Syrian President Bashar Assad blamed a wave of protests on "conspirators" who are trying to destroy the country as well as "enemies with an Israeli agenda", giving his first address to the nation Wednesday since the demonstrations erupted nearly two weeks ago.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4048856,00.html
Edit: To clarify, Scot has his eyes on Assad as "the man".
Finally, I found someone who answers several questions about religion that most people would hesitate to even consider asking in public. There's no doubt that The Last Prophecy: The Antichrist and the Dramatic Fall of a Publishing Empire is worth reading. Honestly, I have to say that I was skeptical at first that the book would deliver a new message, but somehow, after reading the subtitle, a certain curiosity made me order it. I was right. As soon as I turned the first page, I knew that I would not drop it until I have finished reading every word. Overall, the book is a flowing concatenation of puzzling questions and answers that will surely be compatible with any line of thought.
The most important element of the book for me is the introduction and explanation of a biblical principle called the Manifold Wisdom of God. This principle clarifies all the contradictions that people have supposedly found in the Bible. It is applicable to any paradox in life, including polemic topics in the church-a main cause of congregational diversity.
The second most important feature of this book for me is that even though the author claims to reveal the true identity of the antichrist and fulfillment of other end-time prophecies, unlike other modern prophets, Escalona predicts an incoming tragedy in the publishing industry-the collapse of the Zondervan company. The fulfillment of this prediction in the near future, as he states, will validate his testimony. In other words, if this prophecy occurs, we will have to watch the rest of his testimony closely and probably believe in him. This seems reasonable because Zondervan's collapse at this moment seems inconceivable. Yet it sounds more credible than other impressively creative apocalyptic predictions from other end-time writers.
Moreover, most of the author's claims in the book make sense to me. Generally speaking, I recommend this book not only to those interested in eschatology, but also to any person interested in understanding the true purpose of life.
A more credible prediction
How will you recognize the Antichrist?
Remarkably, from an extensive variety of predictions and interpretations of end time prophecies, the most credible that I found is from The New Church of the Manifold Wisdom. This church in its manifesto titled, "The Last Prophecy: The Antichrist and the Dramatic Fall of a Publishing empire, among many other interesting topics, predicts that around 2012 Zondervan, the publishing company, will collapse. The church sustains that this fall will validate the revelation of the Antichrist. They say that will be around 2012, no exact date, because it might happen anytime in a period of forty-two month (three years and a half) which is the time given to the Antichrist in the Bible to operate publicly. It is opportune to mention, that the New Church of the Manifold Wisdom does not accuse Zondervan of being the Antichrist, but as the vehicle promoting the Antichrist's doctrine through a series of corrupted texts
What do you think about this prediction? Does it sound more credible than other end times' predictions and interpretations?
Revelation 17:3, 8-14, Commentary, Part 2
The unveiling of the antichrist
I suggest that the first of the five "fallen" kings of John's vision could well be Nimrod, followed by the Assyrian Sennacherib.
Who then is third of the five? Babylon returns to power in the early 600's B.C., and of the "Neo-Babylonian" kings, the greatest by far is Nebuchadnezzar. He is so great, and so powerful, and so creative, and so against Israel at times, that the fallen ruler Saddam Hussein is convinced that Nebuchadnezzar should be brought back to life in his (Saddam's) own person! To this end he "rebuilt" Babylon on a miniature scale, and placed his own name on every brick.
Nebuchadnezzar's reign is well documented in Biblical and extra-Biblical sources. He is in Kings and Chronicles and Isaiah and Daniel. He beseiged Jerusalem, and took King Jehoiachin prisoner, as now backslidden Judah is not even to be protected from the invader. Their sin is just too heavy a burden around their neck, and they must go down. He carries away first much of Jewish treasure and people, leaving only the poor (II Kings 24:13-14). He builds a siege wall around Jerusalem (25:1), kills King Zedekiah's sons, even blinding Zedekiah in the process (25:7). He burns the temple (25:9), captures the rest of the people (25:11) and actually places in the Temple of Marduk at Babylon, the treasures from the Temple of God (II Chronicles 36:7). Marduk is a mythical descendant of Nimrod, and one can even see three letters of Nimrod's name in the later manifestation.
Now it should be seen that, as Jeremiah recounts in chapters 21, 22, and 27 of his prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar is a "servant" of the Lord, even though unwittingly and for his own reasons. He is God's whipping-boy for His people. But as Pharaoh was raised up for the purposes of God and later drowned in the Red Sea, so judgment will fall on Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon for their treatment of Israel (Jeremiah 50-51).
Daniel recounts incidents in Nebuchadnezzar's life, subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem. His insights into the varying degrees of that monarch's devotion to Yahweh are helpful in our understanding of his heart. Nebuchadnezzar seemed to be pleased with Daniel and his Jewish companions, as he had been with Jeremiah before them, yet he continued on in his idolatry and especially his unbearable pride. The image of gold (Daniel 3) which by the way previews the image of the beast (Revelation 13), was erected to remind citizens of the greatness of the King. This statue became the reason for the punishment of the three young Hebrew friends of Daniel. Yet God breaks through into Nebuchadnezzar's life by saving them from the fiery furnace. Earlier, Daniel's revelation of the meaning of a troubling dream had likewise awakened him to the greatness of the God of Israel. His respect grows from merely including the true God with his own gods, to honoring that God as supreme, but never to worshiping Yahweh alone.
Later in the story (Daniel 4) we see Nebuchadnezzar thinking back on his glory with satisfaction and pride. At this point he is humbled before the Empire, but is later restored. Altogether then, a proud, sometimes blasphemous, idolatrous, anti-semitic King of Babylon was this Nebuchadnezzar, and for that reason we can include him in the list of antichrists.
Babylonia falls again, and is replaced by Persia whose Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 536 B.C. Here it becomes more difficult to find a man who fills the bill as "man of sin" of the hour. Yet, judging from the description of the Revelation 13 beast in terms of animals, there is no doubt that the bear, or Persia, must be included in the history of the man of sin. Now, the Persian Emperors were despotic and often cruel, and definitely worshiped the wrong god. However, they were by and large friendly to Israel. Cyrus, who inherited the captive Jews, immediately released them. Succeeding rulers tried to support the growing state of Israel against foreign elements of that day who did not want her to prosper.
And were the Persian kings also "King of Babylon"? Yes, until the coming of Xerxes, several Emperors later, this was the honorary title they claimed. And Xerxes? Though he is a "legitimate" King of Babylon, it is said he "illegitimized" several generations of coming rulers by storming the Babylonian Temple of Marduk, aka Nimrod. The idea is that it is Nimrod who gives authority to the King. No Nimrod, no King. Knowing that that was the feeling, even in Persia, lets us believe that we are on the right track in looking only at these Babylonian kings as candidates for the man of sin. Alexander the Great, it is said, restored Marduk to his place, and for many generations the Greek Rulers wore the title again.So, for example, the Bible's Artaxerxes (Ezra 4) is not a King of Babylon, whereas Ahasuerus (Xerxes, Book of Esther) and Cyrus (II Chronicles 36:22-23) are, for the above reason. Could either of them be the "antichrist" of the Persian Empire?
Consider the book of Esther, and the wicked plot of Haman, the highest ranking official in the court of Xerxes (if indeed Ahasuerus and Xerxes are the same person, as many believe).
Though the Persian ruler was not possessed of hatred for the Jews, he did submit to Haman's Hitler-like plot that all Jews be destroyed. Genocide, we call it today. Through the intervention of Esther, the wickedness of Haman and Xerxes was superceded by a plan for Jewish self-defense. But it would seem that any ruler who, as King of Babylon, decreed the extinction of God's people, whatever his ignorance or motivation, would qualify as a candidate for "beast."
Next the great Alexander storms through the Persian Empire in the name of Macedonia and Greece. The Greek Empire follows. Alexander is King of Babylon in name, and yet he favors and spares Israel in his conquests. When he dies, his kingdom is divided four ways, as prophesied by Daniel. Out of one of these splits (Daniel 8:8-9) comes "the little horn." Bible scholars who are convinced the Bible is not totally true tell us that that horn must be Antiochus Epiphanes, ruler of the largest portion of the Greek domain. Bible believers, however, point out that, no, this cannot be Epiphanes, for the passages about what happens are always couched in an end-time setting. Perhaps it is time for these two positions to merge and declare that it is possible for one man to live in two eras. Of course, he must be resurrected to do that. As you know now, this is what I believe happens.
Consider the wickedness of Antiochus and see if he qualifies to be an "antichrist". He was treacherous and deceitful. He wore the title "King of Babylon." He was driven out of Egypt by the Romans and in fury he unleashed evil on Jerusalem. He broke a treaty with that city in order to plunder the Temple for its wealth. He forbade Jewish sacrifices, according to Josephus, for three and one-half years. He slaughtered many Jews. He burned buildings, knocked down city walls. He built an idol altar on God's altar, and sacrificed pigs on it. This is the Old Testament version of the "abomination of desolation." But Jesus in his day said that that abomination was still future. He referred people to the book of Daniel. But it had already happened. But it will happen again. Do you see the confusion regarding this man Antiochus? Is he the "once and future" king?
Antiochus compelled Jews to forsake their worship, making them build temples to his gods. He allowed no circumcision. Many yielded to these pressures. Those who did not were whipped. Or torn to pieces. Or crucified. Or strangled. The Book of Law was destroyed. He was a proud man obsessed with his own worth and deity. On coins you will see his name as Theos Epiphanes "God Manifest", the very description of the Son of God (I Timothy 3:16 ).
We mentioned above also the strange case of Daniel 11. No one questions that 11:21-35 has to do with the wicked reign of Epiphanes. But 36-45? With hardly a clue we are suddenly in the end times, even on into chapter 12 where history is climaxed. From 11:36 to the end is antichrist, all say. But if you blink you'll think for sure it is Antiochus, though none of these things ever happened in his life! I wonder if the Spirit is saying right here in plain sight that this latter-day figure is also Antiochus, raised from the dead?
Nimrod, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Epiphanes. These five have fallen. One is. Now, since we live in the same Roman era in which John lived there is a sense in which that "one" still is! The Empire that ruled in John's day has never been replaced, only greatly diminished. If we were to use Daniel's statue vision (Daniel 2) as an outline of history, it would begin with Nebuchadnezzar's Neo-Babylonia, according to the interpretation, continue to Medo-Persia, then Greece, and finally Rome, the "two legs" which would attach to the feet kingdom of the last days. We still live in the "legs" days of Rome. When the Spirit opens the eyes to this revelation, my but does one's world view change!
Look for Bob Faulkner's creations on http://professorenglish.org There you will find a variety of Scripture studies, including a through-the-Bible course, in video, audio, and text. There are works about the Christ, the antichrist, the rapture, and more. For those who love North Korea, I have created http://chosunhouse.com. As for me, I'm a man found of God over 50 years ago, called to the ministry, serving in tentmaker style with my wife and my local church in Chicagoland. Contact me at diakonos3@gmail.com
The antichrist is a figure understood in basic Christian doctrine who, while being an enemy of Christ, will deceptively resemble him in some manner. He is mentioned various times in the New Testament, sometimes going by different names such as "Man of Sin" or "Son of Perdition." According to the prophecies, he will rule the entire world for a very short time during the last days. Eventually, he is taken out of power at Christ's second coming and will be cast into the Lake of Fire where he will spend the rest of eternity.
In 1 John the author claims that there will be many antichrists, but he points to one in particular that will be coming in the future. He goes on to say that these men will deny that Jesus is the Messiah, and that God the Father and Jesus are one. St. Paul describes the antichrist in somewhat better detail in the book of 2 Thessalonians, however he refers to him as the Man of Sin, which in some translations is "Son of Perdition." He claims that this man will fulfill certain characteristics which include sitting in the temple, claiming divine authority, performing counterfeit signs and miracles, and performing all kinds of evil acts.
Interestingly enough, this same character is mentioned in the prophetical Old Testament book of Daniel. In this book, he is referred to as the "Little Horn" and it is stated that he will set himself up in the temple as the abomination which causes desolation. The early Church father Irenaeus may be one of the first to make a connection between the antichrist of St. John, the Man of Sin of St. Paul, and the Little Horn of the prophet Daniel. He also speculated that he might be of Jewish descent and because the tribe of Dan is omitted from the book of Revelation that that could be the tribe where he will come from.
Over the years, Christians have been in disagreement concerning who the antichrist will be. The earliest Christians believed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes, so they are no exemption. There have been many figures, both historical and contemporary, whom people have claimed to be the Man of Sin. The earliest figure is Nero Caesar, one of the first opponents of Christianity who is responsible for an uncountable number of martyrs. Other suspects include Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama. During the period of the Reformation, the Pope was often accused, and is still thought to be in certain circles of Christianity.
Although the figure is primarily found in Christianity, varying forms occur in other religions and worldviews as well, especially Islam. This character is mentioned not in the Koran, but instead in the Hadith, a collection of oral traditions concerning Muhammad. Here it is written that he will have one eye and will come shortly before the Day of Judgment claiming to be Christ.
The Antichrist Identity is an international group of political researchers, analysts and media group with a predominant focus on the formation of the coming new world order and its impact on a political, economic and social level. Visit http://theantichristidentity.com to learn more.
