Home > Radical Islam, Theology and Eschatology > The “Perfect Human Being”: Can An Islamic Antichrist Present Himself As God And Receive Worship, Yet Remain A Servant Of ‘Allah’?

The “Perfect Human Being”: Can An Islamic Antichrist Present Himself As God And Receive Worship, Yet Remain A Servant Of ‘Allah’?


By ICA

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, “Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.”

With great anticipation, the Islamic world awaits a “savior.” They call him “The Mahdi.” They believe that he will unite the Muslim world together against all who refuse to submit to Islam, creating peace and lasting security by leading all nations into a new era of global Islamic “justice.” In 2012, at the annual United Nations General Assembly and in front of millions of people around the world, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that we would soon witness a new “global management” ruled by the “perfect human being” Imam Al-Mahdi along with his deputy, the prophet “Jesus Christ.”

The world of Biblical eschatology has undergone a major shift over the past few years. Many discerning Christians now recognize immediately this “Islamic messiah” as a prime candidate for the Biblical Antichrist. But despite all that has happened and continues to happen in the Muslim world as of late, there are still many others who continue to resist any notion that Islam is the religious ideology of the Beast in Daniel and Revelation and that the Biblical Antichrist could be a Muslim or be associated with Islam in any way. In their way of thinking, the argument always begins with the premiss that the Antichrist will be someone who will literally announce to the world that “I am God” and will then demand to be worshipped as God. Since no Muslim would ever dare claim to be God (under accusation of blasphemy and penalty of death) and since no Muslim would ever dare to worship a mere man who made such a claim (under accusation of blasphemy and penalty of death), Islam must, they believe, either be all but destroyed before a non-Islamic Antichrist comes to power or undergo a significant theological metamorphosis, making it virtually unrecognizable to the Islam that we have today. But there is something very significant that many are missing, and it involves the premisses upon which their conclusion is derived.

There Can Be Only One …

When someone assumes even one or two false premisses as true, the wrong conclusion will more often than not be the end result. And the belief that the Antichrist must say “I am God” is one example in particular. One of the claims often argued by Muslim apologists against the Christian belief in the Deity of Christ is that Jesus never said “I am God” anywhere in Scripture. And they are right. Jesus never said to the Sanhedrin, “I am God.” But there is something pivotal in the Biblical texts that Muslim thinkers either overlook or have chosen to willingly ignore entirely. Healing the sick and raising the dead to life notwithstanding, Jesus accepted worship — something that must be reserved for God alone (Matt. 28:9). Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:5-7) — something that only God can do. Jesus declared that “before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:54-58), effectively presenting Himself as the God of Israel in front of Jewish religious leaders. Jesus affirmed that He was the Messiah (Mark 14:60-62) who, according to Jeremiah 23:5-6, was to be the Lord God Himself and claimed to be the “Son of Man” dozens of times who, according to Daniel 7:13-14, was to be the eternal Ruler of an everlasting kingdom. Make no mistake about it. If someone who did not know the Hebrew Scriptures was present to see and hear Jesus, they would not have understood the theological significance of what Jesus did and said and would have probably given it no second thought. The Jewish religious leaders of His day, however, understood the theological significance of His actions and words immediately and sought to kill Him for “making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18).

With this in mind, let’s now turn our focus to the words of the Apostle Paul who, in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, wrote that the man of sin or lawlessness would one day somehow claim to be God.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, “Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the Day of the Lord] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying [apodeiknymi] himself as being God.”

The Greek word for “displaying” is “apodeiknymi” and means to “declare” or “exhibit” or “show” or “demonstrate” something. The implication, it would seem, of “apodeiknymi” is not that Antichrist must say “I am God” in any sort of a veracious verbal declaration, but rather that he displays himself as God through behavior or action. How? We find one possibility directly from the teachings of Islam itself. According to Sunni and Shi’a tradition, an Islamic “Messiah” figure called the Mahdi (or 12th Imam) is believed to be “the infallible intercessor between Allah and faithful Muslims” [1]. The Iranian President even describes the Mahdi as “The Ultimate Savior” of the world [2]. Islamic writings describe him to be “the awaited savior of this world … and under his rule poverty, suppression, oppression, tyranny, inequality, racism and instability would vanish” [3]. The significance of such claims cannot be overstated. According to Scripture, there is only One who is the intercessor between man and God (Romans 8:34). There is only One who is worthy to be called the Savior. There is only One whose coming kingdom will be able to bring true peace and justice to the world. And that One is the Lord God Himself:

Isaiah 43:11, 46:9b, “I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior… I am God, and there is none like me.”

Isaiah 9:6-7, “… And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness …”

SaviorMahdiAccording to Biblical Scripture, anyone claiming to be the “intercessor” between man and God or the “savior” of humanity returning to usher in global peace and justice would be attributing to himself titles or positions that is exclusive to God alone. He would be showing himself to be God. To a Muslim’s way of thinking, however, this is not the case at all since Islamic jurisprudence is based upon Islamic texts, not upon the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures of the Bible. “Savior” is not one of the 99 names of Allah in the Qur’an and there is no need for a Divine intercessor between man and God like there is in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, thus attributing such titles to an Islamic leader would in no way, shape or form be a declaration of divinity in the Muslim mind.

As we can see, claiming to be God does not therefore necessitate that the words “I am God” be spoken in order to make it a true declaration. Jesus attributed Divine functions and titles to Himself that could only to be attributable to the Almighty or His office and, as such, showed Himself to be God — distinct from the Father (John 14:23) and yet one with the Father (John 10:30). Conversely, when Antichrist shows himself to be God, he will do so in such a way that Jews and Christians will be able to recognize it immediately, but those who believe the lie will not. The elect will not be deceived (cf. Matthew 24:24). While accepting or claiming the position of “savior” and “intercessor” on one hand, a Muslim Antichrist would easily deny any accusation that he is claiming to be God on the other. In the eyes of the God of Israel, however, this is precisely what he would be doing.

Does The Prophet Daniel Tell Us That Antichrist Will Exalt Himself Above Every God, Including Allah?

One other argument against an Islamic Antichrist that is often raised involves Daniel 11:36-37:

Daniel 11:36-37, “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.”

“‘Allegiance is to Allah’ is written on the Mahdi’s banner.” (Al-Suyuti, Portents of the Mahdi, p. 65)

The argument asserts that the Antichrist could not be Muslim since Daniel tells us that he will “magnify himself above every god.” And since “every” must also include Allah, the Antichrist therefore cannot be a Muslim.  To address this concern, we should first be made aware that even though most translations incorporate the word “every” in verse 38, it is not included in the original Hebrew, though it is inferred. For instance, the NCV renders Daniel 11:36 to say that Antichrist “will brag about himself and praise himself and think he is even better than a god.” Wycliffe’s translation says that “the king shall do by his will, and he shall be raised [up], and magnified against each god, and against God of gods he shall speak great things.” Moreover, the thrust of Daniel 11:36-37 will not be fully understood unless it is read in full light of the verses that follow it:

Daniel 11:38-39,But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge [and] increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.”

Al Matin - Allah the Forceful

Al-A’raf 7:183

Context is key. Daniel clearly shows us in vs 36-37 that Antichrist will speak blasphemies against the God of gods, will pay absolutely no homage to the God of his fathers, and infers that he will “exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god.” However, Daniel then makes one exception. In vs 38-39 he introduces us to the one god that Antichrist does not elevate himself above, stating, “But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces … a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour … a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge [and] increase with glory.” This is the god that Antichrist will not exalt himself over, one that would be familiar to him, but not one that would be familiar to his fathers, Abraham and Ishmael.  Obviously, Antichrist cannot honour his god and increase him with glory if he believes that he is god [Allah] or that he is above him. That would be nonsensical.

Daniel 11:36-39 is not only a perfect description of how Islam operates as a religion, but is also a perfect description of what Islam is. An Islamic Antichrist will exalt himself over every faith and belief system that exists or has existed outside of his estate (H3653 ken — base, estate, office), outside of the religious ideology that the “seat of the beast” forces upon everyone under its control. Antichrist (and by direct implication the one whom he represents, Satan) will position himself against everything called god or considered God or divine outside of his base/estate/office. He will exalt himself over Ayyavazhi. Over Buddhism. He will exalt himself over the gods of Hinduism and each and every single one of its sects or denominations. He will exalt himself over Manichaeism. Over Mithraism. Over Zoroastrianism. Over Confucianism. Over every Shinto sect and school of thought. Over every indigenous religion that exists or has existed in the Americas, in Eurasia, in Africa, in Oceania or elsewhere. He will even exalt himself over the One True God of gods — the God of his fathers — over Adonai, over Mashiach, over Ruach ha Qodesh. He exalts himself over them all by attributing to himself a Divine Title or Function held only by YHWH, and by definition therefore declaring himself to be the God of gods.

