Ancient Prophecy Antichrist 2012 /2013 in the ancient Jewish Zohar

[chronic]

[youtube:2gltfeji]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9kkZaQeugM[/youtube]2gltfeji]
At 19:47 in this lecture, Tom Horn describes how JR Church pointed out an Antichrist Prophecy in the ancient Jewish Zohar text. Kabbalist scholars 700 years ago predicted in the Zohar that their messiah would arrive in the year 2012, which is the Jewish year 5773 beginning on Rosh Hashanah 2012. Jewish mystics have a messianic prophecy they expect to be fulfilled in 5773, they are going to be deceived into accepting a false Christ, that is the Antichrist, also called Apollyon and Abaddon in the Book of Revelation. Tom Horn's book "Apollyon Rising 2012" is available at RaidersNewsNetwork.com.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Who is to say the antichrist hasn't already come and gone?

The majority of Christianity believes the anti-Christ figure has come and gone already. American Evangelicals, based on a mis-rendering of Daniel 9:27, believe he is yet to come.

Evangelicals are most likely wrong; however, perhaps the Orthodox Church has overlooked a possible dual (or multiple) fulfillment of this prophecy. A sort of idealist view of Bible prophecy—that it can happen over and over again according to the times.

Regarding the above video: anytime you hear the name Chuck Missler cited as a source, walk away. He is a Zionist-CIA gatekeeper.

[Michael K.]

Dear Timothy Fitzpatrick,

I spent several hours reviewing the material presented by Tom Horn, although I am still not able to view the entire video above due to my dial up connection.  Nevertheless I will persist in the effort to do so.  In the mean time I listened to these mp3 interviews:

                   http://www.ahrimangate.com/QFApollyon1.mp3
                   http://www.ahrimangate.com/QFApollyon2.mp3

These radio shows with Steve Quayle go into most of the details of Tom Horns thesis, although the Zohar does not get mentioned specifically in them.  I think that this story is worth a great deal more attention, personally.  There is no possible way that these revelations about the Great Seal's occult meaning are mere coincidences.

Furthermore, there is a great deal of unusual internet interference surrounding these websites. For example, I was not able to view the Steve Quayle news sight all of last week, instead getting a message that I was 404.

http://stevequayle.com/index1.html

Also, have a look at the link to what should be the written material going along with this story:

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/pitnarticle.htm

This is what I believe is  a FAKE 404 message which is the result of the address being redirected to a private location.

This kind of activity fits with the theory that "The flak is heaviest over the target.


As far as the Orthodox view of the Anti-Christ, I would quote my catechism  book, Introducing The Orthodox Church, by Anthony M. Coniaris,(pp.148-149):

THE LAST DAYS

The Scriptures mention six events that will occur before the Second Coming of Jesus:

1.   The preaching of the Gospel to all nations (Matt. 24:14).
2.   The return of Israel to Christ  (Rom.  11:25-26).
3.   The coming of Elijah and Enoch in the last days (see Rev. 11).
4.   The appearance of the Antichrist.
5.   A mass apostasy or falling away from the true Christian faith led by false teachers (Matt. 24:4-5).
6.   Wars, revolutions, famines and earthquakes (Matt. 24:6-8).

Commenting on the meaning of these six events that will precede the Second Coming, Bp. Kallistos Ware writes:

Scripture and Tradition speak to us repeatedly about the Second Coming.  They give us no grounds for supposing that, through a steady advance in "civilization", the world will grow gradually better and better until mankind succeeds in establishing God's kingdom upon earth.  The Christian view of the world history is entirely opposed to this kind of evolutionary optimism.  What we are taught to expect are disasters in the world of nature...warfare between men...apostasy...tribulation...(the)Antichrist who...will be... not Satan himself, but a human being...in whom all the forces of evil will be concentrated and who will for a time hold the entire world in his sway.  The brief reign of Antichrist will be abruptly terminated by the Second Coming of the Lord, this time not in a hidden way, as at His birth in Bethlehem, but "sitting on the right hand of power" (Matt. 26:64).  So the course of history will be brought to a sudden and dramatic end, through a direct intervention from the divine realm.

The six signs that will precede the Second Coming are sufficiently vague as to keep the exact time of His coming a mystery.  How many times, for example, in history have Christians thought that the Antichrist had come in the person of Nero, Hitler or Stalin?  How many times have there been mass apostasies from the Christian faith led by false teachers?  How many times have there been revolutions, famines and earthquakes which made many believe that the Coming of Jesus was imminent?  Despite these six signs we have no exact timetable from God regarding the Second Coming of Jesus.  We know neither the day nor the hour.  "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only...Watch therefore for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming"  (Matt. 24:36,42).  He will come "as a thief in the night"  (I Thess. 5:2).

You ask, why did not God tell us when Jesus will come again?  For very good reason.  He wants us to be constantly prepared, to maintain constant purity in our lives.  Augustine put it this way: "This one day God has concealed from us that we may keep a better and closer watch over the other days of life."

I hope this serves to counter your apparent perception, probably garnered from Br. Nathanael and others of his ilk, that the Orthodox Church views the Antichrist as only a past personage.  This is false and incorrect, and as this catechism book plainly states the views held by most other Christians are also common to the Orthodox.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

(This anti-Christ figure may be more a figment of Jewry's imagination than we thought—TF)

The Man of Sin
By James Stuart Russell

It is of utmost importance in entering upon this field of inquiry to find some principle which may guide and govern us in the investigation. We find such a principle in the very simple and obvious consideration that the apostle is here referring to circumstances which lay within the ken of the Thessalonians themselves. If the Parousia itself, to which the development of the apostasy and the appearing of the man of sin were antecedent, was declared by the word of the Lord to fall within the period of the existing generation, it follows that 'the apostasy' and 'the man of sin' lay nearer to them than the Parousia. Besides, if we suppose 'the apostasy' and 'the man of sin' to lie far beyond the times of the Thessalonians, what would be the use of giving them explanations and information about matters which were not at all urgent, and which, in fact, did not concern them at all? Is it no obvious that whoever the man of sin may be, he must be someone with whom the apostle and his readers had to do? Is he not writing to living men about matters in which they are intensely interested? Why should he delineate the features of this mysterious personage to the Thessalonians if he was one with whom the Thessalonians had nothing to do, from whom they had nothing to fear, and who would not be revealed for ages yet to come? It is clear that he speaks of one whose influence was already beginning to be felt, and whose unchecked and lawless fury would ere long burst forth. All this lies on the very surface, obvious and unquestionable. But this is not all. It appears certain that the Thessalonians were not ignorant what person was intended by the man of sin. It was not the first time that the apostle had spoken with them on the subject. He says, 'Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I kept telling you these things? and now ye know what hindereth his being revealed in his own time.' This language plainly indicates that the apostle and his readers were well acquainted with the name 'man of sin,' and knew who was designated thereby. If so, and it seems unquestionable, the area of investigation becomes greatly contracted, and the probabilities of discovery proportionately increased. What the Thessalonians had 'talked about,' 'remembered,' and 'knew,' must have been something of living and present interest; in short, must have belonged to contemporary history.

But why does not the apostle speak out frankly? Why this reserve and reticence in darkly hinting what he does not name? It was not from ignorance; it could not be from the affectation of mystery. There must have been some strong reason for this extreme caution. No doubt; but of what nature? Why should he have been in the habit, as he says, of speaking so freely on the subject in private, and then write so obscurely in his epistle? Obviously, because it was not safe to be more explicit. On the one hand, a hint was enough, for they could all understand his meaning; on the other, more than a hint was dangerous, for to name the person might have compromised himself and them.

From what quarter, then, was danger to be apprehended from too great freedom of speech? There were only two quarters from which the Chrsitians of the apostolic age had just cause for apprehension, --- Jewish bigotry and Roman jealousy. Hitherto the Gospel had suffered most from the former: the Jews were everywhere the instigators in 'stirring up the Gentiles against the brethren.' But the power of Rome was jealous, and the Jews knew well how to awaken that jealousy; in Thessalonica itself they had got up the cry, 'These all do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar.' Which of these causes, then, may have sealed the lips of the apostle? Not fear of the Jews, for nothing that he could say was likely to make their hostility more bitter; nor had the Jews any direct civil authority by which they could inflict injury upon the Christian cause. We conclude, therefore, that it was from the Roman power that the apostle apprehended danger, and that his reticence was occasioned by the desire not to involve the Thessalonians in the suspicion of disaffection and sedition.

Let us now turn to the description of 'the man of sin' given by the apostle, and endeavour to discover, if possible, whether there was any individual then existing in the Roman Empire to whom it will apply.

1. The description requires that we should look, not for a system or abstraction, but an individual, a 'man'.

2. He is evidently not a private, but a public person. The powers with which he is invested imply this.

3. He is a personage holding the highest rank and authority in the State.

4. He is heathen, and not Jewish.

5. He claims divine names, prerogatives, and worship.

6. He pretends to exercise miraculous power.

7. He is characterised by enormous wickedness. He is 'the man of sin,' i.e. the incarnation and embodiment of evil.

8. He is distinguished by lawlessness as a ruler.

9. He had not yet arrived at the fulness of his power when the apostle wrote; there existed some hindrance or check to the full development of his influence.

10. The hindrance was a person; was known to the Thessalonians; and would soon be taken out of the way.

11. The 'lawless one,' the 'man of sin,' was doomed to destruction. He is 'the son of perdition,' 'whom the Lord shall slay.'

12. His full development, or 'manifestation,' and his destruction are immediately to precede the Parousia. 'The Lord shall destroy him with the brightness of his coming.'

With these descriptive marks in our hands can there be any difficulty in identifying the person in whom they all are found? Were there three men in the Roman Empire who answered this description? Were there two? Assuredly not. But there was one, and only one. When the apostle wrote he was on the steps of the Imperial throne---a little longer and he sate on the throne of the world. It is NERO, the first of the persecuting emperors; the violator of all laws, human and divine; the monster whose cruelty and crimes entitle him to the name 'the man of sin.'

It will at once be apparent to every reader that all the features in this hideous portraiture belong to Nero; but it is remarkable how exact is the correspondence, especially in those particulars which are more recondite and obscure. He is an individual---a public person---holding the highest rank in the State; heathen, and not Jewish; a monster of wickedness, trampling upon all law. But how striking are the indications that point to Nero in the year when this epistle was written, say A.D.52 or 53. At that time Nero was not yet 'manifested;' his true character was not discovered; he had not yet succeeded to the Empire. Claudius, his step-father, lived, and stood in the way of the son of Agrippina. But that hindrance was soon removed. In less than a year, probably, after this epistle was received by the Thessalonians, Claudius was 'taken out of the way,' a victim to the deadly practice of the infamous Agrippina; her son also, according to Suetonius, being accessory to the deed. But 'the mystery of lawlessness was already working;' the influence of Nero must have been powerful in the last days of the wretched Claudius; the very plots were probably being hatched that paved the way for the accession of the son of the murderess. A few months more would witness the advent to the throne of the world of a miscreant whose name is gibbeted in everlasting infamy as the most brutal of tyrants and the vilest of men.

The remaining notes of the description are no less true to the original. The claim to divine honours; the opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God, or an object of worship; his seating himself in the temple of God, showing himself to be a god; all are distinctive of Nero.

The assumption of divine prerogatives, indeed, was common to all Roman Emperors. 'Divus,' god, was inscribed on their coins and statues. The Emperor might be said to 'exalt himself above all that is called God, or an object of worship,' by monopolising to himself all worship. This fact is placed in a striking light in the following remarks of Dean Howson:---

'The image of the Emperor was at that time the object of religious reverence; he was a deity on earth; and the worship paid to him was a real worship. It is a striking thought, that in those times (setting aside effete forms of religion) the only two genuine worships in the civilised world were the worship of a Tiberius or a Nero on the one hand, and the worship of Christ on the other.'

The attempt of Caligula to set up his statue in the temple of God in Jerusalem had driven the Jews to the brink of rebellion, and it is just possible that this fact may have given their peculiar form to the description of the apostle. Certainly it suggested to Grotius that Caligula must be the person intended to be portrayed; but the date of the epistle renders this opinion untenable. Nero, however, came behind none of his predecessors in his impious assumption of divine prerogatives. Dio Cassius informs us that when he returned victorious from the Grecian games, he entered Rome in triumph, and was hailed with such acclamations as these, 'Nero the Hercules! Nero the Apollo! Thou August, August! Sacred voice! Eternal One.' In all this we see sufficient evidence of the assumption of divine honours by Nero.

The same is true with respect to another note in this delineation,---the pretension to miraculous powers. 'Whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders' (ver. 9). This pretension follows almost as a matter of course from the assumption of the prerogatives of deity.

It is to be supposed that the Imperial Divus would be credited with the possession of supernatural powers; and we find a very remarkable side-light thrown upon this subject in Rev. xiii. 13-15. At this stage of the investigation, however, it would not be desirable to enter into that region of symbolism, though we shall fully avail ourselves of its aid at the proper time.

Further, 'the man of sin' is doomed to perish. He is 'the son of perdition,' a name which he bears in common with Judas, and indicative of the certainty and completeness of his destruction. 'The Lord is to slay him with the breath of his mouth, and to destroy him with the appearance of his coming.' In this significant expression we have a note of the time when the man of sin is destined to perish, marked with singular exactitude. It is the coming of the Lord, the Parousia, which is to be the signal of his destruction; yet not the full splendour of that event so much as the first appearance or dawn of it. Alford (after Bengel) very properly points out that the rendering 'brightness of his coming' should be 'the appearance of his coming,' and he quotes the sublime expression of Milton,---'far off His coming shone.' Bengel, with fine discrimination, remarks, 'Here the appearance of His coming, or, at all events, the first glimmerings of His coming, are prior to the coming itself.' This evidently implies that the man of sin was destined to perish, not in the full blaze of the Parousia, but at its first dawn or beginning. Now what do we actually find? Remembering how the Parousia is connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, we find that the death of Nero preceded the event. It took place in June A.D.68, in the very midst of the Jewish war which ended in the capture and destruction of the city and the temple. It might therefore be justly said that 'the appearance, or dawn, of the Parousia' [ ] was the signal for the tyrant's destruction.

It does not follow that the death of Nero was to be brought about by immediate supernatural agency because it is said that 'the Lord shall slay him with the breath of his mouth,' etc. Herod Agrippa was smitten by the angel of the Lord, but this does not exclude the operation of natural causes: 'he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost' (Acts xii.23). So Nero was overtaken by the divine judgment, though he received his death-blow from the sword of the assassin, or from his own hand.

Lastly, it is scarcely necessary to make good the title of Nero to the appellation 'the man of sin.' It will be observed that it is the profligacy of his personal character that stamps him with this distinctive epithet, as if he were the very impersonation and embodiment of vice. Such, indeed, was Nero, whose name has become a synonym for all that is base, cruel, and vile; the highest in rank and the lowest in Character in the Roman world: a monster of wickedness even among Pagans, who were not squeamish about morality and who were familiar with the most corrupt society on the face of the earth. The following graphic delineation of the character of Nero is taken from Conybeare and Howson:---

'Over this distinguished bench of judges presided the representative of the most powerful monarchy which has ever existed,---the absolute ruler of the whole civilised world. But the reverential awe which his position naturally suggested was changed into contempt and loathing by the character of the sovereign who now presided over that supreme tribunal. For Nero was a man whom even the awful attribute of "power equal to the gods" could not render august, except in title. The fear and horror excited by his omnipotence and his cruelty, were blended with contempt for his ignoble lust of praise and his shameless licentiousness. He had not as yet plunged into that extravagance of tyranny which, at a later period, exhausted the patience of his subjects and brought him to destruction. Hitherto his public measures had been guided by sage advisers, and his cruelty had injured his own family rather than the State. But already, at the age of twenty-five, he had murdered his innocent wife and his adopted brother, and had dyed his hands in the blood of his mother. Yet even these enormities seem to have disgusted the Romans less than the prostitution of the Imperial purple by publicly performing as a musician on the stage and a charioteer in the circus. His degrading want of dignity and insatiable appetite for vulgar applause drew tears from the councillors and servants of his house, who could see him slaughter his nearest relatives without remonstrance.'

But there is probably another reason why Nero is branded with this epithet. The name 'man of sin' was not unknown to Hebrew history. It had already been given to one who was not only a monster of cruelty and wickedness, but also a bitter enemy and persecutor of the Jewish people. It would not have been possible to pronounce a name more hateful to Jewish ears than the name of Antiochus Epiphanes. He was the Nero of his age, the inveterate enemy of Israel, the profaner of the temple, the sanguinary persecutor of the people of God. In the first Book of Maccabees we find the name 'the man the sinner' [ ] given to Antiochus (1 Macc. ii. 48, 62), and it seems highly probable that the character and destined to a similar fate with Antiochus, the relentless tyrant and persecutor who became a monument of the wrath of God.

The parallel between 'the man of sin' and Antiochus Epiphanes is particularly noticed by Bengel, who points out that the description of the former in ver. 4 is borrowed from the description of the latter in Dan. xi. 36. The comment of Bengel is well worthy of quotation:---

'This, then, is what Paul says: The day of Christ does not come, unless there be fulfilled (in the man of sin) what Daniel predicted of Antiochus; the prediction is more suitable to the man of sin, who corresponds to Antiochus, and is worse than he.'

We shall find in the sequel that this is not the only passage in which Antiochus Epiphanes is referred to as the prototype of Nero.

But the question may be asked, Why should the revelation of Nero in his true character be a matter of such concern to the apostle and the Christians of Thessalonica? The answer is not far to seek. It was the ferocity of this lawless monster that first let loose all the power of Rome to crush and destroy the Christian name. It was by him that torrents of innocent blood were to be shed and the most exquisite tortures inflicted upon unoffending Christians. It was before his sanguinary tribunal that St. Paul was yet to stand and plead for his life, and from his lips that the sentence was to come that doomed him to a violent death. But more than this, it was under Nero, and by his orders, that the final Jewish war was commenced, and that darkest chapter in the annals of Israel was opened which terminated in the siege and capture of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the extinction of the national polity. This was the consummation predicted by our Lord as the 'end of the age' [ ] and the 'coming of his kingdom.' The revelation of the man of sin, therefore, as antecedent to the Parousia, was a matter that deeply concerned every Christian disciple.

We can now understand why the apostle should use such caution in writing on a subject like this. It was from no affection of oracular obscurity, but from prudential motives of the most intelligible kind. There were many prying eyes and calumnious tongues in Thessalonica, that only waited an opportunity to denounce the Christians as disaffected and seditious men, secret plotters against the authority of Caesar. To write openly on such subjects would be in the highest degree indiscreet and perilous. Nor was it necessary; for they had discussed these matters before in many a private conversation. 'Do you not recollect,' he asks, 'that when I was with you I was often telling you these things?' More than hints were unnecessary to the Thessalonians, for they had a key to his meaning which subsequent readers had not. Nor is it greatly to be wondered at if obscurity has gathered round the teaching of the apostle on this subject. Events which to contemporaries are full of intense interest often become not only uninteresting but unintelligible to posterity. Yet it is somewhat strange that the very obvious reference to contemporary history, and to Nero, should have been so generally overlooked. This is the most ancient interpretation of the passage relating to the man of sin. Chrysostom, commenting on the mystery of iniquity, says, 'He (St. Paul) speaks here of Nero as being the type of the Antichrist; for he also wished to be thought a god.' This opinion is also referred to by Augustine, Theodoret, and others. Bengel, referring to the obstacle to the manifestation of the man of sin, says: 'The ancients thought that Claudius was this check: hence it appears they deemed Nero, Claudius' successor, the man of sin. Moses Stuart has collected a great number of authorities for the identification of Nero with the man of sin. He remarks: 'The idea that Nero was the man of sin mentioned by Paul, and the Antichrist spoken of so often in the epistles of St. John, prevailed extensively and for a long time in the early church.' And again: 'Augustine says: What means the declaration, that the mystery of iniquity already works? . . . Some suppose this to be spoken of the Roman emperor, and therefore Paul did not speak in plain words, because he would not incur the charge of calumny for having spoken evil of the Roman emperor: although he always expected that what he had said would be understood as applying to Nero.'

We consider it a fact of peculiar importance that a conclusion arrived at on quite independent grounds should be found to have the sanction of some of the greatest names of antiquity. We are, however, not at all disposed to rest this interpretation upon external authority; we are inclined to think that the internal evidence in favour of the identification of Nero as the man of sin amounts almost, if not altogether, to demonstration. But we have yet to deal with the confirmation of this fact furnished by the Apocalypse, which we presume to think will produce conviction in every candid mind.

It would be improper to pass from the consideration of this deeply interesting passage without some notice of what may be called the popular Protestant interpretation, which finds here the rise and development of Popery and identifies the Pope as the man of sin. The interpretation is in may respects so plausible, and the points of correspondence so numerous, that it is not surprising that it should have found favour with perhaps the majority of commentators. There is a certain family likeness among all systems of superstition and tyranny, which makes it probable that some of the features which distinguish one may be found in all. But few expositors of any note or weight will now contend that all the descriptive notes of the man of sin are to be found in the Pope. Dean Alford justly observes:---

'In the characteristic of ver. 4, the Pope does not, and never did, fulfil the prophecy. Allowing all the striking coincidences with the latter part of the verse which have been so abundantly adduced, it never can be shown that he fulfils the former part; so far is he from it, that the abject adoration and submission to and has ever been one of his most notable peculiarities. The second objection, of an external and historical character, is even more decisive. If the papacy be Antichrist, then has the manifestation been made, and endured now for nearly fifteen hundred years, and yet that day of the Lord is not come which, by the terms of our prophecy, such manifestations is immediately to precede.'

Source: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/i ... a_02c.html

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

This does not mean, of course, that the Jews won't bring forth their own Nero. Satan always tries to duplicate with God does, and the Jews will know doubt stage their own pseudo-fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

On the possibility of dual/multiple fulfillment of Bible prophecy:

On the Double-sense Theory of Interpretation

     THE following extracts, from theologians of different ages, countries, and churches, exhibit a powerful consensus of authorities in opposition to the loose and arbitrary method of interpretation adopted by many German and English commentators:

     ' Unam quandam ac certam et simplicem sententiam ubique quaerendam esse.'- Melanethon.
     ('One definite and simple meaning of [Scripture] is in every case to be sought.')

     'Absit a nobis ut Deum faciamus o,.i,glwtton, aut multiplices sensus affingamus ipsius verbo, in quo potius tanquarn in speculo limpidissimo sui autoris simplicitatem contemplari debemus. (Ps. xii. 6; xix. B.) Unicus ergo sensus scripturae, nempe grammaticus, est admittendus, quibuscunque demum terminis, vel propriis vel tropicis et figuratis exprimatur.' -Maresius.
     (Far be it from us to make God speak with two tongues, or to attach a variety of senses to His Word, in which we ought rather to behold the simplicity of its divine author reflected as in a clear mirror (Ps. xii. 6 ; xix. 8.) Only one meaning of Scripture, therefore, is admissible: that is, the grammatical, in whatever terms, whether proper or tropical and figurative, it may be expressed.)

     'Dr. Owen's remark is full of good sense-" If the Scripture has more than one meaning, it has no meaning at all: " and it is just as applicable to the prophecies as to any other portion of Scripture.'- Dr. John Brown, Sufferings and Glories of the Messiah, p. 5, note.

     The consequences of admitting such a principle should be well weighed.

     What book on earth has a double sense, unless it is a book of designed enigmas ? And even this has but one real meaning. The heathen oracles indeed could say, "Aio te, Pyrrhe, Romanos vincere posse; " but can such an equivoque be admissible into the oracles of the living God ? And if a literal sense, and an occult sense, can at one and the same time, and by the same words, be conveyed, who that is uninspired shall tell us what the occult sense is? By what laws of interpretation is it. to be judged ? By none that belong to human language; for other books than the Bible have not a double sense -attached to them.

     'For these and such-like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the fundamental principles of interpretation by which we arrive at established conviction and certainty and casts us on the boundless ocean of imagination and conjecture without rudder or compass.'- Stuart on the Hebrews, Excurs. xx.

     'First, it may be laid down that Scripture has one meaning, -the meaning which it had to the mind of the prophet or evangelist who first uttered or wrote to the hearers or readers who first received it.'
     ' Scripture, like other books, has one meaning, which is to be gathered from itself, without reference to the adaptations of fathers or divines, and without regard to a priori notions about its nature and origin.'
     ' The office of the interpreter is not to add another [interpretation], but to recover the original one : the meaning, that is, of the words as they struck on the ears or flashed before the eyes of those who first heard and read them.' - Professor Jowett, Essay on the Interpretation of Scripture, § i. 3, 4.

     'I hold that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it. I believe that, as a general rule, the words of Scripture are intended to have, like all other language, one plain definite meaning, and that to say that words do mean a thing merely because they can be tortured into meaning it, is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture.'- -Canon Ryle, Expository Thoughts on St. Luke, vol. i. P. 383.

 

NOTE B. Page 113.

On the Prophetic Element in the Gospels.

     Let us proceed to the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. These predictions, as is well known, in all the gospel narratives (which, by the way, are singularly consentaneous, implying that all the Evangelists drew from one consolidated tradition) are inextricably mixed up with prophecies of the second coming of Christ and the end of the world -a confusion which Mr. Hutton fully admits. The portion relating to the destruction of the city is singularly definite, and corresponds very closely with the actual event. The other portion, on the contrary, is vague and grandiloquent, and refers, chiefly to natural phenomena and catastrophes. From the precision of the one portion, most critics infer that the gospels were compiled after or during the siege and conquest of Jerusalem. From the confusion of the two portions Mr. Hutton draws the opposite inference -- namely, that the prediction existed in the present recorded form before that event. It is in the greatest degree improbable, he argues, that if Jerusalem had fallen, and the other signs of Christ's coming showed no indication of following, the writers should not have recognised and disentangled the confusion, and corrected their records to bring them into harmony with what it was then beginning to be seen might be the real meaning of Christ or the actual truth of history.

     'But the real perplexity lies here. The prediction, as we have it, makes Christ distinctly affirm that His second coming shall follow "immediately," --"in those days," after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that "this generation" (the generation he addressed) should not pass away till all "these things are fulfilled." Mr. Hutton believes that these last words were intended by Christ to apply only to the destruction of the Holy City. He is entitled to his opinion; and in itself it is not an improbable solution. But it is, under the circumstances, a somewhat forced construction, For it must be remembered, first, that it is rendered necessary only by the assumption which Mr. Hutton is maintaining --namely, that the prophetic powers of Jesus could not be at fault; secondly, it assumes or implies that the gospel narratives of the utterances of Jesus are to be relied upon, even though in these especial predictions he admits them to be essentially confused and, thirdly (what at we think he ought not to have overlooked), the sentence he quotes is by no means the only one indicating that Jesus Himself held the conviction, which He undoubtedly communicated to His followers, that His Second coming to judge the world would take place at a very early date.  Not only was it to take place "immediately" after the destruction of the city (Matt. xxiv. 29), but it would be witnessed by many of those who heard Him. And these predictions are in no way mixed up with those of the destruction of Jerusalem : " There be some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom " (Matt. xvi. 28); " Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come (Matt. x. 23) ; " If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee 2 (John xxi. 23): and the corresponding passages in the other Synoptics.

     'If, therefore, Jesus did not say these things, the gospels must be strangely inaccurate. If He did, His prophetic faculty cannot have been what Mr. Hutton conceives it to have been. That His disciples all confidently entertained this erroneous expectation, and entertained it on the supposed authority of their Master, there can he no doubt whatever. (See 1 Cor. x. 11, xv. 51 ; Phil. iv. 5 ; I Thess. iv. 15 ; James v. 8 ; I Peter iv. 7; 1 John ii. 18 ; Rev. i. 13, xxii. 7, 10, 12.) Indeed, Mr. Hutton recognises this at least as frankly and fully as we have stated it.'- W. R. Greg, in Contemporary Review, Nov. 1876.

     To those who maintain that our Lord predicted the end of the world before the passing away of that generation, the objections of the sceptic present a formidable difficulty --insurmountable, indeed, without resorting to forced and unnatural evasions, or admissions fatal to the authority and inspiration of the evangelical narratives. We, on the contrary, fully recognise the common-sense construction put by Mr. Greg upon the Language of Jesus, and the no less obvious acceptance of that meaning by the apostles. But we draw a conclusion directly contrary to that of the critic, and appeal to the prophecy on the Mount of Olives as a signal example and demonstration of our Lord's supernatural foresight.

SOurce: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/i ... 01h.html#b

[Michael K.]

Dear Timothy Fitzpatrick,

' Unam quandam ac certam et simplicem sententiam ubique quaerendam esse.'- Melanethon.
('One definite and simple meaning of [Scripture] is in every case to be sought.')

In my opinion, the maxim above does not limit prophesy, it is an injunction to men to seek only one meaning to Scripture in order that we might be universal (i.e. Catholic) in our opinions about what constitutes Orthodox dogma.  (And the Orthodox have no dogma concerning Revelations...) And in the main, most Scripture is not prophetic utterance, but simple and direct teaching.  A simple Way which is revealed through living with some hard rules, and some mercy.

As far as Nero being the 'Son of Perdition,' he most clearly was.  But as St Paul said, there are many Antichrists.  The psychological profile of all Antichrists is quite similar, and being familiar as we are now with the historical research of Tom Horn regarding the ancient pagan cults of Zeus and Apollo we should know why.  All are attempts at the incarnation of a Luciferian God-Man according to some already existing pagan prophesy.  The same spirit cyclically returns to a chosen vessel.

Another thing which I would add is that it seems clear enough in Revelations that there is one final Antichrist, probably of like substance to all those before in that he is a fully possessed ordinary man.  But it is clear that he does two things which have never been done before at any time:

1.  Rule the entire world as emperor after the Gospel is preached to the four corners of the world.

2.  Destroy Babylon, that Great City which has made all the merchants of the Earth wealthy, with fire in one hour.

These Scriptural facts do not allow a preterist conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Christopher Marlowe]

The Scriptures mention six events that will occur before the Second Coming of Jesus:

1. The preaching of the Gospel to all nations (Matt. 24:14).
2. The return of Israel to Christ (Rom. 11:25-26).

[25] For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in.

[26] And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

I'm just underlining the key phrases so that any Christian zionists might not be deceived into thinking that "Israel" in this passage refers to the sh*tty little country that calls itself "israel".  As we all know, "Israel" refers to the children of God. We become the Children of God by believing in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as our Lord and Savior.

Gal 3:26; For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

Thus Gentiles can "come in" to membership in this body.  Of course, that doesn't mean that Gentiles have to go to the sh*tty country and become citizens.  

I grow weary of hearing zionist Christians make reference to the Jewish people, and pretend that there is some sort of extent covenant between them and God. Any Christian should know that Christ is the fulfillment of the Covenant:

Mt 5:17; Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [18] For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jn 17:4; I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

If Jesus was sent by God to fulfill the law, and Jesus testified that he finished this work, then the law is fulfilled. Therefore, there is no longer a covenant between God and the Jews. If the Jews want a covenant from God, they must seek one through Jesus.

God gave a sign that the covenant was extinguished when he tore the veil of the Holy of Holies:

Mt 27:50; And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

[51] And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent.

Why should God give a clear indication that the covenant was fulfilled right at the moment Jesus died on the cross, and then continue to have a covenant 2,000 years later?  Foolish Christian zionists.

Unfortunately, even the last few Popes have fallen under this spell. It was under the leadership of John Paul II that the Vatican recognized the state of israel.  Any real Pope would have continued to ignore the terror state of israel. It is a lie in a double sense: 1. As mentioned earlier, a Christian believes that "Israel" refers to the Children of God, the Christians, who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham. And Jesus says that those who DENY Him are NOT the Children of God:

Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: [43] Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

But the state that calls itself "israel" requires a person to be Jewish in order to acquire citizenship. In order to be Jewish, a person has to DENY Christ.

http://st2008.trincoll.edu/~mdearin2/Israeli%20Citizenship.htm
Brother Daniel:

The big question is who is a Jew? Is this an ethnicity, nationality or a religion? In 1958, the Minister of the Interior (Achdut Haavoda) of the Labor Zionist Party issued a directive that, "any person declaring in good faith that he is a Jew, shall be registered as a Jew and no additional proof shall be required" (Being Israeli, 145). In January of 1960, it was decided that religion and nationality were the same. One must be a Jew by having a Jewish mother or by being an orthodox convert to be Jewish in nationality. However, two years later this simple directive was challenged. The distinction between whether one is Jewish by nationality versus religion was heavily debated (and still is) in the Brother Daniel Case (1962).

Brother Daniel was born Oswald Rufeisen in Poland (1922) to Jewish parents and was an early Zionist. After being separated from his parents he used fraudulent documents that proclaimed him as a Christian. He used this forged identification to then help Jews against the Nazis. He was however caught but escaped and survived by disguising himself as a nun. Shortly after in 1945 after living as a nun and great exposure to Christianity, he converted to Christianity and changed his name to Brother Daniel. However, after the rise of the Arab-Israeli War in 1948-9, he decided due to his heritage and deeply rooted Zionist identification (despite his new religion), that he wanted to fight for the Jews. Poland would only grant him this satisfaction if he first renounced his Polish citizenship however.

Afterwards, Brother Daniel of course wanted to be in the Population Registry as a Christian with Jewish nationality and thus receive automatic citizenship under the Law of Return. However the Minister of the Interior at the time (Israel Bar Yehuda) denied him this since he was in fact a Christian. Brother Daniel, dissatisfied with this response, petitioned the Supreme Court on March 13, 1962. This proposed the question are Jewish religion and nationality the same?

Brother Daniel argued that he identifies himself as a Jew and fought for Israel thus his nationality, despite his religion, is Jewish. He questioned why an atheist might be granted citizenship automatically and yet a Christian could not (neither are religiously deemed Jewish). He declared:

"My religion is Catholic but my ethnic origin is and always will be Jewish. I have no other nationality. If I am not a Jew, what am I? I did not accept Chrisitanity to leave my people. It added to my Judaism. I feel as a Jew" (The Impossible Dilemma, 24).

In the end, the result was a 4-1 decision issued by Justice Moshe Silberg on November 19, 1962. The decision stated that Brother Daniel refused Jewish nationality by converting to Christianity. He 'severed' himself from his 'historic past' (The Impossible Dilemma, 26).

Despite that Brother Daniel was denied the nationality of Jewish on the Population Registry and on individual identity cards, he still had the right to attain citizenship through naturalization.
....
The Law of Return is Amended...

            In 1970 the Knesset and government cabinet decided to compromise between the orthodox Rabbis' conservatism regarding who is a Jew and the more liberal constituents who are not necessarily even Jewish. A Jew was then defined as: "A person born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism, who is not a member of another religion".

How could the Vatican have recognized a country that calls itself "israel" when a person must DENY Jesus Christ in order to be a CITIZEN?  

2) It should also be remembered that the word "Jew" comes from "Judah", which was the Southern Kingdom after Israel was divided following the reign of Solomon.  So the origin of "Jew" stands in CONTRAST to the kingdom of Israel even in its origins.  

Pope Benedict XIV has continued in this nonsense:

MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

Elysée Palace, Paris
Friday, 12 September 2008

Dear friends, it is with great pleasure that I meet with you this evening. Our meeting auspiciously coincides with the vigil of the weekly celebration of the shabbat, [which Jesus abolished- CM] the day which from time immemorial has occupied a significant position in the religious and cultural life of the people of Israel. Every pious Jew sanctifies the shabbat with the reading of the Scriptures and the reciting of the Psalms. Dear friends, as you know, the prayer of Jesus also was nourished by the Psalms. Regularly he went to the temple and the synagogue. There he too listened to the word on the Sabbath. There he wanted to underline the goodness with which God cares for man, even in the arrangement of time. Does not the Talmud Yoma (85b) say: the Sabbath is offered to you, but you are not offered to the Sabbath? [Note that the Pope just quoted from the Talmud, which blasphemes the Lord - CM] Christ has asked the people of the Covenant to recognize always the unprecedented greatness and love of the Creator for all humanity. Dear friends, because of that which unites us and that which separates us, we share a relationship that should be strengthened and lived. And we know that these fraternal bonds constitute a continual invitation to know and to respect one another better.

By her very nature the Catholic Church feels obliged to respect the Covenant made by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Indeed, the Church herself is situated within the eternal Covenant of the Almighty, whose plans are immutable, and she respects the children of the Promise, the children of the Covenant, as her beloved brothers and sisters in the faith....

How can Jews be "brothers in the faith" when it is a requirement that Jews DENY Jesus Christ, who is the Center of the Christian Faith?

Prior to Vatican II, the Catholic Church correctly taught that the old covenant was void:

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON THE MISTICAL BODY OF CHRIST
....
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]
....

Sorry for going on so long, but I thought it was important to document everything.

[Michael K.]

Dear Christopher Marlowe

I think it was a good thing to jump in with that, since the facial meaning of the words are too vague where it says:

2. The return of Israel to Christ (Rom. 11:25-26).

In my opinion this is the reference to the saved out of the real tribes of Israel, and it constitutes a Mystery:

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[a] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
    he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"

And here it bears repetition that Prophesy is not what dogma is most pertinent to.  Yes some Judahites will turn to Christ    That has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the Zionist Entity in Occupied Palestine.


And one more thing on the End of The World:

Since it seems clear enough that the Bible and the Holy Fathers teach the same thing concerning the Parousia/Second Coming of Jesus Christ- live like today is the day - that we should not attach any hopes or dreams to pagan numerological and astro-magickal date schemes.

If there is anything wrong with what Tom Horn is studying, it is not about whether he has accurate information about pagan calendars, it's whether he has gone too far into the fascinating and spellbinding nature of the topic.  To this end, his attempts to make such connections as between the events portrayed in Revelation and the pagan calendars, and I think he goes too far.

[Christopher Marlowe]

To this end, his attempts to make such connections as between the events portrayed in Revelation and the pagan calendars, and I think he goes too far.

I listened to his video and I thought he was very "Dan Brown-ish", in that he made connections that weren't really valid.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

To this end, his attempts to make such connections as between the events portrayed in Revelation and the pagan calendars, and I think he goes too far.

I listened to his video and I thought he was very "Dan Brown-ish", in that he made connections that weren't really valid.

He came off to me as a Baptist, more kosher version of Jordan Maxwell.


MK, CW, preterists are safe either way. If they are wrong about prophecy and there is some Jewish anti-Christ figure to come, as the Protocols of Zion predict, they won't be falling for it. Preterists are typically anti-Zionist as it is. It's the futurists (dispensationalists) that we need to worry about.

[Michael K.]

CM-

Yes, it makes me wonder, but I went back and re-listened to the second mp3 around 32-33 min. into it, and it is Steve Quayle who pushes the exact connection between the pagan calendar and the dispensational dating scheme, and Tom Horn to his credit resists this attempt vocally.

And at the very last two minutes, Tom Horn starts getting into the potential murder of one of the book's informants, Fr. Malachi Martin, and starts to discuss the unsolved case of a certain close friend of Martin's who was certainly murdered, Fr. Alfred Kunz, in Wisconsin.  At that point Steve Quayle shuts him right down. Hmm...

http://www.starharbor.com/fr_martin/mar98.html

Father Martin's Monthly Newsletter
 Volume 1, No. 5    
March Message
   
 March 12, 1998

The Assassination of Christ's Hero

    The story of Fr. Alfred Kunz teaches us all one more vivid lesson about the warfare which, all unnoticed by the great exciting world of our media, rages across this beloved land and across the world, in all sectors, board and bedrooms, dioceses and parishes, in papal Rome as in pagan populations, in the councils of the great and mighty as in the heart of every man, woman, and child. It's the eternal, unrelenting war between Christ and the personage Christ mordantly called "The Prince of this WorldLucifer to Biblical authors, old Scat and old Nick".

    Kunz was born in Dodgeville, Wisconsin on April 15, 1930. He grew up in Fennimore and his family owned a cheese factory nearby. His father was a Swiss immigrant and his mother, a German, was born in America. He had three brothers and four sisters. Kunz went to St. Mary's grade school in Fennimore, then left the state for 12 years of schooling at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Worthington, Ohio. He said his first solemn Mass on June 3, 1956, at St. Mary's in Fennimore. He was associate pastor at Congregations in Waunakee, Cassville, and Monroe, before coming to St. Michael's in Dane to serve as pastor in 1967.

    For 26 years, in addition to his parish work at St. Michael's, he served on a Tribunal in the Madison Diocese reviewing broken marriages and recommending which ones to annul. A typical story of his life is: once he went to visit a family from the parish that was anxious to show him photographs they had taken when they saw Pope John Paul say Mass in Chicago. As Kunz paged through the photo album, he was horrified to see a Communion Host they had brought home as a souvenir. He ripped the host from the album, took the wafer into his mouth, and asked everyone to get on their knees with him to ask God's forgiveness. As a practical parish priest, he was a tinkerer who performed repairs around the church and school and on his own car, a crimson Volkswagen with 150,000 on the odometer and tires that always seemed near flat. Kunz took no salary for himself. The school children attended Mass every morning, three times a week in Latin. They began each service on their knees, praying the rosary.

    Kunz was a strong, healthy man who seemed never to run out of energy and needed little sleep. Every year he went deer hunting with a younger priest and brought back venison to give to people. He also prided himself on being an expert cook. And he was a fixture over the deep fryer at the Church's fish fries -- his method of raising funds for the Church.

    He hated abortion, often preaching against it from the pulpit. Three years ago, on a rainy Saturday, he conducted a funeral for a little baby that had been taken dead from a trash can at a Milwaukee abortion clinic. He placed the baby in a small casket and buried it in front of the church, next to a shrine of Our Lady of Fatima.

    Kunz was an expert on Church law who was consulted by religious leaders across the country. He also performed exorcisms, and was venerated as a Confessor. One long standing penitent of his says, that "when you went to confession to Fr. Kunz, you knew you were in the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ".

    On Tuesday, March 3rd, he was dropped off at his parish by a fellow priest. The time was 10:00 p.m. We know Fr. Kunz was still alive at least at 10:30 -- there was a telephone conversation with a friend at that time.

    On the morning of March 4th, the first Wednesday in Lent, a young teacher arrived at Fr. Kunz's place at 7 a.m. He found Father lying face down in a pool of his own blood on the floor of classroom corridor of the school wing of St. Michaels. His throat had been cut from ear to ear and he had been left to die in his own blood. Typically, in the case of a traumatic attack in which the victim's heart continues to beat rapidly, the body surrenders blood rapidly and Fr. Kunz might have lost consciousness in as little as two to five minutes, dying of insufficient blood and heart failure shortly thereafter.

    We hate to think of him lying there knowing and feeling his life ebbing away, but we can be consoled that he had time to commend himself to God through Mary and, I am sure, to pray for his murderer or murderers.

    The police quite rightly are taciturn about details while the investigation continues with more than 30 county police on the case. But those in the parish, we who knew his very, very extraordinary activities and others who knew him more intimately are convinced that his death was not a random act, or the senseless result of a break-in by someone searching for money, but a deliberate attempt by those who hated what he represented and what he was doing, to silence and disable him permanently. One Luciferian punishment for an adversary such as Al Kunz was simple and vicious: one hand holding the knife, the other jerking the head back suddenly so as to tauten the neck and expose the jugular vein and carotid arteries. Then a quick slash from ear to ear, and it was all over.

    We must not have fuzzy and erroneous ideas about the Luciferian Warfares that pits us against the Prince of this World and on the side of Christ.

    Approximately ten years ago, it was estimated by competent authorities that about 100,000 Satanists lived in the United States. This figure has likely become larger in recent years through the numerous Satanist websites now available on the Internet and the immense notoriety of rock stars who have adopted the Prince of this World as their patron.

    But there are two basic types of Satanist groups operating in North America today. The first of these is the "sickies" and they are namely disconnected groups of occultists who employ Satan worship to cover a variety of sexual, sadomasochist, clandestine, psychopathic, and illegal activities. This branch of Satanism is used to rationalize pedophilia as well as the perversion cited above, including grave robbery, sexual assault, and the ritual blood letting performed on animals -- rarely on human beings. The "sickies" are not theological in their approach.

    The other branch of Satanist, or we should correctly call them Luciferians, are groups of people who resemble Christian theologies and have added one powerful symbol; Lucifer the Prince of this World. This group takes the cult of Lucifer serious, as a religion, and should not be confused with the "sickies".

    It is important to note that Catholics should be wary of those who reject legitimate Religious authorities, or who appear to be obsessed with the environment, and so called women's rights, while not respecting sanctity of unborn human life. Support for Luciferianism in the main stream media rarely comes directly, but is disguised as a plea for freedom of expression or belief. Similarly, support for witchcraft appears as a plea for tolerance and understanding of those who simply wish to return to a pre-industrial world where women could enjoy "natural well-being and spirituality without being oppressed by men".

    The point to be remembered about the many supporters of the Prince of this World, no matter what name they use in referring to him, no matter how lofty the ideals they profess in this name, is that we must remember ultimately he is the Prince of this World and is bent on corrupting any vestige of real faith. Already, he has made huge inroads, not merely in Academia (including supposedly Catholic Academia) but, in Catholic organizations and amongst the Catholic clergy not merely in North America but in South America and in Europe and in Rome.

    Reflecting on the death of Al Kunz, we should remember the words the Lord Jesus spoke to the women of Jerusalem as He wound He way to Calvary, and came across them crying and weeping for the coming loss of His life:

        "Weep not for Me", He said, "but weep for yourself and your children, because if they can do this to Me, the Greenwood, what do you think they are going to do to you, the dry wood".

    If the evil of Lucifer can reach out -- with God's permission -- to strike down cruelly a saintly man such as Fr. Alfred Kunz and leave him die in his own blood, shouldn't we realize that in this warfare we are facing a merciless opponent, who is supported by merciless supporters and agents?

    - Malachi B. Martin (March 1998)

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTop ... terman.htm

Father Alfred Kunz: For the Love of God

Toby Westerman

Ten years today, on March 4, 1998, a Wisconsin priest was found brutally murdered in the hallway of his school by one of the teachers at that school. Fr. Alfred J. Kunz was devoted to the truths of Christ, the Church, and his parishioners. The murder has never been solved.
   
We will follow up this article with an entire section of International News Analysis devoted to the words and works of Fr. Kunz and whatever progress is made in the investigation into the murder of this true servant of God. A detective assigned to the case has stated that the investigation is still open and is not considered a "cold case." There is a possibility that recent developments in the science of criminal investigation, including DNA research, may at last identify the killer(s).

Fr. Alfred Kunz, pastor of St. Michael's parish in Dane, Wisconsin was found brutally slain in the school's hallway, with his throat cut, lying in a pool of his own blood in front of a statue of St. Michael. The police appear no closer to the apprehension of his murderer(s) than they were the morning when his body was found.

The death of Fr. Kunz is not simply another homicide in the United States; there are certainly plenty of those. It is not simply the matter of the murder of a priest - sacrilegious as is such a crime. Fr. Kunz was a stalwart defender of the Faith, completely devoted to Jesus and His Church. The attack upon Fr. Kunz was an attack upon the Catholic Church, upon the Person of Christ, and an attack upon every faithful believer.

A large reward did not bring the needed clues to resolve the murder
   
The inability of law enforcement authorities to solve this crime indicates the vulnerability of the faithful to those individuals who hate the Word of God, even to the point of murder.

During his sojourn on earth, Fr. Kunz always remained faithful to his Lord, Jesus Christ. As a priest he never betrayed or compromised his vows or beliefs. He always was attentive to the spiritual needs of those who sought his assistance - from the great and influential to the most humble and contrite. Where at all possible, Fr. Kunz also came to the temporal aid of those in need.

An eminent canon lawyer, Fr. Kunz often came to the assistance of the faithful battling Modernist forces within the Church. Bishops, priests, religious, and laity all received assistance. One of Fr. Kunz' last projects was to provide advice and guidance to Roman Catholic Faithful, an organization led by Stephen Brady, located in Petersburg, Illinois. RCF is dedicated to exposing and seeking remedy for clerical abuses. When the group approached Fr. Kunz, about a year before his death, RCF was struggling to remove their bishop, Daniel Ryan, a reputed active homosexual. (On October 19, 1999 Bishop Daniel Ryan resigned after RCF had made his homosexual activities public.)

Though Fr. Kunz was a humble, unassuming individual, his intellectual powers were highly regarded in the upper ranks of the Church. At one point, Fr. Kunz was requested to assume the position of rector at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio, the seminary where he himself studied for the priesthood. He declined the offer because he would not have been allowed to institute needed reforms at the Josephinum.

Fr. Kunz' realization of his own vocation began at age 10. After recovering from a near-fatal appendicitis attack, he came to consciousness and said to his mother, "I want to be a priest." Following seminary training, Fr. Kunz returned to the Madison, Wisconsin, diocese. He was an assistant to several pastors in the diocese before coming as pastor to St. Michael's. He remained at St. Michael's for 31 years.

During much of the time at St. Michael's parish, he was also Judicial Vicar for the Madison diocese and a member of the Marriage Tribunal, where he unfailingly upheld the sanctity and permanence of all valid marriages.

The progressivist Bishop Bullock
   
Following the death of Bishop Cletus O'Donnell and the arrival of his successor, Bishop William Bullock, disagreements arose between the new Bishop and Fr. Kunz as to policy and interpretation of Church law. Fr. Kunz resigned as Judicial Vicar and ended his participation on the Marriage Tribunal. Fr. Kunz' knowledge of Church law enabled him to remain as pastor and in contact with the laity.

Relations between Fr. Kunz and Bishop Bullock remained strained. On March 4 at 7 a.m., a teacher at St. Michael's discovered the body of Fr. Kunz; Bishop Bullock took nearly five hours to make the half-hour trip from Madison to the village of Dane. In addition, Bishop Bullock never met with the children of St. Michael's school to console them at the sudden and criminal loss of their pastor.

Fr. Kunz also directly confronted Satan. He once told his congregation of an incident of a young lady who came into his office in the chancery. She had been referred to him by others who knew of his reputation. He invited her to take a seat and coincidentally directed her to a chair beneath a crucifix. After she sat down, a deep, animal-like growl emanated from her, followed by the words, "Where is He?" The woman had been drawn into satanic rituals, found them revolting, and wanted to be freed from the unwanted spirit within her.

The demonic voice, however, caused the chancery staff to flee, and Fr. Kunz was ordered to remove the woman from the premises. Despite this eviction, Fr. Kunz was soon able to assist the woman in obtaining her freedom. She remains in the Midwest leading a normal life.

Fr. Kunz was known to have assisted a number of priests in their direct confrontations with Satan.

The same priest who advised the high and influential, and defeated Satan's attacks upon individual souls, could also be seen in coveralls seeing to the maintenance of his - and others - vehicles. One of the "perks" for the teachers at St. Michael's school was free car maintenance from Fr. Kunz. Of course, anyone in need could count on Fr. Kunz' ready mechanical ability. (Fr. Kunz had paid part of the cost of his seminary training through a variety of jobs at a Wisconsin General Motors plant).

Fr. Kunz always offered assistance to those in need
   
As one would expect, after Fr. Kunz' death, St. Michael's changed. The look of the church and the Mass itself increasingly reflected the Bishop's interpretation of the Novus Ordo service.

Ten years after Fr. Kunz' death, however, a new Bishop is allowing the Traditional Latin Mass and has given his blessing to a memorial Traditional Mass for Fr. Kunz.

Fr. Kunz had offered the Traditional Mass nearly every weekday. On Sunday his 10 a.m. Mass was a sung Traditional Mass.

Though the flock of Fr. Kunz is now scattered, each remembers the privilege of knowing this remarkable priest of God. His legacy, however, is not just for those relatively few who personally knew him or received some sort of assistance from him.

The legacy of Fr. Alfred Kunz is for every faithful Catholic. Fr. Kunz was completely faithful to Christ and the Sacraments. Like Christ the High Priest, he poured himself out for the love of God and the good of souls. In the words of his close friend and one of the founders of the pro-life movement in the United States, the late Fr. Charles Fiore, "in the end Fr. Kunz even poured out his own blood for Jesus and His flock."

The legacy of Fr. Kunz stands today as an example, especially for priests, of a call to courage in Christ.

Fr. Kunz' assailant(s) will one day be known, the motivation revealed to all mankind - as it is even now known to God. The example and legacy of Fr. Alfred Kunz stands brightly against the darkness of those who did so great an evil.

Fr. Alfred Kunz, pray for us.
Posted March 4, 2008

[Michael K.]

TF wrote:

MK, CW, preterists are safe either way. If they are wrong about prophecy and there is some Jewish anti-Christ figure to come, as the Protocols of Zion predict, they won't be falling for it. Preterists are typically anti-Zionist as it is. It's the futurists (dispensationalists) that we need to worry about.

I'm not sure about your reasoning on that one, Timothy.  Because a preterist who can't believe that the Antichrist is a reality in his day seems just as helpless as a person who doesn't believe in the devil's existence; there are no conscious defenses.

Furthermore, it should be apparent that the Antichrist will likely be Catholic nominally, because there is no other possible demographic for a world Christian mis-leader.  Why else have the Judeo-Masons infiltrated the RCC and Vatican to the point of putting a Jew on the throne of Peter?  

So how safe is a Catholic preterist who is presented with an "Anti-Zionist" worldly Prince who saves the Christian world from destruction, when that Prince is the Antichrist?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

MK, preterism is an umbrella term for many various but similar views. I would first argue that most Catholics haven't a clue about eschatology and wouldn't really qualify as preterists. I mean, do Catholics even read the Bible? Hardly ever if at all. Preterism is of the most purest and oldest forms of anti-Judaism there is in the Church.

What makes you think the world leader must be a representative of Christendom? The world is becoming more and more areligious. It's a Noahide takeover. But you have to be careful with this, MK. The dispenSATANalists figure there will be a rise of the EU—especially the Vatican—which will join with Islam to persecute Israel. The John Hagees and Jack Van Impes have been spreading this crap around for years. The NWO, they say, is a revived Roman Empire headed by the Vatican. But Jerusalem also sits on seven hills, as does Rome and Rio deJaneiro. Babylon can only be physical Israel; Rome can be no more than a daughter of the whore.

[Michael K.]

What makes you think the world leader must be a representative of Christendom? The world is becoming more and more areligious. It's a Noahide takeover. But you have to be careful with this, MK. The dispenSATANalists figure there will be a rise of the EU—especially the Vatican—which will join with Islam to persecute Israel. The John Hagees and Jack Van Impes have been spreading this crap around for years. The NWO, they say, is a revived Roman Empire headed by the Vatican. But Jerusalem also sits on seven hills, as does Rome and Rio deJaneiro. Babylon can only be physical Israel; Rome can be no more than a daughter of the whore.

In my opinion, the enemies of Man are divided between modernist atheists and religious pagans.  The atheist camp is holding sway in the West while the religious are gathering in the East.  The power of religion and the security attraction of hierarchical social systems will eventually overcome the liberty of atheism and its attendant social chaos.  There is only one way to finally abolish Christianity and the Church, and that is to replace it with a doppleganger while disappearing its saints.  Hence the long term plan of the Judeo-Masonic infiltrators of the Church is not to bring down the structure, but to hijack it for the devil.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Yeah, the Noahide Laws. The perfect pagan religion. But Rome won't be heading it.

[Michael K.]

Make what you will of this, but I see a foot in the door for the Noahide Laws under the guise of "Ethical Monotheism" already:

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=193

POPE AFFIRMS JEWISH NOAHIDE LAWS
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2008-20111

JEWS HAVE FOUND AN ALLY in Pope Benedict XVI.

Following in the steps of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, who officially recognized modern day Jews as the 'Chosen People of God' Here, Pope Benedict is fulfilling the same role of pandering to the Jews.

In his recent visit to America from April 15-20 2008, Pope Benedict met with representatives of the Jewish community on the eve of the Jewish Passover on April 18 2008 at 5 PM Here and reiterated that they are God's "chosen" - of which any thinking Sunday School student would easily refute Here! The Pope said:

— "Shalom! It is with joy that I come here just a few hours before the celebration of your Passover to assure you of my prayers as you recall the wonders God performed in liberating His *chosen people.*" — Here

In a Bilateral Commission Meeting between the Vatican delegation and the Chief Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen in Jerusalem in 2007 Here an agreement was made which recognized that "Jewish tradition emphasizes the Noachide Covenant as containing the universal moral code which is incumbent upon all humanity." (Cf Genesis 9).

So then? Not only are Jews "absolved" by the Vatican of their guilt for crucifying the Messiah Jesus — now Pope Benedict recognizes their leadership since they are the "Chosen People of God" and that the "Noahide Laws are Jewish tradition." Hence who will ultimately be the moral authority that governs the so-called Noahide Laws? Jews, that's who. Anti-Christian Jews!

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ponti ... le_en.html

COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS

THE DELEGATION OF THE HOLY SEE'S COMMISSION
FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS
AND THE CHIEF RABBINATE OF ISRAEL'S DELEGATION
FOR RELATIONS WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

BILATERAL COMMISSION MEETING

Jerusalem, March 11-13, 2007; Adar 21-23, 5767

 

1. At the seventh meeting of the above commission, held in Jerusalem, the chairmen Cardinal Jorge Mejia and Chief Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen noted the significance of the number seven within the biblical tradition as indicating fullness and maturity. They expressed the hope that the fullness of the relationship between the Catholic and the Jewish members of this commission will be a source of blessing to both faith communities and the world at large.

Cardinal Mejia also noted the recent passing of Cardinal Johannes Willebrands former president of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and a central figure in the historic transformation in Catholic-Jewish relations. May his memory always be for a blessing.

2. The subject of the meeting was the Freedom of Religion and Conscience and its Limits. The human capacity to choose is a manifestation of the Divine Image in which all people are created (cf. Gn 1: 26-27) and is foundational for the Biblical concept of human responsibility and Divine justice (cf. Dt 30: 19).

3. God has created the human person as a social being which by definition places limits on individual human freedom. Moreover freedom of choice is derived from God and therefore is not absolute, but must reflect Divine will and law. Accordingly human beings are called to freely obey the Divine will as manifested in the Creation and in His revealed word.

Jewish tradition emphasizes the Noachide Covenant (cf. Gn 9: 9-12) as containing. the universal moral code which is incumbent on all humanity. This idea is reflected in Christian Scripture in the Book of Acts 15: 28-29.

4. Accordingly the idea of moral relativism is antithetical to this religious world view and poses a serious threat to humanity. Even though the Enlightenment helped bring about a purification from the abuse of religion, secular society still requires religious foundations to sustain lasting moral values. Critical among these is the principal of the sanctity of human life and dignity. Ethical monotheism affirms these as inviolable human rights and therefore can provide inspiration in this regard for society at large.

5. While on principle the state should not at all limit freedom of religion for individuals and communities nor of moral conscience, it has the responsibility to guarantee the wellbeing and security of society. Accordingly it is obliged to intervene wherever and whenever a threat is posed by the promotion, teaching or exercise of violence and specifically terrorism and psychological manipulation in the name of religion.

6. In addition to respecting the freedom of religious choices, the integrity of faith communities should also be guaranteed. Accordingly it is legitimate for a society with a predominant religious identity to preserve its character, as long as this does not limit the freedom of minority communities and individuals to profess their alternative religious commitments, nor to limit their full civil rights and status as citizens, individuals and communities. This obliges us all to safeguard the integrity and dignity of holy sites, places of worship and cemeteries of all religious communities.

7. In the course of history, religious communities have not always been faithful to these values. Therefore there is a special obligation upon religious leaders and communities to prevent the improper use of religion and to educate towards respect for diversity which is essential in order to ensure a healthy, stable and peaceful society.

In this regard, there is a special role for families, schools and the authorities of state and society as well as the media to impart these values to future generations.

In conclusion the bilateral commission having met in the Holy City of Jerusalem, expressed the prayer that the Almighty would bless and inspire both religious and political leaders in the region and beyond, to work determinedly to promote peace, dignity, security and tranquillity in the Holy Land for all its peoples and for the world as a whole.

Jerusalem,
March 13th, 2007 - Adar 21-23, 5767
Chief Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen
(Chairman of the Jewish Delegation)        Jorge Cardinal Mejía(Chairman of the Catholic Delegation)
     
Chief Rabbi Ratson Arussi                         Georges Cardinal Cottier, O.P.
Chief Rabbi Yossef Azran                          Archbishop Antonio Franco
Chief Rabbi David Brodman                  Archbishop Elias Chacour
Chief Rabbi David Rosen                          Bishop Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo
Mr Oded Wiener                                 Mons. Pier Francesco Fumagalli
     P. Norbert J. Hofmann, S.D.B.

 

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Either one of them could lead the NWO, MK, as you know. But only Israel was in a marriage contract with God before the divorcement; therefore, only she could commit adultery and be called the whore of Babylon. Or am I wrong?

[Michael K.]

Either one of them could lead the NWO, MK, as you know. But only Israel was in a marriage contract with God before the divorcement; therefore, only she could commit adultery and be called the whore of Babylon. Or am I wrong?

I can see no better sense of the title, I agree that she seems to be just what you say.

The part which I would draw your attention to is the part where the Antichrist (the Beast) destroys her out of hatred, but also as a tool in the hands of God almighty who through this terrible vessel brings judgment and wrath on the Harlot. (Rev. 17)

Hence the mistake to me appears to be the mis-identification of the occult-infiltrated Vatican as the Harlot, when as you reasoned she is actually Israel unredeemed herself, Ishtar/Esther.

Instead let me suggest that the Vatican is the place of the False Prophet (Rev. 13:11) who causes the whole world to worship the Beast, the same emperor who presides over the destruction of the Great Harlot, "Israel".  

The accompanying sense of divine mission in the Antichrist affirms his as a Messianic deliverer to those suffering under the Harlot.  He is thus both worshiped as a leader by the masses and proclaimed the bearer of a divine mandate by the last pope, "Petrus Romanus"(?).

And therefore it will be the victorious Beast that will spread the Noachide Laws, a mandate already affirmed by the Opus Dei/Jew occupied Vatican.