Monday, March 16, 2009

Further Thoughts About A Muslim Antichrist

Dr. David R. ReaganPDFBy Dr. David R. Reagan

The January-February 2009 issue of our magazine, the Lamplighter, was devoted to the issue of whether or not the Antichrist could be a Muslim. I argued that there is no possibility.

Several readers questioned one of the points I made in the article, and I would like to respond to the question they raised. In the article I pointed out that those who believe the Antichrist will be a Muslim argue that he will be received by the Muslim world as their long-awaited Mahdi, or Messiah. I took the position that this is a misleading to believe "that all the Islamic world is living in breathless anticipation of the appearance of the Mahdi, when the reality is that 90% of all Muslims — the Sunnis — are not looking for a Mahdi. In fact the concept of a Mahdi is not even found in orthodox versions of the Hadith like Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim." I further observed that "the Sunni Muslims are looking instead for the appearance of the Antichrist, whom they call the Dajjal. If a person were suddenly to appear on the world scene claiming to be the Mahdi, he would be automatically rejected by the vast majority of Muslims."

Those who questioned my position on this matter all pointed to two pieces of evidence which they said prove that Sunni Muslims do believe in the concept of a Mahdi. One was a fatwa issued by the Muslim World League, a Sunni organization, in 1976 which proclaimed that belief in a Mahdi is "obligatory." The other was a long article on the Internet entitled "The Twelfth Imam." In that article the author points out that there have been Sunni theologians throughout history who have believed in a Mahdi.

On the surface, both of these items seem to prove that the concept of a Mahdi is central to Sunni eschatology. But I would argue that both give support to my position.

Let me explain.


The Fatwa of the Muslim World League

First, let's consider the fatwa. For those who are not familiar with Islam, let me begin by explaining the meaning of this concept. In the Islamic faith a fatwa is a religious opinion on Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwa is non-binding, whereas in Shi'a Islam it could be, depending on the status of the scholar.

Now, it is true that the Muslim World League issued a fatwa in October of 1976 commanding Sunni Muslims to believe in the concept of an Islamic Savior called the Madhi. But this League does not speak for the Sunni world, despite its very pretentious title. It is a council located in Saudi Arabia that dictates theology for a radical and violent sect of the Sunnis called Wahhabism. This is the sect that produced Osama ben Laden. At most, there are probably about 30 million Wahhabis in the world. That may sound like a lot, but it is not. The Wahhabis constitute about one-half of one percent of the Sunnis, who number over 900 million.

Further, the very fact that the leadership of this radical sect felt it necessary to command its followers to believe in the concept of a Mahdi is evidence that such a belief is not widespread among Sunnis.

Arguing that this fatwa is evidence that the Sunni world embraces the concept of a Mahdi is equivalent to someone arguing that because the Council of Apostles of the Mormon Church has proclaimed Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God, all professing Christians believe he was a prophet.


The "Twelfth Imam" Article

The second piece of evidence, the long article on the Internet entitled, "The Twelfth Imam" also falls short of proving that Sunnis have embraced the concept of a Mahdi. To begin with, the article was written by a Shiite who is trying to convince Sunnis that they should believe in a Mahdi. In the process, he points to a number of Sunni theologians throughout history who have accepted the concept.

The equivalent of this article would be one written by a Messianic Jew to the Jewish world trying to convince them that they should accept the idea that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah — and in the process quoting Jewish sages throughout history who did accept Jesus as Messiah. Would such an article prove that most Jews believe in Jesus as their Messiah? No, it would prove just the opposite. If the Sunni world embraces the concept of the Mahdi, then why is a Shiite trying so desperately to convince them that they should do so?


An Impossible Idea

Finally, I would contend that even if both the Sunnis and the Shiites believed in the concept of a Mahdi and were living in anticipation of the arrival of this Islamic Savior, there still would be no possibility that they would ever unite behind such a person, regardless of how charismatic and dynamic he might be. The very moment he declared himself to be the Mahdi, one question would enter the minds of all Muslims: "Is he a Sunni or a Shiite?" And if he were a Shiite, which he would most likely be, the 90% of the Islamic world that is Sunni would have nothing to do with him.

The idea of all Muslims uniting behind a Mahdi is about as absurd as the idea that any time before the Rapture all Christians in the world will one day unite behind the Pope.

Let me conclude by giving you my sources for my contention that the concept of a Mahdi is not something that is characteristic of Sunni end time thought:

1) Dr. Samuel Shahid, The Last Trumpet: A Comparative Study in Christian-Islamic Eschatology

(Dr. Shahid is a Middle East native who serves as director of Islamic Studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas.)

This book contains the most detailed treatment of Islamic eschatology in the English language. In the book, the author devotes an entire chapter to the Shiite concept of a Mahdi. He states: "The messianic Mahdi is the embodiment of the earnest longing and hope of the Shi'ites who have been oppressed and persecuted through the course of history..." He points out that a major point of controversy between Shiites and Sunnis is the interpretation of Sura 43, verse 61 in the Quran which states "and he shall be the sign for the Hour." Shiites argue that this refers to the Mahdi. Sunnis claim it refers to Jesus. He points out that Shiites "emphatically argue that Islamic messianism is an essential part of Islam, a concept that is alien to orthodox Islam."

2) Riffat Hassan, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, "Messianism and Islam," Spring 1985

(Riffat Hassan is a Pakistani Muslim who has taught at Harvard University. She currently serves as professor of religious studies at the University of Louisville.)

In this article she emphasizes that one of the distinctive characteristics of the Shiite branch of Islam is its emphasis on the messianic concept of a Mahdi, even though there is no direct reference to such a person in the Quran. She sums up her discussion with this observation: "Shi'a Islam has developed a network of intense messianic expectation around the idea of the Madhi's return."

3) Encyclopedia Britannica

Mahdi: (Arabic: "divinely guided one"), in Islamic eschatology, a messianic deliverer who will fill the Earth with justice and equity, restore true religion, and usher in a short golden age lasting seven, eight, or nine years before the end of the world. The Qur'an (Islamic sacred scriptures) does not mention him, and almost no reliable Hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) concerning the Mahdi can be adduced. Many orthodox Sunni theologians accordingly question Mahdist beliefs, but such beliefs form a necessary part of Shi'i doctrine.

4) Wikipedia

In Islamic eschatology the Mahdi ( also Mehdi; "Guided One") is the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will stay on earth seven, nine, or nineteen years (depending on the interpretation) before the coming of the day, Yaum al Qiyamah (literally "Day of the Resurrection" or "Day of the Standing"). Muslims believe the Mahdi will rid the world of error, injustice and tyranny alongside Jesus. The concept of Mahdi is not mentioned in the Qu'ran nor in the Sunni Hadiths such as Sahih al Bukhari. Many orthodox Sunni theologians accordingly question Mahdist beliefs, but such beliefs form a necessary part of Shi'ite doctrine.

According to scholar Cyril Glasse, the advent of Mahdi is not a universally accepted concept in Islam and among those that accept the Mahdi there are basic differences among different sects of Muslims about the timing and nature of his advent and guidance. The idea of the Mahdi has been described as important to Sufi Muslims, and a "powerful and central religious idea" for Shia Muslims who believe the Mahdi is the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al Mahdi who will return from occultation. However, among Sunni, it "never became a formal doctrine" and is neither endorsed, nor condemned "by the consensus of Sunni Ulama." It has "gained a strong hold on the imagination of many ordinary" self described orthodox Sunni though, thanks to Sufi preaching. Another source distinguishes between Sunni and Shia beliefs on the Mahdi saying the Sunni believe the Mahdi will be a descendant of the Prophet named Muhammad who will revive the faith, but not necessarily be connected with the end of the world, Jesus or perfection.

Among Shi'a Muslims "the Mahdi symbol has developed into a powerful and central religious idea." Shi'a Muslims believe that the Mahdi is the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al Mahdi, the Twelfth and last Imam, who was born in 868 AD and was hidden by God at the age of five. He is still alive but has been in occultation "awaiting the time that God has decreed for his return."

The coming of the Mahdi is a disputed notion within Sunnis. The concept is not mentioned directly in the Quran or Sahih al Bukhari; however, the Mahdi is mentioned in the Sahih Muslim collection of Hadith [depending on interpretation]. According to scholar Cyril Glasse, "Belief in the Mahdi has been rejected by noted Sunni authorities as being a Messianism... various Hadith about the Mahdi appear to be inventions to support political causes."

5) LookLex Encyclopedia

The Mahdi is a saviour figure in Islam, for which there are several different interpretations in Sunni Islam, and one dominant interpretation in Shi'i Islam.

In Sunni Islam, the "Mahdi" is just one of several important figures, while the "Mahdi" of Shi'i Islam has a real eschatological importance, and is in the future the most important figure for Islam as well as the world.

The Arabic term "Mahdi" is best translated with "divinely guided one".

The main principle of the Mahdi is that he is a figure that is absolutely guided by God. This guidance is stronger form of guidance than normal guidance, which usually involves a human being willfully acting according to the guidance of God. The Mahdi on the other hand, has nothing of this human element, and his acts will be in complete accordance to God's will.

The figure of Mahdi, and his mission, is not mentioned in the Koran, and there are practically nothing to be found among the reliable Hadiths on him either. The idea of the Mahdi appears to be a development in the first 2 3 centuries of Islam. In the case of the Shi'i Mahdi many scholars have suggested that there is a clear inspiration coming from the Messiah figure of Christianity and its ideas of a judgement day in the hands of a religious renewer.

While there are many similarities between the Mahdi and Messiahs, there are also many variations over the Mahdi theme, which have differed from time to time and from region to region.

The first time we hear of the term "Mahdi" is in 686 CE, by the Muslim leader Mukhtar Thaqafi, for Muhammad bni l Hanafiya (see below).

Shi'i Islam

Even in Shi'i Islam, there are variations, but these all give the Mahdi an elevated and unique position. In Shi'i Islam, the Mahdi is central to the creed, contrary to Sunni Islam.

Sunni Islam

There are more than one way of defining the Mahdi in Sunni Islam, but never is it given such an importance as we can see it in Shi'i Islam. He is generally a restorer, the one who will secure a system where Muslims can live according to the principles of Islam.

6) New World Encyclopedia

The Mahdi, according to Shi'ite tradition, will arise at some point before the day of judgement, institute a kingdom of justice, and will in the last days fight alongside the returned Jesus against the Dajjal, the Antichrist.

However, like most religious concepts, various Muslim traditions have ascribed different characteristics to the Mahdi. Also, as Mahdiism is closely related to the leadership of the Ummah, it has had the potential to be abused as some leaders of secularly focused politico religious movements in the name of Islam who have claimed to be the Mahdi.

Of those Sunnis that hold to the existence of the Mahdi, some believe the Mahdi will be an ordinary man, born to an ordinary woman. Umm Salamah said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon Him) say: 'The Mahdi is of my lineage and family."