The Islamic world accepting the Mahdi as their “savior” or the “intercessor” between Muslims and God will make this man to be “Christ” (the word “anti” doesn’t just mean against, it also means in place of) and is blatant idolatry and blasphemy in the eyes of God, effectively calling YHWH and His Messiah a liar. This is all a part of the deception that is Islam. Consider for a moment Islamic behaviour and teachings in light of Biblical revelation. On one hand, Islam convinces Muslims that they must not worship idols, yet on the other hand it commands them to kill anyone who says or does anything negative to the Qur’an, and to be willing to die for it. It commands them to kill anyone who says anything negative about Mohammed, and to be willing to die for their prophet.  It causes them to bow down facing Mecca five times a day where the Black Stone (Kaaba) sits, even teaching them that touching the Kaaba absolves them of sin(!)[4]. They will gladly offer their lives for every one of these, each of which is blatant idolatry in the eyes of YHWH because it is worship of the Qur’an, of their “prophet”, of the Black Stone, of their “savior.” It is worshipping the image of the Beast.

More Than Just A Man?

Some believe that Antichrist may not be an actual man at all, but rather something entirely different. In Revelation 13, the Beast is a kingdom or empire or system, yet is often described as a “him” or “he” anthropomorphically in many translations:

Revelation 13:4-6, “And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, ‘Who [is] like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?’ And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.” (NKJV)

However, from a textual standpoint, this need not be the case at all according to the Greek. The translators of the ESV understood this and rendered the verses accordingly:

Revelation 13:4-6, “One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast. And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?’ And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months.” (ESV)

Many who now view Biblical eschatology from the perspective of an Islamic End-Time paradigm are of the opinion that the “him” who receives the mortal “head wound” is not a person, but rather was likely the power and might of the Islamic Empire that ceased with the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924. Today, however, we are beginning to witness a reawakening of Islamism in the Muslim world, particularly with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and even the Islamist AKP Party in Turkey and the startling speed by which Islamism has so far been able to subdue all opposition, essentially imitating the sort of power and influence that one would expect during the induction of a “Neo-Ottoman” Islamic Empire.  We are beginning to witness a “healing” as it were of the Islamic Caliphate that received its mortal “head wound.”

As a system, Islam is itself fully and completely Antichrist to the core (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7). In the article “2 Thessalonians 2:4 — A Rebuilt Jewish Temple, or Something Else?” I felt it was important to note that:

There is also one final point that needs to be considered as well with respect to the “man of sin”.  We should not discount the possibility that the “man of sin” may not be pointing to one single person as it were, though the general consensus is precisely that, but could instead be pointing to one single entity or system.  The Ekklesia of God is comprised of a great multitude of believing Jews and Gentiles created as “one new man” in Christ who are marked by God (Eph. 2:15, Rev. 14:1) and described by John in Revelation 7 as the “multitude of the lamb”, ie, Jesus Christ. Conversely, the “man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3) could therefore be its direct antithesis comprised of those who have the Mark of the Beast and described by John in Revelation 13 as the “multitude of a man”, ie, the “prophet Mohammed”.  If this is the case, then we may be even closer to the cusp of prophetic fulfillment than many of us realize.

The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that the “man of sin” or “lawlessness” — whom we often refer to as Antichrist — “takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” It is important to note, however, that the Greek word for “in” is the word “eis” (G1519), but it does not only mean “in.” It is also translated dozens of times as “against” in Scripture. For example:

Matthew 10:21, “Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.”

Matthew 18:21, “Then Peter came to Him and said, ‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?'”

Mark 14:55, “Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none.”

In the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 the Apostle Paul made a reference to the “temple of God.” The natural assumption on the part of the translators would have therefore been to interpret “eis” to mean in. But in light of the full canvas of Scripture we now understand that the New Testament writers, including the Apostle Paul, no longer defined the temple of God in terms of one that was made of stone, but rather as one made of people — the Ekklesia of God (the Church):

1 Corinthians 3:17, “If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.”

1 Peter 2:5, “And now God is building you, as living stones, into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are God’s holy priests, who offer the spiritual sacrifices that please him because of Jesus Christ.” (NLT)

Ephesians 2:19-22, “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner[stone], in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

In this light, the Holy Spirit could very well have been referring to the “man of sin” or “lawlessness” as the Ummah of Islam which stands against the temple of God, essentially displaying itself as God by usurping the Divine title/office/way of Salvation in claiming that salvation is only found in “Allah and His Messenger” and not in YHWH and His Messiah. And, sure enough, the Ummah of Islam stands against the temple of God and does this very thing today, blaspheming the God of our Salvation and boastfully declaring that “Jews and the Christians are enemies of the [Islamic] believers” who are “cursed” because “adhering to Islam is the only path to enter heaven, and escape hellfire” [5]. Whether Antichrist is a man or a system, we may indeed be even closer to the cusp of prophetic fulfillment than many of us realize.

What Does It All Mean?

Islam is directly influenced, controlled and is even being given its authority by Satan himself. I think most of us would agree. Lately, however, Islam has been strengthening considerably in its authoritative influence, and may even strengthen militarily if/when Iran reaches nuclear capability. But it is more than just a violent religion that hates everything outside of its own ideology. It is Satan’s platform upon which he is attempting to exalt himself and become like the God of Heaven. It is a means to an end.

As the Prophet Isaiah tells us, Satan has explicitly declared his intention to rise above the stars of God and to become like Him:

Isaiah 14:12-14, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation … I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

It is no coincidence that this also happens to be the exact description of Antichrist as given to us by the Prophet Daniel. Isaiah exposes Satan’s own corrupted ambitions, to magnify himself above everything that is called god, above everything that is associated with the God of gods, to be like God Himself.  And the Ummah of Islam and its “savior” is how he intends to accomplish this. The “stars of God” may even be referring to the people of God, His Ekklesia:

Deuteronomy 1:8-11, “‘See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to your fathers–to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–to give to them and their descendants after them.’ … ‘The LORD your God has multiplied you, and here you [are] today, as the stars of heaven in multitude. ‘May the LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you”

Kaaba: Idol Of Stone (Click To Learn Why This Is Idolatry)

Kaaba: Idol Of Stone (Click To Learn Why This Is Idolatry)

The name of Satan in Isaiah 14:12 (Lucifer) is “heylel,” which means “light-bearer”. The Arabic equivalent of Satan’s name is “hilal,” which means “crescent moon.” Also consider the “Takbir” of Islam, the victory cry of “Allahu Akbar.” What are they saying? It doesn’t mean “God is great” as it is often translated in the West. It actually means “Allah is greater.” If it is Satan’s intention to be like the Most High and to exalt his throne above the stars of God and sit upon the mount of his own congregation, it only stands to reason that Satan will seek to accomplish these things and perform these blasphemies through the religious system to which he has given power and authority — Islam. After all, those who marvel and follow the Beast “worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast” (Rev 13:4), and Satan knows that when they are worshipping “Allah” and the image of the Beast, they are worshipping him. Satan is therefore working to exalt and magnify himself as the Prophet Isaiah described through the religious ideology of Islam that diametrically opposes everything that the Judeo-Christian faith represents and stands for. But although the enemy will try to destroy what God has created, he cannot and will not prevail against the Ekklesia of God. All he can do is create his own corrupted version of God’s elect, to wage war against God’s elect, in an effort to replace God’s elect with one that is created in his own image. Just as the Ekklesia of YHWH is the “Body of Christ” (and also referred to as His Bride), Satan’s counterfeit of the Church — the Ummah — is the “Body of Antichrist” (and is referred to as the Harlot):

Yahweh has the Ekklesia (The congregation of God, the true Church).
Satan has the Ummah (The congregation of Allah, an apostate Church).

Yahweh has given the Ekklesia His Word, the Word of God, the Holy Bible.
Satan has given the Ummah its corruption, the “Word of Allah”, the “Holy” Qur’an.

Yahweh’s Ekklesia is like “a bride adorned for her husband” and filled with “the glory of God.”
Satan’s Ummah is like a harlot “decked with gold and precious stones and pearls” and filled with abominations.

* Yahweh’s Ekklesia is “a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
* Satan’s Ummah is “a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit…”

Yahweh’s Ekklesia is the multitude of the Lamb — Jesus the Messiah — whom they follow.
Satan’s Ummah is the multitude of a man — Mohammed the “prophet” — whom they follow.

Yahweh’s Ekklesia comes out of Great Tribulation.
Satan’s Ummah is responsible for it.

Yahweh’s Ekklesia receives the seal of God upon their foreheads and are redeemed.
Satan’s Ummah receives the Mark of the Beast upon their foreheads and are condemned.

Yahweh’s Ekklesia will be lead to springs of living waters.
Satan’s Ummah will drink of the wine of the wrath of God.

