The Number 666 is Perfect Exact Unassailable Gematria For the Pope

Just heard a sermon by Sam Storms on the number 666 in which he concludes that it's a symbolic number.  Storms also discussed some attempts to determine its meaning through gematria, or systems of numbers based on various alphabets.  

In some cases if the Greek alphabet doesn't work they try the Hebrew and maybe that will work.  I think he said Hebrew works for Nero.  But why on earth should Nero be identified by the Hebrew alphabet?  Hitler comes up on the English alphabet after assigning some special numbering system to the letters.  This just gets ridiculous.

And I don't know why the system I've posted on so many times isn't better known, or if it is known why it isn't accepted.  It is perfection itself.  There is no need to manipulate the letters and numbers because Latin has a system of Roman numerals based on its letters that is solidly established.  And when it is applied to the LATIN title for Vicar of Christ, VICARIVUS FILII DEI,  for the ROMAN Pope, who is also called by the ROMAN title Pontifex Maximus, it adds up to 666 without any manipulations whatever.  It's a ROMAN/LATIN system of ROMAN/LATIN letters with ROMAN numbers applied to a ROMAN/LATIN title for the Bishop of ROME who is called Pope and the Head of the Church.  By that name he usurps the role of Christ since scripture says Christ and Christ alone is the Head of the Church,  and by the title Vicar of Christ he usurps the role of Christ when you understand it through the Latin phrase VICARIVUS FILII DEI, which literally means "in the place of the Son of God." Add em up, it's 666 without even trying. 

The Pope usurps the role of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit who is the representative of Christ on earth, NOT the "Pope."   Since the temple of God is the people of God the Pope "sits in the temple of God showing that he is God."   

2Th 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Antichrist of the Tribulation / Day of the LORD

Soon-coming Rapture and Tribulation or not, the Church needs to recover the understanding that the Anticrhist is the Pope, which used to be commonly recognized but has recently been lost. In the Tribulation he will loom large, but he is the Antichrist now as well as he will be then.

Although the Pope is an unlikely Antichrist as we've come to picture the man we associate with End Times events, he does have all the necessary characteristics as laid out by the Protestant Reformers and their predecessors.  While there is really no doubt as to the identity of the Pope as Antichrist, there may be some legitimate questions about exactly what role he'll play in the Day of the Lord or Great Tribulation, since he could play False Prophet to a political Antichrist as the Pope in Hitler's time did to Hitler.  The Day of the Lord is generally understood to occur during the Seventieth Week of Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, which was not fulfilled in the time of the coming of Christ.  It is therefore understood to have been put off to the future.  It is now understood to be bracketed by two stages of the Second Coming of Christ, the first to Rapture His Church, and the second or last to return as conquerer of the entire world.  In between there is to be the Day of the Lord or Great Tribulation of seven years.

Here is the main scripture that is taken to describe the Antichrist:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4: Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Pope is primarily identified as the Antichrist from the little horn of Daniel 7:8, and also from this passage quoted above.  The "falling away" is also known as the Great Apostasy, and these days the futurists point to current deviations in the many churches from the gospel truth.  And that certainly has to be a major part of the apostasy (and here's a link to Jan Markell's latest summary of this falling away: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/What-Happened-to-My-Church-.html?soid=1101818841456&aid=dVUinwAfOT0), but the Reformers, especially Martin Luther I believe, identified it as the doctrines of the Roman Church, though today there is a lot of ignorance and apathy about this fact among Protestants.  The "man of sin" also known as the "son of perdition" is identified with the Pope.  It is his role as "Vicar of Christ" by which he "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God" and he "sits in the temple of God" because the people of Christ are now called the "temple of God.  I've posted on the Latin title VICARIVS FILII DEI, which means Vicar of Christ or literally, "Substitute" or "In the place of the Son of God" showing that the Latin letters which are also Roman numerals add up to 666.

I collected some references from a CD by Chris Pinto, who got his list from a book titled What Luther Says by E.M. Plass, a book I can’t afford at the moment though it sounds like a must-have. He lists many who came before the Reformers who called the papacy the Antichrist, which ought to dispel the accusation of Luther that he made it up in retaliation for being excommunicated. (As a matter of fact it took him about five years to become fully convinced from scripture and history that the Pope was indeed the Antichrist.)

The following is a much shortened list from a site called Revelation Timeline that includes all those who testified that the papacy is the Antichrist that Chris Pinto mentioned: http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/historical-witnesses-against-antichrist-summary.

Historical Witnesses Against Antichrist Summary  

Arnulf (991), the Bishop of Orleans, proclaimed the Pope as the Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God.

Gherbert of Rheims (1000) said; the Pope was the antichrist sitting in the temple of God.

In the book of Waldensian Pastor Leger called “Treatise on Antichrist” written in 1120, said “That treatise brands the Romish Church as the harlot Babylon, and the Papacy as the “man of sin” and antichrist.”

John Wycliffe (1330-1384) Who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible into English, said Antichrist, the head of all these evil men, is the pope of Rome.

John Purvey (1354–1414), one of the leading followers of the English theologian and reformer John Wycliffe; said the Papacy was the kingdom of the Antichrist.

John Huss (1372-1415), a well-educated man from Bohemia, who came under the influence of Wycliffe’s writings, which caused him to break with the church of Rome; proclaimed the Antichrist has been revealed in the Pope for which he was burned to death.

William Tyndale (1493-1536) was an English scholar who became a leading figure in Protestant Reformation; said the Pope is the antichrist and his doctrine sprung of the devil.

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) was a great Swiss Reformer; proclaimed the might and power of the Devil, that is, of the Antichrist… the Papacy has to be abolished.

John Calvin (1509-1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation; said we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist.

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, who the Father called out of the Papal Church. declared “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.”

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), a German Reformer, said that the Roman Pontiff is the antichrist.

Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551)…French refugees in England who first gathered under Calvin and Farel; “Moreover I renounce the Pope as the Roman Antichrist, and his whole doctrine and religion…“

In 1555 Hugh Latimer, Bishop of Worcester; said before being burned to death, “What fellowship have Christ with Antichrist? Therefore it is not lawful to bear the yoke with the Papists. Come forth from among them, and separate yourselves from them, saith the Lord.’“

Nicholas Ridley (1555), English Bishop of London; said before being burned to death that the See of Rome is the seat of Satan.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) as the Archbishop of Canterbury, he was responsible for establishing the first doctrinal and liturgical structures of the reformed Church of England; said before being burned to death that the Pope is Christ’s enemy, and the antichrist.

Henry Adlington, Laurence Pernam, Henry Wye, William Halliwel, Thomas Bowyer, George Searles, Edmund Hurst, Lyon Cawch, Ralph Jackson, John Derifall, John Routh, Elizabeth Pepper, and Agnes George (1556); were all burnt in one fire, for proclaiming the Pope as Antichrist under the devil. Agnes Prest (1557) was burned to death for proclaiming that the Pope is the Antichrist and the devil.

John Knox (1505-1572) was a great leader of the Reformation in Scotland; said “the pope should be recognized as “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.”

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) was Zwingli’s intimate friend and succeeded him as chief pastor of the Zurich Cathedral; said the Little Horn is the kingdom of the Roman pope.

The Geneva Study Bible (1556) included study notes from the Protestant Reformers, that all proclaimed that the Popes of Rome were the antichrist beast.

The Church of England declared that the Papal Church of Rome is the Babylonian beast, saying that the Pope is antichrist, and the Man of Sin.

The Church of Scotland Confession of Faith (1603) declared the Pope as the Antichrist, the man of sin and son of perdition.

The Irish Articles of Religion of 1615 testified that the Bishop of Rome is the Man of Sin.

The London Baptist Confession of 1689, proclaims that the Popes of Rome is the antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1649) which was ratified and established by Act of Parliament in 1649. states that the Popes of Rome is the antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church.

Cotton Mather (1663-1728) in his book, Fall of Babylon,; said that all the characteristics of Antichrist are answered in the Popes of Rome.

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and also a faithful expositor of Bible prophecy; taught that the Church of Rome was the Little Horn of Daniel.

John Wesley (1703-1791), an Anglican cleric and Christian theologian,; said that the whole succession of popes from Gregory VII. are undoubtedly Antichrist. Jonathan Edwards, an American preacher and theologian, who is perhaps best known for his role in the Great Awakenings of the mid 1700’s; said that the greatest and most cruel enemy of the Church of Christ is the church of Rome.

Dr. H. Grattan Guinness (1835-) pointed to the Roman Catholic Popes as the little horn power of Daniel 7, the Man of Sin in 2nd Thessalonians and the Beast of Revelation 13.

Reverend J. A.Wylie (1808 – 1890) in his Preface to “The Papacy is the Antichrist; says that the Roman system is the predicted Apostacy.  

