Gog and Magog- Surprise Identity!

This analysis considers the enigmatic references to 'Gog' and 'Magog' in the Bible. Who or what are they? Few commentators have much of value to say about them, instead just repeating the interpretation that seems to have obtained the blessing of the nameless experts-- which is that Gog and Magog must refer to Russia. Said experts are obviously of Western outlook, basing their judgement more on chauvinism than on solid evidence.

Rather than simply swallowing the 'common wisdom' (or lack thereof) let us search the scriptures. Using mostly the scriptures themselves, and aided by inferred history, my conclusions differ radically from the conventional dogma (which shouldn't surprise anyone who's been reading my Bible studies!) Here's what I discovered.

First, let's look at all the passages where either Gog or Magog is mentioned.

> Genesis 10:[1] Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and to them were sons born after the flood. [2] The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. [3] And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. …

> Ezekiel 38:[1] And the word of the Lord came to me saying, [2]“Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him [3] and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. [...]

[22] With pestilence and with blood I will enter into judgement with him; and I will rain on him and on his troops, and on the many peoples who are with him, a torrential rain, with hailstones, fire and brimstone. [23] I will magnify Myself, sanctify Myself, and make Myself known in the sight of many nations; and they will know that I am the Lord.

> Ezek 39:[1] And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal; [2] and I will turn you around, drive you on, take you up from the remotest parts of the north and bring you against the mountains of Israel. [3] I will strike your bow from your left hand and dash down your arrows from your right hand. [4] You will fall on the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops and the peoples who are with you; I will give you as food to every kind of predatory bird and beast of the field. [5] You will fall on the open field; for it is I who have spoken,” declares the Lord God. [6] “And I will send fire upon Magog and those who inhabit the coastlands in safety; and they will know that I am the Lord. [...]

[29] I will not hide My face from them any longer, for I will have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel,” declares the Lord God.

> Revelation 20:7-9 (NIV) - The Judgement of Satan – [added title]

[7] When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison [8] and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. [9] They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

So, the first reference occurs in Genesis, in the story of Noah and the Deluge, hence the date is unknown but very ancient. The next reference occurs in Ezekiel, which would place it in approximately the 6^th century BC. And the final occurrence is in Revelation, at about 90AD, and must be taken in a symbolicsense (as I say so often regarding the prophecies of Revelation) as a future prophecy.

Searching for extra light on the subject, we find this account from 'The Pulpit Commentary'[1]:

“Magog. A fierce and warlike people presided over by Gog (an appellative name, like the titles Pharaoh and Caesar, and corresponding with the Turkish Chak, the Tartarian Kak, and the Mongolian Gog: Kalisch), whose complete destruction was predicted by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 38, 39.); generally understood to be the Scythians, whose territory lay upon the borders of the sea of Asoph, and in the Caucasus. [...] In the Apocalypse (Revelation 20:8-10) Gog and Magog appear as two distinct nations combined against the Church of God.”

The text quoted below is an extract from 'Genesis 10 Explored,' which is a teaching outline by John M. Brown, Flatwoods Church of Christ, Sunday Bible Class, March 2004 [2].

“The question sometimes arises, 'Where do the different races and cultures come from?' The answer is found here: all mankind living today has descended through these three sons of Noah!

From Ararat: - Japeth will go NORTH

- Ham will go SOUTH & SOUTHEAST

- Shem will go EASTWARD

THE SONS OF JAPETH

1. GOMER: descendants were assigned to the Caspian and Black Seas areas, and to what is modern Germany (see Ezekiel 38:5-6).

1. ASHKENAZ: Wales, Brittany, modern Germany
2. RIPHATH: northern Europe; Phrygia
3. TOGARMAN: Armenians

2. MAGOG: Caucasians - territory lay in the borders of the sea of Asoph and in the Caucasus (see Ezekiel 38:2)

3. MADAI: the Ionians or the Medes, dwelling on the southwest shore of the Caspian Sea
4. JAVAN: Sicily & Greece (the name means “Greek”) - see Isaiah 66:19; Ezekiel 38:2-3;
Daniel 8:21; 10:20; Joel 3:6).
1. ELISHAH: Sicilian coast
2. TARSHISH: Spain, Tuscany (western Italy)
3. KITTIM: Cyprus (see Numbers 24:24)
4. DODANIM: Rhodes

5. TUBAL: the Tibarenes & Iberians (northern Armenia) – see Ezekiel 38:2-3; 39:1

6. MESHECH: the area of the Black Sea (Russia)

7. TIRAS: Thracians (according to the Jewish historian Josephus).

'Isles of the Gentiles': CAUCASIAN – WHITE [sic]

We can conclude that the descendents of Japeth settled in an area that stretched across Europe from the Black and Caspian Seas to Spain. These are the Caucasian people from whom will come the Europeans. Remember also the promise that these descendants will be 'enlarged': is it a coincidence that the Europeans are known, historically, for exploration and conquest?”

[End of excerpt verbatim].

--------------------

Analysis

The only passages where the words 'Gog' and 'Magog' appear together are in Ezekiel 38 and 39, and in Revelation 20. In Ezekiel, Gog is basically a title, an office, that of Prince, apparently. So, we read the text as it states, 'Gog OF the land of Magog,' where Magog is the 'nation' or region. In Revelation, John clearly refers us back to Ezekiel's prophecy, but he uses the phrase 'Gog AND Magog,' causing most pundits to assume the words refer to two nations.

John uses much of the same imagery as Ezekiel, for example, the utter destruction to be visited upon Gog/Magog, and the feast their dead bodies provide for the carnivorous birds. The parallels are striking (e.g. Ezek 39:4 vs Rev 19:18). This literary device of John is used repeatedly in his Revelation, where there are numerous allusions to OT scriptures, BUT they are always re-cast and employed in a new manner.

John uses the past events to evoke a mood intended to apply allegorically to the events yet to be experienced. The original scenario is local and specific to the literal people of Israel. The prophetic forecast is global and embraces the de-facto people of God (heart-changed Christians, not pew-warmers). It is also of note that the prophecy of Ezekiel 38/39 has not been fulfilled, historically.

My conclusion is that both the OT and NT passages are referring to the same event-- which is yet to occur. Second, it is notable that Magog can be taken to symbolize the 'White or Caucasian' races that populated modern Europe... and who have, in the main, transformed into a secular, godless (even rabidly atheistic) society, today.

Those pundits who want to interpret 'prince of Rosh' as Russia really have only the etymological link, the assonance, on which to rest their case. This can be a helpful tool at times, but can hardly be regarded as a robust hermeneutic in general. The Hebrew word Rosh implies ‘chief,’ ‘head,’ or ‘beginning,’ and is translated as such in Ezekiel in various Bibles (including the King James version). Thus ‘the prince of Rosh’ is better understood as ‘the chief prince' (of Meshech and Tubal).

Just as there are plenty of pundits who want to pin the Vatican as the 'beast' of Revelation, there are zealous cold-warriors who want to nail Russia as a villain, somewhere in eschatology! As usual, that is jumping to conclusions, and pressing desired meaning on the scriptures.

John actually defines Gog and Magog as “the nations in the four corners of the earth,” so the mention of the two names seems redundant. Likely, it's purpose is to indicate that the swarming of the ungodly nations is instigated and pushed by the Caucasian/ European/ Western governments. This inference is reinforced by the assertion that Satan 'will... deceive the nations... Gog and Magog' (Rev 20:8) since we are today seeing the Western coalition using endless lies to justify their relentless predation. Either they have been deceived into believing those lies themselves, or they are repeating them as satanic deception.

Revelation states that the unholy armies “marched across the breadth of the earth,” so they are not at all confined to the Middle Eastregion, or related areas. The text goes on to say, “and [they] surrounded the camp of God’s people,” meaning in allegory that the faithful are completely hedged around by the forces of Satan. The 'mountains of Israel' (Ezek 39) is another way of signifying the scattered remnants of believers, wherever on Earth they live.

Hence, the attack of 'Gog/Magog' on the 'mountains of Israel' is an allegorical description of the End Times final assault of the atheistic, Western (NATO) alliance on the true believers in God. 

It is therefore, another way of describing the 'Battle of Armageddon.' Neither battle takes place in one location (i.e. the literal plain of Megiddo) as so many expositors claim! It is a global phenomenon, involving the final battle of Evil against Good, the forces of Satan versus the people of God.

I submit, then, that reading prophecy with a dispassionate mind renders a much different understanding of Gog and Magog than has been popularly professed. It's up to the reader to decide; but only time will reveal it with full accuracy.

Addendum:

These curious entities are also mentioned in the Qur’an in connection with the End of the Age and are called, transliterating from Arabic, Y'ajuj and M'ajuj.

On pg 121/122 of the book 'Jerusalem in the Qor'an,' author Imran Hosein notes that the ostensible Christian Europe retains a strange obsession with the Holy Land, even after morphing into a godless, secular society. Likewise, he observes, the ostensible, Jewish Europeans (the Ashkenazim), who descend from 7^th century Khazaria in the Caucasus, also became godless and secular, and have a similar obsession with Palestine. In the 20^th century, the two entities joined forces to install back in the once Holy Land the modern state that calls itself Israel. Sheik Hosein does not make the statement, but it seems to me that these two forces are very viable candidates as being 'Gog and Magog' in a purely symbolic sense. And that would explain why John alters the original reference in Ezekiel to read as two entities (instead of 'the Gog of Magog').

[1] http://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/genesis/10.htm

[2] http://flatwoodscoc.tripod.com/id37.html

Paradox; Challenge to Atheists and Christians

Here's something for y'all to think about: 

both atheists and Christians are wrong in their thinking about the Bible and religion... and for the same reason! Neither atheists (as self-described) nor Christians (the bench-warming, 90%) actually read the Bible and have any genuine understanding of it. 

For that lack of knowledge, both groups come to erroneous-- and opposite-- views concerning spiritual reality. Now that both sides are annoyed, let me explain before you hit the 'x'.

1. The Christian Conundrum

Christians say they get their knowledge from the Bible... unless they're Catholic, and get their religion 'second-hand,' being interpreted for them from scripture by a self-appointed layer of clergy and church scholars. Protestant Christians claim they rely purely on scripture for their religion; but there's two big problems here. First, if that claim is true, then how can there be such widely differing understandings of the same scriptures among different camps? Second, the vast majority of Protestants simply accept the interpretation of scripture handed down by the denominational authorities of the church to which they 'belong' (note wording). In other words, these Protestants are no different than Catholics in how they get their religion!

Proof of the diversity of 'truths' exhibited by the modern 'Christian church' (whatever it may be) is the profusion of 'isms' needed to describe all the various schools of belief on any given subject. For instance, there's fundamentalism, preterism, millennialism, dispensationalism, and so on; and within each of these, there are further sub-divisions. (One may note that these are not competing ideologies, but a taxonomical sample.) By definition, there can only be one truth, therefore, logically, the majority of believers are wrong on any given topic.

In the USA (in particular) Christians are generally characterized by secularists as 'ultra-conservative,' for their opposition to 'socially progressive' policies such as abortion and 'gay rights,' to choose two of their flagship causes. Without (for the moment) judging these two cases, the conservative Christians seem curiously silent about matters such as growing poverty in the midst of plenty, endless and pointless foreign wars pursued by their gov't, torture of detainees (a return to the Inquisitions), deliberate murder of civilians in the cause of exporting 'democracy,' loss of freedoms for dubious security, and any number of other social inequities.

In fact, for most American Christians, the Devil is a Communist, and any suggestion of applying policy to close the wealth gap an iota between rich and poor is denounced by conservatives and Christians alike as 'communism.' While the US gov't is in debt to the tune of $16 trillion (or so; who knows?) thanks to the billions of dollars squandered on the military and its misadventures, they are now cutting back food stamps for the poor! If that fact doesn't rile up Christians to tirades of indignation, then one has to wonder if it is they who support the Devil. It seems any depredation can be perpetrated by the US gov't with full approval of the Christian block, so long as it's done under the twin banners of patriotism and capitalism.

As evidence of their ignorance of scripture, many (again, American) Christians lend their uncritical support to the state of modern Israel, regardless of its ruthless transgressions against the native Palestinians. Fast-talking pastors, waving the Old Testament in their hands, have bamboozled the bench-warmers to give money and political aid to the 'synagogue of Satan,' headquartered in Israel. They are ignorant of the ways Israel is bleeding the USA of funds, using the US military for its own Middle East ambitions, and even guiding and funding groups that are fighting US troops in various war venues. All Christians know is what their pastors tell them concerning how they must stand with the Jews in order to 'assist God' in bringing about the End of the Age. (Their wussy 'God' can't seem to do anything without their mindless meddling.)

Despite all the verses taken piecemeal from the Old Testament prophets, a cohesive study of New Testament prophecy will reveal surprises concerning the USA and Israel at the end of the Age. Far from being benign, peace-making nations, these two beasts show their true roles in the Book of Revelation as satanic partners in crime. Stupefied Christians are due for major shocks to their shaky beliefs in the near future, when they are not raptured out of trouble, but must face deception that could shatter their faith. (Refs [1], [2], [3]).

2. The Atheist Animus

So much for the Christian persona; what about atheists? Judging from the comments left by readers on a wide range of non-religious websites, atheists appear to hate Christians and the Bible with a fervor that, if anything, exceeds the revulsion of 'Christians' for 'sinners.' And who could blame them, given the group behavior of Christians as outlined above? However, what if the knowledge of atheists is tainted? Where do people get their impressions, those ideas that become their beliefs? For most of us, it's from the media-- i.e. newspapers, magazines, radio, and especially, TV and movies. How reliable and unbiased are the media?, I ask you.

That's part of the problem for atheists-- they're tilting at 'Christian windmills' created by the media-- the same media many people are coming to understand as the primary purveyors of the NWO regime. Those media stories have focussed on such things as pedophile priests, avaricious TV pastors, political meddling by 'Christian' leaders, etc. Over the past two decades, rarely can you find a widespread story giving any credit to Christian influence. From the secular media it's a constant barrage of how Christians want to deny abortion to women, and deny 'equal rights' (disguise for priority) for homosexuals. The alternative media are just as guilty in denouncing Christians and Christian values, the same values that helped elevate the USA to its preeminent position-- from which it is rapidly declining as 'secular values' grow to rule the day.

The big problem for atheists-- as for mainstream Christians-- is that they are incapable (or is it unwilling) to distinguish between the popular face of modern, fabricated Christianity (as described above), and the true, Bible-based faith. American Christian churches as they have come to be, bear scant resemblance to the faith of the apostles. Sure, they use their peculiar vocabulary, with sporadic reference to Jesus; but overall, they are stuck in their scary legalism, preaching 'eternal damnation' and rapture of the club-members, and other non-Biblical nonsense.

If atheists (and nominal Christians, for that matter) could go beyond the Hollywood version of Christianity and check scripture for themselves, they would (one hopes) perceive the real faith from the fake. Well, it's a thought, anyway. In fact, some critics of Christianity have gone to the trouble of reading the scriptures, and they still come away with their unbridled hatred of the faith. What went wrong?

Here's where so many miss it. As the Bible states, scripture is spiritually discerned, and opaque to the eyes of the profane. Just because you read words does not mean you understand the intent behind them. If you go in convinced it's all foolishness, then that is what you'll find. If you read with a genuine desire to know if it's true, you will probably be surprised.

Fundamentalists want to take scripture literally, and usually find extremism with that mindset. Others see everything as 'spiritual' (figurative) and thus discount much of applicable value. To use spiritual discernment is to be guided by God's spirit to know what is literal and what is not. It is to see the big picture of God's plan for humanity sketched in scripture, and not get bogged down or side-tracked or deterred by apparently confusing or contradictory details. Too many readers, Christian and non, get so involved with the 'trees' that they completely lose sight of the forest.

So, how is a person who doesn't believe in God supposed to be guided by God's Spirit? The idea is to suspend knee-jerk antipathy long enough to read the text with an objective eye. Before dismissing scripture with 'scientific' disdain, consider it on its own merits, and note its coherence within an overall context. One must be honest enough to say, 'If there is a God, may He guide my understanding.'

3. Commentary

Am I setting myself up as 'the expert,' who knows it all? No; but here's something to ponder. The truths of scripture are simple, not complicated; they are in plain sight, not hidden. The professional theologians and their acolytes want us to believe it's very complex, to justify their high status and salaries. The enemies of faith want us to believe it's all nonsense, inventions of history, to lead us away from present peace and life hereafter. But it's really simple.

Jesus stated it in one sentence: 'God loved the world (humanity) so much that He gave His only son so that whoever believes in him will not perish but will have eternal life' (John 3:16). That's the core message (the gospel) of Christian faith. As for defining how believers ought to live their lives, it doesn't take ten laws, or six hundred. It comes down to one, 'golden' rule: do to others as you would want done to you.

That's really the entire message of Jesus, hence of original Christianity! No one can argue against that core belief. If you don't want to acknowledge God and/or 'the son' (Christ), at least you can recognize the inherent value of 'love one another' via the golden rule.

So, atheists, if you're going to persist in hating 'Christianity,' at least be aware that it is a created straw-man that you are opposing; you have nothing to fear from genuine, non-denominated Christian faith. If you detest that fearsome blood-thirsty 'god' of Old Testament writings, go to the New Testament and see how Jesus paints a different picture of the one he calls his Father.

Christians, are you trying to live a New Testament life using an Old Testament mindset? It can't be done! That's what the Revelation (ch. 3) refers to as the lukewarm church [4]. Let go of the legalism of living under the tyranny of the Law. Are you saved by grace or by the Law? If you are truly being led by the Spirit, then why are you still preoccupied with the Ten Commandments? Paul tried to settle this matter for good with his letter to the Galatians; but like a zombie, it keeps coming back to haunt the church.

It's that legalistic outlook that causes people to look down on anyone who is seen to not live up to the imposed standard. By extension, anyone who is not one of 'us' must join us or be regarded as an enemy.

4. More Similarities

There's yet another way that atheists and Christians (church-goers) are surprisingly alike. (Perhaps all people share this trait.) They start off as 'seekers' of truth, either zealously, or nominally. They may explore a few possible avenues, altho mostly they are really reacting against some early beliefs-- e.g. the religion of their parents, typically. Eventually, they come across some 'system' (all human belief paradigms are religions of a sort) that captures their imagination. 'This is it!' they gleefully exclaim. 'This is all I need to know about the universe; I have all the answers I need for the rest of my life.'

And that's where they stop. Whether they've 'found' the Roman Catholic Church, some small cult or 'school' of thought, Buddhism, or secular humanism, the search comes to a grinding halt. Now really; can a mere mortal arrive at complete knowledge, a.k.a. Truth? Isn't it more reasonable to acknowledge that there's always more we can learn, that the search doesn't end until we do?

Okay, I hear the baying critics reflecting that last comment back at me! I assure you readers that I am still searching for more light. In fact, there is much that I've learned in just the past few years that has expanded my paradigm immensely; so much so that I can't really add it to the basics of my stated beliefs. Why not? Because to do so would require too great a leap for most people's imagination! It's clearly hard enough to try to get readers to comprehend what I'm presenting here-- that the mainstream Christianity presented to the world is a hollow caricature of genuine, aboriginal Christian faith. It is sufficient for people to come to grips with that fact, and then proceed to study to discover that genuine, priceless faith.

Conclusions

We started with a paradox: that both atheists and nominal Christians fail to understand the Bible, and for the same reasons. That enigma poses a challenge to bothgroups: are you willing to do the homework to discover where/if your current beliefs may be deficient and can be strengthened?

You can always do nothing. Stay smug in your status-quo, confident in those who have pre-digested your philosophy for you. Or, you can recognize that there's probably more to life's story than the well-paid experts would have you believe.

Every belief system is a mind-box. Do you like yours nice and snug and close-fitting? Or would you breathe more freely in a box whose walls you can barely see in the distance? As always, it's your choice.

-------------------------------

References:

[1] http://truthquestors.blogspot.ca/2010/09/beast-of-revelation-is-is.html

[2] http://truthquestors.blogspot.ca/2008/10/revelation-revisited-part-2.html

[3] http://truthquestors.blogspot.ca/2013/01/delusions-of-rapture.html

[4] http://truthquestors.blogspot.ca/2008/01/bible-describes-end-time-church.html

End Games

Honestly, it's astonishing to see from the front lines how this momentous final act is playing out. I've been 'into' end-times prophecy for a large part of my life, and have read and studied many different theories. 

Now to watch the drama unfold before us is quite bizarre. Because it's nothing like what any of the popular scenarios depict, not at all!

After all my research over the years, the manual I've found most useful and reliable is the Bible (cue the jeers, I know!). But, I don't use the scriptures like the majority of pundits. To start with, I don't belong to any denomination nor school of teaching; my conclusions are all my own. So I don't pull together a hodge-podge of isolated verses, and painfully force them into a narrative that supports a pre-determined scenario... as does almost every other 'scholar' whose speculations I've encountered. Without a pre-set outcome, it's amazing how the scriptures can explain themselves in the light of an overview of current world events.

That introduction is as prelude to my following remarks. If you're a 'Christian,' you can forget about the 'Left Behind' (i.e. 'rapture') nonsense that is virtually the exclusive preserve of the American Evangelical camp. A proper understanding of scripture quickly demonstrates the vapidity of this view.

Non-Christian but 'spiritual' individuals have their favored apocalyptic scenarios, too. Most of them fall in the New Age type of outlook, anticipating a soon-to-come (some say already progressing) change in consciousness of the whole human race, a jump in vibrational frequency, as some put it. They see the gathering darkness and global destruction, but see it as merely the last gasp of opposition to the impending mind-shift that will usher us into some kind of glorious utopia.

Then there are the aboriginal traditions of tribes such as the Hopi, the Mayas, the Lakotas, and so on. They see humanity at a cross-roads, faced with a choice of recognizing our connectedness and common interests, or else continuing down the current path of mutual destruction that will include our 'Mother Earth,' as well. Like the Hindus and others, they tend to view history as cyclical, with periodic catastrophes that represent a virtual reset of human progress.

In our 'Western tradition' there is recognition of all these alternative viewpoints, as well as a secular view that seems to echo the indigenous view, i.e. that we are heading towards a crisis of some kind, be it global famine due to overpopulation, technological disaster (e.g. nuclear poisoning, world war, etc.), solar emissions, an asteroid hit, or whatever. In that optic, it's the end of the world... 'as we know it,' that they envision. Curiously, you can now find TV channels that practically specialize in documentaries that cover all these various scenarios.

Thus, there are many scenarios to chose from, including the 'we'll muddle thru somehow,' optimistic view. What amazes me, tho, is that none of these outlooks accurately depicts what is really unfolding. As J. Haldane (discoverer of the ring structure of hydrocarbon molecules) once stated: “the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we canimagine.” Time after time, arrogant humans, mostly 'Christians' of some ilk, propose dates for the end of the world, or the second coming of Christ, only to be left looking foolish as they deserve. Others construct elaborate scripts for their preferred future, and vigorously promote these to any impressionable soul who'll lend them an ear.

Perhaps because of the final book included in the Bible, Christians are particularly prone to engage in this on-going frenzy of 'apocalyptics.' It all goes back to the Revelation given to apostle John, as he spent his final days in exile on Patmos. He was given a series of (frankly) weird visions that he was told depict what was to unfold on Earth 'shortly.' I would argue that it is no accident that this enigmatic book was included in the biblical canon despite seeming to do little to amplify the gospel. Used correctly, it has given hope to down-trodden believers in Christ, down thru the ages. In the abusive hands of religious hucksters, the Revelation has also been used to deceive and defraud many innocent people who do not take the trouble to instruct themselves in the scriptures.

So it is that Christians of various denominations have their pet, apocalyptic hobby horses. American Evangelicals wait impatiently for a 'rapture' that will not happen. But they won't even bother to investigate the outrageous claims of their blathering pastors. No; they prefer to presume that their shepherds are infallible and would never mislead their flocks. Why should they read material that could confuse them with enlightening information?

Seventh-Day Adventists, likewise, await their bogey-man, the 'Sunday Law' that will force church worship on Sunday, rather than their sacred-cow 'Sabbath,' inherited from the Jews. Once, not many years ago, SDAs might have been accused of spending too much time focussing on 'the End Times,' yet today, they might instead be accused of falling into the same spiritual lethargy that seems to characterize the mainstream, Sunday churches. Concern for the near-future has been swallowed by creeping pragmatism. As the once-hyped Advent events fail to materialize, the faithful lapse into the business of doing church, pumping out denominational literature, and never-ending fund-raising for their schools and other projects.

Similar stories could be told of all the 'Bible-based' churches. The most vital business at hand is merely hanging on to the souls they've managed to entice, or that are born into their particular faith. Somewhere on the denominational shelves are a few books that present their approved views on eschatology. Should they be interested, the faithful are directed to those sources as being the only views on the future upon which to hang their eternal hopes.

As I surf the Internet, browse the religious websites, and read the articles and dogmas, it becomes dishearteningly evident-- none of the ecclesiastical authorities has pieced together a solid, scripturally sound outlook on what is presently happening, and what can be expected in the 'near term.' To make a statement like that implies that I consider that I possess a standard by which one can verify that other theories fall short. To avoid sounding arrogant, I can at least point out the obvious-- that since so many of the theories disagree with each other, it becomes difficult if not impossible to discern the truth.

In fact, even secular sources have, in instances, more insight into the unfolding end game than most churches. American church-goers have been bamboozled by a few, deceitful but influential preachers into believing that: (a) End-times events revolve around protecting the state of Israel, and (b) that 'Christians' can somehow force God's hand to bring about those eschatological events, with their political and financial support of Israel. While the blind Baptists and Evangelicals pour their efforts and treasure into support of rogue-state Israel, and into corrupt politicians who do the same, secular observers write incisive analyses clearly exposing the gross misconduct of the Zionist entity. When non-religious critics condemned the US government over 'rendition,' torture, Bahgram, and Guantanamo, there was a deafening silence from the so-called Christian camps, which should have been immediately crying foul to these offences against humanity. But in the ultra-conservative, patriotic ranks of American Christianity, any offences are tolerable if they're committed by 'us' against those 'devilish enemies' (whoever they may be).

As a non-affiliated believer in Christ observing all these events, it is (or was; I'm hardened to it now) highly discouraging to see just how 'out to lunch' all the recognized spokesmen and representatives of 'Christianity' truly are.

You Can Lead a Horse to...

The major obstacle preventing a member of any given Christian church from determining truth about eschatology is simply human nature. Most persons prefer to have information pre-digested and spoon-fed, rather than have to research it for themselves. In the religious world, this fact must be blamed equally on the clergy, who, to protect their privileged positions, create the impression that the Bible is so complex and obtuse that only those specially trained are able to interpret it. This practice has been going on since the earliest days of Christendom, as soon as professional clergy were appointed.

The next hurdle in the individual's path to knowledge again rests in our nature. Most people prefer to deal with 'known quantities' when it comes to major 'purchases.' In the heyday of 'main-frame computers,' there was a saying among customers: 'No-one ever got fired for buying IBM.' Likewise, consumers of religion like to go with the familiar. They seem to reason that God will not accuse anyone belonging to a religion with millions of adherents of bad doctrinal beliefs. That, perhaps, may be true as far as one's eternal fate is concerned. But, in terms of correctly anticipating End-time events, it is fatally flawed.

So attached are church-members to this notion of safety in numbers that you cannot get most people to even look at a pamphlet from a non-approved (i.e. extra-denominational) source. If you can get them to listen to alternative views for a few minutes, they might actually acknowledge that it has truth. Yet, for these people to abandon their familiar, packaged views for a 'foreign' outlook is just too scary a prospect.

The foregoing remarks beg the question: does a faulty view of eschatology imply or entail that a person will be denied eternal life? The answer is, of course, no it doesn't... however, there are definite risks associated. A Christian who is convinced that events are going to unfold in such-and-such a specific manner may very well become discouraged and give up all belief in God when those events fail to materialize. This kind of apostasy did, in fact, occur back in 1843/44 among followers of William Miller who were so sure that Christ was returning then that they sold their farms and belongings ahead of the announced dates.

What Christians have badly underestimated (or missed) in these perilous days is the extent of the deception that is being used to mislead us. Practically everything is turned upside down; good is called evil, evil touted as good. As I indicated above, often the secular are better able to distinguish evil from good than are Christians loyal to a church outlook. Only the spiritually aware can see thru the deceptions. Those who are stuck doggedly to a dogma are at serious risk of following a false messiah. Look, Christians: Mr. Antichrist is not going to be wearing a black hat and twirling a moustache, like some silver-screen villain! He's going to be a smooth-talking, flag-waving, well-dressed person with impeccable religious credentials. The kind of guy who's already ripped-off numerous television viewers of their cash by promising a load of religious rubbish. You fell for it then; you'll probably fall for it again!

In the Biblical past, God sent prophets to His people to warn them of impending disasters. Today, when we're facing the biggest crisis ever to befall humanity (as signals indicate) there seems to be a lack of credible Christian voices sounding an alarm. On the web you can find self-appointed prophets of all kinds, from secular to religious of all persuasions. Some almost sound convincing; others come across as borderline lunatic. Even restricting to just current 'Christian' prophets or commentators, there's a huge difference in views from one to another. So, even an unbiased seeker (if there be such a creature) has a bewildering array of prognostications to consider and evaluate for a rational view of the End of the Age.

It's that babble of diverse opinions that is the greatest barrier facing anyone who dares to investigate what is really happening in this crazy world. There are a few people who know they have the essential answers; I'm one of them. I don't make that claim lightly or from any desire to boast. But I've put in the years of effort... unlike the vast majority who 'know' everything from sitting passively in front of their tellys, having only official news downloaded into their befuddled minds. As Jesus stated, 'Seek and ye shall find.' You're not seeking when you merely absorb pre-digested mental mush designed to keep us ignorant.

Ironically, (and that seems to be the way God works) those who are trumpeting nonsense have the most popular websites and the biggest audiences. The few of us who present sober, solid warnings are on the mere margins of visibility, with few eyes falling on our words. It's beyond my ability to turn the situation around; I can only put out the truths I discover, and let God worry about how it gets disseminated. (Does God worry? I don't know!)

The Harlot of Revelation

Chapter 17 of the book of Revelation presents the vision of a harlot riding a beast. This study takes a verse-by-verse look, with my notes on what (I believe) the text is saying. 

The reader should bear in mind, thru-out, that the entire book of Revelation is written as allegory.

[1] Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the judgement of the great harlot who sits on many waters, [...]

Note: This vision is devoted to describing the harlot (prostitute) and the beast, and their fate that occurs at the 'end of the Age. The angel addresses the 'many waters' later in the text.

John, the writer, continues his description of the vision...

[2] with whom the kings of the earth committed acts of immorality, and those who dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immorality.

Note: the immoral activity of this 'system' (the harlot) has made many people intoxicated, and involves the participation of the 'kings' (political heads) of the earth. They are 'drunk' on wealth, on political power, on indulging their lusts of every kind.

[3] And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns.

Note: beasts, in prophecy, are symbolic of kingdoms (or nations, as we now say); blasphemous names indicate a wicked nature, contrary to God. The mention of 7 heads/10 horns creates a link with the book of Daniel's prophetic visions, and with those of ch. 13.

[4] The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality,

Note: the rich adornments, gold and precious stones all denote great wealth; the cup of filthiness indicates that this wealth was not obtained ethically, and that the system is corrupt to the core.

[5] and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”

Note: Babylon harkens to the ancient seat of occult knowledge. As 'mother of harlots,' this system has spawned numerous detestable spin-offs, that are abominable in God's eyes.

[6] And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly.

Note:this system has martyred many believers in God and Christ, over the ages. Knowing that OT scripture often used a woman to represent 'Israel', many exegetes have extrapolated the image to conclude that the harlot must represent the Roman Church (the Vatican) which notoriously persecuted true believers (called 'heretics') over the Dark Ages.

The angel tells John he will explain the vision for him.

[7] And the angel said to me, “Why do you wonder? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.

Note: The verses to follow are crucial (and paramount) in understanding the prophecy.

First, the angel/interpreter starts with the beast.

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

Note: From Daniel (the OT 'apocalypse') and the following verses, we infer that the beast is a composite of 'kingdoms' or, as we say today, nations. Note the stress on the fact that this beast 'was'-- i.e. existed before this revelation; it 'is not,' -- didn't exist at the time of writing; and it 'will come (again)'-- will appear 'out of the abyss' at some future date.

NB: in studying chapter 13, we found the similar beast, one of whose heads received a deadly wound yet survived, to the wonder of the world. Using the clues from ch. 13 with help from this ch. 17, we clearly observed that the (1^st) beast is the modern state of Israel.

The angel then expounds on the 7 heads.

[9] Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, [10] and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. [11] The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.

Note: most expositors see the 7 mountains and promptly conclude that, sure enough, this is Rome (city of 7 hills). However, the angel continues with the convoluted clue about the 7 kings (kingdoms). Remember that there were 7 dominant kingdoms in John's era and region-- Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Persia, Rome. Of these, all except Greece had 'fallen' to become (five) Roman provinces. The 'one' is Rome. The 'eighth' which is also one of the seven, again, is Israel. It was one of the original seven, and in 'resurrected' format returns as the eighth kingdom of the vision.

Note, especially, that the 'Roman Church' did NOT exist before John, thus cannot be the beast that 'was and is not' at the time he wrote the revelation.

Next, he considers the 10 horns.

[12] The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. [13] These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast. [14] These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.

Note: From Daniel 2, which sketches the most straightforward picture of the future, it's reasonable to conclude that the 'ten kings' represent the present European Union. Altho some analysts abandoned this idea when the EU grew beyond ten members, the fact is that ten is a symbolic number for a designated set-- here, the revived 'Holy Roman Empire.' Mainly thru Germany, the EU has lent its support to Israel (the beast). In so doing, the EU has declared war on Christ.

Concluding, the angel relates the coming fate of the characters depicted.

[15] And he said to me, “The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. [16] And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. [17] For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.

Note: the angel indicates that the harlot is located in a region with a great population, with numerous 'nations' and languages. This scenario could point to either Europe, as some expositors favor, or the Middle East, as others claim. However, one might argue that if the word 'nations' is used in the sense of ethnic groups, then it could possibly refer to the 'New World' (i.e. USA), the melting pot of cultural and linguistic groups.

Ultimately, the angel/guide confirms, the nations that were 'ridden' (covertly ruled) by the harlot will throw her off, and destroy her. This turning will evidently be a nasty, horrific event.

Finally, the guide makes a defining statement regarding the identity of the woman.

[18] The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.

Note: Now this is a tantalizing clue! After all the other hints, the angel ends by saying the harlot is a city that reigns over the kingdoms of the earth. On the surface, even mindful that this is an entirely symbolic depiction, several possible candidates come to mind.

So, what city reigns over the earth at this time? Protestant pundits have insisted it's the Vatican; others claim it's Rome (as of a revived Holy Roman Empire); still others say it's Brussels, as seat of the EU (and having '7 hills,' incidentally). There are unavoidable problems with any of these choices, and with most other proposed candidates.

Altho John refers to a 'city,' we have to remember that the whole text is figurative. Thus, the city could (probably does) represent a system of belief or practices united under one rubric. If we piece all the clues in this chapter together, I suggest that the most likely nominee is London, or more precisely, the City of London, England. This 'city' represents the center of a system, that system being none other than the 'fiat money' banking syndicate that underpins-- and thereby rules-- all the nations of the world!

Those who've studied the socio-economic-political state of the world, comprehend how the international bankers, leveraging their enormous monetary power, actually exercise dominion over all the nations. (In fact, only 3 countries do not have a central bank owned/controlled by the Rothschild banking complex-- and they are all under attack at this moment.) The capitol of this global empire, ruled by fiscal might, is a small, independent, financial enclave called 'the City of London' in the heart of the metropolis.

London is a highly cosmopolitan city, with teeming millions of people from all parts of the world, speaking numerous languages.

Notice that the whore is fabulously wealthy; this certainly accords with the banking elite. Also, she is identified with 'Mystery Babylon,' which clue eludes most exegetes because they aren't familiar with the traits of the secret ruling elite. Those relatively few individuals who occupy the hidden seats of true authority are allied with luciferian forces that give them the uncanny ability to dominate the seven continents ('mountains').

Moreover, I contend that this banking empire has used its almost limitless wealth to spawn related organizations and/or systems. Delving into 'black history,' one finds that the bankers instigated soviet Communism in the early 20^thcentury. They also funded fascism in Europe to trigger World War II. The international bankers fund/attend all manner of 'abominations' around the world, including bizarre, occult conventions like 'the Bohemian Grove' in California. They utilize both Freemasonry and the Vatican, and are the financial bulwark of militant Zionism. Their cult can honestly be said to be 'the Mother of Harlots.'

Is the global banking establishment responsible for shedding the blood of 'saints' (believers in Christ)? On the surface, no. Below the surface, undoubtedly. For instance, their Communist revolution in Russia caused the death of some 20 million souls, many of them Christians. In fact, the last scenes have yet to unfold; as the last tribulation engulfs the world, we can expect much blood to be shed by believers at the hands of this godless, antichrist 'harlot.'

Multiple Babylons!

The only 'problem' with my interpretation of Babylon in chapter 17, is that it does not accord with my own understanding of Babylon in chapter 18! However, I think there is a reasonable solution to this dilemma.

In our dreams it is common for objects and situations to morph from one form to another, perhaps several times. This would make no sense in the waking world, but is normal in the dream world. In like manner, I believe that concepts used in apocalyptic prophecy can 'morph' in their figurative meaning. In particular, Babylon appears in several significant scenes in John's revelation. I contend that Babylon has different roles in each appearance. Even in the epistles, Peter refers to Babylon; but that entity had already ceased to be a player on the political stage. Scholars concur that he was referring obliquely to Rome.

After the exile of Jews in Babylon, the name of that city-state signified religious oppression and abhorrent pagan practices (for instance, child sacrifices to Molech and other gods). Since Babylon was also home to astrologers, necromancers, sorcerers, magicians, and 'Chaldeans' (see Daniel 2) its name became synonymous with the occult, which is to say demonic realm.

Alexander Hislop wrote a famous book entitled The Two Babylons, which reveals the Vatican (Roman Catholicism) as a revival of ancient, pagan Babylon. The key point is that Babylon is emblematic of all that is opposed to true Godly worship.

Thus, references to Babylon in John's Revelation are intended to link back to the book of Daniel-- written in Babylon-- which is replete with dream-vision imagery, and importantly, explanations by 'angels' of these images-- the same images employed by John.

The picture of 'Babylon' was introduced in chapter 14 in an enigmatic proclamation:

[8] And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion [wrath] of her immorality.”

It seems to be a brief foreshadow of the major elaboration in chapter 18, which we'll touch on, below.

Chapter 17 reveals the drunken harlot on whose forehead was written the 'mystery' title of 'Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots and of Abominations of the Earth.' In fact, because there was no punctuation in the original manuscripts, one could reasonably state the title as 'Mystery Babylon the Great, etc.' especially given what we've noted about Babylon's occultism. Piecing together all the clues, I have made a case that the harlot is the City of London; or more accurately, the global financial dictatorship directed from that city.

Then Babylon re-appears in chapter 18; which begs the question, 'Is this the same entity as just dealt with in chapter 17?' And my answer is 'no!' Here's why. Notice that chapter 17 presents a complete scenario in itself. It opens with the angel telling John he will show him the judgement (fate) of the prostitute, and ends with the description of how the beast turns on the woman and destroys her. (And note that the text was divided into chapters and verses only much later than the original writing.)

The next verse-- which demarcates the start of chapter 18-- begins with the words 'After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven' (my italics). Clearly, the vision has shifted to a different scenario. This new angel cries out 'Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!' And I'm saying that this time, Babylon refers to a different entity than in chapter 17. The same occult connotations are meant to be conjured up by the name Babylon, but this time they apply to anotherentity.

Since this essay is intended to reveal the great harlot of chapter 17, I will not elaborate on the text of chapter 18. I have analyzed chapter 18 in another essay, and direct the interested reader to study it there... http://truthquestors.blogspot.ca/2008/10/revelation-revisited-part-2.html

(c) J. Krzyzewski, May, 2013

Nine Myths of Christianity Debunked

For a system that has been around for over two millennia, the religion known as Christianity has accumulated a number of beliefs that have no basis in the recognized source of Christian knowledge, the Bible. 

Yet these beliefs are now deeply ingrained in Christian lore, to the point that some will find it shocking that they should be challenged.

Before beginning this trip down the rabbit hole, it bears acknowledging that there is a multitude of 'churches' that pose as Christian, representing a bewildering range of dogma that goes from pure orthodoxy to purely weird. However, the great majority of them share a core of basic beliefs-- of which, sad to say, almost all are erroneous! Such is the shabby state of the organized, nominal Christian church today, that the Bible warns its readers to 'come out of her, my people!' (Rev 18:4).

The following look at the common myths of the Christian religion is necessarily brief. Bible references will be supplied, and the reader is urged to do the reading and research that will verify the refutation of the erroneous beliefs. The myths are presented in no special order. Bible scripture is used as the determinant of truth.

Myth #1: When we die, we (our souls) spend eternity in heaven if we are 'saved,' or in hell, if we are 'lost.'

What; you mean this isn't true? No; it's not! First, let's look at the fate of those who gain 'salvation.' Where does it say they will spend eternity in 'heaven' (wherever that is)? Instead, we read in Rev 21 that 'God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them' (vs 3). And where will He dwell with humans? 'I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven...' (vs 2) to rest on the 'new Earth' (vs 1). So, you can forget about the grim prospect of spending eternity floating on a cloud, strumming a harp... which seems to be the folkloric image of the afterlife.

Now, what about the damned; what happens to them? Don't they spend forever burning in hell, as the pastors love to threaten? This dogma is harder to dislodge; yet this is what Rev 20 tells us: '[14] The lake of fire is the second death. [15] Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.' We also read that '[10] And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where ... [he] will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.' It clearly states that the devilwill be tormented forever, but it does not include the lost humans.

Remember Jesus' words in the famous John 3:16 passage: 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.' Now, read carefully. Jesus compares and contrasts two classes of people: 1) believers, who shall have eternal life, and 2) by inference, the non-believers, who shall 'perish.' Note that perish means to die, as opposed to having eternal life. This is a critical point! God is not the inhumane monster that unthinking Christians and non-believers have painted for centuries. The unrepentant, sinning humans will perishin the Lake of Fire; they will not 'burn forever.'

Myth #2: immediately after death, we are assigned to heaven or to hell.

This concept is repeated at virtually every funeral service you've ever attended, and of course, the 'loved one' is always 'in heaven, looking down' on the assembly as the preacher speaks. No matter how dissolute a life he/she had, the deceased is never presumed to go to the other place after death. But, is this what the Bible states?

John 11 relates the story of Lazarus, the friend of Jesus, who died while Jesus tarried. Upon finally arriving at their house, Lazarus' sister, Martha, greets Jesus and laments that he wasn't there earlier. He tells her matter-of-factly that Lazarus will rise again. She replies, yes, I know Lazarus will rise again on the 'Last Day.' Jesus went on to resurrect Lazarus at that time, but he evidently agreed with Martha's perception.

He told her, 'whoever lives by believing in me will never die.' Yet, we all die-- physically; Jesus was talking about the spirit. If 'believers' will never 'die,' then, logically, non-believers willdie-- not live in hell.

Jesus stated clearly, (John 6:40) 'For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.'

Paul reflected a similar belief in a final resurrection when he wrote in 1 Cor 15: '[22] For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will bemade alive. [23] But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.' (See also 1 Thess 4:13-17; and Rev 20:11-15, the 'great white throne judgement).

So, if the dead are raised to life on the 'last day' to face final judgement, what are they doing for the interval, possibly centuries, between death and judgement? The true response is, we don't know for certain! But there's no evidence to support two judgements, one at death, and another on the last day. Scripture states that the dead 'sleep in the grave' until resurrected. For all we know, their souls may exist in a suspended state, outside of time, until the judgement day.

Yes, I'm aware of 'near death experiences' reported by various individuals, and I don't claim that these are false. NDEs appear to be genuine psychological experiences; but we don't know enough about consciousness and life energy to really comprehend what is happening. We must await our turn before it will become clear.

Myth #3: Christians must obey the Ten Commandments to retain their salvation.

What!-- we don't have to obey the Commandments? That's exactly what I'm saying the Bible (New Testament) states. Let's examine it logically.

Q: When and to whom were the Commandments given? A: To the Israelites, via Moses, at Mt. Sinai during the exodus from Egypt. (They were never given to gentiles!)

Q: What did the Commandments signify? A: The Commandments were the core of the Old Covenant-- the covenant specifically made between God and Israel. This covenant is also referred to as the Old Testament, and is fully analyzed in the Book of Hebrews in the 'New Testament' scriptures. I don't want to spoon-feed the reader (and use many words) in re-hashing the detailed study provided by the writer of Hebrews. Go and study it yourself! Note, especially, chapters 7 thru 10, which explain why the New Covenant supersedes the Old.

Q: You mean we can do whatever we want, then? A: No, not at all! The point Jesus tried to convey in his day is that living as a child of God is NOT about keeping a bunch of rules. People can always find ways around rules-- the Pharisees were experts at it! Here's how Paul tried to explain it to the believers in Rome: 'The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.' (Romans 13:9-10 NIV)

It's really about love, dear readers. See also Matt 7:12; Galatians 3, especially vs 11; James 1:27, 2:8; and recall Jesus' dialog with the lawyer regarding 'the most important commandment,' in Mark 12:28-34, Matt 22:36-40, and Luke 10:26-28. The notion that Christians are 'under the Ten Commandments' is completely wrong, was argued against by the disciples, but was nonetheless accepted by most mainstream churches because they don't want to grant their members freedom to be led by the Holy Spirit without their 'guidance' (i.e. control). Since its origins, the Christian church has been preaching the NewTestament with an Old Testament mind-set (see Matt 9:16-17). It's an aberration that has led to the failure of Christianity that we now see.

Myth #4: Abraham was a Jew.

Now this is one of those real 'forehead slappers!' The Jews love to foster the belief that because they descended from Abraham, he must have been a Jew. Preachers who subscribe to the 'Judeo-Christian' outlook, also promote this impression. However, a few moments of reflection will obliterate this fallacy.

Abraham had a son called Ishmael, regarded as the patriarch of the Arab people. Years later, he had another son, Isaac, who later had twin sons, Jacob and Esau. When Jacob was a man, he had a strange, night encounter with 'an angel' (God?) who told him his name would be Israel. Jacob had twelve sons who were the patriarchs of 12 tribes of their descendants ('the Children of Israel'). One of these sons was called Judah, and his off-spring became known as Jews. Thus, the Jews are descended from a great-grandson of Abraham, therefore, it's impossible for Abraham to be a Jew!

But, some might still argue that nonetheless, Abraham was a 'Jew' by religion. Again, this is false. The religion observed by the Jews is based on the Torah (i.e. 'the Law') and the Talmud. The Torah encompasses the 'Sinai Covenant,' the package of legal, ceremonial, and health laws inscribed in the books of Moses, that were given 430 years after Abraham. The Talmud was written by rabbis during the Jews' captivity in Babylon centuries later, and is said to represent inspired commentary. By contrast, Abraham was living under direct instructions from God, and was given a covenant based on his faithin God (Gen 15:6; Rom 1:17, 4:3; Gal 3:6, 11).

It's a vital distinction-- the Jews (in terms of religion) live under a legalistic system wherein their standing with God is considered to be based on keeping the rules. The faith of Abraham, in contrast, was purely based on faith in God.

Myth #5: Christianity is an 'off-shoot' of Judaism.

This is another of those 'facts' that is 'so obvious' that it's never questioned. After all, Jesus was a Jew, right? Well, yes; but that's purely incidental. The full explanation requires more space than we want to take here, so I am providing a link to an essay with the details: http://truthquestors.blogspot.ca/2013/01/one-man-one-faith.html.

What we can state in summary is actually implicit in the discussion of myth no. 4. The astute Christian reader would have had a light illuminate on noting the distinction between the simple faith of Abraham and the legalistic religion of Judaism. Abraham's covenant of faith was inaugurated in Genesis 15 (read it!) but it was not confirmed until (almost two millennia later) Jesus stated at the last supper, 'This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.' (See Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, and Dan 9:27). Every Christian is supposed to know that his salvation rests entirely on the gift of God's grace, provided by Jesus, and appropriated by the believer's faith that it is so. See Rom 1:17, 3:26-28, ch. 4 (esp. 16), 5:1; Gal 2:16, ch. 3 (esp. 7-9); Eph 2:8; Phil 3:9.

Spiritually speaking then, the Christian faith is the logical extension of the faith of Abraham. Jesus, the Messiah (lit. 'anointed one') came as a descendant of David, of the 'House of Judah,' in fulfilment of prophecy, and to 'confirm' the Abrahamic covenant. It is that covenant that is referred to as the New Testament, one that is available to 'the many,' i.e. all people, anywhere.

Myth #6: At the 'end of the Age,' Christians will be magically whisked off the Earth and spared from going thru seven years of terrible 'tribulation.'

This is probably the only myth that did not exist until about the 20^thcentury, and that is not accepted by a majority of denominations. Only certain 'evangelical,' generally conservative, American churches adhere to this doctrine.

The problem is that this doctrine is wrong on two counts-- 1) there is noseven year tribulation in scripture, and 2) there is no'secret, pre-tribulation rapture. Both beliefs are based on flawed exegesis (Bible study) that originated in the Scofield Reference Bible, which was published in the late 19^th century. This Bible contained copious footnotes, supplied by Cyrus Scofield, a dubious scholar at best, and a scoundrel at worst. His commentary was largely influenced by a Bible translator named John Darby, who formalized a belief system known as premillennial dispensationalism, revolving around the future fate of the Jews and Jerusalem.

Taking a misconception of Daniel's visions, especially vs 9:27, the Evangelicals see a future period of seven years of 'Jacob's trouble,' they refer to as 'the tribulation.' Pandering to ingrained, American 'exceptionalism,' the Evangelicals have conjured a convenient escape route for their adherents, called 'the rapture.' The word rapture doesn't even appear in scripture, tho Paul does refer to a bodily raising of the 'saints' (believers) at the final, dramatic (far from secret) appearing of Christ. (See 1 Cor 15, and 1 Thess 4, for details.)

Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other Bible source refers to a 'pre-tribulation, secret rapture' of believers. In fact, Jesus warns his listeners that, at the end of the Age, people would be subjected to deception so powerful 'as to deceive the very elect.' Why would he issue such a stern warning if Christians were to be snatched from the Earth before the troubles begin? Was Jesus mistaken?

For a fuller exposition of the 'rapture delusion,' please study this essay:

http://truthquestors.blogspot.ca/2013/01/delusions-of-rapture.html.

Myth #7: Christians will be 'saved' (gain eternal life) because they belong to a Church.

One hopes that not all Christians believe this assumption, yet if you talk to members of any particular denomination, especially the smaller or more eccentric ones, this is basically what they claim. Each break-out group from 'generic Christianity' thinks that only they have 'the truth;' and furthermore, that their truth will merit eternal life ('heaven,' in most circles).

For centuries prior to Jesus, the Jews were convinced they are saved because of genetic inheritance, being Israelites, and off-spring of Abraham. But Jesus told them that the kingdom of God has nothing to do with ethnicity, and is open to all people (those who trust in God). See John 1:12-13, 3:16, 8:31-47; Acts 13:47; Rom 3:29; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:8, 3:28; 2 Tim 4:3-4; Titus 1:13-15; Heb 5:11-14; 1 Jn 1:6.

Today's Christians, likewise, have that pharisaic attitude that 'belonging' to a particular church, that boasts it alone possesses 'truth,' will be their magic ticket to eternal bliss. Those church-goers who will be saved by the mercy of God will be surprised to see who else will be sharing eternity with them! Jesus said the kingdom of God will not belong to the likes of the learned, arrogant pharisees, but to the down-trodden of society who turn to him (see Matthew 21:31; Mark 10:15; James 2:5). Apostle John wrote that 'love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.' (1 Jn 4:7; see also 1 Cor 8:3).

It doesn't matter if you are a church member, or which church you attend, or what doctrines it proclaims. None of that will grant you salvation... 'sorry!

Myth #8: At the end of this age, there will follow a thousand years of peace on Earth, after which Jesus returns to defeat Satan at last, and set up his kingdom.

Many, if not most denominations, both mainstream and otherwise, subscribe to the 'Millennium' theory. The problem is that it is referred to in only one place in all of scripture, and that one place is in the book full of symbols, Revelation (ch. 20). It's a simple rule of Bible study-- if something is important it is mentioned several times. To build a doctrine on a single occurrence, is risky, if not plain wrong.

If the Millennium were valid, Jesus would have to return twice-- once at the Rapture, and a second time at the conclusion of the thousand years. But the rest of scripture only refers to one, final return of Christ, at 'the end of the Age.'

You'd expect that Jesus and his disciples would have talked about the Millennium; but they don't even hint at it. The Book of Revelation uses a unique, non-linear structure, wherein the visions are presented in cycles. They cover the same period of history, referred to as '42 months,' '1260 days,' and 'time, times, and half a time.' These periods are all symbolic of three and a half years, the length of Jesus' ministry on Earth, but in prophetic context, refer to the 'Church Age,' the time from Jesus' resurrection until his return at the end of this Age.

Similarly, astute writers have postulated that the thousand years is also a symbolic reference to the same span of time. The scenes described by John in chapter 20 have to be understood as allegorical, not literal (as in fact, the entire Revelation, in like manner). There are some good books available that expound on a secure understanding of the Millennium, if the reader wants more detail.

(See, for ex., A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger.)

Myth #9: The Catholic Church is 'Mystery Babylon,' the harlot of Revelation 17.

This is one of those myths that the website snopes.com would label as partially true. In Bible prophecy, a woman usually symbolizes a church (or 'faith community,' as OT Samaria and Jerusalem were likened to sisters, Ezek 23). So a prostitute stands for a fallen church. Since a beast symbolizes a kingdom, the woman riding the beast represents religion directing government. Such a situation prevailed for many centuries when the 'Roman Church' basically oversaw the various kingdoms of old Europe.

However, protestants would do well to note verse 5, which states that Babylon is the 'mother of (all) prostitutes.' This means that all the denominations that spun off of Catholicism are, like their mother church, harlots! The fall (corruption) of Babylon was already warned of in Rev 14:8, but the warning is repeated in Rev 18:2, along with the admonition to 'come out of her, my people (vs 4).

Sadly, scripture itself warns us that the churches are fallen, have become corrupt and that true believers should leave them. Is it any wonder that Christianity is in such a perilous state at this time?

Conclusion:

The religious system that sprang from Jesus' incarnation 20 centuries ago was, historically, the philosophical underpinning of European/Western society thru-out most of that period. Jesus' simple teachings were codified into doctrines by a hierarchical organization patterned on the governance model of the empire (Rome) that first opposed, then adopted the new faith as the state religion. Once ensconced in an official structure, the original faith was subject to influences such as political expediency; power struggles between doctrinal schools, and with competing pagan traditions; heresies; cultural biases, and so on.

Spiritually speaking, satanic forces undermined the pure teachings of Christ, and in their place, instituted a system, called 'church,' that was amenable to adopting as orthodoxy, doctrines that are not even supported by proper understanding of the scriptures. Given that the churches are separated into 'clergy' and 'lay-persons,' once the 'paid staff' are educated in the dogmas, it is easy to keep the sheep in line. Tradition trumps truth... at least for a while.

Final note: the good news for all people of faith is that we are not saved by having so-called truth; we are saved by the grace of God!

Hermeneutics for Bible Eschatology

[Hermeneutics - The science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures. The branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.

Exegesis - Critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.]

Since I started studying the Bible with the intention of understanding the true meaning of its words, I had to encounter the concept of hermeneutics (defined above). It might seem plain to some 'laymen' that you just read the words and there's your meaning. However, as in the study of any written material, it's more complicated than that. Unless one knows the ancient languages used to record the Bible-- Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek-- you are reading a translation. Every translation is, necessarily, an interpretation. Moreover, the Bible is a collection of literature written over a vast span of years, by numerous authors, in various social circumstances and cultural milieus.

The point is that a student of scripture should keep these factors in mind when reading the Bible. Additionally, other specific principles can be applied to the text with the aim of attaining a correct understanding. Whether one recognizes it or not, we are always applying some kind of hermeneutics when reading scripture. If you simply take the words as written, then one can say that literalism, or a literal hermeneutic is being used. This is, in fact, the approach used by those known as 'fundamentalists,' who insist that 'every word was dictated by God!'

Yet, given the influences noted above, a correct understanding of scripture requires an approach beyond the literal. The question then is, what principles should be applied? As expected, there are different answers to this question, depending on things such as the student's religious, cultural, and educational background, and even-- I contend-- on his/her personality. For examples of what I'm saying, one has only to do a short bit of searching on the Internet on the subject of scriptural interpretation (broadly stated) and then prepare for a bewildering assortment of understanding on almost any topic.

The matter of hermeneutics is particularly important in the field of eschatology-- the study of the 'End-times.' In this case, the scriptures are prophecies-- statements of events that are to occur in the future. There are, in this new century, many earnest predictions based on the same familiar Bible scriptures, yet they all come to radically different understandings of events. How does this happen?

The answer is that differing interpretations of the same texts are caused by differing background assumptions-- different hermeneutics. How then, can one define accurate hermeneutics that will lead to correct interpretations? Ah, yes; that is the issue!

There is no magic formula, dear reader, for defining unerring hermeneutics. Each student must determine what rings true, allowing the Holy Spirit of God to guide and enlighten. Ultimately, it is God's Spirit that will give you understanding, and will give you the discernment essential to recognizing truth when you see it.

With that introduction, I will describe my own hermeneutics that I've used in the essays and Bible studies presented in my web-log.

1. Especially for eschatology, my first principle of understanding is one that, as far as I know, is uniquely mine (I've never seen it stated anywhere else). That principle is that the prophetic scriptures pertaining to the End of the Age are deliberately, purposefully obscure! I'm saying that there is confusion over the understanding of Revelation because it was intended to be ambiguous and confusing; at least up to the time when its meaning would become obvious to the serious reader... and (presumably) when it was needed to be known by believers.

Why would God want to hide the truth? Because, dear reader, humanity is so corrupt and self-serving, is why. If those persons in authority could have simply read the scriptures and then know what was coming-- perhaps even identifying specific individuals and places-- then you can be sure they would have tried to leverage that knowledge for personal gain of some kind. Perhaps they would try to disguise the truth, subvert it, and even alter the words of scripture.

Instead, since the texts have been so controversial and their interpretation quite convoluted, it was impossible for such tampering to occur. Certainly, some persons have attempted to twist the scriptures towards specific ends. This happened blatantly with the Scofield Reference Bible which uses 'study notes' designed to lead readers to particular conclusions. Another example is the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses, that changes certain words to reflect their theological presumptions.

But overall, the meaning of eschatological prophecy has been shrouded in sufficient 'doubt factor' that the End-times have been able to arrive on our threshold with very few people becoming aware, including many 'scholars.'

2. Without a global overview of the Bible, it is virtually impossible to correctly interpret prophecy. So often, we see pundits collecting isolated verses of the Bible and assembling them into some fanciful scenario that they assure us will soon take place. (For good examples, just peruse the best-selling books of the well-known evangelical writers). That is not responsible exegesis. So often, I read critics' dismissal of the Bible because, they assert, it doesn't make sense; or, it contradicts itself. To profane eyes, these accusations appear reasonable. But the Bible is not ordinary writing; it doesn't yield its secrets to any arrogant, cursory perusal.

When you gain some insight into the grand scheme of Biblical exposition, you start to understand how the pieces fit together. Anomalies exist; but they merely serve as part of the camouflage I allude to in principle no. 1. Once you get the major themes, the odd inconsistency, if such really exist, can be recognized and handled accordingly. You can't find the truth by focusing on the obstacles, but by following the golden threads that progress from Genesis to Revelation, alpha to omega.

3. Context is vital. As one wise scholar put it: a text without a context is nothing but a pretext! Just as a global purview is essential, so it is necessary to examine any individual verse within its neighborhood. If a passage is talking about a named city, in a specified time span, you can't pull out one verse and claim that it refers to the future. It seems self-evident; yet this kind of thing is done by so-called experts all the time.

4. Some things are literal, and some are symbolic; don't mix and confuse the two. The problem, naturally, is how do we know which is which? This is where spiritual discernment is handy. Generally, the context will provide clues to help us determine when a passage is literal or else allegorical. See point 5, below.

5. Given a chance, scripture will usually explain itself. Instead, too often, pundits will see something tantalizing and will impose a meaning that appeals to their current interest or level of knowledge. Specific words conjure up certain 'objective correlatives' in our minds, ones that ring familiar in our cultural conditioning; yet they can be completely wrong when applied to a Bible text. We should always use cross-references and other textual links to discover what the Bible itself probably intends, before imposing supposed meanings.

6. Some prophecies may have more than one fulfillment. The first fulfillment is 'local and literal;' while a second occurrence would be figurative and universal. For example, Jeremiah's prophecies of doom on Israel were enacted during those OT centuries; but it's possible that a future event could occur that symbolically reprises the abstract features of those events, involving God's true people everywhere on Earth.

7. Sometimes, we just don't know! There will be some passages that will be ambiguous or opaque despite our best efforts to decode. In the case of prophecy, the picture will often become clearer as we get closer in time to the event. (e.g. The 'Mark of the Beast will likely become evident, once it's accomplished). Other references will likely remain vague until all truth is revealed by God (e.g. Who the Nephilim really are).

These are my primary principles of Bible interpretation, a.k.a. hermeneutics. These are the mental tools I use when exploring the scriptures. We are fortunate today to also have at our disposal computer technology which allows anyone to perform sophisticated exploration of the Bible. Using an on-line Bible, you can quickly compare many alternate translations of the same passage, giving a better idea of what the text was attempting to convey. You can search for every occurrence of a word or phrase to see how it's used, and where; and to find cross-references. You can study specific topics; compare Old and New Testament themes, and so on. It's a very handy tool... when used under the guidance of God's Spirit.

Holy scripture is the stuff of genius. To scoffers it is opaque, senseless. To the humble, sincere student, it offers the gift of life. You can't explain this to anyone; they have to experience it themselves.