By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive)

If I crossed the Jordan River why not cross the Tiber? ‘Why have you you crossed the Tiber?’  you might ask. The Eucharist has everything to do with the unfolding “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel the prophet: “he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering“.

Daniel is speaking of the Eucharist.

I see this coming on the horizon after being sparked by the story about the Muslim Directorate of General of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) in Turkey, taking over the payment of salaries for all Christian priests and Jewish rabbis. This takes us back to the Maccabees and Antiochus and will give control to the future of this nearing Caliphate, not just in dictating church management to the point the services become an abomination to God, but to also prevent the sacrament of the Eucharist. Many of course, expect the abomination of desolation to spark in Jerusalem with a rebuilt Jewish temple.

In this, we will extensively discuss to show how the latter approach to prophecy is in complete error. The “Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet” is unclear to many, and by the time you carefully examine here, which will take some effort, it will be like the virgins with oil in their lamps who will finally understand precisely what they never understood: how scriptures gave us one simple key verse which Christ clearly pointed to in Daniel 9. This key unlocks much detail regarding Antichrist’s abomination that makes churches (not a Jewish temple) desolate and unfit for practice. Please, I implore everyone to read carefully, line by line … every jot, every tittle, every repetition. 

In this I pour sweat and blood, it is crucial to understand, the seven churches, seven lamp stands as well as the seat of the devil were as the New Testament taught, set in Asia Minor (Turkey), and not in Jerusalem Israel. It all begins and ends in Asia Minor to later Christ redeeming Jerusalem where all of Israel will call on His name.

2016 will yield much to monitor Turkey’s rise to a Caliphate system which its initiation was sparked when Hayrettin Karaman, Erdogan’s main Fatwa giver issued a declaration that should interest all prophecy researchers:

“What this [presidential system] looks like is the Islamic caliphate system in terms of its mechanism. In this system the people choose the leader, the Prince, and then all will pledge the Bay’ah [allegiance] to him”.

And now Turkey is beginning control of the Christian and Jewish religious institutions in prepping for doing what is to come: the Abomination of Desolation.

Here is how it all started. In Turkey, the management of priests’ salaries has been met by following archaic traditions that the community who are members of the church paid all salaries in accordance to biblical and church standards. But this is no more. It all started when a traitor named Nazaret Ozsahakyan, the head of an Armenian Church Foundation began to change the old order, the strict tradition were salaries are controlled by the church, Ozsahakyan made an appeal to the Islamic religious institution of Turkey called Diyanet, requesting they pay priests’ salaries instead of following the biblical order.

Of course, this was met with great opposition. How could one traitor determine the management of the entire Christian and Jewish community? The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, Armenian, Syriac and Jewish communities appealed and said that they were glad to control their own religious affairs. They strongly objected to the state’s interference. Turkey’s Armenian Patriarchate rejected the idea of the Islamic religious institution paying priests’ salaries to be controlled by the state and sent an appeal to keep the old system in place. Turkey instead of respecting the the appeal, they rejected it. The state now, under Erdogan, will begin to control and dictate church practices as well to later establish an abominable act making church practices obsolete.

Fener Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew desires to reinstitute Christian worship services in Christian cathedrals like Hagia Sophia. The patriarch worked diligently to restore services in İzmir’s Selçuk district, along with priests and the faithful from Greece and Russia, to preside over religious services at the Meryem Ana Church, a historic Byzantine structure in Ephesus where Mary is believed to have spent her final years with St. John before its conversion to a church.

Now it will all be controlled by the Diyanet (Muslim religious authority in Turkey) as the latest news confirm. Diyanet was created in 1924 to replace the Ottoman Sheikh al-Islam, the mufti with the authority to confirm new sultans and caliphs and who also serve as chief legal adviser to the soon to be Caliph Erdogan.

This is similar to when the prior wounded beast, the Antichrist of the time, Sultan Mehemed II, when after the conquest of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed adopted the imperial title Kayser-i-Rûm “Caesar of Rome,” approved of the election of a traitor, Gennadius Scholarius as patriarch of Constantinople and made sure that he was given generous salary ensuring control of Christian priests to follow Chrislam where the two would have warm and fuzzy discussions on bringing Christianity and Islam closer together.

What we see today as Chrislam, this abominable combination of the two, were many say “we worship the same god” is nothing new. Scholarius was a staunch antagonist of the West and the Catholic Church and was enthroned as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople-New Rome by the Sultan himself in 1454 A.D. and in turn Gennadius II recognized Mehmed the Conqueror as successor to the throne. Mehmed also had a blood lineage to the Byzantine Imperial family; his predecessor, Sultan Orhan I had married a Byzantine princess, and Mehmed claimed descent from John Tzelepes Komnenos. Erdogan’s origin is from Christian Georgia and like Mehemd, did not honor the God of his fathers (the Christian God).

This control we see today will only escalate to mimmic what that beast did before it got the deadly wound as we see this new Ottoman revival which we spoke about two decades ago when I was Baptist and now you see it just as we said you will as I cross the Tiber.

It is for this reason I appeal to the churches, this study is crucial and will delve into understanding what this “abomination of desolation” is all about and how it is not all what many say. So few even understand the meaning, because they do not correctly connect all the biblical and historic references.

To begin with, most ignore linking all the other verses to this very crucial biblical reference which Jesus warned we watch for this abomination as “spoken of by Daniel the prophet” to happen in Judea and all over Christendom under the control of Antichrist. This instruction would be to study Daniel 9:27:

“And he will enter into a binding and irrevocable covenant with the many for one week (seven years), but in the middle of the week he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until the complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who causes the horror.” (Daniel 9:27)

As to the “covenant” we recently explained this here. What few recognize is this: what is this “grain offering”? This is our subject here which cracks open a multitude of mysteries and corrects all sorts of misconceptions.

This key resolves the whole issue, but first, while we can clearly see that an “allegiance” spoken by Daniel is very likely the Islamic Bay’at (allegiance to the Caliph) which is Islam’s foundation for a caliphate, where the Muslim world must pledge “allegiance” to him. Al-Bagdadi of ISIS was never able to achieve this as his  caliphate was completely rejected by the Muslim religious authority worldwide. This is not the same case with Erdogan where he is accepted by the highest institution of the Muslim Brotherhood who are his puppet. This is the hallmark of the Antichrist as John declared:

“but the fatal wound [of the empire] was healed! The whole world marveled at this miracle [how it revived] and gave allegiance to the beast” (Revelation 13:3).

And here, this man who is given allegiance to is also called “The Prince”, exactly what Erdogan’s mufti, Hayrettin Karaman titled Erdogan, and is the same title predicted in Daniel 9:26 “the prince” and is happening where Christ Himself said that the seven churches and seven lamp stands including the seat of the devil (Antichrist) is in Pergamum, that is Asia Minor and is no doubt today’s Turkey.

No where in scripture does it insist on Israel re-instituting Temple sacrificial system in Jerusalem and is the reason why many do not see it. Even when one argues that the abomination of desolation happens at a rebuilt temple, notice carefully what Daniel says:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) (Matthew 24:15)

Notice that there is no temple of any kind, no building structure mentioned in this passage. Therefore, it is not a Jewish physical temple being referred to by Jesus here, but that Jesus is referring to either the area the temple was originally built at or to the city of Jerusalem itself or to another holy place altogether or the church as whole or Christians going apostate defiling their body with the abominable mark of the beast or even all these as a whole. Neither Daniel 9:27, or Daniel 11:31 where it says “they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength” which is not committed by a singular person as in the Antichrist, but by his multitudes “they” (also see Matthew 24:15-16).

But what about the always quoted verse: “He as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” in 2 Thessalonians 2?

First of all, this does not specify Jerusalem and the Jews do not worship the Son who is the Temple of God. How could this be the Temple of Christ? Is it perhaps another type of temple or a Christian temple? Even the “glorious holy mountain” in Daniel 11:44-45 is not necessarily God’s true holy mountain, according to Barnes’ Notes: “… it is also true, that, so far as the language is concerned, it might be applied to any other mountain or mountainous region that was distinguished for beauty, and that was regarded as sacred, or in any way consecrated to religion. I see no objection, therefore, to the supposition, that this may be understood of some mountain or elevated spot which was held as sacred to religion, or where a temple was reared for worship, and hence, it may have referred to some mountain, in the vicinity of some temple dedicated to idol worship, where Antiochus would pitch his tent for the purpose of rapine and plunder”. This could also be Satan’s throne in Turkey: “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write, ‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword: “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.  And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.  (Revelation 2:12-13, NKJV)

So many ignore, that to God, from a New Covenant perspective, that the old testament levitical system can never be accepted as fulfillment (as we shall explain in detail) which God in Malachi made absolutely clear. Please carefully read:

“Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord of hosts, “nor will I accept an offering from you. For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations [gentiles], and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations [gentiles],” says the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 1:10-11)

This “pure grain offering” links directly to the same “grain offering” in Daniel’s prophecy which Christ instructed us to carefully pay attention to, where Antichrist will stop the “grain offering”. What Malachi prophesied was that basically God will do away with the old sacrificial offering and that God will reach out to the “nations” (the gentiles) with a new system in observing a “grain offering that is pure” and even including “incense” which will be “daily” accomplished from “the rising of the sun even to its setting”. Such daily practice is done as a “sacrificial” system is only practiced under apostolic-succession type churches.

Malachi tells us that animal sacrifices will be no more, and the new offering will be grain sacrifice.

With this in our minds we need to examine the story of Jesus picking wheat in the fields on the Sabbath where  Scriptures say:

“One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.”  (Mark 2:23)

When the Pharisees questioned this, Christ told them:

“Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” (Mark 2:25-26)

Notice that our Lord mentions here, this bread is not just any bread, but was “the bread of the Presence”.

The presence of what? The presence of God. This bread was also in the Ark of the Covenant, where God was present. The Disciples were picking grain, which would be the ingredient for the “grain offering,” the Sacrifice in the Last Supper. It is this same Sacrifice of which Christ said, “This is my body, which is given for you.” (Luke 22:19) 

Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church declare that the Real “Presence” of the Christ-God is in the Eucharist, which is that grain sacrifice prophesied by the prophet Malachi; and this Real Presence, this is what Christ foretold when He referenced “the bread of the Presence” which David had eaten.   

Christ defied the tyrannical Pharisees when His Disciples were picking grain from the field, as if to say, “Your priesthood is over. You see these Disciples? this is the new priesthood and this is the new temple. This grain they are picking, this is the new sacrifice.”

It can’t get any clearer than this: this is the Communion bread, the Eucharist, the very sacrament done by only apostolic-succession type churches.

Therefore, I will not address the arguments of transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation, Jesus made it clear and Paul condemns the “unrighteous” as having the spirit of “debate” (Romans 1:29). 

Instead, I will direct a Jesus-style challenge to all who are anti-transubstantiation, that is, the daily sacrifice of the Eucharist, they argue, is re-sacrificing Christ. If this is true, the challenge to the common Messianic assumption, regarding Daniel 9, that if such ‘abomination’ will occur only at a rebuilt Temple by the Jews, for this to become true I ask: how could non-apostolic-succession accuse apostolic-succession believers of re-sacrificing Christ when they are accepting the re-institution of Jews re-sacrificing the Messiah who had already come?

We can’t have it both ways. If this is the case, as westerners say “what should be good for the geese (the Jews) should it not also be good for the ganders (apostolic succession churches)?

It is therefore equally astonishing to see these argue, that Jesus was “sacrifice for sin once and for all” as if this debunks transubstantiation, then they turn and support the re-institutution of another literal sacrificial system in the supposed rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

How could it be possible that if we accept a re-institution of Israel’s old sacrificial system that we have in Malachi a cancelation of it by God Almighty? “One among you [the Jews],” is the Messiah “who would shut the gates” where “I [that is God] will not accept an offering from you [Israel]”.

So here God completely replaces Israel’s sacrificial system, then according to the folly, to only re-institute it in Ezekiel’s temple in Jerusalem?

God never contradicts Himself.

One cannot ignore the verses in Malachi, this is Israel’s sacrificial system in a literal sense, that was made null and void to be replaced by another, a new one, the “grain offering” which was extended to the gentiles, which is also the purist sacrificial system in a literal sense in the form of a “pure grain offering” without the slaughter of animals. 

The reason many reject this is because a “daily” “grain offering” that is considered a sacrificial system is only and exclusively practiced by apostolic succession type churches. Malachi clearly speaks of a sacrificial offering and I am bound to tell the truth regardless of my own personal prejudices when I was taught by the Baptist church.

If it is literal temple sacrifices in Jerusalem, that scripture alludes to, the other Jesus style question is this: how could non-apostolic succession churches accept such “sacrifice” be used metaphorically, from a new covenant perspective, while Israel, so they say, will re-institute temple sacrifices literally and from an old covenant perspective?

Even perhaps if our Jesus-style questions here are still not convincing or convicting, let us even delve into Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple (Ezekiel 40-44) which we will address first before we get into the meaty subject on how Islam will fulfill this “abomination of desolation”.

Astonishingly Ezekiel’s temple, in Ezekiel 42:13-14, even links to the same key element in Daniel’s prophecy regarding the “grain offering” as a “meat offering” and a “sin offering” even including “priestly garments”:

… where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things: there shall they lay the most holy things, and the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; for the place is holy. When the priests enter therein, then shall they not go out of the holy place into the utter court, but there they shall lay their garments wherein they minister; for they are holy; and shall put on other garments, and shall approach to those things which are for the people.

Daniel 9, “daily grain sacrificial offering” is in the strictest sense also in Ezekiel, if these sacrifices are a “memorial” as many claim to only be “do this in remembrance of Me” why then it is a “sin offering”? This would means that they too, the non-apostolic-succession would have to make an exception to also accept a ‘re-sacrifice of Christ’. Yet they reject this because they do not believe that a sin offering is necessary since once-saved always saved.

It becomes impossible therefore to ignore or refute; this is the daily sacrifice of the mass regardless how many of us in the non-apostolic denominations object. Only these have a “daily offering”. Joel 1 &2 confirms “an offering” to being the case even at the time just prior to Christ’s coming on “the day of the Lord” when Antichrist would have stopped the daily sacrifice:

“The grain offering and the drink offering. Have been cut off from the house of the Lord; The priests mourn, who minister to the Lord … Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is at hand; It shall come as destruction from the Almighty.”

And amazingly here in Joel, like Daniel, Joel is speaking of the technical (literal) application, tells us as well, not only of the “grain offering” (Eucharist) but also of the “drink offering” (the wine).

While when scripture speaks technicality, it is precise, no animal sacrifice, while when it speaks  allegorically, as in Ezekiel, there is a symbolic animal sacrificial offering. To ensure that this is regarding the end times, Joel confirms the abolition of communion just prior to Christ’s second coming: “the day of the Lord is at hand”.  This happens 3.5 years, just prior to Christ’s coming.

In other words, the Caliphate is established stemming from Turkey with an allegiance for this coming presidency (caliphate) where Muslims give allegiance to this man of sin for a seven year term, and in the midst of it, Islam’s aspiration for Jihad rejuvenates and Sharia will be implemented where wine is forbidden and by extension of this Sharia law, churches throughout are prohibited from observing communion.

So if communion was not as essential as some claim, how is it that Christ warned of this event “stopping the grain offering” as the abomination where it makes holy worship desolate and the sacrificial system obsolete?

In addition, only an apostolic succession style churches insist on real wine while non-apostolic-succession do away with it. So many fail to link Joel with Daniel which in Joel 2: “Who knows if He will turn and relent, And leave a blessing behind Him—A grain offering and a drink offering For the Lord your God?”

The “drink offering” has always been wine.

In regards to a rebuilt temple, one key to unlock everything and end this argument once and for all, is to see where when Jesus said ‘Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.’ Then the Jews said, ‘This Temple was forty-six years building, and will you rear it up in three days?’

Jesus Himself was that temple, while the confused, just as I used to be, were speaking of a literal temple. When it comes to heavenly issues, always think in reverse of what the earthly carnal minds think; the ways of God are not the ways of man.

And so lets examine all the divisive argumentation regarding Ezekiel’s Temple and see; Daniel, Ezekiel and even John, were all speaking of the same temple making clear this is not an earthly temple on the Temple Mount, where Ezekiel’s temple, if one takes the literal measures, its about one square mile, larger than the entire ancient walled city of Jerusalem, and the holy portion for priests and Levites (about 40 by 50 miles) would cover an area ten times the circumference of Jerusalem. And if this temple is what some group in Israel called the Temple Institute are planning to build with all the implements, of lamp stand and altar of incense, Ezekiel’s temple has no showbread, no golden lamp stand, no altar of incense, no vail covering the entrance of the holy of holies and even no ark. For this temple to be rebuilt by some Temple Institute in Israel, these non-apostolics must first convince this Jewish group to follow Ezekiel’s design, which spiritually matches Christian theology, and as it appears, these Jews will refuse to do this in order to please non-apostolic Christians just to win an argument.

Ezekiel’s temple, its altar is approached by steps from the east (Ezekiel 43:17) where steps previously were forbidden because of nakedness, yet here, the Lord has removed our nakedness, or perhaps better put, we’re in a state of nakedness now as were Adam and Eve before they sinned, the east gate was shut and now its open and there is no shame.

No matter how one slices and dices the verses, objections abound, because many believe they can fully comprehend God’s mysteries which these frequently ignore. Many literalize Ezekiel’s Temple while others completely spiritualize it. This is done because many today ignore the ancient golden rule: the ancient church interpreted using the standard they call “the two senses” by applying both the spiritual and the literal.

The Eucharist, for example, can be defined in the ‘two senses’ – one as the actual celebration of remembering the last supper of Jesus (the Rite/Sacrament) as well as the bread and wine which is consecrated and through transubstantiation becomes the body and blood of Christ.

The temple is said to “make atonement for the house of Israel” (45:17) and this excludes it from being just a memorial (not that its not). Again, Christ Himself instituted the use of wine and bread to both commemorate His death (1 Cor. 11:24–26) and to be consumed literally. Unless one understands this duality, we should expect more divisions in the church as if there is not enough which Christ warned never  to do.

For Christ to re-institute animal sacrifice upon His return defies scripture where God replaced animal sacrifices in which God never found any particular pleasure (Ps. 40:6; 51:16; Heb. 10:6). Even the “prince” they speak about who enters the temple, Ezekiel says that “the prince” will offer a sin offering “for himself and for all the people” (45:22). This prince cannot be what many believe as the Messiah. Ezekiel’s prince is required to offer sacrifices for his own sins, this would militate against any theory that identifies him with Christ, who never sinned. So obviously, this is the church’s leader.

Is it possible then that this temple is a centralized worship in a specified geographical place? How could this be, especially when Jesus announced to the Samaritan woman that levitical temple worship will end and be replaced with spiritual worship (John 4:21–24; cf. Acts 7:48–50)? The folly always occurs when we either strictly spiritualize or completely literalize Ezekiel’s text.

And besides this reference, the New Testament clearly defined what this temple is, and at times it is also defined as the Christian:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (1 Corinthian 3:16)

If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:17)

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19)

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:16)

This is also found in Ephesians 2:19-22, Acts 7:44-50, Matthew 12:6, Hebrews 8:1-2, 1 Peter 2:4-6, Revelation 14:1.

This is why it is crucial to go back to Christ when He said “this is My body” and “do this in remembrance of me”. Such references are interpreted using the “two senses”. So just as we see in Ezekiel’s temple, a literal sense is applied with memorial as well, this temple is both and is speaking of the church in its fullest even during the kingdom and the heavenly temple. While many say Ezekiel speaks of an earthly Temple to come, but we say he speaks of the Temple, that is now, and the one that will continue, and the one that Christ cleanses from after the Antichrist inflicts it as He returns making the church His bride.

It is the latter that confuses many since the context includes the entire frame of time from the inception of the church to Christ finally coming down to rule it. Until interpreters can fathom a heavenly temple, then they can expound. Ezekiel predicts Christ’s new order, which, unlike the old order, is permanent and so is the temple, the priesthood and the sacrifices are spiritually applied (1 Pet. 2:5) but this is in regards to actual substance.

It is for this reason, that the mystery of Communion is also the literal presence of Christ. There is no escape, since even the temple had the Shekinah Glory of God literally residing in the temple, in the tabernacle, upon the ark of the covenant, and so will this be through communion which without this “grain offering” we have “an abomination of desolation” as Daniel said and is why the devil hates the Eucharist and has many virgins without oil follow a lie.

The old tabernacle, or any earthly tabernacle for that matter, can never be established since it was a type and shadow of “heavenly things” as described in Hebrews 8 which settles the issue for it needs no explanation:

“We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.”

Christ is then the center of Ezekiel’s temple and it is not built “by a mere human being”:

 “Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven … But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another … By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.”

What “will soon disappear” means what it says, it will go away, never to re-appear again, no matter who tries and is why Israel today has no temple since its destruction in 70AD. These modern interpretations will cause many to miss the Antichrist and like the virgins without oil, they are caught off guard when the Bridegroom commeth to defeat him. Everything in these false interpretations is setting up the lazy servant and the five virgins with no oil to fall. This is why apostolic-succession churches like Orthodox Russia to these become “Gog and Magog” and is why the  (Catholic) is made “harlot” and “Antichrist”; where the “seven mountains” are literal mountains in Vatican instead of being Muslim kingdoms. This is why, the real Gog and Magog (literal Turkey), is given a clean bill as an “ally of the U.S”. This is why wine is symbolized and grape juice is consumed instead. This is why sacrifice is undermined and works is frowned upon, and Christ’s sacrifice is sold for non-sacrificial easy believism; there is where we find a definite segregation between the lazy and the prudent, the virgins with oil and without, the sheep from the goats. It all makes perfect sense. It is a crucial question as to why so many err and always allegorize literals and literalize allegories where at times evil is made holy and holy is made evil.

The gist of the Book of Hebrews is regarding the temple which is this new covenant, the covenant with the church, both Jew and Gentile, and will eventually include the whole house of Israel upon Christ’s return as Ezekiel covers in his theme from beginning to end. He was speaking of the church including the end of days and the coming of the Lord. There can never be another covenant with the house of Israel; does God make null and void the new covenant? Impossible. 

Ezekiel must be viewed as John in Revelation. It is crucial to see that Ezekiel had a vision: “In the visions of God He brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain” (Ezekiel 40:2).

Is this a literal mountain? Yes and no. John in Revelation also saw a vision when he was taken to the desert and there he saw a woman, a beast with seven heads and ten horns, but was this a literal woman, literal heads and literal horns? Perhaps the desert is just as the mountain can be literal. It is therefore crucial to recognize where the literals are and where the metaphor is. Ezekiel was called “the creator of symbolism”.

However, there is ample evidence that we should reconcile “I have set My King on My holy hill of Zion” (Ps 2:6) and that Christ stands literally on the Mount of Olives and there is a literal battle as well (Ezekiel 38) to end all battles, and there is also a new world order: the Kingdom of Christ and the New City coming down from heaven.

We also have a river: “It was a river that I could not cross, for the water was too deep, water in which one must swim, a river that could not be crossed. He said to me: ‘Son of Adam, have you seen this?.’ Then he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river”(Ez 47:5-6). John in Revelation 22, reflects on the same scenery: “And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.” While Ezekiel could not yet cross this river since Messiah has no yet come in his time, and when He did come, the Messiah made it clear to John this water comes from Christ: “He who believes on Me, as the Scripture has said, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”’ This river also resembles baptism, which embraces the inhabitants of the world, peoples and nations, who come from everywhere (East, west, north, and south). He saw “fish of the same kinds as the fish of the Great Sea; exceedingly many” (Ez 47:10, 22, 23); a reference to the entrance of the Gentiles into the eternal.

If this temple was a literal temple, John makes it clear that “there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light.” (Revelation 22:5) “And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its Temple, even the Lamb. And the City [Heavenly Jerusalem] had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.” (Revelation 22:22-23)

John’s temple is the same temple Ezekiel declared all with its “gates”: “And its gates may not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there.” (v.25)

Ezekiel’s Temple can be summarized from the New Testament: “For having been drawn to Him, a living Stone, indeed rejected by men, but elect, precious with God; you also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4-5 MKJV).

From the beginning of the Book of Ezekiel in chapter one, we read of the same theme regarding the four creatures and the chariot resembling the Holy Spirit. We ought not to ignore that “When the Living Creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the Living Creatures were lifted up …” Ezekiel even explains it “Wherever the Spirit wanted to go, they went, because there the Spirit went; …” (Ez. 1:15-20)

This is exactly what Christ spoke of the Holy Spirit describing Him as the wind: “where the wind blows”. This “storm wind,” is the same fiery wind is brought to the shore – namely to the great day of the Lord, the whirlwind which will segregate sheep from goats, just as it was in the day of the Pentecost, as the whirlwind blew, it granted the Church the Spirit of discernment, not to condemn the wicked outside it, but to spiritually judge those inside it. Such wind is what Christ spoke of “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). It is no wonder why in the Semitic language “wind” and “spirit” sound the same: Ruah (Hebrew) Riyah/Rouh (Arabic).

Qubat Al-Arwah (Dome of the Spirit) where many believe was the spot of the holy of holies.

Besides the issues regarding Mary, and I am familiar with all the objections, we must now return to our original case study: the abomination of desolation. It is what defiles the believer’s temple as sin cannot be cleansed without confession and Eucharist (grain offering) both together.

This then relates to the forgiveness of sin. How else must the prophecy of John 20 be fulfilled:

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

There is that “breath” this “wind” again and then the institution of the absolution of sin is granted. It shuns the argument of non-apostolics who can never answer unless they twist: how can mere men forgive sin?

It is not mere men who forgive, but Christ being one with His church whom He authorized to give the daily grain sacrifice and the absolution of sin. It is not the Church itself that forgives (yet it does), but Christ forgiving through the Church.

The whole story of Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel, Malachi with the “grain offering” is definitely the Eucharist, which defies what non-apostolics say, that according to the words of Christ in the gospel, is to be strictly taken with only a remembrance of Him. This can never be just for remembrance only, but it is also his body and blood as it is stated in Daniel 9 “he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering” altogether which is done daily, not only once a month or every other Sunday as non-apostolics do.

Daniel here uses the term “sacrifice” not “remembrance”. This is the same sacrifice which was offered by the apostles, and in all Christian ages; and is this same sacrifice, according to the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 shall be offered in “all nations to the end of the world“. This doctrine and practice was witnessed by as far back as the ancient Fathers and interpreters. (1)

The Jesus-style question is this: was the church doing all this in error for fifteen centuries and Christ failed to implement “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” especially when in Matthew 28:20 Jesus said “I am with you always, even to the end of the age“?

This is impossible to answer unless we accept an apostolic succession view where Christ will continue this institution “even to the end of the age”.

The “abomination of desolation,” is it an end time sign, which will be visually seen, and it will stand in the “Holy Place” at some Christian Temple like Hagia Sohpia in Istanbul or the Vatican or the Temple Mount platform? We should never discount such an act.

Indeed, the “abomination of desolation,” will become absolutely knowable. But to know what it is, it is impossible to avoid 1 and 2 Machabees, which are rejected by non-apostolic succession churches, which explains the apostasy of the Jews and their hierarchy that began in reality with the ascension to the throne of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 B.C.) Christ who also added, “he that readeth, let him understand” (Mark 13:12; Matt 24:15), He is admonishing us to read.

What Daniel mentions, Maccabees, contains the detail of such an “abomination of desolation” and we need to pay close attention: one at the time of the Maccabees; and one in the very last days. We have two references and a third at the time of the 1st Jewish revolt 66 A.D.- 73 A.D. In Maccabees 1:57-60 it reads:

On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God, and they built altars throughout all the cities of Juda round about: And they burnt incense, and sacrificed at the doors of the houses, and in the streets. And they cut in pieces, and burnt with fire the books of the law of God: And every one with whom the books of the testament of the Lord were found, and whosoever observed the law of the Lord, they put to death, according to the edict of the king.

According to Josephus, it was Jupiter. When any Christian minister or scholar speaks of the Maccabees, pretty much all they say is that Antiochus killed a poor pig in the Temple. But there are so many details on the religion of Antiochus and his war against the Maccabees that bring us beyond just the slaughter of a pig. What none of these teachers know or teach, is that once we study thoroughly the religion of Antiochus, what we find is that his god is Allah, the god of the Antichrist religion: Islam. The religion which Antiochus enforced was not fully Greek but in reality had its origins in Syria and Asia Minor, the very seat of Antichrist. He wanted the Jews to worship “Zeus Hellenius” (2). Zeus is identified as Zeus-Haddad, and his priests in Syria were referred to as “Abd-Haddad,” or “servant of Haddad.” And we cannot forget that Allah is a counterpart of Zeus and is one and the same with Haddad. History records that Haddad has a semitic meaning (Arabic,  هداد) means thunder and destroyer, he was the “warring God” with the two horned crescent and was worshipped in ancient Asia Minor and by the Trojans and the Hittites.

According to Muslim scholar Reza Aslan, both Allah and Zeus were counterpart deities. (3)  Haddad was the husband of Athtar, and so was Allah the male counterpart to this Arabian goddess Allat which is the feminine root for Allah. The hint is also found in the Bible “Sin-B-Allat” in Nehemiah 4:7 where he became an obstacle to God’s temple which today the servants of Allah are also the obstacle to God’s temple, the church. Macrobius wrote of how the Assyrian Adad was the husband to Atargatis (Saturnalia 1.23.18, trans. Robert A. Kaster), who is the same as her south Arabian prototype Athtar. This makes both Haddad and Allah one and the same. The ancient scholar Lucian equated the Hittite Haddad with  Zeus, which makes Allah one with Zeus, Lucian equated Haddad with Zeus in his Syrian Goddess. (4)

What this means, then, is that the Holy War of the Maccabees, in which they fought Antiochus and his god, foreshadows the coming Holy War that will be fought between Christendom vs. Allah and his followers.

Therefore, the Muslim Antichrist will do the same as in Maccabees “set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God” is what Muslims already do. This could happen in a Christian temple like Hagia Sophia or even in all the churches under his control. It was Erdogan who promoted celebration of the Turkish conquest that turned Constantinople into Istanbul: “Conquest is the removal of shackles on doors and in hearts,” he said to mark the 561st anniversary of the Byzantine defeat. “Civilization comes with conquest,” he added.

This is a man of war honoring a god of war (Daniel 11). And just as in Maccabees, “and they built altars throughout all the cities of Juda round about” the Muslims will built altars (mosques) throughout all the cities of Judea and in christendom all round about. 

And just as in Maccabees ” … sacrificed at the doors of the houses, and in the streets” Muslims usually do the same on Eid Al-Adha (day of sacrifice) they will sacrifice lambs at the doors of the houses, even in the streets. And they will also cut in pieces, and burn with fire the holy Bibles. 

And just as in Maccabees “they cut in pieces, and burnt with fire the books of the law of God” the Muslims will do with everyone with whom the books of the testament of the Lord (the Bible) were found, and whosoever observed the law of the Lord (Communion) they will put to death, according to the edict of the Antichrist. 

In Second Maccabees 6: “The Gentiles filled the temple with debauchery and revelry; they amused themselves with prostitutes and had intercourse with women even in the sacred courts. They also brought forbidden things into the temple …. that the altar was covered with abominable offerings prohibited by the laws. No one could keep the sabbath or celebrate the traditional feasts, nor even admit to being a Jew. Moreover, at the monthly celebration of the king’s birthday the Jews, from bitter necessity, had to partake of the sacrifices, and when the festival of Dionysus was celebrated, they were compelled to march in his procession, wearing wreaths of ivy.”

Such desecrations will be reminiscent to the raping Muslims do and in Jerusalem, Zechariah clearly prophesied: “the women will be ravished”  (Zechariah 14:12) and the people would have to eat Halal and wear  the wreaths (symbol/mark/emblem) of the Antichrist on their right shoulder or foreheads that is exclusively a name (creed) of blasphemy. So just as the Jews were forced to do, to take the mark (the wreath) on their foreheads the falling-away Christians will also put a mark on their foreheads even at the “wing of the temple” on the right arm. A wing is an arm and the temple is the Christian since we are “His body”, as Daniel prescribed “And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple”.

Photo from Turkey

It is impossible to be pleasing to the Lord without an altar of sacrifice, without the grain offering and a drink offering (wine) where we consume the blood and the host. This is why Islam prohibits alcohol and with such prohibition, Antichrist will stop “drink offering” as Joel also predicted. How can one confess sins and partake in the sacrifice without these elements become unimaginable.

Everything I have written here became clear to me only after I, last week, prayerfully decided to examine this “sacrifice” for myself having never believed since I joined the Baptist church which said that apostolic-succession are “harlot” and “Antichrist”. It bothered my inner temple deep within my soul. So I decided to walk into the confessional booth, I must say, the one they told me never to enter, to try this apostolic succession sacrificial flavor if you will.

After my confession, the priest asked: “Why do you allow such intrusive thoughts enter the gates of your temple knowing that they, like the leaven, fester and grow, sin is destructive and destroys the temple, and only leads into more sin?”

Sin starts by a thought which settles in the mind and festers like leaven, it grows, swells, and corrupts and leads to venial or even mortal sin where the temple is completely destroyed and such unclean vessel cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

The priest addressed the root not just the symptom. It was a free gift. I was the one who got a free offering. I paid no money, no offering, no indulgences, and nothing of what the slanderers claim.

How can this sin be healed if I just go directly to Christ without gaining the proper instruction given by Christ to His first priests, the apostles, and from there onward to the priests to the end of the age? How could Christ only instruct His apostles only during their lifetime when He told them “I will be with you until the end of the age”? He will be with His church forever.

Scriptures throughout, described the church, not the Scriptures, as Christ’s body: “the Church [not just Scripture] is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) which without the Church no one can interpret Scriptures correctly. So where was this “pillar and bulwark” for fifteen centuries since the apostles?

Christ is the temple, we need no sun, He mirrors His reflection upon ordained men stemming all the way back from when He gave instruction to His apostles shedding His light in the darkness of our hearts and offers forgiveness.

It is one thing to go in and pray in the closet, but confession in Scripture, was never intended to exclusively be in the closet, and it is another experience when one has to give detail of what they have done to a priest “confess your sins to one another that you may be healed” (James 5:16).

One sins much less if they have to confront the accountant. If Christ ever intended to forgive sin exclusively through Him without priests, why then does the Scriptures make clear: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20:23).

“sins that you [the apostle/priest] shall forgive”?

I was told at the non-apostolic-succession church that all of our sins—past, present, and future were forgiven once we became Christian.

Then I find the disciples having the authority to continually forgive or even retain sins in John 20. I found nothing in Scripture that says “I forgive your sins, past, present and future”.

Indeed, it is the tradition of men which has become Scripture, traditions instituted by men, who only condemned God’s traditions, while all these verses I shared so far from Scripture here were thrown out the window.

If sins are forgiven, past, present and future, why would Jesus teach: “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12)? Why then can’t we just once and for all say “thank you for forgiving us our debts, past, present and future and from this day forward, I will ask and pray no more”.

Jesus was teaching us how to pray and this prayer of Our Father, is central in the apostolic-succession church and is to remain with us including asking for the forgiveness of sins.

Does He forgive our sins, past present and future the moment we invite Jesus? No, We are told “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). How this was understood in the early church, in 70 AD, way before the claim that ‘Constantine changed everything’, the earliest of Christians taught that the believer should:

“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

Sacrifice? Do this “confession” before taking communion, never after? In the earliest record of the church, in 70 AD, there was order, not chaos.

In the non-apostolic-succession churches, they even told us that “Genesis 14 indicates that as Abraham arrived with his troops and came before Melchizedek, Melchizedek brought out some food (bread and wine) to feed all these hungry guys” (see Ron Rhodes).

What utter nonsense. The text says: “And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.” The very bringing of the bread and wine was because he was a priest and it was done by a priest.

And Malachi 1:11, again, “My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty.”

Only the priesthood can fulfill this with literal incense keeping in mind that this “incense” is not allegoric incense since if there is any smoke or incense on earth, it is always synonymous with sacrifice. Again, keep in mind that this is no old testament sacrifice since just one verse before, in Malachi. 1:10, it says that when this period comes, God would not be accepting the Jewish sacrifices: “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the LORD Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands”.

And if Melchizedek was simply feeding “hungry guys” why would the Psalmist in Psalm 110:4 declare “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek“?

He permanently offers sacrifice (offering). Ever wonder why in Ezekiel a grain offering was made including a meat offering? That the grain is the bread and the meat is the flesh (Gen. 4:3-5, Num. 16:15, 1 Sam. 2:17, 29:26:19 Isa. 1:13). Even the protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly confirms:

The Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi’s prediction that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have a ‘pure offering’ made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist.

Salvation is a process. So many verses are ignored and are rarely if ever studied by the simpleton who quickly jots a comment with no depth.

It is the devil, through his trickster, institutes disorder. Christ broke the bread and gave it and said “this is my body”.

The trickster will quickly switch from literal into allegory. He also knows that he cannot answer the Jesus-style question: how could the church have for twenty centuries (not just since the sixteenth century) practiced and believed in the Eucharist? Was this all wrongly done and these could not correctly understand what Christ meant by “this is my body”?

To answer this question, they have no other method but to go to the Church fathers and twist everything. For example, they use Clement when he explains:

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” (The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,”)

“The flesh figuratively represents…”? Is Clement saying that the Eucharist does not represent the real essence of Christ? Then they even present Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6 “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise …”

So is Clement explaining “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood” strictly as a Metaphor?

And Clement even concludes the chapter with this:

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk … by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”

One can also find Tertullian “and that flesh which was the “bread given for the life of the world,” He also stated “Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

Are the apostolic-succession churches dismantled by these words from Clement and Tertullian?

Hardly. It is here that the trickster avoids the ancient “two senses” in interpreting. Irenaeus, around 180 A.D., close to the time of the disciples of Jesus says of the Eucharist “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth [grain], when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”

While the context is the “resurrection” of the believer the bread is “no longer common bread“.

This is using the proper scriptural method: the two senses.

To explain Clement’s allegoric interpretation and other church fathers we must understand the multiple facets on how they viewed the text. As Christians in these days, they did not only believe in the Trinity, but also had dual and trinitarian interpretation of the Scriptures pushing aside the “veil of the letter” (Origen, Homily on Numbers. 16.9). Church fathers interpreted such verses as John 6 with triple meanings; the literal, the moral and the mystical. Christ used three when He said His “I Am” adding “The Way,” “The Truth,” and “The Life,” while 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 Paul spoke of the “body” “soul” and “spirit”.

The early church, unlike today’s trickster, interpreted using  allegorical and anthropological approaches. They were not the typical blog commenter of today who jots quick rebuke summing up the whole plan of God in an insulting and gymnastic approach to the Word of God.

This mystery regarding “this is My Body” has various levels of meanings. The Logos (The Word) became flesh and so did the Eucharist. We also have the Word (Christ) and the Word of God (the Bible). Origen says “… but we are said to drink the blood of Christ not only in the rite of the sacraments, but also when we receive his words, in which are life, as he himself …” and is why Clement said “…Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk …”

Origen, Clement and Irenaeus also saw the word of God in the Communion and the Communion in the word of God. They did not see Christ merely in the consecrated bread and wine, but also the communion of believers and the word of God. The believers were not the only ones who resemble the body of Christ, but that Scriptures and the Body of Christ, both, resembles the Body of Christ.

They used both senses in interpreting scripture, the allegoric and the literal approach that is so much removed today from the modern pulpit of the disco-tech style charismatic churches while dressed up in Hawaiian shirts with multiple colors looking more like an Antichrist with hyacinth blue, sulfur yellow and fiery red.

Tricksters are recognized from their isolating everything, from verses to context, metaphor from literal,  they isolate the stone from David, and even from God, as only if one of these was the originator and the true killer of Goliath.

The fathers used metaphor, the stone was also Christ, that David used Christ to strike Goliath, that David was not the sole instrument of the judgment of God against Goliath, that God Himself was the originator where David through Theosis (the process of being one with Christ) became one with God and through God’s Son also kills the Antichrist. David also resembles Christ Who will return to accomplish the striking of the serpent’s head, who is both the devil and antichrist. This is why we see in Revelation 11-12 not only the Church and Israel, but also Mary and then the saints in Zechariah standing with Christ on the Mount of Olives. In Revelation 11:19 we see the “temple” of GOD being opened, and within it is the “Ark of the Covenant” then in Revelation 21:22 “And I saw no temple therein. For the Lord GOD almighty and the Lamb are the temple thereof”. This clearly debunks Ezekiel’s temple being rebuilt by some group calling itself The Temple Institute. The lazy replaced Christ, Ezekiel, Joel, Daniel and Paul with a modern outfit, elevating the Jewish system made obsolete over Christ. This in itself is an abomination to God and I ask Christ for forgiveness.

John describes, like Ezekiel taking a measuring rod to measure the temple: “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” (Revelation 11:1-2).

Yet this is clearly and primarily the Church (who see the woman, Mary, as the crowned queen) since “the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent … And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:14,17)

“the court outside the temple” are the Christians that were not protected, but will be subject to Satan during that same time (Revelation 12:17). Antichrist does not rule the entire globe and his center is in Asia Minor.

It is only when I discovered all this, how to be as wise as a serpent and try to be innocent, confess my sins continually to another who is in authority, receive Christ in the communion, that I could finally say “I was blind, but now I see”.  The disciples forgave as Christ forgives because they were one with Christ. Christ clearly said to the disciples “whatever sins you forgive it shall be forgiven” while the trickster uses a truth will jot “only Christ can forgive sins”. While this is true, no Christians denies it whether apostolic succession or not, Christ is to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father. But this is also ignoring that such a truth has a system that the trickster isolates. Indeed Christ is the only mediator and sin forgiver, yet He told the disciples that He will use them, the first priests, as the mediators between the sinner and Christ “whatever sin you forgive [on earth] it shall be forgiven [from heaven]”.

In Bethlehem, dare you ask for a lady’s hand without using the matchmaker, go to the governor without a dignitary or buy a home without an agent. Only a fool negotiates his sentence, the marriage dowry or the price of his home. Such are thrown out of the Kingdom even including the one who does not come dressed properly to the wedding:

But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless. “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (Matthew 22:11-13)

In this, Christ addresses the modern trickster who tells the congregants “come as you are”. Christ speaks prophetically on the condition of the falling away that we so clearly see, coming unprepared to the wedding. The lazy servant is one who comes to God’s wedding, improperly dressed, while for the politician, they dress as if they are entering Christ’s banquet.

I heard the empty arguments: “Rome insists that the Mass is the very same sacrifice as that of Calvary” (James White) “The whole concept of re-enacting and re-presenting Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is contrary to the clear teaching of Hebrews that this sacrifice occurred once for all time (Heb. 10:12-14)” (Norman Geisler)

But these are only assumptions. No Christian believes in re-sacrificing Christ. The Eucharist is a re-sacrifice if you will, but the same ‘once and for all’ sacrifice being made present to us now.

The argument can easily be countered in a Jesus-style question: John wrote his Gospel between 90-100 A.D., while early church documents at the time make it crystal clear, the Eucharist was being celebrated as the literal Flesh and Blood of Christ across the entire Roman Empire, so why didn’t John have made an explanation to clarify as he always did (see John 1:42; John 21:19) since the entire church was in error telling all Christians that the Eucharist was a re-sacrifice?

And if one insists on using scripture, the other Jesus-style question would be this: why is it that in each Gospel the mention of Satan entering Judas is in the context of the Last Supper that Jesus had this discourse on “eating his flesh” and is when Judas rejected the notion of Christ being the Eucharist? 

God allowed controversies, even Christ spoke in parables, in order to separate sheep from goats.

The goats will never get it.

Even if Christ made the controversial issues crystal clear, using the terms “Trinity,” “Transubstantiation,” and “Assumption,” and the goats believed in the Eucharist, Mary being mother of God and Church, they would still find a multitude of other arguments to defy God’s order, preferring satan’s disorder, as we see fallen apostolic-succession leaders continually have done, to even allow sodomy and paganism to enter the hauls of the Vatican.

Purgatory is taking a shower before you could jump in the pool (heaven) and it is in Maccabees. One needs to knock, seek and find, even ask, why seven books that Jesus used were removed from holy scriptures?

I don’t have a problem with taking showers. That shower, indeed is not for pigs, it is not even designed for humans who behave like pigs either. It is designed to remove whatever crud is left for Christians after living so long in a pig farm we call the world. I am not sure why so much fuss. Even the shower stall they go after to the point I am beginning to believe that such behavior is more fitting for Muslims rather than Christians. What else is left, the confession booth, the altar, the priest … until like locusts the swarm consumes everything and what is left is a bare naked Jesus huddled in the corner of every church.

Even that Jesus, these will insist to remove, barking daily that Jesus cannot be expressed in a statue, but only in a paper-thin photo as thin as their spirit that cannot fathom a trinitarian theology with trinitarian interpretation where Scriptures has so many facets that we could spend a lifetime never being able to fathom.

Even His crucifix, instead of being like Simon of Cyrene, we should be honored to carry the Cross around our necks as the Copts do in Egypt, instead, we would be like the Roman torturer, going after Jesus, flogging Him by tormenting and taunting the saints who like taking daily showers, confessing directly to a priest, to the living saints on earth as they are also in heaven…

Every day I approve comments and see and I am beginning to be convinced 100% that so many are a miserable bunch who go after any sin. Even the infiltrators in the Catholic Church are blamed on every Catholic, Copt, Serbian, Greek, Russian Orthodox … so many are simply the accusers. These roam round about like devils using whatever few verses they remember to thwart the volumes of history and other books of the Bible they so much hate calling these “Apocrypha”. They prefer to feed from smelly cheese crumbs spilled by a glutton named Martin Luther who was an anti-Semite-devil in disguise.

Even exposing this devil, instead, they would rather attack Catholics, never-mind that this devil wrote a treatises titled The Jews and Their Lies. This one, just like these scoffers, taunted the people, begging them to go after poor Jews and requesting they burn their farms and annihilate the people in a holocaust while Pope Pius XII rescued more Jews than any man in history while gaining the title from scoffers as “Hitler’s Pope”.

Slander is key to recognizing the saint. Isn’t that what Jesus taught?

Such holocaust was finally fulfilled from Luther’s instruction to be carried out by Hitler himself. And what is left of Germany today after stripping all the icons, seven books of the Bible, altars and confessional booths? Nothing but the flood of Muslim hordes issued forth from the mouth of the beast after the woman, a bloody river with multitudes from nations, tribes and different tongues raping and molesting as it was in the days of the Maccabees. Soon, Hagia Sophia will be desecrated, the Vatican and the “synagogues of God” where this horde will put their ensigns and hammer and chisel the stones of the Temple of God (Psalm 74). Soon we all will pray:

To the trickster and the scoffer I ask: where are your “carved work”? “And now all its carved work
They smash with hatchet and hammers..” Can you interpret through the spirit and see the many meanings of all this?

Trickster, the clown and the gymnast, the devil will not only pass to you what he himself does not believe is true, but he will pass through you whatever falsity that you believe through him. You say: “and what use do we have for church fathers when we have Scriptures”? But I say to you: “Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?” (Malachi 2:10) and did He not also say “He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse”?

Has God created a church, or a void that was empty for entire twenty centuries until a trickster named Zwingli showed up fifteen centuries later?

No. I will shun away the trickster and the politician. I will cause an earthquake, shatter myths and take the Grain Offering.

SOURCES
(1) St. Matthew. See St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the people of Smyrna; St. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Tryphon; St. Irenæus, lib. 4. chap. xxxii. and xxxiv.; Tertullian, lib. de Velandis Virg.; Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst. Evang. chap. ult.[last]; St. Jerome, ep. ad Evangelu,; St. Ambrose, in Psalm xxxviii. and on 1 chap. of St. Luke; St. Augustine, lib. 16. de civ. Dei. chap. xxii. lib. cont. Advers. legis chap. 22. and lib. ix. Confess. chap. xii.; St. Chrysostom, hom. lx. ad Pop. Antiochenum. et hom. lxxii. in Matt.; The first general council of Nice[Nicaea].

(2) Joseph. Antiq. 12.5.5, trans. William Whiston. Whiston puts Jupiter, but I replaced it with his equivalent Zeus for the sake of clarification.  who had his origins in the ancient Near East, since a prototype of Zeus was the Hittite Teshub and the Syrian Hadad

(3) Reza Aslan, No God But God, ch. i, p. 6

(4) See John Garstang’s introduction to Lucian’s Syrian Goddess pp. 6-7, 10, 15, 17, 19; n. 32; see n. 586 in the Loeb edition of Macrobius’ Saturnalia, trans. Robert A. Kaster. Though these authors never equate Allah with Zeus-Haddad, one and the same as the god of Antiochus.