Antichrist, Red Heifer, End Times

In my latest podcasts I had made some “far-out” statements (as some would consider them) that you may not have heard or considered before. Again, I must say I am not an eschatology expert, nor a prophet, so I can stand corrected. However, having studied and taught the Pretribulation Rapture theory of the futurist dispensational view in a Bible Institute, I am fairly well-versed in much of the argument it offers. I had just since reconsidered the interpretation of scripture after “detoxing” from the Scofield indoctrination and looking at it fresh.

These times arise against EVERY leader of prominence to accuse as The Antichrist. My point on the podcast was that we would expect King Charles to be of that fold, as well as Obama, Clinton, Hitler, even Trump by some, and every other leader whom we despise and have suspicion. Since King Charles is the latest development, he is of course The Antichrist, right? Let’s be more careful of our claims, especially if we are making them absolute. The Papacy had long been accused as the office of this role. 2Thes 2 actually says the spirit of iniquity (referring to the Man of Sin, Son of Perdition), is already revealed by that time. I have to consider this in my interpretation. But you will find no where in scripture that identifies specifically “The Antichrist.” That had been inferred. There is no title of that claim, nor proper pronoun pointing at as such.

Now many tell me they await the Red Heifer offered by the Talmudic Rabbis of the Temple Institute for the coming of Antichrist to anticipate the End Time. This full futurist view requires a sacrificial system to be re-instituted for Israel; the one that had been broken by Jesus made old and waxed away (Hebrews 8 ), so that Antichrist has something in which to break when he appears. It insists an arbitrary undetermined time gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th week in order to accommodate their interpretation (Daniel 9). It requires a Third Temple to presumably need to be built to give the Antichrist something to occupy so that Jesus can land on it when he returns (despite Acts 7:48-51).

In order to do that the Jewish Rabbis of the Temple Institute; who are Noahide Talmudists and Sanhedrin, planted in a nation revised by the Rothschilds, Zionists, and Vatican; will need a red heifer to commence the construction of the Temple, that Christians around the world had been funding, for fulfillment to identify Antichrist. They look for signs and wonders of one offered to the world as leader, while excusing themselves in a pretribulation rapture as to avoid the wrath of God. It is prophesied that when Jesus said, “In THIS generation,” he referred to a FUTURE one when it happens, in which Israel is the timepiece for that to happen. However, Israel was revised in 1948, a biblical generation is 40 years to 1988, which passed. Even the reinterpretation of a modern measure of a 70 year generation yields to 2018, which also passed. The timepiece measure failed, so the timeline now doesn’t work. This is a futurist view of eschatology for a dispensation theory some have a bias to believe.

Oh, you say the Third Temple is for Antichrist, and not necessary for Jesus, but is necessary for the prophecy? So that means a red heifer is offered to reinstitute the sacrificial system in order to present it to the Third Temple Institute that Christians have been funding to commence, so that Antichrist can arise and come to fulfill prophecy? Well that doesn’t make sense. You are promoting Antichrist appearing rather than Jesus? But you say in order for Romans 11- ALL of Israel is saved, this must happen. All the remnant of Israel IS saved. It is not the nation as a whole that is saved, but those who recognize Jesus Christ. And THAT is the Israel of God.

The preterist view believes all of Matthew 24, prophecies to do with Israel, and Revelation have all been fulfilled and we await for the revision of heaven on earth or something like that. I also see some error with that as we have obviously not come to completion of all things, and still have a manner of episodes to conclude before I can prescribe we are there in that timeline.

The partial preterist view has some of the two mixes, but denies the dispensation theory, as well as that everything had been fulfilled. This idea interprets Daniel 9 as a consecutive order of the full 70 years (no gap) pointing to Messiah who broke sacrifices and led to the abomination of desolation of Jerusalem by the end of the 1st century. The observation of wars and rumors of war told that many Jews fled to the mountains. Some prophecies to do with Israel (the Jews) have been fulfilled, or even ratified by the appearance of Messiah. ALL must come to Jesus Christ for the remission of sin that was shadowed in the old covenant given a BETTER promise with the new covenant. The covenant was confirmed with many by Jesus Christ who came to His own, even though His own did not receive Him, and the sacrificial system was over, the veil torn from top to bottom signifying the temple of priesthood was over to make way for the new priesthood, Jesus the new temple, and presiding in each of the believers as the temple of God. Earthquakes came; the graves were open as the sleeping bodies of the faithful arose to be resurrected (the first resurrection). The remnant of the Jews became the body of Christ – the church – also grafting in the Gentiles who believe to become ONE NEW MAN. There are no separation; the dividing walls have been broken. All of Israel will be saved in the end because the Israel of God is fulfilled.

Well we have conflicts with each I’m sure, but no more with the partial preterist views than the futurist view. Each prescribes to a biased “system” in which to interpret, and depending which confirming verses are grabbed to substantiate the case makes the difference between which can be the valid argument. Both have their supposed case by taking passages to put in context to apply.

Share this article: