About Me

Name: Richard Stauch
Email: RichardAStauch@comcast.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Moderate Taliban?

"[P]art of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us. There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region ..." President Barack Obama 1
"It is worth engaging and determining whether or not there are those who are willing to participate in a secure and stable Afghan state." Vice President Joe Biden 2
 
Interesting that Obama now admits we had some success in Iraq. It used to be like pulling teeth. Now he admits it, but only when it can be used to support his agenda, of course. That's not the most interesting hypocrisy of that statement, though.
 
And, let us not waste our time trying to figure out why Obama seems to want to disrespect our friends and get familiar with our enemies. It must be very confusing for him, after all the training he's gotten from people like Saul Alinski.3 It would appear Obama has gone Alinski one better, as he is not waiting for, but creating the base situation Alinski said was necessary to form alliances with the working poor ("They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future"). So much for "hope" and "change".
 
The debate turns to whether Pres. Obama wants to sit down and talk to, not only the leader of Iran (who desires to obliterate Israel with nuclear weapons), but also what the president's detractors called "moderate Taliban". Okay, let's give him the credit that he would like to lead the Afghanis to a coalition government made up of the leaders they've chosen by ballot and those who once ruled them by force. I'm sure that will work out well for Obama (if not for the Afghanis).
 
The president's proposition leads me to one question:
 
What is a "moderate Taliban"?
 
It is one who only craves murdering people for 5 generations.
 
Thanks,
Richard
 
3 "There's another reason for working inside the system. ... Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. ... If we fail to communicate with them [people with incomes from $5,000 to $10,000 a year in 1971 dollars], if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default." Saul Alinski, Rules for Radicals, prologue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Steele's Ignorant Incompitence

This little tempest between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele is interesting, and necessary. CNN has a report from last night (3/2/09) that Steele has backed off his remarks about Limbaugh. Okay, they can kiss and make up. The question remains, though, why did Steele say Limbaugh was sometimes incendiary and ugly?
It certainly isn't because Steele really wants President Barack H. Obama to succeed in his agenda to destroy self-rule and capitalism as the foundations of our nation and economy. It isn't really because he actually disagrees with what Limbaugh actually said, at all. It's because Steele has spent too much time with the Socialist elite in the Boston-to-DC hamster run, and no real time with those of us on the ground creating the wealth that makes that all possible.
Steele doesn't understand us. Rush Limbaugh actually does.
Reading the remarks (the few that CNN allowed) after the story, I tried to add my own. I discovered that they won't let me speak on their site. Here's what I wrote:
So much ignorance, so little time. So many people believe themselves to be so intelligent that they feel free to comment on someone about whom they know nothing at all.
Rush Limbaugh is no hate monger. If you want to know what hate mongering is, go read the Daily KOS (which I believe stands for Knowledge Of Sin). If you want to know what Rush Limbaugh really thinks, you have to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Michael Steele has spent too much time with the Left-wing media and not enough time with real people, otherwise he is smart enough to have known what to say and how to say it. Now he has to back off his remarks. Gee, I wonder what he really thinks?
I, like Rush, considering what Barack H. Obama wants to do to this country and our economy, hope he fails.
Truly.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Defining Torture

I, like many of you, am paying attention to all this rhetorical misdirection going on in the media about torture, Guantanamo Bay, and all that. I'm asking myself, "Why don't The Wise address it in its real terms?" I mean, "What is torture?" isn't nearly as important a question as, "Should we use torture, and (if so) under what circumstances?"
Let's think about this.
During World War II, there were a number of people who protected Jews (and others) from the Nazis. They lied to the authorities about knowledge they had about where these poor people were hiding. Now, we teach children that lying is wrong, and that's the correct moral position on lying. But there is a higher moral imperative at issue here, because to tell the truth would have been to participate in the evil that the authorities intended to do.
Evil does not deserve that help.
Fast forward to the battlefield in the War Against Terror. Here is the issue:
Your platoon comes under fire. After a few minutes you're able to capture the bad guy alive. On him you find evidence that he has knowledge of an attack about to take place, in which your friends could die. You need to know what he knows in order to save lives.
You ask him about it. He laughs at you. You insist. He laughs louder.
You strap him to a chair and put a table next to him. On the table you put your Leatherman, opened to the needle-nosed pliers.
He stops laughing.
You tell this guy, "In five minutes I will have either the information I need, or your fingernails."
Page 1
After some defiance, and a little blood, the guy starts talking. As long as he's talking, you stop the pain, and you ask him questions, analyzing his story from every direction, to determine if it seems true. When you conclude he's probably giving you the facts, you tell him, "Alright, we'll check it out. If you're lying, we'll be back and continue right were we left off."
Now, you put the guy on ice, and go check out his story. If you find he's lying, you go to Page 2. Otherwise, it's Page 3.
Page 2
You put the guy back in the same chair, with the same pliers on the same table. You start all over again looking for a new story. You go back to Page 1.
Page 3
Now, you know the guy's story is true. You've saved lives, and stopped the greater evil from happening.
You show the guy some home videos (without any identifying information, of course). You tell him, "Look, that's what life is like in America. We're free, and because of that, we're happy. That's what we are defending.
"You guys strap bombs to yourselves to go murder as many people as you can indiscriminately. We are all about saving lives, so we will stop you. That's what this is all about. That's why we did that to you, to prevent the greater evil. What you had planned was evil, and that evil did not deserve our help.
"Yes, it is wrong to cause someone pain and suffering. But it is a greater evil to allow murder to happen when you have the chance to prevent it."
It is wrong-headed to say that we must never torture, under any circumstances. To say that is to say that victims of terrorism may just as well lay themselves down for it. That's like asking the Jews to walk into the ovens.
There is a moral imperative to take action to prevent terrorism, even when the action entails inflicting pain and suffering on those who have the information we need, but who are unwilling to divulge it. Their continued silence is part of that act of terrorism, and it must be stopped.
We have a duty to stop terrorism, and that duty implies the right to stop terrorism. If that means, under certain well-defined circumstances, that we need to use torture (even as defined in the Geneva Conventions), then it is still our right.
There have to be rules, of course.
  • It has to be very likely that the bad guy has the information we need.
  • The bad guy has to refuse to divulge the information under normal questioning.
  • It has to be probable that he will divulge the information under a certain level of duress.
  • All methods of questioning have to be tried before torture can be considered.
  • The least physically damaging methods have to be exhausted first.
  • The pain and suffering cannot be likely to cause death.
Torture, like war, must be a last resort, but it must remain a resort.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Happy New Year!

I say Happy New Year here, because they can't appreciate it at places like Daily KOS (I think KOS is an acronym for Knowledge Of Sin).
You see, they haven't the adult supervision that they really need around there. If you've read "Lord of the Flies", you know what I mean.
First of all, there is no such thing as "Happy" around there. They confuse haughty smugness with happiness. Their idea of "happy" is the destruction of their "enemies". Never mind that destruction is based on lies.
Second, there's nothing "New" in there. Their positions are so old, they could have been written by Karl Marx. Come to think of it, they were.
All they've got left is the "Year". Okay, it's their year. The question that remains is, what will they do with it?
They've got their President for 2009. They have their Congress. The US Supreme Court is still a majority Moderate-Left. What will they do with all that power?
Anybody care to guess?
Meanwhile, they continue to push. They're so busy pushing the Obama transition team further to the Left, there's no place for Obama to go but into Fascism. They've decided that Obama made a huge mistake inviting Rick Warren to give the Invocation for his Inaguration, so they invent lies about Warren that would embarrass Satan himself.
What happened to the "peace that would guide our planet," and "love that would steer the stars?" I guess that would have to go out the window, considering that, while Barak H. Obama only plays the part (premature as that is), it was George W. Bush that was President of the United States when Jupiter aligned with Mars.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Christmas Message

