Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

The War on Christianity

Thursday, March 30, 2017 20:05
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

The War on Christianity,

Part 1

This post is adapted from Chapter 17 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.

Producing a One-World Religion: A Three-Step Plan

Karl Marx denounced religion as the “the opiate of the people,” and communist states tried extensively to abolish it. However, the Illuminist oligarchs who run most of our world know that man has a spiritual nature which cannot be fully eradicated. They therefore deemed it more practical to infiltrate and control religion than try and destroy it outright.

The basic mechanism underlying the satanic New World Order: consolidation. In the context of nations, this has meant ending national sovereignty – bringing Europe from the Common Market to the European Union, and North America from NAFTA to the proposed North American Union, eventually merging these regional structures into a one-world government. In the world of “big business,” a parallel consolidation process is taking place, as multinational corporations merge with each other and buy up small competitors.

The Illuminati also want consolidation of religions. The technical word for this is ecumenism, which comes from the Greek word “oikoumene” meaning “world” and “earth.” All avenues of life must be consolidated for the Antichrist to rule, and religion is no exception. British globalist historian Arnold Toynbee stated: “I believe that, in the field of religion, sectarianism is going to be subordinated to ecumenicalism, that in the field of politics, nationalism is going to be subordinated to world government . . . .”1

Of the many tasks to which the Rockefellers committed their vast fortune, one was ecumenical religion, which apparently required three steps:

(1) Degrade Christianity as a unique faith; this necessitated providing loans to major churches in exchange for doctrinal changes, and funding seminaries that would produce “Modernist” ministers who would undermine the faith. The subsequent weakening of Christianity would ultimately ripen it for consolidation with other religions.

(2) Specific organizations (such as the National Council of Churches) would be formed as the framework by which various denominations – and ultimately various religions – could be brought together under the ecumenical banner.

(3) To give churches motive for unification, social causes, acceptable within the morals of most denominations and religions, would be promoted as rallying points for “united action.”


Degrading Christianity

The Illuminati understood that Christianity would be difficult to incorporate into a world ecumenical movement, because Christianity has always been unique among religions – offering salvation not by good deeds, but faith in Jesus Christ through His finished work on the cross. An Illuminati goal, then, was to attack the authority and historicity of the Bible.

To this end, the Rockefellers heavily funded seminaries that would question the Gospel, the most notorious probably being Union Theological Seminary in New York City. It was Presbyterian theologian Charles Briggs – both a graduate and a professor of Union Theological – who, in the late 19th century, prominently introduced into America “Higher Criticism,” claiming the Bible was full of errors, and denying that many of its books were actually written by the attributed authors.

Briggs Briggs headline

Above: Charles Augustus Briggs

In 1922, Baptist pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick, another graduate of Union Theological Seminary, delivered a controversial sermon called “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” at the First Presbyterian Church of New York. In it, he cast doubts on: the Bible being God’s Word; the Virgin Birth; the Second Coming of Christ; and even Christ’s death on the cross serving as atonement for sins. And he denounced Fundamentalists – who held these beliefs – as “intolerant.”

Harry Emerson Fosdick Fosdick Time Magazine Raymond_B._Fosdick
Harry Emerson Fosdick, who got MSM stamp of approval; Raymond Fosdick

The sermon sparked outrage. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church demanded an investigation of Fosdick, who was forced to resign his pastorship. However, he was then immediately hired as pastor of Riverside Church – the church attended and built by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. at a cost of $4 million. Rockefeller paid for 130,000 copies of Fosdick’s notorious sermon to be printed and distributed to Protestant ministers. Significantly, Fosdick’s brother Raymond was president of the Rockefeller Foundation for 12 years. The views expressed by theologians like Briggs and Fosdick were called “Modernism,” which also included denying Christ’s divinity, miracles and resurrection. In short, Modernism was not merely a quibbling over some gray area in a passage of scripture; it was a complete repudiation of the faith’s major tenets. And with Rockefeller backing, it made its way into seminaries, Christian colleges and churches across America. Modernism did not simply “happen”; it was an orchestrated, financed agenda.

Rockefellers Riverside Church
John D. Rockefeller, Sr. with John D., Jr.; Riverside Church

Christians who opposed this movement were called “Fundamentalists” because they defended the fundamental doctrines the Modernists were assaulting.

Forming an Ecumenical Structure

In the Illuminati’s long view, once Modernism had sufficiently degraded Christianity into “just another religion,” it could be bonded with other faiths. But before achieving this last step, Christian denominations themselves had to be united.

The Federal Council of Churches (later called National Council of Churches) was founded in 1908. Heavily funded by the Rockefellers, it was to become the structural core of the drive to consolidate American Christianity. The man chosen to spearhead ecumenism was John Foster Dulles, an in-law of the Rockefellers. Dulles was the attorney who defended Harry Emerson Fosdick during his heresy investigation, and he served as chairman of the trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, where Emerson’s brother Raymond was president.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which formed the League of Nations – first step toward world government – John Foster Dulles was legal counsel to the United States delegation. A founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dulles contributed articles to the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs beginning with its very first issue in 1922. An inveterate globalist, he eventually helped write the preamble to the United Nations Charter (which makes no mention of God). Dulles also chaired the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where his choice for president of that institution was Alger Hiss, the notorious communist spy who was secretary-general at the UN’s founding conference in 1945.

Part of Dulles’s religious agenda was to persuade American churches to accept world government. In 1937, he wrote in the magazine Religion in Life: “Where then does the solution lie? A theoretical solution lies in the abolition of the entire concept of national sovereignty and the unification of the world into a single nation. All boundary barriers are thus automatically leveled . . . .”2

Federal Council of Churches Dulles brothers

John Foster Dulles with his brother Allen (left), who served as both president of the Council on Foreign Relations and director of the CIA.

John Foster Dulles was on the executive committee of the Federal (later National) Council of Churches. In 1942, he chaired a meeting of 30 religious denominations brought together by the Federal Council of Churches, and Time (March 16 of that year) reported they adopted a program calling for “a world government of delegated powers,” “strong and immediate limitations on national sovereignty,” “a universal system of money,” and various other globalist measures.

Since the Illuminati ambition was not merely to consolidate churches in America, but throughout the planet, in 1948 the World Council of Churches was formed. John Foster Dulles attended the founding conference in Amsterdam. The conference’s director of research was John C. Bennett – member of the Council on Foreign Relations and president of Union Theological Seminary. Also attending was Reinhold Niebuhr (CFR, Union Theological). Funding for the World Council of Churches came from the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations.

WCC 1948|
World Council of Churches founding conference, 1948

The Social Gospel: A Method for Implementing Ecumenism

Although the National and World Council of Churches provided structures for consolidation, the question remained of how to motivate churches to unite. Christian denominations often differ over various theological issues. But they generally agree on values (helping the poor and sick, for example). The strategy for unification, therefore, was to encourage them to collaborate where they did agree. This took the form of an action-oriented program known as “the Social Gospel.”

Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist minister trained at Rochester Theological Seminary – also funded by the Rockefellers – became a socialist and was known as “Father of the Social Gospel.” In 1893 – about the time Charles Augustus Briggs was initiating the U.S. Modernist movement – Rauschenbusch declared that “the only power that can make socialism succeed, if it is established, is religion.” He said that “Christianity is in its nature revolutionary,” denied that Christ died in substitutionary atonement for our sins, and said the Kingdom of God “is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven.”3

RauschenbuschRauschenbusch book
Walter Rauschenbusch 

Perhaps the most notorious “Social Gospel” pusher was Rockefeller-backed Reverend Harry F. Ward, who taught for 23 years at Union Theological Seminary. Ward was also founding chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – an ironic position, since the organization has been a dedicated opponent of religious displays on public property. Ward also chaired the American League against War & Fascism, which was founded by the Communist Party, USA. Manning Johnson, a former Communist Party official, told Congress in 1953 that Ward “has been the chief architect for communist infiltration and subversion in the religious field.”4 Union leader Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, called Ward “the most ardent pro-Bolshevik cleric in this country.”5 (Note the irony of a clergyman supporting communism, an ideology that denounces religion as “the opiate of the people” and has slaughtered millions of Christians.)

Harry F Ward In the Trenches
Harry F. Ward 

Ward’s Social Gospel was a push for ecumenism. He helped found, in 1908, the Methodist Federation for Social Service (now called the Methodist Federation for Social Action). Ward was its secretary for 33 years. In the Federation, the Gospel of Christ took a back seat to the Social Gospel, which called for Christians to fight for things like social justice, better labor conditions, and “world peace.” Not surprisingly, these were the same goals proclaimed by Marxists. Christians were thus to be united into a cheap volunteer work force for a socialist new world order.

Missionary work was not neglected. In 1930, at John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s request, and with his financial support, a group of Baptist laymen persuaded seven denominations to participate in the “Laymen’s Foreign Missions Inquiry.” Their report, Re-Thinking Missions: A Laymen’s Inquiry after One Hundred Years, recommended that missionaries de-emphasize Christian doctrine and seek to ally themselves with other religions in doing good works.

