Erdogan Wants To Revive The Islamic Empire Of The Antichrist On Easter Sunday, The Day That Jesus Christ Resurrected From The Dead. Many Christians Will Be Deceived And Will Join The Antichrist As He Sits In The Temple Of God And Makes War Against Christendom

By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Sunday Special)

“All the leaders of the EU countries went to the Vatican and listened to the pope submissively. Do you now understand why they have not been taking Turkey into the EU for 54 years? The situation is quite loud and clear, it is a Crusader Alliance. April 16 will also be the day to evaluate this,” President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said at a rally in Ankara on April 2.

Erdogan will change history on April 16th. This is Easter or Pascha. This is the day Christ resurrected from the dead after becoming the sacrificial lamb of God. Resurrection day is the day that Christianity’s argument was cemented in history, for without it there is no Christianity.

Instead of commemorating this day for Christ’s resurrection, Erdoğan chose it to cement his Ottoman resurrection from the dead. It is also the day, according to Erdoğan, when Muslims must decide on what to do with the Crusaders in what Erdogan termed as the “clash between the Crescent and the Cross”.

For Erdoğan’s victory over the Cross he is calling on all Turks in his nation and throughout Europe to vote ‘yes’ and approve his referendum coming April 16th. To Erdoğan, Turkey then will decide whether to continue its attempt to connect with Christendom (join the E.U) or whether it will appoint Erdoğan as “the Prince” then resurrect its wounded Ottoman Empire to war with Christendom in the future. Turkey’s rise to a Caliphate system was explained by Hayrettin Karaman, Erdogan’s main Fatwa giver who stated:

“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”.

Turkey is also enforcing more state control over the church preparing the way for doing what is to come: the Abomination of Desolation.

When will this culminate will take some time, but we already see its beginning phases. Whether Erdoğan is this Antichrist remains to be seen. If so, he will eventually prohibit the temple sacrifices.

This brings up a crucial issue: what entails this abomination of desolation? 



On the abomination of desolation Jesus in Matthew 24:15 commands we focus on the book of Daniel. But Daniel’s prophecy has three fulfillments: the abomination of desolation in Daniel’s day involving the first temple; the abomination of desolation in Jesus’ day involving the second temple; and then finally the abomination of desolation in the time of the end involving Christ’s temple. In other words, the holy of holies, where God’s sacrifice resides will be desecrated. So with a New Testament era, the perspective changes forms, especially when it comes to The Temple of God. What is it?

However, there are several controversies on how do we resolve this issue. A recent interpretation is the re-institution of the Jewish sacrificial system in a rebuilt temple which a small cult in Jerusalem called The Temple Institute leads. For decades we have heard about such efforts. To many, the construction of the Third Temple articles seems like a partial fulfillment which to these it confirms a literal temple was what Jesus meant when He referred to Daniel’s prophecy.

Chaim Richman, international director of the Temple Institute, standing next to a replica of the holy ark at an exhibit of Third Temple vessels in the institute’s offices in Jerusalem. (Ben Sales/JTA)

This interpretation of course came way later. It is this new rebuilt 3rd temple many believe that will be the one Antichrist desecrates which they see the establishment of the Temple Institute in Jerusalem as evidence of their view. The other interpretation is the traditional one which argues that when such notion came about as a temple building, Christ was speaking from a completely different mindset referring to His Body as the Temple (John 2:19). This body was not only Himself, but included the entire Church in whole as His temple:

“We heard him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another not made with hands.” (Mark 14:58)

So it is obvious, this temple of God is not made by human hands. The historic Christian interpretation was that this involves the perpetual sacrifice of the Eucharist. Lorenzo Scupoli (1530 – 1610) explains from Revelation 12:

“Therefore, when we overcome the enemies, it is the blood of Christ which overcomes, as it is written in Revelation: ‘and they overcame him” (the slanderous devil) ‘by the blood of the Lamb’ (Rev. xii. 11).

By the “blood of the Lamb” Scupoli explains:

“This most holy sacrament, this all-conquering weapon, or rather Christ present in this sacrament, can be actively received in a twofold manner: first, sacramentally, in the sacrament of Christ’s flesh and blood, with the necessary preparation, that is, contrition, confession, purification by penance and the required fast; secondly—inwardly and spiritually in mind and heart. The first may take place as often as outer circumstances, inner state and the discretion of one’s spiritual Father allow; the second can take place every moment; so you may always have this all-powerful weapon in your hand and constantly wield it against your enemies. So harken to this and partake of the Holy Mysteries of Christ as often as possible, so long as you have the permission of your spiritual Father. But strive to partake of Christ our Lord inwardly and spiritually without ceasing; I have offered you guidance to this in the preceding chapters on prayer.”

So which one is the correct interpretation? The latter interpretation is becoming more rejected by anti-Catholic Christians who would claim that “overcoming by the blood of the lamb” is spiritual which stands for “our faith in Christ”.

But to traditional Christians, 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” involves the desecration or the prohibition of the Eucharist for if we knowingly consume what is desecrated or reject to consume the Body of Christ then we have desecrated the very Temple of God.

Others take a completely spiritual view that “overcoming by the blood of the lamb” is simply spiritual which stands for “our faith in Christ”. But if the spiritual application is true, that “overcoming by the blood of the lamb” stands for “our faith in Christ”, the Jesus-style question is this: how then can Antichrist abolish what only resides in the heart?

This is the Jesus-style question no denier can answer. Antichrist therefore must abolish a substance, this is either the Eucharist including the wine or the Temple animal sacrifices.

But it is here where the prophet Joel predicted this war with Antichrist. Joel debunks both views of ‘spiritual’ and ‘the animal’ sacrifices:

“The grain offering [Bread] and the drink offering [wine]. Have been cut off from the house of the Lord [the Temple]; 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.”

Joel clearly does not speak of either the exclusively spiritual or of the animal sacrifices, for we “drink His blood” (“drink offering”) and “eat His Body” (“grain offering”) and this prophecy speaks of literal “priests” mourning just before the coming of “the day of the Lord”.

This is definitely what sparks the Second Coming “the day of the Lord”.

Indeed, this is the crux of the whole battle between chaff and wheat, between heresy and orthodoxy, between the sons of God and the sons of Antichrist. To the traditionalist, it is the Eucharist that Antichrist wants to abolish and it is by the Eucharist we conquer Antichrist.

There is no other way to go around this issue. Rejecting the Eucharist is why many anti-Catholics believe that its all about abolishing a Jewish sacrificial system in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

For Scupoli there is the tangible (the Eucharist, the sacrament of Christ’s flesh and blood) and for the modern Third Temple promoters, they have the wrong tangible and for all others they must stop applying the tangible to be exclusively spiritual. Sure faith is inwardly and spiritually in mind and heart, but it is also by outward expression through the sacraments of Baptism and Communion.

Therefore, Antichrist attempts to abolish the “daily sacrifice” yet he fails to accomplish this completely because it will continue on being practiced underground.

One other nail in the coffin of naysayers is this Jesus-style question: do you see this “daily sacrifice”? 

Jesus comes in the flesh in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is observed daily in Catholic and Orthodox churchesnot weekly, monthly, yearly or never as is commonly done by non-orthodox.

“Daily” means “daily”.

So why do all these divisive movements ignore the word “daily” if indeed they ‘love and only obey the scripture’?

There is only one way out of this dilemma. That is to claim that such “Daily Sacrifice” is regarding the re-institution of the Jewish sacrificial system.

But such interpretation turns upside down the whole crux of Christian theology; Christ’s sacrifice makes null and void the ancient Temple sacrifices. If temple sacrifices are to be re-instituted, the other Jesus-style question would be: was Malachi in error when he predicted that these sacrifices will be done in “every place” and that God will “shut the door” completely to animal sacrifices?

This becomes a major dilemma since Malachi is clear:

“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.” (Malachi 1:10)

Here God speaks clearly that He will no longer accept these offerings. No other offering is accepted except the one that God describes so clearly in Malachi:

“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 1:11)

This confirms with absolute certainty that it is this “Daily Sacrifice” of communion “grain” (not animal) which is done “daily” “from the rising of the sun even to its setting” and its done amongst the “nations” (gentiles) and it is “in every place” and not just in a single location as in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and that it has “grain” and “incense”, tangible substances that also represents spiritual meanings.

Christ warned that even a virgin will enter hell for slumbering on such issues. This “daily sacrifice” which is a “grain offering that is pure” is practiced “in every place”. This is in every true assembly in His Temple which is a grander scale than just a single building in Jerusalem.

So crucial was this that Christ Himself warned to heed Daniel’s warning regarding this issue when He warned of “the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet” which is clearly explained in Matthew 24: 151621 Daniel 8:1311:31; and 12:11. The scripture calls this a “daily sacrifice”. And by this, it eliminates all these divisive interpretations by many whose religious institutions do not observe this perpetual sacrificial system “daily”. Again, “daily” means “daily”.

So if this “daily sacrifice” happens “in every place” this alone destroys the arguments that this practice happens in a single rebuilt Jewish temple exclusively in Jerusalem. Therefore, small cult like groups like the Temple Institute is not ordained by God, but is influenced by the spirit of Antichrist. This is done in order to undermine Christianity and to deceive Christians to abandon the true sacrificial system.

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”.

If this is not the Eucharist and is regarding the re-instituted temple sacrifices, the other Jesus-style question would be this: how could Malachi’s  prophesy, which biblical scholars agree, these verses make null and void Jewish sacrificial system all of the sudden allow a re-construction of a cancelled system?

“One among you who would shut the gates” of the temple, that is, God will do away with the old sacrificial offering and that He will reach out to the “nations” with a new system observing a “grain offering that is pure” and even including “incense” which will be accomplished “daily”  from “the rising of the sun even to its setting” and is a practice which is done as a perpetual “sacrificial” offering in many places and not just in a single building.

But this interpretation will instantly gain us an accusation that Catholics re-sacrifice Christ.

However, such an accusation digs the accusers own grave. If such sacrifices happen in a rebuilt temple, isn’t killing animals and shedding their blood also symbolic of re-sacrificing Christ?

How then do these justify their own claim where Jews will be re-sacrificing the Messiah via animal sacrifices? Can one degrade Christ’s blood to be as low as an animal? The Catholic and the Orthodox would cry out BLASPHEMY!.

The Messiah had already come! How can He be re-sacrificed?

So which is it? Are the Catholics re-sacrificing Christ or are the anti-Catholics simply re-sacrificing Christ with animals and misinterpreting Scripture? God no longer dwells in temples made by the hands of men. How could communion, this “daily sacrifice” be a metaphor, while Israel, so they say, will re-institute temple sacrifices with a literal application and from an old covenant perspective?

But to answer this dilemma, the naysayers will argue that while Israel will rebuild the temple, which Antichrist enters to stop the animal sacrifices, that such sacrifices are by no means acceptable to God. It is just that Ezekiel predicts what will happen as prophecy, thats all.

Really? In order to answer this question, we must first understand what is meant by “the Temple of God”. It is here were the reader will understand the limited scope he has in understanding God’s grand plan. When it comes to God’s plan, God is not interested in a building, but a mega operation that encompasses heaven with earth.

The Temple with both its spiritual and tangible substance is built on the foundation of Christ as described in Ephesians 2:19–22 which its citizens are ‘saints’ its foundations are ‘prophets’ with Christ as ‘chief corner stone’, a temple ‘fitly framed together’:

“Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone [of this Temple]; In whom all the building [of this Temple] fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the [Holy] Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:19–22)

This is no building structure. This is an amazing corporation, a partnership between heaven and earth as “fellow citizens” and “with the saints” in heaven with a “foundation of the apostles and prophets” and with “Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” which all this is the “holy temple”.

So why make Ezekiel’s temple to simply be a literal building with animal sacrifices?

It is because all who follow the spirit of Antichrist, they only want to denounce the Catholic and the Orthodox priesthood. Such grasshoppers reject the very Temple of God, its authority, its hierarchy and the corporate responsibility.

This is why the grasshopper insists that Ezekiel’s Temple is simply a prophecy about the Jews re-instituting the sacrificial system. If so, how does the anti-Catholic justify his own argument that animal sacrifices are unnecessary?

But to answer this, they state that it is simply the Jews who are confused about Christ’s sacrifice and that the Bible simply prophesies the re-institution of the old sacrificial system, and not that God approves of it.

If such a flimsy answer is true, why would God Himself then support these very sacrifices:

“where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things” (Ezekiel 42:13)

They “shall eat the most holy things”. God calls these sacrifices “holy” and acceptable. This alone debunks such arguments.

What holy things? Here they are:

“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.”

Again, God approves of this sacrificial system. So what is this “meat offering” and this “sin offering” and this “trespass offering”?

God addresses “meat” and “grain” as if the two are the same sacrificial substance. The only interpretation is to heed to Christ when He broke the bread while stating : “For my flesh [meat offering] is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55). This is a perpetual sacrifice:

“For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:26)

To “shew the death of the Lord” is an everlasting perpetual sacrifice. This “showing” is not done once but “as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice” which reveals His death for us. This “chalice” and this “bread” is  tangible substance that represents a spiritual meaning.

Divorcing the tangible from the spiritual is the crux of the whole issue of Antichrist which is done in order to deny that “Christ came in the flesh”.

On a side note, combining the meat with grain is tradition which stems from ancient Judaism. Traditional Christians of the east, from Armenians to Roman Orthodox including even Muslims from Saudi Arabia to the Holy Land practiced the custom of combining lamb’s meat with grain called Harrisah or Jarish as an offering for the souls of the departed. Our family used to cook this on a fire pit in a huge copper pot while Christians had their patriarch make a blessing over the meal. Such practices were a reminder of God’s offering which many are too blind to see where even the name Bethlehem where Lehem is both meat and bread. Indeed, that village was the house of the Bread of Life and was also the house of the Lamb of God, both in one.

Once we understand the tangible substance that represents a spiritual meaning it all fits. One cannot ignore the tangible:

 “When the priests enter therein, then shall they not go out of the holy place into the outer 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.”

These are literal garments (tangible substance) which represent a “spiritual meaning”.

God Himself even supports not just this sacrificial system mentioned in Ezekiel, but the carving of images (icons) and of vestments and garments just as Catholic and Orthodox priests do:

In the space above the outside of the entrance to the inner sanctuary and on the walls at regular intervals all around the inner and outer sanctuary were carved cherubim and palm trees. Palm trees alternated with cherubim. Each cherub had two facesthe face of a human being toward the palm tree on one side and the face of a lion toward the palm tree on the other. They were carved all around the whole temple. From the floor to the area above the entrance, cherubim and palm trees were carved on the wall of the main hall. (Ezekiel 41:17-20)

If this temple had carved statues of angels and even human beings, why then does the grasshopper hate icons? When it says in Ezekiel: “but there they shall lay their garments wherein they minister” is this tangible or symbolic of things spiritual?

It is both.

If this was only symbolic, why then aren’t these ‘sacrifices’ and ‘offerings’ also symbolic? Christian priests use their vestments only when they are officiating. These follow scripture to the letter. And if one claims this is a literal temple built by human hands and they hate carved statues, they must also hate Ezekiel’s temple.

God demanded “vestments” and not Hawaiian shirts and jeans. Vestments are liturgical clothing worn by Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and other clergy in orthodoxy which follows Scripture to the letter, adhering to a hierarchy, indeed, a Temple which is built on the foundation of Christ as described in Ephesians 2:19–22 which its citizens are ‘saints’ its foundations are ‘prophets’ with Christ as ‘chief corner stone’ working in corporation as a unit.

So when we read the word “temple” one needs to decide, which meaning do we choose, a rich meaning fitting for God or a simple meaning fitting to a cult in Jerusalem called the Temple Institute who adhere to things prior of the “greater things to come”?

This is no simple building. This temple unites earthly saints to heavenly Jerusalem, where angels and heavenly saints reside with Christ, the “chief corner stone”.

All this is not simple to comprehend.

Therefore, to re-interpret Ezekiel’s temple as a Jewish sacrificial system would be an interpretation of an Antichrist, for Islam still continues animal sacrifices which God abhors. Islam has Judaising elements in its religion. Antichrist will abolish the “daily sacrifice” which is exactly what anti-Catholics call to do, for their “grain offering” is no sacrifice. It is a gnostic sacrifice for it simply becomes grain without the substance of Christ. If God resided in an Ark why can’t Christ also reside in His Communion bread? You can easily believe that electricians can have energy reside in a central location and such energy is distributed to your light socket, why can’t you believe that God can also be omnipresent in a way that He too can reside in Eucharists?

People need to think. Antichrist would not mind abolishing all sacraments. He would make the sacrament of marriage a non-sacrament and divorce a minor sin so that every Tom would marry Harry’s wife and every Dick marries both; Tom’s and Harry’s ex-wives. This would be closer to Islam not Christianity where marriage is portrayed between husband and wife as Christ and His Church. This is a corporate relationship which only the true faith has.

Antichrist would not mind abolishing the sacrament of confession. He will re-interpret the confession of the disciples to one another to mean the reverse opposite so when Jesus “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven” to mean the opposite of what it simply says.

Seriously, what other interpretation is there for “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven”?

Therefore, in the New Testament, the sinner would have to confesses to one of these twelve priests (disciples) in order to get their sins “forgiven”.

Does that need a rocket scientist to interpret? A child can easily read this to see what it means. What we have here, in the primitive church, are twelve priests listening to confessions and forgiving the sins of the people. And so how can one forgive a sin of another if the other does not disclose this sin? Would this not be confession as in “confess your sins to one another” (James 5:16)?

Better yet, how can the disciples forgive sins? Where the disciples gods? Is it not only God Who can forgive sins?

But Jesus used this same example to such priestly authority:

“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High” (Psalm 82:6).

“Gods” and “sons of the Most High”?

Even Christ confirms it in John 10:34–36: “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”? 

It is here where the devil enters and confuses. Unless one understands the meaning of ‘Temple’ from a new testament perspective they would not get it. It is the temple of Ephesians 2:19–22, an entire hierarchy with heaven above meeting earth below in this heavenly mount Zion where the Church cooperates with heaven above.

The process of achieving this is completely missing in today’s Protestant systematic theology, forgetting that God wants to mold us into perfection where we reflect and cooperate in God’s plan in a corporate wayIt is called Corporate Responsibility which completely stems from the Bible. It is the concept of one for all and all for one. This is a theme that is well etched from Genesis to Revelation. For example:

“Just as sin entered the world through one man, death through sin entered all men” (Romans 5:12).

This one man is Adam. So from Genesis we see this. Adam caused all the damage for the corporate others to suffer and it is one man (the new Adam, Christ) who does the fix for all the corporate others to heal.

This is indeed, the crux of the whole Christian theology.

Just as sin entered through one man in Romans 5, the redemption thereof is through one man:

“God made him [Christ, single seed] who had no sin to be sin for us [plural seeds], so that in him [one man] we [all of us, plural] might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Corporate Responsibility is how scripture is fulfilled. When it comes to Christ or His mother, the relationship with their seed is corporate, as if between the saints and the King. Corporate Responsibility uses the common old maxim derived from Matthew 25, that a blessing or an attack on one of the king’s officers (the saints) is an attack on the king himself (God). This principle is so clear when Christ in Matthew 25:40 says:

“Since you have done it unto one of the least of these [plural] my brethren [the King’s soldiers], you have done it unto me [the King]”.

This is the Temple of God. An attack on a saint is an attack on the King of Kings Himself and His Temple.

This verse is only explained and completely understood in the apostolic succession theology and without this, the scoffers, the grasshoppers would always quote only parts of the biblical texts arguing over Mary, the Saints, Confession to a priest, the Eucharist … it never ends.

They will keep doing this till kingdom come until they are arrested by Christ as chaff and thrown into the dungeon burning with fire and brimstone while the wise virgins who comprehend enter the barn with their Bridegroom.

The grasshopper can never comprehend Théōsis. This can never be unless the Christian continually partakes of Christ’s literal body through communion and continually confessing their sins before they do this: 

“if we confess our sins [continually], he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Without confession to Christ, that is, to the corporate body of Christ, His Temple, to His heavenly Mount Zion, there is no remission of sin.

Yet the spirit of Antichrist has his demonic disciples, the grasshoppers and the locusts, repeat a question: how could anyone “forgive sins” since Jesus is “the only mediator” and “intercessor”?

But this is not a Jesus-style question. In ancient Israel, the prophet was the mediator between Man and God as he cooperates with God. Moses begged God to show mercy unto the children of Israel as they were worshipping the golden calf. He was a mediator. The people exhorted Samuel to “Pray for thy servants to the Lord thy God, that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for a king.” (1 Samuel 12:19)

However, the grasshopper will answer that these were types of Christ, that when Christ came, it was He alone Who could forgive sins.

However, the people of Judea and Jerusalem flocked to St. John the Baptist, “confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:5) And again, Jesus Himself told the Disciples that “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23)

And then we have St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Even St. Paul spoke of confessing to a priest:

“And to whom you [the priest] have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I [as a priest] have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 2:10)

What part of “I have done it [forgiving sins] in the person of Christ” do you, the grasshopper, not understand?

This is Christ’s Temple.

And even amongst the grasshoppers, the pastor who believes in no sacraments, while he stomps on the Altar with his shoes dressed up in Hawaiian shirt and jeans, he is allowed to become an intercessory agent between the sinner and Christ and he is accepted to do “intercessory prayers” for his flock.

Is this not intercession?

If aiding or abusing Christ’s “brethren,” Christ says “you have done it unto me” then forgiving sin is also “done it in the person of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 2:10). So when we read “temple” we must not view these words in tunnel vision for language is limited. Christ residing in His Temple and Christ forgiving, is magnificent, complex, mysterious, miraculous, corporate and is un-comprehendable to man for the things of heaven are never fully comprehended by man that an eye can see while the spirit cannot be understood by human faculties.

The things of the spirit are not mere wind, but substance of unfathomable things. How can one fully and truly explain “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” How can I, the weak man explain “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”? If this “me” (Christ) involves hurting or contributing to a saint it is because this “me” involves the corporate Temple of God.

This leads us to the grasshoppers. What do we make of them?

It is in fact the gnostic who rejects all this. Why? He believes that the blood of Christ, vestments, carved images, incense, Eucharist …  are abstract, intangible thought, idea or teaching.

Again, the conflict between Christians and grasshoppers is the conflict between the tangible and the abstract. To believe in the abstract while ignoring the tangible is the crux of the whole issue of Christianity.

This is why in every dialogue between Christian and grasshopper, that whenever you quote verses with the tangible, they will always counter with the spiritual.

But grasshoppers do not follow scripture despite them saying that they do.

They don’t. So where did all this limited and selective interpretation of God’s Word stem from?

It stems from the doctrines of men whom they do not even know or have ever read about. No reader of history can write about Protestantism without writing, at least briefly, on the pre-Reformation heretics. Catharism “the pure ones” was a Christian dualist or Gnostic revival movement that thrived in some areas of Southern Europe, particularly northern Italy and southern France between the 12th and 14th centuries. The followers were known as Cathars and are now mainly remembered for a prolonged period of persecution by the Catholic church which did not recognise their belief as truly Christian. The Cathars actually became the grasshoppers martyrs. You can read all about these here.

But how can these be ‘martyrs’ especially after studying what is rarely discussed. What one will find in this history, is that the roots of Protestantism is gnosticism from the Cathars, or the belief that Christ was not physical, but a phantom.

To reject the physical Humanity of Christ, would then lead to the rejection of the main sacraments, the Eucharist, Confession, icons and holy water which all these were clearly defined in scripture.

The devil by having his apostolates ignore the tangible parts of scripture it resulted in agnosticism. When perusing their history, one will find that these pre-Reformation sects rejected crucifixes, icons, Confession and the Eucharist.

In other words, they rejected the tangible.

In fact, the gnostic rejection of the Eucharist stems much back further. While so many of these grasshoppers reject Muhammad the Muslim Arab, they do not realize that their system of belief stems from another Arab: Scythianus

In fact Scythianus was first mentioned by a student of the Apostles, Ignatius of Antioch. St. John the apostle himself debated the gnostic Scythianus, the Arab, thoroughly defeating him (see Epiphanius of Salamis). Scythianus taught the dualistic doctrine of the two principles. He was influenced — as we learn from the Church historian Socrates — by the teachings of Pythagoras, Empedocles and the paganism of Egypt.  

Islam picked up from such gnosticism claiming that the Crucifixion was an illusion which led to the grasshopper’s denial of the Eucharist. Ignatius of Antioch, a direct student of the Apostles themselves, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans stated:   

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6)

All this led to the rejection of holy icons or the Eucharist. Such rejection did not come from the Apostles, or even the Scriptures, which speak of carved images, but from gnosticism itself and is why the unorthodox, like the Muslims, reject having images while it was clear in ancient Israel, images were on the Ark and is mentioned in Ezekiel’s Temple as we stated (see Ezekiel 41:17-20).

But no matter how many times one argues with the grasshopper, it is unable to chew on the word of God for it is a grasshopper, it only chews on leaves and little booklets where it adheres to pre-formed quick and dirty leaflets that speak on how to obtain a quick and instantaneous salvation.

But in reality what these sell is Gnosticism which treats physical matter as evil, and thus any physical sacraments, such as the Eucharist, or any icons, would be rejected on account of their being physical. 

Bulgarian scholar Georgi Vasilev in his Heresy and the English Reformation shed significant light on this history which trickled all the way to the pre-Reformation sects: Wycliff and Tyndale.

Since the 12th century, favor towards dualist and Cathar heresy had been growing, from the Lollards all the way to the poetry of Milton. It was not the solid Bible that was the basis of the reformation, but the pre-Reformation dualists in England who were that real quicksand foundation. The Lollards, who were zealous followers of Wycliffe who “maintained that Lucifer and his associates were condemned unjustly” (see Moreri, A New and General Biographical Dictionary, Lollard). 

Lucifer was condemned unjustly?

According to scholar F. Litchenberger, the Lollards had a prophecy that “Lucifer and the demons unfairly chased away from Heaven will some day be restored there.”(1) The Lollards were therefore satanists; devil worshippers who made Lucifer into their god and the true God into a demon. Wycliffe, the main martyr of the grasshoppers also taught a form of pantheism, that anyone or any creature can become God:

“Every person is God. Every creature is God. Every being is everywhere, since every being is God.”

Its satan’s old lie “I am God” which is represented in Isaiah 14. This is the spirit of Antichrist.

It was from the Cathars that John Wycliffe and Tyndale, who continued the gnostic teaching, rejected the Eucharist:

“That the essence of material bread and wine remains [the same] after their consecration at the altar.” (2)

Tyndale taught the same heresy, saying:

“Now the testament is, that is his blood was shed for our sins; but is impossible that the cup or his blood should be that promise”. (3)  

Tyndale held that the Blood of the New Covenant that Christ spoke of in the Last Supper was simply referring to the teachings of the Bible, and this same belief was taught by the Cathar Bogomils, for as Zigabenus says of them: “The ‘new wine’ they say is their teaching.” (4) When Christ said, “my blood is real drink” (John 6:55), the gnostic rejects this, and believes that the blood of Christ is an abstract, intangible thought, idea or teaching.

It is for this reason that when one peruses Protestant interpretations that one finds an array of opposing views and is why they have so many un-united sects and denominations.

Again, the spirit of Antichrist started the conflict between the tangible and the abstract.

While the priest in old Israel acted as an intercessor between Man and God, the priest of the New Covenant acts as a participant in the mediation of Christ. St. Paul said that there is “one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). But this truth cannot isolate man from participating in the mediation of Christ.

t is actually here where the grasshopper who insists on a ‘personal relationship’ errs in isolating the Christian from His Christ.

If abusing Christ’s saints or aiding them becomes a corporate issue within His Temple: “you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me” then forgiving sin is just as corporate: “And to whom you [the priest] have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I [as a priest] have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 2:10)

Do you see this “I have done it in the person of Christ“?

So if aiding Christians is done in the person of Christ forgiving sinners is also done in the person of Christ.

Nothing can be more ‘personal’ in this relationship with Christ than this.

Once a true Christian understands this concept, then Scripture becomes a breeze to comprehend as far as our limited capacity can understand the matters of God and His Temple.

The grasshopper, by redefining Christ’s mediation as something abstract, without it ever being conduced in any incarnational manner or personal, portraying it as only man directly asking God for forgiveness, in which there is no human authority confirming absolution, this becomes the sort of teaching that Islam has. This is not Christianity. This is Antichrist.

It is obvious once we examine the verses inductively that God, indeed, established a Temple, in which man may participate as a priest, as the mediator between Man and God, as a partaker in the mediation of Christ, in the place of Christ on earth, exactly as the New Covenant mandated.

In fact, history reveals that it was the heretical Cathars and the Lollards and later the Protestant sects who rejected the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

But how can a true Christian have anything in common with Cathars? In the 15th century it was declared in the Norwich heresy trial records that a certain Lollard leader, named Margaret, said: 

“confession is made only before God and no other priest.”(5)

Tyndale, the heretic, also rejected the Sacrament of Confession, preaching against the idea of a priest being “a mediator between God and us.” (6)  Tyndale taught really a theological socialism, where there is no hierarchy, and all peoples, “every man and woman that know Christ and his doctrine” have the sacrament “to bind and loose”. (7)

The bulk majority of anti-Catholic grasshoppers are in fact oblivious to the teachings of Wycliffe, their martyr church father. Wycliffe himself was gnostic. While these grasshoppers accuse Catholics of having seven additional apocryphal books, they do not know that their gnostic martyr, Tyndale, actually approved and translated the gnostic book, the Gospel of Nicodemus (the Evangelium Nicodemi), one of the numerous gnostic gospels that were completely rejected by the Church. The Lollard sect had eventually evolved into the Puritan cult of England. As A.F. Thomson notes:

“by the time that the Roman establishment was succeeded by the Anglican, the Lollardy was developing into Puritanism.” (8)

Even Martin Luther who for centuries has been touted as a champion for Biblical Christianity, the claiming reformer who was to bring the Church back to its original roots and eschew the “traditions of men” has been exposed by recent scholarship. Based on perusing notes written by the German reformer it reveals a gnostic Luther who was adversed to the orthodox view of the Trinity, the Humanity of Christ, and Augustine’s refutations of gnosticism with sentiments more in favor towards the Manichaean heresy than orthodoxy. While it is true that Luther wrote many true statements on Christ — that would be anti-gnostic — such as that Christ is “that holy ladder by which we ascend to the knowledge of God,” (9) we cannot ignore what has been discovered in literally what comprised to be thousands of notes written by Luther himself on the margins of books written by reputed theologians such as Augustine and Peter Lombard whom Luther criticized revealing he was truly a Manichean heretic of the first order.

The whole data was much overlooked until the 20th century when the German scholar Theobald Beer enduringly read through the notes, studying the patriarch of Protestantism for thirty five years. Beer’s research on Luther was eventually published in his 1980, 584 page publication, Der fröhliche Wechsel und Streit, in which he exposed and discoursed on the heretical gnostic beliefs and teachings of Luther. In fact, even Melanchthon, the closest colleague of Luther and one of the head figures of the Protestant Reformation, criticized the German reformer as having  “Manichean delirium”.

And just in case one wants to argue the typical ‘Luther’s old age senile’ argument, the notes were written within the time periods of 1506 to 1516, and 1535 to 1545. Luther was born 1483 and died on 18 February 1546. In 1506 he was 23 at the prime of his life to 1516, he would have been 33. And from 1535 to 1545 would make Luther between 52 and 62 years of age. This is hardly a senile.

And lest we undermine Manichaeanism, the central belief of Manichaeanism is that there are two principles — one good and one evil — existing co-eternally, and eternally opposing each other. The evil principle — Satan — created humanity, and thus humanity unto itself is evil; and the good principle — the god of Mani — created the spiritual world. This doctrine places humanity and God not in an intimate relationship, but rather sets them up in war against each other.

By making God co-eternal with the devil, it places Satan’s power at an equal level with God’s. It is reminiscent to the Mormons — who are just modern day gnostics — when they say that Christ is the brother of Lucifer; the teaching makes Christ just another son of God, and Lucifer as also another son of God. The doctrine enables a high esteem for Satan, and a decayed view on God, and in numerous cases open devil worship. Hilaire Belloc wrote that gnosticism “bred all sorts of secondary effects. In some men it would lead to devil worship” (Belloc, The Great Heresies, p. 72).

One of these men influenced by all this was Luther. This gnostic precept, and its decayed and diabolical hermeneutics, is seen in Luther’s own words: 

“the devil must be granted an hour of divinity and I must attribute fiendishness to God” (30 Days, No. 2, 1992, “Luther: Manichaean Delierium” by Antonio Socci and Tommaso Ricci, pg. 55)

Luther, in his glosses, did not affirm that Christ was murdered on account of humanity’s sin — which is in accordance to orthodox doctrine — but that Christ was guilty of sin Himself. As we read from the quote just presented, Luther believed that Christ submitted to the devil.

For Luther, there is no reconciliation between humanity and divinity, since the former is too evil to be worthy of union with the latter. Luther held that Christ was a compound nature. Instead of saying that Christ is a person, He called the Holy One a compositum. Even Luther’s disciple, Melanchthon, tried to correct such errors after Luther’s death, saying: “The formulas to be rejected are: ‘Christ is composed of two natures’ and ‘Christ is the fruit of creation.’”

Christ is one, both very God and very Man, without any of these two natures mingling together or mixing, but remaining the same unchangingly. Luther on the other hand believed that Christ composed of both divinity and the diabolical, because humanity unto itself, according to Luther, is evil and of the devil. Hence, Luther said that Lucifer “must be granted an hour of divinity”, with Christ — in His sinful Humanity — submitting to Satan in guilt of its sin. Since humanity is evil, then Christ’s humanity is evil, and thus the Word of the Father, Christ Himself, became evil.

And since according to Luther, humanity is evil, then his works mean nothing, even if they are righteous. This is why today, the grasshopper is quick to quote a verse saying that their works are but “filthy rags”. This is a devil’s interpretation of Isaiah 64 which in context states:

“But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. Your sacred cities have become a desert; even Zion is a desert, Jerusalem a desolation.” 

This speaks of Israel sinning against God without repentance and return to the former state. It is only then that God abandoned them where Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed and calls their works as “filthy rags”. This by no means says that the works of righteousness are ‘filthy rags’?

But such demonic interpretations stem from the gnostic hatred for humanity. Since humanity is evil, then his works mean nothing, even if they are righteous. Luther wrote that when Christ died on the Cross, “the devil had free access to Christ, and the divinity had withdrawn its power and left the humanity to fight alone.” (10)

Such were the “doctrines of demons”. Luther held that it was the Divinity of Christ that saves us, but not His Humanity, writing: “Christ works for our salvation, but without the cooperation of human nature.”

This goes along with the gnostic view, that humanity is evil and therefore the Humanity of Christ must also be rendered useless in the redemption of mankind. Paralleling this view, the Albigensian gnostics of southern France taught that the Christ of the Gospels was evil.

 This was the warped theology of Luther which is why the grasshopper is pesky and difficult completely rejecting “the daily” “grain” sacrificial offering.

This is why the un-repentant grasshopper will stand with Antichrist.

Think about it, Erdogan said “All the leaders of the EU countries went to the Vatican and listened to the pope submissively.”

The grasshopper should fully agree. Who amongst the kingdom of the grasshoppers would after all want to obey the Vatican or the EU which many grasshoppers deem the Vatican and the E.U. as the very kingdom of Antichrist.

The grasshopper therefore should then agree with Erdogan, his king, despite his hatred of him.

He sees the Temple Institute in Jerusalem and he is convinced that God’s hand is in it, while forgetting that the devil will always attempt to fulfill his interpretation of prophecy as genuine. This is why it takes a corporate Temple to decipher the good, the bad from the plain ugly.

So when the king of the grasshoppers, Erdogan says: “The situation is quite loud and clear, it is a Crusader Alliance. April 16 will also be the day to evaluate this,” the kingdom of the grasshoppers should agree for they too hate the Crusaders.

But the scriptures spoke of the kingdom of the grasshoppers in John’s Apocalypse as well as in Joel. Grasshoppers want to destroy by conversion mainly “those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads” (Revelation 9:4).

In Daniel 9, in the strictest sense also in Ezekiel, makes it so clear that if these sacrifices are strictly “memorial” as the grasshopper claims, to only be “do this in remembrance of Me” why then it is a “sin offering”?

The grasshopper has no leaves left to chew.

But the Grasshopper would reply like a broken record ‘its the re-institution of Jewish temple sacrifices’.

No grasshopper. It is the perpetual sacrifice.

The grasshopper will then agree when Antichrist carries out his abomination of desolation:

“And it was magnified even to the prince of the strength: and it took away from him the continual sacrifice, and cast down the place of his sanctuary”.

Indeed, in the grasshopper’s theology “casts down the place of his sanctuary”. It makes the sacrificial altar an ‘altar’ under his feet. He rejected the ‘continual sacrifice’. Why? John tells us exactly why:

“And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and truth shall be cast down on the ground, and he shall do and shall prosper.”

“Because of sins”, the “Perpetual Sacrifice” is no more and orthodoxy is rejected: “truth shall be cast down” and heresy instead is consumed by the grasshopper who prospers and spreads his heresy spiritually killing the ones without the mark of God. He “prospers” in converting the unworthy to becoming grasshoppers like him. These unworthy are without true foundation and without the Eucharist. In fact, the grasshopper split from heaven itself:

“And it was magnified even unto the strength of heaven: and it threw down of the strength, and of the stars, and trod upon them.”

This “strength of heaven,” the power of the Holy Spirit, and “the stars” are the angelic host of Mount Zion. The grasshopper “threw down the strength” the very power of God having the form of godliness yet denying the power of Christ in converting the Bread into His Body. Such “strength” and “power” is the goal of the Christian to come to God through his continual access and a lifetime supplication to connect to God’s Temple, the Heavenly Mount Zion. In other words, these locusts sever the link between earth and heaven. But it is this “strength of heaven” which is the connect between the saint and heavenly mount Zion:

“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angelsto the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect [saints]to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24)

This is the whole goal and process of salvation, that is, to transform us striving to become “the righteous” who are “made perfect” by “the blood of sprinkling” the Eucharist and the Wine, the Flesh and the Blood of Christ and our prayers to saints. This is the communion between the Church Militant on earth and the Church Triumphant in heavenly Mount Zion, where the saints, angels and The Trinity reside. The grasshopper desecrates this magnifying himself even unto the strength of heaven: and he threw down of the strength, and of the stars, and trod upon them…

The strive of the Christian is to be in God’s Temple, the heavenly Jerusalem which the grasshopper desecrates and stomps underfoot rendering all of it useless. And by this he believes he is with Christ when in reality he stands with Antichrist and is why Christ will tell the grasshopper “I never knew you” despite all the claims of heeling, casting demons, and all the signs and the wonders for he came out of the pit and the smoke and he will go back into the pit.



(1) Encyclopedie des sciences religieuses, publ. sous la direction de F. Lichtenberger, vol. 8 (Paris: 1880, p. 347, in Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch. 1, p. 15 

(2) XXIV Conslusiones Wycclyf damnatae Londoniis in synodo, Fasculi Zizianorum, p. 278, in Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch. 4, p. 65

(3) Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, p. 379, in Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch. 5, p. 90

(4) See Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch. 5, p. 90

(5) N. Tanner, ed., Kent Heresy Proceedings 1511-12 (Kent Archeological Society: 1997), p. 2, in Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch. 5, p. 87

(6) Tyndale, Obedience, p. 111, in Vasilev, Heresy and the Protestant Reformation, ch. 5, p. 87

(7) W. Tyndale, Practice of Prelates, p. 284, in Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch. 5, p. 89

(8) Thomson, The Later Lollards, p. 253, in Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch.1, p. 30

(9) Quoted by K.A. Hagen, A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther, p. 92

(10) WA 45.239, 32-40, quoted in the Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, P. 280