To borrow the analogy from the concluding remarks made in the Revelation 13 commentary, the stage has been set. In the “theatre” of Biblical eschatology, it is ready for the final act.  All “props” are in position.  The “characters” are in full costume.  And the world is watching in attendance. Very soon we will witness the final act begin, and through Islam Satan will make his final stand against the Prince of princes.

Revised 10/18/2012
Advertisements
  1. Dan
    07/10/2013 at 4:04 AM

    “Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet… These two were cast alive into the lake of fire…” Revelation 19:20.

    In this case, the terms, “beast” and “false prophet” in this verse are general terms for the whole of that type throughout history.

    Note: Whether a word or verse in the Bible is singular or general in meaning is determined by the commentary of the surrounding scripture, e.g. Malachi 3:1 is singular in its meaning of “messenger” and “prophet,” whereas the “beast” and “false prophet” in Revelation are general in meaning.

    E.g. the meaning of “the lie” can mean the general body of lies or a single lie depending on the surrounding scripture. Likewise, “the devil” can mean the general horde of devils or an individual devil or the chief devil, Satan. And, “Satan” can refer to him as an individual or his kingdom in general.

    Like

  2. ICA
    07/10/2013 at 11:03 AM

    Hi Dan, thank you for your comments.

    Dan, “Any doctrine that exalts itself above that of Christ’s is antichrist, which would include all religions and ideologies outside of faith alone in Christ”

    Yes.

    Dan, “Islam and Roman Catholicism foreseen by Daniel… The ‘beast’ component of the Antichrist refers to religions and institutions that openly work at destroying Christ’s kingdom on earth, that is, Christianity.”

    John refers to the “mother [singular] of all harlots” (Rev 17). In Middle Eastern terminology, the usage of such an expression denotes something that is the largest, or greatest, or foremost in significance. It’s like saying that during an anti-drug operation the police seized the “mother load” of drugs, for instance. It is referring to the largest capture. Just prior to the first Gulf war, Saddam Hussein stated that upcoming fight against America would be the “mother of all battles”, meaning the greatest of wars. Likewise, the “mother of all harlots” is referring to the greatest “harlot” body of all false religions on the face of the earth, namely, Islam.

    Moreover, in Revelation 17:3 John describes being taken to a desert, but if the “woman sitting on a scarlet beast” is referring to Catholicism in any way, shape or form, when was Rome ever a desert or an empty wilderness? This simple yet significant detail alone in Revelation, often referred to as the “sister book” of Daniel, suggests that Rome is never in view here, but rather a place such as Mecca in the “desert kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, the spiritual birthplace of the “Christian cult” of Islam. Catholicism has nothing to do with the prophetic visions of Daniel and John.

    Dan, “the papacy is far more cunning in disguising itself behind Christ’s name, and in the killing of souls, that is, spiritually, by leading men astray from in the word with corrupted interpretations.”

    What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Paul’s letters — have they all become Roman Catholic, or have they all been destroyed and/or converted into mosques through Islamic conquest? Since Catholics believe that Jesus is God in the flesh who died on the cross for the sins of the world, are there therefore any Catholics who are born-again and saved by the blood of Christ? (The answer is of course, yes, there are). Since Islam denies that Jesus is God in the flesh and denies that Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world, can there therefore be any Muslims who are born again and saved by the blood of Christ? (The answer is a resounding no). To associate Catholicism with the Beast, however, implies that Catholic Christians are unable to obtain salvation. Though I take issue with many doctrines of the Catholic church and some Protestant denominations as well, the inference that no salvific faith can exist in the heart of a Catholic is not a biblical position to take and suggests that all of the Catholics today who refuse to deny Christ and who are being shot, blown up, beheaded etc. by Islamists for the faith of Jesus are all dying for Christ in vain. Such an argument is indefensible.

    The focus of Daniel and John’s prophetic visions was Middle Eastern/Israel centric. If the Book of Daniel and Revelation refers to events that not only happen throughout history but also in the eschaton of time — the time in which we are living today — for what conceivable reason should Catholicism be associated with the Antichrist/Beast when the Papacy today is not killing non-Catholic Christians and hasn’t been for hundreds of years? Islam has killed and continues to kill both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians at an ever increasing pace as we speak, yet the Pope is not calling for the heads of Protestants, or anyone for that matter. In fact, the Papacy is calling for an end to war and killing and has even recently Canonized 800 Christian “martyrs of Otranto” who were beheaded by 15th century Islamists.

    Reformed theologians today may point to Church history in an effort to support their contention, however it was not just Roman Catholics killing Protestants. It was also Protestants killing Roman Catholics. If Roman Catholics were associated with Antichrist/The Beast by Protestants because of the way Protestants were mistreated, what does that in turn make the Protestants who sanctioned and called for scores of Roman Catholics to be executed? The old Reformed position is Deformed. It may have sounded plausible during its day, but is now a very tenuous position to take. When all things are considered, one can easily deduce that Islam alone, which calls for the killing of all Christians regardless of whether one is Catholic or Protestant and which also sanctions the beheading of such “infidels”, is in fact the Beast that both Daniel and John foresaw.

    Like

  3. Dan
    07/11/2013 at 5:14 AM

    ICA, you said,

    “Moreover, in Revelation 17:3 John describes being taken to a desert, but if the “woman sitting on a scarlet beast” is referring to Catholicism in any way, shape or form, when was Rome ever a desert or an empty wilderness? This simple yet significant detail alone in Revelation, often referred to as the “sister book” of Daniel, suggests that Rome is never in view here, but rather a place such as Mecca in the “desert kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, the spiritual birthplace of the “Christian cult” of Islam. Catholicism has nothing to do with the prophetic visions of Daniel and John.”

    Revelation 17 is not is not talking about any place in particular but is a general overview of the spiritual condition of the world as pointed out in verse 1 and 15.

    Come, I will show you the judgement of the great prostitute [the woman on the scarlet beast] who sits on many waters.

    The waters which you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues.

    “Since Catholics believe that Jesus is God in the flesh who died on the cross for the sins of the world, are there therefore any Catholics who are born-again and saved by the blood of Christ? (The answer is of course, yes, there are).”

    This is true, but that does not alter the fact that Roman Catholic doctrine has unchristian pagan doctrines within it which water down and distort the pure message of salvation, e.g. salvation by works and not by faith in Christ alone, being the main one. This and many other pagan superstitions and practices were exposed by the Reformation which said, “Scripture alone,” and which brought to light the corrupted commandments of both devil and man.

    “To associate Catholicism with the Beast, however, implies that Catholic Christians are unable to obtain salvation.”

    That is not what I implied, otherwise there would have been no Reformation, which was instigated by some from within Catholicism.

    “Though I take issue with many doctrines of the Catholic church and some Protestant denominations as well, the inference that no salvific faith can exist in the heart of a Catholic is not a biblical position to take…”

    I said, “…by leading men astray from the word with corrupted interpretations.” The biblical position should be as per what God’s word says and not the selfish commandments of men, which we see plenty of in Roman Catholic doctrine.

    “…and suggests that all of the Catholics today who refuse to deny Christ and who are being shot, blown up, beheaded etc. by Islamists for the faith of Jesus are all dying for Christ in vain. Such an argument is indefensible.”

    Different Islamic factions behead and blow each other up too, not just those from other religions.

    “…by Islamists for the faith of Jesus are all dying for Christ in vain. Such an argument is indefensible.”

    This still does not alter the fact that: “the papacy is far more cunning in disguising itself behind Christ’s name, and in the killing of souls, that is, spiritually, by leading men astray from in the word with corrupted interpretations.”

    “…for what conceivable reason should Catholicism be associated with the Antichrist/Beast when the Papacy today is not killing non-Catholic Christians and hasn’t been for hundreds of years?”

    Because, it was exposed and defeated by the Reformation otherwise it would have continued killing non-Catholic Christians.

    “Islam has killed and continues to kill both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians at an ever increasing pace as we speak, yet the Pope is not calling for the heads of Protestants, or anyone for that matter.”

    Again, because it was exposed and defeated by the Reformation otherwise it would have continued killing non-Catholic Christians. It should be noted that those involved in the Reformation also exposed Islam and many other things besides Catholicism including many social issues. They attacked almost everything that was contrary to God’s word.

    “In fact, the Papacy is calling for an end to war and killing and has even recently Canonized 800 Christian “martyrs of Otranto” who were beheaded by 15th century Islamists.”

    Islamists have their “holy martyrs” also.

    “Reformed theologians today may point to Church history in an effort to support their contention, however it was not just Roman Catholics killing Protestants. It was also Protestants killing Roman Catholics. If Roman Catholics were associated with Antichrist/The Beast by Protestants because of the way Protestants were mistreated what does that in turn make the Protestants who sanctioned and called for scores of Roman Catholics to be executed? The old Reformed position is Deformed.”

    Going against the teachings of Christ is the issue. Who was killing who, for whatever reason, still does not alter the fact that: “the papacy is far more cunning in disguising itself behind Christ’s name, and in the killing of souls, that is, spiritually, by leading men astray from in the word with corrupted interpretations.”

    “It may have sounded plausible during its day, but is now a very tenuous position to take.”

    In what respect?

    “When all things are considered, one can easily deduce that Islam alone, which calls for the killing of all Christians regardless of whether one is Catholic or Protestant and which also sanctions the beheading of such “infidels”, is in fact the Beast that both Daniel and John foresaw.”

    Different factions within a group call each other ‘infidels’ and kill or have killed each other throughout history so how can one say that Islam alone is the Beast? Rather, the beast refers to the whole of that type, which employs tactics according to its direct murderous nature, which would include Islam, Nazism, communism, and organised crime etc.

    Would you say that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot etc., who, in a very short time, murdered and injured more people in the last century than anyone else in history, were not part of the Beast?

    Like

  4. Mike
    07/11/2013 at 7:24 AM

    Here are some more reasons why Rome absolutely cannot be the antichrist empire.

    1. John sees the last empire (the beast) as identified with the Greek (leopard), Persian (bear) and Babylonia (lion) empires in Revelation 13:2. However, he does not also see Rome as a fourth empire in his vision, even though the Roman Empire had already begun 158 years previous to John’s writing.

    2. In Revelation 17:10, the 6th king or kingdom that was still in existence at the time of John’s writing is obviously the Roman Empire (63 BC – 476 AD). However, he does not associate the 6th with the last terrifying empire in Daniel’s vision, but rather he associates it with the 7th kingdom.

    3. In Revelation 17:11, the last kingdom is the 8th one. If this were the Roman Empire resurrected, then Rome would have had to be the 7th kingdom and not the 6th.

    4. Daniel 2 is a revelation of what would later happen to Babylon. Maps of the Babylonian, Media-Persian and Greek Empires show each succeeding empire includes the previous one, expanding further than the previous empire. However, Rome did not include all of the previous Greek Empire.

    5. To break in pieces all four kingdoms at the same time in Daniel 2:34-35, they would have to overlap geographically. The Roman Empire does not fully overlap the previous empires. However, we see in the next map at the right that the Islamic Empire overlaps the previous empires.

    6. In Daniel 7:7, “devour” means not only conquer militarily, but geographically, culturally, religiously and changing languages. Rome did not do this. Islam, however, has done this for its entire history and is doing this today right now.

    7. In Revelation 20:4, those who had not worshiped the beast or accepted the mark had been beheaded. Rome was a political empire and did not practice beheading for political crimes. Consistent with the end times conflict being religious, not political, Islam continues to practice beheading to this today right now.

    8. Daniel 2:41 says the last kingdom will be one that is divided. After Mohammed, his empire was divided into what is today Sunni and Shia. Even today, we see much of the violence is between these two groups.

    9. The Muslim Empire led by the Caliphate conquered the Byzantine Empire in 1453 but as the Turkish Ottoman Empire, it ended in 1924. If it revives, it could fulfill Revelation 13:3; 17:8, 11. Papal Rome cannot.

    10. As the empires before it were bent on worldwide conquest, so is Islam and it is doing this on the largest scale ever. Also, see Revelation 6:2, where the first Seal of a horse and rider goes forth to conquer. Papal Rome is in decline. Islam is growing both in population and influence at an alarming rate.

    Like

  5. ICA
    07/11/2013 at 11:52 AM

    Hi Dan, everyone is free to believe what they wish in this respect, and that’s ok. From the preponderance of the evidence we are given in Scripture, however, Roman Catholicism is not the focus of Daniel and John’s visions. That understanding is added into the text, not taken out of it.

    Dan, “Revelation 17 is not is not talking about any place in particular but is a general overview of the spiritual condition of the world as pointed out in verse 1 and 15.”

    To the contrary, Revelation 17 contains much more specificity than just a “general overview of the spiritual condition of the world”. The judgment here is directed specifically upon the “Great Whore” [singular] described as “a woman sitting on a scarlet beast … arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls … on her forehead a name [was] written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH… drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (17:1-6). The color scarlet represents “sin” (Isaiah 1:18, “… though your sins be as scarlet …”), but scarlet was also one of the colors that was associated with the fine materials used in the construction of the Temple, the dwelling place of God (cf. Exodus 26:1). We are taught in the New Testament, however, that the Temple of God is no longer defined in terms of one that was made of stone, but rather as one made of people — the Ekklesia (the Church):

    1 Corinthians 3:17, “If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, WHICH TEMPLE YOU ARE.”

    1 Peter 2:5, “And now God is BUILDING YOU, AS LIVING STONES, into HIS SPIRITUAL TEMPLE. What’s more, you are God’s holy priests, who offer the spiritual sacrifices that please him because of Jesus Christ.” (NLT)

    Ephesians 2:19-22, “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner[stone], in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into A HOLY TEMPLE in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

    According to the verses above, the Ekklesia is the “Lord’s House” where He dwells and includes all born-again believers in Christ Jesus. Knowing that Satan seeks to be like God (Isaiah 14), does it not stand to reason that he will also seek to create his own version of the “Lord’s House” whereby he can himself dwell and sit upon the mount of his own congregation? Let’s think about this for a moment. In chapter 5 of the book of Zechariah we read about a vision that Zechariah was given of a flying scroll and a “wicked woman”. An angel tells Zechariah that “This is the curse that is going out over the whole land” at the appointed time (5:3,11). The Prophet Zechariah then writes that “the angel who was speaking to me came forward and said to me, ‘Look up and see what this is that is appearing.’ I asked, ‘What is it?’ He replied, ‘It is a measuring basket.’ And he added, ‘This is the iniquity of the people throughout the land.’ Then the cover of lead was raised, and there in the basket sat a woman” (Zech 5:5-7). Zechariah continues, “He said, ‘This is wickedness,’ and he pushed her back into the basket and pushed the lead cover down over its mouth. Then I looked up–and there before me were two women, with the wind in their wings! They had wings like those of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between heaven and earth. ‘Where are they taking the basket?’ I asked the angel who was speaking to me. He replied, ‘To the country of Babylonia to build a house for it. When it is ready, the basket will be set there in its place.’” (Zech 5:8-11).

    Of particular interest here is the fact that this “curse” is described as a “woman” who would be set up in “Babylon” (Shin’ar). The Babylonian Empire encompassed areas of Saudi Arabia (the birthplace and spiritual homestead of Islam) to the south, to parts of Turkey in the north (“where Satan’s throne is” and “where Satan dwells”, cf Rev. 2:13), and from Egypt in the west to Persia (Iran) in the east. This area is today the regional epicenter of Islam. Additionally, one intriguing aspect to the “curse” that goes out over the whole land is that the word for “curse”, and even how it is pronounced, is the Hebrew word “alah”. The Prophet Isaiah, in describing the condition of the earth at the time leading up to the Second Coming of Messiah, says that “the curse [alah] has devoured the earth, And those who dwell in it are desolate” (Isa 24:6). To dwell in the earth does not in and of itself make one “desolate”. But the same cannot be said for those who dwell in the “curse.”

    There should be little doubt that the “woman” of Zechariah 5 that would have a house built for it in Babylon directly represents the “Whore of Babylon” referred to earlier. Over 600 years after Zechariah’s vision of the end times, John in Revelation 17 is given a vision of the future and of “the great harlot who sits on many waters … And on her forehead a name [was] written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” (17:1,5). Given the fact that the “Whore of Babylon” directly represents the curse (alah), for what conceivable reason should we think that this is somehow referring to Roman Catholicism? There is none.

    Judging from the text of Revelation 17, the “Whore of Babylon” is a counterfeit and perversion of the Bride of Christ. Whereas the Bride of Christ (described as “a bride adorned for her husband” who is filled with “the glory of God” and is “like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal”, cf. Rev 21:2,11) is also the “Lord’s House” and is a dwelling place of God in the Spirit, the “Whore of Babylon” (described as “full of names of blasphemy” and as being “arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness”, cf. Rev 17:3-4) is the “House of Satan” and is a dwelling place of demons (Rev 18:2). The words that John uses to describe the “Bride” and the “Whore” do not simply describe what they are, but rather what they are like.

    The “Whore of Babylon” is an abomination and is Satan’s platform upon which he is attempting to exalt himself and become like the God of Heaven. The name of Satan in Isaiah 14:12 (Lucifer) is “heylel,” which means “light-bearer”. The Arabic equivalent of Satan’s name is “hilal,” which means “crescent moon” — the very symbol of Islam itself. Satan’s own “Ekklesia” (referred to by Muslims as “The Ummah”) is a means to an end. Satan will never be like God or replace God and all Satan can do is create his own corrupted version of God’s elect, to wage war against God’s elect, in an effort to replace God’s elect with one that is created in his own image. Just as the Ekklesia of YHWH is the “Body of Christ” (and also referred to as His Bride), Satan’s counterfeit of the Church — the Ummah — is the “Body of Antichrist” (and is referred to as the “Whore of Babylon”). In summation:

    * Yahweh has the Ekklesia (The congregation of God).
    * Satan has the Ummah (The congregation of Allah).

    * Yahweh’s Ekklesia is “as a bride adorned for her husband” and filled with “the glory of God”.
    * Satan’s Ummah is a harlot “decked with gold and precious stones and pearls” filled with abominations.

    * Yahweh has given the Ekklesia His Word, the Bible.
    * Satan has given the Ummah its corruption, the Qur’an.

    * Yahweh’s Ekklesia is the multitude of the Lamb, whom they follow.
    * Satan’s Ummah is the multitude of a man, the “prophet” Muhammed, whom they follow.

    * Yahweh’s Ekklesia comes out of Great Tribulation.
    * Satan’s Ummah is responsible for it.

    * Yahweh’s Ekklesia receives the seal of God upon their foreheads and are redeemed.
    * Satan’s Ummah receives the Mark of the Beast upon their foreheads and are condemned.

    * Yahweh’s Ekklesia will be lead to springs of living waters.
    * Satan’s Ummah will drink of the wine of the wrath of God.

    This Beast has nothing to do with Catholicism. But it has everything to do with Islam.

    Dan, “Roman Catholic doctrine has unchristian pagan doctrines within it”

    Like Easter and Christmas? These have pagan origins, too, but have been “Christianized” to give glory to God by non-Catholics as well. Catholics believe in the Triunity of One God, believe that Jesus was the Messiah, believed that the Messiah died on the Cross for our sins, believe that Christ is the Way and the Truth and the Life, believe they are saved by grace. Sure, there are teachings within Catholicism that I take serious issue with, but there are many Catholics who do not believe every official doctrine of the Catholic church. I always say to people that if they believe everything that their church or denomination officially teaches, then they are not thinking hard enough. There is not one single Christian denomination that is 100% correct in everything they teach. In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

    Dan, “which water down and distort the pure message of salvation, e.g. salvation by works and not by faith in Christ alone, being the main one.”

    To my knowledge Catholics do not simply believe in “salvation by works”. Having said that, although we are saved by faith alone, the faith that saves is not itself all alone. It is the type of faith that by its very nature leads to works. If someone claims to have faith but it does not lead to change, then such a faith is not alive. It is dead. In other words, what is required is faith that leads to works, but it is not the works that save you, but rather the faith (cf James 2).

    Dan, “The biblical position should be as per what God’s word says and not the selfish commandments of men, which we see plenty of in Roman Catholic doctrine.”

    We see plenty of tradition and “commandments of men” in non-Catholic denominations as well.

    Dan, “[Catholics were] exposed and defeated by the Reformation otherwise it would have continued killing non-Catholic Christians… In what respect [is it now a very tenuous position to take today]?”

    Catholics are no longer killing non-Catholics my friend. This is a serious issue for those trying to associate Catholicism with the Beast of Daniel and John. The Beast of Scripture kills and beheads those who hold to the faith of Christ right up until the Second Coming. What religion fits that bill today and is “drunk with the blood of the saints”? Roman Catholicism? Definitely not. Islam? Absolutely.

    Dan, “Would you say that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot etc., who, in a very short time, murdered and injured more people in the last century than anyone else in history, were not part of the Beast?”

    No. Not only are they not part of the eschatonic Beast described by the Prophet Daniel and by John in Revelation, they did not murder more than anyone else in history. As is noted here, Islamic jihad has been the greatest mass murdering force in the history of humanity. As long as Islam has existed, it has never known peace. Bill Warner, director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, stated during a 2007 interview with FrontPageMag that, “Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest… The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam. In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad. Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.” (Read more). And the persecution of Jews and Christians, and the atmosphere of Islamic wars upon the earth, continues to this very day. Even now, Islamists boldly declare that if non-Muslims do not accept Islam “they will never know peace.” And the numbers continue to rise every minute of every hour of every day, one body at a time.

    Like

  6. Dan
    07/12/2013 at 4:30 AM

    ICA, you said,

    “To the contrary, Revelation 17 contains much more specificity than just a “general overview of the spiritual condition of the world”.

    My original statement was that the ‘Antichrist’ is not a single person but is the whole sinful antichristian world system or Babylon, or Sodom (loose morals) and Egypt (pagan doctrines and practices) or ‘Vanity Fair’ which is presided over by the devil, “…the god [ruler] of this world…” John 14:30

    Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth. Revelation 17:5

    “…of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom [loose morals] and Egypt [pagan doctrines and practices], where also our Lord was crucified.” Revelation 11:8

    Of note, is, “…the great city which spiritually is called…”

    “Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgement has come.” Revelation 18:10

    My use of Revelation 17: 1 and 15 was intended to point out that Babylon is not a place but is the sinful world as a whole (spiritually), rather than a geographical area as you claim i.e., Rome, Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

    “And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.” [the whole earth] Revelation 18:24

    ICA, “From the preponderance of the evidence we are given in Scripture, however, Roman Catholicism is not the focus of Daniel and John’s visions. That understanding is added into the text, not taken out of it.”

    I said it was part of it, and you agreed when you said “Yes” to my opening statement in my original comment i.e.

    “Any doctrine that exalts itself above that of Christ’s is antichrist, which would include all religions and ideologies outside of faith alone in Christ” Your response: “Yes”

    Then you admit: “Sure, there are teachings within Catholicism that I take serious issue with…”

    And then wave it away with:

    “…but there are many Catholics who do not believe every official doctrine of the Catholic church.”

    But this does not get around the fact that it is the doctrine itself that makes it ‘antichrist’ because it exalts itself above that of Christ’s doctrine.

    And, “there is not one single Christian denomination that is 100% correct in everything they teach” is no excuse.

    “We see plenty of tradition and “commandments of men” in non-Catholic denominations as well.”

    Again, no excuse. The, ‘But he did it too’ argument is not a sound argument when ‘he’ is breaking God’s commands and/or going against Christ’s teachings.

    ICA, “To my knowledge Catholics do not simply believe in ‘salvation by works’.

    I am not speaking of the true church here (the original Catholic church e.g. of Augustine’s time) but of unscriptural papal doctrines which include salvation by works/good deeds (trying to buy God’s favour), which goes directly against Ephesians 2:8-9

    “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

    The originator of our faith is Christ 2000 years ago, not the Papal Hierarchy in Rome 1200 years later who turned God and his word into an idol of their own invention when they held their own councils and established as articles of faith whatever they pleased. In other words they were like the Pharisees in Mathew 23.

    The bottom line is: is a doctrine SCRIPTURAL?

    ICA, “Catholics are no longer killing non-Catholics my friend. This is a serious issue for those trying to associate Catholicism with the Beast of Daniel and John. The Beast of Scripture kills and beheads those who hold to the faith of Christ”

    As I said in my previous comment, because it (the papacy) was exposed and defeated by the Reformation, otherwise it would have continued killing ‘non-Catholic’ Christians.

    In your previous comment you also said, “It [“the old Reformed position”] may have sounded plausible during its day, but is now a very tenuous position to take.”

    In what respect is it a tenuous position, since it promoted ‘scripture alone’ which is precisely what God expects?

    ICA, “No. Not only are they [the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot etc.] not part of the eschatonic Beast described by the Prophet Daniel and by John in Revelation, they did not murder more than anyone else in history. Islamic jihad has been the greatest mass murdering force in the history of humanity.”

    Part of my statement read, “in a very short time.” Islam has been going for 1400 years.

    Like

  7. ICA
    07/12/2013 at 11:10 AM

    Dan, “My use of Revelation 17: 1 and 15 was intended to point out that Babylon is not a place but is the sinful world as a whole (spiritually), rather than a geographical area as you claim i.e., Rome, Mecca, Saudi Arabia.”

    Hi brother, it can be applied generally, but the focus and intent of Revelation 17 is not general. It is specific to the greatest “harlots” that the world has seen or will ever see, namely, the “woman” that sits upon the Beast. This has nothing to do with Catholicism. A few quick points:

    * John is taken to a desert to see the vision. Islam originated out of the desert kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not Roman Catholicism.

    * John sees what he describes as the greatest of harlots. The “Islamic Church” (called the Ummah) fits that bill, not Roman Catholicism.

    * In her hand is a golden cup full of abominations. Islam fits that bill, not Roman Catholicism.

    * John sees that this woman is “drunk with the blood of the saints”. Islam fits that bill, not Roman Catholicism.

    * The nations of the earth commit spiritual “fornication” with the harlot. The nations placate to Islam, not to Roman Catholicism.

    * Islam encompasses all political, military, religious, social and economic elements, having the power to give authority to kings and rulers. Roman Catholicism does not.

    * Islam makes war and will continue to make war with the Lamb. Roman Catholicism does not.

    * The woman is “that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth”. The nations of the earth bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims and the “Islamic Church”, not Roman Catholics and Catholicism.

    * In the full counsel of Scripture every nation named that Christ destroys at His Second Coming is today an Islamic nation, not Roman Catholic.

    The list can go on …

    Dan, “I said it was part of it, and you agreed when you said ‘Yes’ to my opening statement in my original comment i.e. ‘Any doctrine that exalts itself above that of Christ’s is antichrist, which would include all religions and ideologies outside of faith alone in Christ’ Your response: ‘Yes'”

    Because any antichrist doctrine that exalts itself above that of Christ’s would have to, by definition, deny that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 2). Islam does this, not Roman Catholicism.

    Dan, “Then you admit: ‘Sure, there are teachings within Catholicism that I take serious issue with…’ And then wave it away with: ‘…but there are many Catholics who do not believe every official doctrine of the Catholic church.’ But this does not get around the fact that it is the doctrine itself that makes it ‘antichrist’ because it exalts itself above that of Christ’s doctrine… The, ‘But he did it too’ argument is not a sound argument when ‘he’ is breaking God’s commands and/or going against Christ’s teachings… The bottom line is: is a doctrine SCRIPTURAL?”

    Scripturally speaking, denying the Father and the Son is what makes something “antichrist.” Catholicism does not deny the Father and the Son. That being said, even though many Catholic doctrines are not perfect, can God not save those with an imperfect understanding since it is Christ alone that saves? Can we name one single church or denomination that has a perfect understanding of Scripture or that is without error? Or, can we name one person today that has a perfect understanding of everything? There are none.

    Dan, “As I said in my previous comment, because it (the papacy) was exposed and defeated by the Reformation, otherwise it would have continued killing ‘non-Catholic’ Christians.”

    That is a very weak premiss to build an entire argument upon and isn’t sound reasoning brother. An assumed “what could have been” is far different from a factual “what is” today. And today, it is obvious that all Christians are being persecuted and slaughtered by the Islamic Beast, be they Catholic or non-Catholic. This is reality, today.

    Dan, “In what respect is it a tenuous position, since it promoted ‘scripture alone’ which is precisely what God expects? ICA, ‘No. Not only are they [the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot etc.] not part of the eschatonic Beast described by the Prophet Daniel and by John in Revelation, they did not murder more than anyone else in history. Islamic jihad has been the greatest mass murdering force in the history of humanity.’ Part of my statement read, ‘in a very short time.’ Islam has been going for 1400 years.”

    John’s vision of the Beast describes one that is eschatonic, one that is extant at the time of the Second Advent. However, the eschatonic Beast that he sees does not happen overnight. See the article titled, “Unsealed: A Closer Look At Revelation 6 And ‘The Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse’” for more information. The Beast described by John is alive and well today. Hitler/Stalin/Mau/Pol Pot are all dead and have little, if any, relative effect upon the Church.

    We will have to agree to disagree in this respect. Although there are those who see Catholicism in Revelation 17, I just don’t see it in the text anywhere at all.

    I’ll let you’re next reply be the last word, however rationalizing in one’s mind that Roman Catholicism is somehow associated with the Beast and with Antichrist will never make it so. At the end of the day there remains absolutely no Scriptural support for such a position whatsoever.

    Like

  8. Dan
    07/12/2013 at 8:47 PM

    ICA, you said,

    “Hitler/Stalin/Mau/Pol Pot are all dead and have little, if any, relative effect upon the Church.”

    Which is precisely why the Beast is not an individual but rather a series or group of individuals who are under the sway of the devil.

    “We will have to agree to disagree in this respect. Although there are those who see Catholicism in Revelation 17, I just don’t see it in the text anywhere at all.”

    The following may help.

    Whoever goes against/disobeys/adds to or takes away from Christ’s word is magnifying his own doctrine above that of Christ’s, and is therefore magnifying himself above Christ, who is the Word made flesh. This person or group of persons is by default then part of the ‘whore’ in verse 17 that is called Babylon.

    For example, ‘Pope’ means father which goes against…

    “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.” Matthew 23:9.

    There should be no middle man between us and God or anyone claiming to be God’s representative on earth. That and many other unscriptural doctrines that run contrary to God’s word render Roman Catholicism, together with Islam and any other doctrine or ideology that is contrary to God’s word a part of the antichrist/beast/false prophet or ‘great whore’ of Revelation 17; the idolatrous sinful world.

    In magnifying its own doctrine above God’s word, Roman Catholicism has magnified itself above God himself.

    “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods [Christ], and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.
    He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above them all. But in their place he shall honour a god of fortresses; and god which his fathers did not know he shall honour with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things.” Daniel 11:36-38

    The history of many of the popes and their attitudes and behaviour includes them in the preceding verse.

    Like

  9. Babs
    05/28/2014 at 5:05 PM

    So focused on Islam’s messiah the Mahdi you did not look at your own words, and I quote: According to Biblical Scripture, anyone who would proclaim himself to be the “intercessor” between man and God or the “savior” of the world would be attributing to himself a title or position that is exclusive to God alone, therefore presenting himself as God.
    Who but the Pope himself fits this? Who’s name in Latin, Greek and Hebrew equals 666. who down through the history of the Reformation has been called the Antichrist? The Pope. Who right NOW has the power to unite all Peoples? does any in Islam, or Israel or USA or Russia? Who?

    Like

  10. ICA
    05/28/2014 at 8:15 PM

    Babs, “So focused on Islam’s messiah the Mahdi you did not look at your own words, and I quote: According to Biblical Scripture, anyone who would proclaim himself to be the “intercessor” between man and God or the ‘savior’ of the world would be attributing to himself a title or position that is exclusive to God alone, therefore presenting himself as God. Who but the Pope himself fits this?”

    Hi Babs, thank you for your comment. According to the Bible’s own definition of what an antichrist is, it is one who denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22) and does not confess that the promised Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). The Pope does not deny the Father and the Son and confesses that Christ has come in the flesh. The Pope, therefore, does not fit the Bible’s own definition of antichrist. The term “Antichrist” means both “against” and “in place of” Christ, and the Pope is not someone who is against, nor is he someone who stands in place of, Christ. The Pope is said to intercede for his fellow Christians, but he does so as all Christians are instructed by the Apostle Paul himself, not in the sense that he acts as the Savior of mankind:

    1 Timothy 2:1-3, “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior …”

    I’ve written the following elsewhere before but it is worth repeating here as well. We cannot name one single church or denomination that has a complete and perfect understanding of Scripture or that is without error, nor can we name one person today that has a perfect understanding of everything. There are none. The Catholic church is simply another Christian denomination comprised of imperfect people striving to serve a perfect God, like all of us. Even though many Catholic doctrines are far from perfect, God can still save those with an imperfect understanding since it is Christ alone that saves. Catholics believe in the Triunity of One God and the Word who was manifested in the flesh to be crucified as the final sacrificial Lamb for our salvation. In my opinion, the Catholic church is in some ways similar to the church in Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-28). Although there are things about the church in Thyatira that Christ was against (which could also be said about you and I as non-Catholics as well I’m sure), there were good words of encouragement that He had to say for many in Thyatira as well.

    Babs, “Who’s name in Latin, Greek and Hebrew equals 666.”

    Any myriad of names could be made to “equal” six-six-six. In my view, however, the Mark of the Beast has nothing to do with gematria numerology nor is it numerical in the sense that many understand it to be. See the article titled “The Mark Of The Beast – What Your Church May Not Be Telling You” to understand why.

    Babs, “[W]ho down through the history of the Reformation has been called the Antichrist? The Pope.”

    Reformed theologians may today point to Church history in an effort to support their contention that Roman Catholicism is what was spoken of in Revelation because of what Catholics had done in the past, but it was not just Catholics killing Protestants. It was also Protestants killing Catholics. If Catholics were associated with the Antichrist/Beast/Whore of Babylon by Protestants because of the way Protestants were mistreated, what does that in turn make the Protestants who sanctioned and called for scores of Catholics to be executed? The old Reformed position is Deformed. It may have sounded plausible during its day, but is now a very tenuous position to take. When all things are considered, one can easily deduce that Islam alone — which calls for the killing of all Christians regardless of whether one is Catholic or Protestant and which also sanctions the beheading of such “infidels” — is in fact what both Daniel and John foresaw. Consider what happened to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Paul’s letters. Have they all become Roman Catholic, or have they all been destroyed and/or converted into mosques through Islamic conquest?

    Additionally, the Medieval painting of the Pope as being the biblical Antichrist implies that Catholic Christians are unable to obtain salvation since they’re part of the “Whore of Babylon” and the Beast she rides. Although I take issue with many doctrines of the Catholic church (as well as some non-Catholic, Protestant doctrines), the inference that no salvific faith can exist in the heart of a Catholic is Scripturally unjustifiable and suggests that all of the Catholics today who refuse to deny Christ and who are being shot, blown up, beheaded etc. by Islamists for the faith of Jesus are all dying for Christ in vain. Simply because they’re “Catholic”. Such an argument is indefensible. They are dying for the faith of Christ, not the Pope. Since Catholics believe that Jesus is God in the flesh who died on the cross for the sins of the world, are there therefore any Catholics who are born-again and saved by the blood of Christ? (The answer is of course, yes, there are). Since Islam denies that Jesus is God in the flesh and denies that Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world, can there therefore be any Muslims who are born again and saved by the blood of Christ? (The answer is a resounding no).

    The focus and intent of Revelation 17 is specific to the greatest “harlot” that the world has seen or will ever see, namely, the “woman” that sits upon the Beast. The Beast is an empire that is Middle-East centric, and the “woman” riding this Beast has nothing to do with Rome, but everything to do with the spiritual birthplace and homestead of Islam — Mecca. This is evidenced by the fact that:

    * John is taken to a desert to see the vision. Islam originated out of the desert kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not Roman Catholicism.

    * John sees what he describes as the greatest of harlots. The “Islamic church” (called the Ummah) fits that bill, not Roman Catholicism.

    * In her hand is a golden cup full of abominations. Islam fits that bill by teaching nothing but lies, not Roman Catholicism.

    * John sees that this woman is “drunk with the blood of the saints” at the time of the end. Islam is killing Christians today, not Roman Catholics.

    * The nations of the earth commit spiritual “fornication” with the harlot. This is spiritual fornication/adultery with a false religion. The nations today placate to Islam and its religious requirements (which denies the Father and the Son and the crucifixion of Jesus) and will dare not offend Muslims. They do not hold Roman Catholicism in the same regard.

    * Islam encompasses all political, military, religious, social and economic elements, having the power to give authority to kings and rulers. Roman Catholicism does not.

    * Islam makes war and will continue to make war with the Lamb. Roman Catholicism does not.

    * The woman is “that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth”. The nations of the earth bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims and the false “Islamic church”, not Roman Catholics and Catholicism.

    * In the full counsel of Scripture every nation named that Christ destroys at His Second Coming is today an Islamic nation, not Roman Catholic.

    * Islamic nations are responsible for the the bulk of the nations’ oil, not Roman Catholicism. Without this oil the economy would implode, even the worry of a new conflict in the Middle East causes oil prices to spike, threatening economic recoveries.

    In closing, please keep in mind that the focus of Daniel and John’s prophetic visions was Middle Eastern/Israel/Jerusalem centric. If the Book of Daniel and Revelation refers to events that not only happen throughout history but also in the eschaton of time — the time in which we are living today — then there is no conceivable reason why Catholicism can be associated with the Antichrist/Beast/Harlot when the Papacy today is not killing non-Catholic Christians and hasn’t been for hundreds of years. Islam, however, has been killing all who hold to the faith of Christ for the past 1400 years and continues to kill both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians at an ever increasing pace as we speak. The Papacy is not calling for the heads of Protestants, or anyone for that matter, and is in fact calling for an end to war and killing and has even recently Canonized 800 Christian “martyrs of Otranto” who were beheaded by 15th century Islamists. When all is said and done it becomes increasingly apparent that the eschatonic Beast of Daniel and Revelation has nothing to do with Catholicism. But it has everything to do with Islam.

    Like

  11. Lisa
    06/23/2014 at 11:07 AM

    I used to believe this about islam and the mahdi, but now I think that it’s a red herring. The muslims are being used to try to usher in peace. If you think about it and look around you, you will see that satan has his hand in everything. He is the ruler after all for right now. His gate is the wide gate that leads to destruction-think about it everything out there is the wide gate! The narrow gate is belief only in Jesus. That should tell you a lot. To say that the muslim mahdi will be the antichrist though he won’t be able to proclaim himself god doesn’t make sense in scripture because scripture says he will proclaim himself god and will want to be worshipped as god-which is what satan dearly desires. So why would he just settle for implications? I don’t see that as being true. I think there will be an antichrist that will proclaim himself to be god and will want to be worshipped as god. That we can’t tell who this person is is because God hasn’t taken the restrainer out of the way yet, once the restrained is removed we will know who the antichrist is That the muslims are doing a great job of putting fear into the world only makes the push for peace that much more desirable, that plan is working. I have heard of the psalm 83 war and there is the theory that this war will seriously take out the muslims around Jerusalem. I haven’t studied this in depth yet so I can only offer that much.

    Like

  12. Dmeji
    10/03/2014 at 6:49 AM

    What a nice article we have here.

    Islam has made great effort in trying to convince his followers that they worship the God of old testament but islam is so ignorant and deluded that the singular message of both the old testament and new testament is the revelation if Jesus christ.

    Islamic religion is dimed at attacking the salvation message of God which the old testament told us that it can only be found in the son of the living God.

    Islam has brain washed his followers that their god Allah on the judgement day will put their good deeds on one side of the weight and their bad deeds on another side of the weight and see which will outweigh the other to determine their eternal destination denying the God of perfect justice presented to us by all the prophets of the old testament and the apostles of the new testament. The judgement throne of God is a pure white throne signifying pefect judgement. God Almighty will judge all men, christian, muslim, buddah etc according to their works and if one sin is find in any man, his destination is hell. Jesus Christ told us that at his second coming, he will sit on that white throne and judge the whole world.

    For the Christians, our sin has been atoned for by the precious blood if Jesus Christ and we have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit of God. On that judgment day we shall be blameless without spot because God the father has sanctified us by Jesus Christ.

    Islam what is your hope before the judgment seat of Christ. God the Father judges no man because he has committed all judgment unto his son.

    Th

    Like

  13. 10/25/2014 at 6:49 AM

    Reblogged this on End Times And 2019 and commented:
    One of the biggest concerns with the “Islamic Antichrist Theory” is that a Muslim Antichrist would not have the support of Muslims if he claimed to BE God. But this article makes some good points. In Daniel 11:38-39 – the Antichrist honors the god of forces/fortresses – so there is at least one warlike god whom he does not put himself above. Another point is that “proclaiming” himself to be God may be through his actions, rather than clearly stating so. Even Jesus did not clearly utter the words “I am God,” he demonstrated through other actions in a way that made the people understand what he was getting at. Likewise, the coming Antichrist could fulfill prophecy and act as if being Allah’s representative places him above every other (false, at least to Muslims) god, including Yahweh/Jehovah/the God of Jews and Christians.

    Like

  14. Lim Lynn
    05/16/2015 at 8:57 PM

    https://wahiduddin.net/words/99_pages/muizz_24.htm
    This is the evidence they worship GOD of Fortresses.

    Like

  15. ICA
    06/03/2015 at 10:53 AM

    Daniel 11:37-39, “Neither shall he regard the God [Yahweh] of his fathers [Abraham and Ishmael], nor the desire of women … But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces … Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god [Allah], whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many …”

    In addition to “Al-Mu’izz” Islam’s deity is also referred to as “Al-Matin” which means “The Forceful One.”

    http://www.namesofallah.com/prev_site/eng/html/n054.htm

    Moreover, the god of Islam is also known as “The Destroyer” — exactly like Revelation 9:11 says:

    Revelation 9:11, “Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon – the Destroyer.”

    Like

  16. Anonymous
    11/26/2015 at 8:21 AM

    Hi after reading its clearer to me that how biased your readings are and you are not doing the biletral readings and fail to examine the true meaning of Holy Books when there is clearly mention in the Bible it self that there will be a Prophet with the Name Muhmmad will come and carry on the light of Prophesy.

    Allah is the Best Planner not the Deceiver Arabic is higher in Weightage so you can not exactly translate it until you dig deeper and read the Sayings of Prophet the timing of revelation to see what exactly ALLAH is telling us in Quran. May Allah the Almighty GOD and the Only God give you sense and save you from being the tool of Devil.

    Like

  17. ICA
    11/26/2015 at 1:37 PM

    Anonymous, “Hi after reading its clearer to me that how biased your readings are”

    Hi Anonymous, yes, I am biased on the side of Truth. As such, it is my duty to expose teachings that are not.

    Anonymous, “you are not doing the biletral readings and fail to examine the true meaning of Holy Books”

    If the Qur’an, the “holy” book upon which Islam is founded, can be shown that it is in no way, shape or form the Word of God, then every single other Islamic book is likewise not holy. Let’s consider the following:

    1. How can the Qur’an truly be the “timeless” and “eternal” word of Allah as you evidently believe if earlier “timeless” and “eternal” verses revealed to Mohammed needed to be cancelled out and replaced with new-and-improved verses? A timeless and eternal word would necessitate that all verses be true for all time and not require numerous cancellations and improvements over the course of just 23 years. Furthermore, why would Allah expect you to ignore those early verses and follow the new-and-improved verses instead when the Qur’an isn’t even arranged chronologically?