So many stories! There's so much bad news, so much negativity. There are so many wrong-headed 'good news' messages, too. What we need is a moment to reflect on the real Good News; the real Message of Christmas.
With the weather so bad (yes, it's too cold to talk about Global Warming -- so let's use the meaningless phrase: Global Climate Change -- as if this doesn't happen every season), with so much death and destruction (southern Israel gets rockets for Christmas, this year), with all the bad news for Wall Street (need I say more?), we really need to hear some good news.
Christmas isn't about money, war, or weather. It isn't about well-wishes or the second-chance, either. It isn't about anything we puny humans can do, think or say. It is about something more awesome and wonderful than everything that all mankind has done, is doing, or ever will do throughout human history.
Jesus put it best himself when speaking to Nicodemus:
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
so that all who believe in Him will not die but have eternal life. For God so loved the world
that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not die, but have
eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged. He who does not
believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God. This is the judgement, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the
darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the
Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who
practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been
done in God." (John 3:14-21)
The Christmas Message is the plan of God, who loves us, to send his Son into the world so that those who believe in Him will live because of His righteousness, and not die for thier sins.
God is not, as Bette Midler insists, at a distance, watching us. He is right here, right with me; He's right there, right with you. You are turned inward, thinking of yourself, but He has His arms of love outstretched to you, whispering, "Honey, turn around."
It is because we are separated from God because of our sins, and God wants to change that. He wants to be with you in eternity.
That's the Message of Christmas: God's love for you, His desire to be with you, and what He did to make that possible.
Merry Christmas!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Penny For Thought

I saw a post at the Daily KOS Web site that really piqued my interest. It is by "the girl", entitled "Lincoln and Obama about to align - and peace will guide our planet".
It is, of course, another of those hopeful posts. That is, it isn't a discussion of facts and reality so much as an expression of one's hopes and dreams, in spite of facts and reality.
Nevertheless, she writes, "It was a pin that looked like a good ol' Lincoln penny, but with a closer look, it was Obama's profile, and above it was written: In Obama We Trust. I loved it."
Wait a second. Did you see that? She loved the phrase: In Obama We Trust. Replacing God with Obama as an object of trust (that is to say: faith) is something that brings out love in her.
If anyone needed proof that there is a religious component to "Obamania", there it is.
Why is this an important factor?
Because of the historic record of political parties promoting a religious faith in the party's leader. Nazism is only a recent, and extreme example of the problem of putting one's faith in one's political leaders.
The result is that, when someone doesn't agree with that notion, those who hold to it attack the infidel with the same fervor and glee with which the Nazis (not to mention the Muslims) attack Jews.
So, what happens when their prophecy, that "peace will guide our planet," doesn't come true? They certainly won't blame the object of their faith and worship. That would be to repudiate their own ability to discern truth, not to mention raising doubt about their eternal fate. They will have to look for the infidels to blame, so they can march them off to the stake -- preheated to 451° F., of course.
If you still have any doubt in your mind that this is a religious experience "the girl" is talking about, she continues, "It immediately connected these two great men and again, as I've found myself so many times before, being spiritually moved in a way I just can't explain." 
"Spiritual movement" is a way to express an experience that demonstrates the truth of religious faith.
These are her words, not mine. I don't have to make these things up, because reality is stranger than fiction -- at least, over at the Daily KOS. I couldn't make this up, because nobody would believe it, if I did.
Well, the next four years will tell the tale, but I have to wonder if this is only the beginning of the end for Christianity. We know that there is a "rebellion" or "falling away" (an apostacy) that comes in the End Times (2 Thessalonians 2:3). We know this apostacy is an idolatry focused on carnality (based on the letter to the church at Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-22). We know what the people who live at the beginning of the End Time period will be like (according to 2 Timothy 3:1-4:8). Is there any doubt left whether we are in the End Times?
How long before the Antichrist is revealed?
 
See also: My BLOG on Spaces.Live.Com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Story of Islam, Revisited

We have been reading so much lately about the Islamic terrorists, I thought it necessary to write something about why these people feel it necessary to indescriminately murder everybody. In the process of reviewing my own research on the subject, I decided to simply reprint my earlier work. You'll find it among several other of my previous posts at: Richard Stauch's Live Space.
======================

The Story of Islam

Where do I begin with the Story of Islam? There are so many tales to tell, gleaned from Arab-Muslim, Israeli-Jewish and Christian apologetics Web sites, from secular history books by such luminaries of academia as Will Durant, J.M. Roberts, and W.H.C. Frend, even from Encarta and Funk and Wagnalls encyclopedias (See: Readings, below). I suppose, as usual, it is best to start from the beginning. I will try to be brief.

Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, the "Prophet of Islam," was born circa 569-570. His father died before he was born, and his mother passed away while he was still very young. He was raised by an uncle in the small town of Mecca at a time when the various tribes of Beduins and others in the area worshipped as many as 360 different gods. The Ka'ba in Mecca was the central place of worship for all these gods, and images or idols to all of these were located there. It is even said that images of Jesus and Mary could be found at the Ka'ba, and evidence exists that some cult or offshoot of Christianity existed in the region. It was a place of pilgrimage for everybody, and business in the area was brisk whenever there was a Holy Day for some group or other to observe.

Stories about Muhammad's life are difficult to glean from the Koran. That does not appear to be its intention, but it is supposed to be the "recitation"(1) of the revelations supposedly given to him by the angel Gabriel. Most of what we know about him comes from another work, known in Arabic as Sunna; a collection of Hadiths, stories and sayings told in the early days of Islam about Muhammad and his followers (there are different versions of Sunna). Hadiths are not considered at the same level as the Koran by Muslims, but are used to explain Islam to children and new converts. Without Sunna binding the verses of the Koran together, it is intellectually difficult to plow through it, and almost impossible to make chronological sense of it. Of course, people who are forcibly converted have little choice in that matter (as many as 10,000 Muslims in Egypt today were forcibly converted, for instance).

Unfortunately, the Koran also appears to incorporate a number of Jewish and Christian 'haggadah' and 'apocrypha,' inauthentic stories about Jewish and Christian persons and places; stories that were never considered part of the canon of Scripture by either group. This is most inauspicious for Jews and Christians today, since the Koran is even more 'inerrant' to Muslims than the Bible is to Christians. As Jesus is considered the Word of God in flesh, the Arabic Koran is considered the Word of God in writing. It is to Muslims exactly what Revelation's 'original autograph' would be to Christians.(2) English and other translations are not true Koran; one must read it in the original Arabic to truly 'read' it. (Also, it is not organized in any organic way, and while many versions once existed, only one was finally kept and all others destroyed [around 200 years after Muhammad].)

For instance, consider that the Koran (Surah 9:30) declares that Jews say that Ezra the Scribe is the Son of God.(3) Now, when Jews try to explain that this is simply not true, it has never been true, it never will be true, then Muslims have to respond that the Jews are lying! After all, if a Muslim must choose between what the Jews actually say and what the Koran declares that they say, the Jews will lose every time. What that is asking them to accept is that the very words of their god are untrue!

Muhammad grew up in this environment where many different gods were worshipped. At the same time, he saw people cheating each other, tribes jockying for power or in vendettas, and practically every man for himself. Naturally, he desired to see people at peace and tolerant of each other. When Muhammad was 40, he began to tell his wife that he was being visited by the angel Gabriel. He recited to her the things that Gabriel had made him memorize. He began to preach in the streets these messages, and eventually he gained a few followers. A flaw in his message, as the locals saw it, was that he declared that there was only one god, just as the Jews said (Muhammad believed Christianity was "polytheistic"). This caused problems with the people of Mecca, whose livelihood depended on the various groups of worshippers who came there to celebrate their tribal deities. What would happen if the Meccans now told their many visitors that only one of them was true, and all the other gods were false?

Well, a stroke of luck came Muhammad's way just when things started to get really nasty. A number of Arabs from Yathrib (now Medina) had heard the local Jews talking about a coming Prophet who would bring all peoples together in peace. Now, when they heard about this new prophet in Mecca, they couldn't wait to hear what he had to say. They sent a delegation to offer him room and board if he would relocate. Muhammad happily accepted, and he took his followers to Yathrib, quite in a hurry. This starts the Islamic calendar.

