By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive)

Today, perhaps the world’s arch-Liberal billionaire, George Soros must have been reading his Bible in Ezekiel 38 when he said something very similar to what I hear in churches throughout the U.S:

“Russia poses existential threat to Europe. “

The Investor also says that:

“Vladimir Putin’s aggressive nationalism challenges values and principles on which the EU was founded.”

Throughout the years I have always heard both conservatives and pastors alike say that Russia is evil. They usually point to Russian expansionism painting it as the nation of Gog in Ezekiel 38. But then I also listen to extremist liberals and all I hear on Russia is the same views as what I hear in the church.

And I wonder why is that?

Perhaps Soros views Europe in Bible Prophecy and that Putin has Europe in his cross-hairs instead of Jerusalem since Soros perhaps been reading Ezekiel 38 and believes in the brand of British Israelism, making Great Britain Israel?

I can probably concoct strange theories, but British Israelism has gained momentum since the English Revolution of the 17th century and is still believed by many even today.

While British Israelism sounds logical to naive masses and conspiracy theorists, I doubt that Soros had converted to anything besides his evil agendas. No, Soros did not convert to Christianity, what the truth is that many American Christians converted to believe liberal agendas unaware.

For example, why is it that many churches are in agreement on the Inquisition with the liberal?

This despite that we have had ample new information surface on the Inquisition:

And why does the world always misidentify the real Hitler and only discover the devil with the horns in the end?

While I will not belabor the Inquisition here, just watch the documentary to make up your own mind, and I ask: how could good and evil agree?

We say that the liberal media is the tool of the devil. Yet on the liberal CNBC we see another article titled “Should America worry about a China-Russia axis?”

The liberal media as well as so many church circles complain about China being the two-hundred million man army coming against Israel. Is this perhaps the unification between the Gog and the armies who will dry up the Euphrates to enter the holy land and will finally be killed on the mountains of Judea?

“Right now China’s biggest goal is to deflate American dominance, and what better way than to partner with Russia?” said David Silverstein, a global business consultant whose clients include Siemens, Philips and Credit Suisse.

Is the photo above perhaps the fulfillment of the Lord’s cup of trembling making Gog (Russia) and the Kings of the East (China) drink the cup of the Lord’s judgment?

While I will not belabor the scriptural and historic argumentation as to why Russia can never be Gog (read my 6 part refutation here), I am compelled to argue over the key as to why we enter into so much conspiracy theories and end up following exactly were the liberals want to lead us?

I usually spot the devil by watching whom he attacks the most.

One of the most attacked nations on earth by the liberal media after Israel is Russia.

Russia is turning militant Christian and is reverting to the Orthodox brand of Christianity. Indeed, it is hostile to the Americanized Evangelical movement, this is true.

But while many can point bad things about Russia (and probably be correct), they rarely point to the good.  They say that Russia is bad for aiding Iran. I could say that the U.S. is aiding Turkey and Iran at least will neutralizes ISIS and the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia. And while the U.S. helped create the chaos in the Middle East in the first place during the Arab Spring and that the United States’s policies are not exactly pro-Israel either; but all this does not make both the U.S. and Russia the absolute Antichrist goat nations? What makes a sheep nation vs. goat nation is what is written in Scripture.

But despite all what is said about Russia, can we learn somethings from Russia? After all, they do not have a sodomite agenda and they worry about an importation of the American hyped up signs and wonders tele-evangelical style industry. I do not blame them.

I can probably write essays on the bad things about the Inquisition but such essays must not ignore all the lies and phony propaganda that went on for four centuries in England which later travelled to the U.S. and became part of the American psyche which will probably take generations to be corrected while so very few in church ever discuss the Protestant Inquisition which was truly a witch-hunt during and after Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell, all of which the other side (the papacy) had no propaganda against it.

“It is unquestionable . . . that the champions of Protestantism – Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley – advocated the right of the civil authorities to punish the `crime’ of heresy . . . Rousseau says truly:

“`The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors’ . . .

Auguste Comte also writes:

“`The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached.’ (Philosophie Positive, vol.4, p.51).

Historian B. Walther Kohler stated:

“In Luther’s case it is impossible to speak of liberty of conscience or religious freedom . . . The death-penalty for heresy rested on the highest Lutheran authority . . . The views of the other reformers on the persecution and bringing to justice of heretics were merely the outgrowth of Luther’s plan; they contributed nothing fresh.” (1)

Martin Luther stated:

“Men despise the Evangel and insist on being compelled by the law and the sword.” (51;v.6:262/31)

“It is the duty of the authorities to resist and punish such public blasphemy.” (51;v.6:240)

“If the preacher does not make men pious, the goods are no longer his.” (51;v.6:244)

“Not only the spiritual but also the secular power must yield to the Evangel, whether cheerfully or otherwise.” (51;v.6:245)

“It is our custom to affright those who . . . fail to attend the preaching; and to threaten them with banishment and the law . . . In the event of their still proving contumacious, to excommunicate them . . . as if they were heathen.” (51;v.6:263/34)

“Although excommunication in popedom has been shamefully abused . . . yet we must not suffer it to fall, but make right use of it, as Christ commanded.” (122:424-5)

These are truths with much historic data, but mentioning them always brands you as “bashing someone”.

But the liberal media, especially the British and German propaganda machines that used theology and were the unmatched greatest spin-artists media giants in history and so many churches believe them even today. Media and propaganda are spin-art machines which were not void of providing false historic narratives and even used Scripture manipulation to support their policies.

A Spin Artist is one who uses deceptive and invalid arguments to institute a desired policy. Many portray lawyers as “spin artists” when in fact spin artists often are mostly found amongst two major groups: politicians and theologians.

While attorneys are not void of spinning truth, it is more difficult when a judge and a district attorney are present. But when it comes to theology, a preacher’s judge is only the jury who are not provided direction by the other side to the arguments a preacher or follower of a faith makes while he preaches all the theological arguments.

A few examples of what I run into when reading the comments on my website are noteworthy to cite out of thousands I deal with on monthly basis.

In one example, I had a commenter arguing against the ancient Church’s militaristic nature of the early church stating:

“The concept of “heresy” implies the existence of an orthodoxy, and a religious authority invested with power to punish people who deviate from that orthodoxy.”

So far so good until he asks:

“You cite the middle ages as an example of the ideal, but where in the history of the New Testament do you find any example of any civil authority men with weapons?”

Now, I am going to change only one word in this stated spin, so look for it:

“The concept of “heresy” implies the existence of an orthodoxy, and a religious authority invested with power to punish people who deviate from that orthodoxy. You cite the middle-ages as an example of the ideal, but where in the history of the Bible do you find any example of any civil authority—men with weapons?”

The keyword is “Bible”. Once I change the “New Testament” with “Bible” and the spin stops here.

Theologian spin-artists are not short in supply. Today they constitute the majority in modern churches in which they argue that wars of self-defense and Christian preservation are passé, as if it’s instructions only from the Old Testament. Although we do not believe (and we are always accused of it) in starting off a revolution or have a private militia to stop evil, this is not the authority of the laity, Christian militarism was a concept practiced from Constantine, the Crusaders all the way to the Inquisitions. These were mostly designed to protect Christendom from Arians, the Cathars and Islamic expansionism. These have always attempted to wipe out Christianity as we know it.

Anyone with a better plan for the early church onwards will have trouble in explaining the success of the preservation of Christendom from the great battles of Poitier to Lepanto in which these two battles were the key to preserve the survival of Christianity as we know it. While many have their views on the issue, secular governments throughout the ages have always done inquisitions (and I know there were abuses) and crusades. A good example was the Protestant nation of Great Britain ending the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Although warring with the Ottomans cannot be defined as Crusader in the sense of Catholic Crusade, the process and the results are virtually the same, to end the threat of Islam on all Christian nations.

While many attribute war to only the Catholic Church, fact is Protestantism had its shares of wars and even inquisitions, not against the Muslim, but against the Catholics:

“If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseech you not to believe that it can be carried on without tumult, scandal, sedition . . . The word of God is a sword, is war, is ruin, is scandal . . .” (109:41/37)

“If we punish thieves with the gallows . . . why do we not still more attack with every kind of weapon . . . these Cardinals, these Popes, and that whole abomination of the Romish Sodom . . . why do we not wash our hands in their blood?” (109:41/38)

Now, to counter the arguments (and I know they are coming) of the spin-artist I formulated a question which hits at the core of an issue dear to all, I asked the commenter:

The concept of “10% tithing” implies the existence of a Temple, and a religious authority invested with power to ask people to donate. You cite the Old Testament as an example of the ideal, but where in the history of the New Testament do you find any example of any 10% tithing?

While I am spinning here, the point I am making is that we are dealing with a dualist mindset in which spin-artists can with a stroke of a pen, eliminate not just verses from Scripture, but the entire Old Testament and by that making “Sola Scriptura” become solely “Sola New Testament”. This is the type of spin that Hitler and his sycophants used to eliminate the Jews. One can find a multitude of combinations and scriptural gymnastics to almost design any evil agenda they want. The Bible is like a gun, it can be used either for good or for evil. If one reads it at face value, God will bless him and if one reads into it what it does not say, God will curse him.

One could easily argue that the tithing of 10%, even though it’s in the Bible, it was only instituted during the Temple Era and was part of the ancient old laws for Israel. While one is to follow Christ and give cheerfully, to set a 10% mandate is legalistic.

Theological spin causes grave consequences at times reversing much of what we know as love and grace.

Today most of the books sold in the Christian market are filled with gobbledygook arguments and the spin is more preferred over reading original sources. Instead of reading simple wisdom, they sit there night and day reading complicated and difficult to decipher books arguing over subjects like Imputed righteousness, Imparted Righteousness, Infused Righteousness, Justification, Sanctification, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, The Five Points of Calvinism, doctrine of perspicuity, Covenant theology, God’s transcendence, substitutionary atonement … ad nauseam … when all they need to do is to read a Christian experience on how a good pastor helped the old widow next door. It is about how to love thy neighbor. And if the widow has a thief try to creep in her window, the pastor would tell how he killed him with his shotgun. Thats Christian love. It is the type of love that the spin-artist would ask: “where did the pastor find his justification to kill the intruder from the New Testament”? And the pastor would cheerfully respond “sir, its in the Bible”.

REFERENCES

1-Kohler, Walther, Reformation und Ketzerprozess, 1901, pp.29 ff