First, WND reports on comments made by Rush Limbaugh Tuesday on his radio program, in which he claims to have heard personally from several insiders who are relaying to him the mounting evidence that indeed the Assad regime was framed. Further, another article written by the highly respected and credentialed Israeli-American scholar, Youssef Bodansky calls into question not only the American government’s story regarding the Syrian crisis, but also the complicity of the American government in the whole affair. According to Bodansky, there is mounting evidence that the release of nerve gas in Damascus was a well-coordianed event potentially involving Qatar, Turkey, the US, and Jabhat al-Nusra (the al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists or “rebels”), all of whom want to see the removal of the Assad regime. This information if true, is beyond damning of the Obama administration.
And once again, I would like to call everyone’s attention to the repeated, though very poorly reasoned view (that seems to be dominating the discussion in the Western media), that if Assad did indeed use gas, the US must by respond militarily. I find this claim to be extremely poorly reasoned on both moral and strategic-foreign policy terms. I am grateful for the few voices such as Sarah Palin who do seem to have thought through the ramifications of any military action in Syria. Palin, on Friday spoke out and strongly condemned the Obama admin for its poorly reasoned defense of engaging the Syrian government. Palin’s comments can be read in their entirety here:
LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT
“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” – Sarah Palin
* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.
* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”
* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?
* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?
* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.
* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.
* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.
* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.
– Sarah Palin
28 Responses
This is a well reasoned response to Washington insanity. And though I like G Bush a fair amount better than our current chief, he too proved inept and completely ignorant of Islam and its devices and goals. Obama on the other hand is an Islam insider and as a man wanting to appear drunk is stumbling toward his desired destinatination thus positioning himself to be in the neighborhood as the king of the North. Dan 11.
He wants a US/ European / Sunni coalition North of Israel. This chemical weapons ploy will do just fine as the reason to get Himself in position. He sees himself one day sitting in Jerusalem
Hey Joel,
It is not only questionable that this is a fraud but it is very predictable. Here are some other things that I have read that have helped me to expect this type of stuff. I mean, we created al Qaeda as a proxy against the soviets way back when.
This isn’t Obama’s foreign policy it is American foreign policy:
http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409
http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Power-Joyce-Kolko-Gabriel/dp/B001LA3PPU
http://mises.org/document/1223
It is demonstrable that Bush is responsible for the chaos in Syria with the covert or clandestine use of radical terrorist groups from the gulf states . I mean, how many of the ‘rebels’ are actually Syrian? The article also tries to demonstrate that most of the support for these groups is now being funneled through our allies the Saudis (this is also interesting when you consider the books ‘sleeping with the devil’ and ‘house of saud’ portraying not random allocations to terrorists but serving strategic western interests in the region.)
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
The Houla massacre that you referred to above (along with so many other reports about intentional misinformation by the Arab and western media, ie. The testimony of Mother Superior Agnes Mariam of the Monastery of St. James in Qara) seems to confirm this.
http://www.interventionism.info/en/Implosion-of-The-Houla-Massacre-Story-%E2%80%94-Is-Anyone-Paying-Attention
And then for predictive value, especially reading the article from Seymour Hersh, all of this seems to be a stepping stone into Iran:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran%20strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf
http://www.meforum.org/2923/syria-strategic-significance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8
Maloula, the Christian town near Damascus where some still speak aramaic, the language of our Lord, has been taken by Al Nusra
This is what our Governments are backing…
m.youtube.com/watch?v=wy74GxKjJ_E&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dwy74GxKjJ_E
Joel,
Do you see this as a huge end-time event? We are now aware that the Arabs would be willing to fund a full invasion of Syria. We are obviously backing our horse, in the form of Sunni, Arabian oil.
Is it not likely that Iran decides to attack Saudi Arabia? We know that at some point in time, they will destroy SA, are we coming to that point?
I can’t see this possibly being a small thing. It has the potential to be one of the biggest events in the history of this world and could also set off wide spread sunni/shia civil wars. It could very well escalate the civil war in Egypt and cause huge bloodshed. We have chosen to back Morsi and we will back an Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood regime if they take over in Syria.
Does Syria invade northern Israel with backing from Iran, Iraq and Russia? So many factors here that can change the course of history, although we already know how history will play out.
Assad is the Little Horn aka The Assyrian Antichrist.
Hi Dirk,
The Scriptures are clear that the man of sin will be revealed when the Abomination of Desolation is set up. Until then, I would suggest that any dogmatic declarations or confident assertions that this man or another is the Antichrist are quite premature. It is not impossible that Assad could end up proving to be the man, but for now I would certainly urge taking a much more responsible approach.
Blessings
“this is also interesting when you consider the books ‘sleeping with the devil’ and ‘house of saud’ portraying not random allocations to terrorists but serving strategic western interests in the region”
Did you hear that the Saudi intelligence chief – Bandar bin Sultan – told Putin that he controls the Chechen insurgents and that he threatened to use them at the Winter Olympics?
People should have known all along who was behind the cold blooded murder of hundreds of children at Beslan, but I always wondered what stopped Russia from retaliating. One reason is that the United States protects the regime, but another is that Saudi Arabia may be in control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. They are likely financing terrorist attacks in both India and Russia, who are longtime allies.
Hey Joel ~
I would be interested in hearing your comments about the involvement the Saudi Prince (name ?) has with the Syrian Rebels, his providing them with money, weapons, even the bio-chemical weapons that recently killed hundreds of innocent Syrians. This “Prince” is a Saudi Sunni, trained by America’s military, very, very close ties with Obama, owns about 65% of Fox News channel (keeping their mouths tightly closed about what and how they report things), has made threats to Putin that if he doesn’t go after Assad, the Winter Olympics will be devastated by Chechen terrorists “he” is supporting. The list goes on and on. Reliable sources are reporting these things. However, the main-stream media will never let all of this info out. Neither with Fox News, obviously.
Just wanted your thoughts.
Thanks, friend!
Blessings
Joel,
With regard to your comment:
“The Scriptures are clear that the man of sin will be revealed when the Abomination of Desolation is set up.”
I see no scripture that supports this viewpoint (much less make that point clear).
Here are the scriptures that mention AoD:
Matt 24-
“15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.”
Mark 13-
“12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’[a] standing where it[b] does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. 20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. ”
What I DO see is this verse regarding his unveiling:
2 Thes 2
” Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
And no restriction on the knowledge of his identity is mentioned save that the time must be “proper.”
What are you referencing (verse, please)?
Shalom.
To further the logic that Assad is the Assyrian/Antichrist, consider Assad’s enemies and friends:
Enemies:
Muslim Brotherhood, currently controlling much of the South (King of the South).
Jihadists funded by Saudi Arabia (The Whore, Mystery Babylon)
Friends:
Iran, (who destroys Mystery Babylon/Arabia).
The players are all lined up properly.
Now we see the West, once again readying for war because of a stupid line drawn by the West (Antiochus Epiphanes line was drawn in the sand by a western diplomat. It’s where we get the phrase “line in the sand.” Assad’s line is Obama’s so-called “Red line.”). The Antichrist will cross this line shortly.
Dirk,
According to the very passage you cited in 2 Thessalonians, the AC is not “revealed” until after the one who hinders lawlessness is removed and the AC then takes his place in the Temple. These events essentially occur at the same time. Neither of these issues has occurred. The hinderer of lawlessness has not been removed and the AC has not set himself up in the Temple of God. Nor has the lawless one appeard with all forms of lying signs and wonders.
Throughout history, many individuals have felt that they knew for certain who the AC is. For many, this fulfills a psychological need to feel as though one has some inside divine information that most others do not. It creates a sense of superiority. This same psychological need drives most conspiracy theories. It also gives one a sense of stability and secret understanding in an otherwise crazy world. Just be careful is all I am saying. As a teacher who often addresses the issue of the end-times, I continually check myself. I also read a lot of secular books that track the long line of other believers who felt they knew who the AC was, so as to avoid the excesses, theologically, psychologically or otherwise.
Again, for clarity, I am not saying that Assad could not someday be revealed as the man of sin, but that the Scriptures are clear that he has not yet been revealed. So we should not be dogmatic in our views or assertions. Now, if you are among those aforementioned folks who are determined to believe otherwise, I obviously cannot dissuade you. But in my opinion, the arguments that have been set forth as proofs that Assad is the man, are simply weak. For example, some claim the fact that he was an optometrist as some significant proof, due to a particularly silly twisting of a verse in Daniel. There are some other silly arguments and manipulations of Scripture as well, but they are far from convincing to me. Again, my advice is to engage in more productive endeavors than trying to know who the AC is. We all may have our list of possible candidates, but it is also just as likely that he is yet to emerge. In all things, God knows best.
Blessings and shalom.
Joel,
“According to the very passage you cited in 2 Thessalonians, the AC is not “revealed” until after the one who hinders lawlessness is removed and the AC then takes his place in the Temple. ”
I think you have the sequence of events wrong. But I would like to walk it out in case correction is required:
2THESS 2
“1Concerning the COMING OF OUR LORD Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.”
Context: Day of the Lord.
“3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come ”
Context is still the coming of the Day of the Lord.
“…until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.”
This says the timing if the Day of the Lord is restricted until the coming of the Man of Sin.
“4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.””
This is merely a description of his actions. No restrictions are being imposed on the revelation of the man of sin (specifically, no mention of the abomination occurring first.)
I agree that setting himself up in the holy place is one of the immutable CRITERIA for Antichrist. But I don’t think scripture supports the idea that he cannot be known beforehand.
There are many criteria that Antichrist must follow.
“Throughout history, many individuals have felt that they knew for certain who the AC is. For many, this fulfills a psychological need to feel as though one has some inside divine information that most others do not. It creates a sense of superiority. This same psychological need drives most conspiracy theories.”
I agree. The caveat to that statement is that at some point, some person or group(s) of persons are going to wreck that paradigm by virtue of being correct.
The most obvious difference between tinfoil wearers, the egotists, the misinformed/mistaken and the ones who are accurate will be adherence to scripture. Which takes us to your next point:
“But in my opinion, the arguments that have been set forth as proofs that Assad is the man, are simply weak.”
And you might have been presented weak evidence. I find the application of the scriptures regarding the KOTN and the KOTS to be compelling.
Dirk,
You only quoted a portion of the passage and then you stopped at the most relevant portion. Why did you do this?
Verses 7 & 8 continue:
As I have already stated, the Scriptures are clear that the lawless one is not “revealed” until after the the hinderer of lawlessness is removed. Beyond this, your claim that the act of setting himself up in the Temple is to be understood in a way that is disconnected from the previous statement leaves you with a huge problem. If we read it this way, there is absolutely nothing defined whereby he is revealed to the Body of Messiah. It would simply be up to personal opinions, and we know how this works.
My reading of the passage sees a clear connection to the issue of his setting himself up in the Temple as that which reveals his identity once and for all. After that point, you and I will no longer be having this discussion.
But as I said, if you are among those who have found some psychological need met by believing that you know for certain what most other believers are oblivious to, then nothing I say will persuade you. If you felt strongly that Assad might be the AC, I might be more open to discussing the issue together with you. But your argument with me is not primarily about Assad. Rather you are arguing with me to defend your claim that you know for certain who the AC is. To me this betrays where you are with regard to the aforementioned psychological issues. Again, for the third time, I would counsel and encourage you to take a more humble and cautious approach.
Blessings
Joel,
“you only quoted a portion of the passage and then you stopped at the most relevant portion. Why did you do this?”
Because I found it was irrelevant.
“7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. ”
You highlighted verse 8, but what does that have to do with the abomination of desolation? By my understanding, there is nothing in the text that anchors the restrainer of verse 7 to any particular event, nor any practical advice to identify when the restrainer is removed. The result is that there is no restriction on knowing who the Antichrist is before a particular time.
“Beyond this, your claim that the act of setting himself up in the Temple is to be understood in a way that is disconnected from the previous statement leaves you with a huge problem.”
I fail to see the connection between the Abomination referred to in verse 4 and the revelation of the man of sin in verse 8. Between those verses there is a concept of the restrainer being removed. The passage does NOT say that the abomination occurs before the restrainer is removed. It simply says that the restrainer is removed before the lawless one is revealed.
Moreover, verses 2 to 12 are not a sequential/linear storytelling. The abomination is listed in verse 4, which is a future event but then verse 5 asks the reader to contemplate an event that happened 2,000 years ago (“Don’t you remember when I was with you”) before switching to yet another time frame, that being the time the verse was written/recited (“lawlessness is ALREADY at work, NOW…”). The speaker then switches to the future when he says that “the lawless one will be revealed.”
Observe:
“Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way (Present tense to circa 60 A.D.), for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs (future tense) and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Don’t you remember (past tense) that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now (present tense) you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed (future tense) at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work;(present tense) but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.(future tense) 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. ”
Observe that in terms of time, the abomination of verse 4 is far removed from the description of when the lawless one can be known. The speaker changes the temporal setting of his narrative multiple times in between the abomination of verse 4 and the revelation of the Man of Sin in Verse 8.
The clear conclusion is that the passage does not suggest that the lawless one cannot be known until the abomination occurs. The passage is silent on this issue.
So if you wish to assert that the Antichrist cannot be known until the abomination occurs, I think you need a different proof text.
“If we read it this way, there is absolutely nothing defined whereby he is revealed to the Body of Messiah. It would simply be up to personal opinions, and we know how this works.”
That’s not so. First of all, the passage is primarily talking about the being gathered to Christ. People were concerned that they might have missed it, so the speaker is letting people know they should not be concerned because the rebellion and the man of lawlessness have to come first.Secondly, there are numerous descriptions of the Antichrist throughout the scriptures that form a picture of who he is, what he does, where he comes from, etc. It’s far from being undefined. The only question is how much he needs to do before he can be adequately identified. If the criteria were merely setting himself up in the temple and calling himself God, then the whole room Paul was speaking to would have erupted into a chorus of “But that ALREADY HAPPENED 200 years ago!” … because it did, with Aniotchus “God revealed” Epiphanes and his disgusting pig sacrifice.
“But as I said, if you are among those who have found some psychological need met by believing that you know for certain what most other believers are oblivious to, then nothing I say will persuade you.”
That’s a convenient argument for you to assert, since I have only myself to defend my psychology. I’m happy to defend on the merits of the claim, and if you can do the same, I’d appreciate it. If you have a genuine concern about it, I’m happy to speak with you about it.
“If you felt strongly that Assad might be the AC, I might be more open to discussing the issue together with you. But your argument with me is not primarily about Assad. Rather you are arguing with me to defend your claim that you know for certain who the AC is.”
You’ve misunderstood my intention entirely, and that might very well be my fault for making clear my intention. Recall that you said:
“The Scriptures are clear that the man of sin will be revealed when the Abomination of Desolation is set up. Until then, I would suggest that any dogmatic declarations.”
I have been attempting to break the assumption that the Antichrist cannot be known until the Abomination occurs (not that my conclusion is unassailable).
Dirk,
At this point, I will have to check out of the argument. I think I have said everything that needed to be said.
Be blessed.
My study of the scriptures leads me to conclude that while there are many indicators concerning the traits and activities of the AC that would place him on the radar of those who are watching and praying, there are only two events that are absolute identifiers: The confirming of the seven-year covenant with many, and committing the AOD. Even the covenant issue may not be as clear as we might think since there may be other similar deals made prior to the real thing; but the AOD is the only absolute identifier that can’t be mistaken. Until we see these two events, and specifically the latter, then we must exercise caution as Joel has stated. My personal conviction is that the events predicted by Daniel, Jesus, and others were not given so that we would argue ahead of time as to the correct application, but rather so we would know unmistakably when they are fulfilled. The only thing we are told to do ahead of time is to “Consider the matter” and “watch and pray.”
Greg,
Very well said. Agree fully.
Blessings.
“My study of the scriptures leads me to conclude that while there are many indicators concerning the traits and activities of the AC that would place him on the radar of those who are watching and praying, there are only two events that are absolute identifiers: The confirming of the seven-year covenant with many, and committing the AOD. ”
I think both of these are requirements, but not absolute identifiers. From the time that Daniel issued the prophecy concerning the Abomination, Antiochus Epiphanes has already proclaimed himself to be God and abominated the temple. Likewise, there have been a number of 7-year treaties with Israel.
“My personal conviction is that the events predicted by Daniel, Jesus, and others were not given so that we would argue ahead of time as to the correct application, but rather so we would know unmistakably when they are fulfilled. ”
That might be so. But I think there is another obvious reason why prophecy exists, and that is to prepare, avoid damage/peril. Remember:
Matthew 2: 13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
or directly on topic:
Mark 13: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. 9 “You must be on your guard….4 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’[a] standing where it[b] does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak….22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
I think the descriptions regarding the antichrist are not prophecy not simply for the sake of being able to look with hindsight. I think they are clearly for preemptive and proactive purposes as well.
“The only thing we are told to do ahead of time is to ‘Consider the matter’ and ‘watch and pray.'”
As we saw from the above-stated verses, that isn’t always so. Some of the prophecies advise action.
Shalom.
Dirk,
I’m not sure what you meant when you said this:
“From the time that Daniel issued the prophecy concerning the Abomination, Antiochus Epiphanes has already proclaimed himself to be God and abominated the temple.”
Antiochus lived roughly 450 years prior to Daniel… Unless you mean “since the time that Daniel…”
But yes, I fully agree with your larger point that prophecy is also given to warn, prepare etc. I fully agree, absolutely.
But again, to say that one knows for certain who the AC is at this point in the game, is a significant stretch beyond this and something altogether. And in my view, anyone who truly believes they know now with absolute certainty at this point, particularly if they use that claimed knowledge to denigrate or look down on other believers, which is always the tell-tale sign, is experiencing classic signs of prophet-syndrome and religious delusion. My opinion.
Blessings
“Antiochus lived roughly 450 years prior to Daniel… Unless you mean “since the time that Daniel…”
I think you mean Antiochus lived 450 after Daniel. And yes, that was what I meant.
“But again, to say that one knows for certain who the AC is at this point in the game, is a significant stretch beyond this and something altogether. ”
I would refer to a similar scenario:
Matthew 16
“15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”
At this time, the Messiah had not yet fulfilled a number of prophecies that the Messiah was bound by scripture to fulfill. He had not yet been falsely tried, murdered, nor resurrected. These are absolute requirements of the Messiah, and at the time the servant of Messiah had not seen these things come to pass. And yet the Messiah explains that the knowledge of the identity of Messiah, son of God could still be known.
Peace and Shalom.
“I think you mean Antiochus lived 450 after Daniel.”
As I used to say in Boston as a kid, “Uh Doh!”
Comparing the episode of Jesus and Peter with Assad today is obviously a case of comparing apples to oranges. There is or was no passage which said that Jesus’ revealing would be limited to any particular time. But this is not the case, as we have already discussed concerning the AC. And of course, by citing this passage, I can only assume that you are inferring that the Father in heaven has “revealed” this matter to you. Which again only illustrates my repeated caution. According to the Scriptures, the AC has not yet been “revealed”. The criteria has not yet been met. The hinderer of lawlessness has not yet been removed, the AC has not yet set himself up in the Temple, and He is not yet deceiving the world with false miracles.
You are making a claim that the Father has revealed something to you that His own word says has not yet been revealed. This is why I am using the strong language of “religious deception”. To have a deep suspicion of the who the AC may be based on your understanding of the Scriptures at this time, is one thing, but to claim to know with certainty is something else altogether. Again, a fourth time, I am simply encouraging humility and caution. We are all in the same boat of at best, seeing the future only through a “glass darkly”.
Blessings
Dirk,
“I think both of these are requirements, but not absolute identifiers.”
According to Jesus, the OAD is the absolute identifier. I’m going with Him.
I said, “The only thing we are told to do ahead of time is to ‘Consider the matter’ and ‘watch and pray.’”
You said, “As we saw from the above-stated verses, that isn’t always so. Some of the prophecies advise action.”
Yes, and when is that action to be taken? “WHEN you see the AOD…” Those who have considered the matter and who are watching and praying will know what to do when the time comes. That is the point of watching and praying!
You seem intent on twisting words and meanings simply for the sake of arguing.
Greg,
“According to Jesus, the OAD is the absolute identifier. I’m going with Him.”
Not so. See the above-quoted passages. Jesus never says the Abomination must occur before the Man of Sin is known. If you would say otherwise, then please support it using scripture. If I’ve been negligent in searching, then please let me know.
“Yes, and when is that action to be taken? ‘WHEN you see the AOD…’ Those who have considered the matter and who are watching and praying will know what to do when the time comes. ”
I did not know from reading your statement that which you have clarified, and I meant you no offense.
“You seem intent on twisting words and meanings simply for the sake of arguing.”
Or perhaps you have found this discussion frustrating or challenging and have gone to assuming (publicly, unfortunately) ill things upon my character. If that was the case, then there’s a better way to go about handling it (Matthew 18:15). Something to consider.
Peace, shalom, Brother Greg.
Dirk,
I’m slightly confused concerning your motives here. Are you trying to convince us, or convince yourself?
Obviously, I agree with Greg that 2 Thess is clear that it is specifically the AC taking his place in the Temple that Paul specifies as the actual event which “reveals” the AC to the Church. This is coupled with the other descriptions in the passage including the removal of the hinderer of lawlessness, which also takes place at the midpoint of the trib. (cf., Rev. 12:7-9)
At this point, your demand for supporting Scripture is a bit silly, as we have already done so, yet you have not offered a single Scripture yourself which determines any event whereby one might know that the AC is revealed. Your only claim has been that he has been revealed to you personally. You can surely see why I see this as a deeper psychological issue?
So, rather than continuing to avoid the issues, please be clear concerning whether or not you believe that 2 Thessalonians 2:7 has already been fulfilled.
Also, please share the single clearest passage whereby anyone should be convinced that Bashar Assad specifically, and not some other Syrian leader, is the Antichrist.
Also, for clarity, do you believe and confess that Yeshua is Yahweh?
Blessings
“Comparing the episode of Jesus and Peter with Assad today is obviously a case of comparing apples to oranges.”
I think it’s very much the same. Peter saw that which Messiah had accomplished, and despite the fact that the most important and defining aspects of Messiah’s first ministry were yet to occur, Peter was led by the Spirit to knowledge of the truth.
When you say that the knowledge of Antichrist is different, I would agree in part (since there IS an important difference), but I think the principle is exactly the same. The only thing that separates the two is the condition given regarding the restrainer, which brings up your next point.
“According to the Scriptures, the AC has not yet been “revealed”. ”
That’s not entirely true. The scriptures require one thing to occur before Antichrist can be known:
”
Page Options
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email
<<
>>
Show resourcesAdd parallel
2 Thessalonians 2
New International Version (NIV)
The Man of Lawlessness
2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, “—2 Thes 2.
Taken in and of itself, this passage says nothing with regard to when the Man of Sin can be revealed. The phrasing is ambiguous. What is clear is that the gathering to Christ will not occur until
1. The Rebellion occurs.
2. The Man of Lawlessness is revealed.
That portion of the text says NOTHING whatsoever as to conditions that must be met in order for the MoS to be revealed. To the contrary, the MoS’s revelation is being used as a temporal marker to signify the arrival of another event (gathering to Christ)!
Left with no direction as to the timing of the revelation of the Man of Sin, we would have no idea when the rebellion or the revelation of Antichrist occur. Thankfully, there is another witness on this matter that makes the issue clearer and provides an order by which these events occur:
“23 “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy those who are mighty, the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power”— Daniel 8.
Daniel makes it clear that the fierce King (the Man of Sin) arises AFTER rebels have grown wicked. This comports well with 2 Thessalonians 2, which first mentions rebels and then mentions the Man of Sin.
This is the only precondition scripture gives for knowing who the Antichrist is. There is a cap on lawlessness/rebellion/rebels that breaks. Rebels become grotesque in their wickedness, and then the Antichrist arises.
Islam has been heinous from the get go. It is the peak of rebellion against God. The recent decades that have seen rebellion increase (Islamic and otherwise) have been so atrocious that I believe the restrainer (restraining rebellion and the Man of Sin) has finally been relieved of duty, setting a stage for Antichrist to make a kingdom and make himself knowable.
Concerning verse 4: “He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” this is a description of what Antichrist will do, but there is no language whatsoever to establish that these actions are preconditions for identifying Antichrist. That’s not in the text.
The time of wicked rebellion (the modern age of lawlessness, false religion and terrorism) is what has kept Antichrist back. The rebellion is the foundation of Antichrist’s kingdom and the cornerstone of his temple. Once the restrainer left, he was free to do as the scriptures said he would do.
“the AC has not yet set himself up in the Temple, ”
Very true. And if Assad never accomplishes this, then he is nothing but a shadow of Antichrist (as many have been). But that’s not what we’re seeing, I’m afraid.
“The criteria has not yet been met.”
Assad has not satisfied all the criteria of Antichrist. Nor did Jesus satisfy all the criteria in the eyes of Peter when Peter was asked who Jesus was.
“You are making a claim that the Father has revealed something to you”
No, I have not. I think you amplified my comments, Joel. I’m not making the claim that an angelic being or heavenly voice has whispered in my ear that Assad is the Assyrian. I am saying that the Spirit leads, and I acknowledge that the flesh can also lead. Peter did not say “the Spirit led me to the knowledge of Jesus as the Son of God.” That was the messiah who made that claim. I’ll let the Lord decide which is flesh and which is Spirit led. What I intend to convey is that the SCRIPTURES are spirit led as they were written, but understanding the scriptures also requires the Spirit. As such, I believe the scriptures are real, accurate, and prophetic, and that they reveal details about the Antichrist’s identity.
” that His own word says has not yet been revealed.””
And this point I take issue with as described above. I suggest that your interpretation is wrong, and I would define the misconception precisely by pointing to the fact that there is no clause in the entire passage of 2 Thes 2 that directly requires the Verse 4 mention of the Abomination to occur before knowledge of the Antichrist’s identity may be achieved.
“I’m slightly confused concerning your motives here. Are you trying to convince us, or convince yourself?”
I’m trying to say explain what the scripture says and uproot any misconceptions. That’s all. Whether that leaves your opinion changed, or mine changed, or unchanged, whatever is fine so long as the truth of the matter is made available.
“At this point, your demand for supporting Scripture is a bit silly,as we have already done so”
The problem was the scriptures did not say the things you suggested. The argument failed, which is why I’m still asking for it.
“Your only claim has been that he has been revealed to you personally. ”
That’s not true, or particularly charitable, Joel.
“you have not offered a single Scripture yourself which determines any event whereby one might know that the AC is revealed.”
Again, untrue. Look at my previous statements from a few days ago: “As I have already stated, the Scriptures are clear that the lawless one is not “revealed” until after the the hinderer of lawlessness is removed. ” I’ve quoted that verse several times now, so perhaps you might have negligently made that comment.
“So, rather than continuing to avoid the issues, please be clear concerning whether or not you believe that 2 Thessalonians 2:7 has already been fulfilled.”
Hopefully my above-stated understanding makes it clear.
“Also, please share the single clearest passage whereby anyone should be convinced that Bashar Assad specifically, and not some other Syrian leader, is the Antichrist.”
I don’t think a single passage does any real service, honestly. I think the “single passage” approach is what causes Antichrist misconceptions. Prince William. Hitler. Obama, etc. But as I want to answer the Spirit of your question, I’ll compile a list of scriptures on Antichrist that one can demonstrate fulfillment in Bashar Assad.
“You can surely see why I see this as a deeper psychological issue?”
Because you made a series of bad assumptions. And while I can certainly understand psychology as a motivation for a number of beliefs and freely admit to being guilty of assuming psychological impulses upon others so many times in the past, I don’t think you’ve done a particularly convincing job at undermining my psychology or convincing me you have the expertise to do so, or the familiarity with me to competently speak as to my psychology even if you did have the expertise. Frankly, I think your diagnosis sounds to my ear more dismissive than it does something like a reasoned psychological analysis.
I’m glad to discuss these truly important issues of scripture and prophecy as brothers in the Messiah, without psychological biases or at the very least in spite of them. i think that reason, Spirit, and scripture change even stubborn minds, and lead to illumination, and I’m willing to risk that! What say you?
Gentlemen, Without going into great detail I believe the timetable we were given was primarily for the benefit of knowing the return of Jesus.