Replies

Missler is an interesting guy. If you see him speaking on some things you can tell he's avoiding getting into what he really thinks because he knows it won't float with most of his audience. That's the way he looked when he spoke on the topic you mention. He spent a LOT of time showing that it related to the fall of Jerusalem, then he said that the doctrine of it relating to the end times could still be valid (notice “could”) the same way the Letters to the Churches in Revelation lays out the history of the Church and speaks to the Churches as well.

I've heard and read some folks saying Missler is losing it in his old age because he's backing off of Rome and the Catholic Church as the Anti-Christ and his empire, but I haven't heard him getting in any arguments with his pal Dave Hunt. Hunt is totally nuts in his anti-Catholic rants to the point that he can't even keep centuries straight when he blames them for things nor can bother to read the facts about some groups he claims were actually the same as the Protestant Church centuries before Luther when those groups were actually Gnostics or some other sort of heretics. Misslers facts are usually right whether his conclusions are or not. Hunt, though, never lets the facts interfere with a good conspiracy theory but he makes a good living at it as do several collectors of expensive automobiles.

Alas, ever since Luther called the Pope the AntiChrist the majority of Protestants haven't bothered to think about what the Word actually says rather than ways to make it apply to Rome and the Catholic Church. People who really want to study the makeup of the end times system need to read, "God's War on Terror" by Shoebat & Richardson, at least to recognize how well the same things they're used being interpreted one way apply as well or better when interpreted another way. They nail a lot of connections that other folks seem to be swapping around all the time depending on the news this week.