The Shi'a belief is that Mahdi has been alive and in occultation for 1200 years and is eleven generations down from Muhammad, i.e. the twelfth Shi'a Imam Muhammad al Mahdi.

The coming of the Mahdi is a disputed notion within Sunnis, with the claim being denied by some Muslims who regard the Qur'an as the sole authority in Islam. Mahdi is not mentioned in the Qu'ran and there are few authentic hadiths that mention him in detail.

7) Dr. J. Dominguez

"Branches of Islam"

Asserts that one of the fundamental differences between the Shi'ite and Sunni branches of Islam is that the Shi'ites believe in a Messianic Mahdi.

8) Dr. Jim Eckman

"Sunnis versus Shiites: What's the Difference?"

Finally, permit me a review of the major theological differences between Shiites and Sunnis.

  • Shiites and Sunnis agree on core beliefs of Islam—the Quran and the Five Pillars.
  • Shiites believe that the original Imams were divinely inspired and infallible in their judgments.
  • Shiites clerics (imams) hold an elevated spiritual status forbidden by the Sunnis.
  • Sunnis reject the teaching of a "hidden" imam but do accept the end time beliefs of the Quran.
  • Shiites have a deep regard for martyrdom, incorporating many rituals and demonstrations absent in Sunnis.
  • Shiites are more eschatological than Sunnis.
  • Shiites believe that the Imam al Mahdi, the "Expected or Awaited" leader, will herald the end of time when he returns. The Mahdi and his army of followers will in effect be the army of Jesus before he returns. They will join Jesus in defeating the Antichrist, liberate Palestine and unite the world under Islam. Again, this belief is what drives the current Iranian president.

9) Mideast and North Africa Encyclopedia

In Arabic, the term al Mahdi means "the guided one." For Islam, the term developed through medieval Shi'ite thought into a concept charged with genealogical, eschatological (referring to the end of the world), and political significance. By the eighth century, the Mahdi would be characterized as a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, whose appearance as the redeemer, or messiah, presaged the end of the world and all earthly political and religious corruption.

Today, in Iraq and Iran, and in portions of Arabia and the gulf, the Shi'a branch of Islam is represented by Twelver Shi'ites, who believe in the return of the hidden twelfth descendant of Muhammad as the Mahdi. Until he reappears, Twelver Shi'ites believe that only their mujtahids (an elite group among their religious learned) have the power as the Mahdi's intermediaries to interpret the faith.

The concept of the Mahdi is not central to the beliefs of Sunni Islam, but it has popular appeal.

101 comments:

Billy said...

The most interesting part of this for me was where Dr. Reagan writes "...the reality is that 90% of all Muslims — the Sunnis — are not looking for a Mahdi." I did not know this.

What I find so fascinating about that is that in my experience about 90% of all Christians are not looking for Jesus to return.

When I try to talk to Christian friends about Revelation and the great hope it provides with the return of Christ either most aren't interested or look at me like I'm crazy. I've never been to a church that taught about Christ's return either. I had to educate myself.

This is a tragedy. I face the future with anticipation, excitement and joy. Christians not familiar with the meaning of Revelation must have some trepidation of the future based on world events. This is a sad situation.

Billy said...

My interest in Revelation was first sparked by Hal Lindsay's TV commercials about his book "The Late Great Planet Earth" when I was a child. I especially wondered what this "rapture" was. I did read his book later in life.

But what really sparked my interest and desrie to learn much more was a visit to the church I was attending by Dr. Reagan. I loved his talk and subscribed to the LampLighter, read his books and ordered his DVDs.

So a very big THANK YOU SO MUCH to Dr. Reagan for being the inspiration to really learn about end times Bible prophecy and the hope it brings to ones life!!!

Joel Richardson said...

Hi Dr. Reagan,

After our last e-mail exchange, I appealed to you in brotherly affection and asked you to simply make an effort to consider how you would feel if an older, more seasoned and well-respected Christian leader had publicly accused you of being "very misleading" despite the fact that the facts were actually on your side. Your response was brief:

I make it a point never to conduct theological debates nor respond to criticism. I have made my position clear. I stand by it. I have nothing more to say.

Yet here you are once more "conducting theological debates". Still you are unwilling to acknowledge a simple mistake on your part and unwilling to correct your public slander of myself.

For clarity, do remember that your initial claim was that belief in the Mahdi was only held by the Shia and not the Sunnis. Now you are changing your argument to claim that what you meant was that Mahdism is more emphasized by the Shia'. So we finally agree afterall. Again, for the record, in my book, Antichrist, I stated that "certain quarters of the Sunnis do not believe in him [the Mahdi] at all".

However David, this new article that you have just posted is indeed purposefully misleading. You are attempting to act as if only two sources have been cited whereas I have referred to numerous very weighty sources.

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=1690

First, again for clairity sake, the General Secretariat of the World Muslim League is not an incidental group. They are one of the largest non-governmental Islamic organizations in the world. The fatwa discussed was written by the then General Secretariat Sheikh Muhammad Muntasir al-Katani, and was approved by a committee of four other scholars. After listing the names of twenty disciples (Sahaba) of Muhammad that recalled and narrated his statements regarding the Mahdi, as well as listing numerous renowned scholars who have written exclusively regarding the Mahdi, the fatwa states:


“The memorizers and scholars of hadith have verified that there are reliable and acceptable reports among the hadith on the Mahdi; the majority of them are narrated through numerous authorities. There is no doubt about their status as mutawatir and sahih (trustworthy, well-established and reliable) reports… belief in the appearance of the Mahdi is obligatory, and that it is one of the beliefs of the people of the sunna (Sunni) and jama’ah (Shi’a); and none denies it except those who are ignorant of the sunna and innovators in doctrine. (Parenthesis mine)


I cite this fatwa in God’s War on Terror. It was an awfully significant reference to disregard initially on your part and is also a very significant fatwa to so casually brush aside yet again.

But this was not the only reference that you have once more purposefully ignored. Going back well over a millennium, Ibn Kathir,

the renowned Sunni scholar from the eighth century states:

After the lesser signs of the Hour appear and increase, mankind will have reached a stage of great suffering. Then the awaited Mahdi will appear; He is the first of the greater clear, signs of the Hour.

Why did you choose to ignore this reference in your article?


Later Ibn Khaldun, the famous 14th century Muslim historian and author of The Muqaddima writes:


“It has been (accepted) by all the Muslims in every epoch, that at the end of time a man from the family (of the Prophet) will, without fail, make his appearance, one who will strengthen Islam and make justice triumph. Muslims will follow him, and he will gain domination over the Muslim realm. He will be called the Mahdi.”


Why did you ignore this very weighty reference and instead choose to deal with some internet article?

Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America also declares that:


The coming of the Mahdi is established doctrine for both Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, and indeed for all humanity.

Are you more knowledgeable about Mahdism than the Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America?

I also cited Dr. David Cook, a scholar at Rice University and the Western World’s foremost authority on Islamic apocalyptic belief, who makes it very clear in both of his books; Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic and Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature that Mahdism is indeed very much both a Sunni and Shi’a belief. Likewise, Dr. Timothy Furnish, a Ph.D. in Islamic History in his book, Holiest Wars, Islamic Mahdis, their Jihads and Osama Bin Laden, reviews the eight most prominent false Mahdist uprisings in Islamic history. Every last one was a Sunni movement led by a Sunni Mahdi claimant. I consulted both Dr. Cook and Dr. Furnish while writing Antichrist.

Why did you not discuss these two men in your article?

Dr. Furnish, after becoming aware of this discussion jumped in on my blog and stated the following:

Joel, Excellent post. Feel free to have “Dr.” Reagan contact me, if he persists in his ignorant claim that Sunnis do not believe in the Mahdi.

In the end, let me once again highlight that you began by claiming that Sunnis do not believe in Mahdism, period. But now you are trying to defend your false statement by changing the argument. Now you are claiming that Mahdism is simply more emphasized by the Shia'. These are two radically different claims. In the end, Dr. Reagan, this is no longer about Mahdism but about inetgrity.

Bless you,

Joel Richardson

Anonymous said...

Extremely well put Joel!!!

son of thunder said...

This debate is getting old. It really is. Muslim antichrist or European antichrist. What does it really matter? For true believers in Jesus as Messiah, this point is moot. I, for one, do not plan to be on earth when al mahdi or antichrist or Pee Wee Herman or whoever takes the throne of earth's government.

Someday someone will access these articles and say "Dr. Reagan was right" or "Joel Richardson was right." The truth is ONLY GOD KNOWS for 100% sure.

son of thunder said...

I think a better subject would be on how to tell people in this trying time we're all in that God is there and is still in control.

People are hurting from unemployment and disillusionment. Money is failing and so is government. People are confused and wondering where God is.

Bonnie Pierce said...

Son of thunder: Amen. This is not just getting old, it is old. Mr. Reagan, you are honestly only digging yourself deeper into the hole. And to be honest, I am in agreement with Joel that you are showing a complete lack of integrity and maturity. In legal terms you slandered him and yet you were wrong. Why cannot you just apologise to this guy and drop it already??

Bonnie

Anonymous said...

Great post Joel.

I am left scratching my head as to why Dr. Reagan still cannot admit that he was wrong. Instead, now there is the claim that with respect to the Sunni and Shia "there still would be no possibility that they would ever unite behind such a person [Mahdi]". Boy, that's a pretty 'matter of fact' statement. That's like saying that the Jews and Christians will not unite behind Jesus Christ when He appears. The Sunni and Shia disagree as to the Mahdi's origin, but they both believe this individual is to appear in the Last Days and lead Islam into a new era of Islamic "justice and peace" throughout the earth.

Billy said...

Joel, Joel, Joel. You are obssessed on this muslim anti-christ thing to the point of being hostile.

Take a deep breath and a step back. We (including me - just see my Wilkerson posts) can all sometimes get overly passionate on a point until we become, frankly, redundant and boring.

Son of Thunder had it right. In the end IT DOESN'T MATTER! We won't be here to see who it turns out to be anyway. It's time to refocus on Jesus!

Joel, if you have to continue your now pointless argument please do us all a favor and do it at your own website which you so shamelessly promote in your post.

Billy said...

Bonnie...you are just plain OUT OF LINE and should back off.

I say that as (I assume) one Christian to another. In fact, if any of us start crosssing the line in our comments we should remind each other we are all on the same team.

SeanOsborne said...

It is true to say that the identity of the antichrist will not be known until he is revealed at the beginning of Daniel's 70th Week.

The Bride of Christ will be gone at this time.

Only the "Left Behind" will be here to deal with the extremely detrimental eisegesis put forward by Joel Richardson and Walid Shoebat, among others.

Eisegesis inherently is false teaching. The souls of the unsaved during the Tribulation who fall victim to this eisegesis will be partially Joel's, Walid's and other "Islamic Antichrist" hawkers burden to bear in the hereafter.

The truth which needs to remain for the "Left Behind" to come to understand is that God's Word tells us that Antichrist will, under pain of death, force mankind to worship himself as God, not some ancient and false pagan moon deity called 'allah'.

God's Word tells us that the Antichrist will come from the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary. That people was an armed force composed of European Romans.

God's Word tell us of a prototype Antichrist - Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Mithradates). God's Word describes EXACTLY how he would come to power in the Seleucid Empire. This vile man absolutely was not a "Syrian" or an "Arab." He was, in point of fact, a Hellenistic king, an ethnic Macedonian, an ethnic EUROPEAN.

And in the end Antiochus IV Epiphanes, true the Bible prophecy bowed to the ascendant military power of the Roman Empire while standing face to face with Roman ambassador Gaius Popillius Laenas near Alexandria, Egypt.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight...it is OK by you for Mr. Reagan to publicly "slander" (libel). Mr. Richardson in his widely read Lamplighter magazine and on his blog by re-posting the Lamplighter series, but it is called being "obsessed" when Mr. Richardson gracefully defends his position by posting that Mr. Reagan is being less than honest in his posts? This is quite a double standard I would say.

Bonnie was absolutely NOT out of line. Integrity is very important. A ministry should make integrity a priority.

I for one am appalled at the "it does not matter because we are all gonna be gone" mentality. It is a selfish attitude to have.

If the rapture happens before it all takes place then what legacy do you leave the poor souls left behind? "good luck; we are outta here".

Is that what Jesus would want from us??

How will these people even know to resist if we don't tell them on this side of the rapture!

The Scriptures tell us that Satan will deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24

Has it occurred to anyone that the Western view of Antichrist could be a straw man to have the very elect looking one direction while Islam marches through the door and then once shut, it is to late.

Christians need to get their Bibles out and read it for themselves and take off any and all blinders and just read and study what it says!! We need to stop filtering our study through our favorite teacher. I think if one does this they will begin to see a clearer picture.

What if Jesus tarries for more years to come?

You cannot deny the march of Islam unless you bury your head in the sand and refuse to see it for the threat it is.

All the scholars like Mr. Richardson are trying to do, is to warn people that Islam is a serious threat and that Islam's own "prophecies" include a figure that is eerily just like the Antichrist. No other religion on the planet has this. Not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not new age, not Catholicism, only Islam has the Mahdi who's description fits like a glove the Antichrist.

SeanOsborne said...

Dr. reagan "slandered" Joel Ricardson? Absolute nonsense.

Joel relishes this kind of nonsense becuase he and his followers think it elevates their ridiculous "Islamic Antichrist" diatribe to Dr. Reagan level.

It doesn't. In fact it is very telling how immeiately after Joel posted a comment above the rest of his minions show up to likewise spew venom and vitriol.

Want a clue as to what is real and what is true and what is not. Take a look at the Lamb & Lion Ministries mainpage. Notice it is all about Jesus, the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God.

Look at Joel's ridiculous blog. It's all about islam, death, antichrist and nothing about Jesus. He doesn't even offer a Bible for sale in his so-called "reading list."

What is true and what is not.

Hello?

Anonymous said...

Sean,

Your diatribe shows a gross lack of integrity.

You rarely exhibit the love of Christ in your narcissistic posts.

SeanOsborne said...

I know "Anonymous" -- the truth hurts.

I'm always very straightforward, I am blunt, and I do not mince words.
I am like this especially when I see this kind of a crowd show up and post the rubbish seen above.

So I throw some of these "money-changers" and eisegesis-mongers tables over and I called a spade a spade. It's called a rebuke. Learn from it.

Billy said...

Why bother educating people "pre-rapture" if your teaching them things that are false. Better they remain ignorant than swallow your false doctrine. Forget about satan tyring to decieve, you're doing a good job of it on your own.

Bottom line, I trust people like Dr. Reagan as a scholar and resource as I educate myself on Bible Prophecy. I'm not at all impressed by your diatribe (you nailed it Sean...it's diatribe).

Anonymous said...

Sean Osborne, your "Christian" character is concerning to me. You put down anyone who does not agree with your position and your pride needs to be brought before the Lord. Even when you are proven wrong you still refuse to admit it.

Anonymous said...

No... Mr.Osborne you are not blunt, you are rude and filled with pride.

There is an immense difference.

Anonymous said...

If I had a choice I'd prefer Sean's bluntness to some of the condescending and know-it-all remarks I've read here from some visitors.

monty said...

Good job, Joel. Don't let the vitriol and venom from some of the folks here bother you. Humility is magnetic and arrogance is as a stench, not only in my nostrils, but also in the Lords.

monty,
a humble observer.

Anonymous said...

Amen Monty!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Interesting comment about vitriol and venom, Monty. I guess we see it where we where we choose to. I've visited Joel's site in the past and have seen plenty of pre-trib mocking in the comments section for example. That site is notorious for it. I’m also intrigued with the need for you guys to always get that last word in and make your points heard in every other blog site. If you don’t like what Dr Reagan writes, don’t read it.

Billy said...

I revisted Joel's website and on his quite extensive home page did a "ctrl+f" search for "Jesus". No matches found.

This is my last comment on this because I'm tired of the diatribe from Joel and his cronies. It's not worthy of any more attention.

monty said...

Anonymous,

I am not sure what you mean by "you guys" when you address me. I am not a follower of Joel Richardson nor Dr. Reagan but I am a follower of Jesus. I lean toward a pre-trib position and have been a friend to Dr. Reagan's ministry for over ten years. After all of this controversy exploded, I have watched it unfold. As much as I love Dr. Reagan as a brother, I thought that certain portions of his original article was in very poor taste and showed a measure of a lack of character. The way I saw it, Joel Richardson's response was done with humility and in excellence. I always watch as to how someone responds when they are attacked. If I were Joel, I probably would not have responded at all. But I honestly expected Dr. Reagan to apologise or retract some of his comments in this latest issue of Lamplighter. Sadly, from my perspective, he instead chose to do what David did after he slep with Bathsheba; he dug himself an even deeper hole (as with this latest article). Needless to say, I have been saddened by all of this, but I have also been around the Church long enough to know that people will always let you down if you lift them up too high. Now, if you wish to attack me now for not towing the party line of Dr. Reagan's blog, then feel free. I could care less to be honest. I love Dr. Reagan but I am no one's follower other than Jesus'.

monty,
A humble observer

Anonymous said...

Monty,

Very well put!

Joel has shown a humbleness in his responses thus far that speaks volumes.

The contrast in responses on this blog is eye opening to say the least.

Anonymous said...

REAGAN CLAIMED "In fact the concept of a Mahdi is not even found in orthodox versions of the Hadith like Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim." (Lamplighter 3,16,2009) REAGAN THEN CONTRADICTS HIS CLAIM WITH "The concept is not mentioned directly in the Quran or Sahih al Bukhari; however, the Mahdi is mentioned in the Sahih Muslim collection of Hadith." (Ibid) Good Grief. At one point he states that neither Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim Hadith collections speak of the Mahdi, then he says that a few authentic Hadiths mention him, then he is mentioned in Sahih Muslim. The contradiction to his first post goes further "Mahdi is not mentioned in the Qu'ran and there are few authentic hadiths that mention him in detail." (Italics mine) This is much different then what he has stated in the past, that "the concept of a Mahdi is not even found in orthodox versions of the Hadith". Regardless of Reagan's serious adjustment, he is still in denial, but the ironic thing about all this is that despite his indirect confession, his conclusions still supports his first assertion and his error "nothing to be found among the reliable Hadiths on him[Mahdi]". Ha?!!! What about Sahih Muslim? He just admited it, then denied it, then admited it, then denied it again. REAGAN CLAIMED "the reality is that 90% of all Muslims — the Sunnis — are not looking for a Mahdi." REAGAN THEN CONTRADICTS THIS CLAIM WITH "Sunni-Wahhabists" are the only Sunnis that promote Mahdi, and "In Sunni Islam, Mahdi is just one of several important figures.." Will Reagan ever make up his mind just how many Sunni Muslims support the Mahdi concept? Even his math is off "there are probably about 30 million Wahhabis in the world...The Wahhabis constitute about one-half of one percent of the Sunnis, who number over 900 million." Really? 30,000,000 out of 900,000,000 is not a half of a percent but 3%. The numbers add up once we examine Reagan's (cut-and-paste) of entire segments from Wikipedia, he provides a quote of Cyril Glasse that Mahdism has "'gained a strong hold on the imagination of many ordinary self described orthodox Sunni' though, thanks to Sufi preaching." Now we don't only have a confession from Reagan that Sunni Wahhabists believe in Mahdi, but in addition we have Sunni Sufis too. This is a bit different from his first assertions that no Sunni believes in Mahdi. When will Reagan ever make up his mind? Or get his math straight? Does Al-Qaeda Wahhabists constitute such small support (half a percent) of Sunni Muslims? The facts will shock everyone, except Reagan of course, he is on a mission of denial--all the way. Once one examines the PEW statistics everyone will be able to see how blinded is Reagan and his ilk. When such statistics are viewed, the numbers become dramatic--60% of Palestinians, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria today supports Al-Qaeda Wahhabism (http://pewglobal.org). This is far more then the half percent of 900,000,000 Muslims or even simply 35 million Muslims but hundreds of millions of Muslims believe in the coming of Mahdi. Sure, Wahabism came out of Arabia, but has Reagan searched the Bible for the word "Arabia" "Edom" "Dedan" "Dumah" "Teman" and "Midian" to see the extent of God's warnings regarding Arabia? Even according to Reagan, Edom is Arabia, and Messiah will Himself fights Edom in Isaiah 63. Arabia spreads her harlot Wahhabi-Islam religion worldwide.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure what you mean by "you guys" when you address me.

Monty, I apologize for my careless painting with a broad brush.

However, I think the vitriol and venom comment has broad applications not restricted to this site and it goes back further than the article Dr Reagan wrote in Lamp Lighter. I don’t read at Joel’s anymore for that very reason. I personally don’t think Joel needs an apology at all. In fact, if anything, he’d be relishing the PR.

As for being humble; I know and God knows that I’m proud at times as well as a sinner.

A flawed observer.

SeanOsborne said...

Dr. Reagan is absolutely correct re: Sahih (authentic) al-Bukhari hadith having no mention of the al-Mahdi.

Regarding Sahih Muslim collection of ahadith (more than one or source of a given hadith) the re-statement of fact by Dr. Reagan is completely understandable to anyone who knows anything about the controversy within Islam itself on this particular hadith. If its is confusing to Sunni Muslims, it is confusing to non-Muslims.

The crux of the problem arises among Sunni Islamic scholars who reject mahdism as being a copy of Christian Messianism; that Mahdism is the invention of certain Muslims to support their particular political cause.

Just like the Shi'a do.

And not unlike the "inventions" and related nonsense (i.e. eisegesis) of the "Islamic Antichrist" clique, eh?

son of thunder said...