--David Nikao [compiler] For more detailed quotes from the above people who testified against the Popes of Rome, as the Little Horn of Daniel 7, the Son of Perdition of 2 Thessalonians 2, and the antichrist beast of Revelation 13; read Historical Witnesses Against

The passage in 2 Thessalonians goes on to say that this man of sin had not yet been revealed in Paul's time, so he is only hinting at it in writing, having told the Thessalonians in person at an earlier time. Today it is thought that what restrains the revealing of an as-yet-unknown Antichrist is the Holy Spirit, or the Church, but the Reformers understood Paul to be referring to the Roman Empire or the Caesars who were still in power in his time, which explains why he wouldn't identify them in writing. And as I mentioned in the previous post about the Pope this makes sense if you recognize that the Pope has taken the place of the Caesars with their title Pontifex Maximus and their Roman garb, and his presiding over an institution that over time acquired most of the trappings of the Roman pagan religions, including putting various Christian "saints" in the place of some of the Roman gods and encouraging prayers to them as to gods.

2 Thess 2:6-9 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 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...

Some historical information.
Those who identified the Pope as the Antichrist saw the Antichrist papal system as having developed in the year 606 (about the same time Islam conquered the Eastern Roman Empire). I think it was the Byzantine Emperor who referred to Pope Gregory the Great as "universal bishop" to which Gregory replied that anyone who accepted that title would be a forerunner of Antichrist. Then the next Pope, Boniface, DID accept it as it was given to him by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas. Gregory the Great was thought by the Reformers to be the last legitimate Bishop of Rome, all those following being the Antichrist papal system. Over the ensuing years the Church of Rome accumulated the superstitions of pagan Rome that came to characterize its functions. Relics, prayers to saints, the rosary, and so on. This is all addressed in a book titled The History of Romanism by John Dowling, but I think Luther also addressed it, which would be in the book What Luther Says, by Plass.  

Is the Last Trump about to Sound?

Can't help the pun at this point, the name is just too prophetically pregnant. It's close, very close.

Whatever Trump the American Presidential candidate's faults, he's the only possible choice for a conservative. National sovereignty, anti-globalism, and the future of the Supreme Court are maybe the biggest issues. Trump makes me nervous because although he's mostly come out on the same side of the issues I'm on, he's unpredictable.

But the only alternative would be an unmitigated disaster for America. So the choice is clear from my point of view.

God's plans may be something else of course. It may be time for judgment to fall and the global government to be realized, the government that will certainly be headed by the final Antichrist of scripture. Which I still think will probably be Pope Francis, who is a globalist, and aggressively engaged in uniting all the religions -- which is a necessary precursor to the world government of the Antichrist.

I pray that Catholics will wake up and finally see through the papal institution.

So: the last Trump will sound and Christians remaining alive will be taken up, raptured, to be with the Lord. Before or after the reign of the Antichrist? I'm still not entirely sure.

If another comes in his own name, him you will receive

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

The "another" is understood by some to be the antichrist, the False Christ or any false Christ for that matter. This statement by Jesus came to mind during the Pope's time here in America over the last few days, as so many, even many who should have known better, welcomed him even adoringly. He arrived three hours before the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur and left on the day of the last moon of the Blood Moon Tetrad that began last year, the first day of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles. Some were anticipating or at least hoping this dramatic event in the heavenlies portended the coming of the Lord Jesus.   Of course it still could mean that, the Feast of Tabernacles has only begun and has a week to go. But the False Christ has dominated the media up to this point, hard not to associate him with the portents.

A perfect example of being condemned to repeat history when we forget it. Up until the beginning of the last century there was general knowledge that the Pope was no friend to America, or any Protestant nation, that the Vatican and especially the Jesuits had been working tirelessly since the Reformation to destroy Protestantism. It was even general knowledge that it was the Jesuits who engineered the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Try telling people that now and they think you are a way-out fringey conspiracy theorist. But that used to be common knowledge.

A couple of posts back I said I wished I could drop fliers on the Pope's adoring crowds to inform them of the truth about the Vatican and its anti-Americanism. I had lost track of one of my email accounts where I belatedly found out yesterday that something even better had been done in anticipation of the Pope's visit, from Paul Serup :

In anticipation of the pope of Rome coming and speaking to the U. S. Congress ..., three works have been hand delivered to every member of Congress, including the Senate .... The books are: a reprint of General Thomas M. Harris’ book, Rome’s Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, a Chick Tract comic entitled The Big Betrayal, (Charles Chiniquy’s story including Lincoln’s assassination), and [Paul Serup's] book, Who Killed Abraham Lincoln? (which Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site has favourably reviewed).

That means that any American can email, phone, mail any of their Representatives / Senators and ask them what they think of the pope coming to address Congress in light of the Vatican / Roman Catholic Church's hostility towards the United States and its democratic institutions, as shown in the books that they definitely have received at their congressional offices in Washington! They do have to give an answer to their constituents, do they not? This includes the Vatican’s recognition of the Confederacy, (the New York Times’ last word on the subject is an 1876 article entitled “How The Pope Recognized The Southern Confederacy – His Letter to Jeff Davis”), and in this sesquicentennial year of the Lincoln assassination, the evidence of Roman Catholic responsibility for Lincoln’s murder. There may be some very interesting answers coming back, which could be discussed on such a site as this.

As well, there is planned to be at least three full page ads taken out on consecutive Wednesdays in the Washington Times, the second largest newspaper in the nation’s capital, about the visit by this pope and disclosing that all elected federal representatives have received these books. The first ad has come out Wednesday. I will try to post a copy on my website, www.salmovapress.com, a copy could be posted on other sites too. I attach a copy to this email also. All this is being done and paid for mainly by Christians in the United States. The plan is to also send copies of these books to the President, Vice President and the members of the Supreme Court, which I believe has also been done!

I hope Americans will take the time to contact their members of Congress and ask why the leader of this organization / nation that has had such an anti-American history, is speaking to Congress, without ever addressing its anti-American history.

Hooray. Pray that these documents will be read and open some eyes to the truth.

Protestantism Derailed, America Betrayed: Why the Pope Should Feel Right at Home Here

The Pope is about to open his antichrist mouth in America, about to display his antichrist power in America, against our best interests, in favor of the new world order, in favor of policies that undermine true Christianity, that favor disintegration and chaos.  I've been finding it hard to keep my thoughts organized lately, succumbing to sleepiness, fogginess, difficulty concentrating, losing my train of thought.  Spiritual oppression?  I've wondered.  I've been trying to read up on the history of the Roman Catholic Church, wanting to muster evidence that might convince others that this is our enemy, nothing else, just this, just Romanism, the Vatican, the Pope, their Jesuit army.  All our battles, all evils, spring from this antichrist source.  Too much you say?  Far-fetched?  I would once have thought so too.  I mean, if you're going to go with conspiracies, there's Freemasonry, and the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, even the Skull and Bones Society, and all the other secretive organizations that always get named.  Is it possible they're all just arms of the RCC?

Where is the American Protestant voice?  Where's our Ian Paisley who would stand up in Congress and denounce the Pope as Antichrist?  Paisley objected that the European Parliament, of which he was a member, had invited the Pope to speak without putting it to a vote.  Did Congress get a vote on this upcoming visit by this Pope?  Was there even a ripple of objection to the invitation?  Those among the Republican candidates who are at least nominally Protestant aren't doing any protesting.  They are going to go hear the Pope, going to be polite, disagree of course but politely.  Trump has been sounding off about illegal immigration and so far drawn some Catholic reaction, from the archbishop of my last post, then from Catholic Joe Biden who called it "xenophobia."  Think about such terms that are used against people who care about the rule of law:  we're xenophobics, we're homophobics if the law is God's ordinance defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  The method of attack is truly Jesuitical, ad hominems designed to poison the well and discredit the opposition with character smears, promote emotional reactions and destroy reasoned argument.  See how far you get presenting your well-thought-out case against gay marriage or illegal immigration, when the opposition's whole argument is that you are a "hater" and a "bigot."   Saying anything against the Roman Church also gets those epithets thrown at you:  Catholic hater.  According to JA Wylie's History of Protestantism, slander, or calumny, is historically one of the tools of the Jesuits against Protestants.  It seems to have worked its way into Political Correctness and the left in general. 

The media too have been practicing their usual subliminal partisanship, portraying the Republican candidates in muted tones of ridicule. 

Who is running this country really?  Are you aware of the evidence that it is the Roman Catholic Church?  Are you aware of how many Catholics there are in American government and have been for decades, shaping policy?   The vast majority of Catholics probably have no clue that they are tools of the Vatican against a free America.  There are lots of conservative Catholics who object to some of the policies of this Pope for instance.  But Vatican II told all good Catholics to exert themselves for the promotion of the Church and how can that be a bad thing? 

I started trying to get some of this across with the post "Waking Up Among Wolves."  And I didn't know as much then as I know now about just how vast this wolf pack is.  There is no escape.  And those who should be protesting don't see the wolves for the sheep's clothing.

If I had the resources, wish wish wish, I'd print out as much evidenced information as I could muster to try to convince Protestants and Catholics both of these realities and air-drop them as fliers on the crowds that will be assembling for the Pope's visit.  Not sure where to drop them for the Protestants, maybe have to fly from church to church.  But I can't even muster an evidenced blog post on the subject, just this rambling that even sounds somewhat demented to me.

Some people who are into end times prophecies ask Where is America in the Biblical scenario about the Revived Roman Empire that is to rise up in the last days?   Blink.  Guess what, America has been an arm of the Revived Roman Empire since its founding.   But back up a bit:  where is the Revived Roman Empire at all?  Isn't it just getting some pieces together in the EU, still quite a ways from full development? 

Blink.  

Oh how we have lost our Protestant legacy, lost the voices who could have been keeping us awake and alert to the stealthy workings of evil in this world all along.  The Reformers knew it:  the Revived Roman Empire is the RCC itself and the Antichrist is the PAPACY.  They made the arguments from scripture, they proved it.  But a crafty Jesuit taught us to forget about the proofs that the Pope is Antichrist by interpreting the relevant scriptures as all in the future, and the Protestants have bought it.  (The Jesuits also invented Preterism by the way, for the same reason, to get the Pope off the hook). Even those who have done a lot to expose the errors of Rome have missed the big picture.  They subscribe to futurism while describing the doctrinal errors as if doctrine is our only problem with the RCC, as if it isn't a threat to the entire world with its ambition to put the Pope in the seat of power over the world.  Yeah yeah yeah, ridiculous, right? If anything the RCC has been losing power. Yeah yeah yeah. Well, if I can I'll try to bring out the reasons that's a delusion. So anyway, we've had our eyes forward and haven't been noticing that it's been around for centuries, gradually working out its antichrist mission.

It received a near-deadly wound from the Reformation.  Even John Dowling who wrote a very informative tome on the History of Romanism in 1845 thought the Roman Church could never recover.  But doesn't scripture tell us it recovers?  And if Dowling were living today he might see the recovery gathering steam behind the scenes. 

Romanism, the Roman Church:  I've been using the term for some time because it's necessary to counter its pretensions to being Christian.  It has some Christian stuff tacked on, even enough for some Catholics to have a genuinely Christian outlook, but it's staggering how the institution as a whole has taken over the trappings and thought of the Roman Empire. There's so much more to the term than just that the RCC grew from the Bishop of Rome in the early centuries.  Dowling's History of Romanism chronicles how the RCC early on took over one after another pagan practice into its rituals, such as lighted candles during the day, holy water, incense, and how the statues of roman gods got renamed for Christian saints and installed in their churches.   Awareness of their use of statues doesn't make you aware of their origin from the Roman gods and that derivation was rather startling to me, for one.  Such concepts as The Immaculate Conception as Romanism came to apply it to Mary the mother of Jesus, originated with a Roman goddess.

Why is that obelisk in the piazza of St. Peter's basilica in Rome the Roman Emperor Caligula's obelisk?   What does a Roman Caesar have to do with Christianity?   Then go on to ask why our Capitol building looks like St. Peter's basilica and why Washington's monument looks like the obelisk of Caligula? 

There's plenty more to say to show the essential Roman character of the Roman church, but might as well go on at this point to America.  Besides the architecture just mentioned, why is there a statue of the Roman goddess Persephone at the top of the Capitol dome, renamed "Freedom?"  And why does she look east toward Rome?    And why is there a painting in the interior of that same dome called The Apotheosis of Washington depicting him among the gods and goddesses of Rome?  And why are the portraits of two Popes in that building?  And by the way, the very concept of a "Capitol" originated as the temple of the Roman god Jupiter.   What does any of this have to do with America?

Francis should feel right at home addressing Congress.

Does anybody care?

More later, God willing.

A Calendar of Prophetic Possibilities for the Month of September

Two events are scheduled for the month of September that I regard as interestingly pregnant with prophetic possibilities: The visit of the Pope to Congress which happens to be on the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur; and the occurrence of the fourth and final blood moon of the Tetrad that started last year, on the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles.

Prophecy watchers add many more events and potential events to these two. A writer at Rapture Ready has compiled a list of some of them to keep in mind, which I am going to post here in its entirety. His address is included at the bottom of the post, and the article is also available at the Rapture Ready link above.

September 2015

By Daymond Duck

There have been several good articles, pro and con, about upcoming events to watch for in Sept. 2015 (blood moons, Sabbatical year, Shemitah, etc.). To be honest, when these good articles came out I just skimmed over many of them. But I now realize that the list of things to watch for in Sept. 2015 has surpassed my ability to keep up with all of it.

So here is a list I made for myself. It is not my purpose to comment on the relevance of any of these things. But it is my purpose to have a calendar of events that I can refer to. Also, understand that because a Jewish day ends at sundown (not 12 p.m.) and because there are questions about the accuracy of the Jewish calendar some of what is being reported could be wrong.

Sept. 9: The date the Jewish Sanhedrin plans to put Pres. Obama on trial on Mt. Zion for promoting genocide of the Jewish people with the P5 +1 agreement with Iran over that nation’s nuclear weapons program. Will this trial be worthless or will it accomplish anything?

Sept. 13: The end of the Sabbatical year (at sundown on Sept. 13) and the date that a highly respected ultra-Orthodox Jewish Rabbi named Chaim Kanievsky says Israel’s Messiah will arrive. Is he right or a false prophet?

Sept. 13: Congress has 60 days to vote on the P5 + 1 agreement with Iran (signed on July 14, 2015). If Congress takes a full 60 days, this vote could be on Sept. 13. Controversy surrounds this date because there are secret deals between the IAEA and Iran that Congress has not seen.

Sept. 13: The Shemitah year (also called a Sabbath year, or a Sabbatical year, or the seventh year of the agricultural cycle) ends at sundown on Sept. 13. It is associated with financial issues; debt forgiveness; economic problems; recession; declines in the Stock Market, etc. Jonathan Cahn says the U.S. or the world could have economic problems about this time.

Sept.13-15: Rosh Hashanah (also called the Jewish New Year or the Feast of Trumpets) begins at sundown on Sept. 13 and ends at sundown on Sept. 15. Some (not all) prophecy teachers believe the Rapture could occur at the end of Rosh Hashanah this year or next year or some year.

Sept.15: The purported military drill called Joint Assistance for Development and Execution (JADE) Homeland Eradication of Local Militants (HELM) is supposed to end. Will it? Will there be a JADE HELM 2016, 2017, etc.?

Sept.15: The 70th UN General Assembly will begin meeting. During this session (not necessarily on the 15th), France is expected to present a resolution to the UN Security Council to divide the Promised Land (Two-State Solution) and to force a peace treaty on Israel and the PA. If the UN does this, their decision will lead to the beginning of the Tribulation period and the battle of Armageddon.

Sept. 20: The Jewish Sanhedrin plans to put Pope Francis on trial on Mt. Zion for officially recognizing the existence of a Palestinian State on land that God gave to Israel. Will the outcome be recognized by God?

Sept. 22-23: Yom Kippur (also called the Day of Atonement or the Feast of Atonement) begins at sundown on Sept. 22. This will mark the beginning of the next year of Jubilee (the 50th year) which involves focus on God, the cancellation of debts, restoration of land to the original owners, etc. Will God focus on economic issues, Israel’s restoration to the land, etc.?

Sept. 23: Pope Francis is scheduled to visit the White House for discussions with Pres. Obama about their shared values on caring for the poor (wealth redistribution), religious freedom, immigration (elimination of borders), environmental issues (global warming), etc.\ Sept. 24: Pope Francis is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress about world peace, religious values (probably a need for a world religion), caring for the poor, etc.

Sept. 25: Pope Francis is scheduled to address the UN. He wants to reduce the world’s population, regulate global climate change, establish a global constitution, establish a global court and establish a one-world government.

Sept. 25-27: The UN plans to hold a Sustainable Development Summit to expand the role of global governance (world government). They plan to discuss global economic issues, climate change, global education and gender equality. It is really a plan to control the life of everyone on earth.

Sept. 28: The Feast of Tabernacles and the fourth blood moon in the current Tetrad will take place on this date. Several major prophetic events have happened just before or just after other blood moon Tetrads. The Jewish Talmud (not the Bible) says blood moons are a sign of war in Israel. Several major end-of-the-age wars are mentioned in the Bible and some are prophecy teachers believe some or all of these could soon occur.

This convergence of events in Sept. 2015 is why many people think something big is about to happen. We shall soon know.

Prophecy Plus Ministries
Daymond & Rachel Duck
daymond.duck@yahoo.com

Congressional Treason: Pope Francis to darken the doors of Congress next year, following this year's darkening by an imam

Insult to Injury: Not only did our traitor Congress have an imam as "guest chaplain" yesterday [I've been getting this wrong -- this all occurred on November 13th, apparently I just got the news late], which ought to be impeachable as treason, but the Pope they invited some time back has now confirmed that he plans to visit the country next year, and Congress is on his itinerary. According to the Constitution Congress decides the punishment for treason, apparently not anticipating that Congress itself would be guilty of it.   I'm quite serious.  This should be a treasonable offense, both these violations of our governing body, because it puts the nation under God's wrath.

Two antichrists in our Congress, THE Antichrist to come next year, and this year the other leg of the Roman Empire ac illustrated by Nebuchadnezzar's statue in the Book of Daniel. All those who are waiting for some unknown personage to appear in the role of Antichrist have been blinded by the Jesuit invention of Futurism, which was created for the purpose of leading us off the trail of the Pope as the Antichrist, and the Jesuits know their business. He's here, he's been here for centuries. The Reformers knew it, what's the matter with today's Church?

Here are a couple of stories about his planned visit, from Yahoo and NBC.

He is to speak at the RCC's World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia on the last day of the conference, September 27th, and perform the blasphemous rite of the Mass on that day in front of Philadelphia's Museum of Art.  Over a million, even up to two million, are expected to gather in the streets for this event.  The Families conference extends from the 22nd to the 27th and the Pope's visit is to be three days from the 25th to the 27th.  The planned visit to Congress was not announced by the Pope himself but mentioned in the Yahoo story as part of the trip, no date given as yet, along with a visit to the White House and the United Nations.

The dates reminded me that the Jewish High Holy Days usually fall in that time period every year so I looked them up.  I also thought of the Blood Moons that have been getting a lot of attention recently, a "tetrad" of complete lunar eclipses expected to occur on Passover and Sukkot in both 2014 and 2015, those on Passover and Sukkot in 2014 already having occurred. 

So I was curious enough to look up the dates and found that the World Meeting of Families begins the day before Yom Kippur and ends the day before Sukkot or the Feast of Tabernacles. The last moon of the tetrad is to occur on Sukkot, September 28th. Here's a page on the blood moons in Jewish history.

The Fall Feasts in 2015:
* Rosh Hashanah (The Feast of Trumpets), Sept. 14
* Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement), Sept. 23
* Sukkoth (The Feast of Tabernacles), Sept. 28

I just thought this timing very interesting.  Those who have been making much of the blood moon tetrad are of course very involved in trying to understand the prophetic "signs of the times" and since there are to be signs in the heavens associated with the return of Christ these are being watched very carefully.  The link I posted above refers to many events considered to have prophetic significance in history and even already in association with the blood moons that have already occurred.  I haven't become involved in the tetrad discussions because there are credible people on both sides of it, some saying for instance that it is quite common for blood moons to occur on the Jewish Holidays so that these don't have any particular significance.  As with many things that come out of the prophecy ministries these days I just don't feel the information is clear enough to take a stand on it one way or the other, so my position is Watch and see. 

But this coincidence of the Pope's visit with the last moon in the tetrad is very interesting.  This Pope tends to have strange events dogging his steps already, and I'm sure I haven't kept up with the most of it.  I just found out that the rare event of an earthquake occurred in Israel on the morning of his visit there in May of last year.  I've noted in my blogs the odd facts of the timing of the announcement of his appointment as Pope, 3/13/13 and the clock time at that very moment that adds up to 666, then that strange event of the seagull and crow that attacked the peace doves he released from the Vatican. 

But the main symbols that identify the papacy as the Antichrist include his having the title of the Caesars, Pontifex Maximus, certainly nothing Christian about that title;  his wearing of the garb of Roman pagan religions as well as the mitre of the ancient Babylonian religion of Nimrod, and I particularly like the way the Roman numerals in the title VICARIVS FILII DEI ("in the place of the Son of God" which is in itself as good as an announcement that he is the Antichrist), add up to 666.  Beyond that there are the decrees down the ages that give the Pope power over the entire world, over kings, and over you and me.   Oh there's so much more that I've wanted to try to collect in one post but haven't yet.

Stop looking for some other Antichrist, Church.  He's here.  Oh there may be a political leader  associated with him as well who rises at the appointed time to a position of power, along the lines of another Hitler, who was backed by the Pope of his time, but I'd guess it's going to be more directly a papal usurpation of power than that this time. 

Watch and see.

Futurist Premillennial Dispensational End Times thinking actually creates a smoke screen for the Antichrist, who has already been revealed

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the end times scenarios though I do believe we must be in the last of the last days.  For whatever reason none of the eschatological systems is completely convincing to me although parts of some of them seem to make sense. 

Over the last few years I've become most persuaded by the historicist views of the Protestant Reformers, and certainly most persuaded by their view of the Antichrist as the papacy which they argue so well, and that gives me some foundation for rejecting other systems. 

Today I read this from a Bible prophecy teacher, Dr. David Reagan and object to it because it contradicts the view of the Reformers:

I devote an entire chapter to surveying different attempts to identify the Antichrist — all of which are fruitless since the Bible clearly teaches that we cannot know the identity of the Antichrist before the day of the Lord, which begins with the onset of the Tribulation (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

This is the passage he says tells us we cannot know the Antichrist yet:

2 Thess. 2:2-4 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Later addition:  Dr. Reagan is wrong to say that we cannot know the identity of the Antichrist before the day of the Lord.  What the passage actually says is the opposite, that the day of the Lord won't come until after we know his identity.  The order of things is 1) the falling away, also called the Great Apostasy, 2) the revelation of the man of sin, also called the Antichrist, which could occur simultaneously with 1), and 3) it is after these things that the day of Christ will come, but it doesn't say how long afterward, just that it can't happen until after the apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin. /end addition.


Aside from that, Dr. Reagan's expectation of a future Antichrist is true only from within the Futurist eschatological system.  However, all those he is answering are also within the Futurist system, as well as all those he agrees with.  Most of Protestant Christianity is busy expecting a future Antichrist.

But from the Reformers' point of view the Antichrist was revealed back in 606 when the papacy was made official after the fall of the Roman Empire, which couldn't have occurred until then. That is, the Antichrist couldn't have been revealed before that. The Pope put himself in the seat of God himself, taking the title of the Holy Spirit, "vicar of Christ," and he "sits in the temple of God" which is simply in the midst of the people of God who are the temple of God according to the New Testament. This becomes clearer the more you know about the powers the papacy has taken to itself over the centuries, usurping all the titles of God:  Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The falling away was the apostasy of the Roman Church which increased over the centuries during which the institution was presided over by one Antichrist after another.

It was this apostasy and the usurpation of the role of God Himself by the papacy that eventually led the Reformers to recognize the Pope as Antichrist, repudiate the whole system and found the Reformation on the Bible alone.

If this understanding is correct, and as I say I've been persuaded of it, the Futurist system of eschatology actually serves to create a cover for the papal Antichrist and divert attention to irrelevancies.  The Antichrist is here already.  The Reformers knew it and the sad thing is that the entire Protestant world has been led away from recognizing him. And in fact many have accepted the RCC as a Christian church, and given the Antichrist himself the cloak he needs for his stealthy work.  

And guess what:  It was a couple of Jesuits who invented the futurist system:

This is from Wikipedia:

To counter the Protestant historicist interpretation of Daniel and Revelation,[3] Roman Catholic Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) wrote a 500 page commentary on the Book of Revelation. This commentary established the futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy.[4] ... The futurist view was first proposed by two Catholic Jesuit writers, Manuel Lacunza and Francisco Ribera. ... today it is probably most readily recognized. Books about the "rapture" by authors like Hal Lindsey, and the more recent Left Behind novels (by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye) and movies, have done much to popularize this school of thought.

The Jesuits have been working indefatigably ever since Ignatius founded their order, to bring down Protestantism and reestablish the Pope as ruler over the nations. They've plotted against Protestant monarchs and they've infiltrated the government of the United States and we've all been blind to it. They present themselves as helpful little lambs but there they are in all the places of power, in their own Jesuit universities where they can influence the next generation, at the right hand of political leaders where they can influence the running of the whole country.

How clever of them to invent an eschatology that has captured the attention of most of Protestant Christendom, getting us to focus on a future personage rather than the one who has already been revealed, undermining the Reformers' hard-won recognition of the Pope as the Antichrist.

Jesus can indeed come at any moment.

Exposing the Papacy as the Antichrist

I've had in mind for quite a while getting together a post on the Antichrist system of the papacy with documentation so that it might convince some to try to do something about it. Even people who believe the papacy is the Antichrist don't think of doing anything to combat it, it's just a passive recognition, along with the sense that there will yet be a final Antichrist, which is the main thing people think of. That there is any danger to anybody at any stage is a completely foreign thought.

But as Chris Pinto has been making clear, there is quite a history of Protestants warning against this Antichrist system, trying to make Christians aware of it, exposing it, calling it out, as we're counseled in scripture to do with the "works of darkness." Charles Spurgeon didn't believe the papacy was the Antichrist at first but finally did and wrote many articles exposing them in his publication The Sword and the Trowel.

Up until the first part of the twentieth century there were many such warnings, and a main target of the warnings was the Jesuits, who are the attack dogs of the papacy and truly dangerous, being known in former times as ruthless assassins who aimed to take down heads of state, particularly Protestant heads of state, but also any others who crossed them, including Popes. Early American President John Adams said there wasn't any group more deserving of Hell.

But who knows any of this any more? Newsweek magazine even came out recently with an edition that speaks approvingly of the Jesuits having a sort of comeback. Since this current Pope is a Jesuit and is quite popular, his order gets to bask in his glow.

I hope I'll be able to get my documented post together soon, I've been reading J A Wylie's History of Protestantism for starters, but at least I wanted to say this much now. We all need to know these things. Catholics also need to know about it since they really don't have a clue about any of it either.

Meanwhile Chris Pinto has lots of information at his sites, Noise of Thunder Radio and Adullam Films.

Waking Up Among Wolves: The Antichrist Pt 2: Islam

UPDATE 8/31 Since I think I got this post rather garbled but don't know how to correct it without starting over, I'm going to add a short explanation, hoping that will say more clearly what I wanted the post to say.

I've been focused on the papacy as the Antichrist, with the Protestant Reformers as the main source for that viewpoint, Luther in particular. I don't usually bring in the prophecy of the Revived Roman Empire, which is based on the statue of Daniel 2, but the two are clearly connected. The Roman Church inherited the visible trappings of the Roman empire's pagan religion, the robes and headgear for instance, and the title Pontifex Maximus for the head of that religion, mixing it all together with some of the teachings of Christianity and calling it Christian.

The point of this post was to consider that there are two legs to the section of Nebuchadnezzar's statue that pertains to the Roman Empire, and since the two arms had significance in the empire of the Medes and Persians that followed Babylon, it makes sense that there would also be significance in the two legs of the Roman Empire. The Eastern Orthodox Church or the empire of Byzantium would be the likely other leg for starters, but Islam in the form of the Turkish invasions conquered Constantinople, the head of that empire, in 1453.

That makes Islam the other leg of the Roman Empire of the statue of Daniel 2, another politicized religion like Roman Catholicism, now already calling itself the Islamic State. A few decades ago Islam might not have been easily seen in this role but today it's a very reasonable interpretation as that religion has been growing and spreading just as it did in Luther's time under the Turks, killing Christians in Africa and the Middle East, beheading western journalists with their horrific bloody satanic zeal. Just as the Reformers in that day understood its spread to be God's judgment against the apostasy of the Christian church, those of us who see God's judgment on the West today can see it as God's instrument as well.

The West, meaning principally Europe and the U.S., are doing very little to resist the spread of Islam, and are of course absolutely blind to the wolfish character of the false Church of Romanism. Muslim-fomented uprisings in France are not being checked, and nobody is watching our borders where not only hordes of Catholics are being allowed to enter, who can be expected before long to acquire voting status, but Muslims very likely as well with their zeal to blow us all up if we won't bow to the Islamic State.

Of course all this is prophecy and it has to come about eventually that these two powers will dominate the world, but I'd like to think we could still muster a Christian opposition, which would have to start with a Christian Reformation or Revfival, that would push it all back for another century or two.

[This isn't too far-fetched when you consider that the Reformation rose up during the Turkish invasion and effectively quelled both that and the Roman Church as well for the next few centuries. As Isaiah 59:19 says, when the enemy comes in like a flood, the Lord will raise up a standard against him.]

I hope this makes the communication below a little clearer.

===========================
ORIGINAL POST:

In Daniel 2, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon has a dream about a great statue, which only the prophet Daniel by God's grace is able to interpret for him.  It is a statue of a man with a head of gold, his chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of iron mixed with clay.  In the dream a stone is cut out "without hands" and smashes the feet, and the statue breaks up and is destroyed. 

Daniel gives the interpretation that the statue represents a series of kingdoms yet to come, beginning with the head of gold representing Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, followed by lesser kingdoms and ending with the kingdom represented by the iron legs which will break in pieces and subdue all things.  The feet of iron and clay will be partly strong and partly weak.  The stone that smashes the feet and breaks the whole statue is the final kingdom set up by the God of heaven and it shall stand forever.

The labeled image above is a typical representation of this statue as presented in many churches and Bible studies, except that the chest and arms of silver are usually represented as Medo-Persia, showing the rule of the two kingdoms of the Medes and the Persians in the two arms.  Next, Greece conquers through Alexander the Great, ushering in the Hellenistic period during which the conquered nations all learned to speak common Greek, which is the language of the New Testament;  and the legs of iron are of course the Roman Empire, during which time Jesus Christ came into the world.   The feet and toes as Western Europe divided into ten nations within a revived Roman Empire is considered to be prophetic of the world situation during the last of the last days.

This basic view of the prophetic meaning of the statue is the Futurist view, from the very popular Dispensationalist camp.  A revived Roman Empire is regarded as the culmination of the series of earthly kingdoms, prophesied to dominate the world in the last days yet to come. 

I held this view as I think the vast majority of Christians still do, until I recently encountered the historical interpretation of the last days, in which this revived Roman Empire has been recurrent throughout history, through the political aspect of the Roman Church.  First in the form of the Holy Roman Empire, followed by attempts to revive it in the Second Reich and then the failed Third Reich, all at least covertly headed by the papacy of the Roman Church.  Many consider the European Union to be the next attempt to revive it in power, and that may well turn out to be the case, although the Futurist system doesn't put the papacy at the head of this revived empire or see the papacy as the Antichrist. Even where these attempted revivals of the Roman Empire are recognized as pertaining to the last days, they are generally not connected with the Roman Church.

But neither does today's Reformed eschatology connect it with the Roman Church.  Before I had the benefit of Reformed teaching, most of what I learned came from the Dispensationalist camp which views the Antichrist exclusively as a figure yet to come, who is to be revealed in the last seven years before the Second Coming of Christ.   This is apparently due to the Dispensationalist or Futurist understanding of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel outlined in Daniel 9:24 - 27, meaning "weeks of years" or 70 x 7 or 490 years, 69 "weeks" of which are understood to have been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ, counting the time right down to His riding into Jerusalem on the donkey.  That leaves one week or seven years to be fulfilled in the future, during which the final Antichrist is to reign for at least part of that period.  This has led to all kinds of speculation about the possible identity of this figure among those who believe we are in the last of the last days, and various contemporary political personalities have taken their turn in the role.  Hal Lindsey's blockbuster book of 1970, The Late Great Planet Earth, popularized this view of the last days, and the more recent book series, Left Behind, which envisions what would happen if the Church were raptured out of the world, has kept it in the public eye. This line of thinking has had the effect of keeping our focus exclusively on a future Antichrist who is rarely if ever considered in relation to the Roman Church.

What the Reformers had to say about the papacy as Antichrist has been utterly lost in this theological system, and it may be due at least partly to its influence that the Roman Church is now widely accepted among nominal Protestants as just another Christian denomination, its very opposition to the gospel itself now lost or at least blurred in the minds of a majority of Christians.

However, today's Reformed theoloogians don't do a much better job with the last days or the Antichrist.  I don't completely reject the Dispensationalist system -- the counting of the weeks of years is convincing to me for instance, so I can accept the view that there is yet a seven-year period in the future that will complete the work of redemption as envisioned by Daniel.  I can consider this a possibility AND that the papacy is the Antichrist, a final expression yet to come. The Reformed position on the seventy weeks, on the other hand, makes the numbers as good as irrelevant, mere symbols and far from convincing ones.  And along with the Futurists I too anticipate the revealing of the final Antichrist, although I look first to the papacy for this, keeping open the possibility that the Antichrist himself could be a Hitler type figure supported by the papacy, while the Dispensationalists pretty much disregard the papacy as a candidate for the Antichrist.   If today's Reformed also followed the Reformers in their historical eschatology, which views the papacy as the Antichrist throughout history, I'd place myself more fully inside their camp.  It's really the historical eschatology that has captivated me most recently, the eschatology of the Reformers themselves.  (I think today's Reformed also fail to appreciate the role of Israel in the last days, though the Reformers themselves didn't make this mistake, as I noted on another of my blogs a while back.)

All that is to explain how Christians have been lulled to sleep by false theories about the Antichrist and the nature of our pagan opponents as represented in Nebuchadnezzar's statue. This is how it comes about that when you begin to contemplate the role of the papacy through history in its tireless efforts to undermine the true gospel, a viewpoint we could have learned from the Reformers themselves if they'd been taken seriously as they should have been, that's when you may experience what I mean by waking up among wolves. The veil of the irrelevant ditherings about the identity of the Antichrist to come in the near future falls away and we see that he has been there all along, waiting for his chance.

But even recognizing the papacy as the Antichrist isn't the whole story.

Why Does The Roman Empire Have Two Legs?

If the Dispensationalist / Futurist interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's statue offers an explanation for there being two legs to the Roman Empire they don't make much of it.  Since they limit that symbol to the original Roman Empire which collapsed in the fifth century the most natural interpretation would be the division into the Eastern and Western branches, Byzantium or Eastern Orthodoxy in the East, and Rome in the West. 

But here is where the Reformers' Historical Eschatology, seeing the Roman Antichrist ongoing in history, brings out a connection that both Dispensationalism and Reformed theology miss, though the Reformers themselves wrote about this, principally Luther.

According to Luther on Islam and the Papacy by Dr. F. N. Lee:

After Luther learned to trust in Christ alone for his salvation in 1517f, he increasingly saw both Islam and the Papacy as the two huge apostasies which the Holy Scriptures predicted would long obscure True Christianity -- until both would ultimately be quashed and vanquished.

In the Biblical Book of Daniel, Luther saw both Islam and the Papacy predicted.

In 1453, Constantinople, the capital of Byzantium or the Eastern Empire, was conquered by the Ottoman Turks, conquered, in other words, by Islam.   F.N. Lee continues:

Luther on Islam and the Papacy as the two legs of the image in Daniel chapter two 

Christ, the Stone in Daniel chapter two, at His Resurrection shattered the Pagan Roman Empire -- in principle. Ephesians 1:20f & 4:8-10, and Colossians 2:12-15. Then, from A.D. 600 onward, that shattered Roman Empire divided into two legs -- as predicted in Daniel’s explanation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. The left leg became the Western Roman Empire, under the Papacy in Rome. The right leg, the Eastern Roman Empire, with its capital Constantinople, later succumbed to Islam -- under the Turk Mohammed II.and his awesome armies in 1453.

Islam!  Well, haven't we been wondering and speculating where Islam fits into the end times?  The Reformers, who lived in the days of the Turkish conquests, had it figured out long ago, but instead of benefiting from their insight, in my opinion we've been traipsing down rabbit trails.

As Lee presents Luther's thinking on this subject, the Pope is THE Antichrist because he has set himself up inside the Church and taken the place of Christ Himself, but the "Turk" or Muslim is also a spirit of Antichrist in his outright denial of the Deity of Christ.   It is also interesting that both arose in the seventh century, the papacy being officially established first in 606, and Islam originally given to Mohammed in the year 610.

Luther gives God's judgment on the Church as the explanation for the rise of the two apostasies.

Today these two legs of the antichrist empire are huge, a billion Catholics and well over a billion Muslims. 

Interestingly, Luther judges the papacy as the worse of the two, since the "Turk" is up front about his opposition to Christ, while the Pope pretends to be His friend.  F. N. Lee again:

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther continues: “The Pope, with his followers, commits a greater sin than the Turk and all the Heathen.... The Turk.forces no one to deny Christ and to adhere to his [own Islamic] faith....   Though he rages most intensely by murdering Christians in the body -- he, after all, does nothing by this but fill heaven with saints....

“The Pope does not want to be either enemy or Turk... He [the Pope] fills hell with nothing but‘Christians’.... This is committing real spiritual murder, and is every bit as bad as the teaching and blasphemy of Mohammed and the Turks. But whenever men do not allow him [the Pope] to practice this infernal diabolical seduction -- he adopts the way of the Turk, and commits bodily murder too....

For reference: Chris Pinto's recent radio show on the same subject, Luther, Calvin and Islam . He quotes Luther from E.M.Plass, What Luther Says.
And here's my other Waking Up Among Wolves blog post.

Is Nero Caesar the Antichrist?

Heard a preacher on the radio saying that the early Christians who were persecuted under Nero regarded him as the Antichrist and that his name Nero Caesar can be calculated in Hebrew or Greek, it wasn't clear which he meant, to add up to 666.  When I've looked it up I've found it very hard to find a clearcut proof of this, it usually involves adding a letter or a title and I'm still not clear whether it's in Hebrew or Greek that it's supposed to be calculated.    Here, see the Wikipedia article that discusses this. The original is Hebrew but it's worked back from the Greek, and there's even a form in Latin. I don't find any of this very convincing, especially considering how convincing the Latin title of the Pope is that so clearly adds up to 666 without any fuss or bother.

This is a favorite view of Preterist eschatology, which interprets much of New Testament prophecy as over and done with in the past, which is of course the case with this view of the Antichrist.  No need to think about it any further, no big final Antichrist in our future, all over and done with.  I wonder who might have a vested interest in promoting this viewpoint, hm?

If I find a convincing calculation for Nero, OK, but even if I did I could only think of him as the first of the line of official Antichrists, the papacy having picked up the role down the centuries to the present. This could be justified since the papacy in so many respects is clearly a continuation of Roman paganism, from the weird garb to the title "pontiff" from "Pontifex Maximus" to the godification as it were of the Pope with his supposed infallibility and kissing his ring or foot or whatever.  And for the papacy there IS a definite 666 that can be calculated from the Pope's title Vicarivs Filii Dei ("In the place of the Son of God"), in LATIN of course, because the Antichrist is to be the leader of the revived ROMAN EMPIRE according to other Biblical prophecies (Think Holy Roman Empire with its failed version the Third Reich, and now the European Union).

Now of course you will find all this challenged by those with a vested interest in avoiding the connection with the papacy.  And a lot of deceived Protestants have bought into it too.  You will for instance find the title itself challenged as never having been an official title of the Pope.  But then Chris Pinto did prove that it is, only I'm lousy at keeping notes so I'll have to go find that information again. 

And of course there is the papacy's masterpiece of deception, the "oldest" Bible manuscripts which have 616 instead of 666.  And everybody eats that up too, although Codex Vaticanus is surely a forgery and Codex Sinaiticus is highly questionable if not proven to be a forgery. At least it is certainly a corruption created in the early centuries as John Burgon believed. But since these two manuscripts only showed up in the 19th century we can at least say "Hm, I wonder what vested interests might benefit from that little discovery?"  But Chris Pinto is a much better researcher than I am, he has all the info on this so go check out his site, Noise of Thunder Radio.

Denounce the Antichrist Pope and Then I'll Take Your National Day of Prayer Seriously

I keep being told I should listen to the National Day of Prayer, that it was a serious call to repentance and a warning of God's judgment, including a hard-hitting attack on the evils of this administration, particularly the abortion requirement of Obamacare.

That would all be wonderful if the day hadn't been an ecumenical gathering of "people of all faiths," which I point out in my previous post might as well be the rites of Baal. It may be (as I was told) that only Christians had the podium, but if the ecumenical nature of the gathering itself wasn't denounced I don't see the value in any of it. One of the speakers in particular is known for treating Catholicism as Christian. So essentially they end up denouncing some of our national moral evils in the name of the Antichrist.   You think God's judgment is going to be abated this way?  Might as well be asking for judgment.

As I pointed out in a previous post, The Pope has been invited to address Congress which is scheduled for next year according to the Washington Post. The most negative statement about this in the Post is the mention at the bottom of the article of somebody's tweet that says “Does Boehner realize Pope Francis is to the left of [President] Obama on many issues?".

Good question, but not only do our conservative members of Congress seem not to have noticed, you'd think they could even come up with some others as well. This Pope not only denounced Capitalism but suggested that atheists can expect salvation without repentance, and has been making noises in obscurantist Popespeak, which is also the subject of one of my recent posts, that suggest he's on track to supporting gay marriage as well. Perhaps these issues don't matter to our heavily Catholic congress.

But where are the supposedly "Protestant" members of Congress on this unprecedented invitation of the leader of the Antichrist system to address them? Where is our Ian Paisley who will stand up and denounce him as the Antichrist? Or better yet, protest loudly enough that the invitation will be called off? Not happening. The Reformation is being denied and trampled on by "Protestants" too..

And where is the speaker at the National Day of Prayer who had the historical perspective and the guts to stand up and say that the whole day was a sham of prayer for the nation when the wolf himself is going to address the nation's governing body?.

I'll listen to your National Day of Prayer when I get the news that something along these lines has happened.

Gay Agenda Watershed issue for Christians

A discussion that I brought up at EvC about incidents where Christian business owners refused to take photographs of a gay wedding or make a wedding cake for such an event, because they would not put themselves in the position of validating something the Bible calls sin, the prevailing opinion came out loud and clear:  Biblical Christians are no longer welcome, this is a matter of "civil rights," homosexuals are an oppressed class and Christians are among the oppressors, or perhaps ARE the oppressors. 

Christianity is regarded as a "bronze age" mentality which is being transcended by more modern progressive thinking, and they are all very happy about that.  If they don't want to off us right away, they like the idea that we will simply die out (little do they understand the power of the word of God).  The level of vitriol directed against Christians there these days seems to me to be above and beyond what I've seen there before, but in any case it's scathing and implacable.

Even some "Christians" there share that point of view, the idea being the usual idea that "Christian love" is violated by taking a stand on the Biblical definition of homosexual acts as sin and that marriage is a God-ordained institution given to unite the sexes.  So I followed their logic with the simple observation that Christians who do take such a stand will therefore have to be punished by a society that thinks the way they do, and here's the sort of answer that got:

One way or another if we want to stand for our Biblical beliefs we'll have to take some kind of punishment.

Is it really a "Biblical belief" that you can't sell cakes to gay people for their event?

Is this in the Bible or are you concluding this based off of an already existing dislike of gays?

(And then read this poster's following post too, where he ratchets up his accusation to quite the hysterical accusatory pitch. You feel the hate? Kind of like what the Nazis did to set up the Jews it seems to me, with their lying plays on emotion.)

See how they think? See how Christians are being set up to be persecuted in the last days? Unbelievers who don't know any better can't help but misconstrue what's going on and Christians are going to be the ultimate targets. Perhaps other groups too who refuse to give in on this, but certainly Christians first and foremost.

So let's answer this charge. There's no point in answering it there because they refuse to believe me about most of what I have to say, which is evidenced by this question whether the objection to gay marriage is REALLY based on the Bible: aren't I just lying REALLY because isn't it just my own dislike of gays? That's how they think. I can't take that sort of treatment any more, really can't. But I'll give it an answer here:

I'm as fallen as anybody else in my unregenerate state, I'd probably be just as likely to defend "gay rights" as they are if I hadn't been born again and didn't know what the Bible says.

And to answer the first question: Yes, the whole point here is that Christians don't want to do anything that treats sin as acceptable, which would be denying God and His law. Yes, making a wedding cake for a gay wedding, or taking official photographs of such an event, would be felt as such a denial of God. Yes. And as I already said there, there is no objection to their buying a cake out of the display case and using it however they want, but hiring the baker to make a cake specifically for such an event would be to engage the baker's conscience against his Biblical beliefs.

That thread at EvC brought up all kinds of anti-Christian opinions. But here's one in particular I'd like to answer, where the poster is saying we Christians are just going to have to adjust to changing societal norms:

Just like Christians of the past had to adjust to societal acceptance of interracial marriage, ending slavery, women voting ...

My answer to that there was that this is bad history, that none of these things violate Biblical standards, and that any Christians who held such views were in the wrong, AND that it was Christians who led the charge for those rights in those cases.

None of those things violate Christian standards, but the Gay Agenda does. And as I've said before, it is clear this particular issue is being set up to be the watershed issue that leads to the persecution of Christians. I don't know how far it will go but I do believe we are in the last days of the last days and I suspect it's going to be THE issue that cuts us out of society.

And how could I fail to take note of the fact, as I've reported earlier here, that the Pope, the head of the Antichrist system, seems to be gearing up to support this gay agenda that may be the excuse for such persecution of his old enemies, us Bible-literalist Protestants.  The Office of the Inquisition is still very much in force and just waiting for the opportunity to go into action.  Watch and see. Ten years? Twenty? Tomorrow? I think a lot sooner than we can imagine, unless God wakes up His people.

Last point: Those "Christians" -- and I put it in quotes because I'm not entirely sure they ARE Christians, but if they are they need to listen up -- those who side against us "fundamentalists" (meaning "literalist" Bible believers) on such an issue as the sinfulness of homosexuality and the God-ordained institution of marriage, along with the other issues so challenged at EvC such as the clear reading of the first chapters of Genesis as incompatible with evolution (no death before the Fall) or an ancient Earth (count the years of the genealogies from Adam to the Flood) need to realize that Christians are called to die for our beliefs when punch comes to crunch. Wake up.  Better to lose your head than your immortal soul. 

Popespeak: jesuitical papal gobbledygook: Gay rights on the agenda?

So it looks like "gay rights" -- the normalizing of homosexuality and the legalizing of gay marriage -- is shaping up to be a pivotal issue drawing around it many of the major end times players.

This issue is even involved in the Ukrainian conflict, as one of Putin's objections to the Ukrainian push to become part of the EU is the EU's promotion of the gay agenda. This of course doesn't make Putin right, but it underscores the prominent influence of this political agenda.

World Vision had a new policy on gays  (That page shows what a hot topic it is too) , until some Christian leaders put pressure on them and they backed down.  Won't be any surprise if after some time elapses we find them reinstating the policy. 

And now we have this masterpiece of doubletalking Popespeak in a Newsmax Story [Later: Wondering why the Pope got such prominent treatment at Newmax, I looked up the publisher, and no surprise: he's a Catholic.]:
 Pope: Church Should Tolerate Some Civil Unions

The Catholic Church could tolerate some types of civil unions as a way of protecting healthcare and property rights, Pope Francis said.

"Matrimony is between a man and a woman," the pontiff told the Italian daily newspaper Corriere della Sera in an interview published Wednesday and translated by the Catholic News Service.

But moves to "regulate diverse situations of cohabitation [are] driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care … It is necessary to look at the diverse cases and evaluate them in their variety."

Nearly incomprehensible Jesuitical gobbledygook here, suggesting that perhaps some important RC doctrinal change is in the works which is being tested before launching?

Am I getting it that the Pope thinks the RC Church should tolerate homosexual sin under some circumstances?  That's what "tolerating some types of civil unions" implies, isn't it?   The focus here is all on the "civil union" in comparison with "matrimony" but what happened to the Biblical condemnation of homosexual acts as sin?  Even the traditional RCC condemnation of homosexual acts as sin for that matter.  That's not discussed at all.  Just "diverse situations of cohabitation" whatever on earth that is supposed to refer to.  And "the need to regulate economic aspects among persons..."   All this pompous awkward language is obviously designed to HIDE the fact that the only context in which we ever discuss "civil unions" is the political push for gay marriage as a right.  What "diverse cases" are there to consider?  They're ALL about homosexual relationships.

...Francis also defended the church's response to the clerical sex abuse scandals.

He said the crimes had left "very profound wounds," but noted that beginning with Pope Benedict, the church has done "perhaps more than anyone" to tackle the problem.

"Statistics on the phenomenon of violence against children are shocking, but they also clearly show the great majority of abuses occur in family and neighborhood settings," Francis said.

"The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility. No one else has done more. And yet the church is the only one attacked."

How many read such stuff and can't see through it?  It's scary to think anyone could.  Does "violence against children" convey the actuality of sexual molestation of children by RC priests?  And he lies when he implies that Pope Benedict did anything but cover up the offenses, which many suspect is the reason he retired from the papal office.  And if all that isn't enough lying, then he claims that statistics "show the great majority of abuses occur in family and neighborhood settings."  Oh really?  Well, maybe, if you mean the parish priest is the guilty party, the parish priest who visits the families.  "The only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility?"  Well, since no other public institution is guilty of molesting children that I know of, no other public institution has any reason to act transparently as the guilty institution ought, and the RCC has been shown over and over again to have covered up the crimes of their priests.

KEEP IN MIND:  It is the RC Church that has COMMITTED the crimes against children, sexual molestations of both boys and girls.  And over and over it has been reported that priests guilty of these crimes have simply been moved to new parishes where their crimes are not known. 

The RCC is guilty of covering up their OWN crimes.  Transparency and responsibility?  "No one has done more?"  But who SHOULD do more?

Francis also brushed off those who believe he is a superhuman being. "To portray the Pope as a kind of superman, a type of star, strikes me as offensive. The Pope is a man who laughs, weeps, sleeps soundly, and has friends like everybody else. A normal person," he said.

Um, Francis, you really need to read up on the official RCC doctrine of the papacy. You are "God on earth" and rightful ruler of the whole world. Oh I know you know that, you just don't want to let anybody else know it yet.

Are There Any American Ian Paisleys in Congress Willing to Shout Down the Pope?

UPDATE: A friend emailed me the question, "What about the separation of church and state?" Good question. Since that principle got the revisionist treatment in the last few decades, we can no longer have prayer in the schools, we can no longer have Christian Christmas displays in public places, we can no longer have the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse, but let me guess: Nobody is going to protest the presence of the abomination of the Pope in the Congress.

==============================================Earlier post:

The answer to my title is "Not that I know of."

Here's the context: Catholic members of the US Congress, Republican John Boehner and Democrat Nancy Pelosi, have invited Pope Francis to speak to a Joint Session of the Congress. I heard about this as I often do from Chris Pinto, who spent a few minutes on it toward the end of yesterday's radio show on The Crimean Vote for Russia. He mentions the invitation to the Pope starting at 29:00. Since this new Pope is a radical even by comparison with earlier Popes, Pinto wonders why the supposedly conservative Boehner should be so willing to have him speak. Being Catholic apparently trumps other allegiances.

This would be a first, a hideously shameful first. No Pope has ever been invited to speak to Congress before.

Here are a couple of articles on the invitation to the Pope:

Huffington Post

ABC News Blog

What immediately came to my mind was the incident in 1988 when Irish Protestant Pastor Ian Paisley, a member of the European Parliament, angry at the invitation of the Pope to speak to the Parliament without the consent of members such as himself, shouted out that the Pope is the Antichrist just as the pontiff began to speak.

Here's an article on the event from the New York Times .

Paisley was one of a kind then and I suspect he has no representatives in America today.  I'd like to be proved wrong about this.

What good would it do?  You may ask.  Just as Dr. Paisley was summarily escorted out of the European Parliament, anyone today attempting such a statement would meet with a similar response.  We've got a Congress full of Catholics, and the few Protestants haven't the perspective to know that the Pope is the Antichrist.  Forget the unbelievers of the nation.  Too many have been brainwashed to think the Pope represents Christianity and that to object to him is to be "unloving," just as to object to gay marriage is now considered to be "unloving." And besides, they LIKE his radical antiChristian anticapitalist stance. 

So, again, what good would it do?  Maybe nothing pf any note in this fallen world, but God will reward those who stand up for the truth against the Antichrist, and it might even wake up some blinded "Protestants" and bring some backbone into the churches. 

Might. 

Waking Up Among Wolves: The Antichrist Pt. 1: The Papacy

When I started this blog I had a few topics in mind I wanted to pursue, such as the woman's head covering of First Corinthians 11.  That and the Bible versions controversy quickly became big enough to get their own separate blogs.  As I was researching various subjects, such as by listening to sermons at Sermon Audio, the topic "Antichrist" kept popping out at me and eventually I decided that was going to be a topic here as well, but at first I didn't have a lot to say about it. 

I mostly had the Futurist idea in mind, that the Antichrist is to be a personality who emerges at the very end before the Lord returns, and I was aware of various candidates from false religions for that title, such as the Imam Mahdi expected by the Muslims, Maitreya expected by the Buddhists and pursued in a more universal form by Benjamin Creme, and the false Messiah expected by the Jews since they rejected the true Messiah, and so on. 

Unlike most Futurists, however, I did appreciate the Protestant Reformers' view of Antichrist as the papal system throughout all history and thought a particularly telling piece of evidence was the Latin title for the Pope that adds up to 666 through its Roman numerals: VICARIVS FILII DEI.  Nevertheless I had the Futurist attitude that the main thing was still the emergence of the major final Antichrist at the very end, which seems awfully close to a lot of us, and the papacy wasn't really an active agency in my mind.

Until I ran across some of Chris Pinto's films at You Tube.  Others, such as ex-priest Richard Bennett, also identify the papacy as Antichrist, but Pinto brings out the ongoing activity of the papacy as Antichrist down the centuries and into the present in a way nobody else I'd seen does.  He also made me aware of the active role of the Jesuits from their origin into the present.

This has had the effect of making the Antichrist himself come alive in a real and immediate way that I wasn't expecting at all.  It's quite startling. 

It's what I mean by the title "Waking Up Among Wolves."  It's like I've been asleep to all this except in the most intellectual abstract way and suddenly it has become quite real, almost "up close and personal."  And of course this latest Pope is almost frenetically pursuing a role that easily defines him as "That man of sin."  He may or may not be the last Pope as an old Catholic prophecy predicted, and even if he is he may not be THE Antichrist, who may be a political figure like Hitler, backed by the Pope, but the development of the qualities of the Antichrist is pretty startling.

Still a "watch and see" situation, only in my mind looming large as it never did before. Kind of like waking up surrounded by wolves.

===================================== Part Two:  Islam    

Sainting a Pope, conjuring a miracle, misleading a faithful Catholic woman.

So Pope John Paul II is going to be made a "saint" according to the pagan formula of the Roman Catholic system.  It takes a recognized "miracle" to qualify a person for "sainthood" in that system.  Turns out there's a woman in Costa Rica who believes the Pope healed her of a brain aneurism she had been told would take her life probably within a month. 

She says she prayed to the late pope to heal her

Roman Catholics pray to dead people.  The Pope isn't even officially a "saint" yet but she prayed to him.  She has a shrine in her house to that Pope, something pagan religions set up to honor their gods.

The doctor who diagnosed her says he didn't give her a short while to live but rather a very small chance of bleeding in her brain, and put her on a diet to reduce this very slight risk, but he does say it's amazing that there are now no signs of the aneurism present, and it looks like this will be counted as a miracle toward the sainting of the former Pope. 

I don't have any reason to doubt her story about the healing episode itself.  I would of course doubt the source of the voices she heard and of the healing as well, assuming it can be considered a healing. 

But what most interests me is the patent paganism in the Roman Church, and how this Roman Catholic woman is so sadly misled. 

What does Roman Catholicism have to do with Christianity at all?

The New Pope, Jesuits and Socialism

UPDATE:  Some good stuff on the Roman church and the papacy by John MacArthur:

• A Timely Critique of the Catholic Church on February 21, after Benedict resigned. 
• Here's a 2005 77-minute talk at You Tube: The Pope and the Papacy:  How the Reformers viewed it as Antichrist etc.

Catholicism is no more Christian than Islam. THAT statement will offend 1,000,000,000 people... and it is TRUE ...

UPDATE on the Jesuits:  Chris Pinto is doing a special radio program today, March 22, an overview of the Jesuit Order: Part 1, The Jesuits and the Counter-Reformation.  He covers a lot of the history of Catholicism up to the Jesuits as well.    And here's the show for March 23:  Part 2, The Engineer Corps of Hell.  In this part the abominable Jesuit Oath is partially quoted. 

UPDATE, the Malachy Prophecy:
Learned a few days ago that it's possible this new Pope may yet be regarded as the Petrus Romanus of the Malachy Prophecy, the last Pope of the prophecy, based on the fact that Peter, or Pietro, was one of the given names of Francis of Assissi, whose name this Pope has taken.

UPDATE March 22:
This is to add a radio interview of Dr. Ronald Cooke on the Jesuits in our world today by Chris Pinto done back on March 12 and 13.  They are still active, their objective is to destroy Protestantism and reinstate the Roman  papacy as the ruler of the world.  And here is Part Two of this interview.

UPDATE March 18
Unfortunate big news is that "evangelical" Rick Warren called for prayer for the cardinals in electing a new Pope, which ought to be a red flag to Christians that Rick Warren is part of the apostasy and not part of the Church.  And, how sad, apparently John Piper who has generally been regarded as a trustworthy Reformed preacher, continues to align himself with Rick Warren.  Sad things are coming to light in this time of the Great Apostasy as supposed "Protestants" betray the Reformation and the millions who died for the gospel under the Roman Inquisition.
{--Info from Ken Silva's Apprising Ministries.}

UPDATE  March 16

Pope Francis also said some had suggested jokingly that he, a Jesuit, should have taken the name Clement XV “to get even with Clement XIV who suppressed the Society of Jesus” in the 1700s.

Some joke.  The Jesuits already got even with Clement XIV.  They poisoned him.  And he knew it.  See quote below.

But of course this is now to be denied.  Searching on this you'll turn up websites denying it and classing it with false conspiracy theories.  We'll probably get a lot of this sort of thing now that there is a Jesuit Pope, the aggressive whitewashing of the Jesuits, who USED to be well known for their behind the scenes manipulations enforced by murder, and they were feared by kings and Popes.  Books galore were written about them, but over the last century all that history has been suppressed.   It's time it got revived and made known again.

Here are some quotes on the Jesuits from John Adams, Lincoln, Napoleon and others.

"My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola."

 John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States)

"The Jesuits…are a secret society – a sort of Masonic order – with superadded features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous."

Samuel Morse (1791-1872; American inventor of the telegraph; author of the book Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States)

"The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses."

  Napoleon I (i.e., Napoleon Bonaparte; 1769-1821; emperor of the French)

"It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the wars of Europe."

 Marquis de LaFayette (1757-1834; French statesman and general. He served in the American Continental Army under the command of General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War.)

“Alas, I knew they [i.e., the Jesuits] would poison me; but I did not expect to die in so slow and cruel a manner.” (1774)

Pope Clement XIV (Who had “forever” abolished the Jesuit Order in 1773)

"The war [i.e., the American Civil War of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits."

  Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; 16th President of the United States)

Chris Pinto also has some information on the Jesuits here

***********************************************

March 13

So no Pope Peter the Roman after all, so is the Malachy prophecy all blown to bits?  Now we have Pope Francis, a first for that name and another first in his being a Jesuit.  A man of austerities who rejects the luxuries of his office and probably will as Pope too.  Probably a Communist.  I mean that seriously.

Been wanting to get up a post about the connections between Communism and Rome, may yet.  Look forward to what Chris Pinto has to say about all this.

Later:  Worldview Weekend is doing a program with Brannon Howse and Chris Pinto about this that I won't get to see because it's only available to subscribers to Worldview Weekend.  Although I like some of the things Howse does I wouldn't subscribe even if I could afford to, which I can't.   Two reasons:  1)  If this becomes a common practice on the web anyone with limited resources is going to have to choose very carefully what information we are willing to pay for;  and 2)  Brannon Howse was very vocal against Jonathan Cahn's Harbinger, showing his LACK of discernment in that particular instance.

But this is from Howse's blurb for the program:

One headline spoke of his commitment to social justice which is one of the eight areas that I have detailed as a major focus of the Jesuits. Here is the headline: Pope Francis profile: Argentine cardinal known as humble conservative who preached social justice

Yes, "social justice" is a code word for socialism (as "progresive" is a code word for Communism) and it happens to have been coined by a Jesuit in the 19th century, some time before Marx came along.  It's also interesting to consider that Marx was trained by Jesuits.

So that will no doubt be Chris Pinto's theme when he gets to his radio show on the subject.