God. Not only Christians - but anybody who opposes them dies by being beheaded.
But BEFORE these events happen - the nations which the Antichrist begins his rule from in order to begin his wars - are a group of ten nations surrounding Israel. These ten are of one mind. They hate an entity called the Whore (Presumably this is a Western world entity led from Israel) After they unite into a 10 nation union - they rule together for "a little while." And then they give their power to the Antichrist when he comes. When he comes - the wars start.
The Shiite believe this man is the Mahdi.
The Sunni believe he is the Divinely Guided Caliph
In any event - he conquers the world for Islam.
I will make a post showing the comparisons later.
Mike concerning the Papacy - it has nothing to do with Islam. According to the Historical View - it is one of two entities. Some today believe the Papacy's drive to unite the religions and rule from Rome - which is clearly happening - is what the Islamic Prophecies call the Antichrist (al-Dajal) - and what Revelation calls the Whore. (Because it unifies non-Christian religions into one world unity)
There are two Papal movements
1) Unity of Christians all Denominations
2) Unity/Harmony of all religions - even non Christian ones
Those that believe it is the Whore differ.
Some say it is religious only.
Others say it is both religious and political
Some say it will include all the West which ultimately absorbs Israel in a Nato thing - or a greater EU-American alliance thing. But whatever one believes - one can not help but pay attention to what has happened to Catholicism in our day since Vatican 2.
We shouldn't go into it here - but if you like we can start another thread on the religion forum about the radical changes and the split in Catholicism between the Historic and the Modern. I know you have a lot of knowledge about it. I want you to know I was born and raised a Catholic and many of my family still are. I have been Protestant for 25 yrs. But I do understand the radical changes since 62.
But we've had one of them in Moshe Dayan - what a missed opportunity to bring about the end of the world!
I think most Muslims as well as a lot of Christians believe the system of the anti-christ (or dajjal) will be set up prior to the time when the anti-christ shows his face. Personally I believe that we are under the control of the system of the anti-christ right now. He still has to show his ungly puss though before the second coming of Jesus Christ, as I'll show in a minute.
It is not just Muslims that believe the anti-christ (or dajjal) could be Jewish. A lot of Christians do as well. Christians come to this not just through the Bible in 2 Thessalonians 2 verses 3 to 5 but also with what has been happening lately.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
The King James Bible says the same http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
These good old boys sure do show their concern for it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-m73iaP … re=related
It's not a secret that the Israel Lobby holds major sway in the U.S. media and politics. And to a lesser effect in other parts of the world.
It's not a secret that some Jewish zionists have plans to rebuild the third temple on the Temple Mount, the third most holiest site in Islam, before the coming of their Messiah. Some even think their Messiah is here already.
The Sanhedrin has been re-established and on goes the preparation http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.ph … _Sanhedrin
But this does sound troubling,
Why on earth would Jesus decline and bow at the feet of anyone?
I see we have not had a reply by any Muslims to the two questions that I asked on the previous page.
No you are confusing the World Council of Churches with the Spirit of Assisi PT.
PT regarding your long post with the letter from the Catholic it is clear that the Catholic writing that letter is from the SSPX, the Society of St. Pius X. The SSPX is a very traditional Catholic organization started by Bishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970. Father Lefebvre was excommunicated. The SSPX compare the Council of Trent, which was a dogmatic council from 1545 which states "Outside the Church There is No Salvation", the SSPX compare it to the Second Vatican Council. You have to take into consideration that the Council of Trent in 1545 was held while the bloody Reformation was taking place. Again seeing most Christians do not know the history of the Reformation the Church is now saying that all Christians that believe in the Trinity are part of the universal church.
I read the American Cardinal Kasper's letter myself and felt kind of confused about some things in it. But the bottom line is that it won't be Pope Benedict, Cardinal Kasper, Bishop Lefebvre or you or I that sits in judgment. Only Jesus Christ will decide our salvation.
PT was that you or Mark that got my link to the Heaven's Key To Peace article snipped? Looks like it was Mark with his remarks. Don't matter.
Okay I need to explain. I have this forum that I am trying to make some money with because I am disabled. But I am not making any money with it, everyone just comes to post their ads free. Also my Hub profile name is Make Money because I originally joined Hubpages for that purpose. I read that some people are doing well by posting Hubs. Well my first Hub was disqualified. And I'm no longer with that online program that I wrote the original Hub about. So I gave up on trying to make any money with Hubpages (my adsense account was disqualified a year ago last Feb. too). And because I am not making any money with my forum I posted the article about something that I feel is much more important in it, Heaven's Key To Peace.
I can't seem to win for losing.
Anyway for anyone that is interested in reading the article about Heaven's Key To Peace they can go to my forum from my Hubpages profile, scroll down to the No Joke category and read the article titled Miracles and Prophecies. You don't need to register to the forum to read the article and I will swear on a Bible that I won't make a penny.
PT you didn't comment on me saying that the Republican Christian right will be called false prophets if they get in in November and start more wars.
Given today's political climate Mike, I thought it was a given.
So are you saying McCain, Palin and the Republican Christian religious right are false prophets?
I'd just like to add that most members of the SSPX are sedevacantist.
This is just conjecture.
Assume that the whole world is already in a state of apostacy.
According to the Bible the next thing to come would be the antichrist.
What would you do?
Would you suggest more war?
What good what it do?
Personally I wouldn't go anywhere.
I'd say the same as Peter when Jesus asked "Will you also go away?" Peter replies "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God."
Having studied all prophecy by any religion covering the last 2000 years - and prophecy by mystics of all stripes; Hopi, Mayan, Aztec - new age Cayce, Dixon etc - and the Catholic Mystics; I am very familiar with the Fatima Appearances and their suggested reason.
"consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary"
But we should put that on the other forum. I was under the impression that all three secrets had been revealed and the last one to Pope John Paul - and he claimed the third one was fulfilled when he was shot. Evidently you don't believe that.
(I will start a thread for you and post this there - don't discuss it here)
Yep - many Islamic Prophecy people thought it was him. But I think the majority believe it is a system led by a man. I have read several Muslim debates about it - they rule out a one eyed man. The actual Hadith concerning it are so numerous - no one knows which ones are valid. I think because of this - many radicals use the term generically as the West and Israel. In their verbiage they see the Mahdi destroying the dajjal - the West.
Here is a typical exchange from Muslims talking about Prophecy. These are lay people but you can clearly see it is on their minds. This is a Sunni site but you can see they have internalized the Shia Mahdism teaching and are not put off by it. After reading the cut out - you can see the link and look at the discussion. In the cut out - I have snipped a part where the poster has reasoned the Mahdi needs a power base. He asks the question how can this be and where will it come from? He does not know the Bible says he will take over a 10 nation confederacy. But the question shows he understands the need.
This is one I just looked up this minute online. It's not unique. There are hundreds of discussions like this all over the Islamic World.
"I want u to ask urself something, why do we DESERVE someone like Imam Mehdi if all of us arent doing enough to help our fellow muslims? Do u honestly think that we can just sit back and let all this happen and wait for this miraculous man to come and save us. No my friend. It doesnt work like that. Dont u think we need to show Allah that we deserve someone of such magnitude? Dont worry im not blaming u for anything im just stating all this as a point for people who read this comment page. I have read quite alot about Imam Mehdi however im not 100% convinced. I mean think about it, how will Imam Mehdi do all the good which has been prophesized all on his own? Surely he will need some sort of base or foundation to work on? You have to bear in mind he wont be a Prophet, he will just be an ordinary MAN like us. I think if he was to come WE would need to supply that foundation for him to act upon. All im saying is that i cant understand how muslims can just sit back and wait for this miraculous leader to come while so many muslims die all over the world. So right now i dont know what to think, all i want to do right now is to find a way to bring peace to the middle east instead of just sitting around waiting for someone to come and "save us". I suggest u read up about the Dajjal and when he will come and what the conditions will be at the time. The way things are going right now we are doing just what the Dajjal wants. Instead of laying down the foundation for Imam Mehdi we are infact doing quite the opposite and are doing it for the Dajjal instead. My plea to muslims all over the world is to WAKE UP before its too late!"
My Longbow has a big arrow
The Papacy is for Unity as long as the Papacy is the head: but in order to be the head - it had to reject historic Catholic Truths. (In effect - it whored itself in 1962 says Fundamentalist Catholics)
Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005
""""This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost; the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world. On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”"""
In other words - the Catholic Church is the head and can never NOT be the head - but it doesn't mean you have to renounce your own Faith Way of believing in order to be unified with Catholicism.
That's historical heresy. Plain and simple. This has been said many ways and at many times over the last 30 years. This is just one quote. John paul said the same and Vatican II did as well.
Fundamentalist Catholics clearly understand the difference between pre-1962 and post-1962. EVERYTHING CHANGED.
Mike, Jenny - above where I separated the 2 fronts of the Papacy - I did so to show that they are seemingly unrelated. But they are not. In fact - they are the same thing expressed 2 different ways. If unity among the churches can be achieved without SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE - then unity among all religions can be so as well.
There is nothing to separate the Church from the world.
The difference between Protestant and Catholic is this question alone. Grace or Works. The Papacy decided what once was nonnegotiable - is now irrelevant. THAT - is what has allowed many churches to embrace ecumenicism with open arms. You don't have to become a Catholic to be saved. That's why we see so much apologizing in the religions. They are apologizing for what they did from believing what they used to believe.
Below is a clip from those who believe the post 1962 Papacy world view is heretical and left traditions 2000 years old. It's hard to argue with. Therefore - something else must be going on.
This is written by Catholics.
An Introduction to False Ecumenism and some comments on Heretical Actions
*Ecumenism is a word that was used before Vatican II to indicate the apostolic endeavor to convert all to Catholicism. An “ecumenical” Council is a universally binding general Council of the Catholic Church, such as the Council of Trent. But after Vatican II and as a result of it the term has taken on a new meaning: “ecumenism” now describes the movement to unite with, accept, endorse and/or pray with heretical sects and false religions.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity: “… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001)
Kasper was appointed specifically to this post by John Paul II to express his views on this very topic. This is because John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who both worked closely with Kasper, held the exact same thing.
Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world. Other the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)
Here we see Benedict XVI bluntly stating that he absolutely rejects the “ecumenism of the return,” that is, that non-Catholics must reject their own Protestant “faith” and convert to Catholicism for unity! Benedict XVI boldly repeats the heresy of Kasper, and bluntly rejects the dogmatic teaching contained in Mortalium Animos on the necessity of the ecumenism of “the return” to the Catholic Church! “Absolutely not!” says Benedict XVI to the idea of Protestants needing to convert! Benedict XVI couldn’t be more formally heretical.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”
This kind of false ecumenism is the distinguishing feature of the Vatican II apostasy, and it is totally condemned by Catholic teaching. It makes a complete mockery out of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation (an article of Faith defined many times), the necessity of accepting the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, the martyrs of the Catholic Faith, and Jesus Christ.
So the obvious question arises - what the heck is going on and what does it mean for the future?
So you are mistaken when you say the Pope does not want those religions while they are in those religions - the Pope doesn't care if they remain in the religion - as long as the have a "heartfelt understanding of the Divine" and recognize the true leadership of the Papacy as the one Church's head.
Can't we all just get along? My way. I'll give up my historic requirement that ONLY the Catholic Church has salvation - if you'll give up your apprehension about us being the Universal Apostolic Church. If so, then we can harmonize our doctrines. If you do not agree with us - that's ok. It's not necessary.
Israel was called a whore and an adulterer by all the old prophets because they worshiped the gods of the people around them. They had mingled Judaism with Idolatry - and worshiped both. Many believe that the Whore in Revelation is talking about an end time religious body of mixed religions whose various doctrines are conjoined to an apostate Christianity led by a single head.
Another quote by Fundamentalist Catholics who believe Historic Catholicism has been hijacked. It's hard to argue against.
The Vatican II sect wants you to be in communion with Devils
The Catholic Church teaches that there is only one true religion and the rest are false. The Catholic Church teaches that pagan religions (such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Voodooism, etc.), which worship various “gods,” actually worship demons, since all the gods of the heathen are the devils.
Psalms 95:5- “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…”
1 Cor. 10:20- “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”
St. Paul says that when the pagans worship their gods they are worshipping devils, and he doesn’t want you to be in communion with devils. The Vatican II sect, however, endorses these false religions which commit idolatry and worship devils. This is unspeakably evil; it is a total rejection of the teaching of the Gospel and the Catholic Church, and it is condemned as apostasy by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.
At the notorious interfaith “ecumenical prayer gatherings” – the most well-known occurring at Assisi in 1986 and 2002 – religious leaders from all the major false religions were invited to pray alongside John Paul II at a “Catholic” church.
Each religion was invited to offer its own prayer for peace – blasphemous prayers, for instance, as the Hindu prayer said: “Peace be on all gods.” But their gods are devils, as we saw above, so peace was being prayed for all the devils (who created these false religions) at the Vatican-sponsored World Day of Prayer for Peace. The Vatican II religion wants you to be in communion with devils.
The Vatican II Sect on Islam
Then we have the Vatican II sect’s teaching on the false religion of Islam, which rejects the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Benedict XVI and John Paul have praised Islam, a false religion of the devil. Here we see John Paul II in the Temple of infidelity (the mosque), endorsing their false religion.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434:
“Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”
The Catholic Church teaches that Islam is “an abominable sect” of infidels (unbelievers). An “abomination” is something that God abhors; it is something that He has no esteem for and no respect for.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:
“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”
The Vatican II sect, however, teaches that Islam is a good and noble religion of “believers.” This has its foundation in the teaching of Vatican II on Muslims, the real meaning of which is expressed by the heads of the Vatican II sect (John Paul II and Benedict XVI below). These apostates even encourage the spread of this abominable sect of infidels.
Pope John Paul II, Message to "Grand Sheikh Mohammed," Feb. 24, 2000: "Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam has become a culture. Christianity has become also a culture... I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture..."
Pope John Paul II, March 21, 2000:
“May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 244: “There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco...”
So the suggestion arises Catholicism's attempts to harmonize Christianity is only one front in it's bid to ultimately harmonize them to the world's religions as well. Theologically it is now possible. Over the next 50 years it might completed.
Mike - It was me that complained and asked for your link to be removed.
But if you are going to have a user name "Make Money," and then leave a link to a website entitled, "make-money-earn-cash.con" people are going to think you are here to make money.
There are any number of people using similar user names. I must admit, most of them have an avatar which is a photo of a hot sexy young girl, which you do not.
If you have changed your reasons for being here, you can always set up a new account with a different user name. No one will think any less of you for that.
Make Money and Prophecy Teacher,
There are many Christians who not only don't believe in the Trinity, they believe that the Papacy turned to the Dark Side long before 1962.
Claiming that tolerance and ecumenism are the same thing as a single Church with the Pope at its head is the most glorious example of twisting the facts to try to fit a prophecy that I have seen since someone suggested that when Jesus prophesied the Second Coming would be within the lifetime of some of the people listening to Him, he actually meant during their second lifetime after the Rapture, not their current mortal lifetime ...
People like you are the reason psychics and mediums can make a living. Confirmation bias makes the world go around ...
No problem Mark. I left instructions for anyone interested in a previous post on how to get to the Heaven's Key To Peace article anyway. By the way, happy belated birthday.
Jenny the word christian is just a word for anyone that does not follow a Christian life and keep the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Anyone can call themselves a christian. It's a different thing to actually be one. The Pope is just the earthly head of the universal church, Jesus Christ is the Head of it.
Jenny - it does your arguments no good to combine what Mike is saying - and then what I am saying - as if they are the same - and refuting them both with the same argument.
I haven't mentioned the Trinity at all - and the point of 1962 is not that it is when they "went to the dark side" but rather - when they changed their emphasis from Catholicism only - to Catholicism and then some. I have made the point 6 different ways - and only drew one conclusion.
It's no wonder you see bias and stupidity for me at every turn - no matter the point - no matter the forum; You never get the point.
It's not that I don't get your point, Prophecy Teacher, I disagree with you.
And not on any one point of argument, but on your fundamental premise.
I may have you wrong, but you appear to take a starting point which assumes that accurate prophecies were made at some point in the past.
Many prophecies have been made, and of those which were made, many have simply been false, including at least one of those made by Christ himself.
Throughout history, human being have clung to the idea that there is some certainty possible, and in the face of their anxiety, they have adored prophecies and desperately sought to twist current events to fit the wording of some or other prophecy from the past, which are all suitably vague or able to be interpreted allegorically.
This has resulted in an almost constant stream of sects, cults, and individuals proclaiming "the end is nigh" on the basis of Old Testament prophecies, The Book Of Revelation, and other derivative works.
I would go one step further than this, and say that even if I thought an accurate prophecy MIGHT have been made in the past, which I don't, but will entertain for the sake of discussion, then I would say that translation errors, cultural biases and the tendency of people to see what they want to see makes it extraordinarily unlikely that any current event IS actually the prophesied event it is claimed to be.
What's more, accurate prophecies would have been somewhat unpopular at the time they were made, so chances are the prophet would have been killed or driven out of town, and the prophecy discredited or not even recorded in the first place. Ever heard of Cassandra?
The only prophecies which ever survive are the ones which suit the interests of a ruling elite at the time. Given the nature of events in human progress, it is unlikely that any ruling elite will remain in power forever, or return to power triumphantly after a break of several thousand years, therefore we have recorded and kept the prophecies least likely to have been true in the first place, and lost or discarded the ones most likely to be true - if true prophecy were actually possible at all.
Jenny - I've tried this too. I've tried to get PT at least to acknowledge that historicism and theological historicism in particular has been seriously criticised and pretty well debunked. But he doesn't seem willing even to discuss that possibility.
Paraglider I addressed the issue you brought up above - in a post I made to Mike. I don't avoid anything. I don't. I won't. I am anxious to discuss anything I write and either defend it or change my mind.
In a nutshell - I said - I DO NOT believe in Historicism. I believe the Historicists have elements of truth in their method - but it is not satisfactory at all - as a comprehensive method.
I am what would be called a Historical Futurist. I am Amillenialist. (Some items can be found in history - and some are future yet) Almost all "fulfilled" prophecy covered long sweeps of time. It is not unlikely that "unfulfilled" prophecy has large sweeps that Historicists do not take into account (Believing like they do - that most has been fulfilled since the inception of the church)
Concerning Historicism - one can rarely find two views that are the same. However - one can find several points they all AGREE ON. (That is usually the part I agree with)
Concerning Jenny's continued inference that Jesus's remark about the end coming in His day - somehow leads to failed prophecy - shows her limited knowledge of scripture and prophecy. The issue is easily understood by even the newest students. She has repeatedly said she doesn't want to discuss this stuff so I haven't. I addressed it once when I told her she is referring to Total Preterism (a prophetic School) But the Preterist have realized what she hasn't. That Full Preterism is impossible. Therefore - they have morphed into a school called Partial Preterism. (But all that is 10th grade stuff and I only have a 9th grade education - honest).
My tone may sound sharp at times - but endless disputations that never go anywhere is difficult to continue. Even when they are addressed - no one ever says - oh, I didn't see that - or oh, I didn't know that. They just go to wherever they get this stuff and get some more.
It is similar to the Thief in the Night verse, that several on these forums have thrown up as some impregnable fortress of contradiction - or unknowability - when just reading the verses makes it's understanding self explanatory. She is attempting to quote Matthew. But there are 3 records of the conversation and all three have to agree and be harmonized.
Silence is not PROOF that I shrink from the argument she has given - but rather from the desire not to create in her an intellectual breathlessness she may not be able to recover from. And, I understand her desire not to waste time debating something she feels she can not be convinced of - because I neither want to waste mine - attempting it. It's not important to either of us although she sees it as part of my deepest psychological need. I rather think It assuages her intellect to think so of me - instead.
So be it - whatever - Obama will fix it soon.
I don't think I could live with myself if I ever showed her she can be in error. That's more responsibility than I am able to bear. I'm fragile. I'm just a Christian. The burden of my continuous and irreparable errors weighs heavy on me and I have to reserve my strength for less weightier matters; one never knows when he may have to confront Mark.
Love ya brother.
There are many prophecies in the Old Testament that came to be. They foretold of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of Israel fail to the Assyrians, the Babylonian exile of the Kingdom of Judah to name a few. Those prophecies are now a part of history. But you are right, most of those prophets were killed.
Regarding the end time prophecies I doubt if anybody will get that right. The Bible says it will come like a thief in the night. But that's another prophecy.
Yes, it will come as a thief in the night - but not for everybody. Only to those in darkness. For those in the light - it is their hope and they are looking for it. For them it does not come as a thief.
1 Thessalonians 5
King James Bible
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction comes upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
These verse like many others - are commonly misquoted. I have found that many have never really looked at most of the scriptures that deal with prophecy - or they rather vaguely recollect them. This is an example. Many non-Christians misquote this - and they usually do so in a shrug your shoulders throw up your hands - we can't know anyway - kind of resignation. From that - they argue it's pointless to debate it.
But as you can see - it is their point which is debatable - not the verses.
The brethren KNOW PERFECTLY that the Second Coming of the Lord will be as a thief in the night for unbelievers. Noah also knew that the flood was going to wipe them all away. Abraham and Lot both knew the fires were going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. In all these cases - it is/was the unbelievers who did not know.
All right - fair enough. I want to visit about what you wrote here. But now will be a bad time. I'll be tied up for 3 days or so - but when I return - I'll make an answer here. But when I do - we should make an assumption until a later time when it can be debated more fully. And that is - let's say the texts are correct and translations are no problem etc etc. Let's start with that assumption and then see what they say.
Afterward - since it's not an easy subject to talk about - we can debate the veracity of the actual texts. That way - we can narrow the subject into two issues and discuss them separately.
It will look like this.
The prophecies say this - this happened.
Are the texts which the prophecies are based on - historically accurate? And do they precede the fulfillment?
If so - how do we explain the fulfillment of prophecy.
Does that sound reasonable?
PT, you take a starting point that accurate prophecy is actually possible, and you seem to want to debate with that assumption beyond question.
I consider that a waste of time, just as you would consider it a waste of time to have a conversation which took as a given the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster as the only real deity.
It obviously gives you pleasure to feel that you are in possession of secret knowledge. It would probably give you even more pleasure if I responded by also believing you were in possession of secret knowledge, and lapped up your instruction.
However accommodating I like to be, I think the pleasure you got from that experience would be outweighed by the irritation it would cause me to spend time on something which would be ultimately fruitless.
I am willing to engage in hypotheticals of all kinds, if there seems to be even the slightest possibility of some enlightenment resulting.
However, I don't get any sense that you are anything but closed, locked into a fixed way of viewing the world, which means that no co-creation would be possible with you. No co-creation, no enlightenment.
I have limited time on this world, and as far as I have a choice, I choose to spend it where it makes a difference. Playing the breathless disciple doesn't do anyone any good, so I decline to do it.
I see your point, too
Those countries have their own cultures, different from Western, their own laws and traditions. You want them to follow your laws and traditions. Most people are like that, not only in USA of course. I can say exactly the same about the Muslim side, or any other country for that matter. The problem is - one cannot impose his culture on people of different culture without FORCING them ...
Misha You are Absolutely Right.
by retief20003 years ago
Does Obama own the coming Iraqi Islamic Republic?Obama claimed victory in Iraq. Iraq is teetering on the brink of a civil war that Muslim extremists will win. Does Obama own the collapse of Iraq since he has removed all...
by SparklingJewel9 years ago
So tell me PT, are you the only person you know that thinks about this situation as you do? The situation of prophecy concerning Islam and the West, I mean. (from the other thread). You have quoted 1 atheist that does,...
by ryankett6 years ago
The answer is no.In fact, they are the best country in the world at catching drugs smugglers. Removing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from power could see the opening up of the most important drug smuggling route in the world. I...
by Rishad I Habib2 years ago
Sorry hubbers, this crap is dedicated to Errum Fattah, my beloved Muslim Hubber who thinks that everyone (especially the Christians) are converting to Islam(& she often loves to post such lists) very fast because...
by turguman8 years ago
many people asked about islam & jihad so i brought some scripts about it to let people know that islam not only was forgiving but also put the basis of modern laws of war this is not every thing there is more &...
by sushant1435 months ago
being world one of the most populated & dominating religion, but still why so called Muslim fought war or jihad all across the world .
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.