I'm trying to figure out how my statement is selfish. How is it selfish to say that this debate is essentially useless to God's Kingdom? All it is doing is rending and tearing the church apart while Satan sits back and laughs.

Score: Satan 1, Believers 0

Nice Last Days rally, guys.

Anonymous said...

Your statement wasn't selfish, son of thunder. Good points.

Anonymous said...

Sean,

If Joel or Walid Shoebat were in your or my presence, I would join you in personally turning their tables over and putting them in their place, my brother!! And that goes for every other little heresy hawking puke that violates God's word as well. Keep up the good work Sean.

Anonymous said...

wow...I think the true colors are beginning to shine quite brightly on this blog.

One only needs to look at the immature post above from one of the anonymous. The venom spewing from his keyboard is quite the diatribe

Seems to me folks on this blog have a real problem with the truth.

But remember... truth will always prevail.

My advice to those of you who are lurking wondering what is going on...

Open your Bibles, don't take anyone's word as authority, search the Scriptures to see if what is said is so. I think those of you who have an ear to hear and eye to see will be blessed for doing so.

Those of you who have no ear to hear and no eye to see, this conversation really gets your hackles up; as evidenced from some rather shallow responses here.

Nathan...I appreciate the fact that you have allowed the conversation to takes it's course because it really does open ones eyes.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting, I deal a lot with contending against Post Tribbers and their wrath.

I find those here contending for the EU to have that same sort of haughty pride and a unteachable spirit. (Sean, Billy, Son of Thunder) The three of you lack grace and charity in your posts and are all poor witnesses to the world.

Prov 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Also, I am appalled at the profanity all in the name of "God"

The Middle East side have presented some good ideas worthy of unbias study.

It almost appears like your have based your whole life on this EU idea with an unwillingness to even look into it with earnest.

When a student of the bible becomes unteachable, destruction soon follows as God's Word clearly says.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Anonymous said...

No you should be ashamed of yourself!!

Sonia said...

I am very new to this site, and am finding it difficult to understand the logic behind the opposition to the, dare i say it, Muslim Anti-Christ. Are you guys kidding? What slander and nonsensical and utter rubbish. The pride and arrogance was evident from some of this Dr.’s supporters.

I wonder how Joel, deals with this kind of attack and nasty deluded rejection from such narrow mindedness from our own camp. You are not even willing to acknowledge that you may have got the much western-centric thesis wrong. Whats the harm in prayerfully and objectively considering the muslim antiMessiah? Im shocked at how some folks still reckon it NOT IMPORTANT to know who the antiChrist is!? Such people call themselves bible believing, spirit filled Christians! What bible, and what spirit?
Maybe if someone like me, a former Muslim, who ONCE USED TO FOLLOW THE POPULAR consensus I.E. Roman Empire theory………and for the last 5 years now feel as though the biggest revelation after that of Christ Jesus, has been shown to me. The AntiChrist is, and will be Muslim, Turkic, and very unEuropean! Just a few headliners and you can go and figure out the details from the Holy Bible:
-Beheadings - Ermmm....now let me see, who is it that carries out beheadings in the NAME OF THEIR GOD?
-Changing times and seasons(Sharia Law)and Sharia Finance,
-7 year peace treaty (Mahdhi has a 7 year peace treaty)
-Gods specific and detailed end time severe Judgments fall on nations that are TODAY Islamic NOT Western. Why?
-the last empire that ruled over/considered in control of Jerusalem, Israel was the Islamic Empire I.E. The Ottoman Empire. And when that died, it was known as the 'Sick Man of Europe'. This is THE empire, that wishes to and strives to revive itself. Has anyone here even heard of the Khilafah-Islamic State that is being pursued by many, and i say MANY islamic extremist and non-extremist organisations today?
-Finally, the one that really did it for me: The Anti-Christ persecutes and 'beheads' (theres that word again) what the book of revelation shows to be Christians and Jews. Islam is FULL, of verses that endorses such behaviour.
-Who is it that is the Anti-Christ? He who denies the Father and the Son/He who denies that Christ came in the flesh. Now, as a former Muslim, now a Christian (praise the God of my Salvation)...I understood these verses straight away without any doubt: St.John was talking of the Islamic opposition to Jesus, as THIS IS THE ONLY RELIGION IN THE WORLD THAT OPPOSES, OBJECTS, REFUTES, AND ATTACKS THE Birth, Life, Cross, Death and Resurrection of Christ and has no problem in insulting our faith as Christains in the son of God, when their Quran states that 'God forbid, that he has a son'. Muslims even call our faith in the Risen LORD, The Son of God, A BLASPHEMY!
Go figure.

Anonymous said...

How utterly sad. I used to respect Dr. Reagan. I used to be a hardcore believer in the pretrib view too. But about 9 years ago, I started studying Islam, and actually paying attention to what was going on in the world. I also grew up a bit and became more open to the probability that some of my positions - dogmas - might not necessarily be right on. I had experienced during my immersion in the pretrib, euro view the utter and dogmatic stoneheadedness of Christians to even consider the possibility that the pretrib, euro view might not be correct... it just had to be. Some things are set in stone in Christianity. The interpretation of Biblical eschatology isn't... and I find it sad how many who espouse a pretrib, euro view become almost Fred Phelpian fundistic in their position. You do yourself, your witness and the body of Christ great harm.

My mother, who has daily for 25 years talked about the rapture and talked about the pretrib, euro view, and one whom I thought would be quite hard-headed on the topic of an ME eschatological position has opened up, to begin to do the research herself, to look at the information I'm providing her, and to critique it. And I say, good for her.

What would happen to the faith of some of you who believe with such steadfastness to the point of insulting and slandering fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, if Christ decided that he wasn't going to come until just prior to Armeggedon or what if the Antichrist turned out to be a Muslim and not the Pope or someone from the EU? I fear that some, if not many would find their faith shaken to their very cores... and it makes me wonder where they put their reliance and beliefs, but moreso their hopes.

I am a born again Christian. I began studying about Islam while still accepting the pretrib, euro interpretation of Biblical eschatology. I recall even when I followed the euro, pretrib view that there were problems that would get glossed over, ignored, allegorized, etc. I'm sorry, but looking at the news, my understanding of Islam and relooking at the Bible and the eschatological passages, the Middle Eastern, Muslim view just makes so much more sense.

I believe that if we sit back and take a less stick-in-the-mud approach to Biblical eschatology, we'll go further than the tearing down of those who do not follow the "Roman Paradigm".

While I have seen some mild aggression against pre-tribbers on Joel's site, Joel has always stayed above the fray and treated all, especially fellow scholars in the field of eschatology with respect and brotherly love. I have seen very little of the same returned to him, and I think it greatly harms your positions and defenses. I am truly saddened by remarks such as Mr. Osborne.

Christ will come back. The Antichrist will reign. There will be Armageddon. Let us at least not be caught off gaurd. We know who to look for, we've been given a plethora of clues. Let us not be foolish. Let us be prepared for the worst and hope for the best and keep our eyes open in all directions for Christ and the Antichrist, from wherever he comes, as we know they both will come.

Maranatha!

Logus

Mitchell said...

Logus, good post, you make a lot of great points.

Sonia, praise God that you have joined the Family of God! As a former Muslim it must have been quite a journey for you to come to faith in Christ. Personally, what brought me to believe that Antichrist and the system of the Beast were Islamic was when I was witnessing to a couple of Muslim associates where I worked. I wanted to make sure that I could refute the teachings of Islam so I began to study it in depth, and the more I learned the more I began to realize that Islamic theology -- in fact everything about it -- was absolutely, undeniably Antichrist at its very core -- it's belief system, its teachings, its behavior, its goals, everything I read about it sent off warning bells in my mind.

Reading more about it from a Christian perspective from people like Joel Richardson and Walid Shoebat only confirmed my suspicions, and I for one am thankful that these men of God are standing up and are getting the Truth out there, even in the face of resistance (from both Muslims and even some Christians). More and more within the Body of Christ are coming to the realization that Islam is here to stay, will play a very significant role in the Last Days and will not go away -- not until Christ returns to destroy it once and for all.

God bless you Sonia, and may the peace of Christ be with you always.

Anonymous said...

Wow. From one Anonymous to another: wow!

Get the hell off of this blog and go back to your little hole in the ground!! Get a life and just admit that you don't know what the heck you are even talking about. You and your damnable eisegesis can go to hell along with all of the other cultists and malcontents who reject what our Lord and savior have to say. Amen!

1 John 4:19 -21
"19We love because he first loved us. 20If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother."


Whoever posted that post needs to ask themselves if they could even stand before God and claim a heart for Jesus and yet curse the brethren in such fashion.

Now, note this: Joel and his "cronies" aren't denying Jesus, his death, resurrection, bodily existence, deity, etc. They aren't advocating legalism, asceticism, or in any way denying our Lord and Savior.

No, they are advocating that perhaps the antichrist might be from the Middle East... especially since all of the enemies of Israel back then are today Muslim. Not so far-fetched.

What I'm seeing here is a lot of hurt egos. A lot of tradition. A lot of pride.

Now, why does it matter who the antichrist is? I think it's absurd that we should put on blinders and just read 1 John and John and all of the ''love'' gospels and ignore the Book of Revelation. It matters because God inspired it to be written AND read AND taught AND believed AND researched. Remember that body that Paul wrote about I think in Corinthians: some to be preachers, some to be teachers, etc..... why can't Joel focus on the anti-christ and you focus on your love-gospel? Why is it necessary for you to preach this linear doctrine that doesn't want to go into what was written as well: (i.e., Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew 24+, Revelations) ???

I've come across this myself with fellow brethren. They do not want to hear anything that has to do with eschatology. They are so happy they can escape during that rapture and then to hell with all those left behind.

I believe in the pre-trib rapture, btw. I just don't think that just because the church will be taken that Revelation becomes useless to read. Am I alone here?

Mitchell said...

I agree Anon, who ever wrote that probably wasn't a Christian though. Sounds more like a radical Islamist visited the blog and didn't want their religion to be exposed. If it was a "Christian" then there is a serious problem somewhere.

Anonymous said...

"Am I alone here?"

No you are not alone, and your post was well put!

Sonia, Logus and Mitchell, thank you for your eloquent posts!!

Anonymous said...

I don’t condone the “cronies” comment posted by previous anonymous. So let’s not put ourselves in one camp and appear more humble and Christian than the other camp.

No one is ignoring Revelation or Ezekiel. What I’m seeing are strong differences of opinion being expressed here. Some look at their Bibles and see one thing and some see something else.

But it’s obvious to me that certain visitors at this site have a determination to push their view rather than simply saying perhaps the antichrist might be from the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

I find the following very interresting "Will Reagan ever make up his mind just how many Sunni Muslims support the Mahdi concept? Even his math is off "there are probably about 30 million Wahhabis in the world...The Wahhabis constitute about one-half of one percent of the Sunnis, who number over 900 million." Really? 30,000,000 out of 900,000,000 is not a half of a percent but 3%."

