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.

Delusions of Rapture

As this 21st century has entered its second decade seemingly hell-bent towards an intersection of environmental destruction with Orwellian government, speculation on the future runs rampant. In what passes for Christianity these days, there's a sizable proportion of believers who are waiting to be zapped off the Earth ('raptured' as they call it) just as chaos is unleashed for seven years of truly bad luck for those 'left behind'. Among atheists, this sounds totally absurd; but among the undecided, the question may linger whether there is any truth to the 'rapture' story.

Since the believers say they got this scenario from the Bible, let's have a Bible study to see how credible are their claims.

The word ‘rapture’ does not appear in the Bible. Pundits use it to describe an ostensible bodily ‘elevation’ of the saints living at the end of the age, when Jesus returns to claim his people (or church). According to certain ‘evangelical’ speculators, this divine act of transporting Christians into heaven will occur secretly and suddenly. They claim it will precede a period of 7 years of turmoil or ‘tribulation’ on the world, ignited by the ‘Anti-Christ’… after which, Jesus returns a third time to judge and punish the wicked left behind on earth.

One of the scriptures that the rapturists base their theory on is found in Luke 17:34-36, where Jesus states: "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.”

Could this text refer to a secret ‘rapture’ of the believers who are alive at Jesus' second coming? In John ch. 11, Jesus raises his friend Lazarus from the grave, and has this exchange with Lazarus' sister: “[23]  Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again.' [24] Martha said to Him, 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.'"

According to those words, there must be a different rapture for the deceased saints-- on the ‘last day,’ seven years after the ‘first rapture.’ If there is a first rapture! A contradiction arises here-- is there one or two raptures?.

Apostle and preacher, Paul, clarified the situation in a letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 4): “[15] For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. [16] For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a  shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. [17] Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.” (Emphasis supplied by me.)

Clearly, both dead and living saints (those saved) will be raised together, in one event. Yes, you can call it a rapture... but, it will be far from secret!

Did Paul just invent this idea; or does it accord with Jesus' teaching? Check Jesus' words in Matthew 24 (the ‘Olivet Discourse’): [30] "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son Of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. [31] And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.”

Once again, the climactic event is anything but secret; and the angels gather 'His elect' (i.e. both living and deceased) from the four corners of the Earth. That's not all; note further that Jesus indicates that there is one, unique appearing of ‘the sign of the Son of Man’ in the sky. At that appearing, ALL the people of the earth will see His approaching ‘sign’. That must include the believers, because…He then sends out His angels to gather the faithful, both living and dead!

In the same ‘Olivet Discourse’ Jesus warned his hearers of deception so strong  “as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” [v. 24]. Why would such warning be needed if believers were going to be raptured away in advance? Jesus' own words are proof positive that there is no such thing as a 'secret rapture' in advance of a period of tribulation!

What about the ‘one taken and one left’? Luke 17:36 “Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left. [37] And answering they said to Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered."

Remember that at His appearance, the wicked will be destroyed by His glory (1 Thes 2:8; Rev 6:16, 19:17) ...while the saints are raised to meet Him. The text refers to two classes of people judged; there is nothing in it to justify or require the invention of a ‘pre-tribulation, secret rapture!’

Where do these theories come from? We can find a general answer in 2 Timothy 4:3 “For the time will come when they [Christians] will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires…”  This describes today's Christians who let others tell them what the Bible states; and especially, American church-goers, who feel they should get a free pass to avoid whatever nasty business explodes at the end of the Age.

The book of Daniel describes another group. Chapter 12:10 "Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand.” We get that insight, people, by studying scripture by ourselves, and allowing the Spirit of God to enlighten our minds.

The notion of a pre-tribulation rapture was unknown until the 19th century. Then, a new Bible, the Scofield Reference Bible, was released by a publisher never known to favor Christian books (Oxford University Press). Their version gained popularity by including copious 'study-guide footnotes' to 'help' the poor, unenlightened Bible student. Those notes, cribbed largely from John Darby, introduced the false doctrine of the rapture (and more importantly, the corrosive doctrine of modern Zionism... but that's material for another study!)

Closing thoughts

There are numerous scriptures that indicate clearly that believers alive at the ‘end time’ will face great tribulation, which will be a severe test of faith, as well as an opportunity to proclaim the gospel to all the world. (See the Olivet Discourse in the synoptic gospels, plus Revelation, etc.)

There are no scriptures that support the secret rapture theory-- it is an invention of publicity seeking men wanting to sell their books and videos, and collect a cult of adherents. Also, sad to say, to lure ignorant Christians into deception.

Belief in a secret, pre-advent rapture can lull ignorant Christians into thinking God will ‘rescue’ them just because they belong to an evangelical church. This could be deadly to their mental, as well as spiritual life!

One Man, One Faith

Christianity has been called one of the three 'Abrahamic religions;' which is true. However,

how it came to be a religion of Abraham is completely misunderstood, even by Christian scholars!

Almost every Christian (and I use the term loosely, to refer to a self-identified member of one of the myriad churches that assume the name of Christ) 'knows' that their faith was an off-shoot of Judaism. It's obvious-- Jesus was a Jew, and he started a new religion before his death at the hands of his countrymen, right?

This is the simplistic version of 'church history' promulgated in virtually every school of divinity, and from every church pulpit, down thru the ages. The truth, as usual, is far more interesting, but also more complex, than anyone (including pastors) cares to investigate. Therefore, the folk-tale is accepted as 'gospel,' regardless of its falsehood.

To know the true origins of the Christ-based faith, one must do a little Bible study. First, we have to understand the concept of covenants, basically a treaty or legal agreement, having a number of characteristics. (See Genesis 31 for an example).

The important things to note are that a covenant is made between two parties, and its terms apply to the full retinue of each party (i.e. extended family, and hangers-on). A covenant spells out the benefits (blessings) and the penalties (curses) that will accrue to the parties, depending on whether they fulfill or abrogate the terms agreed upon. The Bible describes several covenants within its pages, sometimes between humans, and sometimes between God and humans.

Now, the pivotal covenant that God made 'with Abram' (Abraham's name before the encounter) is described in chapter 15 of Genesis. At the climax, it states:
[vs. 17] It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking furnace and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. [18] On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,
“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates.”

Some vital details are invariably overlooked by the trained scholars. Verse 12 tells us that “a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and terror and great darkness fell upon him.” In other words, he apparently fainted in fright, and was not fully functional when the events of verses 17-18 occurred. The educated ones tell us that 'God' appeared to Abram that night, to 'cut the covenant' with him. But, we just saw that Abram was in no condition to sign a legal deal! And if 'God' was moving among the sacrificed animals, what is the significance of the two 'objects?'

Ah, those are questions the learned always skate around. The text refers to 'a smoking furnace and a flaming torch.' Clearly, they are representative; but of what? In the book of Exodus, God's appearances to Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness are likened to a smoking furnace (Ex 19:18). Also, God is said to have led them in the form of a pillar of 'fire and cloud' by day (Ex 14:24).

What about the flaming torch? This item is also translated as a 'burning lamp' since a torch was used as a lamp then. In the New Testament, the apostle John introduces Jesus as the 'true light which... enlightens every man' (ch. 1:9); and
in John 8:12, Jesus describes himself as the 'light of the world.' If that doesn't quite clinch it, Jesus makes an outrageous statement that infuriates his Jewish listeners, in Jn 8:56, by saying that Abraham rejoiced to see 'his day' (i.e. Jesus' reality).

When did Abraham see 'Jesus' day,' I ask you Bible students? There is no other record of direct evidence except the incident captured in Gen 15! If Abram was 'out of action,' yet a covenant was made, who were the parties to the deal? None other than God 'the Father,' with 'the Son of God'... who was acting on behalf of 'fallen' mankind, as embodied in Abraham! The 'torch/lamp' represented God the Son, later to become 'the Son of Man' (i.e. divinity in human flesh).

Every biblical covenant was inaugurated, or initiated, and then confirmed or ratified. At the inauguration, generally a 'monument' was erected to mark the occasion and often, to witness to its solemnity. (For ex. see the Jacob/Laban deal). The agreement was usually confirmed with a blood sacrifice, hence reference to 'cutting a covenant.' The Abrahamic covenant was initiated in Genesis 15, but was only confirmed almost 2,000 years later, by the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross. Let's review the proof of this claim.

In Daniel's prophecy of ch. 9:27, he refers to the future (to him) Messiah who “will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.” Briefly, a prophetic 'week' represents seven years, so that the middle would be three and a half years, the length of Jesus' ministry. Jesus' sacrificial death obviated the need for the animal sacrifices and grain offerings made in the temple (Heb 7:26-27).

At the last supper, Jesus made an enigmatic statement as he passed out the wine goblet: “this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for [the] many for forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). Indeed, he was confirming the original covenant of faith, inaugurated in Abraham's day, and as predicted by Daniel.

Only by taking this 'big picture' view of the entire scriptures can we tie the pieces together and see the reality. And this is why the writer of the book of Hebrews can make his claims in the critical chapter eight, in particular, stating that “He [Jesus] is also the mediator of a better covenant” (vs. 6).

What was it that made Abraham so acceptable to God, that he should receive a covenant? Genesis 15 gives us the answer: “[6] Then he [Abram] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Christians say, in brief, that Abraham was deemed righteous by his faith in God. Much later, in the New Testament, the apostles' writings show how everyone is, similarly, deemed righteous through faith in Christ, God's 'Word with us.'

Now, do you see how all this comes together to provide the answer to the question in the essay's title? Clearly, the Jews are NOT partakers of the Abrahamic covenant, by their own choice! A believer in the Judaic system does not believe in salvation by faith. Not at all; they adhere to the Mosaic, or Sinai, covenant which is based on human works, i.e. obedience to the commandments, of which there are many. Besides the Ten Commandments of movie fame, the rabbis added numerous others over the years, so that there are 613 biblical laws, not counting later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions for Jewish religious adherents.

The author of Hebrews goes to great lengths to forensically demonstrate how the 'New Covenant' (which is really the Abrahamic covenant) is superior in every way to the 'Old Covenant' mediated by Moses in the desert at Sinai some 430 years after the time of Abraham. Note that the covenants are called new or old based on the time of their confirmation, not their inauguration. Jesus ratified the New Covenant with his blood sacrifice some 1500 years after Moses' covenant.

Finally, we have the story of Abraham's son, Ishmael, born of the servant, Hagar, and accepted by the Moslem world as the origin of their Islamic faith. I don't want to add a lengthy discussion here of how Islam diverges from the faith of Abraham, but I think if you followed the argument above, it should become apparent. Only those who believe in God and accept his freely-given grace (the gift of salvation, not earned by human works) can be 'adopted' as children of Abraham (see, esp. Romans 4). Islam, like Judaism, is predicated on the observance of laws, rules, to earn righteousness (salvation). Therefore, despite  Muslims' tremendous earnestness, theirs is NOT truly an Abrahamic faith!

In conclusion, scripture, when taken in its wholeness, establishes that the genuine, Christ-based faith (as opposed to what is erroneously called Christian) derives directly from Abraham; there is no 'Jewish phase' involved! True Christianity is not an offshoot of Judaism merely because Jesus was a Jew. And, just in case a few naive readers are confused on the issue-- no, Abraham was not a Jew! This is impossible, since the Jews arose from the tribe of a man called Judah, who was a great-grandson of Abraham. Remember that!

Furthermore, the foregoing study ought to be conclusive proof that there is no such thing as 'Judeo-Christianity' in God's eyes. As Paul and others wrote, you are either under the Law (i.e. in a works-based religion) or else under grace (which is true Christ-based faith); you cannot be under both, as is taught in practically all the mainstream denominations!  (See Deut 30:19, Gal 3:12).

Out of the patriarch, Abraham, there did indeed arise three religions; three worldly systems that each went astray from the original intention. Yet, there is only one, true faith coming from Abraham's story. It is described in the words of the Bible, over a span of two thousand years. That faith never got 'canned' and sold as a religion; it exists in the heart of everyone who goes directly to God in faith and belief. They are the spiritual descendents of Abraham, born of the Spirit, the true inheritors of the promised Kingdom of God.

Final Choices

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! (Is 5:20-21)

Most of the 'heresies' of the Biblical faith are old news; they've been seen in centuries past, perhaps with different labels, and with slightly differing emphasis. They mostly stem from the original error of gnosticism, the belief that 'salvation' (or ascension, or enlightenment) comes from studying esoteric science that will transmute base ignorance into the gold of godly knowledge. (Alchemy is but an allegory for this transformation.)

Today, another curious belief seems to be gaining increased traction, due probably, to the Internet. This theory stands the story of Genesis on its head, claiming that the 'serpent' in the Garden of Eden (i.e. Satan) was really the friend of mankind, while 'God' was the mean spirit! How's that? By advising Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, state these new heretics, the serpent wanted mankind to have access to all knowledge, not just the restricted portion that this God allowed. God was cheap with his blessings, they say, and feared sharing his full knowledge with his new creatures, mankind.

I must say, when I first encountered this 'Edenic role-reversal,' I was taken aback. There is just enough odor of possibility in this view that it could, no doubt, convince those morally ambivalent people who couldn't understand the Bible anyway. Sure enough, the same theory has reappeared on other sites, and put forth as fact.

In effect, the promoters of this view are saying that 'Satan is God, and God is the real Devil.' This is the belief proclaimed by Aleister Crowley and other satanists. God, they say, is a cosmic kill-joy, who made man with wondrous faculties and then forbade him to indulge his faculties to the full. Their solution is to turn to Satan and his urging that 'everything is permissible.'

A lot of misguided souls, those raised in an environment of moral relativism or amorality, goaded on by the entertainment media that recognize no limits, are all too ready to buy this heresy. It's a heady message-- if it feels good, do it! Why not? shrugs a generation of atheists, who can't believe anything they can't see... unless of course, a 'scientist' tells them it exists.

The thing is, God does not force his ways on people; we have to make the decision ourselves which path we'll follow. Every individual must decide, during his earthly lifetime. Like a child learning to walk, we stumble and fall many times before succeeding. We learn what approach to living leads to true success-- the way of self-centeredness ('evil') or the way of other-centeredness ('good,' the Godly way). There are only these two choices, ultimately.

In these apocalyptic times approaching the end of this age, we are seeing the fruit of good and evil mature. It is exactly as Jesus foretold in his parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-30). God is represented as a man who sowed good seeds in his field; Satan is the enemy (literally, too) who planted weeds among the wheat. The farmer lets both crops grow to maturity, so as not to risk harming the wheat. The harvest is the judgement at the end of the age. Jesus specifically cites 'those who practice lawlessness,' (vs 41) as being cast into the fire.

What is 'lawlessness' than calling evil good, and good evil? That's what the lawless do! They don't technically eliminate all laws; that would be anarchy, and quite obvious. No; the lawless scum of today are those who are experts at abusing the system. (I call them scum because they generally rise to the top, where they fester and pollute the body below.) They twist laws and logic to make themselves look good, and their accusers evil. They are masters of deceit; lies roll from their mouths with no trace of hesitation.

So, dear readers, here we are close to the harvest. The seeds have sprouted and matured into ripeness-- there's only 'wheat' or 'weeds;' nothing in between. We are witnessing as never before, the warped logic of the 'captains of industry' as they justify the continued pillage of the planet. We are seeing the political heads play their geo-political games of deception, always ready to justify as 'humanitarian' their next attack on some innocuous nation. The tigers/skunks are showing their stripes... for those willing to observe.

It is clearer than ever before, this dichotomy between the followers of God's way and the followers of Satan's way. Yet, how many onlookers are still swaying in the breezes of indecision; still not concerned enough to raise their heads and see the choice facing them?

Sad to say, many of those who are deceived regard themselves as Christian. Their pastors rant on about abortion, homosexuality, and other sexual sins, yet they cheer when the US army invades 'pre-emptively' (i.e. immorally) a sovereign nation, or uses drones to kill civilians. These putative Christians seem to see nothing amiss that their government can spend trillions of dollars on wars, while millions of children and adults in poor countries die every year for lack of simple water and basic food. Their deity is not God, but the flag!  Are these followers the ones that Jesus stated he would denounce with the words 'I never knew you'?

Maybe the end of the world will not come tomorrow. Maybe the world will have more time to make the final choice. But, for certain, the end of your world could come at any time! We don't have to wait until 'Armageddon' before making our own, personal decision. In this uncertain world, don't be like St. Augustine, who prayed, 'Change my heart, Lord... but not just yet.' The time to choose is now.

The Final Act

In these nervous early years of the 3rd Millennium, what we are experiencing is the final act of a drama that has been playing out for several thousand years. 

It is a conflict that has been raging between two forces, two ideologies, over the centuries. This drama is now in the crisis stage, where the situation is approaching criticality, and the battle-lines becoming ever sharper. Soon, everyone will have to make a choice, and decide to which ideology he/she pledges allegiance.

What two forces could possibly have been contending for thousands of years? It is the basic dichotomy between good and evil. These simple words are more than just adjectives; they capsulize opposing modes of thinking. The concept of 'good' embraces the notion that every individual person is valuable and deserving of life. Conversely, the basis of evil is selfishness, the belief that no-one else matters but the big 'I'.

While it may be purely allegorical, the biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden illustrates the crux of the dilemma facing mankind. The prototypical couple are presented with two choices, represented by two trees. Genesis 2:9 states: “In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” God warns them that eating the fruit of the tree called 'the knowledge of good and evil,' will result in their death. A curious entity called 'the serpent' comes along and convinces the woman to eat the fruit, and the man follows suit. When questioned by God, the woman replies, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Gen 3:13). She acknowledged that she'd been duped by the serpent being.

Concerning the other tree, not much is written except this verse: (Gen 3:22)  And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and [lest he] live forever.” Apparently, the fruit of this tree would impart immortality... which would be very dangerous after they had eaten of the other fruit, that of knowledge.

What is this all about? It's about the two big choices facing every person, and collectively, the whole human race. The tree of knowledge represents human reason-- the idea that every individual can use his/her own ability, apart from God, to determine what's good and what's evil. At the racial level, it stands for humanity's rejection of believing in and following God for guidance in all our ways. Symbolically, this tree is the origin of gnosticism, the belief that one can obtain knowledge (gnossis, from Greek) by arcane means that are independent of God and his guidance.

The tree of life, conversely, represents what it says- life in a fulfilling sense, guided by God, and hence, resulting in only good. Had Adam and Eve passed the test, and declined to eat of the tree of knowledge, as instructed by God, they would eventually have been allowed to partake of the tree of life. Instead, because they had taken the irrevocable step, they had to be prevented from having eternal life since it would have become an everlasting nightmare.

As it is, everyone must die, which under the circumstances of the world created by 'homo sapiens' (reasoning man), is a merciful end to the woes that assail us. To those who shun the notion of God and an after-life, death becomes the final end, followed only by nothingness. To those who believe the scriptures (of most faiths) this life ends, but we will continue to exist in a new, spiritual form.

You can look at history and see that humanity has drifted away from a largely theo-centric view of reality-- i.e. where the notion of God, or of gods, is the background assumption. Today, at least in the scientific Western societies, atheism (secular humanism) is the predominant paradigm. Even nominally religious adherents behave basically in the same manner as secular society. Using human reasoning, Neitche stated that 'God is dead,' and Freud implied that man invented God, rather than vice-versa.

The 20th century was the bloodiest in our recorded annals; all while we were making unparalleled 'progress' (ostensibly) in the sciences and engineering. Every invention from the fertile mind of logical man has the potential to be used for good or evil. And, as history demonstrates, if it has the potential, it inevitably will be used for evil, every time!

We have let our industries pollute our environment, the very air we breathe and the water we drink, because our leaders think that profit is more important than quality of life. It's not simply 'quality of life' as they blather; it's life itself, survival, that's at stake. It may take a few more generations to manifest, but we are seeing today unprecedented rates of debilitating diseases that were rare, if not unknown, just a generation or so ago. Fertility rates are dropping; males producing less sperm; deformed babies being born; epidemic and chronic diseases running rampant.

The phenomenon of bee colony collapse eludes our understanding, and has the potential to drastically reduce food production. Radiation from the reckless use of depleted uranium weapons and from careless design of nuclear reactors permeates the global atmosphere, and is much worse than authorities will admit. Animal species of all kinds are disappearing under the stress of human encroachment. In America and elsewhere, the 'precautionary principle' has been tossed in the dust-bin, and companies like Monsanto have free hand to promote and sell their genetically-modified organisms in place of traditional seeds for farming.

The examples cited above are merely the most egregious ones that demonstrate our headlong rush towards what amounts to racial suicide. Sure, the optimists have this pathetic faith that, come what may, we will muddle thru... and even thrive in some yet-to-arrive utopia that will miraculously spring from the rational mind of men when all seems lost. This kind of thinking simply illustrates how deluded mankind  can become under the paradigm of the 'tree of knowledge.' This is the thinking of the adolescent mind that has always had its needs met by more mature custodians. But secular atheists don't believe in any other custodian apart from ourselves. Where does that leave them?

While the common people talk about, and long for, peace, our leaders give us the Orwellian double-speak that 'war is peace.' They spout this nonsense... and send our young people off to some distant land to kill strangers that never bothered them, and to be sacrificed on the altars of corporate profit.

Some readers may object that most humans desire, even strive for, good. It's the leaders who drag us into the endless wars, who approve of destructive industrial activities, in short, who are evil. And this view is correct, but does not absolve the rest of us from responsibility, or from having to make the choice between the way of caring for others, or the way of selfishness.

Shakespeare put it this way: “The fault is in ourselves, not in our stars, that we are underlings.” His character was referring to the belief in fate, but we could also think of it as referring to the human 'stars' who run our world. Most of us prefer to be entertained than to study, even in the mildest sense of the word. We'd rather leave the decisions to someone else than have to learn enough to make them ourselves.

What has happened in the USA is the epitome of what happens when men apply their best reasoning into designing a society. Think of it. The American constitution used to be hailed as the highest example of a governance model. The American populace regarded itself as a beacon on a hill; the New Atlantis, a present utopia, and so on. The awful reality is finally beginning to dawn on many people, both within its borders and without-- the USA has become an abominable image of what it aspired to be!

As described in the Book of Revelation, the once-luminous virgin clothed with the sun, has grown into the debauched harlot riding a scarlet beast. Now, I'm not saying that is the interpretation of the scripture; merely that the words echo what has taken place, historically, for this one nation. If the US, and its system ('democratic capitalism') is the best that human reason can devise, and in barely two centuries it has turned rotten to the core; then how much hope can anyone seriously retain that reason shall somehow lead us to earthly nirvana?

This century is showing the world's population the true, mature fruit of the tree of knowledge. Regrettably, it will have to get much worse still before the die-hard, optimistic, secular humanists finally get it-- we can't save ourselves! Human reason will lead only to death-- individual death, and collective destruction. (See proverbs 14:12).

Sure, it's true that 'religions' have equally failed to ever create utopian societies. Every religion quickly falls under the control of men guided by the way of evil. It's the lot of mankind to need organizational structures to achieve things; and as soon as structure is in place, the opportunists rush in to occupy it. The great messengers of God did not found religions; that aberration was the idea of their followers.

But, if each of us were raised to develop a personal understanding of the Creator, and individual openness to His subtle guidance, things might be different. Had our primordial ancestors avoided the allure of the tree of knowledge, we could have developed the planet into a paradise.

As validation of the maligned scriptures, the present state of the world reflects exactly what was written so long ago. As the book opened with a symbolic pair of fruit trees in the middle of a garden, so this chapter of human history is drawing to a close with the ripened fruit of the prohibited tree of knowledge. In the past, we thought we had options; but today, there's no middle ground as the bounds of the dichotomy are delineated. There are only two choices facing mankind-- life or death. (See Deuteronomy 30:18-20 as a similar choice facing the ancient Israelites.)

The arc of destiny is approaching completion. The forbidden fruit has brought death to every person ever born, and is now bringing destruction to the whole race as we come to the end of the Age of Reason. Sadly, there is no avoiding the calamities that will soon assail the world; what has been prophesied will come to pass. But there is still time for everyone who reads these words to make the awesome choice for themselves. Forget about the swollen heads who scoff at the notion of God-- let them suffer the consequences of their arrogance! Listen, instead, to the 'still, small voice' within your heart that speaks life to your soul.