What ur church is not telling u...MOB

[Mitchell]

FYI, I updated the previous response to include a few more examples of what is taking place right now as we speak, and also to rephrase a few concerns that could have been misinterpreted. God bless ...

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, i am not quite following your view, so you are saying that the AC does not exalt himself over Allah because the AC is Allah? The scripture directly states that the AC exalts himself over every other god, so if he does not exalt himself over Allah then he must be Allah in your view, is that correct?

The view of the Islamists is that the Mahdi is a man, a servant of Allah, not Allah himself. If a man, even the Mahdi, proclaimed himself ot be the god of Islam, Allah, and that he be worshipped as Allah, he would be killed. Your view does not appear to agree with what the Islamists themselves believe about their Mahdi and his relationship to Allah, how do you reconcile this?

And in your previous statements you believe that the god of forces is Allah, is that correct? So is the AC Allah, or is the god of forces Allah, in your view?

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, i would like to clarify my position a bit, you inferred that i held the 'non-islamic paradigm' view, but that is not the case. I do agree with you an others that there will be major Islamic involvement in prophetic events is Israel. There will be a major battle between Israel and the muslims, there will likely be a 'Mahdi' figure that will arise and unite the muslim nations, and events involving the muslims will likely fulfill prophetic scripture.

But which scripture will be fulfilled and what is the timing of that fulfillment? I am not questioning whether there will be an Islamic paradigm or not, i believe there will be. I am questioning the timing of the Islamic paradigm, and what part of scripture the Islamists fulfill.

Among those of us who believe that there will be events involving the Islamists that will likely fulfill scripture, there can be more than one view of how this comes about and the timing of it. The more traditional view is that Gog-Magog and armageddon are the same event, the Gog and the AC are the same individual, and that the AC is Islamic and fulfills the role of the Mahdi. The muslims would then be active and dominate during the latter half of the 70th week and likely fulfill the scriptures regarding that time period (Ezek 38-39, Joel 2+3, Zech 14, Rev 16-19, etc).

But if Gog-Magog and armageddon are separate events, if Gog and the AC are separate individuals, if the AC is not muslim, then the timing of the muslim involvement would be different. If the above were the case, then the muslims would dominate and be active prior to the 70th week or at the beginning of the 70th week, with something else following their defeat. And the muslim paradigm would likely fulfill Ezek 38-39, Joel 2, (but not Zech 14, Joel 3, Rev 16-19), likely occurring several years prior to armageddon.

So i am not attempting to diminsh the 'Islamic paradigm' view, i am attempting to determine the timing of it, the implications of which could be quite significant. So imo, determing whether the AC acts in a way consistent with Islam has significance as far as timing of the Islamic paradigm, not whether it occurs or not, as i believe it will.

[Mitchell]

so you are saying that the AC does not exalt himself over Allah because the AC is Allah? The scripture directly states that the AC exalts himself over every other god, so if he does not exalt himself over Allah then he must be Allah in your view, is that correct? The view of the Islamists is that the Mahdi is a man, a servant of Allah, not Allah himself.

Hi 1whowaits, it seems that you're very concerned with the words "over every god" in Daniel 11:36. To address this concern you need to realize that the original Hebrew does not include the word "every", even though most translations incorporate this word. For instance, the NCV renders Daniel 11:36 to say that Antichrist "will brag about himself and praise himself and think he is even better than a god." Wycliffe's translation says that "the king shall do by his will, and he shall be raised [up], and magnified against each god, and against God of gods he shall speak great things".

The thrust of Daniel 11:36 will only be fully realized if it is read in light of the three verses that follow it, particularly v. 38. Two verses later, Daniel was clear to show us that "in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not". This is not only a perfect description of how Islam operates, but it is also a perfect description of what Islam is. An Islamic Antichrist will exalt himself over every faith and belief system that exists or has existed outside of his estate, outside of the religious ideology that the "seat of the beast" forces upon everyone under its control. Antichrist (and by direct implication the one whom he represents) will position himself against everything called god or considered God or divine. He will exalt himself over Ayyavazhi. Over Buddhism. He will exalt himself over the gods of Hinduism and each and every single one of its sects or denominations. He will exalt himself over Manichaeism. Over Mithraism. Over Zoroastrianism. Over Confucianism. Over every Shinto sect and school of thought. Over every indigenous religion that exists or has existed in the Americas, in Eurasia, in Africa, in Oceania or elsewhere. He will even exalt himself over the One True God of gods -- the God of his fathers -- over Adonai, over Mashiach, over Ruach ha Qodesh. He exalts himself over them all. How? By attributing to himself a position that only YHWH God can hold, by calling himself the savior of humanity, and therefore, declaring himself to be the only true God.

"Allah" is Satan. This is easily demonstrated, and I am sure that even you would agree. The god of Antichrist is therefore exalting himself over all gods through the office of Antichrist. Again, we must discern the spiritual significance behind such a pivotal earth-changing event. When Antichrist does this, he does so on behalf of the god whom he honors, and it is therefore a false argument to suggest that Islam's Mahdi is somehow exalting himself over "Allah" when "Allah" is exalting himself through Antichrist. It is Satan's way of making a mockery out of the true Savior of mankind, by setting himself via his "representative" both against, and in place of, YHWH and His Deliverer.

But if Gog-Magog and armageddon are separate events, if Gog and the AC are separate individuals, if the AC is not muslim, then the timing of the muslim involvement would be different. If the above were the case, then the muslims would dominate and be active prior to the 70th week or at the beginning of the 70th week, with something else following their defeat... So i am not attempting to diminsh the 'Islamic paradigm' view, i am attempting to determine the timing of it

Then let's wait and see. The descriptions given to us of Antichrist and his kingdom all throughout Scripture describes Islam so perfectly that it makes virtually no reasonable sense to believe that the Islamic kingdom that now exists and is growing throughout the world will somehow be suddenly replaced by a brand new system overnight. Let us reason, and let us watch and be sober ...

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, my point is that scripture which describes the actions of the AC do not fit Islam perfectly, in fact in several places it is contrary to Islam. Dan 11 and 2 Thess both state that the AC will set himself over all gods and all that is called god, that is not consistent with Islam. Your view appears to state that the AC does not do this but scripture states that he does, it doesn't matter if Satan is Allah, as soon as the AC states he is over all gods, which would include Allah, he is not longer part of Islam.

And if the god of forces is Allah, the scripture states that the god of forces is unknown to the AC, how can the Mahdi not know the god of Islam, Allah? And it goes on from there, as i have listed previously, much of what the AC does in Dan 11 is completely counter to Islam.

You add to that Gog and the AC dying in 2 different ways, and Gog-Magog and armageddon having significantly different descriptions, at least one should re-think that the possibility exists that the enemy is setting someone up for deception.

You say that the scenario for Islam could not change overnight, but i would disagree. If the hordes of Islam, led by a supposed Mahdi, attacked Israel and God destroyed those armies in front of the world and all knew that God had rescued Israel, things would change overnight. Islamists would never again attack Israel, they would know that God had intervened on Israel's behalf and they would not want to anger Him again.

The world would likely turn against Islam as they attacked Israel and brought destruction on the rest of the world, and Israel would be held in high regard as God blesses Israel. The world would likely despise fundamentalist religions for the destruction brought, which could include christianity.

And many 'christians' could believe that the muslim attack was indeed armageddon, the events could look like scripture had been fulfilled. But there would be no return of Jesus, no rapture, no millenial kingdom, and many could turn away from the faith....

The greatest obstacle to Satan setting up his kingdom on earth would be God, and by extension christians who can use the name of Jesus against the forces of Satan. If Satan can separate those who call themselves 'christians' from their faith, the opposition to him will be significantly reduced.

It does appear that the author of Islam is Satan, and he can use that religion as a weapon or for deception. And if the scripture's description of the acts of the AC do not fit Islam exactly, we should consider the possibility that all is not as it appears, that our initial theories regarding timing may be incorrect.

[Mitchell]

my point is that scripture which describes the actions of the AC do not fit Islam perfectly, in fact in several places it is contrary to Islam. Dan 11 and 2 Thess both state that the AC will set himself over all gods and all that is called god, that is not consistent with Islam.

This has already been addressed a number of times. Perhaps it may be best to re-read the previous response. If you like, please share your view with respect to how Daniel 11:36-39 should be interpreted, especially v. 38.

And if the god of forces is Allah, the scripture states that the god of forces is unknown to the AC

I'm not sure if you were being facetious or not with this statement, but if not, the text is quite clear here that Antichrist honors the "god of forces". The "god of forces" is the god whom his fathers did not know.

If the hordes of Islam, led by a supposed Mahdi, attacked Israel and God destroyed those armies in front of the world and all knew that God had rescued Israel, things would change overnight.

Precisely! You're helping me to make my point. The view that you're proposing, however, suggests that all of the Magog nations that Christ destroys -- nations that the text tells us in no uncertain terms will know from that point that the God of Israel is God (Ezek 38:16, 23; 39:7, 21, 23) -- suddenly, conveniently all develop a case of collective amnesia to yet again form another coalition to yet again gather against Jerusalem, only to yet again be destroyed by Christ a few short years later.

Islamists would never again attack Israel, they would know that God had intervened on Israel's behalf and they would not want to anger Him again.

In other words, it is now your belief that Antichrist will not control the whole literal world when all nations are gathered together against Jerusalem? That Islamic nations will not be amongst those that gather for the battle of Armageddon? Despite the fact that the prophets repeatedly speak of Israel's surrounding nations or neighbours that gather against Jerusalem for battle at Armageddon? The nations that surround Israel today, Israel's neighbours, are all Islamic nations. I'm trying to follow the logic, but am having some difficulty ...

The world would likely turn against Islam as they attacked Israel and brought destruction on the rest of the world

Where do we read that the rest of the world is destroyed in Scripture?

and Israel would be held in high regard as God blesses Israel.

Are you saying that the rest of the world would all suddenly be on Israel's side? Who would be left to come against Israel if the Islamic nations are neutered after the war of Gog of Magog and the rest of the world either cannot or will not come against Israel?

And many 'christians' could believe that the muslim attack was indeed armageddon, the events could look like scripture had been fulfilled. But there would be no return of Jesus, no rapture, no millenial kingdom, and many could turn away from the faith....

If Christ has not yet returned, how can all men upon the earth shake at the presence ["paniym", face] of Jesus per Ezekiel 38:20? This is the parousia (presence) of Jesus Christ. The hypothetical you've just described isn't supported by the text.

And if the scripture's description of the acts of the AC do not fit Islam exactly, we should consider the possibility that all is not as it appears

By all accounts, it fits Islam like a glove. But we must not approach the text with preconceived ideas or prejudices in terms of how things ought to unfold. I should know, I've done this for most of my Christian life, thinking that Gog/Magog was a separate war from Armageddon, thinking that Antichrist would come out of Europe somewhere, believing that the "rapture of the elect" was going to likely happen before any of the "bad stuff" began, etc. I was stuck in a "theological tunnel vision" that prevented me from seeing everything else that was happening all around me. The toughest part for me was shedding a lot of the old theories that interpreted the text for me, instead of approaching the full counsel of Scripture and allowing the text to interpret itself. But when I did, that's when everything finally began falling into place ...

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, as far as Dan 11:38, it does appear to be inconsistent with the AC being of Islam. The 'god of forces' is unknown to the fathers of the AC and the AC conquers with the help of the god of forces, a 'foreign' (alien or strange)god to the AC. Acording to Islamic writings the Mahdi is a muslim from a muslim family. If the AC is a muslim from a muslim family, how is it that the god he honors is a 'foreign or alien' god to him(not Allah) and how is it that the god the AC honors is unknown to his forefathers (again not Allah)? Not consistent with Islam.

As far as the AC setting himself over all gods, you have not indicated how a muslim could do this and remain a muslim (and not get killed). The scripture states that the AC sets himself over all gods, which would include Allah, when he states this in front of the muslim hordes, he will be killed.

If in your view Satan is Allah and Satan possesses the AC and carries our his desires through the AC, the AC would state before the muslims that he was over all gods, except Allah (Satan), because he was Allah (Satan), and the muslims would promptly kill him.

If the AC, as the Mahdi, states before the muslims that he honors a foreign god, one that is unknown to them and thier forefathers (not Allah), the muslims would promptly kill him.

There is no plausible scenario in which a muslim sets himself over all gods and remains a muslim (and alive). There is no scenarion in which a muslim honors a foreign or strange god (not Allah), that is unknown to his forefathers and the rest of Islam (Not Allah).

Also in Dan 11, the AC says unheard of things against the God of Abraham, the God of gods. Rev 13 further indicates that the AC blasphemes God, and slanders His name and His dwelling place and those who live in heaven. While the muslims claim that the God of Abraham is their god, they do not intentionally slander the name of God or heaven or the angels. This is in contrast to the AC who intentionally slanders and blasphemes the God of Abraham, not an Islamic act.

In Dan 11, the AC attacks an conquers several muslim nations, the majority of which are Sunni. The Sunni comprise 80-90% of the muslim population, the Shia 10-20%, and all believe in the Mahdi. If the AC were the Mahdi, how is it that 90% of Islam rejects him and he must conquer them? And he conquers them with the remaining 10%? How does he then have the resources to conquer Israel?

What is described of the AC in Dan 11 is not consistent with Islam. The AC and Gog cannot be the same individual as they both meet their end in completely different ways. While there are some similarities between Gog-magog and armageddon, there also significant differences noted in scripture.

All the inconsistencies of what is described of the AC and the battles he is involved in with Islam would suggest that the time of the AC is not the time of the Islamic paradigm. The Islamic time is earlier, it is the next move of the enemy, but it is not the last move.

[Mitchell]

Mitchell, as far as Dan 11:38, it does appear to be inconsistent with the AC being of Islam. The 'god of forces' is unknown to the fathers of the AC and the AC conquers with the help of the god of forces, a 'foreign' (alien or strange)god to the AC.

Hi 1whowaits, we need to make every effort to represent the text correctly. What you stated above, however, is factually incorrect. The god that is "foreign" to his fathers is not foreign to Antichrist.

Daniel 8:38, "Instead of these, he [Antichrist] will worship the god of fortresses—a god his ancestors never knew—and lavish on him gold, silver, precious stones, and expensive gifts" (NLT)

Daniel 8:38, "Instead of them, he [Antichrist] will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts" (NIV)

Daniel 8:38, "But in his estate shall he [Antichrist] honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things" (KJV)

Daniel 8:39, "But instead he [Antichrist] will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, costly stones and treasures" (NASB)

Acording to Islamic writings the Mahdi is a muslim from a muslim family. If the AC is a muslim from a muslim family, how is it that the god he honors is a 'foreign or alien' god to him(not Allah) and how is it that the god the AC honors is unknown to his forefathers (again not Allah)? Not consistent with Islam.

Your argument is based upon a false premiss. This has already been addressed. But, again, many Arabs and Muslims are descendants of Ishmael, whose father was Abraham. To not regard “the God of his fathers” means that Antichrist will not regard YHWH the true God of Abraham (and Ishmael, whom God took care of after he and Hagar were sent away), but will instead honor a god whom they never knew, one that is forced upon the inhabitants of all nations surrounding Israel in the eschaton, and in increasing measure upon the world, whom they refer to as ‘Allah’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_3_Y4tA-JI

As far as the AC setting himself over all gods, you have not indicated how a muslim could do this and remain a muslim (and not get killed). The scripture states that the AC sets himself over all gods, which would include Allah, when he states this in front of the muslim hordes, he will be killed. If in your view Satan is Allah and Satan possesses the AC and carries our his desires through the AC, the AC would state before the muslims that he was over all gods, except Allah (Satan), because he was Allah (Satan), and the muslims would promptly kill him... There is no plausible scenario in which a muslim sets himself over all gods and remains a muslim (and alive).

You need to understand the Islamic mindset regarding their Islamic messiah and what the Bible says regarding Antichrist. In the eyes of Muslims, claiming to be the savior of humanity will not be a declaration of divinity, nor will they view this as the Mahdi claiming to be greater than Allah. According to the God of the Bible, however, the Mahdi will indeed be claiming to be God by attributing to himself a title that only YHWH holds.

Per my previous post, the thrust of Daniel 11:36 will only be fully realized if it is read in light of the three verses that follow it, especially verse 38 above. These verses must be kept in their proper context. Daniel was clear to show us that "in his estate" (H3653 ken -- base, estate, office) Antichrist will honor the God of "forces", one that is familiar to Antichrist, but not familiar to his fathers Abraham and Ishmael. An Islamic Antichrist will exalt himself over every faith and belief system that exists or has existed outside of his base/estate/office, outside of the religious ideology that the "seat of the beast" forces upon everyone under its control, and he will do this by claiming to be the savior of humanity, when YHWH alone is savior. The arguments you've put forth hold no water whatsoever in light of the Biblical text.

Also in Dan 11, the AC says unheard of things against the God of Abraham, the God of gods. Rev 13 further indicates that the AC blasphemes God, and slanders His name and His dwelling place and those who live in heaven. While the muslims claim that the God of Abraham is their god, they do not intentionally slander the name of God or heaven or the angels.

My friend, such an argument stretches credulity to the breaking point. When it comes to blasphemies against the True God of the Bible, this is something we must look at not from an Islamic perspective (the lie), but from a Biblical perspective (the Truth). Saying that belief in Jesus Christ and Him crucified -- the key to eternal life and the foundation upon which Christianity is built -- is an unforgivable sin is not blaspheming the God of heaven who sent His Son? Claiming that God has no son is not blaspheming the God of heaven? Claiming that the Christian Church is corrupt and filled with vile human beings who must be killed if they do not give up the faith of Jesus is not slandering His Temple? Claiming that heaven is filled solely with Muslims who are enjoying carnal pleasures is not a verbal desecration against those who have died in Messiah and are in the presence of the Father? It does not matter if they "do not intentionally slander the name of God". The fact that they do is what matters.

In Dan 11, the AC attacks an conquers several muslim nations, the majority of which are Sunni. The Sunni comprise 80-90% of the muslim population, the Shia 10-20%, and all believe in the Mahdi. If the AC were the Mahdi, how is it that 90% of Islam rejects him and he must conquer them? And he conquers them with the remaining 10%? How does he then have the resources to conquer Israel? And he conquers them with the remaining 10%? How does he then have the resources to conquer Israel?

Where do you get the idea that 90% of Islam rejects the Mahdi? The belief in the Mahdi is mandatory within both Shia and Sunni Islam. In fact, one of my previous quotes from the Muslim book, “Al Mahdi and the End of Time” was from two Sunni Muslim authors. They state, unequivocally, that "The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise they will be killed" (http://store.islamicplace.com/bok634.html).

Their only major difference is with respect to the Mahdi's origin. There will be many, many Sunnis who accept al Mahdi -- particularly those on the more extreme side of Sunni Islam. Islam even teaches that the Mahdi will unite the Ummah together, even many groups that were previously considered at odds with one another (eg. Sunni and Shia). And now we're seeing the perfect political situation in the Middle East that is ripe for the Mahdi to do just this. For example, see the articles below:

* Sunni Al Qaeda’s Big Fat Shiite Iranian Wedding (http://wp.me/p1qlPa-2Wo)
* Shiite Iran Takes Aim at Israel Through Sunni Muslim Brotherhood Alliance (http://wp.me/p1qlPa-2KC)
* Iran: Ayatollah Khamenei Calls for World’s Muslim Nations to Form an International Islamic Power Bloc (http://wp.me/p1qlPa-2ax)
* Muslim Brotherhood Calls for a ‘United Arab States’ with Jerusalem as its Capital (http://wp.me/p1qlPa-2tn)
* Turkey Warns Against Shi’ite-Sunni Cold War, Encourages Close Contact With All Sides (http://wp.me/p1qlPa-2xE)

They will join together for one united goal: to destroy Israel. Whether one is Sunni or Shia, they both agree that Israel must be destroyed. Even Richard Engel, a correspondent working for a secular news organization, understands what is happening:

* NBC’s Engel ‘Worried’ About ‘Ferociously Anti-Israel’ Arab Street and Concludes ‘This Thing Ends in Jerusalem’ (http://wp.me/p1qlPa-Bt)

Though united, however, the fact remains that they still remain divided. This will likely be one of the contributing factors that causes the Islamic armies of Magog (Armageddon) to turn on each other and attack one another. Something will Happen that causes a huge crack in their united coalition, and "every man's sword shall be against his brother", for in that day "a great panic from the LORD will be among them. Everyone will seize the hand of his neighbor, And raise his hand against his neighbor's hand" (Eze 38:21-22; Zech 14:12-13).

What is described of the AC in Dan 11 is not consistent with Islam.

To the contrary, it describes Islam perfectly. You may not want to see it right now, and that's ok, but in time I guarantee you that a day is coming when all of us will see eye to eye on this very issue.

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, factually incorrect? it is interesting that you quote Dan 11:38 but you appear to forget the verse that follows- 'He will attack the mightiest of fortresses with the help of a foreign god...' In the context of Dan 11:39, the 'foreign god' is mentioned in relation to the one he helps, the AC. In this text the god is foreign to the AC, the god of forces is not only unknown to the fathers of the AC, he is also foreign to the AC himself.

That would appear to be the straightforward reading of the passage, and if the AC were the Mahdi, he would be honoring some god other than Allah, a god foreign to the AC/Mahdi, which is not consistent with Islam. The Mahdi would be well aquainted with Allah, as would his forefathers, saying that the 'forefathers' referenced in Dan 11 would be Abraham is pure speculation for which you have demonstrated no support.

And your explanation of how muslims 'blaspheme' of God, while we may consider it blaspheme, is not consistent with what the AC does in the Rev text of slandering God, heaven and the angels, and the Dan 11 text of the AC 'saying unheard of things' against the God of Abraham. Your view is of religious differences and their implications, the scripture refers to direct slandering and blaspheming of the God of Abraham, which a muslim would not do. What matters is what the scripture states, and the scripture refers to direct slandering of God by the AC, not what you describe, and the direct slandering of the God of Abraham is not an act that the muslims would do.

And you do appear to miss the point that, while the Mahdi may lay some claim to divinity, the AC in Dan 11 states that he is over all divinity, he is over all gods and all that is called god. The AC is 'over' all other gods, including Allah, he is not equal, he is not the servant of Allah as the Mahdi is stated to be, he is over all gods, which is not consistent with Islam. The AC stating that he is 'over' all gods would rule out the possibility that the AC is a muslim.

In Dan 11 the AC attacks Egypt, Lybia and Sudan and conquers them, muslim nations that are majority Sunni. Your explanation for this was that this could be a sunni/shia conflict, but the sunnis are the majority, if the AC is attacking sunni nations then 90% of the muslims must reject him. But the likely explanation is that the AC is attacking muslim nations because he is not a muslim. And if as you state all muslims accept the mahdi, why is the supposed mahdi attacking muslim nations, unless he is not the Mahdi or muslim.

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, considering that the AC is a muslim view has many holes in it, as does the view that Gog and the AC are the same individual, one might consider the implications of what could follow the Gog-Magog event occurring at an earlier time, which i was attempting to do above.

Gog-magog is not the return of Christ, Jesus is never mentioned or described in Ezek 38-39. Ezek 38 does describe the trembling at the presence of God, which is also described in Nahum 1- 'the mountains quake before him and the hills melt away. The earth trembles at his presence, the world and all who live in it.' Nahum 1 refers to the past destruction of Nineveh, which was not the return of Christ. As almost the exact language used in Nahum 1 is used in Ezek 38, and as Jesus did not return in Nahum 1, Jesus is not returning in Ezek 38, if this phrase is the only evidence one can refer to.

After Gog-Magog, the muslim nations and the world would know that God had rescued Israel and defeated their armies- 'all the nations will see the punishment I inflict and the hand I lay upon them.' In Dan 11 the AC attacks and conquers Egypt, Lybia and Sudan/Ethiopia, muslim nations. Could it be that some of the muslim nations remember being led by Gog (likely a muslim leader) and the disaster that followed and refuse to follow the AC?

After Gog the nations will see the punishment God inflicts, which could be a reference to the fire being sent on Magog and the coastlands. Magog could be a reference to Turkey or Russia, the coastlands (US?) could be a large area that fire is sent upon. The 1st trumpet of Rev describes destruction which appears to be similar to that sent out at Gog-Magog. The 1st trumpet is followed by the 2nd and 3rd trumpets which would involve the burning of a significant amount of land and significant destruction on coastlands.

Considering that a significant amount of the world experinces destruction after Gog-magog, and God blesses Israel, Israel will likely become a 'Mecca'. Israel and the world will know that God exists and the temple will be rebuilt and the sacrifices will be reinstituted, as Dan and Rev describes. If the world sees Israel as the place of God, Israel would then be the place Satan would want to take over and install his own 'christ'.

And this could then set the stage for the AC, who strengthens the covenant for 7 years, which could be a reference to the 7 year reading of the Old Covenant by Moses in Deut. The AC appears to be obsessed with Israel, he stops the sacrifices in the temple, he sets himself up in the Hebrew temple, he sets up his royal tents at Jerusalem. The FP causes all to have a mark on the forehead or hand, which possibly might have some precedent in the OT- 'Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads...' Deut 6.

While all the world might consider Israel the place of God after Gog-Magog, they could easily be misled by a 'christ' who performs supernatural acts and calls himself god, 3 and 1/2 years later.

This is speculation, but it might be worth considering alternative scenarios regarding the timing of the 'muslim paradigm' as the 'AC is muslim' theory has significant weaknesses.

[Mitchell]

it is interesting that you quote Dan 11:38 but you appear to forget the verse that follows- 'He will attack the mightiest of fortresses with the help of a foreign god...' In the context of Dan 11:39, the 'foreign god' is mentioned in relation to the one he helps, the AC. In this text the god is foreign to the AC, the god of forces is not only unknown to the fathers of the AC, he is also foreign to the AC himself.

Hi 1whowaits, the foreign god is not foreign to Antichrist. He is foreign to "his fathers" per verse 38, which shows us that he "kabad" (honors, glorifies) "a god whom his fathers knew not". Not that AC himself doesn't know. It is with this "foreign" or "strange" god that Antichrist acts "against the strongest fortresses".

And your explanation of how muslims 'blaspheme' of God, while we may consider it blaspheme, is not consistent with what the AC does in the Rev text of slandering God, heaven and the angels, and the Dan 11 text of the AC 'saying unheard of things' against the God of Abraham.

How is this not "consistent" with what Antichrist does? According to the Qur'an -- and according to all Musims (the Mahdi included) -- Jesus is not God. He did not die on the cross. He is nothing more than a prophet and slave of Allah, and to believe that Jesus is God who died for your sins means that, according to Muslims, you will go to hell. In your view, Muslims are not blaspheming the God of the Bible? (Hint: See John 3:16, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7).

Your view is of religious differences and their implications, the scripture refers to direct slandering and blaspheming of the God of Abraham, which a muslim would not do.

Ask any Muslim who YHWH is, or about the Trinity. They will tell you that this is a false God. They will tell you that the the Bible is corrupted, that it is not the Word of God, and will tell you not to believe in this "false" God that is "invented" in the "corrupted" Scriptures of the Bible. They will tell you that Abraham worshipped Allah, not the "false" Triune God that Christians worship. In your view, a Muslim saying these things is not blasphemy?

And you do appear to miss the point that, while the Mahdi may lay some claim to divinity, the AC in Dan 11 states that he is over all divinity, he is over all gods and all that is called god. The AC is 'over' all other gods, including Allah, he is not equal, he is not the servant of Allah as the Mahdi is stated to be, he is over all gods, which is not consistent with Islam. The AC stating that he is 'over' all gods would rule out the possibility that the AC is a muslim.

The AC does not state "I am over all gods". I would encourage you to re-read my previous responses, a few times if necessary, to understand how he makes this claim without saying it. It has been well addressed. The Mahdi -- claiming to be the Saviour of humanity (not Jesus) -- will be claiming to be "over all gods and all that is called god" according to Biblical Scripture because he would in effect be calling the God of the Bible a liar. From the Muslim perspective he will not be claiming to be higher than Allah. In the 99 names of Allah in the Qur'an, "Saviour" is not one of them. But in the Bible, YHWH declares in Isaiah 43:11 that “I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.”

In Dan 11 the AC attacks Egypt, Lybia and Sudan and conquers them, muslim nations that are majority Sunni. Your explanation for this was that this could be a sunni/shia conflict, but the sunnis are the majority, if the AC is attacking sunni nations then 90% of the muslims must reject him. But the likely explanation is that the AC is attacking muslim nations because he is not a muslim.

This comment almost implies that Muslims never war against other Muslims, either for political or religious differences. The fact of the matter is that the opposite is true. Al Qaeda, for example, its affiliates and sympathizers are Sunni. Yet they seek to conquer Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The Muslim Brotherhood and their sympathizers are Sunni. Yet they seek to conquer Syria and Jordan. Hamas of Gaza is Sunni, yet they are a proxy of Iran along with Hezbollah who act together against Israel. While all of this is going on, Egypt has already been weakened. Libya has already been weakened. And Sudan has recently broken into North and South Sudan. Stifled by infighting or continuing insurgencies or other problems, their fledgling governments all lack political and social cohesion and are in need of strong leadership. They are vulnerable. They are "ripe" for the taking. The Middle East is crying out for the Caliphate, for their "Messiah", and Antichrist may need to subdue a few nations first before the real impetus for "change" begins.

considering that the AC is a muslim view has many holes in it

As you can see, I believe that there are no holes whatsoever.

as does the view that Gog and the AC are the same individual

The preponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise.

one might consider the implications of what could follow the Gog-Magog event occurring at an earlier time, which i was attempting to do above... This is speculation

Indeed, it is speculation, and in my opinion contains way too much interpolation and eisegetical reading of the text to be a viable scenario.

but it might be worth considering alternative scenarios regarding the timing of the 'muslim paradigm' as the 'AC is muslim' theory has significant weaknesses.

In my view, any claimed "weakenesses" only exist when one approaches the text with the presupposition that Antichrist is not Islamic and then attempts to create arguments to support the presupposition. Allowing the text to speak for itself, however, in my view evaporates all of those weaknesses and instead demonstrates, on many different levels, why Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast are both inextricably tied directly into "the curse" of Zechariah, which Isaiah says has already "devoured the earth" at the time of Christ's Second Coming.

[Exit40]

Hi Mitchell.

In the 99 names of Allah in the Qur'an, "Saviour" is not one of them. But in the Bible, YHWH declares in Isaiah 43:11 that “I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.”

This really struck me as significant in the discussion of the MOB in Rev 13.

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

I am wondering, what is the Arabic word for savior. As it is not a name of allah in the koran and it is the name the mahdi or AC will use, it must be the name of a man, the number of which is 666. Your thoughts ?

God Bless You

David

[Mitchell]

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

I am wondering, what is the Arabic word for savior. As it is not a name of allah in the koran and it is the name the mahdi or AC will use, it must be the name of a man, the number of which is 666. Your thoughts ?

I'm not sure of the specific word for savior per se in Arabic, but I do know that this is another title that is directly attributed to the Mahdi specifically:

* The Awaited Savior of Humanity (al-Mahdi in the Eyes of the Ahlul Bayt) (http://tinyurl.com/ctnfgxh)
* The Twelfth Imam, the Savior of Humanity (http://tinyurl.com/d2m6qvz)
* The Saviour Trailer (Imam Al-Mahdi) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fCPBya6CFM)
* The Awaited Saviour Imam al-Mahdi (http://tinyurl.com/bqeva8z)
* Waiting for Islam's Messiah (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/411301.aspx)

To determine what name the Mahdi/AC will use, let's first take into consideration that the word for “number” in Rev 13:17-18 (arithmos) does not simply mean number. It also means multitude, thus the Greek text can be translated as “the multitude of the beast: for it is the multitude of a man.” Next, there is nothing in the text telling us that the man referred to here must be Antichrist, however in order for anyone to convert to Islam or demonstrate that they are Muslim they must recite the Islamic creed, called the Shahada, by declaring, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.” If one does not acknowledge Mohammed, they cannot become a Muslim. It therefore stands to reason that the multitude of a man is not referring to Antichrist, but rather to Mohammed, the founder and prophet of Islam.

In order to honor the "god of fortresses" or "forces" (Allah), the Mahdi himself will need to first declare the Shahada of Islam. Likewise, he will then force everyone under his control to recite Islam's Shahada to acknowledge Mohammed and convert to the religious ideology of the Beast to be counted amongst the Ummah, the "multitude" of Mohammed. "The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise they will be killed" (“Al Mahdi and the End of Time”). In addition to being a direct descendant of the "prophet Mohammed", this will be one of the reason why the Mahdi is called the "savior" of humanity, because according to Islam, the Mahdi will bring "peace and justice" to the world by forcing the world to convert to "the religion of peace" ("and by peace he shall destroy many" Dan 8:25), the only religion that will be accepted by "Allah", the god of Mohammed, per the Qur'an. If people do not obey the Mahdi, they will be unable to obtain salvation and will be unable to obtain eternal life, a path to which he will claim to lead them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIXdFjuAJ-w

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, i took your advice and reread your statements about the Mahdi being a savior. From your statements, you believe the Mahdi /AC does not directly indicate that he is god, rather that because the Mahdi claims to be the savior of the world you can then infer that this qualifies as claiming to be god, without the Mahdi/AC directly stating that he is god. But the basis of your arguement is an inference made by you, this is not stated in scripture.

Scripture states that the AC speaks 'boastfully' (Dan 7) and he claims to be god-'he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.' 2 Thess 2. The AC is stated to speak boastfully as is given a mouth to utter proud words, not a depiction of someone who is subtle and does not declare exactly what the scripture states about him. And not only that, Dan 11 and 2 Thess state that the AC exalts himself over all gods and all that is worshipped and called god, much more than an inference.

Your view appears to be based on what the Islamists state about the Mahdi, not what scripture states about the AC. And the scripture indicates that the AC exalts himself over all gods and proclaims himself to be god, and he indicates this directly, he is not subtle about it. Your claim that the AC does not state that he is God is an inference not supported by scripture, on the contrary the AC is described as one who speaks boastfully in a temple proclaiming himself to be God, we need to stay with what the scripture indicates.

And i understand why you make the inference that you do, if an Islamic Mahdi states that he is God, or exalts himself over all gods, he is no longer a muslim.

[Mitchell]

From your statements, you believe the Mahdi /AC does not directly indicate that he is god, rather that because the Mahdi claims to be the savior of the world you can then infer that this qualifies as claiming to be god. But the basis of your arguement is an inference made by you, this is not stated in scripture.

Scripture does not state that the AC indicates that he is a savior or that he is subtle about his claims, the scripture states that the AC speaks 'boastfully' (Dan 7) and he claims to be god-'he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.' 2 Thess 2.

Hi 1whowaits, where does Scripture state that Antichrist literally says, "I am God"? The fact of the matter is that Scripture does not say anywhere, at any place, at any time that Antichrist makes this claim overtly. Remember, this is all part of a massive Last Days deception that is so strong that even the elect would be deceived if it were possible (Matt 24:24).

The Apostle Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that Antichrist "shows" or "displays" himself as being God. The Greek word is "apodeiknymi" and it means "to declare" or "exhibit" or "show" or "demonstrate". The implication of "apodeiknymi" is not that he says "I am God" in any sort of a "veracious" verbal declaration, but rather that he displays himself as God through behaviour or action, which is to say, by presenting himself as something that only YHWH God is. And what would that be? There is only one logical choice that I can think of: he presents himself as the saviour of mankind. And this, wouldn't you know it, just so happens to be precisely what Islam teaches regarding their "Messiah."

Let us not forget, there was someone else who made the same declaration without saying "I am God". But when He demonstrated it, He really was. Although it is sometimes said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in this case it is the greatest manifestation of blasphemy.

The AC is stated to speak boastfully as is given a mouth to utter proud words, not a depiction of someone who is subtle and does not declare exactly what the scripture states about him. And not only that, Dan 11 and 2 Thess state that the AC exalts himself over all gods and all that is worshipped and called god, much more than an inference.

Assuming that speaking "boastful" and "proud" words somehow infers "I am God" is an eisegetical reading of the text. The Islamic Antichrist will claim that he has the truth, while the Judeo-Christian faith is built upon lies and corrupted texts. The Islamic Antichrist will present himself as the savior of humanity, while denying the Divinity and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He will glorify the spirit of Islam, yet will blaspheme the Holy Spirit of God. He will proclaim that Allah is the only true God and was whom Abraham worshiped, and claim that YHWH is false and not the God of Abraham. He will praise the "multitude of a man", while slandering the Body of Christ. He will exalt the Qur'an, and mock the Word of God. He will position himself as the Messiah of Islam and the world, yet declare the Messiah of the Bible as "Al Dajjal -- their version of the Antichrist whom they must fight against. As you can see, the Islamic Antichrist will denigrate everything that is holy to us. He will call evil good, and good evil.

Your view appears to be based on what the Islamists state about the Mahdi, not what scripture states about the AC.

My view is based upon what Scripture has to say about the Antichrist. Which just so happens to be a perfect description of what Islamists say about their Messiah. The Bible is the key. Islam is the lock. Not the other way around.

And the scripture indicates that the AC exalts himself over all gods and proclaims himself to be god, and he indicates this directly, he is not subtle about it. Your claim that the AC does not state that he is God is not supported by scripture, one who speaks boastfully in a temple proclaiming himself to be God is what the scripture indicates. And if an Islamic Mahdi states that he is God, or exalts himself over all gods, he is no longer a muslim.

The key is in your hand. Turn it a little further, brother.

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, thanks for the discussion, actually Jesus did make statements indicating that He was God- 'Before Abraham was, I am' is a direct statement indicating His divinity, 'I am' is God. Also Jesus asked Peter who do you say that I am, and Peter replied that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and Jesus affirmed his statement. In Mark 14 a priest asked Jesus whether he was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One, and Jesus said 'I am', and 'You will see the Son of Man siting on the right hand of the Mighty One..' In Luke 22 Jesus was asked if He was the Son of God, He stated 'You are right in saying that I am.'

Jesus directly stated that He was the Son of God and by saying 'I am' He stated that He was God. If the AC follows His example then he would do the same, which is part of your arguement, but contrary to your point. The Mahdi saying that he is the savior of the world is not necessarily a claim to being God as you suggest, one can claim to save the world from its problems without indicating one is God and offering eternal salvation. Does the mahdi say that he is his god, Allah? Does the Mahdi himself offer eternal life?

2 Thess 2 states that the AC shows or displays himself as God, he does not do this in secret, he does this before men in a temple. If the AC does not speak the words as you suggest, which strains credulity, does displaying oneself as God in a temple get the message across? If the AC speaks boastfully and exalts himself over all gods, is it reasonable to assume that he does this in secret? Is sitting in a temple displaying oneself as God imply a secretive, nonverbal act?

And the only chioce that you can think of, that the AC claims to be the savior of mankind, where is that directly stated in scripture? Then this is only an assumption on your part, your view here is built on an assumption, correct?

IMO, a reasonable person reading the straightforward statements of Dan 11 and 2 Thess 2 would not make the assumptions that you have, the AC displaying himself as God and exalting himself over all gods does not imply or suggest that one is calling oneself the savior of mankind and thereby covertly calling oneself god. IMO, the starting text would then appear to be the writings of Islam, and not the scripture, it appears that one would have to ignore the straightforward reading of scritpure, and 'adjust' the scripture to fit the writings of Islam regarding the Mahdi. Just my opinion.

[Mitchell]

Mitchell, actually Jesus did make statements indicating that He was God- 'Before Abraham was, I am' is a direct statement indicating His divinity, 'I am' is God. Also Jesus asked Peter who do you say that I am, and Peter replied that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and Jesus affirmed his statement. In mark 14 a priest asked Jesus whether he was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One, and Jesus said 'I am', and 'You will see the Son of Man siting on the right hand of the Mighty One..' In Luke 22 Jesus was asked if He was the Son of God, He stated 'You are right in saying that I am.'

Hi 1whowaits, let's look at what is happening in each of those examples. Jesus did not have to say "I am God" in order to show it. All He did was attribute to Himself a title that belonged only to the Almighty or equated Him with the Almighty. The Jews understood the theological significance of "I Am" because they knew their text. Jesus affirmed to Peter and the priest that He was the Messiah. Jesus affirmed His relationship with the Father in Luke. Likewise, those who know their Bible will also understand the theological significance of the Mahdi affirming his position as the savior of humanity.

If the AC follows His example then he would do the same, which is part of your arguement, but contrary to your point. The Mahdi saying that he is the savior of the world is not necessarily a claim to being God as you suggest

It most definitely is a claim to being God. It is not my suggestion, it is what God Himself states in no uncertain terms in Isaiah 43:11, saying, “I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.” Indeed, “…I am God, and there is none like Me” (Isaiah 46:9). The Islamic Antichrist will not need to say "I am God". Calling himself the Savior of man is in and of itself the only affirmation that is needed.

one can claim to save the world from its problems without indicating one is God and offering eternal salvation.

It is not the physical world, but the eternal world of men that the Mahdi is the savior of, according to Islam. And save from what? From "Allah's" hellfire.

Does the mahdi say that he is his god, Allah?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking if the the Mahdi claims that he is "Allah"? If so, then no. The text of Daniel is clear that Antichrist honors this god, a god that is foreign and unknown to "his fathers". He cannot honor this god if he claims to be him or above him. That would be nonsensical.

Does the Mahdi himself offer eternal life?

Through the path Islam, yes. This is a part of the great deception. "The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise they will be killed" (http://store.islamicplace.com/bok634.html). If Jews and Christians accept the "prophet" Mohammed and the path of Islam that the Mahdi offers them then they will find Allah's favor. Remember, according to Islam (and therefore the Mahdi) only those who truly submit to Islam can escape "hellfire" and enter "Paradise" on Judgment Day. Jews and Christians will be cast into hell.

2 Thess 2 states that the AC shows or displays himself as God, he does not do this in secret, he does this before men ...

Definitely. How can he not position himself as the savior of humanity unless it is before men?

If the AC does not speak the words as you suggest, which strains credulity, does displaying oneself as God in a temple get the message across?

It does not strain credulity at all. Think about this. YHWH is God, and if God is the savior, then only YHWH is therefore the savior. Yet, the Mahdi will give himself that title, not the God of the Bible, not the Christ of the Bible. The Mahdi will give that title to himself, elevating himself above the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If the AC speaks boastfully and exalts himself over all gods, is it reasonable to assume that he does this in secret? Is sitting in a temple displaying oneself as God imply a secretive, nonverbal act?

Brother, you're not understanding. This it is not done "in secret". It is done for all to see. Saying "I am the savior of the world, follow me" is not a "nonverbal act".

And the only chioce that you can think of, that the AC claims to be the savior of mankind, where is that directly stated in scripture? Then this is only an assumption on your part, your view here is built on an assumption, correct?

Deductive logic using the full counsel of Scripture, studying the word of God hermeneutically, exegetically. It's how we come to understand, for example, the concept of the Trinity. Where is the Trinity directly stated in Scripture? God has given us a mind to reason and understand. We are commanded to study, and rightly divide the Word of God, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little. We are not to merely scratch the surface of the text, we are to dig deeper into the Word of God.

IMO, a reasonable person reading the straightforward statements of Dan 11 and 2 Thess 2 would not make the assumptions that you have, the AC displaying himself as God and exalting himself over all gods does not imply or suggest that one is calling oneself the savior of mankind and thereby covertly calling oneself god.

To the contrary, when one does not approach the text with presuppositions and prejudices with respect to eschatology, the preponderance of the evidence suggests what I have shared with you. This is now being affirmed by what we are now witnessing take place in the Middle East.

IMO, the starting text would then appear to be the writings of Islam, and not the scripture, it appears that one would have to ignore the straightforward reading of scritpure, and 'adjust' the scripture to fit the writings of Islam regarding the Mahdi.

The Bible is the key. It unlocks the deception of Islam and shows us what is behind its door. What many often do, unfortunately, is approach Scripture as if it were a "Left Behind" fiction novel, and then search for reasons to support the "Left Behind" backdrop. That is not how we should approach Scripture. Rather, our main objective must be to ask, "What does the Word of God say?"

[good4u1]

Just a quick interjection about the identity of Jesus as the promised Messiah during his ministry...Jesus TOLD the religious leaders of his day who he was...but Jesus DEMONSTRATED who he was to the people and how they came to believe Him as the promised Messiah.

This discussion is being followed...at least by me. Continue, please.

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, again, where in scripture does it state that the AC presents himself as the savior of mankind? Your argument appears to be that the AC states that he is the savior of mankind and by doing this he is indicating he is god because scripture states that God is the only savior. And then you present no evidence that the AC ever states that he is the savior of mankind. A view without any supporting evidence is complete speculation, that is all you are doing.

And this view really doesn't make sense, the Mahdi/AC says he is the savior, but the claim to being god is based on what God says about being the savior, so the AC would only be recognzed as claiming to be God by those read the scriptures of God. This is pretty convoluted reasoning by any standard, and is not consistent with what the AC does in Dan 11 and 2 Thess2.

Actually scripture does not say that the AC claims to be savior anywhere, this not what the Bible states, it is what Islam states about the Mahdi. So it would appear that in your view, one must begin with what Islam indicates about the Mahdi, and then one must speculate on how the scripture fits the picture presented by Islam. This is not deduction from scripture, this is speculation on how the scripture could be made to fit what Islam says.

What scripture indicates in Dan 11 and 2 Thess 2 is that the AC directly presents himself as god, over all gods, there is no subtle inference that he is god, the AC presents it directly. Scripture states nothing about being the AC claiming to be savior of mankind, you are adding this to fit the Islamic view. No reasonable person would arrive at your deduction/speculation about Dan 11 by reading only Dan 11. One would first have to read Islamic texts, make the presuppostion that the AC is the Mahdi, and the come up with a view that reconciled the two, no matter how unlikely and convoluted it appeared.

IMO, you are interpreting/speculating about scritpture by referring to a religious extra-Biblical source, one likely written by Satan himself, and then interpretating the scripture through the prism of Islam so that the views of Islam and the scripture appear to be the same. But your speculation is not even hinted at in scripture and it is not logical, scripture states nothing about the AC stating that he is savior and that this then qualifies as stating he is god. Rather scripture indicates that the AC directly presents himself as god over all other gods, which is completely at odds with Islam.

You refer to the concept of the trinity being deduced, but the Trinity is deducted from scripture by referring to scripture internally, scripture interprets scripture. Scripture is the truth, Islam is a lie, and yet somehow the clear statement of scripture is not enough, it must be 'massaged' and speculated about so that the interpretaion fits with Islam.

It does appear that you approach the discussion with your own presuppostions about Islam and scripture, and much of what you are presenting is speculation, speculation which begins with the Islamic view.

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, Jesus did directly state that He was God, the Son of God is God by definition. Jesus made direct statements, He said that He was God, He did not imply that He was God, I AM is the name of God, and the Jews understood that He was claiming to be God, that is why they attempted to stone him.

It appears that you are attempting to promote the view that Jesus was 'passive' about indicating that He was God, only inferring it, by referring to a title Jesus was being subtle about who He was, in your view. It appears that you indicate this to promote your view that the AC does not directly claim that he is God, he infers it by claiming to be the savior of mankind, which you claim is similar to the actions of Jesus. But Jesus was not subtle or coy, He stated that He was God by direct statements, and Dan 11 indicates that the AC is not subtle or coy, he directly indicates that he exalts himself over all gods and is god.

And if the AC directly indicates that he is over all gods, and presents himself as God, he would not be of Islam, if he was the Muslims would kill him. So the necessity for the AC to be 'subtle' in your view, 'like Jesus' in your view, if he directly indicates that he claims to be god he cannot be of Islam.

So can the mahdi directly indicate that he is god, as the AC does in 2 Thess 2 and Dan 11? Not in some roundabout way that you speculate about, claiming to be some savior which there is no indication that the AC does, but directly to men. Can the Mahdi stand in front of the muslims in a Hebrew temple and present himself as god to the muslim people?

[Ready1]

Jesus was crucified because he claimed divinity. The high priest understood very well what His claim was.

Mat 26:63 But Jesus did not answer. So the high priest said, "With the living God looking on, you must tell the truth. Tell us, are you the Messiah, the Son of God?"
Mat 26:64 "That is what you say!" Jesus answered. "But I tell all of you, 'Soon you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right side of God All-Powerful and coming on the clouds of heaven.' "
Mat 26:65 The high priest then tore his robe and said, "This man claims to be God! We don't need any more witnesses! You have heard what he said.

[Mitchell]

where in scripture does it state that the AC presents himself as the savior of mankind?

Hi 1whowaits, I almost missed your last reply.

Again, the Apostle Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that Antichrist "shows" or "displays" himself as being God. The Greek word is "apodeiknymi" and it means "to declare" or "exhibit" or "show" or "demonstrate". The implication of "apodeiknymi" is not that he says "I am God" in any sort of a "veracious" verbal declaration, but rather that he displays himself as God through behaviour or action, which is to say, by presenting himself as something that only YHWH God is. And what would that be?

In your view, what behavior or action do you think Antichrist would need to do in order to exhibit "divinity" according to Scripture? The text does not say that Antichrist literally says, "I am God" and, in fact, infers otherwise.

the Mahdi/AC says he is the savior, but the claim to being god is based on what God says about being the savior, so the AC would only be recognzed as claiming to be God by those read the scriptures of God.

Precisely! You're helping me make my point. This is why Muslims will not consider this a declaration of being God, because -- as mentioned earlier -- Allah has 99 names in the Qur'an, and not one of them is "savior". They do not adhere to Biblical Scriptures. They view the Bible as corrupt, and the Qur'an and pure. This is why it makes perfect sense.

scripture does not say that the AC claims to be savior anywhere, this not what the Bible states, it is what Islam states about the Mahdi. So it would appear that in your view, one must begin with what Islam indicates about the Mahdi, and then one must speculate on how the scripture fits the picture presented by Islam. This is not deduction from scripture, this is speculation on how the scripture could be made to fit what Islam says.

If someone had never seen gloves before, and one day opened a sealed package they were given containing a pair of gloves, would they come to the conclusion that they were items to be worn on the feet? The gloves fit the hands perfectly. In your view, however, even though the gloves fit, you still acquit when the preponderance of the evidence points in one specific direction.

What scripture indicates in Dan 11 and 2 Thess 2 is that the AC directly presents himself as god, over all gods, there is no subtle inference that he is god, the AC presents it directly.

Yes, he presents himself as god. Moreover, "in his estate" is a god that he honors. He cannot honor his god, if he exalts himself over his god. Think about this carefully. Dig a little deeper. You're only reading the surface, seeing the tip of the iceberg. There is much more depth to Scripture.

Scripture states nothing about being the AC claiming to be savior of mankind, you are adding this to fit the Islamic view.

Don't look at it in reverse. That is a backwards way to look at it. It is the Islamic view that fits Scripture.

No reasonable person would arrive at your deduction/speculation about Dan 11 by reading only Dan 11. One would first have to read Islamic texts, make the presuppostion that the AC is the Mahdi, and the come up with a view that reconciled the two, no matter how unlikely and convoluted it appeared.

Brother, there are numerous Bible scholars, theologians, commentators, teachers, pastors throughout history who likely had little knowledge of the Islamic texts yet believed that Islam would play a pivotal role in these Last Days. For example:

Hilaire Belloc (1938) – Foresaw Islam’s rise to threaten Christianity “Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam [will] return … I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam.”

Gregory Palamus of Thessalonica (1354) – Gregory Palamus interprets Jesus’ declaration that “The time will come, that whosoever kills you will think that he does God a service” (John 16:2) to be the Islamic persecution.

Josiah Litch (1840) – In his Fall of the Ottoman Roman Empire, interpreted Revelation as the ushering in of Islam: “There is so general an agreement among Christians, especially protestant commentators, that the subject of this prediction is Mahommedism [Islam].” He even described the magnitude of Islam’s role as Antichrist to the extent of calling it the “general agreement among Christians, especially protestant commentators.”

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-368 A.D) — In his Divine Institutes, and before the advent of Islam, Cyril believed that Antichrist will proceed forth from the region of ancient Syria, which today extends from Syria well into portions of Asia Minor (Turkey).

John of Damascus (676-749) — In his famous book, Against Heresies associated Islam as forerunner of Antichrist.

There are numerous others that could be mentioned, such as Martin Luther (1483–1546), John Calvin (1509-1564), Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and more who saw Islam and Middle Eastern nations playing a significant role in Last Days prophecy. In fact, Clarence Larkin in 1918 even stated that, geographically, a modern-day Muslim nation “fixes the locality from which the Antichrist shall come” (Dispensational Truth Or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages, p. 118). Even Joseph Chambers, in "A Palace for the Antichrist" (1996) wrote that "There is no other geographical area on planet Earth where the Antichrist could appear but the Middle East. Those who continue to look only toward the European Common Market as the primary movement toward the Antichrist will soon be disappointed… To look for Satan’s final activities in any other area than the Middle East is to look in vain and in error…. The Islam or Moslem religion provides an excellent covering for the rise of the Antichrist.”

Why did they believe this? Not because of what the Qur'an taught, but because of what the Bible taught. Today, however, more and more reasonable, prominent Christian teachers are beginning to re-examine Biblical teachings in this regard and what Scripture is saying. It has therefore come to light that Islamic eschatology is, in fact, itself the antithesis to Biblical eschatology. Is it reasonable to think that this is all some massive, colossal coincidence?

Chuck Missler – Acknowledges that the “eastern leg” of the Roman Empire outlasted the “western leg” by a thousand years, and that there is significant Scriptural evidence pointing to an Islamic, Middle Eastern Antichrist.

John MacArthur – Has dropped the Revived Roman Empire view in favor of the Islamic End Time Paradigm, stating recently that “as you get to the end of human history and you get into the period of time called the Tribulation, there is a specific fulfillment of this prophecy [of Matthew 24:5,11] that I want you to understand. And it has to do with Islam.” You can listen to that specific sermon here (http://wp.me/p1qlPa-lm).

Moreover, many former Muslims who convert to Christianity often recognize telltale signs of Islam in Bible prophecies concerning Antichrist and the Last Days. I wonder why that is? Is everyone mentioned here therefore "unreasonable" in your view?

IMO, you are interpreting/speculating about scritpture by referring to a religious extra-Biblical source, one likely written by Satan himself, and then interpretating the scripture through the prism of Islam so that the views of Islam and the scripture appear to be the same.

The Qur'an is indeed inspired by the Adversary. But Scripture is not interpreted through "the prism of Islam". Again, you're looking at it in reverse. Islam is, rather, interpreted through the lens of Biblical Scripture. There is a big difference.

It does appear that you approach the discussion with your own presuppostions about Islam and scripture, and much of what you are presenting is speculation, speculation which begins with the Islamic view.

I used to approach the text with my own presuppositions, when I believed in an Antichrist who came out of Europe that would rule the world. When I began to let Scripture speak for itself, it lead me to a completely different direction, as it did with Chuck Missler, Dr. John MacArthur, Ray Gano, Joel Richardson, and so many other teachers and pastors who are today beginning to abandon the old "eastern paradigm".

There is a good reason why the prophet Daniel was told in 12:9 to "Go thy way, Daniel: for the words [are] closed up and sealed till the time of the end." Prophecy is being unsealed. But is everybody watching?

[Mitchell]

Jesus did directly state that He was God, the Son of God is God by definition.

Are you sure? Using that logic, then Adam (who brought sin into the world) must have been God according to Luke 3:38, "...Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." What about "the sons of God"? Were the angels all Divine beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)? This term is an anthropomorphism, and is not "God by definition."

Jesus made direct statements, He said that He was God, He did not imply that He was God, I AM is the name of God, and the Jews understood that He was claiming to be God, that is why they attempted to stone him.

Jesus was crucified because he claimed divinity. The high priest understood very well what His claim was.

Precisely! You're both helping me to prove my point. :) The Jews understood that He was claiming to be God because He attributed to Himself a title that belonged only to the Almighty or equated Him with the Almighty. But here is what must be considered: If someone was present who did not know the Hebrew Scriptures as the Jews did, would they have understood the significance of what Christ was saying? Of course not. Likewise, when Antichrist shows himself to be God, he will do so in such a way that Jews and Christians will recognize it immediately, but those who believe the lie will not. Remember, the elect will not be deceived.

It appears that you are attempting to promote the view that Jesus was 'passive' about indicating that He was God, only inferring it, by referring to a title Jesus was being subtle about who He was, in your view. It appears that you indicate this to promote your view that the AC does not directly claim that he is God, he infers it by claiming to be the savior of mankind, which you claim is similar to the actions of Jesus. But Jesus was not subtle or coy, He stated that He was God by direct statements, and Dan 11 indicates that the AC is not subtle or coy, he directly indicates that he exalts himself over all gods and is god.

Through direct attribution, but Jesus did not outright say, "I am God." Likewise, the Antichrist will not outright say, "I am God." Antichrist will not be stupid. He knows that he will not be able to deceive the elect, thus he wages war against the people of God, but he also knows to directly position himself as God through indirect means, and by means through which the Muslim world has already been perfectly set up for the great deception.

And if the AC directly indicates that he is over all gods, and presents himself as God, he would not be of Islam, if he was the Muslims would kill him.

This has already been addressed multiple times. I'd encourage you to re-read through the discussion to digest this further.

Blessings!

[good4u1]

I must admit, Mitchell, I have enjoyed reading your posts in this thread so very much. You make the case brilliantly for the Islamic paradigm from Scripture and your writing style is so clear and focused. Thank you so much for joining us and yes, I do read your blog spot as regularly as I read Joel's Trumpet!

[Exit40]

I must admit, Mitchell, I have enjoyed reading your posts in this thread so very much. You make the case brilliantly for the Islamic paradigm from Scripture and your writing style is so clear and focused. Thank you so much for joining us and yes, I do read your blog spot as regularly as I read Joel's Trumpet!

Agreed, ditto, and amen. With the plus of doing so in the manner of a loving, knowledgeable teacher. I've picked up many nuggets from you Mitchell, and I sincerely appreciate your contributions.

God Bless You

David

[mark s]

And if the AC directly indicates that he is over all gods, and presents himself as God, he would not be of Islam, if he was the Muslims would kill him.

This has already been addressed multiple times. I'd encourage you to re-read through the discussion to digest this further.

Blessings!

Hi Mitchell,

While I've been following along somewhat, as my limited time allows, would you mind humoring me on this?

How is it that the Muslims will not reject a man who presents himself as God?

Will the people think that Allah has come as a man?

To be completely clear, I ask this out of an academic interest. As I believe the Scriptures do not allow Gog/Magog and Armageddon to be the same battle, I believe Islam will be greatly humbled by God before the coming of antichrist. Simply stated, as Gog is buried dead in the valley, and the beast is cast alive into the lake of fire, these cannot be the same individuals. Anyway, I'm not saying this to debate this point, just to let you know where I am coming from.

But I do desire to understand your view, and on this point I am unclear.

Thank you!

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Mitchell]

good4u and Exit40, thank you, I have been blessed and encouraged by your kind words.

How is it that the Muslims will not reject a man who presents himself as God? Will the people think that Allah has come as a man?

Hi Mark, in short, it is my position that according to Scripture Antichrist does not overtly declare "I am God", but rather shows ("apodeiknymi" -- "to declare" or "exhibit" or "show" or "demonstrate") himself as God by bestowing upon himself the "divine title" as it were of humanity's "Savior." In the eyes of Muslims, claiming to be the "savior of humanity" is not a declaration of Divinity. According to YHWH, however, this is a definitive declaration of Divinity, for God Himself states unequivocally in Isaiah 43:11 that “I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.” Indeed, “…I am God, and there is none like Me” (Isaiah 46:9). When the Islamic Antichrist therefore pronounces himself as "Savior" whom all must follow, Jews and Christians will recognize this immediately as a direct affront to the faith of Abraham, while the Islamic world -- rejecting the Bible -- will embrace it, for it is already set up into believing Antichrist's lie with arms wide open:

* The Awaited Savior of Humanity (al-Mahdi in the Eyes of the Ahlul Bayt) (http://tinyurl.com/ctnfgxh)
* The Twelfth Imam, the Savior of Humanity (http://tinyurl.com/d2m6qvz)
* The Saviour Trailer (Imam Al-Mahdi) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fCPBya6CFM)
* The Awaited Saviour Imam al-Mahdi (http://tinyurl.com/bqeva8z)
* Waiting for Islam's Messiah (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/411301.aspx)

I'd encourage you to take about 30 minutes to read through the full thread. It's a bit long, but in the end I think it'll give you a pretty good overview of my position, including my view of Gog of Magog.

[good4u1]

Abiding,

If you see this post...could we please consider this thread as a permanent addition to this section, please? Even, pretty please?

Thank you for considering my request.

good4u1

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, again, i do believe that there will be muslim involvement in prophetic events, the disagreement is on which events and their timing.

If one takes into account only the similarities in scripture between Gog-Magog and armageddon, Gog and the AC, and ignores the differences noted in scripture, one can arrive at the AC is a muslim view. But if one considers the significant differences noted in scripture between Gog-Magog and armageddon, Gog and the AC, one arrives at a different view.

It appears that in your view the Mahdi/AC cannot indicate to the muslims in any way that is is claiming to be god, only the christians can figure it out because of a statement that he could make that is not in scripture. So in your view, when 2 Thess 2 states that the AC will exalt himself over everything that is called god or is worshipped, sets himself up in God's temple displaying himself as God, you believe the muslims don't get that, they are blind to what the scripture describes?

And when Dan 11 states that the AC will exalt himself above every god, he does not do that before the muslims, only the christians and Jews?

So in essence your view is that 2 Thess 2 and Dan 11 only applies to christians and Jews? The muslims do not see what Dan 11 and 2 Thess 2 clearly state?

And do you believe that Jesus stating that He was the Son of God is the same declaration as the scriptures calling Adam the son of God? You believe that Jesus was not claiming divinity, or that Adam was divine?

[Mitchell]

It appears that in your view the Mahdi/AC cannot indicate to the muslims in any way that is is claiming to be god, only the christians can figure it out because of a statement that he could make that is not in scripture. So in your view, when 2 Thess 2 states that the AC will exalt himself over everything that is called god or is worshipped, sets himself up in God's temple displaying himself as God, you believe the muslims don't get that, they are blind to what the scripture describes?

And when Dan 11 states that the AC will exalt himself above every god, he does not do that before the muslims, only the christians and Jews?

So in essence your view is that 2 Thess 2 and Dan 11 only applies to christians and Jews? The muslims do not see what Dan 11 and 2 Thess 2 clearly state?

Hi 1whowaits, this has all been extensively addressed in previous replies. Best thing to do would be to re-read prior replies in this regard.

And do you believe that Jesus stating that He was the Son of God is the same declaration as the scriptures calling Adam the son of God? You believe that Jesus was not claiming divinity, or that Adam was divine?

According to your view above, the term "son of God" denotes Divinity, but this is Scripturally incorrect in and of itself. The term "son of God” in the Bible is an anthropomorphism and is intended to be understood in a figurative sense, not in a wooden literal sense. It is a metaphor to describe a relational identity. But in John 3:16, Jesus is called the only “begotten” son of God (the Greek word monogenēs) which means “unique” or “one of a kind” or “one and only”. As Christians, we are all called God’s children (Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:16; Galatians 3:6; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5, etc.). But this term is an analogy to describe our relationship to our Heavenly Father. We are not literal "sons" and "daughters". As I mentioned above, Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, and the angels are even called "sons of God" in Scripture as well (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). But Jesus is called the "only begotten Son" of God in Scripture for a very good reason. In the Old Testament, before Jesus came as a child into this world, He appeared before His people as the "Angel of the Lord". He revealed Himself in the burning bush that spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai. He appeared before Joshua as the Commander of the Hosts of Heaven. And in the New Testament He is the eternal "Word of God", called the "unique son of God", because He is God in the flesh and there is no one else like Him. The term "son of God" therefore does not denote Divinity in and of itself, not until it is qualified with Christ as being the only "begotten" (monogenēs - unique) preeminent Son of the Living God.

John 1:1,14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten (monogenēs) of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten (monogenēs) Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, yes, you have discussed your view extensively, i was attempting to illustrate for others the implications of your view.

And just to be clear, when Jesus stated in Matt 27 that 'you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One...', was He claiming divinity? And when Jesus was asked 'Are you the Son of God?' and he replied 'you are right in saying that I am' in Luke 22, was He claiming divinity, even though there was no qualification used by the Jews for the term 'Son of God'? Did the Jews consider the 'Son of God' term to be the same as that used for Adam? Or were they referring to divinity?

[Mitchell]

when Jesus stated in Matt 27 that 'you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One...', was He claiming divinity?

It was Matthew 26, but yes, Jesus was affirming His Divinity or equality with the Almighty by attributing to Himself a title and position reserved only for God.

And when Jesus was asked 'Are you the Son of God?' and he replied 'you are right in saying that I am' in Luke 22, was He claiming divinity, even though there was no qualification used by the Jews for the term 'Son of God'? Did the Jews consider the 'Son of God' term to be the same as that used for Adam? Or were they referring to divinity?

Well, the Sanhedrin would have known that the terms "sons of God" was used five times in the Old Testament, and "son of God" was used once, but they would likely not have understood the term "son of God" to be referring to the Almighty Himself specifically, though they would have certainly understood it to be, at the very least, affiliated with Divinity in terms of the Almighty sending someone for a specific purpose or mission. Though a Triune God is demonstrated in the Old Testament text, the Sanhedrin did not understand the Triunity of God. And many still don't today. It is reasonable therefore to conclude that the question asked of Jesus here as to whether or not He was the Son of God would simply have been for Him to affirm His "Divine Mission" as Messiah, not necessarily His "Divine Nature" as God. Regardless, it is moot. We know, today, that He affirmed His Divine Mission, Position, and Nature on more than one occasion elsewhere, but He did not tell them "I am God." Otherwise, why would the Sanhedrin have felt the need to go through all the trouble of asking Him so many "trick" questions?

[Abiding in His Word]

.....but He did not tell them "I am God."

Isn't Jesus saying that here:

John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
John 14:8 Philip *said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
John 14:9 Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
John 14:11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

[Mitchell]

.....but He did not tell them "I am God."

Isn't Jesus saying that here:

John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
John 14:8 Philip *said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
John 14:9 Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
John 14:11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

Yep. Without saying, "I am God." Also see Matthew 9:2. John 11:43-44. Luke 8:54. He demonstrated that He was God, without having to say, "I am God."

[good4u1]

.....but He did not tell them "I am God."

Isn't Jesus saying that here:

John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
John 14:8 Philip *said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
John 14:9 Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
John 14:11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

Yep. Without saying, "I am God." Also see Matthew 9:2. John 11:43-44. Luke 8:54. He demonstrated that He was God, without having to say, "I am God."

Mitchell is just re-stating what I said earlier w/o Scripture references regarding the identity of Jesus here in this thread at post 505 which is: "Just a quick interjection about the identity of Jesus as the promised Messiah during his ministry...Jesus TOLD the religious leaders of his day who he was...but Jesus DEMONSTRATED who he was to the people and how they came to believe Him as the promised Messiah."

Gee, I do think we think we are on the same page here, Mitchell.

[Mrs. B]

What ur church is not telliing u.....MOB



The promise of the Father....Gen. 3:15.....And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
Between thy seed....and her seed.

This is the Promise of the Coming Seed....Jesus

a virgin shall conceive....and he shall be called the son of God...
Jesus is the Promise SEED

Adam was the first man.....created in God's Image
Adam sin.....death entered into God's Creation.
Death came from the First Adam
Jesus is called the Second Adam
Jesus defeated death on the Cross....He never sin
So death had no whole on Him.....



God Made a Promise..... a SEED...
every thing comes from a seed.......ever creation bares seed....every thing living begins as a seed.
the first Adam brought death..
Jesus the second Adam never sin so He brings Life.....
Faith in Jesus brings forth New Life in all who believe...
The Living Word is the Seed of God, when we believe the Word, the word is the Seed and the Holy Spirit Quickens us,
and Makes us alive again, Born Again not of the Flesh but by the Living Word....
We are born again by the Promise Seed that God tole Eve in the garden and man looked forward to the Promise.
Jesus came unto His Own, but His Own received Him Not....so the Good New of the New Birth has been preached
through the last two thousand years.....and all that heard and received and believed are born again....born of God
by the word and the Promise of the Spirit....We are made alive in Him....
Jesus the Christ the Promise seed of God......
He that believeth in me shall never die......Go, Jesus said and Wait for the Promise of the Father.
Adam the first brought Death
Jesus the second Adam bought back for us the Eternal Spirit of Life........We are called the sons of God
Born Again of the Word and the Spirit.
I Am that I Am......Jesus said if you have see me you have seen the Father.
God created Adam in His Image.

Washed in the Blood and now we have a New Blood Covenant with Jesus the Christ the Lamb of God.....

We are Born Again...

Mrs. B

[mark s]

good4u and Exit40, thank you, I have been blessed and encouraged by your kind words.

How is it that the Muslims will not reject a man who presents himself as God? Will the people think that Allah has come as a man?

Hi Mark, in short, it is my position that according to Scripture Antichrist does not overtly declare "I am God", but rather shows ("apodeiknymi" -- "to declare" or "exhibit" or "show" or "demonstrate") himself as God by bestowing upon himself the "divine title" as it were of humanity's "Savior." In the eyes of Muslims, claiming to be the "savior of humanity" is not a declaration of Divinity. According to YHWH, however, this is a definitive declaration of Divinity, for God Himself states unequivocally in Isaiah 43:11 that “I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.” Indeed, “…I am God, and there is none like Me” (Isaiah 46:9). When the Islamic Antichrist therefore pronounces himself as "Savior" whom all must follow, Jews and Christians will recognize this immediately as a direct affront to the faith of Abraham, while the Islamic world -- rejecting the Bible -- will embrace it, for it is already set up into believing Antichrist's lie with arms wide open:

* The Awaited Savior of Humanity (al-Mahdi in the Eyes of the Ahlul Bayt) (http://tinyurl.com/ctnfgxh)
* The Twelfth Imam, the Savior of Humanity (http://tinyurl.com/d2m6qvz)
* The Saviour Trailer (Imam Al-Mahdi) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fCPBya6CFM)
* The Awaited Saviour Imam al-Mahdi (http://tinyurl.com/bqeva8z)
* Waiting for Islam's Messiah (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/411301.aspx)

I'd encourage you to take about 30 minutes to read through the full thread. It's a bit long, but in the end I think it'll give you a pretty good overview of my position, including my view of Gog of Magog.

Thank you, Mitchell. That helps to clarify. Essentially, you are saying that in the eyes of the Muslim's he won't be declaring or demonstrating he is God, so no problem with them. But in the eyes of the Jews and Christians, he will be implying that he is God, so they will reject him.

I believe I understand your position, I was just unclear on this point.

Concerning Gog/Magog and Armageddon, there are passages the I think should be understood as meaning what they say in their plain sense, which require that these be completely separate events, and separated by 7 years.

But thank you for your reply!

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Mitchell]

That helps to clarify. Essentially, you are saying that in the eyes of the Muslim's he won't be declaring or demonstrating he is God, so no problem with them. But in the eyes of the Jews and Christians, he will be implying that he is God, so they will reject him.

Correct. Antichrist will be attributing to himself the Divine title of "Savior", which will not only be showing himself as God in the eyes of Jews and Christians, but also in the eyes of -- and in opposition to -- YHWH.

Concerning Gog/Magog and Armageddon, there are passages the I think should be understood as meaning what they say in their plain sense, which require that these be completely separate events, and separated by 7 years.

Personally, I don't see a single verse in the text of Ezekiel 38 and 39 that would lead me to that understanding (I would even contend that there are many verses that prohibit it), but it's ok to disagree in this respect.

[mark s]

How is it then that the Muslims would worship the beast, and even the image of the beast, if they do not think of him as God?

Do they normally worship men?

Thank you!

Mark

PS . . . regarding Gog/Magog, I think the thing is, we have different ways we read Scripture, and I think I tend to hold to a more literal hermeneutic, just at a guess. I would not expect that we would agree on this point, and I expect that we both know the various views. As for the Islamic Paradigm, I don't see that Scripture allows it, and, in fact, points a very different direction. But I'm interested in understanding the view better.

It's this point about the supposed "godhood" of antichrist.

Jesus, while not coming straight out and saying, I am YHWH, did not deny when others were saying He was God, nor did He refuse worship as God.

[1whowaits]

Mitchell, while Jesus did not say the exact words 'I am God', He did say the equivalent in 'before Abraham was, I am.' 'I am' is the name God told Moses to use in reference to Himself, by using the name God gave Himself, Jesus was claiming to be God.

An equivalent would be a muslim stating 'i am Allah', identifying oneself by the name of a god would indicate that one is claiming to be that god, one would not have to also say 'i am Allah and therefore i claim to be god', Allah is god in Islam.

When Jesus referred to HImself as the Son of Man at the right hand of the Father, the Jews knew that He was claiming divinity. When the sanhedrin asked Him if he was the Son of God, they did not qualify the statement with 'like Adam' or 'the only begotten one', they knew what He was referring to, but they wanted Him to state as such in open court.

Jesus was not secretive about His claim to divinity, the disciples knew it, His enemies the Jews knew it, the people who mocked Him at the crucifixion knew it, the Roman centurion at the crucifixion also stated 'surely this was the Son of God', a gentile knew about Jesus' claims.

Jesus directly claimed divinity, and He confirmed it directly when asked, He did not hide it and He did not attempt to deceive anyone about His divinity.

So one can claim to be God without stating the exact words 'I am God', as Jesus demonstrated.

The AC displays himself as god in God's temple, the AC is open about his display, he does not hide his display. The AC exalts himself over every god, and there is no indication that he does this in secret, on the contrary he does this in a temple.

In your view the AC does not state the exact words that he is god, but you indicate that the AC infers it, like Jesus did, in your view.

But if this were true, the AC would openly indicate that he is god, which is what Jesus did. If the AC presents Himself in the way Jesus did, as you indicate, the AC would not have to say the exact words that he is god, but he would make it clear to all that he claimed to be god, which would appear to be the straightforward reading of scripture.

But if the AC is a muslim mahdi, he cannot claim to be god or exalt himself over all gods, if he did the muslims would reject him and kill him. So the AC would then have to lie to the muslims and deceive them about who he really claimed to be, he would not actively claim to be god, he would have to actively deny that he was god to the muslims (although the christians could figure it out).

So from your view does the AC believe that he is god? If he does, then does he have to deceive the muslims about his true identity, in your view?

[Exit40]

Hi 1WW...

But if the AC is a muslim mahdi, he cannot claim to be god or exalt himself over all gods, if he did the muslims would reject him and kill him. So the AC would then have to lie to the muslims and deceive them about who he really claimed to be, he would not actively claim to be god, he would have to actively deny that he was god to the muslims (although the christians could figure it out).

2Th 2:8-12 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be ****** who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Meaning two things, that since humans are mere reflections of God there can be no distinction ore separation between the two and without God the creatures would be non- existent.[15] When an individual understand that there is no separation between human and God they begin on the path of ultimate oneness. The one who decides to walk in this oneness pursues the true reality and responds to God’s longing to be known.[15] The search within for this Reality of oneness causes one to be reunited with God, as well as, improve self-consciousness.

The Perfect Human trough this developed self-consciousness and self-realization prompts divine self-manifestation.[15] This causes the Perfect Human to be of both divine and earthly origin, al-Arabi calls him the Isthmus. Being the Isthmus between heaven and Earth the perfect human fulfills God’s desire to be known and God’s presence can be realized through him by others.[15] Additionally through self manifestation one acquires divine knowledge, which is the primordial spirit of Muhammad and all its perfection.[15] Al- Arabi details that the perfect human is of the cosmos to the divine and conveys the divine spirit to the cosmos.[15]

Al-Insān al-Kāmil, the perfect man

This is self explanatory to me. I hope it helps you understand this is what muslims are waiting for, their messiah/savior. This is just to back up Mitchell's explanation that claiming to be the savior of mankind is Jesus' title and position and is in fact claiming divinity according to Scripture.

He serves as the ultimate pole between the divine and the physical world.[15] The Qutb knowledge is not taught via prophet but rather directly from the divine.[15]

So this one will be a man and also divine in the eyes of muslims, in a reflection of the Truth of our Christ, but with all kinds of lying signs and wonders. Evidently he will be so convincing he could almost fool the very elect, almost.

God Bless You

David

[1whowaits]

Exit, thanks for the info, but what the muslims are waiting for and what scripture describes are 2 different things. Scripture states that the AC displays himself as God in God's temple, this is far beyond some human stating that he is the savior of the world. And where does this statement about the AC claiming to be the savior of the world come from? Not from scripture, so it is a theory based on an assumption, the assumption that the AC is a muslim.

Can the Mahdi display himself as god in a public place in front of the muslims? Which god would that be? As there is only 1 god in Islam, Allah, can the Madhi claim to be Allah? How long would he live after that 'display'?

Scripture states that the AC exalts himself over all gods and shows no regard for any god, if the Mahdi does not claim to be Allah, can the Mahdi declare himself to be over all gods, including Allah? How long would he live after that declaration?

What scripture describes of the AC goes way beyond someone subtly suggesting some divinity, and muslim judgement is swift and fatal for heresy. The basic muslim tenet is that there is no god but Allah, and Allah has no sons or brothers or equals, a tenet the AC does not follow from a straightforward reading of scripture.

What the scripture describes of the AC is not consistent with Islam.

[Exit40]

Hi 1WW. Well, all I can say is, every single theory or paradigm, including mine and yours, even though it be based Scripturally to the best of our knowledge, is an assumption. The Bereans searched the Scripture to see if a thing, what they were told or what they saw, was true or not. Even so, the answers were not immediately provided, but time itself brought about the conditions and specifics to which they could say, here it is in Scripture, foretold to us as proof of the Living God. They were fortunate enough to have manuscripts, the originals or recent copies, to refer to. We however must rely on interpretations, but we can also refer to the original languages and what they are reported to mean. And we can confirm their meanings by reference to other Scriptures and go from there. Even so, the Truth of the matter of the future can still remain a mystery unless it is revealed to us by the Spirit. So shall we quit watching and speculating, possibly making ourselves look like fools in the process, or shall we forge on in our own time, searching Scripture for our answers of what time will bring ? In our conversations we sometimes get a little terse and impatient because what we are saying to each other doesn't even pass the common sense test according to our understanding of the Word, and the world we live in. I have to laugh at myself sometimes for the seriousness with which I take myself, which usually happens when I get stuck at a point in my own understanding. It's the can't see the forest for the trees thing. So I've been doing a bit of a word study this morning and have come up with a few points I'd like to explore some more and offer an explanation that is more sensible to you and the readers here.

Just want to say too Brother, I love you for your fierceness for the Truth of the Word.

God Bless You

David

[1whowaits]

David, thanks for your statements, i appreciate your opinions and our brotherhood in the Lord. I am not trying to be fierce, just direct and persistent, because i believe there is trouble ahead.

I am concerned because it appears that many are viewing the events that are occurring in the world and are attempting to mold an interpretation of scripture to fit those events. This is understandable, we all wish make sense of what is occurring and what the outcome will be. And prophetic scripture is not always so easy to interpret, at times we do have to make some assumptions which can increase our likelyhood of introducing our own opinions about scripture rather than what the scripture really says.

Our task as those who seek to know the Lord and interpret His prophetic scripture as events take place is to watch, to be alert and not asleep, and also to not fall prey to deception. One of the first statements of Jesus regarding the time we are approaching is 'watch out that no one may deceive you...', the enemy is actively trying to deceive not only the world, but those who believe.

I am not stating that anyone here is decieved or that any view is evidence of deception, rather, i am concerned that we could aid the enemy in his deception of others if we promote views that look like they could fit scripture, but in reality are not consistent with scripture.

The scripture is our starting point, it is our frame of reference, all else is interpreted in the light of scripture, scripture is over all other interpretations and writings. Interpereting of scripture stars with the scripture itself, what does the scripture say, what is the straightforward reading of scripture?

I become concerned when the question appears to be what does the Quran say, or what do the muslims say about their prophetic figures, and then an attempt is made to interpret the scripture in a less than straightforward way to make the 2 views coincide.

When this appears to occur i am just asking, what is our point of reference, what text do we start with, where does the weight of interpretation fall? With what the scripture states, or with texts and beliefs outside of scripture? Must we use outside sources to understand prophetic scripture, or is scripture itself enough?

I would agree that some type of Islamic event is on the horizon, but what role it will play in prophetic scripture and the timing of it is not so clear. As this appears to be one of the first of the coming prophetic events, not the last, the warning to watch for deception could be the most applicable warning to us.

[Exit40]

Hi WW. I've put together a few things from word studies that may be more sensible, if I can properly extract a meaning of possibility from them. Lets start with your claim the mahdi exalts himself above all gods, which you have erroneously attributed to allah also. Dan 11:36 is where this comes from, and in vs 37 he doesn't honor the god of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor any god for he will exalt himself above them all. These two verses standing alone would verify your position, however the next verse states in his estate, or fortress, stronghold, position, or office, he will honor a god of forces, whom his fathers knew not he will honor with gold, etc. Vs 39 he does this in the most strong holds with this strange god, and causes them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain.

So your claim that if the mahdi is the AC he won't honor allah is incorrect here, as he does so with riches of the earth, which apparently this god does like, so he is also a god of earthly wealth IMO, perhaps the god of the kingdom of mammon. And he doesn't honor the 'God of his fathers', which is a Hebrew expression for God Himself, the Father of all mankind through His Word. If the mahdi is an Ishmaelite, Edomite, or descendant of Esau, whose God is the True God Jehovah, then this is the God of his fathers he does not honor. He also doesn't regard the 'desire of women', which is a Hebrew expression for Jewish women desiring to birth the Messiah, and sometimes refers to the Messiah Himself. Nor does he regard any other god, but the god he honors, as he considers them all to be false. So he doesn't honor any god, not the God of Gods, Jehovah, nor His Son Jesus the messiah, nor evidently then will he honor the Holy Spirit as God either, except the god of forces, a strange god to his fathers.

As you have correctly stated, muslims say we worship the same god. However, what they really mean is that because our Scriptures have been corrupted by evil men, and mohammed is the final prophet of their true god, and the koran is the true word of their god, the God the Jews and Christians worship is actually allah, which our corrupted Scriptures have stated is Jehovah and His Messiah. I believe this is what is meant when vs 38 states this god the AC worships is the god his fathers knew not. So the muslim AC will not honor Jehovah, nor will he honor His Messiah as divine, and we can come to the conclusion he also does not honor the Holy Spirit therefore denying the Holy Trinity of Scripture. To muslims they simply do not exist, and we have been misinformed as to whom the true god is, allah.

Isn't this what muslims believe and in fact state ? And have painted on the walls inside the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount ? There is no god but allah, far be it for him to have a son, and mohammed is his final prophet, who gave mankind the truth of it all directly from his god, allah. To suggest to them mohammed is a false prophet flies them into a rage whereby we could be killed, as he is their first perfect man who cannot be denied, insulted or demeaned in any way.

I have been admonished to try keep from writing small books so I will stop here for now, as I am just getting started. I will continue from here or answer any response.

God Bless You

David

PS. As I typed this out I missed your last post. I agree, the first thing is to not be deceived, and not by any man. Scripture and the Holy Spirit is and should be the only basis of our understanding. I have to be honest about this with you also, as I chase the muslim paradigm down I am aware of, at certain points, some discrepancies myself, which seem to point to an unknown, what ? other version or paradigm entirely, or what I cannot say. It is a bit fearful to find these seeming discrepancies which I am unable to interpret at this point, which may point in another direction or that i simply do not understand so cannot properly present in the Light of The Word. So in essence while to me the weight of Scripture points to islam, I am aware I may be mistaken about some, most, or all of the paradigm. Or is it just me striving to be accurate in the Word and how I present it, honestly trying not to add to or take away from the Truth. Can't say for sure but I am aware of the possibility it may not be the final answer. Thanks Bro

[laney]

Mitchell, It has taken me a little time to read this whole thread but I commend you for your studies, your patience, your kindness and your thoroughness, not to speak of your time you spent here. I have learned so much from this read. The only question I have is do you have a blog or anything I could continue to learn from? Thank you and God bless you!

And to all others too!

[good4u1]

Laney,

If you go back to my first post which started this thread and click on that link...that is Mitchell's blog. If you take time to navigate thru you will see a wealth of information to help you.

good4u1

[laney]

good4u, thank you very much!

[mark s]

How is it then that the Muslims would worship the beast, and even the image of the beast, if they do not think of him as God?

Do they normally worship men?

Thank you!

Mark

Does anyone have any comment on this?

If this view of the beast is that the Muslims don't think of the antichrist as God, why do they worship him?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Exit40]

Hi Mark. I'll jump in here, but my memory is a bit rusty on this so I'll have to paraphrase. In the koran mohammed requires obedience because he is obeying god in what he states. He also says they, muslims, have to obey his leader, caliph, imam who is obeying mohammed through the koran, and thus they are obeying god. So in essence, when the leader tells them to pray to him they are really praying to god, worship included, as mohammeds' leader is a true representation of himself through the koran, which they believe to be the word of their god given directly to mohammed. Disobedience to the leader through the koran is punishable by death as it is considered blasphemy to their god.

In Rev 13 vs 8, 12, and 15, the word for worship is proskyneō, which means: 2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence. This word is used more than other words in the NT for worship, but other words for worship do not require' taking the position' . Also, this word is frequently used in connection with the phrase' fall/fell down on his/their face' to worship.

So who does this now ? Some may in prayer, but islam is the only religion which ' requires ' this position. Something to think about.

Hope that helps some.

God Bless You

David