This is a definate flaw in Reagan's calculation.

I also find it interresting how the pro-Reagan camp is so hostile and act like a bull in a glass store, while Joel's camp are calm-cool-and-collective. Wow, this speaks for itself.

Charles

Anonymous said...

It's really very simple.

A strong Islam = destroy Israel, no Temple, no seven year covenant.

Who's making peace overtures?

EU warns Netanyahu on hawkish government

Howard said...

The Hezbollah have already stated that they may be willing to accept a temporary peace treaty with Israel for 5 to 10 years. Sounds similar to a 7 year treaty the Anti-Christ will make.

Anonymous said...

There have been many attempts at treaties. Take a good look at the European Neighborhood Policy.

Why would an all-powerful Islamic AC confirm a 7 year covenant with Israel?

Howard said...

The AC won’t be all powerful, in Revelations it mentions several countries that will resists him. They are Islamic countries, such as Egypt, I don’t recall at the moment the others listed. I'm sure other people who have posted here can list the names. I've seen their post here and on other sites and I know they have a better knowledge of end time prophecy then I do.
These are all good things to talk about and I appreciate it when people respect each other even it they have differences of opinions.

SeanOsborne said...

Wow. One could get the impression that come Judgment Day there could be come confusion with so many "Anonymous" entries in the Book of Life. I find it utterly pathetic that most of the responses here are fom people who claim faith in Christ and yet are shaking in their boots fearful of putting your full name with your comments. Cowards! You don't have the courage or fortitude to stand behind your own words that I doubt some of you actually stand behind those of the Lord Jesus Christ. Talk about shame. Such words deserve to be ignored. And they are.

Next topic.

Here is a prime example of what occurs when one such "Anonymous" takes his eye and heart off of Christ and The Word and immerses himself in the deception that is Islam, and then subsequently begins tossing away a lifetime of sound Biblical teaching like so much chaff in the wind.

And I quote...

"I used to respect Dr. Reagan. I used to be a hardcore believer in the pretrib view too. But about 9 years ago, I started studying Islam, and actually paying attention to what was going on in the world."

This "Anonymous" gets a small 'thank you' for admitting and confirming that the study of Islam was the root cause of his falling away from traditional belief in The Word. This also confirms what I have stated previously in discussing this subject on Bill Salus blog, that there is zero sum value for any born-again believer in Christ to begin searching satanically inspired Islamic texts for any truth whatsoever. Finding truths in those texts confirms with absolute certainty that you have been satanically deceived.

And several others of this same so-called "paradigm" then chime in with messages of support? Lord have mercy!

Remember what the Lord has said about even the elect being deceived? You went to the source of the deception and made it easy for him to deceive you. Brilliant. Not.

And the point about paying attention "actually paying attention to what was going on in the word" infers that the multitude of Biblical eschatology experts got it all wrong - which, amazingly, is exactly the point of the "Eastern Leg-Islamic Antichrist" proponents nonsense.
They are all saying, you guys got it all wrong, and we got it all right because we looked at Islam, and because we looked at Islam we now have it all figured out.

Baloney. Nonsense.

You gotten yourselves deceived, that's what you got. You took your eyes and hearts off of Jesus Christ, you've ignored the burden of truth from the Holy Spirit, and accepted at face value the deceptions of Islam from Satan.

There clearly are two camps here... one stands united upon the solid rock of Jesus Christ; the other having fully immersed itself in the satanic deception of Islam.

How's that for being blunt? You have once again been rebuked and reproofed. Learn from it.

monty said...

I am going to make one last a comment here and then move on.

Mr. Sean Osbourne,

You said that both you and Dr. Reagan understand the issue about Islamic "hadith" better than anyone else:

"Dr. Reagan is absolutely correct re: Sahih (authentic) al-Bukhari hadith having no mention of the al-Mahdi. Regarding Sahih Muslim collection of ahadith (more than one or source of a given hadith) the re-statement of fact by Dr. Reagan is completely understandable to anyone who knows anything about the controversy within Islam itself on this particular hadith. If its is confusing to Sunni Muslims, it is confusing to non-Muslims."

But then you state that anyone who studies Islam in any way is "satanically decieved":

"I have stated previously in discussing this subject on Bill Salus blog, that there is zero sum value for any born-again believer in Christ to begin searching satanically inspired Islamic texts for any truth whatsoever. Finding truths in those texts confirms with absolute certainty that you have been satanically deceived."

Mr. Osbourne, I think I am in the company of everyone here, from any "camp" when I say that you have some serious logic, emtotional, anger and character "issues". As a brother, I would encourage you to seek some Pastoral help.

monty,
a humble observer

Howard said...

Sean,
I think you may have misunderstood part of what a previous poster has said. I’ve been interest in the study of Revelations for many years and done lots of reading and been part of many bible study groups. What I think the poster was talking about in reference the AC are things about who he will be, where he will come from and the things he will do that are list in the bible in many books old and new testaments are the same that the Quran says about their Mahdi. In some cases their “prophet Mohammed” even used verses straight out of Revelations that that are attributed to the AC and uses them to tell about their Mahdi. I’m sure it’s possible that the AC won’t be Muslim, only God know everything, but the fact that the Muslims teach and believe that their savior the Mahdi is the same as who we Christians believe is the AC is too coincidental for me.

J.W. said...

As a member of the military in my second deployment to Iraq I came across Joel's book "Antichrist: Islams awaited messiah" While I read it I was asking questions to several Iraqi's from both the Sunni and Shia camps. Not only was Joel's book biblical and humble, but i found it to be accurate in all areas of Islamic history and theology. Since then I have been able to personally talk to Joel and found him to be an authentic Christ following Christian.

The point of the Islamic Paradigm is not to create a divide in the Church, but to bring to light a alternative view of the Identity of the Antichrist and his system.

I encourage you to pick up your bible and read Joels book and check it out for your self.

It is available for FREE online at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm

Rather than arguing from a article you read check out the sorce.

J.W.

Gideon said...

Let me explain how simple this can all be.

The EU along with the newly formed MU combined is a perfectly reformed Roman Empire.

The EU is currently building NATO for the purpose of turning this into the EU Military. All EU members will give up their national militaries and will rely on the EU military for defense.

I see the MU eventually fusing together with the EU. All MU members will have to give up their national militaries in favor of the Regional military established by the EU.

The MU will be very beneficial to the EU due to energy needs. Israel's newly discovered natural gas deposit could supply Europe and at the same time provide lucrative contracts with European energy companies. This deposit will be needed because it is my belief that Gog and Magog will happen prior to the Tribulation, and Russia is Europe's supplier of natural gas, so they will need a new supplier.

With Gog and Magog occurring before the Tribulation and I think Bill Salus very well might be right that Psalm 83 occurs before the Tribulation too,this gives Israel no reason to sign on with the newly fused EU and MU. The treaty will not be your typical peace treaty. It will instead be more or less an economic treaty and will give up their national defense force.

It is also possible for the leader to come (AC) will be an ethnic Assyrian born and raised in Europe, but I do not see him being a Muslim.

Let us not forget history. If the Muslim enemies of Israel are still alive and kicking at the begining of the Tribulation, Israel in the past, has generally signed peace treaties with their neighbors through a mediator, ie U.S. Presidents. So, it is safe to assume a trusted Western leader will be the mediator, if this is the case.

Anonymous said...

Gideon,

Although I am a proponent of the MU being Antichrist, I see your point, it's a plausable one, but the issue you need to resolve is that the Harlot is a city, and if it is Rome, I find it difficult to see the MU unite with the Catholic Church. You need to pick that city of that Harlot. Joel and Shoebat suggest it being Arabia and after studying the Bible, I find Arabia mentioned all over the place.
But thank you for making a civilized argument, especially after reading all the attacks and negative remarks here by Reagan's camp. I hope and pray that everyone here keep in mind that we are all on the same side. Divisivness is of the devil.

Anonymous said...

JW,

Thank you for doing a service to our nation and also thank you for your valuable remarks, especially that you being on the ground and have experienced the Muslim world personally. Indeed, Muslims from all levels believe in the Mahdi. I just wish that Reagan can see your point, but I doubt it since the issue is not an issue of fact, but of pride.

One message to Sean Osborn - I wish that you could tone your language a little. If someone choosed to be anonymous it's there choice, and if you wish that they give there names, then you need to have the webmaster take out the option of "Anonymous" and stop blaming people for taking that option. I definately will choose "anonymous" especially after reading some of the hostilities here and attacks on Joel and Shoebat. They get enough attacks from Muslims and definately adding more attacks from "Christians" adds more fuel to the fire. I read some comments that the proponents of the eastern view are "attacking Reagan" and I find this to be without foundation.

Leftie said...

One of the problems with christians' attitude to Eschatology and other biblical themes; Is that any other view but your own is not only wrong, but Satanic, Dishonest, Moronic, or some other slur. I think some of the heat, smoke, and not enough light in this comments section confirms that.

Sonia's cooments did a very good summary of the Anti-Christ spirit in islam.

A couple of additional ones;

1) Islam encourages deception through false peace (Hudna) and dissemalation (Tachiya).

2) All the mentioned nations that God singles out for his wrath and judgement are Muslim eg Egypt and Lebanon.

Please forgive any typos!

Regards Leftie

Gideon said...

Whoever you are,

I did not get into the Harlot, but I believe the Harlot to be Babylon itself and not Rome.

Look for membership into the combined EU and MU to be extended. Iraq (Babylon) is going to be a very wealthy nation once it's oil production comes back on line. The EU will gladly offer membership to a peaceful and economically rich oil nation like Iraq.

The prophecies concerning Babylon's destruction from the Old Testament (Isaiah 13 & Jeremiah 50-51) have yet to be fulfilled.

"And they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be desolate for ever, saith the Lord."
- Jeremiah 51:26

The Iraqi town of Hillah, which lies in the ruins of Babylon is built almost exclusively out of the ruins of Babylon.

The U.S. and UN just announced the amount of money given to the Iraqi government to rebuild the city of Babylon.
http://worshippingchristian.org/blog/?p=6037

According to the Bible Babylon will be destroyed by fire like Sodom and Gomorah, this has yet to occur.

It is my opinion, that the AC will rise out of Europe and will move the capital of his new empire to Babylon.

It is possible that a coming world war will decimate Europe leaving Iraq relatively untouched.

This is just my opinion, only GOD knows for sure.

Nathan Jones said...

A fallacy we all share on both sides of the debate on the Sunni belief in the Mahdi is on supposing that the whole Sunni sect absolutely and totally does or does not believe in the Mahdi. One side's good research says the Sunni's do all believe in the Mahdi, while the other side's good research says they all do not.

An interesting conversation I've been having with a devout Sunni Muslim has shown me that the views of Muslims are as varied and debatable as those among Christians. Certainly, we Christians agree on EVERYTHING, right? ;) Well, it would appear the Muslims don't all agree on the same things either. They are as divided as we are on a whole variety of interpretations, and supporters of different positions write just as passionately as we do about our interpretations of the Bible... and we cite them.

But, let's keep it in perspective that we ALL agree Islam is satanic and a great threat. But, in the end (no matter what shape the end takes) God will destroy Islam and all other false religions and Jesus will reign.

Can I hear an "Amen" and a "Maranatha"!?

son of thunder said...

Amen and maranatha!!

Now, can we PLEASE move on?

son of thunder said...

It's this kind of dogmatic, argumentative nonsense that makes me embarassed to be a believer. Don't just listen to me, listen to God's Word.

Should he argue with useless talk, Or with words which are not profitable? - Job 15:3

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; - 1 Tim. 2:8

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. - Titus 3:9

Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. - 2 Tim. 2:14

Anonymous said...

nathan, amen and marantha.

wouldn't it have been nice if doctor reagan had been half as fair as you in the first place instead of taking such a defensive posture? instead of first claiming that no sunnis belive in the mahdi, attacking someone for teaching this and then changing his opinion as if he always taught this? i'm honestly sorry that you have to work for a boss like this. i had to do it for many years. in ministry it is very hard. keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

son of thunder, amen

Mitchell said...

Nathan said, "But, let's keep it in perspective that we ALL agree Islam is satanic and a great threat. But, in the end (no matter what shape the end takes) God will destroy Islam and all other false religions and Jesus will reign."

Amen and Maranatha! :)

son of thunder - never be embarassed to be a believer. :)

loki said...

Very good input, Gideon.

Amen, Nathan and son of thunder!

SeanOsborne said...

monty said,

<You said that both you and Dr. Reagan understand the issue about Islamic "hadith" better than anyone else

and...

"But then you state that anyone who studies Islam in any way is "satanically decieved"

Monty,

Unfortunately, my brother, you are dreadfully incorrect in making both of these statements.

In the first you have grossly mis-characterized my comments about Dr. Reagan's and my own understanding of Islamic ahadith. In no manner whatsoever did I even imply that wither of us understand Islamic ahadith better than anyone else. This statement of your is absolutely false.

In the second you again applied a ridiculously pathetic twist the point I made into something totally divorced from the reality of what I wrote - which was - and I repeat it with emphasis:

"...there is zero sum value for any born-again believer in Christ to begin searching satanically inspired Islamic texts for any truth whatsoever. Finding truths in those texts confirms with absolute certainty that you have been satanically deceived.

I ma hopefull that you now comprehend the differences between what I wrote and what YOU THINK I wrote. That I reject your advice in its entirety should be abundantly obvious.

Blessings to you.

SeanOsborne said...

Gideon,

Excellent points on the EU and the Union for the Mediterranean (UM).

I believe it was a big-time attention-grabber for Bible eschatologsts that the UM is the brainchild of Nicholas Sarkozy. The attention-grabbing aspect is due to the fact that Sarkozy is of maternal Jewish descent of the rabbinically important Mallah family of Thessaloniki, Greece.

There are some minor eschatological issues with respect to the EU and MU representing ancient a "perfectly reformed" Rome - they are present day Serbia (Moesia) and Macedonia not being included, and the inclusion of Turkey and Libya (Ezekiel 38) and Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. (Isaiah 17, Psalm 83).

This bears watching closely.

J.W. said...

Mr. Osborne,

With all due respect, it seems like you are also mis-characterizing the stance of the Islamic paradigm. No one is searching Islamic literature for a revelation of truth. It is obviously a satanic and demonically inspired and influenced religion, which we can all agree on.

When the Da Vinci Code became a hit, many Christians searched through the book in order to “debunk” the lies contained within. Thus subsequent books were release in Christian circles examining the lies of the Da Vinci Code through the lens of scripture.

No one is looking to Islamic texts as a source of End Times truth. But rather examining the lie of Islam through the lens of scripture. It just happens that the theology, eschatology, and goals of Islam match perfectly those of the Antichrist and his subsequent system.

Right or wrong, God knows best and his plan will come to fruition. I feel sorrow to see such antagonism based upon a difference in opinion.

Respectfully,

J.W.

son of thunder said...

J.W., Amen. Only God knows. Even though I lean towards the "Roman" antichrist, I was a Muslim antichrist proponant and I can still see how a Muslim could fit the bill. But, I'm mature enought to admit that I don't know.

I'm tired of the antagonismand the endless debates: They are pointless and are going nowhere.

New believers or non-believers come to this blog and all they see are fighting and disputes. It scares the new believers and gives the non-believers something to laugh at and throw back in our faces. So let's all just grow up, shake hands, and drop it.

Gideon said...

Sean,

You are correct, it is not a perfectly reformed Rome. I should have chosen my words a little more wisely, but I agree it is very interesting.

I researched Sarkozy after he made the announcement of the UM, and I found the Jewish lineage you are speaking of, very interesting!

I also found it interesting that they are putting the headquarters for the UM in Barcelona, Spain. A city founded by Romans. The new capital is located in the country responsible for the Spanish Inquisition.

SeanOsborne said...

J.W. said...
"Mr. Osborne,

With all due respect, it seems like you are also mis-characterizing the stance of the Islamic paradigm. No one is searching Islamic literature for a revelation of truth.
"

J.W.,

With all due respect in return, I most certainly am not mischaracterizing the stance of those proponents of the so-called Islamic paradigm. That those Islamic-paradigm proponents use Islamic sources (the Satanic inspired text of the Qur'an and the ahadith particularly) and hold them up side-by-side as confirmation or proof of being an equal to the Word of God in a vain and myopic effort to prove their eisegetical point.

This fact is the basis for their claim that the Imam al-Mahdi is the person of the Biblical Antichrist; the Beast; and Gog of Ezekiel 38/39, that he will conquer Israel, and rule over a global Islamic caliphate from the Temple Mount.

This is well beyond any difference of "opinion." This is a differnce based upon sound Biblical exegesis and the error-laden eisegesis of the Islamic Antichrist crowd.

SeanOsborne said...

son of thunder said...
"I'm tired of the antagonism and the endless debates: They are pointless and are going nowhere."

son of thunder,

These differences are not pointless.

And they most certainly will be going somewhere.

The coming literal fulfillment of Psalm 83 will instantly make moot, null and void ALL of the "Islamic Antichrist" nonsense.

Bill Salus' book 'Isralestine' is the antithesis of everything the "Eastern Leg" crowd hold dear, and details with great effect why their work is eisegetical.

son of thunder said...

Sean, my point is this: the debate has become circular.

It's like a watching a NASCAR race. The cars are going in a big circle over and over and over for 500 miles. The start of the race is usually pretty exciting and the end is usually exciting, but the middle is sometimes boring. The drivers argue back and forth. The fans say, "Jeff Gordon's got it this time" at mile 200. At mile 300 they say, "Dale Jr.'s got it." They run neck and neck, door panel to door panel for the next 200 miles. Who wins? We don't know until that checkered flag waves at the end of mile 500.

The same with this. As far as I'm concerned, and this is the point I'm making, we can speculate all we want, but until God waves His checkered flag we don't know for sure.

All the information is out there. We have went over it and went over it and went over it ad nauseum. The same arguments are being thrown around and around and around. Some say they are for Paul, and others for Silas. It's irrelevant. It's become a joke, really. This debate has went on for this post 3 days! 3! And no one has made any headway. It's like the trench warfare of WWI. We sit in our trenches, going nowhere, taking pot-shots at the occasional head that pops out of the opposing army's trench, and ultimately go nowhere. We just waste time, manpower, and equipment.

Anonymous said...

From David
To J.W.:

"Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." Titus 1:12,13 Paul quotes an unbelieving poet: Epimenides

"In Him we live, we move, we have our being" - Acts 17:28 quoting an unbelieving poet Epimenides

"For we are also His offspring" - Acts 17:29 Luke quotes the fifth line of Aratus's Phaenomena (a unbelieving philosopher)

"he disputed about the body of Moses" - Jude 1:9 referencing an extrabiblical uninspired text: The Assumption of Moses

"Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints..." - Jude 14,15 refering to extrabiblical ininspired source: Book of Enoch

I'm not advocating going to uninspired texts to find truth no more than Paul or Luke or Jude do. They quoted those texts, and scholars agree that they weren't giving their blessing to the writings of the so-called Book of Enoch, The Assumption of Moses, Epimenides' poetry, or Arastus's Phaenomena. They used these texts to make their points and because the Holy Spirit led them to use them scripturally.

Your restriction to not read anything outside of Scripture seems to contradict the Holy Spirit's allowance of it. You are wrong, brother.

Now, again, God isn't leading us to make Scripture out of the the writings of Mohammed or any of his followers. But, if Satan is creating a anti-Revelation... I think it's proper that we keep watch, and warn of His Scripture twisting.

If Paul, nor Luke, nor Jude were warned against it.... I don't see how you claim superiority of what they did.

Now, again, lets see the Book of Daniel for another quote:

Daniel 1:17 "As for these four young men, God gave them knowledge and skill in all literature and wisdom;"

I truly believe this meant what it said. It doesn't mean that their "knowledge" of all literature was God sanctioning belief in whatever that literature was. It just meant that the were educated to things related to what their positions in Bablyon required. Knowledge about geography, writers (Persian, Babylonian, Hebrew, etc).

With all of this stated, none of the true believers who compare the Quran to the Scriptures is saying that we believe we can find truth in the Quran. Quite the opposite. We are shedding light on a very dark place. A dark place where unbelievers need the light to be shone. We are, by God's awesome power, attempting to set the captives free.


" That those Islamic-paradigm proponents use Islamic sources (the Satanic inspired text of the Qur'an and the ahadith particularly) and hold them up side-by-side as confirmation or proof of being an equal to the Word of God in a vain and myopic effort to prove their eisegetical point.

So, to your claim that we are holding the Quran "side-by-side as confirmation or proof of being an equal to the Word of God." This isn't the case at all. We are pointing out how they are taking God's Scripture and manipulating it. And, how Satan is preparing for his "battle" by having already prepared "his people" with a religion that's been in the works for millenia.

This is now my 2nd post as Anonymous.
My first one began like this:
"Wow. From one Anonymous to another: wow!"

SeanOsborne said...

son of thunder,

Please observe that it was Joel Richardson who intentionally created the current level of discourse by posting his shrill, whiney complaints with the full and intimate knowledge of Dr. Reagan's position on the matter, received by Joel via private e-mail, to wit Dr. Reagan clearly and unambiguously stated:

"I make it a point never to conduct theological debates nor respond to criticism. I have made my position clear. I stand by it. I have nothing more to say."

Please obsserve the last sentence above. Observe that it ended in a period.

So why did Joel Richardson come here except to publicly goad Dr. Reagan in the vain attempt to raise his own stock? Joel did so by leading off with a blatantly untruthful statement: "Yet here you are once more "conducting theological debates." Joel followed this nonsense up by tossing out two more unfounded and absurb accusations.

Is that what Dr. Reagan's article above is, a theological debate?

Or is it a further amplification and defining of Dr. Reagan's previous work?

Observe also as I noted previously, Joel's comment was followed exactly 11 minutes later with the first of several comments supporting him. Now, riddle me this, how is it that these Joel supporters are hanging around with baited breath on this Christ in Prophecy Journal which is the antithesis of Joel's position? Don't you find that a bit odd and a little more than coincidental? I most certainly do, and I say that from a position of closely observing and analyzing the habits of that clique for some time now.

Bottom line - they have an agenda. As seen above, Dr. reagan's positon on the matter was completely disregarding and disrespected. He is owed an apology.

Nathan Jones said...

While I respect some wanting to be anonymous, it's getting hard to follow the players in the conversation.

Great thing about the web is that we can pick names for ourselves that our parents never would have named us and still keep anonymity. I for one go by "Midas" (for the irony! ;) when not on my own blog.

Feel free to choose the "Name/URL" selection and give yourself a cool moniker.

son of thunder said...

SeanOsborne, I see your point. But, my mom used to tell me when I was in grade-school and was often set upon by bullies: Ignore them and they will go away.

When I did that, when I ignored the older kids that were picking on me, they eventually stopped for the most part. I wouldn't give them a show anymore.

If Joel Richardson came on here to goad Dr. Reagan and pick a fight with his "disciples," then Satan got the show he wanted.

If Joel Richardson came on here in good faith to set the record straight about what he says which may or may not have been misinterpretted by Dr. Reagan, then again, Satan got what he wanted.

Everyone who is keeping this debate going, for whatever reason, has played right into Satan's trap; and that includes Dr. Reagan for revisiting a subject he said he was done with.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr. Reagan: I watch "Christ in Prophecy" when I can, I read his blogs, and I think he is a spectacular teacher, but he is human and therefore fallible.

If we want to get this whole deal done with, then I think Dr. Reagan needs to have Mr. Richardson on his show, seeing that Mr. Richardson doesn't seem to have one (I'm not saying that to deride Mr. Richardson, so don't get mad; It's a fact he doesn't have a show). Let's get it out there. Let's have a civil discussion with no name calling or slandering. Let's be adults about this.

If Dr. Reagan puts forth this challenge and Joel Richardson refuses....

J.W. said...

Anonymous, David?,

I think you confused my post with Sean Osborne's response to me. I am in agreement with you.

son of thunder said...

And I agree with Nathan, if you're going to be "anonymous" sign your name. If not, get yourself a cool moniker and have at it. It looks like one guy talking to himself.

Billy said...

Let Richardson get his own show. I for one have no interest in hearing what he has to say.

son of thunder said...

You're right, Billy. I don't think Joel Richardson would accept a challenge to publically debate this subject. I think maybe SeanOsborne is right that Mr. Richardson would rather have his disciples snipe at Dr. Reagan, Nathan, and "Western-leggers" from behind the "anonymous" tree.

J.W. said...

son of thunder,

You actually have it backwards. The challenge you are speaking of has already been offered a month ago by Joel. He was turned down by both Reagan and Salus, as well as others.

Check it out for yourself...

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?page_id=1767

Sal said...

More like a pester. Jan Markel reports she's been pestered too to give some time and attention to the "Beast from the East" argument. Free P.R.

I've never seen Dr. Reagan debate anybody about any topic at any time. I agree, such debates don't help anybody.

Anonymous said...

David says:

Whoops! My apologies to J.W. My comment regarding the extrabiblical quotes by Paul, Luke, and Jude was in fact directed at SeanOsbourne. Sorry about that.

Sal, Jan Market, Dr. Reagan: so sorry that discussing the Word of God to get the truth is such a "pester" and a burden. Shame on us for trying to warn the Church about the possibility of false doctrine out there. Shame on us for pointing out that Islam is the fasting growing religion today (by conversion and child-births). And, shame on us for pointing out that Persia, Libya, Put, Ammon, Moab, etc are all coincidentally today predominantly Muslim. (See Ezekiel 38, Amos, and Joel).

The truth is, we tend to see the Word of God through Western American eyes. We forget that these texts were written by Jews inspired by God Himself, referencing Israel and her surrounding neighbors... Jerusalem being the center of the World, not New York City nor Rome.

If you had actually read Joel's book, as I did, and gave it a shot... you might be surprised what his point is. He humbly tries to push forward the possibility, not "the fact", that current Islam is a very strong contender for the Antichrist's religion, that the Antichrist could be from a muslim nation, namely Turkey or Syria (see Rodrigo Silva's website [ http://www.beastfromtheeast.org/Debunking_European_Antichrist.html ]with regard to The Assyrian).

Joel talks about this knowing fully that with regard to Revelation and prophecy, it's never easy to just stand there and make a bold declaration (which he doesn't do). He tries to make a case for it. And, he does it very well, using Scripture. His book is definitely an eye-opener. I, too, was a Roman End-Times follower. And, I still believe there might be room for some sort of alliance there.

But, it makes much more sense to take the Word of God at face value and believe it when it mentions the nations mentioned.

You can buy the book OR GET IT FREE ONLINE:

It is available for FREE online at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm

For all those who pre-abhor Joel and don't wish to pay him a penny for his work, just get it free. Read it for yourself, then make a conclusion about it.

There!

Sal said...

Anonymous (Joel's wife?), the people like Jan Markel, Dr. Reagan and others who have those media outlets have read the "Beast from the East" materials and didn't think the arguments held any water. If they thought that, they'd probably invite them onto their programs.

Just because these teachers have rejected Joel and Shoebat's theories, doesn't mean they haven't given them a lot of time and attention.

I for one have been reading all your posted arguments and articles out there for a Muslim Anti-christ and still am not convinced.

loki said...

Sean, thanks for elaborating on Sarkozy and addressing Gideon. I didn't say so but I noticed Sarkozy during the Muslim riots in France and did a background check on him back then, noting his lineage and aspirations. I thought that if he ever came to power it could get interesting. Here was a right wing personage among leftist politicians. Coincidence? Perhaps. Interesting nevertheless.

loki said...

I'm not well informed on how Jan sees the Muslim AC scenario so I can't comment there. But I'd be surprised if she refused to have Walid on her show just because of that.

son of thunder said...

J.W., that "challenge" was to help write a book that most people will never read.

son of thunder said...

OK, let's say antichrist is Muslim. Now what? Are we going to stop it some how?

What if he's European? Same questions.

Are we all going to sit at the Wedding Supper of the Lamb and say "I told you so"?

I apologize for any thing I may have said that caused any divisions or made anyone angry or upset. I got caught up in a debate I told myself I wouldn't get caught up in.

I'm done.

Put a sock in Joelstrumpet.com said...

Joel Richardson is an arrogant and conceited advocate for his own views which might have had more traction had they come from someone else with a more Christian-like spirit. I've seen Richardson (not his real name BTW) ridicule people who disagree with him many times on his site and stopped reading anything he had to say. I think he has spent too much time reading about Muslim eschatology and needs to spend more time on the bible. The very things he trys to call others out on are the very things he (Richardson) himself is guilty of. I think in Clinical Psychology this condition is called "transference".

The anonymous emails bashing Dr. Reagan are from a few of the groupies he has.

And by the way, if Dr. Reagan's criticism of Richardson's views seem harsh, I trust it's because of the predictably contentious emails or postings he has received from Richardson, who simply has a divisive personality that transcends to his groupies.

Gideon said...

Son of Thunder,

I don't know how much you know about their thoughts on eschatology, but they (Eastern leg AC believers) are post-tribbers. They write that the teaching of a pre-trib rapture is dangerous and they also state that the pre-trib thought is the falling away Paul prophesized about.

I've debated several of them and their views on Rev 3 (church of Philadelphia) and among others do not make any sense to me at all...

son of thunder said...

I've read up on it and I was an Eastern-legger for a while (2 years or so), although I am pre-trib. And I can see how there is a possibility that AC could be Muslim or of Arab descent, but I lean towards a European AC based on the humanistic behaviour of the world population during the tribualtion; i.e., not giving up their sexual immorality and drug use, which definately does not fit into any Islam I recognize.

I had to ignore certain verses to make the eastern AC fit.

loki said...

They write that the teaching of a pre-trib rapture is dangerous and they also state that the pre-trib thought is the falling away Paul prophesized about.

The prewrath guys push that cart also. I suppose they mean well.

SeanOsborne said...

Gideon said...
"I don't know how much you know about their thoughts on eschatology, but they (Eastern leg AC believers) are post-tribbers. They write that the teaching of a pre-trib rapture is dangerous and they also state that the pre-trib thought is the falling away Paul prophesized about."

Gideon,

This is an marvelous, and simply outstanding exegetical point. Others have stated it in different ways, but your comment is suscinct and to the point. Well done!!

Mitchell said...

son of thunder says, "but I lean towards a European AC based on the humanistic behaviour of the world population during the tribualtion; i.e., not giving up their sexual immorality and drug use, which definately does not fit into any Islam I recognize."

Hi son of thunder, I had attempted to answer this for you previously on another blog article, perhaps you may not have had a chance to read all of it.

First point, you mentioned "humanistic behavior", but I think that when there is worship involved we'd be hard pressed to call it humanistic behavior (the rejection of religion). In fact, I would argue that it is the complete opposite because it is the enforcement of a specific religion and religious ideology of the Beast, and the behavior we read in Revelation 9:21 (and elsewhere) is quite indicative of what we see today in Islam.

Rev 9:21: "And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts."

Their Murders -- Islam condones the murdering of non-Muslims and in fact the Qur'an commands to kill them to protect and promote Islam. Christianity says "love your enemy" whereas Islam says "kill them." Surah 4:89,91 "They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them... If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant." Surah 5:33a, "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger (Muhammad) and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed ..." Surah 9:11, "... they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain...". Islam even permits suicide bombings to kill innocents. What we call illegitimate and murder -- the murdering of men, women and children -- they will call legitimate resistance in the cause of Allah.

"Sorceries" - the Greek word translated as "sorceries" is translated as "witch craft" and "magic arts" in other translations. The word is "pharmakeia" (G5331) and it is where we get the word "pharmacy" from. However, this does not mean that it must therefore be referring to the use of or administering of drugs or 'casting spells'. This word is also used metaphorically to mean "the deceptions and seductions of idolatry". The immediate context deals specifically with blatant idolatry that they did not repent of. Therefore, I think what we have here is the fact that they did not turn away from the deceptions and seductions of their Islamic abominations -- things such as The Black Stone for instance, or even the Qur'an itself.

Their Sexual Immorality -- Not only does Islam permit men to have up to four wives, Islam permits the taking of women as concubines against their will. They are permitted to have sex with, rape, and even impregnate women whom they have captured in war. In Zechariah 14:2 we read that "... The city will be taken, the houses plundered, and the women raped. Half the population will be taken away into captivity, and half will be left among the ruins of the city." Women have no value in Islam.

Also consider the following:

"The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as 'their women,' the women who 'belong' to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hand. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime..."

http://www.geocities.com/arabracismandislamicjihad/TreatingWomen.html

Their Thefts -- We don't have to look very hard to see what Islamic nations today want to steal for themselves, and it is one of the things that they will try to do at Armageddon -- steal and divide the "Beautiful Land" from God Almighty. They believe that Israel has no right to exist, and that the land belongs to Muslims only. Daniel 11:39, referring to Armageddon, says "Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain." I have no doubt that during the battle they will take what they please, whenever and wherever they can as. Booty in Islam is permissible and encouraged. What we call stealing and thievery, they call it their religious right.

Mitchell said...

Gideon said, "I don't know how much you know about their thoughts on eschatology, but they (Eastern leg AC believers) are post-tribbers."

Hi Gideon, Rodrigo Silva is pre-trib, Chuck Missler is pre-trib, and as far as I know so is Walid Shoebat, Ray Gano and Joe Vankoevering. Joel Richardson and Richard Perry are post-trib.

Gideon says, "I've debated several of them and their views on Rev 3 (church of Philadelphia) and among others do not make any sense to me at all..."

What doesn't make any sense? Give me your most difficult verse in Revelation 3. :)

Anonymous said...

King Abdullah II of Jordan is the anti-Christ. Since 2 Thess. 2 clearly states that Christ will not return before he is revealed, you will see it happen, unless you are two hard headed to admit it when it happens. I hope that isn't the case. I say that in Christian love and not a spirit of hate.

loki said...

King Abdullah 11 is the one? I’ve heard that before (Van Kouvering?) Does his name count come to 666?

I find it intriguing that in the much disputed 2 Thess 2, Paul never actually engages the idea of the Thessalonians having to contend with the Antichrist. Verses 11 – 17 aren’t exactly admonishments to stand firm in the face of impending martyrdom.

Mitchell said...

Paul says that our gathering unto Christ (the Day of the Lord) will not happen until two things happen first - 1) The apostasy, and 2) the revealing of the "man of sin". The day of the Lord is a day of redemption for us, but a terrible day of punishment for the wicked.

Regarding the day of the Lord, notice the following:

Joel 2:31, "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come."

Jesus tells us specifically when these signs happen:

Matthew 24:29, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"

Here's another clue ...

1 Cor 15:51-52, "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

Revelation 10:7, "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

There is another mystery as well in Ephesians 5:32, "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

Revelation 10:7 is after the tribulation. Whether the mystery is the church or the rapture, the "mystery" of God is not finished until post-tribulation.

loki said...

Feinberg on 2 Thessalonians 2

THE DAY OF THE LORD AND CERTAIN SO-CALLED “PRECURSORS”

Mitchell said...

Hi Loki, I have read those arguments and in my opinion they are problematic when we look closely at the Biblical text, especially when we keep them in their proper context.

Steve McAvoy writes that "Paul is not saying that the apostasy and revelation of the man of lawlessness are two events which must precede the Day of the Lord. Rather, he is saying that the Day of the Lord is not present because the two events which inaugurate that day are not present". However, whether "first in sequence" or "prior to" it is just a different way of saying the exact same thing. Either way he slices it the day of the Lord does not come until both the apostasy and the revealing of the man of sin happen first (or in sequence, if you prefer) just as Paul clearly tells us.

Second, he makes an erroneous conclusion by stating that "the Day of the Lord can and does (must) include the Tribulation period during which these events will certainly occur." As we can demonstrate textually this is incorrect. McAvoy knows that if one can prove through Scripture that the day of the Lord only happens after the tribulation then pre-tribulationism begins to crumble. As I've pointed out in my previous post, the cosmic signs of Joel 2:31 happen immediately after the tribulation, but before the day of the Lord. Therefore, the day of the Lord is after the tribulation.

Joel 2:31, "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come."

Matthew 24:29, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken".

Apparently aware that this is textually problematic for the pre-trib theory, McAvoy then claims that other verses with "similar celestial phenomena will occur at other times as well" and points to Joel 2:1, 2, 10, for instance. Yet, if you read the verses that he refers to in their context they are all describing the exact same day! He neglected to present the verses either by themselves or in their context, and I suspect he was aware that his contention would not stand up to textual scrutiny.

Just as the pre-trib theory needs to have two second comings and two first resurrections, now it needs two days of the Lord. Paul (and the prophets) are clear to say the day of the Lord, not "a" or "one of" or "the first" day of the Lord when speaking in terms of the eschaton. It is not Gundry who "raises more problems" than he solves, it is McAvoy who is creating textual inconsistencies where none exist when the simple and plain reading of the text is straightforward and clear in saying that the gathering of the elect (rapture) is after the tribulation, not before it. There is only one day of the Lord that Scripture refers to in the eschaton, and it is the day of the Lord that Paul wrote about specifically when we are gathered unto Christ. John 6:40, John 11:24 and Revelation 10:7 firmly reinforce this.

loki said...

I’m unsure how 1 Cor 15 is a clue that somehow ties in with Rev 10:7 because of the word mystery. Re church mysteries; check out Fruchtenbaum’s Footsteps of the Messiah p 670. There is no rapture or resurrection mentioned at the seventh trumpet. Both pretribbers and prewrathers have viable alternate arguments.

BTW, how do you interpret John 14:2-4? Non premil-posttribbulationists believe these verses teach that the Lord will come back for the church and take her back to Heaven. For this to occur after the great tribulation and before the Millennium is problematic for premil-posttribbers.

Where do you get the idea that pretribbers need 2 days of the Lord? As for the “2 second comings” I wonder how many OT prophets realised there were going to be two Messianic comings?

Most pretribulationists see the day of the Lord as separate to the rapture event. I read your response and then reread McAvoy and see no problem with the points he makes. Am I missing something? Actually, Gundry DOES have some problems if you study him objectively: SOME PROBLEMS WITH POSTTRIBULATIONISM

Many pretribbers handle 2 Thes 2 and the Dotl from different perspectives. Here’s how Mal Couch views 2 Thessalonians .

Posttrib teaches that the DotL is always a singular event that occurs only at the end of the week but is that correct? A lot of confusion occurs about where the day begins because some Scriptures appear to be contradictory if you always hold to a strict narrow view.

1Th 5:2-3 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.

How can this be so if the day of the Lord occurs after the Abomination of Desolation; after the seals and trumpets etc and at the end of the week? How can there be peace and safety after the 4th seal let alone when the Armageddon campaign is under way?

Jer 30:7 Alas! That day is so great there is none like it; it is a time of distress for Jacob; yet he shall be saved out of it.

Joel 2:1-2 Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the day of the LORD is coming; Surely it is near, A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there is a great and mighty people; There has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it To the years of many generations.

Dan 12:1 "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.

Mat 24:21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

It appears to me that the day of the Lord in these verses is linked with Jacob’s distress and is not meant to be distinct because, by definition, there cannot be more than one day of unparalleled trouble. I think the day of the Lord is sometimes expressed as a narrow event but sometimes as a period wherein God intervenes and begins His sovereign work on the earth.

“It is a day that is a special time; and it is the Day of the Lord, belongs to Him, is His time for working, for manifesting Himself, for displaying His character, for performing His work – His strange work upon the earth…” A. B. Davidson “The Theology of the Old Testament in International Theological Library” p 374

"Though the 'Day of the Lord,' as the expression implies, was at first conceived as a definite and brief period of time, being an era of judgment and salvation, it many times broadened out to be an extended period. From being a day it became an epoch." A B Davidson “Theology of the Old Testament” p 381

Susan uk said...

Context, context, context!!!

The Church was a ‘mystery’ hinted at in John but still future. The Church was revealed in Acts2 at Pentecost!

When Jesus spoke with His disciples in Matt.24, He was speaking to men of Israel about Israel. He was sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matt.24 prophecy is about Israel, the Jews and the 2nd Coming TO EARTH.

During Matt.24. The Church was still future. Not known. Not born. Not revealed. Jesus had to fulfil and satisfy the law. The Church could not be revealed until Jesus was crucified, dead, buried and resurrected; AFTER Israel, as a nation, had finally rejected Yeshua as Messiah!

During Matt.24 the Church and the Rapture were still ‘a mystery’ meaning it was hidden and to be revealed in the future when the dead in Christ are resurrected, the living changed and Jesus will meet us in the AIR.

Not two 2nd Comings but ONE 2nd Coming to the earth. Preceded by the ‘mystery’ Rapture in the AIR.

THE 7yr Tribulation is ‘the time of Jacobs Trouble’ which concerns Israel during Daniels 70th week. It begins when Jesus alone can break the seals. Using sword, famine, war, pestilence, wild animals and man against man; the judgement of God and His wrath BEGINS the 7 yrs. of unparalleled horror.

The Church, made up of the living and the dead, has already been judged NOT guilty through the Blood of Christ Jesus.
Jesus said ‘it is finished’ on the cross, His work was complete. By Grace we are saved through faith and that is not of ourselves, it is the Gift of God. No more ‘works’ to be done. Jesus has done it all.

THE 7yr.Tribulation is God’s wrath upon a wicked generation. The Church is NOT destined for wrath.

Maranatha

Shaikh said...

I'm an ex-Muslim and at one point like Sonia I also use to believe int he Muslim AC theory however I would argue that the Lord has revealed to me that this is not correct end times teaching. If Sean is reading this I want to tell him is that there is a brother in Christ who is an ex-Muslim that doesn't buy this Muslim AC theory. Yes Islam is antichrist in almost every single way, but it is not the only antichrist system NOR is it the most antichrist. If you read the Jewish Talmud there are faaar more derogatory remarks against Jesus Christ in the Talmud than there is in the Quran.

Apostle John wasn't at all referring to the opposition of Christ's deity in Islam when he talked that he who rejects Christ came in the flesh is antichrist, since Islam and neither the Muslims ever came during THAT TIME!!!

Apostle John was saying this in reference to Christ-rejecting Jews. In fact Daniel 11:37 tells us that the Antichrist, "will show no regard for the God of his fathers". This phrase is used elsewhere and is used in reference to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Hence, the Antichrist will be Jewish, not by faith..but by ancestral lineage.

As for beheadings, there have been societies and cultures that have done such things to others NOT only Muslims.

As much Muslims are vehemently opposed to Christianity and as evil Islam is, it is still nothing compare to the vehement hatred of Christ that unbelieving Jews have till this day like their Ancient Pharisees.

Apostle John told us that NOT only those who reject the divinity of Christ are Antichrist, but also those who reject Christ as Messiah. At least Muslims believe He was the Christ, but Jews NOT only reject the divinity of Christ but also His MESSIAHSHIP as well.

Here's an article I ask my brothers and sisters to read:

http://www.bethelministries.com/proof34.htm.

Islam is evil to the core and antichrist, like all other non-Christian systems are. But there is no religious system as antichrist as Talmudic Judaism is.