Not long after Muhammad began to explain his revelations and to teach the sayings he was still receiving and memorizing from time to time, the local Jews in Yathrib began to realize that this man knew little about their Scriptures. What he had heard, and now incorporated into his recitations, were strange tales that the orthodox Jews knew to be fabrications; such tales as traveling Jews might tell over a camp fire to outsiders, just for fun. Muhammad was humiliated, and this is where Islam really began to spiral down into the maelstrom of hatred and violence.

First one tribe of Jews, then another, Muhammad drove out of Yathrib. They were allowed to take with them such belongings as they could carry, but not their tools or weapons. Everything they left behind, the Muslims took for their own. The last remaining tribe did not fare quite so well.

Muhammad declared them to be traitors to him and Islam after the Battle of the Trench. He laid siege to their homes. When they sued for peace, he granted (according to modern Muslims) their request for arbitration, to be decided by the Jews' ally -- a non-Muslim Arab. He declared them guilty, and sentenced the men to death, and their women and children to slavery. There is only one problem with this story for modern Muslims: If Muhammad, as they claim today, was so perfectly tolerant and merciful (distinct from the pagan Arabs he was trying to reform), then why did he not commute their sentence, banishing them as he had the others? It was certainly within his power, being the "aggrieved party." Besides, these Jews had not participated in the battle (as they had supposedly conspired to do), and Muhammad's forces had won the battle, anyway. Instead, Muhammad declared the judgment to be "according to Allah’s judgment, which issues from above, from the seven heavens." In that spring of 627 AD, Muhammad had the 600 or more unarmed, bound and helpless men beheaded, sold their women and children into slavery, and took all their goods for spoils to divide amongst his men.

History shows that Muhammad planned over 30 battles, and participated in 2 thirds of them himself. Islam only became a viable "religion," because they fought their way into political power. Islam, under Muhammad, aggrandized to itself by war and bloodshed the police power of the region, and ordered life according to the law of Islam, as Muhammad personally declared it to be.

When Muhammad finally took Mecca in 630 AD, he went to the Ka'ba and smashed all the idols and statues there, except for the single stone in one corner of the Ka'ba, which marks the beginning of the procession that Muslims make around the Ka'ba in their Hajj (pilgrimage) ceremony. This is the same ceremony that was practiced in Muhammad's youth, as it was from before history, in pagan rituals.(4) Muhammad declared on that day, "There is no god but Al-Lah!" (I can't find the source right now, but I remember reading that Al-Lah was the name of the god he grew up worshipping, his family god.) "Al-Lah" translates "the god," and this was supposed to be the greatest one in the entire Arab pantheon. Al-Lah is not, therefore, the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians, but a pagan god, once the greatest among many (according to those who worshipped it), but now elevated to a monotheistic position. Monotheism in Islam is, we now see, less a product of principled theology than of hatred for all other tribes and their religions.

Muhammad died two years after taking Mecca (some say by poison). In the years he had lived, he and his forces had captured, by acts of war, the central region of the Arabian Peninsula. From the time he died until 638 AD, only six years, Muslim forces had captured the rest of Arabia, Persia, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. The first Christian era in the Middle East was over. By 712 AD, Muslim forces had "spread Islam" across the coast of North Africa, and invaded Spain. Practically every island state in the Mediterranean was captured by force of arms: Corsica, Sardinia, Crete, Sicily, and Malta. They raided as far north as central Italy. They even held the city of Bari, Italy, for 75 years, until 916 AD, when they were finally driven out.

The borders between Islam and the Western World moved back and forth many times through the "Dark Ages." The 200 years of the Crusades from 1095 AD, the Muslim invasions of the Mediterranean and raids into Central Europe, the Turkish threat to Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire that lasted for centuries, are all too much for this little post. Suffice it to say for now, that Islam was the instigator in these campaigns. They invaded the Holy Land, Spain, Italy, and threatened all of Europe. It was their threat to the Western World that drew the French and Germans into the Crusades (only Normans, no Englishmen, were with Richard I, Couer de Lion, in the Third Crusade; 1189-1192 AD). It was their invasions into Spain and France, into Italy, into the regions around Constantinople that generated fear and reprisals from the Europeans. Islam had only itself to blame if the 20th Century seems to have started off badly.

After the first four caliphs of Islam, it was never again monolithic. Throughout the rest of its history it has been at war even with itself. The Ottoman Empire, which never consolidated all of Islam within its borders, nevertheless lasted from 1300 to the end of World War I. The end found the Ottoman Turks harassing everybody else within their power: the Jews and Christians especially, but even the Arabs. This is why the Arab leaders secretly contacted the British to form an alliance against their Islamic Turkish overlords. In the correspondence that solidified that alliance,(5) the Arabs demanded the entire Arabian Peninsula, Persia and Syria, Lebanon and Israel, all for their very own. But the British, despite their own rampant and pervasive anti-Semitism, found it difficult to make it official by supporting the Arabs' demands to deny entirely Jewish immigration and land purchase. The history of the late Ottoman Empire in that region (according to the Muslims' own Web sites) is replete with examples of such oppression against the Jews in that land.

The Ottoman Empire promulgated a constitution beginning in 1876; however the Sultan retained the right to disband the parliament. He exercised that right after the parliament sat for only two sessions, and a parliament did not convene again in Istanbul for 30 years. In that earlier parliament, officials elected from the region of Palestine tried to pass laws to deny Jews the right to buy land, or to immigrate there. After the Young Turk rebellion (1908), the new parliament actually had 4 Jews elected to it. They were, however, eager to identify themselves first as Turks, and Jews later. Palestinian Arabs, again, tried to pass laws against Jewish land acquisition and immigration there. These two points became the mantra of Arab and Muslim leadership in the region. Even so, local Arab leaders had great difficulty getting Muslim and Christian residents to sign petitions against Jewish immigration and land acquisition, peaceful pursuits that everybody else enjoyed. In contrast, Jews have never demanded that Arabs, Muslims or Christians be denied the right to immigrate into the region of Palestine, or to buy land there.

When the Great War was over and the Ottomans were driven back to Turkey, the French and British partitioned the rest of the Middle East (1918), and the British took the region now constituting Israel, Jordan and Iraq. Later, they went to the League of Nations for a Mandate. The Mandate included instructions to institute a Jewish National Home. The Mandate map shows the borders of the state that would be called Israel extending from the Jordan River to the Mediteranean Sea. What are now known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were part of that map. It was called Palestine then, but it was always intended for Jewish self-rule. The region beyond the Jordan (at the time called "Transjordan") was intended for the Arabs.

Throughout history, Palestine was never a nation. The name comes from 135 AD, when the Bar Kokba revolt ended in Roman victory, and the Romans renamed the province after the Philistines as an insult to the Jews. Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina, as well. The region remained a province of the Roman Empire, even after the Empire divided into East and West. It was part of the Eastern Empire, known as Byzantium, when the Muslims took it in 638 AD. After that, it was a province of one Islamic empire after another. It was never an independent state apart from the state of Israel.

Christians have occasionally treated Jews execrably, in the First Crusade, in pogroms and inquisitions. Pardon me if I allow my predispositions to forbid taking a lot of time here to describe these. I am thoroughly ashamed of that history, and I humbly apologize for the "Christians" who did these things, or allowed them to be done. I do not ally myself with them in any way, and I do not excuse what they did. I do not expect to find them in Heaven, except for that last moment when they receive the judgment they richly deserve, because any version of Christianity that can allow people to do such things is no Christianity at all. It is a perverse caricature, an evil-clown parody, whose jokes are demons' doctrines, and whose laugh-tracks are the groans of the innocent. Who can lionize such people, but the sick and unholy? I will just point out that the true history of those episodes can be found in books, and I would suggest we resort to them and allow history to have its say without further comment from me. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, and he is my Lord; what more need be said?

By far, Jews have had a much worse history with Islam. While in history and archaeology we find many examples of Christians and Jews living in peaceful communities, each enjoying the fruits of his own labors, it is not so with Islam. While Jews were sometimes permitted to participate in government, serving as ministers, working as doctors and educators, they were usually treated as second-class citizens by the Muslims. The normal treatment was to be made to pay an extra tax (the Jizyah tax, which paid for "protection" - that is what the Muslims call it); to wear an identifying yellow belt; to walk instead of ride, or to ride only donkeys and never horses, and never with a saddle; to never build a house taller than a Muslim's; to never build a new synagogue, while abandoned ones were always converted to mosques. Little by little, in obedience to Islamic Hadith, the Jews were being driven from Muslim lands. The Hadith says that one of Muhammad's last commands was not to allow there to be two religions in Muslim land, so the Jews had to go. It is that way still.

Everyone talks about "Palestinian refugees," and demands to know when they will be repatriated or compensated. What about the Jews who were ejected from Arab countries in 1948? When will they be compensated? While Palestinians are compensated (though the media has failed to report it), by Israel, the United States, the UN, and (in very small part) Arab countries, not one dime has been paid to compensate Jewish exiles driven from Arab countries, Morocco to Afghanistan, since Israel became an independent state. Apart from US foreign aid, Israel has had to bear the entire cost of absorbing all these refugees.

Examine the League of Nations 1922 Mandate map of "Palestine." That was chopped down by half from what the Zionists believed was their homeland, by natural right. Then compare today's map of Israel. It is excruciatingly clear that Israel has already given up a great deal of land for peace. Still, they have no peace. Every day, we read about more shootings, more roadside bombings, more car bombings, more suicide bombings, more Katyusha rockets fired, more grenades thrown, more anti-tank shells exploded, more mortars fired, with which the Palestinians think they will change things to their liking. And every time Israel tries to defend itself against these terror attacks, Israel is called a terrorist nation, said to be causing terrorist actions by the Palestinians, and perpetuating the "cycle of violence," and it is called upon to refrain from self-defense. This is madness.

You may have heard of "Israeli Arabs." Who are these people? They are Palestinians who never fled the region when the Arab states warned them (1947) that they would make war if Israel declared itself an independent state. They are Arabs -- Muslims and Christians -- in every way identical to Palestinians, but who have lived in Israel right from its beginning, and who enjoy every right that ethnic and religious Jews enjoy in that country. They live and work in Israel, and they vote and have Arab members in the Knesset (Israel's parliament) to represent them. Yet the so-called "Palestinians" (as if they were something else) continue to accuse the Israelis of warring against Arabs and Muslims. This is a ridiculous situation, to which I see only one solution: All Palestinians who wish to become citizens of Israel may stay right where they are, and all those who do not can move to Jordan (Jordan is the only Arab country that allows Palestinians to become citizens; it is already a true Palestinian state), after which Israel can annex the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Then, we can stop talking about any part of Israel being "occupied territory," we can stop worrying about a "two-state solution," and we can stop paying for all these "refugee camps."

Well, to understand what is happening in the Central Asian Plateau, we have to go back to the 1750s. In response to the ill treatment that Arabs got from the Ottoman Turks, an Islamic teacher named Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab started a revival movement. It was strictly Koranic, puritanical, and militant. It led to a revolt, which the Ottmans put down. Nevertheless, the ideology -- Wahhabism -- has survived, and it is the fastest-growing sect of Islam today. It is the official religious sect of Saudi Arabia, today. This is the form of Islam practiced by Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and in madrassas (religious schools) all over the Islamic world. This is the form of Islam that other Muslims say is "not true Islam." Unfortunately, that does not explain the widespread excitement, celebration and gloating over the September 11 attacks on the United States that we have seen amongst Muslims.

That is what we are up against, though, a "religion" that grasps at the police power of the state, and emulates a fascist government; that began in war, expanded it's territory in war, and (now that war is failing) seeks to advance its agenda by acts of terror. Islam is not a religion, it is an armed camp; its prophet was a commanding general; its prayers are war cries; its holiest rites are calls to indescriminate murder; and its greatest historic accomplishments are crimes against humanity.

Well, that's how I understand it,
Richard Allan Stauch
Ft. Myers, FL [formerly, Long Beach, CA]

Notes:

(1) There are three main theories for the definition of "Koran": a) 'collection'; b) 'binding together'; c) 'reading' or 'recitation'. The majority of Muslims accept the last view.

(2) The book of Revelation has been controversial partially because the Greek syntax in it is somewhat different from that found in John's Gospel and his three letters. The response made by many Biblical scholars who accept Revelation's inspiration (such as me) is that it is, far more than any other book of the Bible, dictation. Sections of the Gospels are 'recitations' of Jesus's words. In contrast, most of Revelation is. By comparison, this is exactly how Muslims view the entire Arabic Koran.

(3) Koran 9:30 "And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!"

(4) In the Sunna, it says that Abraham and Ishmael built the Ka'ba and instituted its rituals just as Muhammad restored them, but subsequent generations had paganized it requiring that restoration. For instance, see the version of Sunna: Sahih Muslim, Book 43, Number 7179, which says:

"Ibn Abbas reported: During the pre-Islamic days women circumambulated the Ka'ba nakedly, and said: Who would provide cloth to cover the one who is circumambulating the Ka'ba so that she would cover her private parts? And then she would say: Today will be exposed the whole or the part and what is exposed I shall not make it lawful. It was in this connection that the verse was revealed: 'Adorn yourself at every place of worship' (Koran vii.31)." Also see: Rites of Hajj & Umrah, under "Tawwaf of Qudoom (arrival)" ["Tawwaf" is the word for the circumambulation of the Ka'ba, http://www.quraan.com/ManaasikUlHajjWalUmrah/Tawaaf.asp or Google "Tawaf naked"], where it says: "33. And there is in touching the Black Stone a great excellence as the Prophet said: "Allaah will raise up the Stone on the Day of Judgement, and [it] will have two eyes with which it will see, and a tongue which it talks with, and it will give witness in favor of everyone who touched it in truth."(39) And he said: "Touching the Black Stone and the Yemeni corner removes sins."(40) "The Black Stone is from Paradise, and it used to be whiter that snow, but the sins of the idolaters turned it black."(41)"

(5) The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, 1915, had Sir Henry McMahon acting on behalf of the British Government, responding to Sherif Hussein of Mecca, after which the Arabs believed they had a promise of Arab control over all the areas that would be liberated from Turkey, except a section West of Syria and some other minor concessions. McMahon wrote that, "The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded." A map of questionable authenticity is said to have accompanied that letter, indicating the region west of Damascus, but only inluding Lebanon. The region of Palestine is certainly "west of" Damascus, as well. After WWI, when it became clear that the region of Palestine "could not be said to be purely Arab," it was obvious (to all but the Arabs) that it should be excluded, too.

Selected Readings:

David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and The Creation of the Modern Middle East (New York: Henry Holt & Co/Owl Books, 2001)

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People, and Its History (New York: William Morrow & Co,1991)

W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984)

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Vol. 3 Caesar and Christ (New York: MJF Books, 1944)

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Vol. 4 The Age of Faith (New York: MJF Books, 1950)

Orlando Patterson, Freedom: Vol. 1 Freedom in the Making of Western Culture (New York: BasicBooks, 1991) -- Vol. 2 is expected in February 2002.

J.M. Roberts, The Pelican History of the World (London, England: Penguin Books, 1988)

Modern Israel Map: http://www.templebuilders.com/maps/politicalhtm.htm

British Mandate Map: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate2.html

League of Nations Mandate for Palestine: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Palestine_Mandate.html

Arab al-Nakba (the Catastrophy): http://www.alnakba.org/

Christian Apologetics: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/home.htm

Israeli Myths & Facts: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html

[Secular] Encyclopedia of the Orient: http://lexicorient.com/e.o/index.htm

Koran and other Islamic Literature (several languages): http://www.quraan.com/

Koran (searchable, in English): http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/ 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama

Is President-elect Barack H. Obama the Antichrist? Some people seem to think so.
What follows is a study I did some time ago about what the Bible says the Antichrist will be like, and what he'll do. Since the whole concept of Antichrist is Biblical, it is worthwhile to turn to the Bible for this data.
============================================================================================
  The Antichrist
A Biblical Description

We don't yet know who the Antichrist is. Some Bible scholars will say that the Antichrist is not a person, but a metaphor for a spirit or an ideology. I disagree with that notion, because the Bible seems clear to me that the Antichrist is a particular person, who does certain things as only a person can (as we shall see later).

Now, nobody will know specifically who the Antichrist is until he is revealed. We know only that the Antichrist will be revealed one day (2Th_2:3), and how he will be revealed (Mat_24:15-16; Mar_13:14; Luk_21:20; Dan_9:27; Dan_12:11-12; Joh_5:43).

We cannot know his identity, but we can anticipate some things about him. As that day approaches, people would be wise to understand what kind of person he will be, and the things he will do. When he appears, it would be helpful if those who remain can recognize him, if they hope to escape the judgment of those who follow him. While his name, origin, and location are not known as of this writing, we can glean enough details about him from Scripture to approach a description that may be helpful when the time comes. That time is coming.

***

Many famous authors have written much about the end times, the Antichrist, the Tribulation and other associated matters. As they have made clear, the book of Revelation has much to tell us about the end times. The central figure of those who stand against God in that book of the Bible, the leader of those who are judged by God in the Great Tribulation, is the Antichrist. With him is the False Prophet, and we mustn't ignore him, either.

We will focus on Revelation, but it may not be the best place to start, because its language is often so figurative (though it is also incredibly specific at times). The Antichrist is a person, and he is coming, but we also know from Scripture that there is a spirit of antichrist that already exists in the world now, and which has existed from (at least) the beginning of the Church.

Besides what we find in Revelation, John also wrote other things about the Antichrist. In 1Jo_2:18 John tells us that "many antichrists have appeared" already in his day. He goes on (1Jo_2:22) to explain what he means by this; an antichrist in general, and particularly the Antichrist, is primarily one who "denies that Jesus is the Christ." By this token, the Antichrist "denies the Father and the Son." Also, 1Jo_4:3 sums up saying that "every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God."

Moreover, John tells us (2Jo_1:7) that anyone who denies that Jesus Christ "has come in flesh", or "is coming in the flesh" (that is, resurrected, or will return in the body, and not merely figuratively, or as a spirit) is also an antichrist. The Antichrist is the spiritual leader of this worldly movement. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah (the One Anointed by God to be the Savior and Judge of the world), and he will deny that Jesus rose from death in the body to live eternally as our High Priest and King.

The unsaved world will go after this Antichrist, in large part because his False Prophet will do spectacular "miracles" in his name. It is an interesting irony that this worldly movement would be so easily convinced by a spiritual leader, but it is true. Even now, we see a metaphysical component to the secular humanist movement, in that evolution theory (which depends so much on the trio of non-falsifiable beliefs: the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and species change through natural selection) is the only explanation allowed in public schools for the existence of all things. Clearly, their only reason for this is that by it, they pretend to excise God from the public square. Thus they leave a vacuum that can be filled by the Antichrist.

Something we can see today (though it isn't new, really) is the "falling away" spoken of by Paul in 2Th_2:3. The Greek word (apostasia) translated "apostasy", or "falling away", means "defection", as from the truth; a falling away from, or forsaking of what they know to be true. It is a feminine form of a word that generally means "separate", or more specifically "divorce".

This speaks of a number of people who, though they know that Jesus is the Messiah promised by God, who was sent from God, and returned to God, and whose word has proven to be absolutely true (risen from the dead in the body, and coming again in the body, etc.), yet they abandon that truth in favor of a lie.

They prefer that Jesus be a prophet of sorts; a good man who spoke words that make one feel better emotionally, but who is not to be obeyed absolutely. After all, truth is relative; what is true for one person may not be true for another. Their god is not so judgmental that he absolutely judges sin, but is a god who accepts everyone just as they are.

This ideology makes them feel good, as though they are in charge of their own lives and not in danger of the wrath of God. It puts them at odds with the teachings of Scripture, of course. Never mind, though, since they put themselves above Scripture, anyway.

On the one hand, they are so mushy that they disapprove of punishing those who are guilty, or making war against a deadly enemy. On the other hand, they are absolutely judgmental of Bible-believing, evangelical Christians. So much so that they would say, if they were honest, that such Christians deserve Hell. This is why the apostasy is so insidious, because the Antichrist will find a willing army in such false Christians, such that these people will turn over their own family members to the authorities once the Antichrist outlaws evangelical Christianity.

This isn't new, but it is more open and radical than what has gone before. It is becoming still more open, and more radical, as time passes. This is why it appears we are in the end times, because the apostasy that must come first is already clear.

For instance, the Fundamentalist Movement holds five doctrinal truths to be essential to the Christian faith. These are the Fundamentals:

1.       The inerrancy of Scripture (particularly in its original "autographs").

2.      Christ's virgin birth, and His Deity.

3.      The substitutionary atonement of Christ's death.

4.      The resurrection of Christ in the flesh.

5.      Christ's imminent return.

Nevertheless, Pastor Rick Warren (Saddleback Church, Orange Co., CA; Sr. Pastor and Founder) saw it necessary to marginalize Fundamentalism by saying this:

"Protestantism split into two wings, the fundamentalists and the mainline churches. And the mainline churches tended to take the social action issues of Christianity – caring for the sick, for the poor, the dispossessed, racial justice and things like that. Today there really aren't that many Fundamentalists left; I don't know if you know that or not, but they are such a minority; there aren't that many Fundamentalists left in America." - Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life - Faith Angle Conference, 5/23/05, Key West Florida.

Between that and many other things Pastor Warren said at that conference, it is clear that he either knows nothing about Fundamentalism (which is hardly likely), or he has decided to take a more carnal approach to theology. [This is exactly what Jesus had against the Church at Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22); they were carnal, putting their trust in the things of this world. This is clearly the sin of the apostates today.]

Scripture References:

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK) at: 2Th_2:3-12

[Quotations from New American Standard Bible]

"no man":

Mat_24:4-6 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. (5) For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many. (6) You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end."

1Co_6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (10) nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Eph_5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Notes: The followers of Messiah Jesus are to be careful what they listen to, because the spirit of antichrist, and the Antichrist in particular, try to mislead them. Anyone who listens to the message of antichrist is in danger of losing their hope of salvation. I am careful to note quickly that I do not believe that one can lose one's salvation, only the hope of it. One who has put his trust in Jesus has the Holy Spirit dwelling inside, guiding and encouraging one to righteous living, and is protected from such dangers, because God is faithful to keep His promise. Anyone who has not trusted in Jesus has a hope of salvation, but would lose that hope if they should decide to believe the message of antichrist.

"except":

1Ti_4:1-3 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, (2) by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, (3) men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

2Ti_3:1-3 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. (2) For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, (3) unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good.

2Ti_4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, (4) and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

Notes: Here is a description of the people who will receive the Antichrist, accept his message, and betray anyone who does not. Unity among Christians is an important subject to Jesus (Joh_13:12-17, Joh_13:34-35, Joh_15:17, Joh_17:11, Joh_17:20-23, Act_4:32, Rom_6:5, Eph_4:3, Eph_4:13, Phi_2:2, Col_3:14), but these people will put their chosen political association above the commandments of Christ.

"man":

2Th_2:8-10 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; (9) that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, (10) and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

Dan_7:25 'He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

1Jo_2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

Rev_13:11-18 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon. (12) He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. (13) He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. (14) And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who *had the wound of the sword and has come to life. (15) And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. (16) And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, (17) and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. (18) Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.

Notes: The text above from Revelation is mostly about the False Prophet, who will use lying signs and wonders to make the Antichrist look like Christ to the unsaved world. Two points are clear:

1.       The Antichrist pretends to be the Messiah, but he does not have power of his own. Rather, he depends on the False Prophet to perform signs.

2.      The False Prophet appears to have significant political power of his own, as well. It is he who orders that all people must have the mark, and that without it nobody can conduct business. Also, he is the one who gives the power of speech to the image of the Antichrist, and its ability to kill anyone who refuses to worship it.

The number of his name is the number that the letters in his name add up to. This is typical mysticism from the 1st Century, based on Jewish Gematria; A man's name has meaning of its own, which is predictive, or even controlling in that man's life. It is not clear, however, whether the number is added up from Greek-equivalent letters, or some other numbering system.

Some comparisons between the Beast and his Prophet would be interesting here:

1. The Beast (Antichrist) can make war, but the False Prophet cannot.

2. The Beast cannot do spectacular works, but the False Prophet does them.

This would be a mockery of the typical relationship between the ancient Israeli kings and their prophets. The king would turn to the prophet, and the prophet would pray to God. Whatever God told the prophet to do, he would tell the king to do. As the king sought God's will and help, and obeyed, so the king's mission would succeed.

In terms of modern life, the Antichrist is the leader of a sovereign state, but the False Prophet is not. The latter could be a Secretary General of the UN, while the former is a national leader. This raises some interesting ideas.

·         The national leader must have a large military force. Only China can field over 200 million men of military age.

·         The False Prophet must be able to order the raising of a statue to the Beast in the Most Holy Place, so he must have sufficient, world-wide political power to do so.

·         The US is not able to prevent this activity, so it must be significantly damaged (perhaps by the Rapture). Most countries of the world have very small Christian communities, so they won't be nearly as hard-hit as the US. With our economy in turmoil, and with no moral leadership left, we will signify less than a Third-world country does today.

·         The Russians, allied with much of Europe, will be the only power left on Earth to counter the Chinese. When the Chinese mass forces to invade the Middle-east for the oil, the Russians will be forced to intervene.

"the son":

Joh_17:12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."

Rev_13:1-10 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. (2) And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. (3) I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; (4) they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?" (5) There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. (6) And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven. (7) It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. (8) All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (9) If anyone has an ear, let him hear. (10) If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.

Rev_17:8 "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come.

Rev_17:11 "The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.

Notes: Chapter 17 of Revelation tells us about a vision of a woman sitting on a beast on many waters. Also, we are told that John "wondered with great wonder" when he saw the woman on the scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns (Rev_17:6). One of the angels who had the seven vials (or bowls) that contain the last plagues, asks him why he wondered? The Greek word translated "wonder" is closely associated with admiration, or to marvel. John represents Christians in the time of the fulfillment of this vision, so we can assume that many Christians will share in the abominations that she represents. The woman is false religion, in the name of which wars have been fought and millions killed. It is the religion of demons, which is why she is in a wilderness; it is the same as the dry places Jesus said demons go to when they are cast out of people (Mat_12:43). In this vision, the many waters are peoples and nations, not thirst-quenching waters. The beast is scarlet, the color of sin.

Daniel 11 - The kingdoms of the North and South:

Re: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (1662 - 1714)

        Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1798-1870)

        Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1715-1832)

Dan_11:1-4 -

The angel gives Daniel a prophetic preview of the next few hundred years.

Verse 1: This is the time of Darius the Mede (522 - 486 B.C.).

Verse 2a: Later, three more kings will arise:

 Ahasuerus (aka, Xerxes - 486-464 B.C.; whose wife was Esther), stopped the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem (486 B.C.),

 Artaxerxes I Longimanous (464-424 B.C.), Ezra returns with instructions to rebuild Jerusalem, including the wall (458 B.C.); Ezr_9:9,

 Darius II Nothous (423-406 B.C.),

Verse 2b: A fourth, wealthy king will arise: Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404-359 B.C.)

 "By his riches, he will amass an army and raise up the empire against Greece." The Greek cities of Ionia rebelled against Persian rule in 499 B.C., followed by the battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. under Darius I. In that battle the Greeks defeated Persian expeditionary forces convincingly; quite an embarrassment for Persia. That a future king of Persia should answer the Greeks' revolt would not be a surprising prediction in Daniel's day.

Verse 3: A mighty king will arise: Alexander.

Verse 4: Alexander's kingdom will be broken up into four kingdoms, but not to his sons (Alexander died in 323 B.C.).

 The family of Alexander ended tragically:

1.       His wife Statira was murdered soon after his death by his other wife Roxana.

2.      Antipater succeeded Perdiccas, 321 B.C.

3.      Ptolemy Lagus the same year (321 B.C.) took possession of Egypt.

4.      His brother Philip Aridaeus who succeeded him, was killed, together with his wife Euridice, by command of Olympias, Alexander’s mother, after he had been king about six years and some months. (317 B.C.)

5.      Olympias herself was killed by the soldiers in revenge.

6.      Cassander assumed the government of Macedon. (317 B.C.)

7.      Alexander Aegus, his son, together with his mother Roxana, was slain by order of Cassander.

8.      Two years after, his other son Hercules, with his mother Barsine, was privately murdered by Polysperchon; so that in fifteen years after his death not one of his family or posterity remained alive! (315 B.C.)

9.      Seleucus Nicator took possession of Syria. (311 B.C.)

 In 305 B.C. the successors of Alexander took the title of kings, and in 301 B.C. there occurred the battle of Ipsus, in which Antigonus, who reigned in Asia Minor, was killed, and then followed in that year a formal division of Alexander’s empire between the four victorious princes, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysimachus. This great battle of Ipsus, a city of Phrygia, was fought between Antigonus and his son Demetrius on the one side, and the combined forces of these princes on the other.

 In the division of the empire,

 Seleucus Nicator obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, and Susiana, Armenia, a part of Cappadocia, Cilicia, and his kingdom, in name at least, extended from the Hellespont to the Indies.

 The kingdom of Lysimachus extended over a part of Thrace, Asia Minor, part of Cappadocia, and the countries within the limits of Mount Taurus.

 Cassander possessed Macedonia, Thessaly, and a part of Greece.

 Ptolemy obtained Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene, and ultimately Ccelo-Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, and a part of Asia Minor and Thrace.

Dan_11:5-20 -

The North is Syria, and the South is Egypt.

Verse 5a: The king of the South: Ptolemy Lagus.

Verse 5b: The king of the North: Seleucus Nicator

Verse 6: Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, was married to Antiochus Theos, king of Syria.

Verses 7-8: Ptolemy Euergetes entered Syria against Seleucus Callinicus, taking part of it.

Verse 9: Seleucus attempts to enter into the kingdom of Ptolemy king of Egypt, in revenge of his having entered into his country and spoiled it; but shall be obliged to return to his own land without any success: and so Justin says, that he fitted out a great fleet, which was destroyed by a violent storm; and after this he raised a great army to recover his dominion, but was defeated by Ptolemy, and fled in great terror and trembling to Antioch.

Verse 10: Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus, the latter of whom overran Theodotus who ruled part of Syria.

Verses 11-12: Ptolemy Philopator versus Antiochus.

Verses 13-14: Ptolemy Epiphanes, a minor of five years of age succeeds Ptolemy Philopater: Antiochus took the advantage of his youth, and entered into a league with king Philip of Macedon against Egypt, with some Israelis.

Verses 15-16: Antiochus with Philip of Macedon defeats Scopas, Ptolemy's general.

Verse 17: Antiochus gives Cleopatra I to Ptolemy Epiphanes in a peace agreement. She betrays her father and her people, allying with Rome against the king of Syria.

Verse 18: The Romans get revenge against Antiochus, defeating him by land and sea, so that he had to pay tribute and give hostages; one of them being his son, Antiochus Epiphanes.

Verse 19: Antiochus is forced to repair to his capital, but is slain when he attempts to steal gold from the temple of Jupiter at Elymais.

Verse 20: Seleucus Philopator, eldest son of Antiochus the great. After paying the tribute Antiochus had promised, he was assassinated, clearing the way for Antiochus Epiphanes.

Verse 21-32: Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, and Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt.

Of Antiochus Epiphanes, Gill writes that he is "called 'vile', being a very immoral man, given to drunkenness, lasciviousness, uncleanness, and unnatural lusts, and a violent persecutor... The word signifies "despicable"; he was a vile person, and justly condemned for his vices, and also for that mean and ignoble life he had lived at Rome, having been a hostage there for eleven or twelve years; and though the other hostages were changed at three years' end, yet he remained; which shows of what little account he was, even with his father; and was in no esteem with the people, among whom, by his freaks and frolics, he made himself very ridiculous; by rambling about streets with a servant or two; conversing with tradesmen about their trades; drinking with strangers, and people of low life; revelling at merry bouts with young people; putting on strange habits; throwing away his money among the rabble, and stones at those that followed him; washing at public baths among the common people; all which, and many others, are reported of him by historians; hence he was called by some Epimanes the madman; though he took to himself the title of Epiphanes the "illustrious", the reverse of his character. This is the little horn in Dan_8:9 and who was an eminent type of antichrist, with whom his character agrees."

 Then Henry says, "He shall be a vile person. He called himself Epiphanes - the illustrious, but his character was the reverse of his surname. The heathen writers describe him to be an odd-humored man, rude and boisterous, base and sordid. He would sometimes steal out of the court into the city, and herd with any infamous company incognito - in disguise he made himself a companion of the common sort, and of the basest strangers that came to town. He had the most unaccountable whims, so that some took him to be silly, others to be mad. Hence he was called Epimanes - the madman. He is called a vile person, for he had been a long time a hostage at Rome for the fidelity of his father when the Romans had subdued him; and it was agreed that, when the other hostages were exchanged, he should continue a prisoner at large."

 Clarke writes, "He flattered the Syrians, and gained their concurrence; and as he flattered the Syrians, so they flattered him, giving him the epithet of Epiphanes - the Illustrious. But that he was what the prophet here calls him, a vile person, is fully evident from what Polybius says of him, from Athenians, lib. v.: “He was every man’s companion: he resorted to the common shops, and prattled with the workmen: he frequented the common taverns, and ate and drank with the meanest fellows, singing debauched songs,” etc., etc. On this account a contemporary writer, and others after him, instead of Epiphanes, called him Epimanes - the Madman."

 Barnes expounds: "The reference here is to Antiochus Epiphanes, who reigned from 175 b.c. to 163 b.c. The epithet “vile” here given him was one which his subsequent history showed was eminently appropriate to him in all respects, as a man and as a prince. The Hebrew word rendered “vile” properly means one despised or held in contempt, Isaiah 49:7; Psalms 22:6. The meaning here is, that he was one who deserved to be despised, and who would be held in contempt - a man of a low, base, contemptible character [despicable]... Never were terms better applied to a man than these to Antiochus Epiphanes - both before and after his ascension to the throne. The manner of his seizing upon the crown is stated above. He was surnamed Epiphanes, “the Illustrious,” because, if we believe Appian, he vindicated the claims of the royal family against the usurpations of the foreigner Heliodorus. He also bore the name Theos, “God,” which is still seen upon his coins.

But by his subjects he was called Epimanes, “the Insane,” instead of “Epiphanes” - a name which he much more richly deserved. The following statement from Jahn (Heb. Commonwealth, ch. x. Section 92) will show with what propriety the term “vile” was applied to him: “He often lounged like a mere idler about the streets of Antioch, attended by two or three servants, and not deigning to look at the nobles; would talk with goldsmiths and other mechanics in their workshops, engage in idle and trifling conversation with the lowest of the people, and mingle in the society of foreigners and men of the vilest character. He was not ashamed to go into the dissipated circles of the young, to drink and carouse with them, and to assist their merriment by singing songs and playing on his flute. He often appeared in the public baths among the common people, engaging in every kind of foolish jest, without the least regard to the dignity of his station and character. Not unfrequently he was seen drunk in the streets, when he would throw his money about, and practice various other fooleries equally extravagant. He would parade the streets of his capital in a long robe, and with a garland of roses upon his head: and if any attempted to pass by or to follow him, he would pelt them with stones, which he carried concealed under his garments,” etc. See also Appian in “Syriacis,” 45:70-75; Eusebius in “Chronicon;” Athenaeus, lib. v. p. 193; x. p. 438; Livy, xli. 20; Diod. Sic. “Frag.” xxvi. 65; xxxi. 7, 8; Prideaux, “Con.” iii. 212-214; 1 Macc. 1:9."

This is the one who, as a type of Antichrist, sets up an abomination of desolation; stopping sacrifices and offerings in the Temple at Jerusalem, and declaring himself to be god. The Antichrist will also do these things, only the whole world will receive him (See: John 5:43). Just as Antiochus Epiphanes was, so shall be the Antichrist. He will be a base individual, given to carousing and drunkenness, sexual perversions, and complete hedonism.

Verses 33-35: The period between Antiochus Epiphanes and the end times is briefly noted here.

Verses 36-45: It is generally held that Antiochus Epiphanes was never free to "do as he pleases." Thus we know that these verses do not relate to him. The verses intervening, which speak of the holy ones who have insight, together with others who join them in hypocrisy, will resist the Antichrist until the end time (vs 35). "Then," as verse 36 continues, at the appointed time, "the king shall do what he pleases, exalting and magnifying himself above every god." This is not Antiochus Epiphanes. This is Antichrist.

Verse 37: There are several important points for us to consider:

1. "He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers,"

   This man will be a convert to a new religion.

2. "or for the desire of women,"

   He will be homosexual.

3. "nor will he show regard for any god; for he will magnify himself above all."

   He will call himself the incarnate god. This is not so unique among Muslims. The "Mad Caliph of Cairo" (Al-Hakim, 996-1021) considered himself God incarnate (beginning c. 1016). He was mostly rejected as such, and eventually assassinated, but the Druze religion is the brain-child of his most successful apostle (Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Darazi, d. 1019).
See also:
Dan_8:8-14. The "Male Goat" speaks of Alexander the Great, who was followed by four commanders who divided Alexander's kingdom. The little horn that comes up from one of them may be traced through the Roman Empire to the time of the Tribulation, from which one will come who, like Satan, draws some of the host of Heaven down to the earth (compare for instance: Rev_12:4, but note also the meaning of the Hebrew: akhareeth in Daniel 8:23, translated time in the KJV can also mean posterity). Finally, note that Islamic populations are growing in the European Union, so it isn't a stretch to think one of them may become a powerful person in the near future. Having gotten power, how hard would it be to become, say, the General Secretary of the United Nations? With such power, they could even vote to send troops into the United States to facilitate a "regime change" policy of their own.

Verse 38: I like Barnes here: "The general sentiment is, that all obligations of religion, and justice, and compassion, would be disregarded, and he would carry his purposes by mere power, with the idea, perhaps, included, as seems to be implied in the remainder of the verse, that he would set up and adore such a foreign god as would be a suitable representation of this purpose. It is hardly necessary to say that this was eminently true of Antiochus Epiphanes; and it may be equally said to be true of all the great heroes and conquerors of the world. Mars, the god of war, was thus adored openly in ancient times, and the devotion of heroes and conquerors to that idol god, though less open and formal, has not been less real by the heroes and conquerors of modern times; and, as we say now of an avaricious or covetous man that he is a worshipper of mammon, though he in fact formally worships no god, and has no altar, so it might be affirmed of Antiochus, and may be of heroes and conquerors in general, that the only god that is honored is the god of war, of power, of force; and that setting at naught all the obligations of religion, and of worship of the true God, they pay their devotions to this god alone."

 The Antichrist worships a "god of fortresses" in the place of any other god, of the gods of his fathers, and especially of the One True Living God. This means that he believes in, and puts all his trust (faith) in the police power of the state through force of arms. This does not mean that he won't convince some others that he is one of them. The Druze of today practice as Christians when among Christians, and as Muslims when among Muslims, so it is hardly surprising that Antichrist may convince some that he is a fellow worshipper. At any rate, with all the terrorists among Muslims today, it would be fitting for the Antichrist to claim to be a Muslim himself.

Verse 39: Unlike Antiochus Epiphanes, the Antichrist will claim that this god of fortresses empowers his successful campaigns against strongholds. He will reward those who submit to his rule by putting them in positions of power, and parceling land out for a price.

Verse 40: The end time locus of this prophecy is affirmed. This one will neither be the king of the North, nor of the South. Rather, both the South (Egypt) and the North (Syria) rise against the Antichrist, though for different reasons. It is as if the Antichrist has no country of his own - certainly not in the Middle East. He is certainly not the authority of any middle-eastern country, but he will plow through them convincingly.

Verse 41: It is interesting that Israel comes under attack, as well as many other countries, yet the few that the Antichrist will not plow through are Arab countries: The land of the "Two Sanctuaries"; Saudi Arabia.

Verses 42-45: He continues to subdue many countries, even Egypt, gaining wealth from them. Libya and Ethiopia join him.

 Now comes the end of his reign of terror. He hears of vastly superior forces coming against him from the East (China) and the North (could be Syria, but probably Russia), and he goes out to meet these forces in the valley of Megiddo (between the Mediterranean and the Sea of Galilee, and the beautiful, holy mountain of Jerusalem). There he meets his end.

Chapter 12:1-3: A brief discussion of the Tribulation of the end times, the resurrection, and eternal life. The archangel Michael will stand up for the Jewish people, and a time of great tribulation will come such as never came before. Only those chosen by God, written in the book (the Lamb's Book of Life), will be saved (verse 12). Then comes the resurrection, and judgment.

Verses 4-13: Daniel's concern and curiosity are premature, as these prophecies are about the end times. God is not in the habit of reciting 3,000 years ahead of time the headlines of today. He could, but that would make it harder for the wicked to believe the lie. Just as it says in verse 10, "the wicked will act wickedly; none of them will understand." Nevertheless, some specific information is here clearly given as guidance to the righteous in that time, as verse 10 follows up saying, "those with insight will understand."

"A time, times, and half a time" are commonly explained to mean 3 and a half years; as mentioned in verse 7, and confirmed in verses 11-12 (See also: Dan_7:25, Rev_12:14). During that time, many of the righteous will die (that is, be purged, purified and refined; verse 10). The "power of the holy people" will be "shattered" (verse 7). Then, the angel declares that "from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days" (verse 11). That adds up to 43 thirty-day months; 3 years and 7 months. But that is not the end, because he immediately adds (verse 12), "How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!" Clearly, when the end seems complete, there are still 45 days to come.

Some believe that temple ritual is spoken of here (verse 11). I am not so sure. I believe that there will be regular sacrifices instituted in Israel again, but it does not require the Temple to be rebuilt. The sacrifices and offerings can be done with a tabernacle; a tent of meeting, which can be anywhere. The tabernacle that Moses set up, and used for 40 years in the wilderness ended up in Gilgal, and stayed there throughout the periods of Joshua, the Judges, and well into the United Kingdom.

As for the abomination that makes desolate, that could be set up in that tabernacle, or it could be set up on the Temple Mount wholly without any Temple being built. It is still the only holy place for the Jews, regardless. Even though Muslims control that place now, it isn't unheard of for a Muslim to declare himself to be incarnate deity. The "Mad Caliph of Cairo", Al-Hakim, declared himself the earthly incarnation of God (c. 1016 A.D.). His new religion was given form and content by Hamzah ibn 'Ali ibn Ahmad. One of his missionaries was Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Darazi (d. 1019), which is the source of the name of the Druze religion today. They believe that there have been a number of incarnations of the deity, including Ezra, Jesus, and others.

So, what do we know about the Antichrist?

1.       The Gematria of his name will be six hundred sixty six (666). (Rev_13:18)

2.      He will deny that Christ is risen in the body. (1Jo_4:2-3, 2Jo_1:7)

3.      He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ); meaning "anointed", as in, sent by God. (1Jo_2:22)

4.      He will try to delude the church. (Mat_24:24)

5.      He will worship a god of fortresses. (Dan_11:38)

6.      His words will be vain, empty. (Eph_5:6)

7.      He will be homosexual or bisexual. (Dan_11:37)

8.      He will deceive the unsaved world. (Rev_13:4)

9.      He will appear to have a deadly head wound, which will be healed. (Rev_13:3)

10.   His appearing will be accompanied by lying signs and wonders. (2Th_2:9)

11.    He will try to change holidays and the law. (Dan_7:25)

12.   He will make war with the holy people, and will overcome them. (Rev_13:7; Dan_7:25)

13.   He forces everybody to carry a mark on their bodies; the hand or forehead, to buy and sell. (Rev_13:16-17)

14. He will be worshipped, and an image will be set up in the Holy Place for that purpose. (Rev_13:12-15; Mat_24:15; Mar_13:14; Dan_9:27)
=========================================================================================
Well, that's a lot for one man to accomplish. Barack H. Obama isn't even innaugurated, yet. Don't expect quite so much from a President of the United States, at any rate. Only a world-wide dictator can do so much.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Happy Thanksgiving

In these days of turmoil and trouble, with so many deliberately ignorant of the truth, it becomes increasingly difficult to find something in this world for which to be thankful. With the governments of the world giving away the substance of the people to major business interests, with terrorist groups murdering people indiscriminately, with nature herself destroying our infrastructure, and homes, and lives, there is less and less good to find in the world.

Thanks be to God that there is one objective truth that remains, as an anchor for the soul, keeping us at peace in the eye of the storm. That is, He is still on His throne, and He is not surprised by any of this. He still has full charge of the Universe, and nothing can happen that He does not allow. His plan includes the good and the bad, and folds them together for the good of all those who love Him, and who put their trust and faith in Him.

The evil ones do the worst that they can do, and they blindly hope to destroy God's plan to save the many. However well they may sound, however smart they may seem to be, however logical their plans may be (even Satan appears to be an angel of light), they are always evil. They do not trust in God. Rather, they trust in anything else.

In opposition to all the evil that they do, there is one overpowering force of truth that overwhelms them, making the evil they have done as though it never happened. This is truly something for which we can always be thankful.

God is always good.

Now, may the One Who walks behind reality, the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator of the Universe, Who loves you and has opened the Door for you, keep your name in His Book of Life, and say to you on That Day, "Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the rest which is prepared for you." Amen.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's Next

It is a shock to my system to hear Sean or one of the Talkers say, "Barack Obama is my president." I just can't stand to hear the phrase spoken by voices I have come to trust to some degree or other.

I'm the kind of person, though, who isn't afraid to analyze even the most offensive proposition. So, I wanted to begin this new BLOG with the question:

Is Barack H. Obama my president?

There are two honest answers to that question.
  1. To the extent that Obama is elected, yes, he is my president.
  2. Considering Obama's stated positions and history on every issue of relevance to me, my community and country, and all humanity, Barack Obama does not represent me.
Too bad, but my President-elect, and soon-to-be President of the United States will, for the next four years, fail to represent me on issues like abortion, national defense, respect for the military, economic policy, education, the meaning and impact of the Constitution on the objects which the Federal Government may address, et cetera. That is, my position will not be represented in any issue of moment.
In addition, the Congress will not represent me, either. Come to think of it, there isn't one official governmental body or political party that actually represents me right now.
I'm an orphan, in every respect.
That is freedom.
+++++++++++
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »