MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT (Revelation 17:5)

Origins Of The Babylonian Mystery Religion. History Of The Roman Catholic Church, & The One True Church Part 1 of 2. 

Origins Of The Babylonian Mystery Religion. History Of The Roman Catholic Church, & The One True Church Part 2 Of 2.




Mystery Babylon the Great
The Babylonian Roots of Catholicism

  "And upon her forehead was a name written MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." These words, written by John in Revelation 17:5, are given to describe the woman who is symbolic of the one world church system set up by the Antichrist. The fact that she is of the Antichrist is obvious. First, she is said to be the great whore in verse 1 of chapter 17. The true churches of God are known as the Bride of Christ. "Babylon is designated a harlot because of her unfaithfulness to Christ the bridegroom through her friendship and unholy alliance with the kings and inhabitants of the earth.''(1) Thus, because of the designation of "whore", it is obvious that the woman is a false religious system. Secondly, it is obvious that the system is of Antichrist because of the description of the woman in verse six. She is said to be "drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs." Thus, it is seen that the false religious system of Antichrist has been one that has persecuted the Christians down through the centuries. It is this type of religious system that is called Babylon The Great.

      What is meant by the name, Babylon The Great? Some would say that this refers to the city in which this wicked ecclesiastical system shall be errected. However, it should be obvious from verse six that this is not the correct interpretation. The city of Babylon by the Euphrates river has never been drunk with the blood of the saints. In fact, quite contrary, Babylon is nothing more than stones and rubble piled up. It has been completely destroyed, and has not through history lived up to the definition of verse six. Also, it is interesting to note that the inscription on the forehead of the woman referred to MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT. This indicates that the name Babylon should not be taken literally, but rather that it is a secret name which stands for something else.(2) It is commonly believed that the name of Babylon thus refers to the ecclesiastical system of Babylonianism founded in Genesis chapter ten, which has existed in one form or another up until this present age and will continue until the return of Christ.

      The religious system known as Babylonianism received its name from the city in which it was founded: Babylon on the plain of Shinar. The founder of this city was Nimrod. Nimrod appears for only a brief time in the Bible. His name is mentioned only in Genesis chapter ten, verses 8-10. Verse eight teaches that Nimrod was begotten "by Cush, and that he was a mighty one in the earth." Verse nine expands to tell that he was a mighty hunter before the Lord. On first glance this description appears innocent enough, but a closer examination will show the true nature of this individual. First of all, the name Nimrod comes from the Hebrew verb"nimrode" which is translated, "let us revolt." This in itself indicates the type of individual that Nimrod was. He is referred to as a "mighty one." This phrase comes from the Hebrew word, "gilor" which means "tyrant." So it becomes evident that Nimrod was not just a powerful man on the earth at that time. Rather he was a tyrannical leader of men. The phrase "a mighty hunter before the Lord" has interesting connotations as well. First of all, it is interesting to question why the hunting exploits of one individual would make the Lord take special notice of him. The Hebrew phrase "liphne yahweh", which can be rendered "in the estimation of Jehovah", carries with it the idea of a superlative, but "a superlative that bears the meaning that even Yahweh was impressed by this hunter's prowess and achievements."(4) There must have been more to Nimrod's hunting than would be evidenced in the life of any other hunter. Secondly, the word translated "before" in Genesis 10:9 carries with it a hostile meaning, and could probably be translated "against". Putting this all together, it becomes plain that it was not wild beasts that Nimrod was hunting, but men. Having hunted them he would enslave them and have a tyranical hold over them. And all this was done in direct opposition to the Lord. The Jewish Encyclopedia sums up the life of Nimrod by referring to him as "he who made all the people rebellious against God."(5)

      The Bible teaches that the beginning of the Kingdom of Nimrod was at Babel, or in other words, Babylon. The wickedness of Babylon is evidenced by the story of the tower of Babel, which is related in Genesis chapter eleven. The people of Babel determined that they would build a huge tower in their city in direct defiance to God. They were in defiance toward God because they did not want to be scattered across the face of the earth as God had commanded Noah and his descendants in Genesis 9:1. In order to avoid this, they wanted to build this tower that would make a name for them. They felt that this would help to bind them together and keep them from scattering. But all this was in disobedience to God. God forced them to do His will by confounding their language and forcing them to disperse and try to regroup according to a common tongue. But this small incident is very indicative of the people who followed after Nimrod in his rebellion against God.

      Following the death of Nimrod, his heathen form of worship was continued by his wife, Queen Semiramis. She claimed that her husband had become the Sun god, and was to be worshipped. Some time after this, Queen Semiramis conceived through adultery and gave birth to an illegitimate son whom she named Tammuz. It is interesting to note here that Ezekial 8:14 records the incident of women weeping in lamentation for Tammuz. The prophet is told that he will someday see greater abominations than this one, which indicates that even sorrow for Tammuz was wicked and idolatry. Upon the birth of Tammuz, Semiramis declared that he was actually Nimrod reborn. In addition to this, she also claimed that her son was supernaturally conceived. Now Semiramis undoubtedly knew of God's promise of a Redeemer. Satan used her knowledge of this to enduce her to set up a counterfeit plan of God's redemption by having her claim that Tammuz was to be the saviour of the world.(6) However, even though Semiramis claimed to have given birth to a saviour, it was she that was worshipped, not the son. She was worshipped as the mother of the gods.(7) So from this point on the principle role of the woman as opposed to the Son is seen.

      Many different ideas from the Babylonian religion have come down through the generations. Probably the key doctrine is that of the mother-son relationship. As the Babylonian people were scattered throughout the world, they took with them the idea that Semiramis had miraculously conceived and given birth to Nimrod reincarnated. Thus, all through the world, men began to worship a divine mother and god-child, long before the birth of Christ. The woman appears in different ways, and is called by different names, but she is always the same person. The Chinese called her Shingmoo. The Germans worshipped Hertha. The Scandanavians worshipped Sisa. In India, she was known as Indrani.(8) But the woman was really Semiramis, the queen of Babylon. Even Israel, when it fell into apostasy, worshipped Ashteroth, who was known to the Jews as the "queen of Heaven" as told in Jeremiah 44:17-19. The spread of this doctrine was great at the time of Christ.

      The worship of the Great Mother,.. was very popular under the Roman Empire. Inscriptions prove that the two (the mother and the child) received divine honors... not only in Italy and especially in Rome, but also in the providences, particularly in Africa, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany and Bulgaria.(9) So it is apparent that the whole world was aware of, and probably worshipped the Mother-Son relationship.

      It was into this time period that Christ was born. As He accomplished His ministry, and as the apostles went out and started churches, the Word of God spread throughout the world. However, as the centuries passed, many of these churches fell into apostasy. Paganism began mingling with "Christianity". Constantine professed to become a Christian and began to push Christianity on the pagans; not by conversion, but simply by letting them join. Many of these pagans who joined the "church" brought with them their beliefs about the Great Mother. They had grown up with this belief so long that they did not want to give it up. So the "church" compromised. Rather than force the pagans to give up the Babylonian idea of the Great Mother, they decided (in order to increase their numbers) to adopt this belief into the church. Mary, the mother of Jesus, became the Great Mother to the pagans. This satisfied both sides. The "Christians" were happy because the pagans were "worshipping" the Christian God. The pagans were happy because they had their Great Mother to worship. Thus, little by little, the worship of Mary worked its way into the "church" which is known today as the Catholic Church.

      There are other similarities which show that the Catholic doctrine of Maryolotry is an offshoot of Babylonianism. In his deified form, Ninrod the Sun god is known as Baal. Semiramis, as the female divinity, would be called Baalti. This word translated into English means "My Lady." In Latin it would be translated "Mea Domina". This name becomes the name "Madonna" which is the name by which Mary is often referred. The same reasoning can be applied to the name of "Mediatrix", which Mary is also called. Since the Bible teaches that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that One being Jesus Christ (I Timothy 2:5), it is obvious that Mary did not receive that title in a Biblical way. She instead acquired it from "Mylitta" (mediatrix) which was one of the names of the Mother Goddess of Babylon.(10) "The Queen of Heaven" is another name for Mary that has been adopted from the pagan Babylonian religions. Thus it is obvious that the Catholic doctrine of Maryolotry is nothing more than the ancient Babylonianism dressed up in Christian terminology.

      Babylonianism has been passed down through the ages in the form of symbolism also. The Babylonians were very symbolic in everything they did, and these symbols of worship can still be seen today. One of these religious symbols is the rosary. This article is not an invention of the papacy, but has been around since the earliest times and is almost universally found in the pagan nations.(11) It was used as a sacred instrument by the Mexicans and it is repeatedly referred to in the Hindu holy books. In fact, images of the goddess Diana show her to be wearing rosary beads. So this Catholic ritual holds its origin in the pagan religions which stemmed from Babylon.

      A second symbol of importance within Babylonian religion is the obelisk or tower. The obelisks were found all throughout the areas of Babylon and Egypt. Often these obelisks have been transported to places of high esteem, such as the entry to Saint Peter's Cathedral in Rome. In Babylonian religion, these obelisks served two purposes in worship. First of all, they were associated with Sun worship. They pointed to the sun in a form of homage to it as the great life giver. Yet these monuments also stood as sexual symbols. They were representative of the phallus which, along with the sun, was considered to be a symbol of life. So these obelisks were really a combination of sex and sun worship.(l2) When Israel backslid, they errected these at the entry to the temple in defiance against God (Ezekiel 8:5). This makes it very interesting when it is shown that such an abolisk does sit at the entrance to Saint Peter's. It is also interesting to note that when the obelisk was to be errected at Saint Peter's, the Pope attached the Death Penalty to the workers should the monument be broken.(l3) Obviously, much importance must be placed on this pagan monument by the Catholics. This is another example of how Babylonian paganism has continued down until this time.

      Another doctrine of Babylonianism which has been carried on till today is that of the celibacy of the priesthood. This practice started with Queen Semiramis. This practice quickly spread throughout the pagan world. It finally arrived in Rome through the worship of the Babylonian goddess Cybele.(l4) This practice has been continued down through the years in the Catholic church. Going along with the oath of celibacy was the priestly tonsure. A tonsure is the shaving or clipping of a round spot on the head of priests at their ordination. This practice was a carry over from the ordination of the priests of Bacclus, which is another name for the illegitimate son of Queen Semiramis. So even this mark which priests receive as an initiatory rite has its origins in the pagan religions of Babylon.

      One final area which will be discussed is the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. The first real evidence of this doctrine in Catholocism occurred when Pope Gregory the Great claimed the existence of a third state, one different than Heaven and Hell. The idea was not officially adopted into Catholic dogma until the Council of Florence in 1459. From that point on, the Catholic church has freely taught the concept of purgatory as a purification place for souls. However, this doctrine was in effect long before the time of Gregory the Great. In the 4th Century B.C., Plato spoke of certain teachers of his day who believed in purgatory. Buddhism, Stoicism, and the Moslim fathers also believed in a place of purification where souls must go before they can attain Heaven. These beliefs have their root in Babylon. The most probable source is that of the worship of Molech. Many pagan nations felt that fire was necessary to cleanse from sin. This is probably because they were worshippers of the sun god, and his power on earth was represented by fire. This was evidenced in the worship of Molech, as young infants were made human sacrifices and burned in the arms of the idol. God made special mention of Molech and forbid his worship in II Kings 23:10 and Leviticus 18:21. In fact, Molech is simply another name for Nimrod. The name Tammuz sheds light on this as well. ''Tam" means "perfect"; "Muz" means "by burning". (15) This shows that the idea of purification by fire has its roots in the Babylonian worship of Nimrod.

      From the time of Nimrod until the present there has always been a false religious system in operation. This system has its life in Babylonian religion. This religion is evidenced today in the Catholic church. The Catholic doctrine of Maryolotry has its roots in the divine mother-child relationship of Queen Semiramis and her illegitimate son Tammuz. The symbol of the rosary has its beginnings in Babylon. The obelisk as a monument is a symbol of Babylonian sun and sex worship. The initiation rites of priests are the same as those for the priests of Babylon. Even the doctrine of purgatory directly coincides with the Babylonian practice. Many other examples could be cited. But even these few are more than sufficient to show that the Catholic church is not a "Christian" religion. It is nothing more than a copy of the pagan religions of Babylon. It is the religious system symbolized as MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT in Revelation 17:5, and it will someday be destroyed as Christ in His glory returns to earth to set up His kingdom.


(1)J. B. Smith, A Revelation of Jesus Christ (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1961), p. 240.
(2) Ibid., p. 242.
(3)H. C . LeuPold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book Ilouse, 1965), p. 366.
(4) Ibid., pp. 366-367.
(5) Ralph Woodrow. Babylon Mystery Religion (Riverside: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Associaton, Inc., 1966), p. 9.
(6) Ibid., p. 10.
(7) Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (Neptune: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916), p. 5.
(8) Woodrow, op. cit., p. 14.
(9) Ibid., p. 15.
(10) Ibid., p. 18.
(11) Hislop, op. cit., p. 187.
(12) Woodrow, op. cit., p. 39.
(13) Ibid., p. 42.
(14) Hislop, p. 220.
(15) Woodrow. P. 73.
Bibliography

Hislop, Alexander. The Two Babylons. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916
Leupold, H. E. Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Book Houes, 1965.
Smith, J. B. A Revelation of Jesus Christ. Scottdale: Herald Press, 1961.
Woodrow, Ralph. Babylon Mystery Religion. Riverside Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, Inc., 1966.


By
Pastor Mark Montgomery
Ambassador Baptist Church
1926 Babcock Blvd
Pittsburgh, PA 15209
(412)822-7255

Roman Catholicism and Demons ( Daniel 7 and The AntiChrist). part 3

Daniel 7 is considered by some to be the most important chapter in the book of Daniel, others even consider it the most important chapter in the entire Old Testament for reasons which we will get into later, but certainly one of those reasons is because of its prophetic significance.

In Daniel Chapter 7 Daniel has a vision of 4 beasts: a lion, bear, leopard and a "diverse beast". These beasts are identified as kings and/or kingdoms by the angel who interprets Daniel's dream starting in verse 17.

The question is which kingdoms are being referred to with these beasts.

Most conservatives believe that Daniel 7 is simply a retelling of Daniel 2. In other words the dream that Nebuchadnezzar had in Daniel 2 of a multi-metal statue which represented the four kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome are again described here in Daniel 7.

I don't agree with that view, but I do agree with them that the fourth beast in Daniel 7 is the kingdom of Antichrist, however because of their insistence that this chapter is simply a mirror image of Daniel 2, they are forced to defend the position that the Antichrist must somehow come from something they call the Revived Roman Empire (RRE) because in Daniel chapter 2 the last section of the statue is clearly talking about Rome, so if this chapter is the same as that one then the fourth beast is Rome.

But as I will demonstrate not only is that not necessary it could cause many people to miss the signs of the Antichrists kingdom. For more information on why the belief of the RRE is based on a bad exegesis of Daniel chapter 2, please see my video or audio on Daniel 2, which should be linked in the notes, that study should be considered a companion study to this one.

I would also recommend a 4 part paper by Charles Cooper who is a former professor of Hermeneutics at Moody Bible Institute called "Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 Equal or not Equal."

Mother Mary Comes to Me: The Beatles and Catholicism

Though Catholicism didn't take with any Beatle, Catholic culture and Marian images permeate a number of Beatles songs.
Reprinted from Crisis magazine. Used with permission. 

There is no lovelier hymn to Mary in modern English than "Let It Be," the Beatles song written in 1969:

When I find myself in times of trouble, 
Mother Mary comes to me,
Speaking words of wisdom: 
Let it be. 

Those pellucid lyrics by Paul McCartney, who, with John Lennon, composed the plaintive melody, stand out as peerless against the backdrop of the saccharine Marian hymnody of today's Catholicism, where such chestnuts as "Immaculate Mary, Your Praises We Sing" still reign supreme. 

To find an equal to McCartney's song, you have to go back 600 years, to this:

He came also still
There his mother was
As dew in April
That falleth on the grass.

Indeed, the 15th-century carol and the 1969 Beatles lyric both concern the Annunciation, when Christ came to be Mary's son in the quietness of a spring evening. "Whisper words of wisdom: Let it be," wrote McCartney in his second verse. The words are those of Mary's fiat to the angel Gabriel in Luke's gospel: "Let it be done unto me according to thy word." 

Of course, when I first heard "Let It Be," when it was released on the album of the same name in 1970, I was a cheerfully benighted lapsed Catholic, and I didn't make the connection between the Annunciation and the Beatles. Or even realized that "Mother Mary" was the same Mary whose May altars I had constructed out of shoeboxes and birthday candles when I was a child at parochial school. I thought she might be a personage from Eastern spirituality. "Let it be"--that sounded like Buddhist resignation. Many of us in those days, Beatles included, were way beyond Christianity; we were somewhere between California and nirvana. 

The Beatles are currently enjoying a huge revival. We now can hear "Let It Be," along with 26 more of their top-of-the-chart hits, in glorious re-release on the new "Beatles 1" CD. Their first movie, "A Hard Day's Night" (1964), is also in re-release. "The Beatles Anthology" (Chronicle) has been a best-seller since its publication last October. Listening to a Beatles song now, however, turns out to be a very different experience from that of listening to it 30 or 40 years ago. 

Catholic Liverpool

When the Beatles burst onto the American pop music scene in 1963, it was their brash, upstart quality, driven by the thrumming percussion of the underappreciated Ringo Starr, that caught the instant attention of young people like me bored with Fifties pieties. The Beatles had steeped themselves in American rhythm-and-blues in their native Liverpool, and even tried to Americanize their dense Lancashire accents. 

Now, more than three decades later, it is difficult to listen to a Beatles song without hearing...Liverpool. Many of the songs are specifically infused with the Catholic culture of Liverpool, which, as a port on the Irish Sea, has more Catholics than any other city in England because it has more Irish. They came in droves to flee starvation during the potato famine of the 1840s, they lived in densely populated slums and worked the docks in the years when Liverpool was England's busiest shipping entrepôt, and they stayed on when the shipping in Liverpool died after World War II, still in the dense slums but as often as not on the dole. 

McCartney, who was Irish on both sides of his family, and George Harrison, who had a devoutly Catholic mother, were baptized in the Church and raised as Catholics. Lennon was Irish on his father's side, but he was never baptized, as his father deserted the family after his son's birth. Catholicism didn't take with any Beatle, and Lennon, by the time he was shot to death in 1980, was truculently nonreligious, usually oscillating between Marxism and Maoism. 

Nonetheless, the bedraggled Catholicism of the beaten-down Liverpool Irish permeates a number of Beatles songs. They treated Catholic culture sardonically:

Lady Madonna, children at your feet,
Wonder how you manage to make ends meet.

They treated it with sadness: 

Father McKenzie, writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear,
No one comes near....

And as they were on the verge of breaking up forever, making the last album they would ever make as a foursome, they treated Catholicism as offering an iconography of hope and comfort. 

The Beatles weren't very Christian, and their music often seems to mock Christian belief. Yet art has a life of its own that outlasts its creators' intentions. Now, finally, it's easy to see that in nearly their last song together, the Beatles were celebrating the ancient faith of the ancient city where they were born, the faith that was itself born when a woman said yes to an angel:

I wake up to the sound of music;
Mother Mary comes to me,
Speaking words of wisdom: Let it be.

SOURCE: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2001/05/mother-mary-comes-to-me-the-beatles-and-catholicism.aspx

Doctrine of The ANTICHRIST.

ANTICHRIST IS ANTI-GRACE AND HIS MARK IS THE TEACHING OF WORKS-BASED SALVATION

We will take an aside here to examine some things that will help us identify this pernicious and lawless Antichrist.  Going back to a verse we looked at briefly, that being the next verse from the pen of Paul:

“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Th 2:13)

Remember that Paul is being as wise as a serpent, but as harmless as a dove (Matt. 10:16).  He has purposely and openly declared to the Thessalonians who the evil restrainer is (Pagan Rome), but he has done so in a manner that would protect the church from undue persecution.  Now, continuing in this fashion, and directly following his statements, he offers a further clue as to the identity of Antichrist:

(1.)That God has CHOSEN and predestined those who would be saved through His own power is a clue to the identity of the one who would be ANTI-CHRIST, because this Antichrist will also deny this critical element of our faith.  Paul plainly exhorts the church at Thessalonica that they will not be deceived by this Antichrist, because GOD has chosen his elect, and has decreed that they will identify him.  Whereas in verse 10 he plainly states that the un-elect (reprobate) will be deceived about the identity of the  Antichrist because God has withheld the BELIEF OF THE TRUTH from them, saying, “they received not the love of the truth”, he now tells us that the gift of BELIEF OF THE TRUTH comes from God and is bestowed upon His elect alone!  God has from the beginning chosen those who would be saved by giving them the gifts of sanctification of the Spirit, and BELIEF OF THE TRUTH!

(2.)By identifying the Doctrine of Election with the great deception concerning the identity of Antichrist, Paul further establishes the fact that the Antichrist system will be known principally by its opposition to the Doctrines of Grace.

Let us see if John agrees with this assessment:

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.  But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.  I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.  Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:18-22)

In his dissertation on Antichrist, John makes some important statements that we would do well to heed:

(1.) Antichrist (the Man and System) is still to come.  John writes this epistle some time between 85-90 a.d., almost 20 years AFTER the destruction of the Jewish Temple.  Just as in the book of Revelation, John makes NO MENTION of a current Temple standing in Jerusalem, in fact John’s only mentions of the Temple in the entire book of Revelation regards the Temple that is in heaven.  There is no mention of the Jewish Temple AT ALL in John’s epistles, proving that the temple had already been destroyed, and that the revealing of Antichrist, and therefore the Antichrists destruction by the return of Christ was still future.

(2.) John states plainly that the Antichrist system is already in place (although in embryonic form), and that the System of Antichrist WENT OUT FROM US (verse 19)  This agrees with Paul’s statement that the Apostasy was already beginning, and would precede the revealing of Antichrist.  This also proves that the Antichrist would come from, and would claim CHRISTIANITY, and that their particular apostasy was one of false doctrine.

(3.) John asserts that the true believer has an UNCTION from the Holy One, and will not remain deceived about the identity of the Antichrist.  This agrees with Paul’s teaching that;

a)Election is the key to understanding the identity of Antichrist, and,
b)The Elect will not be deceived because they are to receive this truth through the gift of BELIEF from God.

(4.) John states that we may identify the Antichrist because in doctrine and in action they “denieth the Father and the Son.”  This is the evidence that we will examine next.

THE PAPACY DENIES THE FATHER AND THE SON

Let me first state that it is inconsistent and unacceptable that a teacher should commend the Authorized King James Bible as Holy Spirit given, while disdaining the plain statements of its principle human author (William Tyndale) and of its human translators (The King James Translators).  We have already shown in our previous essay that the King James Translators identified the Papacy as Antichrist in their introduction to that book.  Now let us read the words of Tyndale on this subject from his commentary on the 1st Epistle of John:

“Antichrist is one of the first who sees the light, and who comes and preaches Christ for a while, seeking his glory in Christ’s Gospel. But when he discovers that there will be no glory for himself besides that of preaching, then he goes and preaches that doctrine which is contrary to Christ. If he cannot disguise himself, nor his scheming, whereby his poisoned heresy is hidden under the bait of true doctrine, then is he a professed and open enemy.

 The Apostles were clear-eyed and spied Antichrist at once, and put him to flight, weeding out his doctrine quickly. But when charity waxed cold, and the preachers began to seek themselves and to admit glory, and honor of riches, then Antichrist disguised himself after the fashion of a true Apostle and preached Christ with subtlety and cunning, bringing in first this tradition, later that tradition, darkening the doctrine of Christ, and setting up innumerable ceremonies, Sacraments and images, giving them significations at first, but later their signification was set aside, and works were instead preached as holy deeds to justify, to put away sin, and to save the soul. Antichrist taught that men should put their trust in works and whatsoever was unto his glory and profit; and under the name of Christ ministered, leaving Christ out altogether, becoming head of the congregation himself.”

Tyndale goes on to say,

“Christ in the Scripture is called the holy because he only sanctifieth and halloweth us. And he is called Christ, that is to say, anointed, because he anointeth our souls with the holy ghost and with all the gifts of the same. Ye are not anointed with oil in your bodies, but with the spirit of Christ in your souls; which spirit teacheth you all truth in Christ and maketh you to judge what is a lie and what is truth, and to know Christ from Antichrist. For except he taught your souls within, the pouring of words into your ears would be in vain. For they must be all taught of God, John 6:45. And the things of God no man knoweth, save the spirit of God; and the carnal man knoweth not the things of the spirit of God. On the contrary, the spiritual that is anointed with the spirit judgeth all things, 1 Cor. 2:11-15. Therefore, we are forbidden to call any of us Master upon earth, Matt. 23:10, seeing we have all one Master now who is in heaven who only teaches us with his spirit, though by the administration and office of a faithful preacher.”

And specifically concerning Antichrist and the Papacy, Tyndale says,

“Forasmuch as Antichrist and Christ are two contraries, and the endeavor of Antichrist is to quench the name of Christ, [it is asked by our adversaries] how can the Pope and his sects be Antichrist when they all preach Christ? Say I again to thee, how was Pelagius Antichrist, whose doctrine the Pope defendeth in the highest degree, and how were all other heretics Antichrist? Verily, Sylvester the Pope did what all heretics do –- he abused the name of Christ. He gathered offerings, tithes and rents in Christ’s name, bestowing them to his own honor and not Christ’s. He brought the conscience of the people into captivity through superstitious fear, as though such authority was given him by Christ. And every syllable [in Scripture] that sounded as though it fit his purpose, he expoundeth it falsely and fleshly, and therewith deceived and bewitched the ears of the people, making them his own possession, to believe what he wished, as though it made no difference to them if he preached true or false; so they believed and did as he biddeth them.

 But all the texts which show the Pope his duty, he puts out of the way, including all the texts which set the conscience at liberty in Christ, as well as those which prove salvation to be in Christ only. With Pelagius he preacheth the justifying of works, which is the denying of Christ. He preacheth a false binding and loosing by confession to a priest which is not [grounded] in the trust and confidence of Christ’s shed blood. He preacheth the false penance of deeds, neglecting to preach that we rein the flesh so that we sin no more. Rather, he teaches that we make satisfaction to redeem our past sins. What else can this be but the denying of Christ, who alone made redemption for our sin? The Pope maketh of the works of the ceremonies, which were customarily used to be signs and remembrances of things to be believed or done, service unto God and his Saints which are spirits, to purchase with their merits whatsoever the blind soul imagines. All are the denying of Christ. For if thou wilt receive an anointing of grace or mercy from anywhere besides Christ, he is no longer Christ unto thee.”

So, concerning the 4th point we made above about John’s identification of Antichrist, Tyndale plainly states:

“Now, though the Pope and his sects give Christ these names, yet they rob him of the effect, taking their significations unto themselves, making of him a hypocrite, as they are  themselves. They be right Antichrists who deny both the father and the son. For they deny the witness the father bare unto his son, as they deny the son of all power and glory that his father gave him.”

OCCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF ANTICHRIST – JESUIT PROPHECY TEACHINGS


We have shown previously where the Testimony of the Spirit concerning the identity of the Antichrist is uniform throughout the Church age.  The martyrs of Christ, the reformed Bible translators, and the introduction to the Bible itself claim that the Papacy was the seat of Antichrist.  Now let us look at how (as prophesied by Paul and John) this Antichrist, working in the spirit of the wicked one, would occlude his identity to those who had not received the gift of a love of the truth.

The Above articles are extracted from the website of Michael Bunker entitled The Doctrine of the Papal Antichrist. You can read the whole article by Clicking HERE.

Antichrist: A Very Present Danger 

So then, in popular modern Christian doctrine the restrainer – be it the Church, the  Holy  Spirit  or  a  political  power  –  is  now  holding  Antichrist  back  somehow. This  doctrine  has  been  aggressively  articulated  without  ambiguity  in  modern Bible versions. A random sampling: 

RSV (1946): For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 

New English Bible (1970): For already the secret power of wickedness is  at  work,  secret  only  for  the  present  until  the  Restrainer  disappears from the scene. 

New  Jerusalem  Bible  (1985):  The  mystery  of  wickedness  is  already  at work, but let him who is restraining it once be removed, 8and the wicked One will appear openly. 

Any reader of these modern versions must think the Bible teaches that only when the  restrainer  is  removed,  or  “disappears  from  the  scene  (NEB)”,  can  Antichrist rise  to  power  and be  identified.  And  what fear  this  causes  in  some  circles,  with people  searching  out  who  this  evil  man  is  going  to  be!  But  in  fact,  though  it appears more and more aggressively in modern Bibles, this doctrine of a future Antichrist is not a modern teaching. It is many centuries old, and long predated Tyndale. It is a doctrine that arose early in the Church, and by the 16th century it was  apparently  as  pervasive  among  Roman  Catholics  as  it  is  now  among Protestants, and also Mormons and other groups.  

But William Tyndale departed from the common view. His warnings, which have been forgotten or suppressed, are that Antichrist is a spiritual thing, and always a very  present  danger.  Furthermore,  we  must  watch  out  for  his  coming  as  a Christian imposter. In Christian Churches he will seek authority, professing faith and assuming appearances of faith, but in fact teaching so as to undermine the faith. “Mark this,” Tyndale wrote, “above all things”: 

Mark this also above all things – that Antichrist is not an outward thing, that is to say, a man that should suddenly appear with wonders, as our fathers talked of him. No, verily; for Antichrist is a spiritual thing. And is as  much  to  say  as  against  Christ;  that  is,  one  that  preacheth  false doctrine, contrary to Christ.  

Antichrist  was  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  fought  with  the  prophets;  he was also  in the time of Christ  and the apostles, as thou readest  in the Epistles  of  John,  and  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians,  and other  Epistles.  Antichrist  is  now,  and  will,  (I  doubt  not)  endure  till  the world’s end. But his nature is (when he is revealed and overcome with the word of God) to go out of play for a season, and to disguise himself, and then to come in again with new raiment. As thou seest how Christ rebuketh the Scribes and the Pharisees in the gospel, (which were very Antichrists,)  saying,  Woe  be  to  you,  Pharisees,  for  ye  rob  widow’s houses; ye pray long prayers under a colour; ye shut up the kingdom of heaven,  and  suffer  them  not  that  would  enter  in;  ye  have  taken  away the key of knowledge; ye make men break God’s commandments  with your  traditions;  ye  beguile  the  people  with  hypocrisy  and  such  like; Which things all our prelates do, but have yet gotten them new names, and other garments, and are otherwise disguised.  

There  is  a  difference  in  the  names  between  a  pope,  a  cardinal,  a bishop,  and  so  forth,  and  to  say  a  scribe,  a  Pharisee,  a  senior  [elder] and  so  forth;  but  the  thing  is  all  one.  Even  so  now,  when  we  have exposed  him,  he  will  change  himself  once  more,  and  turn  himself  into an angel of light (2 Cor. xi.).17

We can now see how Tyndale’s understanding would have led him to translate 2 Thessalonians  2  as  he  did,  showing  the  restrainer  as  presently  working  the mystery of iniquity. He had looked in all the Scriptures and seen that in the past the work of Antichrist had been accomplished through the religious leaders and false  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  who  locked  up  God’s  word,  and  then  later through  the  scribes and  Pharisees  (“very  antichrists”)  of  Jesus’  time.  And  in his own  time  it  was  being  accomplished  through  popes,  cardinals,  bishops, priests, and monks.  

Therefore  as  to  Antichrist’s  “new  raiment”,  should  we  not  take  care  in  our  own Churches  and  professing  Christian  congregations  concerning  our  own  religious leaders and prophets, our pastors, priests, prophets, or elders, no matter by what names they call themselves or how they are clothed? For as Tyndale said, “the thing is all one” – or, in modern parlance, it is all one and the same thing.  

Of course I am not suggesting that all pastors, priests, or elders are of Antichrist. They are not, thanks be to God. But we must be alert for signs of Antichrist now. He sends his emissaries to lodge in the branches of Christendom wherever and as high up as they can climb. The apostle Paul said that that which ‘holds back’ 
was at already work when he wrote. The Scriptures confirm that antichrist was at work in the 1st century and warn of false apostles: 

For there are certain craftily crept in (Jude 1:4). 

Little  children,  it  is  the  last  time,  and  as  ye  have  heard  that  antichrist shall  come,  even  now  are  there  many  antichrists  come  already. Whereby we know that it is the last time (1John 2:18).  

These false apostles are deceitful workers, and fashion themselves like the apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for Satan himself is changed into the  fashion  of  an  angel  of  light.  Therefore  it  is  no  great  thing  if  his 
ministers  fashion  themselves  as  though  they  were  the  ministers  of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). 

 What Does Antichrist Withhold? How? 

The  questions  that  arise  in  response  to  Tyndale’s  translation  are  now  evidently answered. His translation again: 

3Let no man deceive you by any means, for the Lord comes not, unless there  come  a  departing  first,  and  that  sinful  man  be  revealed…6And now  you  know  what  withholds,  that  he  might  be  revealed  at  his  time. 7For the mystery of that iniquity does he already work, which only locks until it be taken out of the way.  

(1) What is withheld or locked up? There can only be one answer, for there could only be one thing worthy of Antichrist’s virulent attention: the word of God. For it is only by the true word that men are saved, rescued from captivity to Satan, and given  eternal  life.  Only  by  the  true  word  may  we  know God  through  Christ  and  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth. Nothing  is  as  important  as  this,  for  God’s  word  is  Spirit 
and it is life (Deut 32:47). Tyndale’s great lament, as we have seen, was that God’s word was so badly locked up by  the  dominant  Church  that  the  people  were  denied salvation:  the  Church  was  apostate  and  sinful,  was murderously  opposed  to  reformation,  and  was  teaching salvation  by  false  means  such  as  fasting,  penance,  and the purchase of indulgences. Tyndale wrote: 

The  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  is  the  scripture  and  word  of  God,  may be so locked up, that he which readeth or heareth it cannot understand it:  as  Christ  testifieth  how  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  had  so  shut  it  up (Matthew 23) and taken away the key of knowledge (Luke 11) that the Jews,  who  thought  themselves  within,  were  yet  locked  out,  and  are  to this  day,  so  that  they  cannot  understand  a  sentence  of  the  scripture unto their salvation. 

Antichrist is ever seeking reason and occasion to suppress the word: it must be kept  in  Latin;  it  must  be  interpreted  only  according  to  his  decrees;  it  must  be locked  away  behind  the  Book  of  Mormon  or  the  Watchtower.  It  is  darkened  by occult  doctrine,  as  among  the  Charismatics.  It  is  darkened  by  purpose-driven doctrine. It is denied by a ‘wiser’ morality that would affirm homosexuality, etc. 

Antichrist will also suppress or destroy those things which serve the word and the faith  of  the  word,  such  as  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  Holy  Communion. These  are  diminished  or  distorted  by  false  teaching,  they  are  ignored  or carelessly  performed,  or  they  are  made  the  objects  of  false  traditions:  in  times past,  some  persons  delayed  baptism  until  near  death  in  order  to  avoid condemnation for later sin, and some insisted on nude immersion.  

In  the  16th  century  the  Roman  Church  had  so  fallen  that  its  tradition  was  to minister the Lord’s Supper only once per year, and then only the bread, keeping the  cup for  the  priests.  The  service  was  glossed  with  superstitious  notions,  and whatever  truth  remained  in  the  liturgy  was  lost  because  it  was  given  in  Latin. Thus  Holy  Communion,  God’s  ordained  means  of  grace whereby  we  receive  of  and  commune  with  the  Living  Word himself,  was  locked  up  and  shut  away.  Nowadays  the 
Jehovah  Witnesses,  like  their  avowed  enemies  the  Roman Catholics before them, will only celebrate the Lord’s Supper once  a  year.  To  such  persons  the  Reformation  martyr Thomas Cranmer wrote:  

“In  the  beginning,  when  men  were  most  godly  and  most fervent  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  then  they  received  the Communion daily. But when the Spirit of God began to be more  cold  in  men’s  hearts  and  they  waxed  more  worldly  than  godly, then  their  desire  was  not  so  hot  to  receive  the  Communion  as  it  was before… But to them that live godly, it is the greatest comfort that in this world  can  be  imagined;  and  the  more  godly  a  man  is,  the  more sweetness  and  spiritual  pleasure  and  desire  he  shall  have  often  to receive it.”18

Antichrist  further  suppresses  Christian  feast  days  –  holidays,  or  “holy  days”  as Tyndale  called  them  –  cunningly  characterizing  them  as  false  traditions,  or,  a thing  very  common  today,  as  pagan.  Thus  ‘Easter’  becomes  an  evil  word,  and Christians  fear  that  they  are  being  unfaithful  to  the  Lord  if  they  celebrate Christmas.  The  Puritans,  Jehovah  Witnesses,  and  even  some  Evangelicals,  do 
greatly err when they anathematize and suppress Christmas as a pagan festival, thereby abetting the suppression of the knowledge of the incarnation of Christ. O what a subtle beast is the serpent! Indeed the subtlest of the beasts in the field.  

Behold:  that  is  false  which  suppresses  the  Gospel, not  that  which  celebrates  it.  Examples  of  false 
traditions  are  the  preaching  and  sale  of  indulgences for  salvation,  or  ministering  Holy  Communion  once per year – not celebrating the birth of Christ. Further, even  if  Christmas  were  a  problem,  which  it  isn’t,  the  Apostle  Paul  said  that  no matter  how  Christ  was  preached,  he  rejoiced  (Phil  1:18).  But  Antichrist  will  not suffer  us  to  show  forth  or  remember  holy  things,  and  leads  us  astray  with 
objections  which  have  the  appearance  of  piety,  but  serve  only  to  suppress  the faith. Beware objections that do not in reality serve the faith!  

Tyndale's view on sacraments is worthy of consideration. He recognized baptism and the Lord’s Supper as supreme and divinely instituted, by which we, through faith, may receive grace for remission of sin through Jesus Christ our Lord. But he also regarded any “visible sign,” practice, or ceremony that could stir up faith 
as  a  lesser  sacrament  of  sorts,  because  it  “provokes  us  and  helps  our  weak faith”.19  This  would  include  the  observance  of  holy  days,  which  are  visible  and public  signs,  especially  when  meaningfully  celebrated,  and  which  he  obviously treasured  in  the  Church’s  calendar.20  He  recognized  also  marriage,21  fasting,22 and more.23 Anything that puts us in mind of holy things and helps our faith may therefore be called sacramental, provided of course it is not to be understood in the  same  way  as  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  nor  given  superstitious “signification”  or  meaning.  Tyndale  further  wrote  that  those  who  suppress  or distort the sacraments are “destroyers”: 

O a merciful God, and a most loving Father, how careth he for us! First, above  all  and  beside  all  his  other  benefits,  to  give  us  his  own  Son Jesus,  and  with  him  to  give  us  himself  and  all;  and  not  content therewith,  but  to  give  us  so  many  sacraments  or  visible  signs,  to provoke us and to help our weak faith, and to keep his mercy in mind: as  baptism,  the  sacrament  of  his  body  and  blood,  and  as  many  other sacraments  as  they  will  have,  if  they  put  significations  to  them  (for  we destroy  none,  but  they  destroy  who  have  put  out  the  significations,  or feigned some [that have no meaning].24

Sacraments  and  holy  days  serve  and  support  the  faith  and  the  word;  therefore they become the targets of Antichrist along with God’s word. 

(2)  Who  or  what  withholds  God’s  word?  Who  “locks”  it?  In  the  earth,  the  only ones  who  could  do  so  are  those  who  have  control  of  it,  those  who  possess  it. Historically  this  has  meant  professing  Churches  of  Judaism  and  Christianity. Thus  Antichrist  works  the  mystery  of  iniquity  through  a  Church  that  wrongly keeps  the  word  from  men  through  persecutions,  by  withholding  the  Gospel,  or through  false  teaching  (as  Tyndale  would  say,  “false  glosses”:  distortion, diminishment, false interpretations, false applications).  

Here  we  see  the  significance  of  the  second  sense  of katĕcho:  Antichrist possesses  and  locks  up;  he  seizes  control  over  the  written  word  and  then withholds it by various means, or he assumes authority as holy teacher and then locks  its  true  sense  away  by  false  teaching.  One  of  the most  insidious forms of withholding  is  to  provide  all  kinds  of  “bible  teaching”,  even  much  talk  about  the Gospel  and  the  need  for  the  Gospel,  but  to  never  actually  give  the  Gospel.  In such congregations the people may hear much that they think to be biblical, but they never hear the message of the great salvation bought for us by the blood of the  Lamb.  And  yet  that  great  preacher,  the  apostle  Paul,  determined  to  know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified when he was among the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 2:2).  

(3) Why is Antichrist referred to as ‘he’ or a ‘man’  if Antichrist never will be one particular  individual? Or,  how  can  Antichrist  also  be  many  antichrists  as  related by the apostle John (1 John 2:18)?  Tyndale’s answer, as we saw above, is that Antichrist  is  a  spiritual  thing.  ‘He’  is  a  spiritual  power,  often  personified  in Scriptures.  He  is  opposed  to  Jesus  Christ.  He  works  through  men.  One  of  his major works in the last days, since Jesus rose from the dead and returned to be with  the  Father,  is  to  profess  faith  in  Christ  while  cunningly  destroying  Christ’s witness and testimony. 

Antichrist and the iniquity he works are, of course, of Satan, the father of lies and implacable enemy of God, mankind, and truth. This writer is not a Greek scholar, but  it  is  perhaps  noteworthy  that  the  Greek  word  translated  ‘man’  in  the  ‘sinful man’  of  2  Thessalonians  2:3  is  anthropos,  which  generally  refers  to  the  human face  or  countenance  and  is  used  to  distinguish  man  from  other  species  or orders,25 or the things of man from other things, but not to identify an individual. As Tyndale understood it, spiritual Antichrist ‘has’ a human face and assumes a human  face,  for  he  has  power  and  dominion  over  men,  and  he  works  in  earth through men against Christ to keep or lead all people (if it were  possible) away 
from God’s word. So then, Antichrist is not any single man, although he may be epitomized  in  certain  men  (or  women),  who  at  times  are  referred  to  as  ‘very antichrists.’ Or an unfaithful and apostate person who is the head or highest ruler might  be  referred  to  as  ‘the  Antichrist,’  because  in  him  the  forces  of  darkness wield supreme authority.   

When  Martin  Luther  and William  Tyndale  lived  and  wrote,  Christendom,  though fraught with sects and division, was under a supreme and fierce pontiff who, by his  laws,  deeds,  and  doctrine,  his  indulgences,  dispensations,  inquisitions,  and burnings, was revealed as the Antichrist of that kingdom. The power of any pope to  hurt,  burn,  and  maim  has  been  diminished,  but  it  will  ever  remain  that antichrists may be among us, wielding greater or lesser power as they advance within their own kingdoms, secret traitors to the true faith, in a Christendom that is  now  greatly  divided  along  denominational  lines  and  scattered  around  the globe.  The  apostle  John  warned  almost  20  centuries  before  our  time,  “Little children  it  is  the  last  time,  and  as  ye  have  heard  how  that  Antichrist  shall come, even now are there many antichrists come already. Whereby we know that  it  is  the  last  time  (1Joh  2:18).”  We  live  in  the  last  time  of  which  the beloved apostle spoke, and if we believe him, we know to look out for “many antichrists.”  

(4)  How  is  the  mystery  of  iniquity  taken  out  of  the  way?  It  is  ultimately  by restoring truth that the mystery of iniquity is taken out of the way and Antichrist’s grip is broken, at least for the time being. This happened when the Lord came in the  flesh  in  the  1st  century.  By  then  the  departing  had  come,  the  apostasy  of verse 3: 

Let no man deceive you by any means, for the Lord comes not, unless there come a departing first, and that sinful man be revealed, the son of perdition  which  is  an  adversary,  and  is  exalted  above  all  that  is  called God, or that is worshipped: so that he shall sit as God in the temple of God, and show himself as God. 

When the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees reigned in Jerusalem at Christ’s first coming, the Scriptures had been locked up, or “shut up”, by the teaching of those blind guides:  

M’t  23:13:  Woe  be  unto  you  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites,  for  ye shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  before  men:  ye  yourselves  go  not  in, neither suffer ye them that come, to enter in. 

M’t  23:16-19:  Woe  be  unto  you  blind  guides,  which  say  whosoever swear by the temple, it is nothing: but whosoever swear by the gold of the temple, he offendeth. Ye fools and blind: which is greater, the gold 
or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And whosoever sweareth by the altar, it is nothing: but whosoever sweareth by the offering that lieth on the altar, offendeth. Ye fools and blind: which is greater, the offering or 
the altar which sanctifieth the offering? 

Jesus  taught  his  apostles  great  truths,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  opened  great mysteries  to  them.  Then  they  taught  others  by  preaching  and  by  pen  –  despite the roaring of Antichrist against them. Through their faithful teaching the iniquity worked by false prophets in Judaism was taken out of the way for a time.  

But the time of the pure and true faith was to pass, and apostolic teaching was progressively  shut  up  by  the  Roman  Church  as  the  centuries  progressed,  until the  full  departure,  or  apostasy,  of  Tyndale’s  era  manifestly  revealed  Antichrist. Then  Antichrist’s  withholding  was  taken  out  of  the  way  once  more  in  the Reformation  of  the  16th  century,  during  more  times  of  roaring  and  intense struggle,  when  God  through  men  like  Martin  Luther,  William  Tyndale,  and Thomas  Cranmer  (to  mention  only  a  few  of  many)  restored  truth  and  brought much  light  to  bear  again  upon  the  Scriptures  and  the  sacraments.  But  then  the process  of  locking  up  began  again.  The  light  has  been  darkened,  often  gravely so,  in  a  great  many  places,  including  in  so-called  evangelical  and  Protestant Churches,  let  alone  among  such  groups  as  the  Mormons,  Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Jehovah Witnesses, and so on. 

Therefore Tyndale taught that the restoration of truth is the “coming of the Lord” referred  to  in  verse  2:3.  He  comes  in  truth  to  and  for  those  who  love  truth.  He comes notably  when apostasy is at its worst. Apostasy displays the man of sin, Antichrist,  for  those  who  have  eyes  to  see.  Then  comes  the  Lord  through  his prophets and faithful servants. This cycle has been repeated in world history, and we might expect it to end only with the Lord’s final and most glorious coming. 

In my view, the withholding power of the man of sin may also be considered to be at  least  partly  taken  out  of  the  way  when  his  power  and  authority  to  persecute and suppress the saints is diminished. 

A few final notes before leaving this section:  

(1)  A  perhaps  unintended  difference  between  the  KJV  and  Tyndale  is  at  verse 2:4.  Speaking  of  Antichrist,  Tyndale  put  that  he  will  sit  as  God  in  the  temple  of God, and show himself as God. This is logical, saying that Antichrist would make a display of himself as if he were God. Obviously he would be showing himself to others. But the KJV says (due to archaic or ungrammatical syntax or punctuation 
perhaps?)  that  Antichrist  shows  himself  to  himself:  “showing  himself  that  he  is God.”  This  rendering  might  put  us  off  guard:  if  Antichrist’s  posturing  is  inward only, why would we be concerned about the outward?  

(2)  Consider  verse  2:3,  where  both  Tyndale  and  the  KJV  committee  supplied words that were missing in the Greek. Tyndale:  the  Lord  comes  not,  unless  there  come  a  departing  first,  and  that 
sinful man be revealed… 

With  “the  Lord  comes  not”,  Tyndale  used  what  grammarians  call  a  “timeless present tense”. It points us neither to the future nor to the past, but simply makes a statement about when it is that the Lord comes, and thereby allows for one or more comings. This enables the understanding of the historical cycle of apostasy that we see in the Scriptures – the coming of the Lord in truth whenever apostasy is full blown. It also allows for the final coming.  

However the King James Version is worded such that it points to the future, to a day that is yet to come: that  day  shall  not  come,  unless  there  come  a  falling  away  first,  and that man of sin be revealed… 

‘That’ in the KJV verse is a demonstrative adjective pointing out a particular day for  consideration,  and  ‘shall’  is  generally  understood  in  the  future  tense,  thus looking  to  a  future  day  of  apostasy  and  setting  up  the  expectation  of  a  future Antichrist. 

In conclusion, I submit that Tyndale’s 1534 rendition of the man of sin passages in 2 Thessalonians 2 is logical, clear, internally consistent, and realistic. It admits of no ambiguity. It makes preeminent sense given the primacy of place that the Scriptures  claim  for  themselves  in  true  faith.  It  makes  sense  given  what  was historically  evident  in  the  Church  when  Tyndale  wrote.  And  it  makes  sense considering  what  the  Scriptures  teach  about  the  course  of  God’s  word  in  the hands of men, who will ever apostatize.  

Tyndale understood where we must spy out Antichrist: he was slain by a Church that called itself ‘holy’. But what a hard teaching it is, the mystery of iniquity that may be worked by Antichrist through a professing Christian Church. True, most of  us  in  the  West  no  longer  suffer  the  vicious  inquisitions  and  tribulations  that Tyndale and so many others did. But seasons of relative peace ought not to blind 
us  to  the  warnings  and  proofs  of  history  and  of  the  Scriptures.  The  beast  does not always show himself a wolf, but may speak like a lamb. We must watch and awake as the Scriptures do exhort us, so that we may remain among the faithful.       


The Articles Above are extracted from the eBook entitled Tyndale’s Doctrine of Antichrist And His Translation of 2 Thessalonians 2 By R. M. Davis. You can Download and Read the whole book by Clicking HERE in PDF FORMAT or you can visit NewMatthewBible.org for more articles.

Interview - Gordon Comstock & Darryl Eberhart - The Jesuit's New World Order

The “Jesuit Conspiracy” refers to the conspiracy theory in regards to the priests of the Society of Jesus (Jesuit) of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican. This sinister branch of the New World Order control the religious aspect of their dark agendas. The Pope being the Dom of the religious sect, so to speak. In the video presentation below, Gordon Comstock’ interview with author Darryl Eberhart. Darryl discusses the Vatican in politics today with the numerous Military Orders or Knights who fill government positions, as well as the corporate world, often called the New World Order or Globalism.

Topics discussed in this interview are:
* The Jesuit General
* Knights of Malta
* Knights of Columbus
* Teutonic Knights (Nazis)
* Freemasons
* World War II
* The Holocaust & Inquisitions

Although not entirely Catholic these Knights all answer by chain of-command to the Jesuit General or Vatican and the Pope for the NWO as declared origins on the back of the U.S. Dollar in Latin with Roman numerals 1776.(More related stories here.)

John Paul's Legacy Stained by Sex Abuse Scandal

Pope John Paul II is rightly credited with having helped bring down communism, of inspiring a new generation of Catholics with a globe-trotting papacy and of explaining church teaching on a range of hot-button issues as Christianity entered its third millennium.

But the sexual abuse scandal that festered under his watch remains a stain on his legacy.

John Paul and his top advisers failed to grasp the severity of the abuse problem until very late in his 26-year papacy, even though U.S. bishops had been petitioning the Holy See since the late-1980s for a faster way to defrock pedophile priests.

The experience of John Paul in Poland under communist and Nazi rule, where innocent priests were often discredited by trumped-up accusations, is believed to have influenced his general defensiveness of the clergy. The exodus of clergy after the turbulent 1960s similarly made him want to hold onto the priests he still had.

Pope Francis has inherited John Paul's most notorious failure on the sex abuse front — the Legion of Christ order that John Paul and his top advisers held up as a model. Francis, who will canonize John Paul on Sunday, must decide whether to sign off on the Vatican's three-year reform project, imposed after the Legion admitted that its late founder sexually abused his seminarians and fathered three children.

Yet the Legion's 2009 admission about the Rev. Marcial Maciel's double life was by no means news to the Vatican.

Documents from the archives of the Vatican's then-Sacred Congregation for Religious show how a succession of papacies — including that of John XXIII, also to be canonized Sunday — simply turned a blind eye to credible reports that Maciel was a con artist, drug addict, pedophile and religious fraud.

By 1948, seven years after Maciel founded the order, the Holy See had documents from Vatican-appointed envoys and bishops in Mexico and Spain questioning the legitimacy of Maciel's ordination (by his uncle, after Maciel was expelled by a series of seminaries), noting the questionable legal foundation of his order and flagging his "totalitarian" behavior and spiritual violations of his young seminarians.

The documents show the Holy See was well aware of Maciel's drug abuse, sexual abuse and financial improprieties as early as 1956, when it ordered an initial investigation and suspended him for two years to kick a morphine habit.

Yet for decades, thanks to Maciel's ability to keep his own priests quiet, his foresight to place trusted Legion priests in key Vatican offices and his careful cultivation of Vatican cardinals, Mexican bishops and wealthy, powerful lay Catholics, Rome looked the other way. Vatican officials were impressed instead by the orthodoxy of his priests and Maciel's ability to attract new vocations and donations.

John Paul, who in 1994 praised Maciel as an "efficacious guide to youth," wasn't alone in being duped. His top advisers were some of Maciel's fiercest supporters, convinced that the accusations against him were the typical "calumnies" hurled at the greatest of saints. They were swayed instead by numerous testimonies from bishops and others of his greatness — documentation which also features in the Vatican archives.

Two years after the Vatican sentenced Maciel to a lifetime of penance and prayer for sexually abusing his seminarians, John Paul's No. 2, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, in 2008 was still praising the spirit of Maciel and his "humility" in stepping aside after the Vatican finally confronted him with the accusations.

John Paul's prefect of the Congregation for Religious, Cardinal Franc Rode, told Legion priests that same year he had absolved Maciel and praised the good "fruits" that Maciel's Legion had given the church.

"The fruit is good. The fruit is extraordinarily good. It is excellent," Rode said, according to his November 2008 speech made public online by Mexico's El Zocalo newspaper. "Can we say the tree is bad then? Purely from a logical standpoint, I would say no. I absolve Father Maciel. I do not judge him."

Maciel's fraud, one of the greatest scandals of the 20th-century Catholic Church, raises uncomfortable questions for today's Vatican about how so many people could have been duped for so long. It also brings into question how the church's own structure, values and priorities enabled a cult-like order to grow from within and how far accountability for all the harm done should go.

Finally, it begs the question of whether the order has really been purged of the abuses that allowed generations of priests to subject themselves to blind obedience to a false prophet.

In his 2013 book "I Lived With a Saint," John Paul's longtime Polish aide, Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, said his pope knew "nothing, absolutely nothing" about Maciel's misdeeds.

"For him, he was still the founder of a great religious order and that's it. No one had told him anything, not even about the rumors going around," wrote Dziwisz, the leading force behind John Paul's remarkably fast canonization.

He blamed the Vatican's "extremely bureaucratic structure" for preventing such information from reaching John Paul and denied that his pope was slow to react to the abuse scandal.

Juan Vaca begs to differ.

Vaca was the Legion's superior in the U.S. from 1971-1976, when he left the order and joined the diocese of Rockville Center, New York. In 1979, a year after John Paul was elected, Vaca's bishop sent the Congregation for Religious a bombshell set of documents in which Vaca and another ex-Legion priest detailed the sexual abuse they and some 19 other priests and seminarians had endured at Maciel's hands.

He later was one of a half-dozen former Legionaries who brought a canonical case against Maciel at the Vatican in 1998. It took eight years — and the death of John Paul — for Pope Benedict XVI to sanction Maciel.

"I feel once more outraged, furious with feelings of deception and rebellion at the circus process to make 'saint' a pope who did nothing to preserve the Catholic Church and society from the horrendous crisis inflicted upon them by the Catholic clergy sexual abuse," Vaca told The Associated Press in an email.

Vaca questioned why Francis was "following the same dubious decision — initiated by Benedict XVI — to make a saint with such an urgency a personality who was involved either in a voluntary complicity or in responsible ignorance in reference to Maciel."

Source: Naharnet.com