Islam and the Beast

[Theophilos78]

In the light of the compared verses below, can you say Islam is the beast predicted in the Book of Revelation?

Then I saw another beast coming up from the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but was speaking like a dragon. He exercised all the ruling authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and those who inhabit it worship the first beast, the one whose lethal wound had been healed.  The second beast was empowered to give life to the image of the first beast so that it could speak, and could cause all those who did not worship the image of the beast to be killed. (Holy Bible, Revelation 13:11-12, 15)

And when the word is fulfilled concerning them, We shall bring forth a beast of the earth to speak unto them because mankind had not faith in Our revelations. (Qur'an Surah 27:82)

Thanks from now for your interest.

Peace,
Theophilos

[Tzimis]

Daniel 7:33   "Thus he said: `The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.

According to Daniel, beasts in general should be classified as kingdoms or world powers. America is in the helm right now or at least the fundamental way of life America started. Islam itself isn't a kingdom but a religion. If you mean that an Islamic kingdom will rise out and devour the current kingdom that is in control now. I would say, probably not. There are too many countries that support this way of life.  I envision the final beast to be something that people willingly give into. Rather than forced into. Because they are benefiting in some way or another.  

BTW. Just to the right of that picture "Rion-Antirion bridge" in your avatar is one of  my wife's favorite places.

[Nazarene]

I voted "yes, definitely" the parallels between Biblical and Islamic eschatology are too numerous for this to be a coincidence. For me there's not even a close second for possible fulfillments. Not to mention that the only nations that the Bible specifically points out by name for destruction in "the Day of YHWH" are all the Muslim countries surrounding Israel.

[genesisone]

I voted "not interested", though I realize that voting at all seems to create a slight contradiction  .

Mark Twain wasn't Orthodox, but I think he was right:

• “It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
• “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

[philalethe00]

It's part of the first beast, which contains all the teachings of demons, including heretic dogma.  

Some greek apostates of Islam write at their weblog, that one of the biblical verses that is very important in understanding Islam is the one about "false prophets": Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.(John, 4:1)


Source: http://greekmurtadeen.wordpress.com/

[Nazarene]

In the light of the compared verses below, can you say Islam is the beast predicted in the Book of Revelation?

Then I saw another beast coming up from the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but was speaking like a dragon. He exercised all the ruling authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and those who inhabit it worship the first beast, the one whose lethal wound had been healed.  The second beast was empowered to give life to the image of the first beast so that it could speak, and could cause all those who did not worship the image of the beast to be killed. (Holy Bible, Revelation 13:11-12, 15)

And when the word is fulfilled concerning them, We shall bring forth a beast of the earth to speak unto them because mankind had not faith in Our revelations. (Qur'an Surah 27:82)

Thanks from now for your interest.

Peace,
Theophilos

I once read a Shi'ite commentary of that verse in the Quran that identifies this "beast" with the coming Mahdi (12th Imam), as the word for "beast" describes a "beast of burden" not a wild beast. Sunnis however interpret it way more literally (that it'll be some weird creature), and this beast will come out of - drum roll - Mecca, where else?

[Jetavan]

Ishmael: Eldest son of Abraham by his concubine Hagar; born when Abraham was eighty-six years of age (Gen. xvi. 15, 16). God promised Abraham that His blessing should be upon Ishmael, who, He foretold, would beget twelve princes and would become a great nation (Gen. xvii. 18, 20).

Islam can be seen as God keeping His promise.

[stashko]

Is One Of The Many Anti-Christ's, Christ Warns Us About ,Since They Don't Accept Jesus As  Son Of God ,Or God ,Or Crucified For Our Sin's.....

Their ИСА, And Our  ИСУС ХРИСТОС Don't seem To Be The Same....
         Isa                   Jesus Christ

[Nazarene]

Ishmael: Eldest son of Abraham by his concubine Hagar; born when Abraham was eighty-six years of age (Gen. xvi. 15, 16). God promised Abraham that His blessing should be upon Ishmael, who, He foretold, would beget twelve princes and would become a great nation (Gen. xvii. 18, 20).

Islam can be seen as God keeping His promise.

The Arabs weren't always Muslim and there are lots of Muslims today that are not Arabs.

Theophilos I'm gonna expand on your post...

This "Beast from the Earth" is said to:

Revelation 13:13 And he will do great signs, such as, he will make fire to come down from heaven on the earth before men.

Muslims consider the verses in the Quran "signs from heaven", the Arabic word "surah" means a "sign" or "revelation":

We will soon show them OUR signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that HE is a witness over all things? (41:53)

As for "fire from heaven" did you notice how many hellfire verses are in the Quran? Here are a few of my favourites:

Our Lord, Thou wilt certainly assemble mankind together on the Day about which there is no doubt; surely, ALLAH never fails in HIS promise. (As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah, and these it is who are the fuel of the fire. (3:9-10)

And fear the Fire which has been prepared for the disbelievers. (3:131)

And WE shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved because they associate partners with ALLAH, for which HE has sent down no authority. Their abode is the Fire; and evil is the habitation of the wrongdoers. (3:151)

And surely, ALLAH has heard the utterance of those who said, "ALLAH is poor and we are rich." WE shall record what they have said, and their attempts to slay the Prophets unjustly; and WE shall say, "Taste ye the punishment of the burning;" (3:181)

And whoso disobeys ALLAH and HIS Messenger and transgresses HIS limits. HE will make him enter into the Fire; therein he shall abide; and he shall have an humiliating punishment. (4:14)

Those who disbelieve in Our Signs, We shall soon cause them to enter Fire. As often as their skins are burnt up, WE shall give them in exchange other skins that they may continue to taste the punishment. Surely, ALLAH is Mighty and Wise. (4:56)

That is your punishment, taste it then; and remember that for disbelievers there is the punishment of the Fire. (8:14)

(The stern command will say): "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, "And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. "Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! "This was he that would not believe in God Most High. (69:30-33)

[Nazarene]

Daniel 7:33   "Thus he said: `The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.

According to Daniel, beasts in general should be classified as kingdoms or world powers. America is in the helm right now or at least the fundamental way of life America started. Islam itself isn't a kingdom but a religion. If you mean that an Islamic kingdom will rise out and devour the current kingdom that is in control now. I would say, probably not. There are too many countries that support this way of life.  I envision the final beast to be something that people willingly give into. Rather than forced into. Because they are benefiting in some way or another.  

BTW. Just to the right of that picture "Rion-Antirion bridge" in your avatar is one of  my wife's favorite places.

You're right about beasts representing kingdoms, but the rest of your view is too, well, "American".

[Theophilos78]

Is One Of The Many Anti-Christ's, Christ Warns Us About ,Since They Don't Accept Jesus As  Son Of God ,Or God ,Or Crucified For Our Sin's.....

Their ИСА, And Our  ИСУС ХРИСТОС Don't seem To Be The Same....
         Isa                   Jesus Christ

Exactly, brate 

[Theophilos78]

Ishmael: Eldest son of Abraham by his concubine Hagar; born when Abraham was eighty-six years of age (Gen. xvi. 15, 16). God promised Abraham that His blessing should be upon Ishmael, who, He foretold, would beget twelve princes and would become a great nation (Gen. xvii. 18, 20).

Islam can be seen as God keeping His promise.

The Arabs weren't always Muslim and there are lots of Muslims today that are not Arabs.

Theophilos I'm gonna expand on your post...

This "Beast from the Earth" is said to:

Revelation 13:13 And he will do great signs, such as, he will make fire to come down from heaven on the earth before men.

Muslims consider the verses in the Quran "signs from heaven", the Arabic word "surah" means a "sign" or "revelation":

We will soon show them OUR signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that HE is a witness over all things? (41:53)

As for "fire from heaven" did you notice how many hellfire verses are in the Quran? Here are a few of my favourites:

Our Lord, Thou wilt certainly assemble mankind together on the Day about which there is no doubt; surely, ALLAH never fails in HIS promise. (As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah, and these it is who are the fuel of the fire. (3:9-10)

And fear the Fire which has been prepared for the disbelievers. (3:131)

And WE shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved because they associate partners with ALLAH, for which HE has sent down no authority. Their abode is the Fire; and evil is the habitation of the wrongdoers. (3:151)

And surely, ALLAH has heard the utterance of those who said, "ALLAH is poor and we are rich." WE shall record what they have said, and their attempts to slay the Prophets unjustly; and WE shall say, "Taste ye the punishment of the burning;" (3:181)

And whoso disobeys ALLAH and HIS Messenger and transgresses HIS limits. HE will make him enter into the Fire; therein he shall abide; and he shall have an humiliating punishment. (4:14)

Those who disbelieve in Our Signs, We shall soon cause them to enter Fire. As often as their skins are burnt up, WE shall give them in exchange other skins that they may continue to taste the punishment. Surely, ALLAH is Mighty and Wise. (4:56)

That is your punishment, taste it then; and remember that for disbelievers there is the punishment of the Fire. (8:14)

(The stern command will say): "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, "And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. "Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! "This was he that would not believe in God Most High. (69:30-33)

Thanks for your further comments. All are interesting points of connection between the Qur'an and the depictions about the beast. 

[Theophilos78]

Ishmael: Eldest son of Abraham by his concubine Hagar; born when Abraham was eighty-six years of age (Gen. xvi. 15, 16). God promised Abraham that His blessing should be upon Ishmael, who, He foretold, would beget twelve princes and would become a great nation (Gen. xvii. 18, 20).

Islam can be seen as God keeping His promise.

Ishmael was made into a great nation by God, but these promises and their fulfillment were for Abraham's consolation more than directly for Ishmael. The same God who promised to raise a nation from Ishmael's seed asked Abraham to throw Ishmael and his mother out of the house (send them away) lest Ishmael could inherit with Isaac. God promised to protect Ishmael and help him survive in the wilderness basically because Abraham felt very upset when he sent Ishmael away upon Sarah's request, which was endorsed by God.

Besides, the promise given to Abraham about Ishmael was fulfilled when Ishmael survived and became the father of a tribe. This took place thousands of years before the birth of Mohammad and Islam. This is why the promise in Genesis and Islam are not related.

[Theophilos78]

I voted "not interested", though I realize that voting at all seems to create a slight contradiction  .

Paradox noted. 

[Theophilos78]

Daniel 7:33   "Thus he said: `The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.

According to Daniel, beasts in general should be classified as kingdoms or world powers. America is in the helm right now or at least the fundamental way of life America started. Islam itself isn't a kingdom but a religion. If you mean that an Islamic kingdom will rise out and devour the current kingdom that is in control now. I would say, probably not. There are too many countries that support this way of life.  I envision the final beast to be something that people willingly give into. Rather than forced into. Because they are benefiting in some way or another.  

Islam is more an ideology than a religion. In Mohammad's time there was one nation and kingdom of Islam.

BTW. Just to the right of that picture "Rion-Antirion bridge" in your avatar is one of  my wife's favorite places.

That picture was sent to me by a Greek friend of mine living somewhere close to that spot.

[Theophilos78]

It's part of the first beast, which contains all the teachings of demons, including heretic dogma.  

Some greek apostates of Islam write at their weblog, that one of the biblical verses that is very important in understanding Islam is the one about "false prophets": Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.(John, 4:1)


Source: http://greekmurtadeen.wordpress.com/

Mohammad was a false prophet for sure. 

Thanks for that interesting link.

[Jetavan]

Ishmael: Eldest son of Abraham by his concubine Hagar; born when Abraham was eighty-six years of age (Gen. xvi. 15, 16). God promised Abraham that His blessing should be upon Ishmael, who, He foretold, would beget twelve princes and would become a great nation (Gen. xvii. 18, 20).

Islam can be seen as God keeping His promise.

Ishmael was made into a great nation by God, but these promises and their fulfillment were for Abraham's consolation more than directly for Ishmael.

Where did you get that idea?

[Papist]

How can we possibly know?

[Nazarene]

Daniel 7:33   "Thus he said: `The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.

According to Daniel, beasts in general should be classified as kingdoms or world powers. America is in the helm right now or at least the fundamental way of life America started. Islam itself isn't a kingdom but a religion. If you mean that an Islamic kingdom will rise out and devour the current kingdom that is in control now. I would say, probably not. There are too many countries that support this way of life.  I envision the final beast to be something that people willingly give into. Rather than forced into. Because they are benefiting in some way or another.  

Islam is more an ideology than a religion. In Mohammad's time there was one nation and kingdom of Islam.

I will add that Islam is in fact a spiritual kingdom and that's exactly how it describes itself - Dar al-Islam (House of Submission). Note the Semitic idiom of "house" which is found in many Bible passages.

Theophilos I've studied the Islamic End Time paradigm quite extensively, if there's any Bible passage you would like me to tackle here let me know.

Here's a good collection of articles on this topic: http://www.beastfromtheeast.org/Articles.html

[Nazarene]

How can we possibly know?

Name one nation that the Bible says will be destroyed on That Day that is not Muslim.

BTW Theophilos that "beast" mentioned in the Quran is supposed to "mark" the true Muslims on their foreheads, so Muslims actually WANT the mark of the beast:

The task of the Beast will be to distinguish the believers from the non-believers, with Prophet Moosa's staff it will draw a line on the forehead of every believer whereby his face will become bright and luminous and with the ring of Sulaman it will seal the nose of every non-believer where by his whole face will become black. Thus there will be complete distinction between the Muslim and non-Muslirn, so that if many parties sit at a dinner table, the Muslim and non-Muslirn will be distinguished.   (Abu Huraira-Musnad Ahmad/Tirmidhi)

http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/Majorsigns.html

[Shanghaiski]

Ishmael: Eldest son of Abraham by his concubine Hagar; born when Abraham was eighty-six years of age (Gen. xvi. 15, 16). God promised Abraham that His blessing should be upon Ishmael, who, He foretold, would beget twelve princes and would become a great nation (Gen. xvii. 18, 20).

Islam can be seen as God keeping His promise.

Not Islam itself, but the Ishmaelites as descendants of Abraham. There is little actual correlation between Ishmael an Islam, only in that the later claims the former. There were lots of descendants of Ishmael, most of them actually, who did not become Mohammedans. Millions of Ishmaelites have always been and still are Christians--and Orthodox Christians at that.

[GabrieltheCelt]

So much conjecture along with a lot of plain ol' downright rubbish being posted here.  

First, there is evidence that Islam might be hinted at, but there's just as much evidence that it's something completely different.  Certainly, the OSB and accompanying notes don't mention or allude to Islam.  I've also checked several Patristics that deal with the Apocalypse such as St. Hippolytos and St. Ienaeos for example.  Again, I think there are a lot of ill-thought out conclusions being drawn.    

Second, and most important, it's not that the "End Times" aren't important, it's just that the Agios Ekklesia does not concern herself with these kinds of guessing games.  Eschatology isn't her primary or even secondary concern.  In fact, regarding the Apocalypse-

"Revelation appears to be the last of the books accepted into the New Testament canon by the two synods held for the purpose of reaching universal agreement on which documents to include. It was accepted into the canon at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD.[23] Revelation's place in the canon was not guaranteed, with doubts raised as far back as the second century about its character, symbolism, and apostolic authorship.[24] Second century Christians in Syria rejected it because Montanism, a sect which was deemed to be heretical by the mainstream church, relied heavily on it.[25] In the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus and other bishops argued against including Revelation because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the risk of abuse."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Canonical_history

The Ekklesia's (The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - The Holy Orthodox Church) primary concern, her raison d'être if you will, is one thing and one thing only:  A therapeutic hospital set up for the salvation of mankind.  

As one Priest and prolific writer likes say: "Since becoming Orthodox, I've excused myself from the Planning Committee and have joined the Welcoming Committee."    

[Theophilos78]

So much conjecture along with a lot of plain ol' downright rubbish being posted here.  

Thanks for your precious compliments. 

First, there is evidence that Islam might be hinted at, but there's just as much evidence that it's something completely different.  Certainly, the OSB and accompanying notes don't mention or allude to Islam.  I've also checked several Patristics that deal with the Apocalypse such as St. Hippolytos and St. Ienaeos for example.  Again, I think there are a lot of ill-thought out conclusions being drawn.    

Second, and most important, it's not that the "End Times" aren't important, it's just that the Agios Ekklesia does not concern herself with these kinds of guessing games.  Eschatology isn't her primary or even secondary concern.  In fact, regarding the Apocalypse-

"Revelation appears to be the last of the books accepted into the New Testament canon by the two synods held for the purpose of reaching universal agreement on which documents to include. It was accepted into the canon at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD.[23] Revelation's place in the canon was not guaranteed, with doubts raised as far back as the second century about its character, symbolism, and apostolic authorship.[24] Second century Christians in Syria rejected it because Montanism, a sect which was deemed to be heretical by the mainstream church, relied heavily on it.[25] In the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus and other bishops argued against including Revelation because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the risk of abuse."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Canonical_history

The Ekklesia's (The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - The Holy Orthodox Church) primary concern, her raison d'être if you will, is one thing and one thing only:  A therapeutic hospital set up for the salvation of mankind.  

As one Priest and prolific writer likes say: "Since becoming Orthodox, I've excused myself from the Planning Committee and have joined the Welcoming Committee."    

No one here claims that our presumptions/conclusions are the official teachings of the "Agios Ekklesia" with regard to the end of times.

[GabrieltheCelt]

No one here claims that our presumptions/conclusions are the official teachings of the "Agios Ekklesia" with regard to the end of times.

 Maybe, maybe not.  But you did, after all, ask us for our thoughts and comments. 

In the light of the compared verses below, can you say Islam is the beast predicted in the Book of Revelation?

[Theophilos78]

Ishmael: Eldest son of Abraham by his concubine Hagar; born when Abraham was eighty-six years of age (Gen. xvi. 15, 16). God promised Abraham that His blessing should be upon Ishmael, who, He foretold, would beget twelve princes and would become a great nation (Gen. xvii. 18, 20).

Islam can be seen as God keeping His promise.

Ishmael was made into a great nation by God, but these promises and their fulfillment were for Abraham's consolation more than directly for Ishmael.

Where did you get that idea?

From the Bible. God's promises about Ishmael were given in response to Abraham's anxieties:

Then God said to Abraham, “As for your wife, you must no longer call her Sarai; Sarah will be her name. I will bless her and will give you a son through her. I will bless her and she will become a mother of nations. Kings of countries will come from her!” Then Abraham bowed down with his face to the ground and laughed as he said to himself, “Can a son be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live before you!” God said, “No, Sarah your wife is going to bear you a son, and you will name him Isaac. I will confirm my covenant with him as a perpetual covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you. I will indeed bless him, make him fruitful, and give him a multitude of descendants. He will become the father of twelve princes; I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this set time next year.” (Genesis 17:15-21)

and

Sarah’s demand displeased Abraham greatly because Ishmael was his son. But God said to Abraham, “Do not be upset about the boy or your slave wife. Do all that Sarah is telling you because through Isaac your descendants will be counted. But I will also make the son of the slave wife into a great nation, for he is your descendant too.” (Genesis 21:11-13)

[Theophilos78]

How can we possibly know?

Name one nation that the Bible says will be destroyed on That Day that is not Muslim.

BTW Theophilos that "beast" mentioned in the Quran is supposed to "mark" the true Muslims on their foreheads, so Muslims actually WANT the mark of the beast:

The task of the Beast will be to distinguish the believers from the non-believers, with Prophet Moosa's staff it will draw a line on the forehead of every believer whereby his face will become bright and luminous and with the ring of Sulaman it will seal the nose of every non-believer where by his whole face will become black. Thus there will be complete distinction between the Muslim and non-Muslirn, so that if many parties sit at a dinner table, the Muslim and non-Muslirn will be distinguished.   (Abu Huraira-Musnad Ahmad/Tirmidhi)

http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/Majorsigns.html

These connections are amazing

[Nazarene]

Another interesting parallel. Read this first, then compare it with this.

[Theophilos78]

Another interesting parallel. Read this first, then compare it with this.

I was aware of all the teachings stated in the first article, but the ones in the second article are new and surprising to me. Thanks.

Actually, Mahdi in Islam is the distorted and Islamicized form of the Biblical Messiah.

[Nazarene]

He does a comparison of the Mahdi and the Beast from the Sea as well (here and here respectively). In light of what you said about the Mahdi being a distorted form of the Biblical Messiah (and so is the Quranic Jesus), Muslims actually identify the Mahdi in one Bible verse Christians apply to either Christ or the Antichrist (from the first link):

Al-Mahdi, The Rider On A White Horse
 
The Mahdi is believed to ride on a white horse.  Whether or not this is symbolic or literal is hard to say. Quite interestingly, this tradition is based on the Muslim interpretation of Christian Scriptures.  Despite the fact that Muslims view the Bible as having been changed and corrupted by Jews and Christians, they still claim to believe that some portions of the “original” inspired books are still to be found within the “corrupted” Bible.  As such there exists a tradition within Islamic scholarship that seeks to extract those portions of the Bible that Muslims feel may be untainted by the corrupting influence of Jews and Christians.  These Judeo-Christian traditions are called by Muslims, isra’iliyyat.  One such transmitter of biblical traditions is Muslim scholar Ka’b al-Ahbar.  He is viewed among Muslims as a trustworthy transmitter of Hadith as well as isra’iliyyat. 31

Ka’b al-Ahbar is supported in his view that this description of the rider on the white horse as found in the Book of Revelation is indeed the Mahdi by two well known Egyptian authors, Muhammad Ibn ‘Izzat and Muhammad ‘Arif in their book Al Mahdi and the End of Time.  ‘Izzat and Arif quote Ka’b al Ahbar as saying:

I find the Mahdi recorded in the books of the Prophets… For instance, the Book of Revelation says: “And I saw and behold a white horse.  He that sat on him…went forth conquering and to conquer.” 32

‘Izzat and ‘Arif then go on to say:

It is clear that this man is the Mahdi who will ride the white horse and judge by the Qur’an (with justice) and with whom will be men with marks of prostration on their foreheads [Marks on their foreheads from bowing in prayer with their head to the ground five times daily]. 33

It is said by some that it was for this reason that Saddam Hussein had numerous murals painted all over Baghdad portraying himself as a Muslim Knight on a white horse with sword drawn doing valiant battle against the infidels. 34

-------------------------------

31. M S M Saifullah, Muhammad Ghoniem, Abu Hudhayfah & Khalid al-Khazraji, On The Transmitters Of Isra'iliyyat (Judeo-Christian Material) http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/israel.html
32. Izzat and Arif,  p. 15
33. ibid. p. 15
34. Time magazine, Michael Elliot, Dec. 29, 2003, The Semiotics of Saddam

[Theophilos78]

All the Islamic teachings about Mahdi and Messiah's second coming were formed after Mohammad's death. The most interesting thing is that the Qur'an verse interpreted today as a reference to Messiah's second coming belongs to the Meccan period, which is rather weird and unreasonable because Mohammad taught the doctrine of Messiah's ascension/assumption into Heaven in the late Medina period.

[GabrieltheCelt]

 Remember though, it's typically only the Shi'ites who entertain the cult of the Mahdi.  The Qur'an doesn't even bother to mention him.  So, to my way of thinking, any so-called connections that are being entertained here are purely coincidental.  HERE is an article interested parties might enjoy. 

 In addition, I would recommend that Orthodox Christians, though we may find other traditions interesting, should probably study only Orthodox material so as not to accidentally infuse heretical teachings with our own.  For those Orthodox Christians interested in truth, as opposed to conjecture, you may find +Archimandrite ATHANASIOS' (of blessed memory) writings on the Apocalypse helpful.  They may be accessed here for free:

http://www.saintnicodemos.org/articles/Apoc1.php

[Nazarene]

Remember though, it's typically only the Shi'ites who entertain the cult of the Mahdi.  The Qur'an doesn't even bother to mention him.  So, to my way of thinking, any so-called connections that are being entertained here are purely coincidental.   HERE is an article interested parties might enjoy.  

 In addition, I would recommend that Orthodox Christians, though we may find other traditions interesting, should probably study only Orthodox material so as not to accidentally infuse heretical teachings with our own.  For those Orthodox Christians interested in truth, as opposed to conjecture, you may find +Archimandrite ATHANASIOS' (of blessed memory) writings on the Apocalypse helpful.  They may be accessed here for free:

http://www.saintnicodemos.org/articles/Apoc1.php

Thanks for the link to Archimandrite Athanasios' book, I've become particularly interested in Orthodox commentaries on the end times and appreciate any sources anyone here can share.

Though bear in mind that Revelation is not the only book in the Bible with end times passages. Actually Revelation should not be the starting point for eschatological studies because:

a) the prophecies in Revelation are the latest not the earliest, in fact they reference the earlier prophecies so the earlier prophecies are essential for correct interpretation
b) the passages in Revelation are highly symbolic and not the easiest to interpret, one should begin with the easier more literal passages and take what they learn from them to help them unlock the symbolism

Where to begin?

When we are attempting to get a bird’s eye view—the larger picture of what the Bible truly says about the End-Times, the first question that should be asked is this: Where do we begin? And in fact, this is perhaps one of the biggest reasons that so many have erred in their quest to accurately understand what saith the Scriptures on this matter; they begin in all the wrong places. Whenever I speak or teach on the subject of the End-Times, the first rule that I always mention when establishing some basic rules for responsible End-Time Hermeneutics is this: When you begin to approach the Bible in order to properly understand what it is saying about the End-times, you do not begin with the Book of Revelation! Yet everyday, many very good students and teachers alike will make this mistake again and again. The Book of Revelation, unlike any other book in the New Testament literally oozes with direct citations, references, allusions, and even more subtle echoes of dozens upon dozens of passages throughout the Old Testament. The Book of Revelation is so thoroughly founded upon the Old Testament that one cannot even begin to understand this book without first understanding the numerous passages that this book is founded upon. So rule number one is that you do not begin with what comes last, rather you begin with what comes first! Begin with the foundation. I know, now many of you are saying that we should begin with the Book of Daniel, right? Wrong. When attempting to understand a subject that is so vast and complex, you do not begin with passages that are allegorical, highly symbolic or difficult to interpret in general. Instead you begin with that which is clear, direct, and literal. Where you begin will always help determine where you end up. So as you are beginning to form assumptions that you will carry with you to numerous other passages, you must begin with passages that are clear, direct, and literal. This way the assumptions that you begin with are solid, thus providing a solid foundation of understanding to rely on as you approach the more difficult, questionable, or highly symbolic or allegorical passages. So you begin with what comes first (rule number one) and you begin with what is literal, clear, direct and easy to understand (rule number two). Does this sound fair, responsible and reasonable so far? Good. Now observing these two rules, let’s look at just a couple of passages and begin to lay a proper Biblical foundation for understanding the true nature of the Last-Days.

http://www.beastfromtheeast.org/Joel_1.html

[philalethe00]

There is a writing of Elder Paisius  the Athonite's on the coming of the Antichrist, extremely popular in Greece -by virtue of some wonderful brethren's activism - and it contains a particularly interesting detail -a prophecy, I'd say on the matter. And I just thought those of you who don't know should get to know it.
So, it goes like this: the Antichrist, he says, will not only be the expected Messiah by A.D. Judaism, but he will also be the fifth Buddha who's expected in the Oriental East and the Imam(or Mahdi, as you most insterestingly said), who is expected by the Islamists. So, -at least the "feebleminded", to quote A.C. Doyle     - every man of every religion/heresy of the world will have a very good motive to accept him and worship him in his dictatorial infernal majesty...   Sad, but true...  

[Jetavan]

So, it goes like this: the Antichrist, he says, will not only be the expected Messiah by A.D. Judaism, but he will also be the fifth Buddha who's expected in the Oriental East....

So, the Buddha prophesied the coming of the Anti-Christ?

[philalethe00]

So, it goes like this: the Antichrist, he says, will not only be the expected Messiah by A.D. Judaism, but he will also be the fifth Buddha who's expected in the Oriental East....

So, the Buddha prophesied the coming of the Anti-Christ?

No, not at all...But people from the Far East expect sth like a Messiah, who is incarnated by the "fifth Buddha", as Elder Paisios puts it.  

[Nazarene]

I personally do not believe that the Antichrist will be accepted by every unbeliever or that he will instate a "one world government". The Bible uses a lot of hyperbole, "all the earth" usually doesn't mean the entire planet:

Is Our Fate Already Determined?
 
Some Bible teachers have speculated that literally every nation of the earth would be taken over by the Antichrist system.  We have already looked at some of the Bible verses that suggest such.  My take on this subject is slightly different than those who take this position in an absolute manner.  Let me explain why.  First let’s look at the verses that are used to conclude that every last nation will fall to Antichrist and join him in his attack against Jerusalem:
 
I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem.  On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.  Zechariah 12:2,3
 
I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it Zechariah 14:2
 
I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.  There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel.  Joel 3:2
 
The beast…was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. Revelation 13:7
 
Let’s look at the first three verses first.  Since these verses use the word “all” and specifically the phrase, “all the nations of the earth” when speaking of the attack against Jerusalem at the battle of Armageddon, then surely, it has already been determined that every last nation will fall to the Antichrist’s empire and support him in this battle.  I can fully understand how many would arrive at this conclusion.
 
There are at least two problems with this interpretation however:  Firstly, there are plenty of other verses in the Bible that likewise use this very same type of language, yet are clearly not speaking of every single last nation in the world.  These verses as well as the ones above all use a Hebrew grammatical construct that essentially uses an exaggeration of sorts or an emphatic type of statement in order to convey their point.  Grammarians call this construct a hyperbole.  It is the type of statement like, “Everyone loves ice-cream!” or “You never clean the kitchen,” or the ancient, “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.”  Oftentimes for the sake of brevity, elaborating on the exceptions would entirely blunt the impact of the statement.  For instance, imagine a speed limit sign that had several various exceptions painted on it: “Speed limit fifty five, except ambulances, fire trucks, police giving chase, etc.”  It simply wouldn’t work.  Thus exceptions cannot be ruled out on the basis of exclusive language.  This type of language is actually found quite frequently in the Bible.  For instance, Daniel the prophet, speaking of King Nebuchadnezzar said this:
 
"O king, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty and greatness and glory and splendor.  Because of the high position he gave him, all the peoples and nations and men of every language dreaded and feared him. Daniel 5:18,19
 
So, I ask you this question:  Did every single nation in the earth fear Belshazzar’s father?  Or did only those nations that had heard of Belshazzar’s father dread him?  Was Daniel speaking of every single last nation of the earth?  Or only those nations that were in a close enough proximity to Babylon to be affected by her?  Were the native peoples of Papua New Guinea living in dread of Belshazzar’s father?  Personally, I think that Daniel’s use of the phrase, “all the peoples and nations and men of every language” was more of an emphatic expression used to convey his point.  Or how about another similar example:
 
Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon's wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom. I Kings 4:34
 
Was Solomon’s wisdom so impressive that not a single king in all the earth failed to hear of it?  Or is this verse another expression used to convey the great amount of renown that Solomon had?  How about this one:
 
And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.  1 Samuel 15:8

Should we find it odd that a people here recorded as being "utterly destroyed" come back making trouble just a few chapters later in 1 Samuel?  Again, there are numerous such examples like this throughout the Bible.  Do you see my point?

Now, if we look at the verses in Zechariah again, we even see that there seems to be a more specific mention of just which nations will be primarily involved in the attack:

I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Zechariah 12:2
 
Of course, the surrounding nations are the Muslim nations that encircle Israel on every side.  In fact, the Prophet Joel confirms this as well.  Speaking of the final attack against Jerusalem, Joel prophesied:
 
I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.  There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel… Now what have you against me, O Tyre and Sidon and all you regions of Philistia?… Proclaim this among the nations: Prepare for war!  Rouse the warriors!  Let all the fighting men draw near and attack.  Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears.  Let the weakling say, "I am strong!"  Come quickly, all you nations from every side, and assemble there.  Bring down your warriors, O LORD !  "Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side.  Joel 3:2,4,9-12
 
The New American Standard Bible words the italicized segments of the above passages as, “all you surrounding nations.”  Again, who are the “surrounding nations?”  Does this include New Zealand?  Canada?  It could.  But contextually, the Bible is specifically referring to the Islamic nations that surround Jerusalem/Israel on every side.
 
The second reason that the position that every single last nation will fall to Antichrist is impossible, is quite simply because the Scriptures state outright that not every nation will fall to him.  In fact there will even be some nations that will resist the Antichrist after he attacks Jerusalem.  Consider the following verses from Daniel:
 
At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood.  He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand.  He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.  He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.  But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many.  He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.  Daniel 11:40-45
 
At a minimum it clearly says here that Edom, Moab, and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from Antichrist’s hand.  This is speaking of modern Jordan.  So at least Jordan will not submit to the Antichrist nor fall to his control.  The verse specifically goes on to define the nations that will fall to him.  It says “many countries.”  Not all.  Is the Bible contradicting itself?  I don’t believe so.  I do believe that every tribe, people, language and nation will be utterly affected by the Antichrist’s influence.  I believe that the Antichrist will at least be given a measure of influence and authority over every last nation in that within every nation he will have many followers.  Many nations will be completely dominated by him, but not every nation will completely fall to him.  I believe that this is the only way that we can fully reconcile all of the verses relating to this issue.

From Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah by Joel Richardson.

Consider the stubbornness and arrogance of mankind. Consider how we all fight over our own opinions. It is fantasy that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Animists, and people from every religion on the face of the earth will somehow discard thousands of years of tradition and follow after one man who claims to be God. It is not logical that the majority of people from different ethnic backgrounds will follow after someone who is not part of their own culture. Moreover, some religions do not even believe in a personal God, but a “force.” Suddenly, are they going to discard their beliefs and follow after someone who personally claims to be God?

Man has always tried to reconstruct the Tower of Babel, and there have always been people who dream of a “one world government” system. Likewise, the National Council of Churches has a plan for all Christian churches to unify, through compromise. These “dreams” of man should not be confused with Biblical prophecy.

From The Antichrist: Prince from Iraq by Russell Noel Redden



Satan has no chance of uniting mankind under a single faith or leader by their own free will. There is too much diversity, God made it that way at the Tower of Babel specifically to prevent him from doing this. Satan hasn't managed to achieve such a feat in 6000 years and that's enough to convince me that he never will. This is why Satan has manufactured millions of cults - to cater to millions of tastes. Satan's only realistic shot at "world domination" is to back his "winning horse" and he knows it. This "winning horse" is Islam, it's his most successful brainchild, his finest masterpiece. That this particular cult has 1.5 billion adherents, is growing faster than any other faith (including Christianity) and the fact that none of his other cults can compete with it in power and influence proves this is so. Also there's the element of disregard for free will in Islam which is the major contributer to its success. Millions of people would sell their souls in order to prevent their heads from being chopped off - millions of people have done just that. This why I believe that the Antichrist is Muslim and that final "beast" (kingdom) is an Islamic kingdom (Caliphate) based in the Middle East. And again if you read passages in the Bible dealing with judgement on the Last Day, you'll discover that every nation decreed for destruction is a Muslim nation.

[Nazarene]

Daniel 7:33   "Thus he said: `The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.

According to Daniel, beasts in general should be classified as kingdoms or world powers. America is in the helm right now or at least the fundamental way of life America started. Islam itself isn't a kingdom but a religion. If you mean that an Islamic kingdom will rise out and devour the current kingdom that is in control now. I would say, probably not. There are too many countries that support this way of life.  I envision the final beast to be something that people willingly give into. Rather than forced into. Because they are benefiting in some way or another.  

I absolutely disagree:

Revelation 13:3-4 One of his heads looked like it had been wounded fatally. His fatal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled at the beast. They worshiped the dragon, because he gave his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"

The people of the world are not following the beast because they admire him, they're following him because they're terrified of him. A beast is not a distinguished, charismatic diplomat in a designer suit, a beast is a dangerous blood thirsty monster.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I have many Muslim friends and can see many beautiful things about their faith. But I voted "yes" because of these words from the Ethiopian Synaxarium that stopped me in my tracks about a year ago:

"And another king worse than he was appointed in his place, and he compelled all the Christian people to brand on their hands, instead of the honorable Cross the unclean and lying prophet Muhammad, that is the mark of the beast, concerning which St. John the Evangelist and Theologian prophesied in Revelation 16:2."  [From The Ethiopian Synaxarium (Lives of the Saints); Yekatit 7 / February 14]


Selam

[GabrieltheCelt]

I personally do not believe that the Antichrist will be accepted by every unbeliever...

"Unbeliever"... Herein lies one of the problems with the topic at hand.  What does this proverbial person not believe?  What do they not accept as the truth?  We have Orthodox Christians and Heterodox Christians here; the differences are not just mere words but monumental chasms.  I suspect that were we all to give a description of this word, this topic would unravel and the conjecture and bizarre claims would be shown for what they are: false.

But more about the topic at hand.  The Ekklesia does not concern Herself with Dispensationalism (or Olive Tree Theology- whatever one wishes to call it).  People like Rodrigo Silva, Hal Lindsey, John Hagee and the like may be sincere in their conviction, but they are sincerely erroneous.  Bible prophecies are something the Ekklesia does not concern Herself with.  When one reads these people, especially in light of the Holy Tradition that brought us the Bible, these "prophecies" really sound more like conspiracy theories.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I personally do not believe that the Antichrist will be accepted by every unbeliever...

"Unbeliever"... Herein lies one of the problems with the topic at hand.  What does this proverbial person not believe?  What do they not accept as the truth?  We have Orthodox Christians and Heterodox Christians here; the differences are not just mere words but monumental chasms.  I suspect that were we all to give a description of this word, this topic would unravel and the conjecture and bizarre claims would be shown for what they are: false.

But more about the topic at hand.  The Ekklesia does not concern Herself with Dispensationalism (or Olive Tree Theology- whatever one wishes to call it).  People like Rodrigo Silva, Hal Lindsey, John Hagee and the like may be sincere in their conviction, but they are sincerely erroneous.  Bible prophecies are something the Ekklesia does not concern Herself with.  When one reads these people, especially in light of the Holy Tradition that brought us the Bible, these "prophecies" really sound more like conspiracy theories.

It's interesting that Islam typically uses the term "misbeliever" rather than "unbeliever." Everyone believes in something, but their beliefs may indeed be in error. Thus the heterodox and other misbelievers will be susceptible to the wiles of the Antichrist, as they already are.

I wouldn't say that the Church doesn't concern herself with biblical prophecies, but only that she does not make eschatological prophecy the foundation of her theology (as Dispensationalism does.)

The Bible tells us that many antichrists have already come, and that the spirit of the antichrist is already present. [I John 2:18] So I do think we become distracted from our Christian purpose when we begin to speculate about the whos, whats, and whens of the Antichrist. "Sufficient for today is the evil thereof." [St. Matthew 6:34]


Selam

[GabrieltheCelt]

I personally do not believe that the Antichrist will be accepted by every unbeliever...

"Unbeliever"... Herein lies one of the problems with the topic at hand.  What does this proverbial person not believe?  What do they not accept as the truth?  We have Orthodox Christians and Heterodox Christians here; the differences are not just mere words but monumental chasms.  I suspect that were we all to give a description of this word, this topic would unravel and the conjecture and bizarre claims would be shown for what they are: false.

But more about the topic at hand.  The Ekklesia does not concern Herself with Dispensationalism (or Olive Tree Theology- whatever one wishes to call it).  People like Rodrigo Silva, Hal Lindsey, John Hagee and the like may be sincere in their conviction, but they are sincerely erroneous.  Bible prophecies are something the Ekklesia does not concern Herself with.  When one reads these people, especially in light of the Holy Tradition that brought us the Bible, these "prophecies" really sound more like conspiracy theories.

It's interesting that Islam typically uses the term "misbeliever" rather than "unbeliever."

The Qur'anic term is "kafir" which means 'to deny' or 'to cover over'.
 

I wouldn't say that the Church doesn't concern herself with biblical prophecies, but only that she does not make eschatological prophecy the foundation of her theology (as Dispensationalism does.)

I would even say that eschatology isn't a concern at all, for the Ekklesia, through Her Holy Traditions, has made it clear that She is a hospital set up for the salvation of our souls.  IMO, any concerns about the future are really focused on the Last Day and the Dread Judgment Seat of Christ.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I personally do not believe that the Antichrist will be accepted by every unbeliever...

"Unbeliever"... Herein lies one of the problems with the topic at hand.  What does this proverbial person not believe?  What do they not accept as the truth?  We have Orthodox Christians and Heterodox Christians here; the differences are not just mere words but monumental chasms.  I suspect that were we all to give a description of this word, this topic would unravel and the conjecture and bizarre claims would be shown for what they are: false.

But more about the topic at hand.  The Ekklesia does not concern Herself with Dispensationalism (or Olive Tree Theology- whatever one wishes to call it).  People like Rodrigo Silva, Hal Lindsey, John Hagee and the like may be sincere in their conviction, but they are sincerely erroneous.  Bible prophecies are something the Ekklesia does not concern Herself with.  When one reads these people, especially in light of the Holy Tradition that brought us the Bible, these "prophecies" really sound more like conspiracy theories.

It's interesting that Islam typically uses the term "misbeliever" rather than "unbeliever."

The Qur'anic term is "kafir" which means 'to deny' or 'to cover over'.
 

I wouldn't say that the Church doesn't concern herself with biblical prophecies, but only that she does not make eschatological prophecy the foundation of her theology (as Dispensationalism does.)

I would even say that eschatology isn't a concern at all, for the Ekklesia, through Her Holy Traditions, has made it clear that She is a hospital set up for the salvation of our souls.  IMO, any concerns about the future are really focused on the Last Day and the Dread Judgment Seat of Christ.

I think we agree. Anything more than what we confess in the Creed about Our Lord's second coming is superfluous at best and potentially heretical at worst.


Selam

[Theophilos78]

"Unbeliever"... Herein lies one of the problems with the topic at hand.  What does this proverbial person not believe?  What do they not accept as the truth?  We have Orthodox Christians and Heterodox Christians here; the differences are not just mere words but monumental chasms.  I suspect that were we all to give a description of this word, this topic would unravel and the conjecture and bizarre claims would be shown for what they are: false.

The Qur'anic term is "kafir" which means 'to deny' or 'to cover over'.
 

The Qur'anic term "kafir" is best applicable to Mohammad since his ideology is based on the DENIAL of basic Christian tenets. This is why the Qur'an attemps to state what Jesus was NOT. Mohammad penned his book to defy and distort the Bible for sure.

[GabrieltheCelt]

"Unbeliever"... Herein lies one of the problems with the topic at hand.  What does this proverbial person not believe?  What do they not accept as the truth?  We have Orthodox Christians and Heterodox Christians here; the differences are not just mere words but monumental chasms.  I suspect that were we all to give a description of this word, this topic would unravel and the conjecture and bizarre claims would be shown for what they are: false.

The Qur'anic term is "kafir" which means 'to deny' or 'to cover over'.
 

The Qur'anic term "kafir" is best applicable to Mohammad...

 


On this we agree, kratistos Theophilus!  

[Theophilos78]

"Unbeliever"... Herein lies one of the problems with the topic at hand.  What does this proverbial person not believe?  What do they not accept as the truth?  We have Orthodox Christians and Heterodox Christians here; the differences are not just mere words but monumental chasms.  I suspect that were we all to give a description of this word, this topic would unravel and the conjecture and bizarre claims would be shown for what they are: false.

The Qur'anic term is "kafir" which means 'to deny' or 'to cover over'.
 

The Qur'anic term "kafir" is best applicable to Mohammad...

 


On this we agree, kratistos Theophilus!  

We must note and proclaim this miraculous agreement. 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Islam and the Beast