Revived Islamic Caliphate - Empire of the Anti-Christ?

"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. Revelation 17:9-11"

Before we procede, I wish here to acknowledge someone who has greatly contributed to my understanding of this issue. His name is Walid Shoebat. He is a former Palestinian terrorist and is the author of Why I left Jihad. I highly recommend this book. It may be ordered through his web site at www.shoebat.com

Beyond the above identification of the nations of Ezekiel 38, the Book of Revelation also confirms the notion that indeed the region of Turkey will be the head of the future Antichrist Empire. Let’s examine these passages from the Book of Revelation:

There I saw… a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. Revelation 17:3

Here we see the final “Beast” empire of the Antichrist. The Beast is seen to have seven heads and ten horns. We already know from the Book of Daniel that the ten horns represent the ten nations or kings that will comprise the Antichrist Empire. But the seven heads are seven empires that have existed throughout history that all have been foreshadows of the final empire that is to come. As usual, whenever a prophecy is given in the Bible that may be difficult in its symbolism, the Bible clarifies the symbolism and explains the passage for us:

This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. Revelation 17:9-11

Now the seven heads are called seven mountains. The Bible often uses mountains as a symbol representing a kingdom or an empire. But most importantly this passage gives us insight into the fact that before Jesus returns, there will actually have been a total of eight “Beast” empires. The eighth empire will be ruled by the Antichrist. How can this passage help us gain insight into the identification of the final Antichrist Empire? First, we see that at the time that it was written to John, five of the empires had already fallen. This is seen in the phrase, “five have been.” These empires are generally accepted by Bible teachers as being the following:

After these five, the angel tells John that one empire “is.” At the time that John wrote the Book of Revelation, Rome “was.” It ruled the Middle East, Northern Africa and much of Europe. Thus the sixth empire was the Roman Empire. The next empire, of course, is the seventh, and then the eighth will be the empire of the Antichrist. So the seventh empire is the empire that we need to identify. Because according to the verse above, it is the eighth empire that will be a resurrection or a revived version of the seventh empire:

“The seventh beast (empire) that existed, but then did not exist, will come back as an eighth empire.”

So if we are now waiting for the final eighth empire, then what was the seventh? What empire followed Rome?

Because of the harsh anti-Semitic nature of the German third Reich, some Bible teachers have speculated that Germany was the seventh empire and thus Germany will come back as the eighth. 11

The most common belief however, held almost universally by Bible teachers, is that the Antichrist Empire will be a revived Roman Empire. There are however some glaring problems with this theory: Firstly, Rome was the sixth empire. If Rome was the sixth, and will also be the last, then what happened to the seventh? This theory has a gaping hole. Is Rome the sixth, seventh and the eighth empires? Neither Scripture nor history nor common sense supports this. Secondly, every one of the previous six empires ruled the Middle East, including Jerusalem. This is very important. We must always remember that the Bible is thoroughly Jerusalem centric. It is not America centric, nor is it Western centric. In the biblical view of things, Jerusalem is the center of the earth. This point cannot be underscored enough. Any theory that revolves around a revived Roman Empire based in Europe - for instance on the European Common Market - is a foreign concept to the Bible. Unless the empire rules over or directly affects Jerusalem, it is actually a bit irrelevant to biblical mind-set.

And the third crucial point is that if we look at the first six empires, each succeeding empire either destroyed or absorbed the empire that preceded it. There is a very natural sucession. If we look at each empire, we see that they all fulfill these two characteristics: they ruled over Jerusalem and they defeated or absorbed their predecessor. The Egyptian Empire ruled all of Egypt and Israel as well. But the Assyrian Empire defeated the Egyptian Empire and likewise ruled over a vast portion of the Middle East, including Israel. After this, the Babylonian Empire defeated the Assyrian Empire and became even larger than its predecessor, again, ruling over Israel. Such is the pattern with each successive empire: The Medo/Persian Empire succeeded the Babylonian Empire only to be succeeded by the Greek Empire. The Greek Empire was in turn suceeded by the Roman Empire. Which leads us to the seventh empire. Who overcame the Roman Empire? In order to answer this question, we need to briefly review the fall of the Roman Empire. What exactly happened?

In 395 A.D., The Roman Empire was divided into two portions; the eastern and the western portions. The Eastern portion became known as the Byzantine Empire. In 410 A.D. the western capital city of Rome fell to invading Germanic tribes known as the Visigoths or Barbarians. The western/European half of the Empire including its capital had fallen but the Roman Empire nevertheless continued. How so? It simply shifted its capital and its throne from Rome to Constantinople – a thousand miles east. The western European portion of the Roman Empire fell but the Eastern Byzantine portion of the Roman Empire lived on for nearly another thousand years with Constantinople as its capital. The Roman Empire didn’t actually completely fall until the eastern portion of the Empire finally fell to the Turks in 1453 A.D. Likewise it was the Islamic Caliphate of Umar Ibn al-Khattab that took Jerusalem in 637. Thus we see that it was the various manifestations of Islamic Empire culminating with the Ottoman Empire that suceeded the Roman Empire and ruled over the entire Middle East, beginning with Jerusalem for over thirteen hundred years. 12 The Turkish Empire existed right up until 1909.

Thus we see that the only empire that fulfills the patterns necessary to be considered the seventh empire is the Turkish/Ottoman Empire. This of course corresponds perfectly with Ezekiel’s list of nations with such a heavy emphasis on Turkey.

>>>”Well they would have called it neoclassical, but it amounts to the same thing. It stems from the popular Gibbonian idea of the perfection of pagan antiquity. The movement was not just architectural, but sociological as well. Thomas Jefferson is one of the best exemplars of this. And, though it’s a little after the time of the founders, works of art like the “Apotheosis” do represent the popular feeling about the Founders (in this case Washington). No one can see that mural and not think “pagan,” you’d have to be willfully ignorant of the times and the spirit of that age.”<<<

That is the biggest bunch of Barbra Streisand I have read in a long time. You have been brainwashed, sonny.

First, I assume when you reference “Gibbonian” that you are referring to the anti-Christian “historian” (so-called) named Gibbons who declared that the fall of Rome was caused by Christianity, even though many other historians believe it was caused by the decadence resulting from Rome’s gradual fall into liberalism. Or, as Eugen Weber, the great historian from UCLA stated in disagreement with Gibbons, (paraphrasing) “400 years is a long time to have a fatal disease” (the time when Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion to the fall of Rome).

Second, Thomas Jefferson was not anti-Christian as the liars from the separation of church and state clowns claim. Thomas Jefferson clearly stated in his letters to others that he was indeed a Christian, and that he believed in future rewards and punishments, which all Christians believe.

While Jefferson was President of the United States, he also served as the chairman of the committee on education for the public schools in Washington, D.C. He demanded that two books MUST be taught in D.C. public schools: the Holy Bible and Watts Hymnal.

Did you know that two days after Jefferson sent that letter to Danbury (the letter the corrupt ACLU uses to bash Christianity) he attended public Christian worship services in the U. S. Capital building? Did you know that Jefferson authorized the use of the War Office and Treasury building for church services? That he provided, at the government’s expense, Christian missionaries to the Indians? That he put chaplains on the government payroll? That he provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. That he sent Congress an Indian treaty that provided funding for a priest’s salary and for the construction of a church for the missionaries to the Indians so the Indians might be won to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and, thereby, civilized?

In 1822, four years before his death, Jefferson wrote, “In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others’ preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony.”

Also in 1822, he wrote, “In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other.”

I don’t know where you got your education, sonny, but if I were you I would demand my money back.

Do you like to read more into what I write than what is there, or are you just angry? I never claimed Jefferson was in any way anti-Christian. I merely wrote that he was a neoclassicist, which he was. This sentiment was not always at odds with accepting Christianity, but to many philosophers of the "Enlightenment" there was a conflict. Certainly their were, and still are, fundamentalists who would take issue with much of the dubiously named "Age of Enlightenment."

My assertion that the "Founders were nerds who wanted to recreate a new pagan antiquity" was tongue in cheek. What I meant to convey was that in "looking for signs and wonders" we could draw all kinds of ridiculous conclusions about Revelations. Specifically I was critiquing the idea that we can interpret that which is "of no private interpretation." Frankly I don't understand why you have the need to cast accusations of liberalism at me over it. I should tell my liberal friends about it. Since they consider me so reactionary I make Rush look like a communist they'd no doubt find it amusing.

However in the Christian spirit of charity I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have recently had a bad experience with some ACLU college types, and consequently are looking for an argument to vent your anger.

So that you know where I am coming from let me explain that my comments about the Founders and "The Spirit" of the revolutionary age in fact came from a fundamentalist origin; those which Jefferson would call "fanatics." Not a leftist ACLU one.

Having said that however, I should point out that personally I don't think Jefferson was a particularly "good Christian." His anti-Catholic sentiment -- especially his irrational hatred of the Society of Jesus -- precludes that epitaph in my book.

Also, as a Catholic I'm a little disappointed you didn't try to correct my "ignorant" denunciation of the "Apotheosis" as pagan idolatry.

Here is another translation of the same paragraph (with preceding verse) and footnotes. (which aren't that different from what you said) 14:17 Then52 another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 14:18 Another53 angel, who was in charge of54 the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to the angel55 who had the sharp sickle, “Use56 your sharp sickle and gather57 the clusters of grapes58 off the vine of the earth,59 because its grapes60 are now ripe.”61 14:19 So62 the angel swung his sickle over the earth and gathered the grapes from the vineyard63 of the earth and tossed them into the great64 winepress of the wrath of God. 14:20 Then65 the winepress was stomped66 outside the city, and blood poured out of the winepress up to the height of horses’ bridles67 for a distance of almost two hundred miles.68 (tn = translator notes, sn = study notes) 52tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence within the narrative. 53tn Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style. 54tn Grk “who had authority over.” This appears to be the angel who tended the fire on the altar. 55tn Grk “to the one having the sharp sickle”; the referent (the angel in v. 17) has been specified in the translation for clarity. 56tn Grk “Send.” 57tn On this term BDAG 1018 s.v. τρυγάω states: “‘gather in’ ripe fruit, esp. harvest (grapes) w. acc. of the fruit (POslo. 21, 13 [71 ad]; Jos., Ant. 4, 227) Lk 6:44; Rv 14:18 (in imagery, as in the foll. places) W. acc. of that which bears the fruit gather the fruit of the vine or the vineyard (s. ἄμπελος a) Rv 14:19.” 58tn On this term BDAG 181 s.v. βότρυς states, “bunch of grapes Rv 14:18 The word is also found in the Phrygian Papias of Hierapolis, in a passage in which he speaks of the enormous size of the grapes in the new aeon (in the Lat. transl. in Irenaeus 5, 33, 2f.): dena millia botruum Papias (1:2). On this see Stephan. Byz. s.v. Εὐκαρπία: Metrophanes says that in the district of Εὐκαρπία in Phrygia Minor the grapes were said to be so large that one bunch of them caused a wagon to break down in the middle.” 59tn The genitive τῆς γῆς (ths ghs), taken symbolically, could be considered a genitive of apposition. 60tn Or perhaps, “its bunches of grapes” (a different Greek word from the previous clause). L&N 3.38 states, “the fruit of grapevines (see 3.27) – ‘grape, bunch of grapes.’ τρύγησον τοὺς βότρυας τῆς ἀμπέλου τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἤκμασαν αἱ σταφυλαὶ αὐτῆς ‘cut the grapes from the vineyard of the earth because its grapes are ripe’ Re 14:18. Some scholars have contended that βότρυς means primarily a bunch of grapes, while σταφυλή designates individual grapes. In Re 14:18 this difference might seem plausible, but there is scarcely any evidence for such a distinction, since both words may signify grapes as well as bunches of grapes.” 61tn On the use of ἥκμασαν (hkmasan) BDAG 36 s.v. ἀκμάζω states, “to bloom of grapes Rv 14:18.” 62tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of the angel’s directions. 63tn Or “vine.” BDAG 54 s.v. ἄμπελος a states, “τρυγᾶν τοὺς βότρυας τῆς ἀ. τῆς γῆς to harvest the grapes fr. the vine of the earth (i.e. fr. the earth, symbol. repr. as a grapevine) Rv 14:18f; but ἀ may be taking on the meaning of ἀμπελών, as oft. in pap., possibly PHib. 70b, 2 [III bc].” The latter alternative has been followed in the translation (ἀμπελών = “vineyard”). 64tn Although the gender of μέγαν (megan, masc.) does not match the gender of ληνόν (lhnon, fem.) it has been taken to modify that word (as do most English translations). 65tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the vision. 66sn The winepress was stomped. See Isa 63:3, where Messiah does this alone (usually several individuals would join in the process). 67tn L&N 6.7 states, “In Re 14:20 the reference to a bit and bridle is merely an indication of measurement, that is to say, the height of the bit and bridle from the ground, and one may reinterpret this measurement as ‘about a meter and a half’ or ‘about five feet.’” 68tn Grk “1,600 stades.” A stade was a measure of length about 607 ft (185 m). Thus the distance here would be 184 mi or 296 km.

That formatting was lovely

Here is another translation of the same paragraph (with preceding verse) and footnotes. (which aren't that different from what you said)

14:17 Then52 another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 14:18 Another53 angel, who was in charge of54 the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to the angel55 who had the sharp sickle, Â“Use56 your sharp sickle and gather57 the clusters of grapes58 off the vine of the earth,59 because its grapes60 are now ripe.Â”61 14:19 So62 the angel swung his sickle over the earth and gathered the grapes from the vineyard63 of the earth and tossed them into the great64 winepress of the wrath of God. 14:20 Then65 the winepress was stomped66 outside the city, and blood poured out of the winepress up to the height of horsesÂ’ bridles67 for a distance of almost two hundred miles.68

(tn = translator notes, sn = study notes)

52tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as Â“thenÂ” to indicate the implied sequence within the narrative.

53tn Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

54tn Grk Â“who had authority over.Â” This appears to be the angel who tended the fire on the altar.

55tn Grk Â“to the one having the sharp sickleÂ”; the referent (the angel in v. 17) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

56tn Grk Â“Send.Â”

57tn On this term BDAG 1018 s.v. τρυγάω states: Â“Â‘gather inÂ’ ripe fruit, esp. harvest (grapes) w. acc. of the fruit (POslo. 21, 13 [71 ad]; Jos., Ant. 4, 227) Lk 6:44; Rv 14:18 (in imagery, as in the foll. places)Â W. acc. of that which bears the fruit gather the fruit of the vineÂ or the vineyard (s. ἄμπελος a) Rv 14:19.Â”

58tn On this term BDAG 181 s.v. βότρυς states, Â“bunch of grapes Rv 14:18Â The word is also found in the Phrygian Papias of Hierapolis, in a passage in which he speaks of the enormous size of the grapes in the new aeon (in the Lat. transl. in Irenaeus 5, 33, 2f.): dena millia botruum Papias (1:2). On this see Stephan. Byz. s.v. Εὐκαρπία: Metrophanes says that in the district of Εὐκαρπία in Phrygia Minor the grapes were said to be so large that one bunch of them caused a wagon to break down in the middle.Â”

59tn The genitive τῆς γῆς (ths ghs), taken symbolically, could be considered a genitive of apposition.

60tn Or perhaps, Â“its bunches of grapesÂ” (a different Greek word from the previous clause). L&N 3.38 states, Â“the fruit of grapevines (see 3.27) Â– Â‘grape, bunch of grapes.Â’ τρύγησον τοὺς βότρυας τῆς ἀμπέλου τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἤκμασαν αἱ σταφυλαὶ αὐτῆς Â‘cut the grapes from the vineyard of the earth because its grapes are ripeÂ’ Re 14:18. Some scholars have contended that βότρυς means primarily a bunch of grapes, while σταφυλή designates individual grapes. In Re 14:18 this difference might seem plausible, but there is scarcely any evidence for such a distinction, since both words may signify grapes as well as bunches of grapes.Â”

61tn On the use of ἥκμασαν (hkmasan) BDAG 36 s.v. ἀκμάζω states, Â“to bloomÂ of grapesÂ Rv 14:18.Â”

62tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as Â“soÂ” to indicate the implied result of the angelÂ’s directions.

63tn Or Â“vine.Â” BDAG 54 s.v. ἄμπελος a states, Â“τρυγᾶν τοὺς βότρυας τῆς ἀ. τῆς γῆς to harvest the grapes fr. the vine of the earth (i.e. fr. the earth, symbol. repr. as a grapevine) Rv 14:18f; but ἀ may be taking on the meaning of ἀμπελών, as oft. in pap., possibly PHib. 70b, 2 [III bc].Â” The latter alternative has been followed in the translation (ἀμπελών = Â“vineyardÂ”).

64tn Although the gender of μέγαν (megan, masc.) does not match the gender of ληνόν (lhnon, fem.) it has been taken to modify that word (as do most English translations).

65tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as Â“thenÂ” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the vision.

66sn The winepress was stomped. See Isa 63:3, where Messiah does this alone (usually several individuals would join in the process).

67tn L&N 6.7 states, Â“In Re 14:20 the reference to a bit and bridle is merely an indication of measurement, that is to say, the height of the bit and bridle from the ground, and one may reinterpret this measurement as Â‘about a meter and a halfÂ’ or Â‘about five feet.Â’Â”

68tn Grk Â“1,600 stades.Â” A stade was a measure of length about 607 ft (185 m). Thus the distance here would be 184 mi or 296 km.

>>>Do you like to read more into what I write than what is there, or are you just angry?<<<

Let me refresh your memory on what you wrote:

I asked others to read your pretense of being intellectual superior to the rest of us, and they all thought you slandered the Founding Fathers. May I suggest you be less tongue in cheek, and more to the point (and more general American rather than Northeast elitist in your verse).

Regarding your statement, “Specifically I was critiquing the idea that we can interpret that which is “of no private interpretation.”

It just might be possible you misinterpred that verse [from 2 Peter 1:20]. For it is also written:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

If Peter has stated it was not for PUBLIC interpretation, then I might agree with you on that point.

>>>”I should tell my liberal friends about it.”<<<

Personally I cannot stand to be around them, even my sister.

>>>Since they consider me so reactionary I make Rush look like a communist they’d no doubt find it amusing.>>>

Liberals consider the same about Joe Lieberman.

>>>However in the Christian spirit of charity I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have recently had a bad experience with some ACLU college types, and consequently are looking for an argument to vent your anger.<<<

Nope, except for the knowledge that they have been slowly but systematically destroying our culture for over 50 years, I have no other. For the record, one method the ACLU has used is to constantly undermine the Founding Fathers.

>>>I should point out that personally I don’t think Jefferson was a particularly “good Christian.” His anti-Catholic sentiment — especially his irrational hatred of the Society of Jesus — precludes that epitaph in my book.<<<

In the Christian spirit of charity I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have recently had a bad experience with some supporters of Thomas Jefferson. It is worth pointing out that Jefferson was also opposed to Protestants who wanted a particular Christian denomination to be imposed as the dominant religion. I believe his exact quote was: “every sect believes its own form the true one,
every one perhaps hoped for his own [to become the dominant one], but especially the Episcopalians
& Congregationalists.” It appears the Catholics were the least of his worries.

>>>...as a Catholic I’m a little disappointed you didn’t try to correct my “ignorant” denunciation of the “Apotheosis” as pagan idolatry.<<<

As a non-Catholic, I have no idea why you are disappointed. But, the Apotheosis aside, I am puzzled why you think Americans consider George Washington to be divine. We do look up to and respect him for the deeply spiritual, courageous, and honorable man he was. But I have never met anyone who thought he was anything more than an instrument (a servant) of God.

“And another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire, and he cried with a loud cry to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, “Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe.” So the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses’ bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs. (Rev. 14:18-20)
Your math is off by quite a bit.
First of all, it’s “1600 furlongs” or about 200 miles. Second, the setting for this passage, if taken literally, would indicate it is a very wide area, a plain. The blood would come out in a confined area, but would spread out over a wide area. If you choose even a conservative number for a width of the flow of blood, say 100 meters, it would take every last drop of blood from over 12 billion people to make up that volume. And that’s a conservative number.

To make this scenario fit means you would have to squeeze twice the current population of the entire world into the immediate area around Jerusalem in order for this prophecy to be anything approaching “literally” true.

Thus the fantasy of the literalist view of Bible prophecy.”

Thank you for the accurate scripture. The point was not the math but a generalized amount. You may be right on the literalist part. I wasn’t here to decieve but if others got this point from me, then I do apologize. Either way, a general timeframe is 12 B people when such an event would occur and that was what I was alluding to. The blood being spread out does not mean you would need to put all people in a specific area. The passage talks about the earth as the harvest. To me the event would me it is tied into Israel as the flash point, not the physical event of all these people being crammed into Jerusalem.

Please forgive the tone of this, it's hard to convey with words my actual amusement at the direction this conversation has taken. Rest assured it's just the way I talk. It sounds better than it reads.

I asked others to read your pretense of being intellectual superior to the rest of us...

Don't be silly, there was no pretense. That you aren't a student of 18th century liberalism was evidenced in your first comment to me. I have no desire to go over the whole history of neoclassicism in all its manifestations and its leftists successors from the 16th up to the 20th century with someone who enters a conversation with accusations of ACLUism. I have to put up with leftists on a day to day basis, and I can tell you the radical irreligious ones don't really care what the religious beliefs of the Founders were. To them thats in the past. It has no baring on the now.

Besides which, undermining the country by suggesting that the Founders were themselves irreligious doesn't make any sense. In their mind that would be strengthening the country. It does not follow. If anything, they feel that the religious right's annexation of the Founders -- as they would put it -- is unhistorical, but only because they see the American Revolution as an essentially leftist anti-authoritarian one. And unfortunately for your world view they are not completely wrong on that one. This is a hard thing for some late-comers to the conservative movement to accept, but the reality is, and there is no escaping this fact, that although most of the Founders would be incredibly conservative transposed into a modern context -- as would almost all early liberals mind you, radicalism being a one way street unfortunately -- in their own time they were indeed the liberals. In that time pretty much ANY republican ideology would be a leftist one intrinsically. The conservatives would have been the loyalists. This is easer to take once you accept that liberal doesn't mean "bad" in all contexts (personally I think liberalism is a sin, which makes me appear to most American conservatives and liberals as a pessimist, but thats just me). For example modern conservatives are really just 19th century liberals. Or rather what they want to "conserve" is really just an older school of whiggish liberalism.

Were the Founders merely pagan wannabes? No.
Did they come out of a time when the ideals of pagan antiquity were given the highest regard, and the Christian world that replaced it lamented as a dark age of superstition? Yes.
I'm sorry, I can't change reality to fit your world view.

BTW, in accusing me of being an elitist for criticizing Jefferson you have provided me with what is perhaps the funniest peace of comedy I have yet seen on FR, and have only reinforced my opinion of your education in these matters.
Incidentally, only gods are above criticism.

You can call me arrogant if you want to and you might well be right, but it doesn't prove me wrong.

Your "self confessed" isolation from American leftists seems to have resulted in a rather deformed understanding of their ideas and motivations. It will limit your ability to converse with, and perhaps correct, them. In the future I suggest you avoid accusations of association. It is a form of ad hominem, and can only be used if you want to shot someone down sans debate. Even if it works, you can't count it as a victory for your ideals.

>>>Please forgive the tone of this, it’s hard to convey with words my actual amusement at the direction this conversation has taken.<<<

I am convinced it is. After all, you are a superior intellect in your own mind.

>>>That you aren’t a student of 18th century liberalism was evidenced in your first comment to me. I have no desire to go over the whole history of neoclassicism in all its manifestations and its leftists successors from the 16th up to the 20th century with someone who enters a conversation with accusations of ACLUism. I have to put up with leftists on a day to day basis, and I can tell you the radical irreligious ones don’t really care what the religious beliefs of the Founders were. To them thats in the past. It has no baring on the now.<<<

Ok, But you are still a Founding Father Basher, straight from the mold of the ACLU. Convince me that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were the greatest thing in the history of the world since sliced bread and I will lighten up.

>>>”Besides which, undermining the country by suggesting that the Founders were themselves irreligious doesn’t make any sense. In their mind that would be strengthening the country. It does not follow. If anything, they feel that the religious right’s annexation of the Founders — as they would put it — is unhistorical, but only because they see the American Revolution as an essentially leftist anti-authoritarian one. And unfortunately for your world view they are not completely wrong on that one. This is a hard thing for some late-comers to the conservative movement to accept, but the reality is, and there is no escaping this fact, that although most of the Founders would be incredibly conservative transposed into a modern context — as would almost all early liberals mind you, radicalism being a one way street unfortunately — in their own time they were indeed the liberals.”<<<

Certainly the Founders considered themselves to be “Liberal”. But your analogy is a bizarre transformation since you are comparing the founder’s understanding of liberalism with modern-day “progressivism”, which is communism (the ideology of modern-day “liberals”). Point out one Founding Father who would not be outraged (ready to kill) by modern-day communist ideology. You can’t.

>>>For example modern conservatives are really just 19th century liberals.<<<

Yea, that is somewhat true. The 19th century conservatives were protectionists, like the Founding Fathers, while the 19th century liberals were open-border Marxists as they are today. Many who claim “conservatism” today are, in reality, Marxists, including George W. Bush. And your example that modern-day Leftists consider the Revolution as an essentially leftist anti-authoritarian one, is bizarre, since Leftists are themselves hard-core authoritarians. They prove it every day.

>>>Were the Founders merely pagan wannabes?<<<

Why the fixation on paganism within the ranks of the Founding Fathers? There is no proof whatsoever that our Founding Fathers were pagan, but there is ample proof that the modern-day leftists (”liberals”, “Democrat Party”, “Progressives”) are pagans. Why not go after them?

>>>BTW, in accusing me of being an elitist for criticizing Jefferson you have provided me with what is perhaps the funniest peace of comedy I have yet seen on FR.<<<

I am glad you liked it. Now try using it in a sentence.

>>>Incidentally, only gods are above criticism. <<<

Good, then you are not above criticism, contrary to your own personal belief.

>>>Your “self confessed” isolation from American leftists seems to have resulted in a rather deformed understanding of their ideas and motivations.<<<

There you go again. You assumed I was isolated from “American leftists” because I declared I could not stand to be around them. But I am not isolated. My next door neighbors are hard-core leftists (two liberal lawyers), as is my sister. I converse with them frequently. I don’t want to , but I do.

You are out of your league, sonny.

Please explain when in history these three very specific prophecies (All explaining the same thing) occured:

Daniel 9
Gabriel Gives to Daniel a Prophecy of Seventy Weeks

9:20 While I was still speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and presenting my request before the LORD my God concerning his holy mountain49 – 9:21 yes, while I was still praying,50 the man Gabriel, whom I had seen previously51 in a vision, was approaching me in my state of extreme weariness,52 around the time of the evening offering. 9:22 He spoke with me, instructing me as follows:53 “Daniel, I have now come to impart understanding to you. 9:23 At the beginning of your requests a message went out, and I have come to convey it to you, for you are of great value in God’s sight.54 Therefore consider the message and understand the vision:55

9:24 “Seventy weeks56 have been determined
concerning your people and your holy city
to put an end to57 rebellion,
to bring sin58 to completion,59
to atone for iniquity,
to bring in perpetual60 righteousness,
to seal up61 the prophetic vision,62
and to anoint a most holy place.63

9:25 So know and understand:
From the issuing of the command64 to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem65 until an anointed one, a prince arrives,66
there will be a period of seven weeks67 and sixty-two weeks.
It will again be built,68 with plaza and moat,
but in distressful times.
9:26 Now after the sixty-two weeks,
an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.69
As for the city and the sanctuary,
the people of the coming prince will destroy70 them.
But his end will come speedily71 like a flood.72
Until the end of the war that has been decreed
there will be destruction.
9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.73
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing74 of abominations will come75 one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”

Zechariah 12
The Repentance of Judah
12:1 The revelation of the word of the Lord concerning Israel: The Lord – he who stretches out the heavens and lays the foundations of the earth, who forms the human spirit within a person1 – says, 12:2 “I am about to make Jerusalem2 a cup that brings dizziness3 to all the surrounding nations; indeed, Judah will also be included when Jerusalem is besieged. 12:3 Moreover, on that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy burden4 for all the nations, and all who try to carry it will be seriously injured;5 yet all the peoples of the earth will be assembled against it. 12:4 In that day,” says the Lord, “I will strike every horse with confusion and its rider with madness. I will pay close attention to the house of Judah, but will strike all the horses6 of the nations7 with blindness. 12:5 Then the leaders of Judah will say to themselves, ‘The inhabitants of Jerusalem are a means of strength to us through their God, the Lord who rules over all.’ 12:6 On that day8 I will make the leaders of Judah like an igniter9 among sticks and a burning torch among sheaves, and they will burn up all the surrounding nations right and left. Then the people of Jerusalem will settle once more in their place, the city of Jerusalem. 12:7 The Lord also will deliver the homes10 of Judah first, so that the splendor of the kingship11 of David and of the people of Jerusalem may not exceed that of Judah. 12:8 On that day the Lord himself will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the weakest among them will be like mighty David, and the dynasty of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them.12 12:9 So on that day I will set out to destroy all the nations13 that come against Jerusalem.”

12:10 “I will pour out on the kingship14 of David and the population of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication so that they will look to me,15 the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son, and there will be a bitter cry for him like the bitter cry for a firstborn.16 12:11 On that day the lamentation in Jerusalem will be as great as the lamentation at Hadad-Rimmon17 in the plain of Megiddo.18 12:12 The land will mourn, clan by clan – the clan of the royal household of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the clan of the family of Nathan19 by itself and their wives by themselves; 12:13 the clan of the descendants of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; and the clan of the Shimeites20 by itself and their wives by themselves – 12:14 all the clans that remain, each separately with their wives.”

Or when this occured

Ezekiel 38
A Prophecy Against Gog
38:1 The word of the Lord came to me: 38:2 “Son of man, turn toward1 Gog,2 of the land of Magog,3 the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.4 Prophesy against him 38:3 and say: ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: Look,5 I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. 38:4 I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and bring you out with all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them fully armed, a great company with shields of different types,6 all of them armed with swords. 38:5 Persia,7 Ethiopia, and Put8 are with them, all of them with shields and helmets. 38:6 They are joined by9 Gomer with all its troops, and by Beth Togarmah from the remote parts of the north with all its troops – many peoples are with you.10

38:7 “‘Be ready and stay ready, you and all your companies assembled around you, and be a guard for them.11 38:8 After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come to a land restored from the ravages of war,12 with many peoples gathered on the mountains of Israel that had long been in ruins. Its people13 were brought out from the peoples, and all of them will be living securely. 38:9 You will advance;14 you will come like a storm. You will be like a cloud covering the earth, you, all your troops, and the many other peoples with you.

38:10 “‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind,15 and you will devise an evil plan. 38:11 You will say, “I will invade16 a land of unwalled towns; I will advance against17 those living quietly in security – all of them living without walls and barred gates – 38:12 to loot and plunder, to attack18 the inhabited ruins and the people gathered from the nations, who are acquiring cattle and goods, who live at the center19 of the earth.” 38:13 Sheba and Dedan and the traders of Tarshish with all its young warriors20 will say to you, “Have you come to loot? Have you assembled your armies to plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to haul away a great amount of spoils?”’

38:14 “Therefore, prophesy, son of man, and say to Gog: ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: On that day when my people Israel are living securely, you will take notice21 38:15 and come from your place, from the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great company and a vast army. 38:16 You will advance22 against my people Israel like a cloud covering the earth. In the latter days I will bring you against my land so that the nations may acknowledge me, when before their eyes I magnify myself23 through you, O Gog.

38:17 “‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: Are you the one of whom I spoke in former days by my servants24 the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days25 that I would bring you against them? 38:18 On that day, when Gog invades26 the land of Israel, declares the sovereign Lord, my rage will mount up in my anger. 38:19 In my zeal, in the fire of my fury,27 I declare that on that day there will be a great earthquake28 in the land of Israel. 38:20 The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground, and all people who live on the face of the earth will shake29 at my presence. The mountains will topple, the cliffs30 will fall, and every wall will fall to the ground. 38:21 I will call for a sword to attack31 Gog32 on all my mountains, declares the sovereign Lord; every man’s sword will be against his brother. 38:22 I will judge him with plague and bloodshed. I will rain down on him, his troops and the many peoples who are with him a torrential downpour, hailstones, fire, and brimstone. 38:23 I will exalt and magnify myself; I will reveal myself before many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord.’

“It’s not a matter of deception, but a matter of properly interpreting the symbols in the prophecy.

When you mentioned things like WWIII, Korea, and China, it was apparent that you were missing the true meaning of the text.

While the prophecy is about Jerusalem, it is not about future Jerusalem, but Jerusalem in the past, specifically Jerusalem in the 1st century. The focus of the symbol is to contrast Jesus Christ, whose blood was spilled “outside the city” on behalf of His people, with the blood spilled for those who must atonement for their own sins. Ancient Jerusalem suffered for the sin of murdering the “son of the landowner” (Matt. 21:33ff). That payment is what is represented by the blood pictured for 200 miles as deep as a horse’s chin.

As soon as you try to see modern day events in the images of Revelation you miss the entire meaning.”

What good would prophecy be if it where you would have to intepret symbols all of the time and cross reference Matthew who was dead when John wrote Revelations? How about Christ warning the Jews to flee Jeruselam when the Romans encircled the city then withdrew? Was their something symbolic to intepret to be prepared and alert?

The events are literal. How they are depicted is to be understood by the people at time in the future that may be reading prophecy. Christ addressed the churches in the very beginning of Revelations, that was their time. The other period of time is one where numbers and countries can be described to know when to keep alert and take action.

>>>I don’t know if this strategy works in some parallel universe or what, but here it’s the sign of a lazy mind.<<<

Either that, or you are plagued with writer’s laziness. Hard to tell, but there is no doubt that all my friends who read the original post I questioned (all are college grads from good schools, and at least one has a masters) believed you are an elitist, arrogant, Founding Father basher.

I also showed them your first post, which read:

>>>”Well if we work it hard, we could probably interpret America as a the 8th “empire.” When you consider that the Founders were all nerds trying to create some new and better version of pagan antiquity in America, the analogy becomes at lest as plausible as any other.”<<<

They all considered that to be as bizarre as your second post.

In the future, I recommend you refrain from writer’s laziness. For example, if you are making a “tongue-in-cheek” remark, kindly identify it as such. Freepers typically add [/sarcism], the smile :), or other comment to identify “tongue in cheek” remarks. I assume the reason they do this is because we cannot see their body language and facial expressions, nor can we read their minds.

I also recommend that you write in more General-American prose, rather than Northeast-Liberal-Elitist prose. Wait, I think I recommended that in a previous reply.

I also recommend that in the future you refrain from labeling the Founding Fathers as “nerds” working toward “pagan’ goals. That is reasonably convincing evidence that you are a mole — a seminar poster paid by the left to disrupt this web site — and you certainly don’t want that, do you?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.