Thursday, November 12, 2009

Resurrection Bodies Or Spiritual Bodies? ~ Jack Kelley


Resurrection Bodies Or Spiritual Bodies?

Q. Upon our death, do we have a resurrected or spiritual body?


A. Believers who die discard their physical bodies and assume a spiritual form.  At the rapture they will receive new physical bodies, called resurrection bodies, at the same time as living believers are instantaneously transformed into their resurrection bodies. (1 Cor. 15:51-52).

Iran was the only subject on the Obama-Netanyahu, Gates-Barak agendas

Iran was the only subject on the Obama-Netanyahu, Gates-Barak agendas

(Contrary to reported rift by some Prophecy Sites on "missed" photo op)

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
November 12, 2009, 11:15 AM (GMT+02:00)
Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu arrives at White House
Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu arrives at White House
Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama focused on the single subject of Iran when they met in Washington Monday, Nov. 9 - as did Netanyahu and French president Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, Wednesday, Nov. 11. Iran also occupied the meeting between defense minster Ehud Barak and US defense secretary Robert Gates Monday. DEBKAfile's Washington sources disclose that briefings to the media and joint communiqués were disallowed for the sake of blacking out the content of the conversations Israeli leaders held in Washington and Paris.


Leaked reports that the Palestinian issue and Mahmoud Abbas' future were discussed in Washington and peace talks with Syria in Paris were window-dressing, as were the power games widely reported as leading up to the Netanyahu's reception at the White House.
The conversation in Sarkozy's private apartment at the Elysee was a continuation of Netanyahu's talks with Obama two days earlier and marked their coalescence around the next steps on Iran.


Back home, the defense minister stressed the importance of "not discounting the peace signals coming of late from Syria" and said that "many barriers fell" at the Netanyahu-Obama meeting "recreating a good foundation for renewing the peace process and reaching accord with our Palestinian neighbors."


This statement was part of the smoke screen set up by mutual consent to conceal the content of Barak and the prime minister's overseas meetings. It was necessary to addressing the minister's need to bolster his shaky position as leader of the left-leaning Labor party and lift Israel's image in Europe which is fixated on the Palestinian issue.


At the same time, a very senior American official told DEBKAfile that his description of falling barriers between President Obama and prime minister was spot on and deserved a full stop. The rest of his comment applied to Israeli politics.

Iran set to launch 200-kg spy satelite into orbit

Iran set to launch 200-kg spy satelite into orbit

DEBKA-Net-Weekly 420 updated by DEBKAfile
November 7, 2009, 9:57 AM (GMT+02:00)
Safir-Omid space project set to go
Safir-Omid space project set to go

Iran is ready to launch its second homemade spy satellite, with the Safir 2 rocket (Messenger of Ambassador) already in position on its pad, DEBKAfile's military and intelligence sources report. The new satellite weighs 200 kgs, ten times more than Omid 1 (Hope), which was successfully tested only ten months ago, on Feb. 2. Tehran's missile program is clearly rushing forward at a rapid pace. In fact, some Western and Israeli missile experts suspect it may have overtaken North Korea and that Iran no longer stands in need of technical assistance from Pyongyang or Beijing.

If the second launch succeeds, it would mean that Iran is capable of producing solid fuel-powered rockets with a range of 2,450-2,450 kilometers, which covers not only all of Israel but would reach as deep into Europe as the Polish capital of Warsaw. Heads of the Islamic regime in Tehran hope that the advent of a second Iranian spy satellite in Middle East skies, boosted by the new Safir rocket, will so astound the Americans and Israelis that they will think twice before going after Iran's nuclear installations.

Most of all, they want Israel to count the cost of being subjected to their high-grade lethal weaponry before embarking on military action.

In contrast to the Netanyahu government's outcry over the capture of the Iranian arms ship bound for Hizballah last week ("this is a real war crime"), Israel has made very little of two ominous spurts in Iran's progress toward a nuclear military capability.

1. On Nov. 4, US satellite photos were published showing that Iran had raised output at its Gchine uranium mine near Bandar Abbas and is producing enough raw ore for processing into two warheads a year.
Tehran has shut this mine to UN watchdog inspections claiming its agreement with the IAEA does not cover mining operations. The agency is therefore unable to establish where the raw uranium is going.

2. On Nov. 5, US and UK media quoted IAEA sources in Vienna as asking Iran to explain evidence that its scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design. They referred to the discovery of high-explosive components of a “two-point implosion” device that could enable Iran to eventually install small nuclear warheads on its ballistic missiles.