    2. If the Qur’an were the divine Word of God, why does it contradict modern science by claiming that the sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around (sura 21:33; 36:38, 40 and 91:1-2)? Why would the Qur’an claim that stars are actually close to us when the opposite is true (sura 37:6)? Why would the Qur’an claim that bones are formed first and later covered with flesh (sura 23:14) when modern science now knows this to be false? How could the Qur’an fail to identify where male sperm originates (sura 86:6-7)?

    3. In light of the fact that even Mohammed himself did not know for certain what would happen to him in the afterlife, why should any Christian who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guaranteed eternal life through faith in the Jesus of the Bible give up the Christian faith of Jesus for the Islamic faith of Mohammed which we know can guarantee us nothing?

    At the end of the day, Allah cannot be God if he gave verses that needed to be abrogated and replaced with better verses, yet that’s what we find in the Qur’an. Allah cannot be God if he made scientific (and even historical) errors, yet that’s what we find in the Qur’an. Since Allah is not God, the Qur’an — and every other Islamic book — is therefore not holy.

    Anonymous, “there is clearly mention in the Bible it self that there will be a Prophet with the Name Muhmmad will come and carry on the light of Prophesy.”

    Let’s see if that’s the case. “First, in regards to Deuteronomy 18:15-22, the immediate context of this passage refers back to verses 9-14. There Moses warns the people of the danger of false prophets. God’s people are to avoid any and all who presume to speak authoritatively about spiritual truth apart from God’s truth. What is God’s truth? Verse 15 says a particular prophet will arise from the Jews (i.e., ‘your own brothers’) who will be like Moses. Notice that it’s not just any prophet, as there have been many, but a special prophet. People who studied and believed the Old Testament writings were looking for this particular, special prophet. In fact, some Jewish leaders thought the fiery preacher John the Baptist might be the fulfillment of Moses’ prophecy (see John 1:19-30). John the Baptist, however, said that he was the forerunner of the prophet of whom Moses spoke, not the prophet Himself.

    Who then is this prophet spoken of in the Bible? He is clearly none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. John 1:43-45 records that the early followers of Jesus understood He was the prophet of whom Moses wrote. Jesus Himself declared this about Himself (Luke 24:27). The most complete statement pointing to Jesus as the promised prophet is found in Acts 3:12-26. The deacon, Stephen, reiterated this in Acts 7:37. Such notable men as John the Baptist, Philip, Peter, and Stephen all testified that Jesus Christ, not Muhammad, is the prophet predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15-22.

    Second, in Song of Solomon 5:16, the maiden says of her lover, ‘His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem.’ The word translated as ‘lovely’ is the Hebrew word machamadim. It is the plural of machamad, which means ‘lovely, cute, or desirable.’ Although it is the root word of Muhammad, it does not follow that the verse refers to Muhammad, especially since the word used is a plural adjective, not the name of a person.

    Finally, in John 16:5-11, Jesus prophesies that after He leaves, the Counselor will come, and this Counselor will ‘convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment’ (John 16:8). Who is this Counselor? Jesus Himself gives the answer a few verses later in John 16:13, ‘But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth…’ Jesus explicitly identifies the Counselor as the Holy Spirit. Jesus previously had used very similar terminology to predict the coming of the Holy Spirit: ‘But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name…’ (John 14:26). It is abundantly clear in the Bible that the Counselor Jesus prophesied was the Holy Spirit, not Muhammad.

    In conclusion, the Bible nowhere specifically predicts the coming of Muhammad. Muhammad was not the prophet Moses predicted, and Muhammad was not the Counselor Jesus predicted. Since the message of Muhammad contradicts the message of Jesus and the Bible on many points, the only biblical prophecy that would apply to the coming of Muhammad would be Matthew 24:11, ‘And many false prophets will appear and deceive many people…'” (Source).

    Anonymous, “Allah is the Best Planner not the Deceiver Arabic is higher in Weightage so you can not exactly translate it until you dig deeper and read the Sayings of Prophet the timing of revelation to see what exactly ALLAH is telling us in Quran.”

    Then let’s dig deeper to find out if Allah being “the best deceiver” per Sura 3:54 is the most accurate translation. Most translations of the original Arabic sanitize this verse and, in fact, sanitize much of the Qur’an itself in order to appeal to Western readers. If they were to actually read an accurate translation they would be repulsed and completely offended by the hatred, racism, misogyny and warmongering contained throughout the book.

    “Some English translations of the Qur’an … are so far removed from the actual meaning of the Qur’an that they actually say the very opposite of the Arabic original. In this short article I want to point out the mistranslation of one particularly troubling verse. The following transliteration and all translations cited here are taken from this Muslim website.

    The passage in S. 3:52-55 is important for the discussions between Christians and Muslims because it makes claims about the life and death of Jesus, or rather that he did not die as the Bible reports. In other words, it is a passage that is part of the Qur’an’s denial of the crucifixion of Jesus. The Qur’an claims that what ultimately happened was a scheme or deception devised by God. This has enormous moral and theological implications. Before touching on some of these implications, I want to point out how various Muslim translations deal with this particular passage. Let’s first cite a transliteration and a literal translation of S. 3:54.

    Wamakaroo wamakara Allahu waAllahu khayru almakireena

    And they cheated/deceived and God cheated/deceived, and God (is) the best (of) the cheaters/deceivers.

    Note that the above translation is given by a Muslim!

    There is no doubt that makr means deception, scheming, but looking at most Muslim translations, we see that this meaning is totally lost…

    First observation: Many Muslim translators render the verb based on the root m-k-r (makaroo, makara) differently when it is used for the unbelievers than when it is used for Allah, despite the fact that it is the same word in both cases, i.e. they use ‘plotted’ vs. ‘planned’ (Al-Hilali & Khan), or ‘plotted and planned’ vs. ‘planned’ (Yusuf Ali), etc. — see the words highlighted in bold. Further observations will be presented below.

    The meaning and implications of S. 3:54, and other similar verses, is discussed in more detail in these articles:

    * Deceptive God, Incompetent Messiah
    * Allah: Truthful Or Deceiver?
    * Allah – The Greatest Deceiver of them All

    which the reader may want to study in order to recognize just how misleading and deceptive most Muslim translations of this verse are. One could come to the conclusion that we are looking here at Muslim scholars and translators trying to cover up the deceptiveness of Allah, i.e. they are seeking to deceive Muslims and non-Muslims alike about a rather problematic attribute of Allah.”

    Read more.

    Also see “Deceptions in Islam” and “Deception by Translators of the Quran” for more.

    Anonymous, “May Allah the Almighty GOD and the Only God give you sense and save you from being the tool of Devil.”

    Since the Qur’an is demonstrably filled with numerous errors, it seems to me that a tool of the devil — the destructive jackhammer of darkness — is Islam itself. He has convinced over 1.5 billion people that the lies of Islam are truth. Let’s consider the following:

    In the Qur’an, Satan is a deceiver who leads astray:

    Qur’an Sura 4:119-120, “[Satan says] ‘I will mislead them, and surely, I will arouse in them false desires … Satan’s promises are nothing but deceptions.”

    Yet in the Qur’an, Allah is a deceiver who leads astray:

    Qur’an Sura 3:54, 16:93, “… Allah is the best of the deceivers … He sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. …”

    In the Qur’an, Allah masquerades as light:

    Qur’an Sura 24:35, “Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth… Allah doth guide whom He will to His light…”

    Interestingly, the Bible tells us that it is Satan who masquerades as light:

    2 Corinthians 11:14-15, “… for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”

    According to the words of the Qur’an alone, you have a serious theological problem on your hands. As such, please think about all of this very carefully. As I mentioned previously, in light of the fact that even Mohammed himself did not know for certain what would happen to him in the afterlife, why should any Christian who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guaranteed eternal life through faith in the Jesus of the Bible give up the Christian faith of Jesus for the Islamic faith of Mohammed which we know will guarantee us nothing? You, too, can have the same guarantee that we as Christians share. All you have to do is believe in and put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. Seek the Lord while He may be found, for today is your day to be a true believer. Tomorrow may be too late. Would you be willing to pray with an open heart and ask God to guide you to His truth, even if that truth is found in the Jesus of the Bible, and not in Islam?

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Rey Leon
    01/10/2017 at 9:08 AM

    This is a 3 page article I wrote about this issue. If you find the time to read it carefully please let me know your thoughts. https://www.scribd.com/document/336110132/The-Days-Ahead

    Like

Comment pages
  1. 04/03/2014 at 10:44 AM
  2. 06/14/2014 at 12:18 AM
  3. 02/27/2015 at 12:04 AM
  4. 03/05/2015 at 5:59 PM

The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of MidnightWatcher's Blogspot. Although differences of opinion are welcomed, please refrain from personal attacks and inappropriate language. This blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments that fail to do so.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: