Obama: Foreshadowing of the Antichrist?
Massive wealth redistribution will be economic policy of the Beast
World Net Daily: Under the guise of “fairness” and “equity,” Americans are getting their share of government-coerced wealth redistribution under the leadership of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, but it’s only a foreshadowing of what the whole world will witness under the rule of a coming world leader known as “the Beast,” says the author of a controversial new book, “The Islamic Antichrist.”
Author Joel Richardson is quick to point out he does not believe Obama is that future global leader – one many evangelical Christians hold will be satanically inspired. But his messianic appeal and some of his policies do foreshadow the dreaded “man of sin,” says Richardson.
“Obama’s populist message, his appeal to class envy and his overt move toward wealth redistribution find some very clear and dark echoes in the pages of the Bible,” he explains.
Richardson says the Book of Daniel reveals the Antichrist will invade the wealthy nation of Israel specifically to plunder and gain control of its commodities and wealth.
“But what is so interesting is the Bible tells us his reason for seizing this wealth is to give it away to his followers,” says the author. “While slightly more violent than Obama’s tax plan, it is no less populist in its methodology of radical wealth redistribution.”
In “The Islamic Antichrist,” Richardson, a student of Islam, exposes Western Christians to the Muslim traditions. He says most Christians have no idea of the stunning similarities between biblical Antichrist and the “Islamic Mahdi.”
“According to Islamic tradition, under the reign of the Mahdi, the Islamic religious community will be so blessed, so wealthy, that anyone who asks from the Mahdi for anything, it will be granted,” he writes.
Richardson’s book stands in stark contrast to most other popular prophecy books of the last 40 years.
The student of Islam and the Middle East says that after decades of reading popular prophecy books and even best-selling fiction like the “Left Behind” series, millions of evangelical Christians around the world are expecting the Antichrist to emerge from a revived Roman Empire, which many have assumed is associated with the Roman Catholic Church and the European Union.
Not so, argues Richardson. His book makes the case that the biblical Antichrist is one and the same as the Quran’s Muslim Mahdi.
“The Islamic Antichrist” is almost certain to be greeted in the Muslim world with the same enthusiasm as Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.” And Richardson is prepared.
He has written the book under a pseudonym to protect himself and his family.
“The Bible abounds with proofs that the Antichrist’s empire will consist only of nations that are, today, Islamic,” says Richardson. “Despite the numerous prevailing arguments for the emergence of a revived European Roman empire as the Antichrist’s power base, the specific nations the Bible identifies as comprising his empire are today all Muslim.”
Richardson believes the key error of many previous prophecy scholars involves the misinterpretation of a prediction by Daniel to Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel describes the rise and fall of empires of the future, leading to the endtimes. Western Christians have viewed one of those empires as Rome, when, claims Richardson, Rome never actually conquered Babylon and was thus disqualified as a possibility.
It had to be another empire that rose and fell and rose again that would lead to the rule by this “man of sin,” as described in the Bible. That empire, he says, is the Islamic Empire, which did conquer Babylon and, in fact, rules over it even today.
On the first day of the book’s release, it ranked No. 1 in two religion categories on Amazon and was the 465th best-selling book in the world. But you can get it autographed by the author, at no additional charge, at the WND Superstore.
Many evangelical Christians believe the Bible predicts a charismatic ruler, the Antichrist, will arise in the last days, before the return of Jesus. The Quran also predicts that a man, called the Mahdi, will rise up to lead the nations, pledging to usher in an era of peace. Richardson makes the case these two men are, in fact, one in the same.
Richardson is the co-author with Walid Shoebat of “God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible” and co-editor of “Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out.” “The Islamic Antichrist” is published by WND Books and is available autographed in the WND Superstore.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:45 am
I am so glad this book is being presented again to the public. What I loved so much about this original book, besides that fact that I believe it to be an accurate reflection of reality, is that it is presented cleanly, concisely, without a bunch of stretch to prove the point - basically exactly what one would expect from the truth - it needs no dressing.
The time is right for this book and I am praying every day for it to sweep the world…not just so Joel can reap the rewards of his hard work…but so the eyes of the lost can be opened…and the eyes of the found can be pointed in the proper direction.
The Lord told us to watch. The Lord told us we would know the signs and see it coming. The Lord said that understanding would be increased in the latter days, that we would have visions and dreams to facilitate our understanding of his Word.
That time is now. Don’t miss it.
If anyone thinks the US economy turned from good to bad in a short amount of time, watch how fast these end time events move upon us. When all is in place, the final events will sweep the planet with blinding speed. Be ready now, not tomorrow.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:09 am
water - amen and amen. The time is short
August 5th, 2009 at 10:02 am
This tag on WND about “Obama” will actually work in favor of getting the book more press. It will also bring the wrath of liberals down on Joel and they will seek to discredit and disregard both Joel and the book (think Joe the plumber) (even though absolutuely NONE of it is even remotely about or directed at Obama -it was written well before he appeared on the scene!) So, on the one hand I hope it generates enough buzz to get the book looked at in more circles, on the other I hope people will not see the book as “political” …becasue its not. Lets pray that the Lord protects the coverage about Joel and the book so that the MESSAGE can get out and be seen by the largest possible audience.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Amen, David. Joel and his family needs our prayers now more than ever.
The Lord is good, not to mention impossible to defeat. All will go according to his plan and nothing has been overlooked.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
David’s got a good point. What how this gets the political spin even though Obama probably wasn’t even in the Senate at the time it was written.
More importantly, it’s all the more reason for us to keep Joel and his family lifted up in prayer just as water said. He just became a public target with many mouths and spoken words.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
[…] UPDATE: In a follow-up article (also reposted on Richardson’s blog), WND finds a way to bring Obama into the picture […]
August 5th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I don’t kiss up to nobody, and I hate flattery, but Joel hit a homerun with this book in my opinion. Congratulations on it’s reprinting. In time this book will probably rank with The Late Great Planet Earth as regards Biblical Prophecy, and it already does in my mind.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I think it is great that the book is being republished.
I am a bit disappointed in the change in the title.
(More PC I guess )
I have to admit - The original title was powerful. It summarized the whole book in one sentence. When I read the title for the first time it hit me like a lightning bolt because of it’s implications and ramifications and because it answered certain questions that the traditional understandings of prophesy were never able to answer. No other book on Islam could have caught my attention like this title did - and I would still be in the dark regarding not only the ongoing threats of Radical Islam to the security of our country and the world but also in regard to Islam’s place in history and in prophesy.
I’m hoping that the new title will allow the book to achieve a broader audience to more than just the prophesy buffs. Thus it might possibly bring some to believe that prophesy is indeed unfolding and that it does prove that God exists and that He is actively working to fulfill the plans and intents that He so long ago foretold.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I had to laugh this week. My husband and I celebrated our 18th wedding anniversary (first and only marriage for both of us, and all of our kids were born in wedlock - we’re just oddballs I guess!LOL), and I asked him what he would like for a present. (I mean, c’mon … after 18 years, we’re getting close to the “socks and underwear” anniversary.)
Anyway, he said, “Well, I read on WND about this book. I think it’s from that guy whose website you read. I’d like that book, it looks really good.”
After chuckling a minute, I said, “Uhm, well we already have it. It’s sitting on the bookshelf. It’s just been reprinted and had a title change.”
:)
August 7th, 2009 at 1:42 am
The first time I encountered this book it was on thle internet. I was just beginning to realize what islam really was to my shocking surprise. I was surfing every type of website on islam, when I came across this book on the web in it’s entirety. Well it was about 11:00 AM when I hit it ,and I read it to the end then and there..my eyes aren’t the greatest, but I read it off the monitor screen anyway….that’s the truth. About two months later or so I got a copy for my library.
August 7th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I’m no defender of any of Obama’s policies. I oppose him on all fronts.
Still I can’t call him the antichrist.
These stories of seeing the antichrist under every rock are often a lot of fun, but they are not based on anything found in the bible. The only mentions to the term antichrist found in the bible are all found in 1 John and 2 John and in every instance it is plural–never suggesting there is one single overarching antichrist. The term antichrist is used to describe those who fall away from Christianity who deny the deity of Christ and his works. Turning the term into something to describe is a convention of man is not biblical.
August 7th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Will2,
I see what you’re saying, but I would still disagree. 1John 2:18 first describes one solitary antichrist figure before using a plural reference;
“Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that THE ANTICHRIST is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.”
The idea of one solitary antichrist is also easily seen in this passage and in other passages that describe one solitary ‘king’ or ‘beast’ or ‘man’ figure in the various books of the Bible. For instance, a few good representations of a single antichrist would be “the man of lawlessness” found in 2Thessalonians 2:3-4, or the “king” of Daniel 7:24-25, the “stern-faced king“ of Daniel 8:23-24, the “contemptible person“ in Daniel 11:21-22, and the “king” who exalts himself in Daniel 11:36-37.
These aren’t the only references, merely some of the obvious verses that identify one single antichrist figure. Coupled with 1John 2:18, I think the concept of one future antichrist is extremely biblical.
August 7th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Will2,
Also - for the record - I don’t think that Obama is the AC of the scriptures, just in case there was any question on that.
August 7th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Hello Michael,
We have some common ground, but differ quite a bit on the meaning of the term antichrist. In quoting verse 1 John 2:18 in as much that there is a “the” in the verse it all depends on which translation of the bible you look at. The less literal thought for thought translations (like NIV, NLT) make an effort to interpret some passages for you and insert the “the” in the verse. On the other hand if you look at the more literal word for word translations like NASB, ESV, ASV, HCSV, even Darby’s translation they haven’t tried to help out the writers of the bible by interpreting their writing and these translations read “you have heard that antichrist is coming.” They don’t make it look like there is a “the antichrist.” You can see that the reference is plural and confirm it by all the wording around the reference which makes plain that it is plural not singular.
As far as the other references like man of lawlessness et al are concerned it’s only man’s interpretation which tries to link them to a one singular antichrist figure the bible doesn’t tie them to the term antichrist or vice versa.
Regards,
Will
August 7th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Will,
It is true that the ESV and NASB do not have ‘the’ preceding the word ‘antichrist’, since it is only inferred by the Greek. In the Greek version of 1John 2:18, we find ‘antichrist’ spelled ANTIXPICTOC, which implies a singular entity. However, ‘antichrists’ in the same verse is spelled ANTIXPICTOI, implying multiple entities. The former is singular and the latter is plural.
So unless my rudimentary understanding of Greek is quite off, I would stick with my original point. But perhaps someone more versed in Greek can comment on this (still out there Alex?).
As far as linking all of these references to one person (antichrist, beast, man of lawlessness, stern-faced king, etc.), I think they link themselves due to the context of each respective instance. God has provided many visions for our generation to consider, and it is up to us to piece the clues together. It has always been that way.
August 8th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Greetings Michael,
I enjoy reading your interpretation and rebuttals. So know I do this in a
spirit of fun, wanting to test my interpretation against somebody’s whose
view point differs from my own (I don’t learn anything if all I read is
echoes of my own view–I enjoy other views), and glad to change my mind if you can persuade me. I once thought there was a biblical reference to a single antichrist figure myself until I started reading the bible for myself and read what smarter people than myself have written on the topic.
In regards to singular and plural usage of the term antichrist:
In the HCSV it reads 18 Children, it is the last hour. And as you have heard, “Antichrist is coming,” even now many antichrists have come. We know from this that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.”
It is obvious that John’s audience is familiar with the term antichrist since
he states they have heard it. It is beyond reason to read John’s words that “even now many antichrists have come” to claim that the term antichrist belongs exclusively to any one individual in the sense that it designates a specific person.
This is like saying “friends you have heard that Rome is coming, even now
many Roman Legions are already here.” The singular term Rome represents the plural—lots of Romans—legions of them.
Or for example in 1 John 3:7 which says “Little children, let no one deceive you!….” The Greek reference to children and you are both plural, but the reference to “one” (mEdeis) is singular; however, it is obvious it is not talking about one specific individual, but about anyone (plural) that might deceive them.
As for the term antichrist being male, you will often find designations in
Greek referring to male as in ekletos or the elect, but that is just the way
society referred to a group of people in the male sense of the word even
though the group included women also.
If you don’t try to single verse 18 out by itself, but read the verses around it for context we see the word “they” used five times in reference to the antichrists and “them” once. Clearly anyone would have to see John intends antichrist as plural and it is distorting his usage to claim the term belongs to one single individual.
You would think people would be relieved that we don’t have to worry about one super bad guy antichrist, but there seems to be a fascination for an antichrist–it’s exciting to people and entertaining and there is a
reluctance to let go of it.
As for beast, man of lawlessness, stern-faced king, et al linking themselves to one specific antichrist figure that is entirely the machinations of man and not the Word of God or the inspired writers.
Instead of dragging this out unnecessarily perhaps you could take the
instance which you think makes the best case for linking some evil doer to a “The antichrist” figure and present that and I’ll be glad to respond to it
whether I disagree or agree if you can make a good case based on what is actually in the bible. I don’t think you can find a set of bible clues to
make such a case, but it would be fun reading your best effort to that end.
Have a good day and hope you are enjoying this as much as I am! Thank you for a good debate!
Best wishes,
Will
August 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Will,
For the sake of brevity, ditto on your first paragraph, and I do understand what you’re saying. I just believe that the case for one primary antichrist figure does present itself in the Bible, albeit with some assistance from one inferior and one superior.
I doubt one could single out ‘one best case’ in scripture for this AC figure, any more than one could have singled out ‘one best case’ for Christ’s first coming. In both instances it’s the accumulation of clues from scripture that paints the full picture. Christ’s first coming could have been identified in the first century if one properly assembled the 100+ prophecies related to it, and I believe the antichrist can be identified by doing the same. Some of those clues I mentioned earlier, but there are more, and many of those refer to an individual ‘king’, and not just a beast ‘kingdom’.
I’m not persuaded that the Greek ANTIXPICTOC (“instead anointed”) can be explained away as a plural entity, particularly when it is singular in form and refers to one that is “anointed”. Daniel 9:26 mentions the “anointed one” that would be cut off, which spoke of Christ’s first coming. So when we read of the “instead anointed” in 1John 2:18, I believe we can easily see an antichrist who would try to replace Jesus in the role of the anointed Christ. Gender aside, I believe the notion of a single individual is preserved.
This notion of one individual false christ is also preserved in the Lamsa translation from the Aramaic version of 1John, which reads “My children, it is the last time, and as you have heard that A FALSE CHRIST shall come, even now there are many false christs, and from this we know that it is the last time.”
But my guess is that we will simply not agree on this Will. As I’ve said before, with prophecy nobody agrees on everything, and I always reserve the right to be wrong (smile).
August 9th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Hi Michael,
You leave me confused. There are hundreds of prophecies about Christ’s first and second coming–where are there any prophecies in the bible about the antichrist’s coming? Antichrists are only mentioned in 1 and 2 John and he says they are already here not that they are coming.
Regards,
Will
August 9th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Will,
I know some people see little benefit and some even danger in interpreting Old Testament history as prophesy. But Christ and his apostles did so. Like when Christ had his discussion with Nicodemus, “As Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness, so shall the son of man be lifted up”.
This is what the old theologian Matthew Henry says of Nimrod and his rallying the people to build their own way to heaven,
“Nimrod was a mighty hunter against the Lord, so the LXX; that is, (1.) He set up idolatry, as Jeroboam did, for the confirming of his usurped dominion. That he might set up a new government, he set up a new religion upon the ruin of the primitive constitution of both. Babel was the mother of harlots. Or, (2.) He carried on his oppression and violence in defiance of God himself, daring Heaven with his impieties, as if he and his huntsmen could out-brave the Almighty, and were a match for the Lord of hosts and all his armies. As if it were a small thing to weary men, he thinks to weary my God also, Isaiah 7:13. Nimrod’s name signifies rebellion, which (if indeed he did abuse his power to the oppression of his neighbors) teaches us that tyrants to men are rebels to God, and their rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.”
John, in his Revelations takes us back to this idea when he speaks of a beast who will do just that, having the number of a man. He will cause all to worship the first beast, because who can make war with him?
Is it not this same mindset that prompted Nebuchadnezzar to demand the worship of his image which just happened to be 6o X 6 X 6 cubits?
Note how Daniel addresses this king of Babylon in chapter 4 verse 1 of his book,
“Nebuchadnezzar the king to all the peoples, nations, and men of every language that live in all the earth”.
Surely, this was not literally true of old Neb and must be an allegory prediction of a future event? The same one predicted by John perhaps?
Like Michael (K.), I believe the evidence is overwhelming that the Bible teaches a coming Antichrist world dictator who will war against Christ and his people, to his own destruction. One could write volumes on that subject alone.
August 9th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Will,
Perhaps there is a better way to explain this. The Old Testament prophecies regarding Jesus referred to Him in many different ways, such as Anointed One, Servant, Elect, Son, Star, Scepter, Banner, Immanuel, Prophet, and so on. But he is not called “the Christ” in the Old Testament. That term is used only in the New Testament, because it is the Greek word (‘christos’) for ‘anointed‘, and Greek was not the language of the Bible until New Testament times.
So let’s apply that same logic to the antichrist. In the Old Testament we find this man portrayed as a “stern-faced king”, “the man of lawlessness”, “a master of intrigue”, the “little horn”, “the destroyer”, etc. But he is never called the “anti-christ” because, once again, that is a Greek Term (’anti-christos‘) found only in the New Testament.
Using your logic Will, if the ‘anti-christ’ is not prophesied to in the Old Testament, then neither was the real Christ. But we know He is there as the ‘Anointed One’ (Christos = ‘anointed’). And so is His counterfeit. You may feel this is the creation of man, and in one way of thinking it is. That’s because man is required to piece together all the clues that God provided in order to arrive at the proper conclusion;
Pr 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.”
In summation, I don’t accept your assertion that there is not an antichrist that is still to come. I’ve made my point earlier by referring to the structure of the earlier Greek and Aramaic versions, which both suggest a singular individual, not a plural entity. But as I said, I didn’t think you would accept that. What more can I say?
August 9th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Hello Vic and welcome to the debate. Jolly good to have you. Hope you enjoy yourself!
Hello again Michael. Good to hear from you.
Looks like I can combine answers here since I see no one is making a case at this point to defend the term antichrist as it is used in the new testament as a future world ruler.
Works for me.
There are a number of instances in the old testament where the the term whole World is used. That is not a prophecy of things to come it is the way they viewed the world. The term whole world as it was used and in the New Testament as well referred to the area around the Mediterranean Sea basically. It was used to describe empires like Persia which for their purposes essentially conquered everything that was relevant to them, but clearly not all the known world even then. The writers of the bible thought the world was flat and knew nothing of the New World so when they use the term Whole World they are not talking about a round planet and all the nations of the earth like we use the term today. Such an obvious mistake but it is amazing how many people make it.
There is no prophecy anywhere in the bible which implies that one Ultimate Evil Bad Guy Type (UEBGT) will ever rule the whole world. If you can find such a prediction any where in the bible please share with me so I can change my mind on this matter. Let’s not restrict the UEBGT to just the term antichrist–let’s go for any name used in the bible explicitly stated or otherwise implied
Best Regards,
Will
August 10th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Will,
You said; “….I see no one is making a case at this point to defend the term antichrist as it is used in the new testament as a future world ruler.”
Hmm. Up until now you have focused on whether or not there is a sole antichrist figure, and I believe I have demonstrated conclusively that there is, simply by referring to the Greek and Aramaic transcripts. You can ignore the factual case I’ve made if you choose, but to imply I haven’t made a case for the notion of a single antichrist figure…. *sigh*.
Now, whether or not he is a ‘world ruler’ or merely a regional ruler is another matter altogether that you have just now inserted into the discussion. Never did I imply that this AC figure would rule the entire world. My belief is that he will be largely a regional ruler, covering a territory that is slightly larger than that of Alexander the Great. I think the visions of Daniel provide that evidence, which is supported by the New Testament Greek where the various words for ‘world’ and ‘earth’ (‘ge‘, oikoumene‘ and kosmos‘) are applied. But there was a very lengthy discussion on that topic a few months ago on this site, so I’d refer you to that discussion instead.
Besides, we apparently agree that his reign would likely be regional, and not global. Still, his reign will certainly affect the entire world in the same way that anything happening in the Middle East affects the entire world. Particularly since most of the global oil production will fall into his hands.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Good Monday to you Michael,
It appears you want to selectively use bible verses to make a point by cutting the word antichrist out of one verse and base a case on it instead look at the whole verse and the verses around it to keep the whole issue in context. If the context of the whole issue is used then no one could argue that there is one single antichrist figure who will rule anything. This is not mentioned anywhere about antichrists. At least not in the bible.
Did you find any other names for any other world rulers mentioned in the bible? I can’t agree there are any future to us rulers mentioned anywhere in the bible.
Have a great day,
Will
August 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Will,
What verse am I “cutting the word antichrist out of” ? In don’t understand this comment, since I’ve not cut it out of anything. I’ve applied the term entirely in context in each instance where it is used. Do I misunderstand the point you’re trying to make?
Once again, in 1John 2:18 the singular form of ‘antichrist’ is spelled ANTIXPICTOC, which describes a singular entity or individual. The spelling is different from the plural version. But assuming for a moment that this may be a single entity rather than a single person, translations from the oldest Aramaic transcripts describe an individual person;
“My children, it is the last time, and as you have heard that A FALSE CHRIST shall come, even now there are many false christs, and from this we know that it is the last time.”
When the oldest transcripts suggest a single individual and not a corporate entity, it seems it should settle the issue, and for the vast majority of scholars, it has. It may not jibe with what one particular scholar has written somewhere in time, but it seems rather self-apparent to me.
Going back to providing one example (of many) of this antichrist in the Old Testament, this false christ is described as a “king of the North” in Daniel 11 and 12. The earlier visions of Daniel set the ground work and context for the account of the “Kings of the South and the North”, where the rough outline for the last days is described. It becomes apparent in that analysis that the antichrist comes on the scene by usurping the Syrian kingdom through an act of intrigue, and from that point on the prophecies of the Bible begin to fulfill in rapid-fire fashion. And it all dovetails nicely with the Revelation, which describes a “beast out of the sea” doing the same things as the “king of the North“, and in the same context.
But again, you will probably not accept any of this, and that’s okay by me. I don’t see it as my job to persuade anyone. We are all captains of our own ship. Have a good day Will.
August 11th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Hi Michael,
Hope you had a good day.
While you are quite right to say the greek text uses the singular form of the word antichrist it is clear to anyone if they read the verses around the verse that the term antichrist is used in that John is in each and every instance referring to plural (as in more than one) antichrists. To ignore the context of the entire passage is abusing the bible. This is forcing your opinion on the bible and saying that you are more inspired than John was when he wrote it. He clearly meant for people to read the entire passage in context or he wouldn’t have written it.
To apply the term antichrist to old testament rulers is jumping the gun a bit don’t you think. Remember Christ is incarnated in the New Testament he’s not there yet to oppose in the Old Testament. These OT rulers are raised up/used as instruments of God to punish the Hebrew people when they break their covenant with God. They are not opposing Christ they are tools of God to fulfill his purposes as he brought judgement on Judah and Israel.
Actually the kings of the south you mention (Ptolemic dynasty) and north (Seleucid dynasty) were remnants of Alexander the Great’s dynasty and fought each other during the intertestament period. Palestine and the Jews were located between the two kingdoms and at various times were ruled by one or the other. Rome would absorb both of them before the New Testament begin.
Well I’m tired. Have a good night and we’ll continue this tomorrow.
Best Regards,
Will
August 11th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Will,
That you feel I’m forcing my opinion on the Bible is amusing to me. And now I‘m more inspired than John? C’mon Will. Yes, he meant for people to read the entire passage in context, and anyone reading this debate will understand the simple logic of what I have said, and that my context is valid. The majority of scholars understand that there is ONE antichrist that is initially identified in 1John. But your opinion on this is indestructible Will. I won’t go down that path any further.
Incidentally, who ever applied the term ‘antichrist’ to any Old Testament rulers? Up until now we’ve been talking about Old Testament PROPHECIES of a future antichrist, not an Old Testament antichrist. Once again you have changed the focus of your argument, and have inserted an idea into my analysis that wasn‘t there. Of course they were the Ptolemy and Seleucid rulers, since the beginning of this account details the inter-testament battles between these Diadochoi of Alexander the Great. But I think the entire point of this vision was to identify the kingdom that the antichrist would rise from in the last days. And Daniel 11 and 12 does accomplish that, if you apply the primers that are found in Daniel’s earlier visions.
I posted on that four or five months ago, but I don’t have the time right now to re-hash that entire thread. Perhaps I’ll try to find it later and send you a link. But somehow I have a feeling that it won’t matter.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Top of the morning to you Michael,
Well I suppose you are right in thinking it won’t matter unless you can provide actual biblical support for the case you are trying to make.
Your context focuses only on one word and builds a case solely on it and ignores all the related material of the passage. There is never one antichrist any any of the related passages if they are taken as a whole and in context. Any commentator who says so better go back and read what the bible actually says.
WHO ever applied antichrist to old testament rulers? I quote you Michael “Going back to providing one example (of many) of this antichrist in the Old Testament, this false christ is described as a “king of the North” in Daniel 11 and 12.”
But at least now we agree that there are no antichrst found in old testament rulers. We’re making progress here.
Gives me sort of a warm and fuzzy.
Have a most excellent day Michael.
Later,
Will
August 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Will,
As I said, we were discussing the PROPHECIES of the future antichrist found in the Old Testament, not his appearance during Old Testament times. But just go ahead and keep repeating your mantra Will. For me to continue debating this point would be wasting everyone’s time. You never desired an honest debate. You were merely spoiling for a fight.
I’m out.
August 11th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Greetings Michael,
You may of course decide for yourself when to retire from the field my good man. I wish you the best. Why don’t we plan to meet in heaven one day and we can see who was right then. We can postpone the issue till we can look back and know who was right.
Have a good life,
Will
August 12th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Will,
Agreed.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:42 am
How can it be possible that “even the elect will be deceived” in the final days? There will be two raptures… the first will be the counterfeit rapture, orchestrated by humanity’s worst unseen enemy: aliens, having the technology to lift people up into the clouds and I believe they existed in Christ’s time and they have his DNA and they will create multiple Christ-like beings to deceive us. I had a vision of Jesus looking up to the sky, appearing annoyed. I know he was aware of these ‘demons’ in space but was unable to reveal what he knew about them. However, an obscure reference in St Jude confirms my theory: “wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever”. I know most Christians do not believe in the existence of life outside our world; however, I have had direct experience of these beings and their secret agenda since March 2006. God has made me one of his witnesses in these final days. In the last six months, I have received many visions of meteorites striking earth and mass flooding. Recently I had a vision of a man rising from water as if he was being baptized and I believe I have seen the face of the antichrist. I know I would recognized him when he surfaces.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Where is the biblical evidence to support this idea of two raptures, one involving aliens, Catherine? I’ve never heard about that before. The Jude passage alone does not support such an idea; and unless it can be proven through biblical prophecy, I don’t believe visions are enough to prove it, either.
August 15th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Hello Catherine,
Well, Michael and I have some common ground here that there is no biblical support for what you’re suggesting Catherine (nothing personal, I’m just saying it’s not in there).
I doubt we are in total agreement on the subject though. I’d say that there is absolutely no biblical support whatsoever for any rapture type event anywhere in the bible. Period. If you want to believe in dispensationalism (the only model of eschatology which contains a rapture type event) you definitely need to just take it on faith alone and not research John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren and how he created that model in the 1800s. A fascinating story to say the least, but that is definitely a closet you don’t want to start peeking into if you want to believe in “the rapture.”
In a way that is an interesting yarn you are spinning Catherine–it is sort of a contemporary version of how the rapture story got its nose under the Christian tent in the 1800s and by the 1900s the whole darn camel was in the tent. LOL.
I think dispensationalism has seen its high tide and is receding now so Catherine maybe you can promote this with all the fervor that Darby promoted his ideas and one day you can supplant his rapture story with your own. Don’t let skeptics like me and Michael hold you back.
My regards to all,
Will
August 19th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Who is Daniel describing when he claims that “..he will not honour the god of his fathers..” in 11;37. If this is the “king of the north”, which north is it and during which period will this take place? Could it be the “king” of North America or the king of the northern hemisphere? If the Book of revelation describes “those beheaded for the testimony of Jesus”, is that not an islamic method of execution? Is Daniel referring to an apostate son of more than one father? If indeed he was referring to the God of Abraham ,Issac and Jacob, would God not have used “your fathers” or perhaps “your God” in this verse? Does he also refer to a proponent of abortion when he states “..he will not have the desire of women.”(Daniel 11;37)? The women I have spoken to have expressed this as their “desire”.
When Daniel 11;38 states “..he will honour a god of fortresses..”, is that not protectionism? He also claims in Daniel 8;25 that “..he will cause deceit to prosper in his rule..”. Is that not the current U.S. administration? These are pointing directly at the current U.S. president. To pinpoint these after thousands of years of history is truly a miracle. Could Obama be the little horn that rises out of obscurity?
August 20th, 2009 at 3:13 am
In my previous comment I failed to mention that in fact CHILDBIRTH is the desire of women. It should be inserted appropriately.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Chuck,
You will find varying opinions on your questions since this could play out in any of several ways, but let me give you my take, for what it’s worth.
When Daniel states “he will not honor the god of his fathers”, I personally believe that we will have been introduced to a supernatural AC at this time. This AC will not honor Yahweh certainly, but I also don’t believe he will honor Allah or any other known deity figure in Middle East history. I think we will hear about a new revelation of the ‘real’ god, and this god will then supplant all religions in favor of his own agenda. This of course means that Islam will fall away as well, not just Chrisitanity and Judaism. I believe this may be what the Revelation refers to when it says;
Rev 17:16 “The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.”
This “king of the north” in Daniel 11 and 12 is always a Syrian ‘Seleucid’ king, in my opinion. It appears that God prophesied to the inter-testament battles between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria in order to demonstrate who the AC will be, and which kingdom he would arise from. If we are to take this example to it’s logical conclusion, he will be a “king of the north” from Syria. But the account of Daniel tells of how he will take the Syrian throne through and act of “intrigue”, so he may not be Syrian at all. Some would claim he is the antichrist before he is indwelled, some would say he is not indwelled, and some would say he is a fallen angel from the Abyss (Apollyon). I would lean toward the latter scenario because the 5th Trumpet of the Revelation will release this spirit at that time. But there is nothing certain about this outcome. It’s merely one possibility.
Beheading is very much an Islamic form of execution, from the time of it’s founding until today. Joel has a very good chapter on this in “Antichrist”. In the future, this form of execution could describe an Islamic revolution, or it could describe the acts of a supernatural AC who, by the way, may have been the very one to inspire beheadings in Islam in the first place. Who can say.
Regarding the statement “..or for the one desired by women”, I think Walid Shoebat is on to something when he interprets this portion of the passage as “..or for the desire of women”. In other words, he won’t care what women think, which is reflected in Islam today. Again, this could identify Islam specifically, or it could refer to the attitude of a future supernatural AC. Either scenario could work, since Islam no doubt has been inspired by spirits that seek to pervert God’s plan. So if spirits have directed Islam to their chosen end, we shouldn’t be surprised to find these same spirits instituting many of these same policies during the last days.
As far as honoring a “god of fortresses”, think of a “god of war”. From what I have read, the Hebrew word for fortresses that was used here suggests war and conquest rather than protectionism. So this “king of the north” will apparently honor a god of war and conquest. And no doubt “deceit” will prosper, but deceit has always been a linch-pin of totalitarianism, regardless of who the ruler was.
Finally, I don’t think Obama is in the mix here, because I don’t think he fit’s all the criteria of the Bible in this regard. Some will disagree with that, and who really knows how it will all play out. But for my part, I’ll be watching for a coup in Syria. Whoever usurps that throne will be my primary candidate. And I don’t think I’m going to worry too much about any of this until I see the two witnesses preaching in Jerusalem.
One final note. However it all plays out in the end, I think the AC will indeed rise to power through Islam. Then, once he is firmly rooted in power, he will burn them just as he burns Judaism and Christianity. I believe that is what is meant by Revelation 17:16 noted above.
But I could be wrong of course.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Michael k; Indeed I respect your analysis and thank you and others for contemplating this topic. At least you are thinking about it and engaged. Whether or not Mr. Obama is this individual is secondary to the fact that we are discussing this and aware of what may be. Initially after realising what I had read, I googled these three words summarizing Daniels verses: APOSTATE STEPFATHERS PRO-ABORTION. I then added DECEIT and PROTECTIONIST using these terms from the Book of Daniel. I invite you to do the same. God bless you and keep you.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Considering the events and circumstances since my last post, I am now even more convinced that the current U.S. president is the world dictator. The majority of people, excluding 8%, now believe that climate change is due to man and there is a program on television called “Can Obama save the planet?”. It is uncanny to see so many people become so deceived. It just proves that if you say something often enough, people will start believing it.