Command of this process would short-cut and simplify Iran's path to fitting nuclear warheads on long-range ballistic missiles such as the Shehab-4 which is about ready to go operational.

Iran is stonewalling on this international query too, continuing to dicker over every Western compromise proposal while racing ahead with its plans.

Insights into Spys: The Shin Bet security service(Israeli)


Why did a top Israeli intelligence officer join the KGB?
By Yossi Melman
Tags: KGB spy, Israel news

The Shin Bet security service has for the first time gone public about the Shimon Levinson spy case, posting details about the affair on its official Web site. Levinson, a senior Israeli intelligence officer, was convicted of spying for the KGB in 1991 and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was released after seven years, and in 2003, he moved to Thailand, where he works as an agricultural consultant.


"The nightmare of every intelligence organization is to find an enemy agent at the heart of its own intelligence community, inside the working environment of the highest-ranking decision-makers in the country," the Shin Bet site says. "Such an agent has access to extremely sensitive information, including strategic plans, to which he is liable to cause damage. The affair of Shimon Levinson - a retired army intelligence colonel, a former member of the Shin Bet and the Mossad, and a chief of security in the Prime Minister's Office - was a case of this nightmare coming true."


The story the Shin Bet has now published is based on its interrogations of Levinson and on court proceedings that were held behind closed doors and cloaked in secrecy. The case had already been written about in the Israeli press, but this is the Shin Bet's official version. And though the material has been censored, and is also intended to serve the Shin Bet's public relations, it contains details that have never come to light before. Their publication is part of a recent Shin Bet policy of revealing selected episodes of its history.
Advertisement
The corrupt colonel


Shimon Levinson was born in Jerusalem in 1933 and enlisted in the Israel Defense Forces in 1950. He retired from the IDF in 1978 after having held a variety of positions: He was a member of the Israeli-Jordanian armistice committee, an army attache in Turkey and also served in Military Intelligence's documentation center. Though he failed his officer exams several times, he was repeatedly promoted, eventually reaching the rank of colonel.


In 1963, Levinson was recruited by the Shin Bet and served in the security vetting team in the Jerusalem area. Two years later, the army agreed to his request to transfer to the Mossad, where he worked in a similar capacity. He ultimately became head of the Mossad's Tevel station in Ethiopia and was in charge of the secret military aid that Israel gave the army of Emperor Haile Selassie in his war against Eritrean rebels.


In 1973, Levinson returned to Israel and to the IDF. He became a liaison officer with the UN, with the rank of colonel, and remained in this job until he retired in 1978, out of frustration over then-IDF chief of staff Rafael Eitan's refusal to promote him further.


Upon his retirement, Levinson exploited the connections he had developed with senior UN officials and arranged a dream job for himself in Bangkok, with a hefty salary and accompanying perks, running a UN agency fighting the drug trade in East Asia. The position was meant, inter alia, to help him out of financial difficulties caused by his business failures. This is also why he decided to offer his services to the Soviet Union's secret service.


The motive: money


In April 1983, Levinson entered the Soviet embassy in Bangkok and offered to spy on Israel. During his interrogation by the Shin Bet, Levinson said his sole motive was money, and he had hoped his Soviet operators would reward him well. Only later did he learn the facts of life: It is hard to become a millionaire by spying. Over seven years, Levinson received only $31,000.


After some hesitation, the KGB decided to take Levinson on and sent him to Moscow for tests and a crash course in the art of coded messages, radio communications and secret rendezvous. While in Moscow, he was also told what type of information the KGB was interested in.


After returning to Israel, Levinson tried to rejoin the Mossad but was rejected. This time, unlike in the past, the Mossad understood that he was a problematic individual, to say the least.


But the red lights that lit up at the Mossad went unnoticed by the Shin Bet, which agreed to a new and surprising appointment for him: In May 1985, his old friend Maj. Gen. (ret.) Avraham Tamir, then director general of the Prime Minister's Office, gave Levinson the important and sensitive position of chief security officer. Among those who recommended Levinson were then-prime minister Shimon Peres and former army and Shin Bet officers. During this time, Levinson was exposed to all the prime minister's secrets - which bolstered his status in the eyes of his KGB handlers.


'Grave damage'


According to the Shin Bet Web site, the information Levinson gave the Soviets was comprehensive. It included:


The structure of Israel's intelligence community and its various units, including Military Intelligence, the Mossad, the Shin Bet, the police's special operations unit and Nativ, the liaison bureau for Soviet Jewry. The information included details about each unit and sub-unit, the names of their chiefs and their methods of operation.


The structure of the Prime Minister's Office, its methods of operation, and key personalities.


Information about the Foreign Ministry, which included passing on original documents.


Information about American intelligence officers in contact with Israeli intelligence, including names, positions and specialties.


"Due to his varied background, his familiarity with and his access to top-secret information, Levinson - who is considered one of the highest-ranking KGB agents in Israel - caused grave intelligence damage to Israel," the Shin Bet concluded.


Levinson served only seven years of his 12-year sentence, as he was given a third off for good behavior.


The report on the Shin Bet's Web site ends in an uncharacteristically personal and gossipy tone: "During Levinson's time in prison, his wife left him and his friends and former colleagues severed their ties with him. He was also expelled from organizations of which he had been a member, such as that of army retirees. Upon his release, he lived in a rented apartment in Jerusalem, an outcast from his social environment, in search of work."


What the Shin Bet Web site does not reveal, however, is that Levinson's incarceration in May 1991 was made possible by information that reached the Mossad from a foreign source. Mossad chief Shabtai Shavit hastened to inform Shin Bet director Jacob Perry. The latter then ordered an investigation that was code-named Eshel Hamidbar ("Desert Tamarisk").


Shin Bet interrogators were particularly concerned that Levinson might have planted bugs in the Prime Minister's Office, which would have enabled his handlers to listen in on all the most sensitive and secret cabinet decisions. But after repeated grillings that included several lie detector tests, Levinson was able to convince them that he had not done so.


The Shin Bet also refrains from saying that during the trial, some of the spy's best friends in the army and the security services came to his aid. Among those who testified on his behalf were Ariel Sharon and Rafi Eitan - a close relative of Levinson as well as a legendary Mossad and Shin Bet operative who until recently was a cabinet minister.


But what hurts most of all is the absence of the one sentence that must be said: Shimon Levinson was the most despicable spy Israel has ever known. He betrayed his country out of pure greed. Neither ideology nor blackmail made him do it, just greed.

To regenerate the popularity of Obama

Gerald Celente with the latest econimic predictions has been wrong, contrary to his supporters claiming a "prophetic" like track record, but his insights into trends and manipulations by world events are insightful.   Prove all Things-MjS



 

a False Flag attack to regenerate the popularity of Obama warns Gerald Celente


Gerald Celente Interview with Lew Rockwell 09-11-2009


The wealth of the nation is going to the too big to fail , what happened to USSR is now happening to USSA , we do not need wall street ,If America does not consume China does not grow, the second American revolution has begun , Gerald Celente also warns of a possible False Flag attack inside USA in order to boost Obama's declining popularity the same it happened with G.W. Bush and 911



Pakistan-China in $1.4 billion fighter jet deal (Pakistani military build up)


Pakistan-China in $1.4 billion fighter jet deal
Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: China has agreed to sell Pakistan at least 36 advanced fighter jets in a landmark deal worth as much as $1.4bn, Pakistani and western officials said on Tuesday.

China will supply two squadrons of J-10 fighter planes in a preliminary agreement, which could lead to further sales in future, a Pakistani official said.

The official added that Pakistan might buy “larger numbers” of the planes in the future, but denied reports that Pakistan had agreed to buy 150 jets.

Experts describe the agreement as a “landmark” in Pak-China relations.

“The agreement should not simply be seen in the narrow context of Pakistan’s relations with China,” said Abdul Qayyum, a retired Pakistani general. “There is a wider dimension. By sharing its advanced technology with Pakistan, China is ... also saying to the world that its defence capability is growing rapidly.”

China has supplied Pakistan with fighter jets for more than three decades. Experts said the sales would be evidence of China looking to expand its military power. “Countries like Iran and possibly some of the Middle Eastern countries would be keen to deal with China,” said one western official in Islamabad.

U.S. Envoy Urges Caution on Forces for Afghanistan (Convient timing)


(Afghanistan: The War we Will Not Win)

U.S. Envoy Urges Caution on Forces for Afghanistan







Published: November 11, 2009
WASHINGTON — The United States ambassador to Afghanistan, who once served as the top American military commander there, has expressed in writing his reservations about deploying additional troops to the country, three senior American officials said Wednesday.
Skip to next paragraph

Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
President Obama on Wednesday at a section of Arlington National Cemetery for troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.




The position of the ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general, puts him in stark opposition to the current American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who has asked for 40,000 more troops.


General Eikenberry sent his reservations to Washington in a cable last week, the officials said. In that same period, President Obama and his national security advisers have begun examining an option that would send relatively few troops to Afghanistan, about 10,000 to 15,000, with most designated as trainers for the Afghan security forces.


This low-end option was one of four alternatives under consideration by Mr. Obama and his war council at a meeting in the White House Situation Room on Wednesday afternoon. The other three options call for troop levels of around 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000, the three officials said.


Mr. Obama asked General Eikenberry about his concerns during the meeting on Wednesday, officials said, and raised questions about each of the four military options and how they might be tinkered with or changed. A central focus of Mr. Obama’s questions, officials said, was how long it would take to see results and be able to withdraw.
“He wants to know where the off-ramps are,” one official said.


The officials, who requested anonymity in order to discuss delicate White House deliberations, did not describe General Eikenberry’s reasons for opposing additional American forces, although he has recently expressed strong concerns about President Hamid Karzai’s reliability as a partner and corruption in his government. Mr. Obama appointed General Eikenberry as ambassador in January.


During two tours in Afghanistan — from 2005 to 2007, when he served as the top American commander, and from 2002 to 2003, when he was responsible for building and training the Afghan security forces — General Eikenberry encountered what he later described as the Afghan government’s dependence on Americans to do the job that then-President George W. Bush was urging the Afghans to begin doing themselves.


Pentagon officials said the low-end option of 10,000 to 15,000 more troops would mean little or no significant increase in American combat forces in Afghanistan. The bulk of the additional forces would go to train the Afghan Army, with a smaller number focused on hunting and killing terrorists, the officials said.
The low-end option would essentially reject the more ambitious counterinsurgency strategy envisioned by General McChrystal, which calls for a large number of forces to protect the Afghan population, work on development projects and build up the country’s civil institutions.


It would largely deprive General McChrystal of the ability to send large numbers of American forces to the southern provinces in Afghanistan where the Taliban control broad areas of territory. And it would limit the number of population centers the United States could secure, officials said.


General Eikenberry crossed paths with General McChrystal during his second tour in Afghanistan, when General McChrystal led the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, which conducted clandestine operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.


Their relationship, a senior military official said last year, was occasionally tense as General McChrystal pushed for approval for commando missions, and General Eikenberry was resistant because of concerns that the missions were too risky and could lead to civilian casualties.


It was unclear whether General Eikenberry, who participated in the Afghanistan policy meeting on Wednesday by video link from Kabul, the Afghan capital, had been asked by the White House to put his views in writing. It was also unclear how persuasive they will be with Mr. Obama.
A spokesman for the State Department declined to comment, while a spokesman for General Eikenberry in Kabul could not be reached for comment late Wednesday.


Administration officials say that in recent meetings on Afghanistan at the White House, the president has repeatedly asked whether a large American force might undercut the urgency of training the Afghan security forces and persuading them to fight more on their own.


As Mr. Obama nears a decision, the White House is sending officials to brief allies and other countries on an almost weekly basis. The administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, is heading to Paris, Berlin and Moscow. Other officials in his office are meeting with Chinese officials in Beijing.


Mr. Obama is expected to mull over his options during a trip to Asia that begins Thursday. He is due back in Washington on Nov. 19 and could announce the policy before Thanksgiving, officials said, but is more likely to wait until early December.


General Eikenberry has been an energetic envoy, traveling widely around Afghanistan to meet with tribal leaders and to inspect American development projects.


He has been pushing the State Department for additional civilian personnel in the country, including in areas like agriculture, where the United States wants to help wean farmers off cultivating poppies. The State Department has tried to accommodate his requests, according to a senior official, but has turned down some because of budget constraints and its desire to cap the overall number of civilians in Afghanistan at roughly 1,000.


He played a significant role, along with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in persuading Mr. Karzai last month to accept the results of an election commission, which called for a runoff presidential ballot.
That vote never took place because Mr. Karzai’s main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, subsequently withdrew from the contest.


But General Eikenberry also angered Mr. Karzai early in the campaign when he appeared at news conferences called by three of Mr. Karzai’s opponents. American officials said Mr. Karzai viewed that as an inappropriate intrusion into Afghanistan’s domestic politics.


The White House Afghanistan meeting lasted from 2:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., and was Mr. Obama’s eighth session in two months on the subject.


A few hours before the meeting began, the president walked through the rain-soaked grass at Arlington National Cemetery, stopping by Section 60, where troops from Iraq and Afghanistan are buried.
It was Mr. Obama’s first Veterans Day since taking office, and in an address at the cemetery he hailed the sacrifice and determination of the nation’s military.


“In this time of war, we gather here, mindful that the generation serving today already deserves a place alongside previous generations for the courage they have shown and the sacrifices that they have made,” Mr. Obama said.

Mark Mazzetti, David E. Sanger, Jeff Zeleny and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

The Nine End Time Wars of the Bible: Part 2

The Nine End Time Wars of the Bible: Part 2

The Nine End Time Wars of the Bible: Part 2


In October 2009 I was interviewed by Bill Salus, author of the popular Psalm 83-themed book Isralestine, host of the radio program "Prophecy Update," and evangelist on the end times website Prophecy Depot. Bill and I spent much of the interview discussing my recent article The Wars of the End Times.

Bill Salus
Bill has been kind enough to allow The Christ in Prophecy Journal to reproduce the "The Nine End Time Wars of the Bible" interview in transcript form, edited into an article series. To listen to the original radio program in mp3 format, I invite you to visit Prophecy Depot or KWBB.

In the last segment, Bill and I identified what I call the "War of Extermination" based on Psalm 83 as the first end time war. In this segment, we look at the timing of the Rapture and the United States in relation to this war.

Where do you think the Rapture of the Church is going to fit in? Is it going to be pre-Psalm 83, or post-Psalm 83, or what?

Dr. Reagan: I think you just raised a very valid point. I have actually had some of my supporters' write me very concerned messages saying, "Your endorsement of Bill Salus' theory about Psalm 83 means that you no longer believe the Rapture is imminent." And, I have written back and said, "No, not at all. I think the Rapture can occur at any moment."

The Rapture is not what begins the Tribulation. It is some sort of treaty between the Antichrist and Israel that starts the Tribulation. The Rapture could occur a year, 2 years, 3 years, or even 5 years before the start of the Tribulation. The Rapture can occur at any moment. Now, whether it is going to occur before Psalm 83 or during the Psalm 83 War or after that war, I have no idea, Bill. I am not setting dates for the Rapture. I believe the Rapture is an event that can occur at any moment. It could be before the Psalm 83 War, during it, or after it.

Bill Salus: I concur. And, that was the big question! We'll leave the answer as this — if we are still here at the fulfillment of Psalm 83, we need to certainly be prepared to use the foreknowledge of this war as one of our best witnessing tools.

Dr. Reagan: Amen! I think it is unfair of those who attack you saying that if you put in this Psalm 83 War that somehow you are saying that's an event that must occur before the Rapture, and therefore the Rapture is no longer imminent, because that is not the position that you've taken.

Bill Salus: No, it's not. You're right, this topic has come up, so I thank you for clearing it up.

How does the United States play into this war?

Bill Salus: During the Bush Administration when he declared a war on terror, Israel took the advantage of building a 400 mile wall to keep terrorists out. And, it has worked. It has kept Palestinian terror somewhat at bay. Now, you'll start to hear articles coming out about how things on the ground are different there geopolitically, and that maybe there really is an opportunity for some legitimate peace because the Palestinian leadership apart from Hamas is getting a little more conducive to having peace. But, the bottom line is this that wall is what is causing those changes on the ground there.

Currently, President Obama has a 4% or less popularity rating in Israel among Israeli Jews who think he is pro-Israel, according to a Jerusalem Post poll recently issued. He has definitely got Israeli Jews concerned about a sentiment of American betrayal.

Dr. Reagan: He has me concerned along the same line, because the Bible makes it very clear that those that turn against Israel in the end times and try to divide the land that God will deal with them, and He will deal with them in His wrath. We are just begging for the wrath of God upon this nation through the policy that Obama is pursuing.

Think about how hypocritical it was when protestors in Iran were having huge demonstrations in the street after the recent election, and Obama said nothing! He said nothing and he said nothing until finally he was forced to say something, and then he said, "Well, I just don't want to say anything because who am I to interfere in the affairs of another nation. That is a sovereign nation." And yet, he turned right around and began to put all kinds of demands upon Israel, saying to the Israelis, "You can't even build a building in Jerusalem." I mean, come on! What if Israel told us we couldn't build a building in Washington, D.C.?

Bill Salus: Obama is pushing Israel to freeze their settlements which is very controversial right now. Biblically speaking, God is bringing the Jews back into the land and a moratorium on housing does not seem to be part of God's prophetic program.

Dr. Reagan: That's right, that's very right.

Bill Salus: Obama's policy is butting heads with God, and we know where that is all going to end up.

In the next segment, Bill and I will be discussing the second end time war in the series — the First War of Gog-Magog.

What Is The Social Gospel?


What Is The Social Gospel?

Q. I’m hearing  a lot abut ‘the social gospel’ through various websites, but am feeling confused as to the real meaning.  In general, the advice seems to be saying follow the ‘true gospel’ and avoid the ’social gospel’ at all costs – but what is the difference?  I’ve also heard the term ‘friendship evangelism’. Is this the same thing and if so, why is it wrong?

I know people who have been friends with Christians for a number of years, when, being impressed by the changes witnessed in their friends lives, have finally wanted to know more about Jesus. If this is a ’social gospel’ then why is it wrong- or have I missed the point?

A. Traditionally the social Gospel movement has endeavored to apply Christian ethics to social problems, especially poverty, inequality, the danger of war, etc.  Proponents claim to be followers of Christ not just believers in Him. Detractors say there’s too much emphasis on good deeds and not enough on the basics of Christianity.

Friendship Evangelism is the process of introducing people to the Lord through the development of relationships. Ideally, it’s not just sharing the gospel, it’s sharing your life.


Applied effectively, these are both powerful tools for sharing the Gospel with unbelievers.  But as we can see in the emerging church movement, social activism and relationship building often become a substitute for evangelism instead of its method.

The Nine End Time Wars of the Bible: Part 1

The Nine End Time Wars of the Bible: Part 1


In October 2009 I was interviewed by Bill Salus, author of the popular Psalm 83-themed book Isralestine, host of the radio program "Prophecy Update," and evangelist on the end times website Prophecy Depot. Bill and I spent much of the interview discussing my recent article The Wars of the End Times.

Bill Salus
Bill has been kind enough to allow The Christ in Prophecy Journal to reproduce the "The Nine End Time Wars of the Bible" interview in transcript form, edited into an article series. To listen to the original radio program in mp3 format, I invite you to visit Prophecy Depot or KWBB.

In this segment, Bill and I will be discussing why we believe will be the next end times war — what I call the "War of Extermination" based on Psalm 83 — and not the Battle of Armageddon or even the Ezekiel 38-39 War of Gog-Magog.

Introductions

Bill Salus: Welcome to another addition of the Prophecy Update, whereby we attempt to authenticate the sovereignty of God through Bible prophecy by informing you as to what Bible prophecy has to say about these days. Today my good friend Dr. David Reagan will be joining me to discuss the wars of the end times.
David has published a third edition of a must read book called America the Beautiful: The United States in Bible Prophecy. This release couldn't be timelier in the light of the genuine concerns about America's future. Dr. Reagan is an expert on the subject. I say this not just because he has a solid prophetic background, but because he has an extensive political one as well. Isn't that correct, David?

Dr. Reagan: Well, that is true. I was highly involved in politics for about 20 years. Plus, I was also a professor on American Politics, Constitutional Law and International Law and Politics.

Bill Salus: Many people probably didn't realize the background you have there.

Will the next end time war be Armageddon?

Bill Salus: Now, to the topic of the wars of the end time. As you well know, David, Hezbollah has 40,000 rockets aimed at Israel. Some of those may be targeting Tel Aviv someday soon. Iran is about to produce their first nuclear weapon and North Korea is also rattling their nuclear sabers at Israel. Israel is considering a preemptive strike upon Iran. All this has people, of course, concerned that we could be heading for the end times Armageddon War. Now, what do you think this is all leading up to? Is it Armageddon, David?

Dr. Reagan: Well, it is certainly leading up to a major confrontation. But, it is not going to be Armageddon. As I said in the article that I published recently about these wars of the end times, it seems like the only war that most people are aware of is the War of Armageddon, or what is called or referred to as the "Battle of Armageddon."

Every time a war breaks out in the Middle East, as you well know, Bill, you get a bunch of calls and messages. I do, and so does everybody else involved in Bible prophecy. People are asking, "Is this the war of Armageddon?" Even the secular world — that's the only end time war that they know about. They are always writing about and wondering if maybe this or that is the War of Armageddon.

The War of Armageddon is just one of them, as I point out in my article. There are different ways to count them, but I have counted nine end time wars that are in Bible prophecy. Armageddon is just one of those, and it certainly is not going to be the next one.

Bill Salus: Revelation 16:16 is where the term "Armageddon" appears vividly.

What will be the next war?

Dr. Reagan: Well, that is a good question and, Bill, this is where you play a very, very major role. Most Bible prophecy experts including such well known people as Joel Rosenberg all believe that the next great prophetic war in the Middle East will be the war that is outlined in Ezekiel 38 and 39 which portrays Russia leading a coalition of Muslim nations against Israel. But, in your book Isralestine, Psalms 83 points out that couldn't be the next prophetic war in the Middle East. I think you really plowed some new ground when you wrote that book and made that point.

There are several reasons that you gave, but two that I would mention that are very important to me is that in Ezekiel 38:8,11,14, three times it says that the Russian-led invasion of Israel will not occur until Israel is living securely in un-walled villages. Well, Bill, you know as well as I do that Israel is not living securely today and they're certainly not in what we would call un-walled villages. In fact, the Israelis are in the process of building a 400 mile long wall right down the middle of their country to try to defend themselves against terrorist. Israel is anything but secure today. So that condition just doesn't exist.

Another thing that's interesting that you pointed out in your book is that the war of Ezekiel 38 and 39 will have certain specified allies that come down with Russia, and none of those allies have a common border with Israel. Now, why in the world would there be a Russian invasion of Israel with Muslim allies and none of those allies be a single country with a common border with Israel? Jordan is not mentioned, Lebanon is not mentioned, Syria is not mentioned, Egypt is not mentioned, and Gaza is not mentioned.

In your book, which I consider a real important book where you talk about Psalm 83, you point out that there has to be a war before the Ezekiel 38 and 39 War, a war in which Israel will defeat all of the Muslim nations with which it has a common boundary. Your theory is that this is the war that is mentioned in Psalm 83. And, I'll tell you what, I think you are right on target. I think the Psalm 83 War will be the next prophetic war in the Middle East. I think Israel, as you say in your book, will conquer all of those Muslim nations that have a common boundary with it. Israel will be greatly expanded in size, in power, in influence, in wealth, and then it will be living in security. Then it will be living in un-walled villages and then it will have fulfilled all the conditions for the war of Ezekiel 38 and 39 when Russia will come down with an outer circle of Muslim nations that do not have a common boundary with Israel.

If anyone hasn't read Isralestine, they need to read it right away, because I think the Psalm 83 War of Extermination is probably going to be the war that is going to lead to the next fulfillment of prophecy — the destruction of Damascus.

This will most likely happen when all of Israel's bordering nations come against Israel. Hezbollah has its 40,000 missiles and Syria has it's very sophisticated missiles. Syria will be shooting those only 125 miles. It is not going to be shooting them a thousand miles like Saddam Hussein was doing. And, plus, they are very sophisticated missiles. I think the only hope that Israel will have is to resort to the use of nuclear weapons to defend itself. I think it will blow Damascus in Syria off the face of the map, just as it is prophesied in two places in the Old Testament (Isa. 17:1-14; Jer. 49:23-27). When that happens, I think the whole Arab world will go into a panic. I think they will turn to their natural ally Russia, and ask Russia to come to their aid.

Bill Salus: Today in Israel, actually since June, they have been preparing for a multi-front war with Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas. What we are talking about is a very high probability that the prophetic war that you are referencing in Psalm 83 and the dramatic prophetic event of Isaiah 17:1 which is the destruction of Damascus could happen in the very near future.
David, your thoughts on this are a little bit speculative, so we don't want to spend too much time on it, but because I believe that we could be talking about the next prophetic headline in the Middle East, let's spend just a second on it before we get into these other wars that follow.
 
If Israel strikes Iran preemptively because of their nuclear sites, it is likely don't you believe, that Israel is justified in preparing for war with Hezbollah, Syria, and Hamas and Iran and that there is going to be a retaliation?

Dr. Reagan: Well, absolutely! A preemptive attack would be justified, just as it was in the War of 1967 when the Israelis finally decided, "Hey, we are about to be attacked on all fronts. If we just sit here and wait for the attack, we don't have a hope." And so, they launched a preemptive attack that was the key to winning the 1967 War. They are going to have to launch a preemptive attack here as they cannot simply sit by on the sidelines and wait for the missiles to start coming.

Most people don't realize how small Israel is. We are talking about a country only 75 miles wide and about 300 miles long. They just can't sit there and wait for these things to come. For example, they cannot wait for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. The Iranians have made it very clear the moment they get one they are going to use it. All they need is one. They just drop it on Tel Aviv and that is going to take care of the whole country. They don't have to hit it with multiple nuclear weapons.

Bill Salus: As far back as August 2008, the Kuwaiti Daily reported that chemical components had made their way from North Korea through Iran, through Syria, and into Hezbollah's hands. We have said they already have 40,000 rockets.

Carrie Hart, a friend of mine in Israel who is the Jerusalem correspondent for Jewish Voice Television, just emailed me the other day and said that Israel in January 2010 is going to be preparing a massive nationwide chemical and biological defense drill for their whole society because they are very concerned about this happening.

Will diplomacy make a difference?

Bill Salus: Do you believe there is the potential that this whole international thrust to try to trade land for peace and create this two state solution that something is going to blast out in the Middle East? Also, Ahmadinejad just said recently he is ready to start talking with Obama, however, he doesn't want to talk about the nuclear programs. He says there are plenty of other things to talk about. Do you think that that there could be a temporary (it would of course have to be temporary because we know Psalm 83 is coming) peace that could be crafted through these diplomatic efforts?

Dr. Reagan: I don't think so. It could happen, but I don't think that is a high probability, because I think that Israel is going to have to attack Iran. Any other nation in the world would do that. If any nation in the world, like Canada for instance, was saying as soon as they had developed an atomic weapon they we're going to drop it on Washington, D.C., would we sit there and twiddle out thumbs and talk about it? I don't think so! I think we would take immediate action to make sure that did not happen.
The whole world is so hypocritical when it comes to Israel. The world will condemn Israel for doing exactly what every other nation in the world would do. If we had somebody shooting rockets across the Rio Grande River into Texas, how long do you think we would put up with that before we invaded Mexico and put an end to it? And, yet, we say to Israel, "Oh, you must not go into Lebanon and you must not go into Gaza. You must be patient and you must negotiate." It is absolute nonsense!

Bill Salus: I couldn't agree more, David. I also don't think they will grab for the temporary peace. I think that it has gotten too far and too serious for that now.

Dr. Reagan: One thing, Bill, that I don't understand is how people can ignore your thesis. I mean, take a person like Joel Rosenberg who is an outstanding thinker about the Middle East, and yet I was at a conference recently where he was asked specifically about Psalm 83 and he just dismissed it and said he didn't think it was all that important. He went on to say that he felt like Israel was relatively living at peace. How can people ignore the fact that Israel is not living in peace and not living in un-walled cities? I just don't see how they can ignore this.

Bill Salus: Well, that is why I am grateful that the Lord used me to bring this contribution into the arena. So many, many people are reading the book now and starting to do their own studies and form their own thesis about it. The war does seem extremely near and people need to be paying attention to it.

Dr. Reagan: How else do you explain the absence from the Ezekiel 38-39 nations of any Muslim allies that have a common border with Israel? You think they are just going to sit there and be calm and do nothing at all while Russia invades with all these other Muslim nations? It doesn't make any sense!

Bill Salus: You are right. It's not like Russia is not getting into the mix even with these inner circle of nations. They recently received a huge contract for exporting military technologies to Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Reagan: That's right.

Bill Salus: Saudi Arabia would be under the banner of the Ishmaelites in Psalm 83:6-8. What is also interesting to me is that these contracts that Russia is developing with Saudi Arabia are also recently being made with Syria. When Israel defeats those nations, that is going to upset Russia quite a bit because who knows where they will be in the midst of collecting monies from those contracts. Instead, Israel is likely going to confiscate those weapons.

Dr. Reagan: The other thing that is very interesting, too, is the way in which Egypt and Saudi Arabia and nations like that — moderate Muslim nations to some extent that at least don't have the kind of government like Iran does — are evidently scared to death of Iran at this point and are giving tacit approval to Israel to launch an attack by giving them fly over rights and letting them send nuclear subs through the Suez Canal. It is pretty obvious that they are saying loud and clear to Iran that they are going to cooperate with the Israelis in this attack because they are as scared of Iran as the Israelis are.
Bill Salus: Right! It goes back to the defeat of Saddam Hussein. Iran has for a long time had their eye on the Islamic crescent being under their dominion.

Dr. Reagan: That's right.

Bill Salus: The Fertile Crescent Arab nations are concerned that Iran's nuclear aspirations are more far reaching then just taking out Israel and wiping it off the map.
Should the Church still be here during Psalm 83's fulfillment, we would become an excellent witnessing tool to the world.