The denominations distanced themselves from the report. However, Pearl Buck, author and former missionary to China, praised it in The Christian Century, saying every Christian should read it. In articles published in Harper’s and Cosmopolitan, Buck rejected the doctrine of Original Sin, and said that belief in the divinity – and even historicity – of Christ was unessential to the faith. She criticized the typical missionary as “narrow, uncharitable, unappreciative, ignorant.”6 In place of evangelization, she recommended that missionaries help with agricultural, educational, medical and sanitary work (i.e., the Social Gospel). In short, Pearl Buck’s pronouncements fit perfectly with the Rockefellers’ scheme for a “modernized” ecumenical Christianity. It should not be overlooked that, subsequent to praising Rockefeller’s missionary inquiry, her novel The Good Earth was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature and was turned into an Oscar-nominated movie.

Rethinking Missions Pearl Buck
The “Re-thinking” report; Pearl Buck


Degrading Christianity

The process begun by Charles Briggs, introducing “Modernism” with its attack on every fundamental of Christianity and the Bible, continues today.

One prominent assault on the Bible’s authenticity has been the Jesus Seminar, begun in 1985 by the late Robert Funk, with backing from the Westar Institute, whose financial supporters are not publicized. Funk packed his seminar with liberal “scholars” – more than a dozen had studied at Union Theological Seminary, and about half came from three liberal Establishment schools: Harvard and Vanderbilt (both of whose divinity schools were heavily funded by the Rockefellers) and the openly ecumenical Claremont School of Theology.

The Jesus Seminar used a system of colored beads to vote on whether something was really said or done by Jesus. A red bead meant “definitely yes,” a pink bead “probably yes,” a grey bead “probably no,” and a black bead “definitely no.” In short, the Bible’s historical accuracy was to be determined by votes, based on personal opinions of people living two thousand years after the original eyewitnesses to the events.

The seminar concluded that over 80 percent of the sayings attributed to Jesus were not actually said by Him, and that only 2 percent were definitely accurate. Likewise, the seminar followed Modernist tradition by denying the miracles, divinity and resurrection of Jesus. Funk, who himself held these views, had handpicked his seminar’s participants; thus its outcome was no surprise. Nonetheless, the media touted the proceedings as a “scholarly” refutation of most of the New Testament.

Jesus Seminar

Additionally, a slew of “documentaries” aimed at casting doubts on the Bible have aired on TV. These typically spend most of their air time interviewing Modernist theologians rather than conservative ones. The documentaries have aired prominently on:

  • the History Channel (owned by A & E Television Networks, a joint venture of groups with CFR fingerprints: Disney-ABC Television Group, NBC International, and the Hearst Corporation);
  • the National Geographic Channel (owned by CFR member Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Cable Networks and National Geographic Television); and
  • the Discovery Channel (which, in 2005, hired as its managing editor Ted Koppel – former CFR member and good friend of CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger).

Perhaps the most ambitious strike at the Bible has been Dan Brown’s 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code. As of 2009, it had sold over 80 million copies, making it the best-selling English language novel of the 21st century. It was also made into a film, released in 2006, which grossed over $200 million.

Although The Da Vinci Code is cast in the mold of an historical mystery – much like the “Indiana Jones” movies – its punch line is an assault against Christian faith. It is rife with false assertions regarding the early church. Despite thorough refutation by church historians, many people, caught up in the hype, accepted The Da Vinci Code’s disinformation as fact. At the heart of its message: Jesus was not divine, was never resurrected, and married Mary Magdalene and had children by her.

Lo and behold, within months of the film’s release, the Discovery Channel aired a documentary claiming a tomb had been found containing the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This was not a chance sequence. Media events are being orchestrated to deceive the public.

Da Vinci Code Lost Tomb

The Ecumenical Structures Grow

The National Council of Churches (encompassing 37 Christian faith groups) and World Council of Churches (representing 345 churches, denominations and Christian fellowships) continue today. They have been reinforced by such organizations as Christians Uniting in Christ (established in 2002) and Christian Churches Together in the USA (formed in 2006).

Not to be missed is the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. Yes, the former British Prime Minister – a consummate insider who recently refused to speak at a world hunger conference because it could not meet his speaker’s fee of 330,000 pounds – has formed another ecumenical organization. Blair might be compared to John Foster Dulles, the globalist politician who helped form the World Council of Churches. On the foundation’s website, Blair stated:

I launched the Tony Blair Faith Foundation to promote respect, friendship and understanding between the major religious faiths . . . . I have always believed that faith is an essential part of the modern world. As globalisation pushes us ever closer it is vital it’s not used as a force for conflict and division. . . . Rather, faith is something that has much to give and to teach a world in which economic globalisation and political change is offering many opportunities but also presenting many dangers.7

Note Blair’s emphasis on globalization and his desire for unity among all faiths. Behind the fuzzy talk about “respect, friendship and understanding” is an aim for one-world religion – which the Antichrist will require to rule the globe. In fact, the Antichrist probably couldn’t have said it much better.

The New Social Gospel: Today’s Methods for Implementing Ecumenism

What is used to motivate today’s churches to unite? As before, it’s social action. Just as Marxist pastor Harry F. Ward headed the Methodist Federation for Social Action, the website for Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation originally had a section called “Social Action Projects.” Viewers were asked to sign a declaration which stated: “I commit to working together with people of all faiths to fight against disease and poverty.”

In short, it’s not about what you believe – social action should transcend your faith, so that it can be melded with all the others.

In America, the push for ecumenical social action has been spearheaded by Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. He is perhaps best known for his book The Purpose Driven Life, which by 2007 had sold over 30 million copies. Many churches were persuaded to join Warren’s “Purpose-Driven” movement because his book topped the New York Times bestseller list and he was featured on MSM shows such as Good Morning America. After all, didn’t this prove Warren was anointed by God? Somehow, where other evangelical spokesmen had failed, Warren had penetrated the anti-religious bias of America’s mainstream media. CNN even called him “America’s Pastor,” and Barack Obama invited him to give the invocation at his inauguration.

The true reasons for Warren’s bursting on the scene suggest something besides God’s anointing. Warren is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has distinct ties to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, whose empire includes the Wall Street Journal and England’s The Times. Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life was published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins, which has been owned by Murdoch’s News Corporation since 1989. Murdoch also controls Fox, which produces the viciously anti-Christian TV show Family Guy; and he owns pornographic channels in Europe. Yet Rick Warren was quoted in The New Yorker as saying that he is Rupert Murdoch’s pastor.8 If so, Christians have been asking, why does he not influence Murdoch away from his anti-faith, anti-family programming?

Warren Time Murdoch

Once one realizes that Rick Warren is intimately connected to a man who is arguably the world’s most powerful media magnate, and that both have been CFR members, Warren’s rising star becomes more fathomable.

While many Christians have criticized Warren for his theology and for his use of questionable Bible translations, his most disturbing attribute may be ecumenism. In 2008, helped by a $2 million donation from Murdoch, Warren launched the PEACE Coalition. Time magazine reported the initiative with the headline “Rick Warren Goes Global.”9 The organization’s website states that “The plan is a massive effort to mobilize 1 billion Christians to attack the five global, evil giants of our day – spiritual emptiness, self-centered leadership, extreme poverty, pandemic disease and illiteracy/education.” Once again, behind idealist language lies a plan for an ecumenical world. Would it be healthy for Rick Warren to preside over an empire of a billion Christians?

Warren’s PEACE coalition was an obvious complement to the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. Not surprisingly, Warren was on the Religious Advisory Council of Blair’s foundation. On the latter’s website, Warren stated: “The vision and values of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation are desperately needed when every major issue in our world is influenced for good or harm by faith factors.”10

As America’s point man for ecumenical social action, Rick Warren might be called the Harry F. Ward of today. Unlike Ward, Rick Warren does not praise communism – which, as an ideology, is considered passé. But like Ward, his coalition plan would forge churches into a volunteer (i.e., unpaid) army in the service of the globalist, socialist new world order.

Adding yet more fuel to the ecumenical fire is the 2009 Manhattan Declaration. Though intended to appeal to conservative Christians, with its anti-abortion, traditional-marriage, religious-freedom proclamation, it is highly ecumenical. The declaration states: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered together in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration . . . .” One of the three men on the declaration’s drafting committee was Robert George – a CFR member who serves the UN on UNESCO’S World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. A signer of the Declaration is Richard Land, then President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission – and a CFR member. A major ecumenist, Land also signed the 1994 document Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and is a member of the Leadership Group on U.S.–Muslim Engagement – a role he shares with several other CFR members, such as Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

An Analogue in Catholicism

The Rockefellers, as “Baptists,” made non-Catholic churches their zone of influence. However, parallels exist in Catholicism, on whom pressures tend to emanate more from European than American sources.

The Catholic Church has had its own experience with attempts to degrade faith through Modernism: pressures to reject the authority of Scripture, to compromise with Darwinism (as prominently advocated by the priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin), to accept abortion, and to ordain women and homosexuals as priests.

Like the non-Catholic church, the Catholic Church has recently seen major ecumenical developments, such as: the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by Lutheran and Catholic representatives (1999); dialogue with Eastern Orthodox churches, resulting in the Common Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I (2006); an unprecedented Catholic-Muslim summit at the Vatican (2008); and visits of Pope Benedict XVI to Israel and to the Great Synagogue of Rome (2009). Pope Francis is also prioritizing ecumenism, and has issued a 192-page encyclical on climate change, a cause which globalists view as a major pretext for world government.

And Catholicism has experienced its own “social action” movement – comparable to the tactics of Harry F. Ward – as in the doctrine of liberation theology, which was seen especially in Latin America beginning in the 1950s and 60s, where the Gospel took a back seat to fighting poverty and social injustice via Marxist precepts.

Unity and Discernment

Unity is a complex matter. The Apostle Paul did say to be “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3) and “to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus” (Romans 15:5).

Furthermore, we know that a satanic strategy is to “divide and conquer.” At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin famously warned his peers that “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

So has Satan’s goal been to unite the church or divide it? It appears that he has employed both strategies, but that essentially division was the first phase and ecumenism the second.

Intelligence analysts have cogently argued that:

  • The Illuminati were behind nearly every major split in the Christian church – beginning with the Catholic-Orthodox division of 1054.
  • Illuminati infiltrators in the Catholic Church spawned the Inquisition to deliberately alienate Christians from their faith.
  • This infiltration was also responsible for the 16th-century Papal corruptions – such as selling indulgences and squandering the church budget – that resulted in the Protestant split. Martin Luther, while himself a sincere reformer, was encouraged by Illuminati seeking church division.
  • The Protestant church was in turn infiltrated to split it into smaller and smaller denominations, ostensibly over doctrinal issues – some less essential to the Gospel than others. Unquestionably, many of those who argued for division were sincere in their beliefs, and truths can probably be found on both sides of most doctrinal rifts. But Satan held the long view: divide to conquer.

As part of its strategy to fragmentize Christianity, the cartel was also reportedly behind the formation of major cults – including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism. (I mention this while having great respect for the morality and sincerity of many of the followers of these two sects.) Jehovah’s Witnesses deny Christ’s divinity, His physical resurrection, and the existence of hell. Mormons believe in multiple gods, that Jesus is a created being – Lucifer’s brother – and treat the Book of Mormon as holy scripture, equal or even senior to the Bible.

Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Witnesses, and Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, were both Freemasons. Early issues of The Watchtower – the Witnesses’ official publication – bore the Freemasonic cross on their covers.

Masonic cross Watchtower
Compare the cross in this Masonic meeting hall to the one on the Watchtower.

Russell is buried next to the Greater Pittsburgh Masonic Center. A pyramid, displaying a Masonic cross, marks his grave:

Russell burial site

(Thanks to the website which features these images.)

Masonic symbols also adorn Mormon temples. An all-seeing eye crowns the entrance to the Salt Lake City temple:

Masonic eye

According to some researchers such as David Icke, initial funding for both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons originated with Rothschild banks. These sects did not “just happen,” but were created to confuse and splinter the Christian church.

From the perspective of the twenty-first century, it appears that the strategy of division has now essentially completed its season. With the church successfully fragmented, and disoriented by Modernism, it appears nearly ripe for the Illuminati’s final phase: ecumenism – the uniting of all Christian denominations, in turn to be merged with other faiths, to create a one-world religion over whom Antichrist can rule.

However, this does not mean churches should never stand together. For example, if several local pastors, from different denominations, wish to engage in a joint protest against abortion, nothing is inherently wrong with this. Discernment is called for. Is unity for the purpose of serving God – or of serving Satan’s ecumenical goal? Examine the hearts and motives of those calling for unity. And follow the money: efforts tied to Rockefeller-Murdoch-Warren-Blair initiatives should be absolutely avoided.

Part 2 of this post will address an equally pernicious and even more controversial step in the war on Christianity: infiltration and subversion of the Fundamentalist/evangelical churches themselves, especially through the introduction of Christian Zionism.


  1. “One World Is Coming Says Arnold Toynbee,” The Milwaukee Journal, May 2, 1964, 10.
  1. John Foster Dulles, “The Problem of Peace in a Dynamic World,” Religion in Life, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring 1937): 197, as quoted in Alan Stang, The Actor: The True Story of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State 1953 to 1959 (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1968), 98.
  1. “Walter Rauschenbush,” Wikipedia,
  1. Ronald J. Lawrence, The Marxist Goliath Among Us: The David We Need to Be (Xulon Press, 2010), 319.
  1. LeRoy F. Smith and E. B. Johns, Pastors, Politicians, Pacifists (Chicago: The Constructive Educational Publishing Co., 1927), 95, quoted in Alan Stang, The Actor: The True Story of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State 1953 to 1959 (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1968), 48-49.
  1. “Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,” Wikipedia,
  1. At the time of publication of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior (2013), this quote appeared in “Message from Tony Blair” at The quote has since been removed.
  1. Malcolm Gladwell, “The Cellular Church,” The New Yorker, September 12, 2005,
  1. David Van Biema, “Rick Warren Goes Global,” Time, May 27, 2008,,8599,1809833,00.html.
  1. Warren is no longer listed on Blair’s site, but the quote can still be found abundantly on the Internet.


Posted in Bible, Christianity, Current events, History, Religion and tagged Ecumenism, John Foster Dulles, Modernism, National Council of Churches, Rockefellers, Social Gospel on November 7, 2015.



The War on Christianity,

Part II: The Abomination and Blasphemy of

Christian Zionism

Christian Zionism calf
(Picture credit unknown)

Foreword: This post is long. It is long because Christian Zionism is based on a multitude of lies. The bigger the onion, the more the layers we are forced to peel off. I should also note that my paternal ancestors were Russian Jews (see photo below, taken about 1900). My great-grandfather’s name was Abraham Perlovsky. People who criticize Zionism are frequently accused of being motivated by anti-Semitism. As I’m half-Jewish myself, let me be clear that no such feelings impel me. I am unequivocally opposed to racism in any form.

Perloff family

Part 1 of this series explored how the Rockefellers were instrumental in orchestrating the Modernist movement, assaulting every fundamental doctrine of Christianity, for the long-range ecumenical purpose of absorbing it into a one-world religion. The Fundamentalist movement rejected Modernism, intending to stand by the faith’s original tenets.

Unfortunately, as we will now see, Fundamentalism was itself infiltrated and hijacked, consistent with the Rothschild strategy of funding both sides of wars. Fundamentalist churches were targeted to enlist their support for the Zionist agenda. The two principal agents in this scheme were John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and Cyrus Scofield (1843-1921). What Darby planted, Scofield watered and disseminated. The theology they developed served the agenda by making several claims:

• God wanted the Jews to return to, and take over, Palestine.
• God has two plans of salvation—one through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the other a guarantee reserved for Jews, his “Chosen People.”
• Christians should not involve themselves in politics, education, business or the arts, as these are “worldly” matters that should be left in the hands of “worldly” people. (The consequences of this doctrine are very visible in American culture today.)
• God deals with mankind differently during different historical time frames or “dispensations,” of which there are seven. The current one, “Grace” under Jesus Christ, is merely the sixth of the seven dispensations.
• The Christian Church is doomed to inevitable failure, which will bring the Dispensation of Grace to a close.
• The end of this dispensational age will be marked by the Tribulation—worldwide persecution under the Antichrist for a period of seven years; however, Christians need not concern themselves with this, since Jesus will “Rapture” believers off the Earth and they won’t be around to experience it.
• Earth will then experience a Jewish era; Jewish ritualistic animal sacrifices will be reinstituted; Jesus will reign for a thousand years from Solomon’s rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

These doctrines, whose main outcome was “Christian Zionism,” might seem boring to atheists and agnostics, but they are nonetheless exceedingly relevant to the state of the world. They are espoused by celebrity-status theologians like Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, in the best-selling Left Behind book series, and are prevailing views in many conservative evangelical churches. Without these ideas being sweepingly disseminated, there might have been no Israeli state created in 1948, no 9/11, and no Middle East wars.

The Context

Before proceeding, I’m aware that some readers may be visiting this website for the first time, so I’ll take a moment to “begin at the beginning.” The United States, and much of the world itself, is run by an incalculably wealthy oligarchy known as, among other names, the Illuminati. The trappings of “democracy” are an illusion; the oligarchy operates behind the scenes, choosing presidents and prime ministers long before the public goes to the polls. It owns and controls the central banks, most of the ”Fortune 500” corporations, and the mainstream media (CNN, Fox, BBC, etc.), the latter being crucial to keeping the agenda, and the oligarchy itself, concealed from public awareness. It coordinates its global policies through international organizations such as the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, and an upper, exclusive level of Freemasonry. The cabal’s highest identifiable human center is the Rothschild banking dynasty. But the oligarchy is not only about materialistic matters such as money and power; like the universe itself, it possesses a spiritual dimension: its outlook is satanic, which largely accounts for Western culture’s rapid moral descent.

I cannot document and prove these claims in one paragraph, but I can in a book, which is why I wrote Truth Is a Lonely Warrior. The ultimate goal of the Illuminati is a world government. Regional blocs like the European Union and NAFTA (intended to become a North American Union) are stepping stones toward this end. The world government will be ruled by a dark figure whom the Bible calls the “beast” or “Antichrist.” The book of Revelation says he will have “authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.” The capital of this evil world government will be Jerusalem, a city revered by Christians, Muslims and Jews alike, to be centered in Greater Israel. It was for this purpose that:
• the Rothschilds committed their fortune to the Zionist movement, beginning no later than 1829;
• Theodor Herzl began hosting the World Zionist congresses in Basle, Switzerland in 1897;
• the British government was persuaded to issue the Balfour Declaration to Lord Walter Rothschild in 1917, promising the Zionists “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in exchange for the Zionists bringing America into World War I on Britain’s side.

However, Zionist seizure of Palestine could not have occurred without the consent and cooperation of the world’s Christian community. Given the centuries-old conflict between Jews and Christians, it was necessary to remold Christian theology to accommodate the Rothschild plan. Cyrus Scofield and his reference Bible came on the scene for this express purpose.

Darby Plants the Seeds

Before examining Scofield’s life, we should note a little about John Nelson Darby, the principle figure from whom Scofield borrowed his Biblical analysis. Darby was a Satanist, Freemason and agent of the Rothschild-owned British East India Company,1 the latter being the most powerful multinational corporation of its day and the supplier that turned millions of Chinese into opium addicts.

Darby became a leader of a Christian sect called the Plymouth Brethren (named for Plymouth, England, where its most popular gatherings were held). He is generally credited with originating the “Secret Rapture” doctrine and made several trips to America to spread his ideas.


Darby used many terms in common with occult Theosophists—he referred to Jesus as the coming one” (same term New Agers use for the Antichrist); referred to God as the “architect” (same phrase employed by Freemasons, meaning “God” for the uninitiated, “Lucifer” to true adepts); and many other occult phrases, as summarized in this article.

Darby even penned his own satanic version of the Bible. The Illuminati have always known they could not perform a wholesale transformation of the Bible, because it would be recognized as such and rejected. Therefore the approach through the centuries has been to whittle it away: a word here, a phrase there—the universal strategy of boiling the frog.

Darby slyly introduced satanic wording into the Biblical text. For example, in the King James rendering of John 6:69, Peter told Jesus: “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” Darby rendered this: “And we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God.” “Holy one of God” is a title used for Jesus only by demons in the King James. For a comprehensive review of Darby’s satanic mistranslations, see the article John Nelson Darby Version: Doctrinal Changes to the Holy Bible.

Scofield Spreads Darby Like a Virus

In 1897, Theodore Herzl began hosting the Rothschild-backed Zionist congresses in Switzerland, developing the plan for Zionist takeover of Palestine. Knowing this scheme would require Christian approval, in 1904 Herzl approached Pope Pius X, who very politely told him what he could do with his plan. After Catholic rejection, the Rothschilds knew Protestant support would be essential. But this could only be achieved by tampering with the Bible to make it appear God himself had ordained that Jews retake Palestine. Such a Bible would have to come from a non-Jew, someone with credentials as a theologian. Thus emerged Cyrus Scofield and his reference Bible.

Scofield 4

Scofield started out as a crooked Kansas lawyer and politician, working under the auspices of John J. Ingalls, a major figure in corrupt Kansas politics. In 1881, the Atchison Globe reported:

C. I. Schofield [sic], who was appointed United States District Attorney for Kansas in 1873, and who turned out worse than any other Kansas official, is now a Campbellite preacher in Missouri. His wife and two children live in Atchison. He contributes nothing to their support except good advice.2

That same year, the Topeka Daily Capital picked up the story:

Cyrus I. Schofield, formerly of Kansas, late lawyer, politician and shyster generally, has come to the surface again, and promises once more to gather around himself that halo of notoriety that has made him so prominent in the past. The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada. For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money. Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months.3

However, court cases against Scofield were inexplicably dropped. As Joseph M. Canfield, who is probably Scofield’s most thorough biographer, notes: “The very sudden dropping of the criminal charges without proper adjudication suggests that Scofield’s career was in the hands of someone who had clout . . .”4

Scofield book

According to Scofield, his conversion to Christ occurred in 1879 in his “St. Louis law office.” However, he was not a member of Missouri’s bar, and no record exists of his practicing law in that state5—in fact, he was habitually on the run from the law.

Scofield began immersing himself in Darby’s teachings. He was mentored by Rev. James H. Brookes, whose very pulpit Darby had preached from.6 He made rapid ecclesiastical progress: by 1881 he was already a pastor in St. Louis, despite having no seminary training or other formal religious education.

In 1882, Scofield moved to Dallas and began an extended term as pastor of the First Congregational Church. Possibly this move was necessitated because his criminal past and familial irresponsibility were too well-known in the Kansas-Missouri region. As Rev. John S. Torell writes:

There were a number of wealthy and political power brokers in the membership of the First Congregational Church in Dallas. . . I do know that most churches in the United States are heavily infested with Freemasons. George Bannerman Dealey was a member of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the later part of his life. But he was also heavily involved in the occult, majoring in the Scottish Rite of Masonry with a 33rd degree and active as a Shriner, and was also a member of the Red Cross of Constantine. Most likely he had a hand in getting Cyrus into Masonic circles and particularly the Lotos Club in New York.7

Post-Conversion Issues

I am well aware that a person redeemed by Christ receives forgiveness of sins. I am also aware that those born again remain flawed individuals. Nevertheless, a high standard is held for pastors and elders of churches. In 1883, back in Kansas, Reverend Scofield’s wife Leontine was granted a divorce on the grounds that he had long since abandoned her and their two daughters, Abigail and Helene. The court ruled that Scofield “was not a fit person to have custody of the children.”8 Within six months of the divorce, Scofield married a new wife, Hettie.

Here is what the Bible says (1 Timothy 5:8): “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Scofield’s fans give him a free pass on this teaching, and not surprisingly, the Scofield Reference Bible makes no commentary on this verse.

Scofield’s defenders have argued that he had to divorce his wife because she was Catholic, but there is no Biblical grounds for that, and Scofield had deserted his family long before his professed conversion to Christ. However, if handlers were prepping him to fulfill the role of Zionist messenger to Protestant churches, it may well be that having a Catholic wife was deemed unsuitable.

Although Scofield became quite wealthy from his reference Bible, there is no evidence that he ever shared his riches with his abandoned family, or ever made restitution to people whom he had defrauded in Kansas and Missouri.

Truthfulness is another characteristic of genuine conversion. Here is how Scofield later described his military service in his Who’s Who in America entry:

Pvt. Co. H. 7th Tenn. Inf. May 1861 to close of Civil War; served in Army of Northern Va. under Gen. Lee, and awarded Cross of Honor for valor at battle of Antietam.9

Although Scofield was in the 7th Tennessee, this little entry is full of falsehoods. Scofield did not serve until “the close of the war.” He successfully begged out of the service in 1862 on grounds that he was a Northerner (he was Michigan-born). Also, Scofield was not decorated for valor at the battle of Antietam. Decorations were a frill the Confederate army could not afford. The Cross of Honor was a postwar decoration bestowed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, beginning in 1900, to any veteran who had provided “loyal, honorable service to the South.” As to having served “under Gen. Lee“—as Canfield notes, this was only in the same sense that “GIs in WW2 were under Eisenhower.”10

Perhaps more egregiously, by 1892 Cyrus began using the title “Dr. Scofield.” In the Scofield Reference Bible, he is “Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D.” (Doctor of Divinity). Conveying this landmark book as a scholar’s work was, of course, vital. However, there is no evidence Scofield ever received a doctorate. He never attended a college or seminary. Some suggest he could have received an honorary doctorate, but even this seems improbable: no institution has ever claimed credit for awarding it, Scofield made no allusion to the degree’s source in his Who’s Who biography, and since Dispensationalism was still viewed as highly unorthodox in 1892, no Christian institution would have likely bestowed such an honorary degree on Scofield.

Scofield Acquires Connections and Backers

Scofield met the distinguished theologian D. L. Moody during one of the latter’s evangelical campaigns. In 1886, Moody spoke in Dallas at Scofield’s invitation. A loose association continued between them, and in 1896 Scofield moved to New England, becoming pastor of Trinitarian Congregational, Moody’s home church. It is unclear if this occurred at Moody’s request, but association with Moody gave Scofield another credential that advanced his theologian resumé. In December 1899, Moody died at 62 from an undiagnosed illness.

In 1901, Scofield became a member of New York’s exclusive, invitation-only Lotos Club, a hangout for the financial and literary elite. Members have included Mark Twain, New York Times owner Arthur Hay Sulzberger, the atheist industrialist Andrew Carnegie, and sexual revolution advocate Margaret Mead. The Lotos Club was the sort a place a Fundamentalist preacher would ordinarily be ridiculed, yet somehow Scofield joined its rolls, even though the membership fee alone equaled one-fifth of his salary as a pastor.11 He remained a member until his death in 1921.

Scofield’s Lotos Club admission was approved by the ultra-Zionist attorney on the club’s Literary Committee, Samuel Untermyer. During his lifetime, Untermyer served as President of Keren Hayesod (Zionism’s chief financial angel), played a major role in drafting the Federal Reserve Act, was notorious for blackmailing Woodrow Wilson into appointing Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, and spearheaded the Jewish “declaration of war” boycott against Germany in 1933. Is it surprising that someone who might be called America’s leading Zionist would sponsor, at the Lotos Club, the theologian who produced the book which birthed “Christian Zionism”?

Samuel Untermyer

According to some sources (e.g., this article), Untermyer introduced Scofield to other leading Zionist financiers, such as Jacob Schiff and Bernard Baruch. This is credible, since Untermyer was close to these individuals, and Scofield’s finances took a turn for the better—he was suddenly able to afford extended trips to Europe in pursuit of producing his reference Bible.

Scofield and his wife Hettie traveled to England in 1904. According to Charles Trumbull’s official, laudatory biography of Scofield, he told a London acquaintance, Robert Scott, that he planned writing a reference Bible, but had no idea who might publish it. As luck would have it, Scott was able to introduce him to Henry Frowde, head of Oxford University Press. Quoting Trumbull:

Mr. Frowde was interested. He said he would consult Mr. Armstrong, then head of the American branch of the Oxford University Press. Mr. Armstrong was immediately enthusiastic at the suggestion that this new Reference Bible be brought out by the Oxford Press, and a preliminary understanding was quickly reached. Mr. Frowde assured Dr. Scofield that, if he finally decided to place the Bible with them, they could readily arrange a proper contract for the publication, in the interests of each party. And so the publishing question was settled . . . . 12

This story is as preposterous as Scofield’s Lotos Club admission. Major publishing houses don’t assure publication of manuscripts they haven’t even seen yet, unless the author has a proven track record of bestsellers (e.g., a Stephen King). Scofield had never written a book before, with the exception of Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (which was actually self-described as a “pamphlet”). He had no academic background qualifying him to edit a reference Bible.

Furthermore, Oxford University Press was owned by Zionist Jews and run by Fabian Socialists. It was primarily devoted to publishing literary and scholarly books, not Bibles, and like the Lotos Club, was a venue normally hostile to evangelical Fundamentalists.

It is rather apparent that Scofield’s Zionist connections, who got him into the Lotos Club and provided travel funding, also arranged for Oxford’s up-front publication agreement. Is it only coincidence that Scofield’s trip to England came on the heels of the Pope’s rejection (January 26, 1904) of Herzl’s plea to support a Zionist state in Palestine? With the Catholics out, rallying Protestants had become imperative. Oxford University Press, with offices on both sides of the Atlantic, could ensure Scofield’s work would receive the publicity and distribution the Zionists desired.

When the Scofields left England, they moved to Switzerland, where, according to Trumbull, Scofield did nine months of “solid work” on his reference Bible. But why Switzerland? Although John Calvin’s library was there, it was not a very logical place to research and write a reference Bible. It was, however, a center of Freemasonic and covert banking activities, and, perhaps most importantly, where Theodor Herzl hosted the early Zionist congresses.

Scofield came back to America in 1905. In 1906 he returned to England (and according to some sources, Switzerland again). In 1907, Scofield signed his publishing contract at the New York City office of Oxford University Press, and his reference Bible was first published in January 1909.

One immediately notices the volume was produced with astonishing swiftness. For most men, a reference Bible would have required a lifetime’s work. All the more remarkable: Scofield had no seminary or university training, and was not formally schooled in the languages that ancient Biblical texts are written in—Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

The Scofield Bible’s Strategy

Were, then, some of Scofield’s notes dictated to him by other parties? Even if not, reviewing the Bible makes it evident that Scofield borrowed heavily from John Nelson Darby, James Brookes, and other early proponents of Plymouth Brethren-Dispensational theology. Scofield would undoubtedly have preferred to use Darby’s satanic Bible version, or a Hort-Westcott modernized translation. But since the Zionists wanted to reach the largest cross-section of Fundamentalists, the King James was employed. As James Whisler notes:

Cyrus wanted to use the bible of his heroes, Westcott and Hort, for this project. However, he knew that due to the prominence of the KJV and the meager results of the Revised Version sales, that his dispensationalist teachings would never get anywhere if coupled with the R.V. So he used the KJV, but he subtly showed his contempt for it and his reverence for the Revised Version. This is how he did it. Everywhere that the King James disagreed with the Revised Version in an area of doctrinal importance, Cyrus inserted a footnote stating the KJV was incorrect and he always offered a “more correct” rendering which was almost always identical to the RV.13

Although his reference Bible was first published in 1909, that edition is virtually impossible to find today. It was the revised 1917 edition that was hyper-marketed, with limitless advertising, by Oxford University Press, selling millions of copies. Is it only coincidence that 1917 was also the year of the Balfour Declaration, by which Britain’s government pledged to Lord Walter Rothschild and the Zionist Federation to establish a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine? The simultaneous mass-marketing of Scofield’s Bible would make it appear that God himself had cosigned the Declaration, and “prophecy was being fulfilled” before believers’ eyes.

Why was Scofield’s work so effectual at changing people’s understanding of the Bible? Before this, most commentaries were published separately from the Scriptures themselves. Earlier expositors had regarded the Bible as the sacred Word of God, and that its text should not be adulterated by their unworthy human words. Scofield scorned this tradition, placing his comments right on the Bible’s pages. While this was done under the pretext of reader convenience, its subliminal impact was to give Scofield’s views status competing with the Scriptures. When a reader recalled a specific Bible verse, he was apt to remember Scofield’s words along with it, or even in its place.

Some were not fooled. As Philip Mauro commented in 1927:

It is a matter of grief to me that a book should exist wherein the corrupt words of mortal man are printed on the same page with the holy Words of the living God; this mixture of the precious and the vile being made an article of sale, entitled a “Bible,” and distinguished by a man’s name. . . . For the fact is that dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a “Bible” of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God.14

With Oxford’s intense marketing, people who simply wanted a Bible often found themselves holding a Scofield Bible, and thus became unwitting recipients of “Scofieldism.” To help ensure the Bible sold well, Oxford produced it in beautifully printed cloth and leather editions. To the unsuspecting, this appeared “God-honoring.”

How Scofield Twisted the Bible to Accommodate Zionism

I know some will argue that Scofield’s notes include many theologically sound remarks. Of course they do, because lies are far more effective when mingled with truths. The Bible warns us that “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough” (Galatians 5:9) and to “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!” (Matthew 16:6). Scofield’s foremost mission was to harmonize his Bible with Zionism. Central to this was distorting the promises God had made to Abraham (the ancestor of both the ancient Hebrews and Arabs) in Genesis 12:1-3:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Although the word “thee” is singular in the Hebrew,15 Scofield pulled a fast one, made it plural, and applied the blessing to modern Jews. He wrote in his notes:

“And curse him that curseth thee.” Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew—well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.16

The Scofield Reference Bible was copyrighted by Oxford University Press, not Scofield. This gave the publishing house license to change his words in subsequent printings. Oxford issued a revised edition in 1967 (coinciding with the Six Day War and Israel’s seizure of Jerusalem). That version put Scofield’s Zionism on steroids, adding, for example, this phrase to the above words: “For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgement.” The Bible, of course, never refers to “the sin of anti-Semitism.”

In Genesis 15:18, God described the land He was giving Abraham and his seed:

In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.

At Herzl’s Zionist congresses, plans were made to claim all land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Greater Israel

This demarks “Greater Israel”; the Euphrates and Nile rivers are the two blue stripes displayed on the Israeli flag. They enclose a star traditionally used in Satanism, with six points, six triangles, and a hexagon (six-sided) in the middle—666.Flag_of_Israel.svg (1)

To convince Christians that Zionists remained entitled to this land, Scofield made God’s promise “unconditional.” He wrote:

For Abraham and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing.17

But as any Bible student knows—or should know—God’s promises to the Hebrews were always conditional upon their faith. When Moses brought the Hebrews out of Egypt, God did not even permit them to enter the land due to lack of faith. Instead, they were compelled to first wander in the wilderness for forty years. Do you think today’s “Israelites” are more faithful to God than those of Moses’ days?

Tel Aviv Gay Pride
Tel Aviv’s 2016 Gay Pride Parade. Tel Aviv has been voted the world’s number one gay city. Look like Biblical holiness?

Anyone who believes God’s promises to Israel were “unconditional” should read Deuteronomy 28, which clearly enumerates blessings for obedience, counterbalanced by curses for disobedience. What did John the Baptist think about claims of “unconditional” heritage? He told the Pharisees: “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9). Jesus said: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43)

Scofield also made it appear that the Bible prophesied a future return of the Jews to Palestine, in order to give the Balfour Declaration, and Israel’s eventual statehood, the illusion of “fulfilled prophecies.” His notes proclaimed:

The gift of the land is modified by prophecies of three dispossessions and restorations . . . . Two dispossessions and restorations have been accomplished. Israel is now in the third dispersion, from which she will be restored at the return of the Lord as King under the Davidic Covenant.18

Scofield’s claim of three restorations is unscriptural. The Bible prophesies only two restorations: the Hebrews’ original journey from Egypt to the Promised Land under Moses; and the return from the exile in Babylon described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. To support his claim, Scofield used verses referring to the Ezra-Nehemiah return, or to the coming of Christ, but nowhere does the Bible forecast a third return of the Jews to Palestine, unless ones uses (as Scofield did) imaginative leaps of logic.

A cardinal rule of Scofield Dispensationalism: claim that if any Biblical prophecy was not fulfilled in the past, it still awaits future fulfillment. Of God’s promise to give Abraham’s seed the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, Scofield wrote: “It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land.”19

“Important,” Scofield? Important to whom? Only to your Zionist masters. Although it is claimed that the conquests described in the book of Joshua did not give the Hebrews the whole land, and thus left God’s promise to Abraham “unfulfilled” until the future, a careful reading of the Bible disproves this. Joshua 21:43-45 declares:

And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

Kings 4:21 testifies that the Israelites ruled the entire area Herzl envisioned as “Greater Israel”:

And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon’s subjects all his life.

Thus the Bible itself refutes Scofield’s claim that the promise was never fulfilled, allegedly justifying the modern Zionist takeover of Palestine.

Scofield’s Legacy: The Damage that Has Been Done

Scofield’s Bible birthed “Christian Zionism,” and with it, untold sorrows over the past century:

• Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. In the 1948 Nakba, the Zionists murderously drove 750,000 Palestinians from their homes at gunpoint. Quoting If Americans Knew:

Zionist forces committed 33 massacres and destroyed 531 Palestinian towns. Author Norman Finkelstein [himself Jewish} states: “According to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War… acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’…Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’”20

Deir Yassin
Victims of 1948 Deir Yassin Massacre

The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians has continued to this day.


Israeli settlers attack Palestinian
Israeli settlers abuse a Palestinian 

For those Christians who think the book of Joshua somehow still justifies this, I wish to point out that the Canaanites whom Joshua and the Hebrews fought against were giants; satanically transhumanized beings and worshippers of Satan. (See my article “Making Sense of the Supernatural.”) Today’s Palestinians do not equate to the ancient Canaanites, and contrary to what “Christian Zionists” typically believe, many Palestinians are Christians.

Palestinian Christians

Israel destroys a Gaza town, 2014:

Gaza child

Israelis celebrate their bombs:


Christian Zionists have bought into the myth that Israel is only “defending its right to exist” and that Palestinians are “terrorists.” The Israelis have over 4,000 tanks and over 400 combat aircraft, thanks to a steady flow of about $3 billion annually from American taxpayers. The unarmed Palestinians have not one tank or plane; they fight their illegal occupiers primarily with stones.

Tank versus children

George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 on the pretext that it was avoiding UN inspections of weapons of mass destruction (which, it turned out, didn’t even exist). Israel, on the other hand, has hundreds of nuclear weapons which it refuses to let the UN inspect; the United States grants it a free pass, and has even given Israel the hydrogen bomb.

• False-flag Terrorism and War for the Rest of the World. Contrary to the Zionist media’s spin, Israel has been the world’s number-one sponsor of terrorism, implemented “by way of deception”—the motto of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service. This has included, for example, the 1946 King David Hotel bombing, the 1954 Lavon Affair, the vicious 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, the 1986 “Trojan” deception that led Reagan to bomb Libya (scroll down a little if clicking link), and of course, the mother of them all, 9/11, covered with Zionist-Israeli fingerprints. 9/11 led to the countless and unnecessary Middle East wars which were already foreknown in 2001. Those wars in turn produced the refugee crisis ravaging Europe today.

• Provoking Hostility of Muslims toward Christianity. Christian Aid is a leading Christian charity and missionary organization, founded in 1945. Here is an informative 2003 quote from Bob Finley, Christian Aid’s founder and CEO:

Christian support for the Zionist movement began in England a century ago when a few Bible teachers began to interpret certain Old Testament prophecies regarding the ancient Hebrews as being applicable to the present day Jewish people. Apparently those teachers did not know that (according to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia) the Ashkenazi, or Yiddish, majority of Jewish people originally came from the empire of Khazaria in Southern Russia and are not biologically related to Abraham. So when a few Ashkenazi Zionists began trying to take over parts of Palestine through acts of terrorism about 70 years ago, some Christians started saying it signified the fulfillment of some obscure Old Testament prophecies.

Christians today fail to realize how such statements have had a destructive effect on our fellow believers in many parts of the world, so Christian Aid has begun to call attention to these facts. Since 1940 the Zionists have killed, driven out or displaced over two million of the original residents of Palestine. Their lands, houses and businesses have all been stolen, and most of their personal property as well. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled to refugee camps in surrounding countries over a 20-year period. Yet all the while, unbelievably, some Christians in America were cheering for the Zionists, and proclaiming their atrocities as being blessed of God. . . . Our thoughtless expressions of approval have been destructive in three ways.

  1. What we have done to our fellow Christians in Islamic Lands.

When Americans speak favorably about Zionist aggression in Palestine, we bring needless persecution on multiplied thousands of our fellow believers now living in Islamic countries. Christian citizens of those countries are suspected of being in agreement with what the Americans are saying, though not one in a thousand of them are. When Muslims hear of Baptists in America praising Zionist atrocities, what are they to think of the Baptist churches in their countries? Or the Pentecostals? Or Presbyterians? How can we expect them not to retaliate against those who favor killing their fellow Muslims?

  1. What we have done to missionary work among the Muslims.

Fifty years ago millions of Muslims were open to the gospel. There was a great missionary opportunity for reaching them for Christ. Muslims make up the largest segment of unreached peoples on earth, and they were very open until American Christians began to praise Zionist conquests in Palestine. Since most of the violence has been against Muslims, it is to be expected that Muslims in other countries would be sympathetic toward the victims and resentful toward the Christians who support Zionist expansion. This political development has served to cut off millions of Muslims from their previous receptivity to the gospel. . . . Our missionary opportunity among them has been ruined.

  1. What Zionism has done to our churches. 

Until 50 years ago most Christians accepted events recorded in the book of Joshua as something special for that particular time. We believed that the coming of the Saviour brought a New Covenant under which we no longer resort to violence to advance the kingdom of God. But when the Zionist movement began in Palestine around 1920, some Christians started to disregard New Testament principles. We would say it’s wrong for us to kill our neighbor and steal his property, but if Jewish people did it in Palestine, then it was O.K. First it was thousands, then tens of thousands, and eventually hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were driven from their homes. All of their property was stolen by the Zionists. Forty percent of the victims were professing Christians, many of whom were born again believers. Yet, to our everlasting shame, many Christians in America have stood on the sidelines and cheered for the murderers. It’s all O.K., we say, because Zionism is a fulfillment of prophecy. It is hard to imagine how any Bible believer with reasonable intelligence could endorse such things, particularly when so many thousands of conscientious Jews the world over have objected strenuously to Zionist aggression in Palestine.

Some of our faithful friends in Christ have told us that if we dare to say anything about the tragedies that have resulted from Christians endorsing Zionist atrocities we may lose some financial support as a result. That doesn’t bother me. My Bible says, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

Faithfully yours in Him,
Bob Finley
Chairman and CEO21

I do wish to point out: the great majority of Christian Zionists have endorsed Zionism without conscious knowledge of the atrocities in Palestine, which the U.S. media has suppressed. Most American evangelicals and dispensationalists are good-hearted people, who have unfortunately been led astray about Israel.

Why So Many Christians Buy the Nonsense

Besides Scofield’s distortion of the Abrahamic covenant to mean an “unconditional” real-estate promise to the Jews, and his invention of a third prophesied homecoming, the following reasons stand out:

• The “chosen people” myth. In keeping with Zionist preferences, Scofield ignored the New Testament’s clear explanation: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29). Scofield instead reverted the promise to an Old Testament context, a misinterpreted one at that.

Moreover, we now know that most people identifying as Jews are probably (as Finley noted above) not descendants of Abraham, but of the Khazars, a Turkic people who made Judaism their state religion in the eighth century AD. Jewish author Arthur Koestler pioneered historical evidence for this in his 1976 book The Thirteenth Tribe, research since affirmed by DNA evidence. The significance? If most “Jewish” occupiers of Palestine aren’t Abraham’s descendants, then they are not his seed, and thus not entitled to the land, even under the terms of Scofield’s twisted theology.

• The “Judeo-Christian” myth. Most evangelical Christians harbor the illusion that religious Jews today are adherents of the Old Testament. They believe they as Christians live in “Judeo-Christian” harmony with Jews who share the same essential values.

Of course, one cannot stereotype Jews, many of whom (like my late father) are non-religious, have no interest in Zionism, and assimilate into other cultures. However, when referring to organized Judaism, it is important to understand that religious Jews follow the Talmud, which rabbis consider senior to the Tanakh (Old Testament of the Christian Bible). Jesus consistently directed his most severe censures against the Pharisees, the teachers of the oral law, which they used to nullify the laws of God. After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, dispersed Jews continued teaching the oral law, eventually written down as the Talmud. Over the centuries it evolved, becoming many times more evil than in Jesus’s day.

The Talmud decrees that:

—Jesus is in hell, being boiled in feces; Gittin 57a.22
—Jesus’s mother Mary was a whore; Babylonian Talmud (BT), Sanhedrin 106a.23
—Gentiles are donkeys; BT Berakoth 58a.24
—All gentile children are animals; Yebamoth 98a.25
—If a gentile hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed; BT Sanhedrin 58b.26
—Gentiles who study the Law deserve death; BT Sanhedrin 59a.27
—A Jew may lie to a gentile; Tractate Baba Kamma 113a.28
—A Jew need not pay a gentile wages owed for work; BT Sanhedrin 57A.29
—It is permissible to cheat a gentile in court; BT Baba Kamma.30
—If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile, it does not have to be returned; BT Baba Kamma 113b.31
—When the Messiah comes, he will destroy the Christians; BT Sanhedrin 99a.32

It is not just ancient texts that disdain non-Jews, but modern rabbis as well.

—Rabbi Kook the Elder, first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of the British Mandatory Palestine, said: “The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”33

—Israeli Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said in 1994: “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”34

—In his 2003 book Jewish Superiority and the Question of Exile, Rabbi Saadya Grama of Beth Medrash Govoha wrote: “The Jew by his source and his very essence is entirely good. The goy, by his source and in his very essence, is completely evil. This is not simply a matter of religious distinction, but rather of two completely different species.”35

—Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said in a 2010 sermon:

Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. . . . With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.36

Talmudic Judaism is inherently racist, not rooted in Biblical values. The behavior of Jews, not some sort of universal “anti-Semitism,” caused them to be expelled from more than 100 countries over the past two millennia. Martin Luther, well aware of their views and activities, denounced them.

Judaism regards non-Jews as animals. This is why Israel’s heavily-armed IDF soldiers regularly abuse Palestinians as though they were not humans. A booklet, written by the IDF’s chief rabbi and published by its Central Regional Command, indoctrinated soldiers with Talmudic outlook in proclaiming:

When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah [Jewish law] they may and even should be killed.37

Beating Palestinians

The IDF’s new chief rabbi, Eyal Karim, has even said IDF soldiers may rape Arab women to boost their morale.

Judaism regards Christians with contempt, and only tolerates them for the time being because they represent a powerful pro-Israel voting bloc. The Jerusalem Post observed in 1983:

The real Zionists in the U.S. are not the American Jews but the Christian evangelicals since these Christians feel that we are coming closer to a critical period in history and they want the Jews to fulfill prophecies and thus hasten the Second Coming of the Messiah. The evangelicals affect 20 million people a day in America. They are a great asset and must be used as such.38 [emphasis added]

Many Christians are duped into the illusion of “Judeo-Christianity” because Israel permits American church groups to visit ancient holy sites in Israel. But as Jack Bernstein, an American Jew who lived in Israel, wrote:

Tourism is one of Israel’s main sources of income. The largest group of visitors are American Jews. But, there are also many American Christians who want to visit the holy shrines and to see the land of “God’s Chosen People.” These Christians come away very impressed and filled with religious fervor.

While in Israel, Jews and Gentiles alike are carefully watched so that they do not stray and happen to see the sordid side of Israel—the true Israel. Like in Soviet Russia and other communist countries, visitors to Israel are taken on carefully planned guided tours. They are shown the religious sites, the universities, the lush orchards, the technical accomplishments, the arts, and to stir sympathy, they are taken to visit the Holocaust Museum.

But, kept from the eyes of the tourists are the ghettos, the prisons where political prisoners, mostly Arabs and Sephardic Jews, are subjected to the most inhumane forms of torture. The tourists do not see the widespread crime activities and the corruption and cooperation between organized crime bosses and government and police officials. The tourists do not learn of the true inner workings of Israel’s Marxist/Fascist government; nor do they see Israel’s racism.    

I met one American tourist who couldn’t help telling me about the wonderful religious feeling she had from being in Israel—the Holy Land. I remarked to her, “Just try giving a Bible to a local Jew and you will see how much religion and religious freedom there is in Israel. If seen by the police, you will be arrested.”39

Check out Israeli television mocking Christianity:



Christian Zionism Degenerates into Complete Idiocy

Today’s Christian Zionists do not just fail to discern the Luciferian nature of Judaism; they treat Jews and Israel with veneration bordering on idolatry. Texe Marrs highlights an example caught on film:

[F]ive or six young Christians, some eighteen to twenty years of age, attending a national evangelical youth conference were asked, “How many of you love Israel?” All of their hands shot straight up. “How many of you would fight and die for the nation of Israel?,” they were asked. Again, every hand quickly went up. “And if Israel got into a war with the United States, how many would choose to go and fight with Israel against your home country, the United States?” Once again, all (except one) raised their hand, though not with quite so much enthusiasm.40

A church I once attended invited a “Messianic Jew” to deliver a Sunday sermon. He told us it was very important for our church to show solidarity with the Jewish community. He announced that, to express this solidarity, we would pretend we were a synagogue today, and celebrate Purim (the holiday on which Jews celebrate being saved from their enemies—and slaughtering them). He distributed noisemakers to the congregation. As the rest of the church played along, noisily acting out Purim, I stood in silence. I looked across the aisle at another parishioner who felt as I did, and we shook our heads.

At the time, I was not yet schooled in Christian Zionism’s deplorable history. But I knew from the Bible’s clear instructions (book of Hebrews) that we, as Christians, are not to engage in Jewish ceremonies. Furthermore, the alleged purpose of the “pretend we’re a synagogue” service—to show solidarity to the Jewish community—made no sense, as no synagogue Jews were present to witness the event. In retrospect, I believe the “Messianic Jew” was simply trying to Judaize Christians, and for I all know, was snickering under his breath at the sight of us observing Purim; for given the Talmud’s remarks about Christians, the church was ghoulishly celebrating what was tantamount to its own funeral.

Brother Nathanael Kapner, who was Jewish-born-and-raised, and is now an Orthodox Christian, says this about Christian Zionists:


While some of Brother Nathanael’s remarks may bore agnostics, and anger Christians with differing theological views, his comments on the Rapture and “Messianic age” bring us to Zionism’s ultimate deception:

The Final Insult: Persuading Christians to Worship the Antichrist

There is nothing the Rothschilds would savor more than seeing the Christian church bow down and worship the beast, or Antichrist, whom they wish to rule their coming world government. This necessitates that when the Antichrist appears, he initially presents himself as the Second Coming of Christ.

When I was a young Christian, I was struck by a particular distinction in Bible translations. Older versions, such as the King James and Geneva Bibles, always said Jesus would return at the end of the “world” (e.g., Matthew 24:3). But modern versions (NIV, West-Horcott, Darby, etc.) said He would return at the end of the “age.” In the Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield begrudgingly used the King James Version, but always added notes clarifying that “world” was properly translated “age.”

This may seem only a nuance, but is vital to the Zionists. Dispensationalism says history divides into seven “ages,” and that we are currently only in the sixth. (These ages are artificial constructs; for a refutation, see this post by a former dispensational minister.)

By claiming Jesus shall return at the end of the current age, instead of the end of the world, Scofield and his cohorts created a scenario by which the Antichrist could proclaim himself Christ,  then rule the Earth during the next “age,” through the very world government the Illuminati have been building.

Scofield wrote in his reference Bible: “Upon His return the King will restore the Davidic monarchy in His own person, re-gather dispersed Israel, establish His power over all the earth, and reign one thousand years.”41

But could Lucifer really arrive in a way that would persuade Christians he was Jesus? Certainly. The apostle Paul, when describing false apostles, wrote: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14). Can he appear to do miracles? The Bible says, “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.” (2 Thessalonians 2:9). This would be especially easy with the high tech now available, such as the capacity to project holograms, which can fashioned in the image of angels as easily as anything else.

As Emma Moore Weston notes:

This Scofield teaching is concerned with a literal Jewish kingdom to last for a millennium. . . . The Bible does not teach it . . . We must ask ourselves if Jesus ever offered or announced himself as an earthly King or claimed David’s throne? Had he ever in any way suggested he was going to set up an earthly kingdom? He said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now is my kingdom not from hence.”42

The Israelites of Jesus’s day wanted a political Messiah, a king who would liberate them from Rome. Jesus rejected it:

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. (John 6:15)

Scofield and “Christian Zionists” reject both the character of Jesus and the Bible’s clear teaching by anticipating Him as an earthly king. They repeat the exact same error people in Israel made two thousand years ago.

Most Christians today believe that when they die, they will dwell in heaven with Jesus forever. But if Jesus is to rule on Earth for a thousand years, while they were in heaven they would be separated from their Savior all that time. Yes, Scofieldism=confusion.

Many churches today affirm, in their “what we believe” statements, that Jesus will return to rule Earth for a millennium. Yet only one passage in the entire Bible refers to Jesus reigning a thousand years: Revelation 20:1-6. I think it dangerous for any church to base a core doctrine on a single scripture passage, especially given the general consensus that the book of Revelation contains considerable symbolic language. As this post is already very long, I won’t elaborate here on Revelation 20, but I refer the reader to Appendix IV, “The Millennium,” of my book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.

The Temple Trick

For a number of years, I attended a fundamentalist church. One day, the associate pastor was teaching from the Old-Testament book of Ezekiel (in which God gave the prophet Ezekiel instructions on the building of a temple). The teacher told us that, since Ezekiel’s temple was never built, it must be constructed in the future, and that Jewish animal sacrifices would be restored. He said that after Jesus returned, he would reign from this temple for 1,000 years.

I was amazed at this teaching, because the New Testament unequivocally declares that the Cross of Christ did away with the temple and sacrifices. Much of the book of Hebrews is devoted to this point, telling us that “Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant,” and that “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.” (Hebrews 7:22, 27)

The Book of Ezekiel, however, prescribed animal sacrifices:

Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the sovereign Lord. (Ezekiel 45:15)

Jesus will not require us to make such offerings; the Cross eliminated them. The Book of Ezekiel further proclaims:

This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites. (Ezekiel 44:9)

Would Jesus exclude foreigners? The Bible says the Gospel is for all peoples. Would he reinstitute the Jewish custom of physical circumcision? The Apostle Paul said:

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:2-4)

How had my church’s teacher become so blind to the Bible’s clear message? I later found the answer when he proudly displayed his Scofield Reference Bible.

Although Christian Zionists say the Jewish temple must be rebuilt, Jesus prophesied only its destruction:

“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Mark 13:2)

Never did Jesus ordain the Temple’s rebuilding, or state that He would rule from it. Here is what Jesus said about His return:

So if anyone tells you, “There he is, out in the desert,” do not go out; or, “Here he is, in the inner rooms,” do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from east is visible in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24:26-27)           

Who will rule from a temple in Jerusalem? The Antichrist. Jesus warned the End Times would occur “when you see the standing in the holy temple the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel.” (Matt 24:15). Paul, speaking of the End Times, wrote:

Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thess 2:3-4)

Thus, Christian Zionists teach the opposite of Scripture and prepare their congregations to worship the Antichrist himself. And make no mistake, Israel is preparing to rebuild the Temple, and to pay the costs gullible Christian congregations are being milked for donations, by some estimates up to $100 million annually.43

Why the Rapture Had to Be Taught

I now broach a subject guaranteed to incite fury, because it is so widely believed among evangelical churches. Darby and Scofield expounded that Christians would not face the Antichrist’s persecution because the Rapture would remove them from the planet. They thus asserted that Jesus would return twice: once for the Rapture, and later again for His Second Coming. Here is the verse dispensationalists most heavily rely on for Rapture doctrine:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

I will let Carl E. Olson elucidate:

There are three problems with claiming this passage refers to the Rapture. First, neither it nor the entire book of 1 Thessalonians mentions Christ returning two more times, or makes any reference to such a distinction. Second, dispensationalists believe the Rapture will be a secret and silent event, yet this passage describes a very loud and public event. This is all the more problematic because dispensationalists insist that they interpret Scripture “plainly” and “literally,” allowing for symbolism only when such is the obvious intent of the author. Finally, dispensationalists teach that all other New Testament references to Christ coming in the clouds (Matthew 24:30 and 26:64; Mark 14:62; Revelation 1:7) refer to His Second Coming but inexplicably deny that that is the case here.44

Furthermore, Scripture plainly teaches that believers will not be “gathered unto the Lord” until after the Antichrist has been revealed (excuse the following redundant quotation):

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him . . . . Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thess 2:1-4)

By believing they will be spared persecution, Christians are preparing themselves for disappointment and even shattered faith. Fritz Springmeier relates:

Chinese believers in China prior to the Mao’s Red Chinese takeover were told that they would be raptured before they suffered any tribulation. The communists took over and tortured and martyred millions of Chinese Christians who mistakenly thought the Bible taught that they would be raptured before any suffering. The Bible was widely discredited, because it had been mistaught.45 

Why did the Illuminati want the Rapture doctrine introduced? It emasculated the church as an opponent of the New World Order. Why fight something you won’t be around to experience?


Today, many Christians are perplexed as to why their congregations are shrinking. The reasons, of course, are multidimensional, and include numerous factors outside the church itself, such as inculcation of Darwinism in public schools, and Hollywood’s stereotyping of Christians as repugnant.

But much of the problem lies within the churches. Today, many truths about world events are freely available through alternative media. When informed newcomers come to a Sunday service, and see that a pastor, whose brain is hardwired to mainstream media, knows less about geopolitical truths than they do, will they trust that pastor to edify them about eternal truths? When they hear a pastor praising Israel despite decades of atrocities, and that the pastor thus excuses murder and theft, unable to distinguish fundamental right from wrong, will they trust this pastor to lead them toward righteousness? And when see that a pastor cannot understand clear Bible lessons, but instead teaches their opposite, based on regurgitation of Scofield’s Orwellian Scripture-twisting, will they want to return for another sermon?

I think not.

Dees Christian Zionism
Picture credit: David Dees,

For Further Reading and Viewing


Marching to Zion

The Roots of Christian Zionism: How Scofield Sowed Seeds of Apostasy

Blog Posts:

Seven Biblical Answers to Christian Zionism,” by Rev. Stephen Sizer

Truth about the Talmud

Why I Left Scofieldism,” by Rev. William E. Cox

The Folly of Dispensationalism,” by Dr. Allen M. Barber (former Dispensational minister)

Books available on Amazon:

The Incredible Scofield and His Book by Joseph M. Canfield

Judaism’s Strange Gods by Michael Hoffman (excellent resource for Christians on the Talmud)

Christian Zionism and the Scofield Reference Bible: A Critical Evaluation of Dispensational Theology by David Lance Dean

Holy Serpent of the Jews by Texe Marrs

Zion’s Christian Soldiers? by Rev. Stephen Sizer


1. John Coleman, How Conspirators Misuse Christian Fundamentalists (white paper) (Carson City, Nev.: World in Review, 2003), 4.
2. As quoted, “C. I. Scofield: Scoundrel, Shyster, and Scalawag,” Heresy in the Heartland, January 13, 2014,
3. “Cyrus I. Schofield in the Role of a Congregational Minister,” Topeka Daily Capital, August 27, 1881, as quoted, Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and His Book (Vallecito, Calif.: Ross House Books, 2004), 99-100.
4. Canfield, 80.
5. Ibid., 83.
6. Ibid., 94.
7. John S. Torell, “Dancing around the Golden Calf, Part 5,” European-American Evangelistic Crusades, January-March 2007,
8. Canfield, 114.
9. Who’s Who in America (1912-1913), 1856, as quoted in Canfield, 290.
10. Canfield, 290.
11. Ibid., 218.
12. Charles Trumbull, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920), 89-90.
13. James Whisler, “Dispensationalism Timeline,”
14. Philip Mauro, The Gospel of the Kingdom (1927),
15. Thomas Williamson, “Zionism Verses the Bible,”
16. C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), 25.
17. Ibid., 20.
18. Ibid., 25.
19. Ibid., 250.
20. “The Catastrophe, Al Nakba: How Palestine Became Israel,“ If Americans Knew (April 2013),
21. Bob Finley, “Why Christian Aid Is Speaking Out about Zionism and Islam,” Christian News, May 5, 2003, 13.
22. Michael Hoffman, “Jesus and the Talmud,” The Hoffman Wire (2003),
23. Michael Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods (Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History and Research, 2011), 240.
24. Ibid., 184.
25. Ibid., 196.
26. Ibid., 182.
27. Ibid., 185.
28. Hoffman, “Jesus and the Talmud.”
29. Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods, 182.
30. Ibid., 185.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., 239.
33. Ibid., 189-90.
34. Clyde Haberman, “West Bank Massacre,” New York Times, Feb. 28, 1994,
35. Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods, 188.
36. Marcy Oster, “Sephardi Leader Yosef: Non-Jews Exist to Serve Jews,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, October 18, 2010,
37. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994), 76.
38. Jerusalem Post, March 6, 1983, as quoted in Coleman, How Conspirators Misuse Christian Fundamentalists, 7.
39. Jack Bernstein, The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (1985) (online edition),
40. Texe Marrs, DNA Science and the Jewish Bloodline (Austin, Texas: RiverCrest Publishing, 2015), 165-66.
41. Scofield, 1227.
42. Emma Moore Weston, “Origin of Scofield Heresies,” Analyzing Scofield,
43. Stephen Sizer, “Will the Jewish Temple Be Rebuilt?” (February 27, 2014),
44. Carl E. Olson, “Five Myths about the Rapture,” November 2003,
45. Fritz Springmeier,” The Armageddon Plot,”


Posted in Bible, Christianity, Current events, History, Religion and tagged Antichrist, Christian Zionism, Cyrus Scofield, Dispensationalism, Israel, John Nelson Darby, Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, Palestine, Rapture, Scofield Reference Bible, Talmud, Temple, Zionism on August 31, 2016.




Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 7 comments
  • Jesus-is-savior dot com answered alot of my questions

    • Man

      no it isn’t it is buddha

  • Yes, bla, bla, but no mention of critical Talmudic jewish involvement because it was written by a you know who . .

    • Did you read and view the entire article ? The Tribe was well & appropriately represented in this article from my perspective.

  • 123’s of true Christianity v popular & damnable heresies
    (simply because you “confess” it does not mean you actually are, the devil has deceived many of his own children to believe they are Christians 2Tim 3:5)

    “WHO” it was (what person) that came “IN THE FLESH”, IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN WHAT IT MEANS TO BE “ANT-CHRIST”! Even Islam claims Jesus was the Jewish messiah/Christ who was to come in the flesh) they all deny “WHO” it was (what person) that came (to be the Christ) in the flesh!?!…….To deny the father is to deny the son because they are one and the same person that came in the flesh!

    JOHN 14: 8-20 where Christ specifically identifies himself (his person as the person of both the father and the HS; the only distinction is in “location” and “method of manifestation” …….Note Isaiah 9:6. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: …: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, … the everlasting Father ….The son, father/Holy Spirit are all the same person, NOT like two different persons working together even as “one flesh” ….The “oneness” between Christ and the father is not comparable to a man & his wife, for only a fool would say “When you have seen me you have seen my wife, how sayest thou then, Shew us your wife?” Notice they asked to see THE FATHER and the response was Jn 14:9 ..“HAVE I BEEN SO LONG time with you, and yet hast THOU NOT KNOW ME, Philip…..Now image some fool trying to claim that statement if you asked to see his wife!?!!? You want to see the FATHER but have I been with you but you don’t know me!?!?!

    Jn 14 continued….…………..17. Even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH; (Jn 14:6 I AM the way, THE TRUTH,) whom the world cannot receive, .. for HE DEWLLETH WITH YOU, (present tense/standing next to them in the flesh) and SHALL BE IN YOU… (future tense “In them”) 18. I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU (future tense “In them”) Note: The spirit of Christ is the sprit of God and the holy spirit that is why Christ said “I will come to you” (to comfort them, because Christ is the comforter). The spirit was standing next to them in flesh… ….latter it would come to them to be inside of them (inside of their flesh as the spirit we are given)…..that is why. he would send the spirit…… However, Jesus himself here makes the point that the same person who was the HOLY SPIRIT that would come was standing next to them but lets them know “I will come to you again to be Inside of you”

    The whole point to Gal 3:20.a mediator is NOT A MEDIATOR OF ONE, (HEIS) but GOD IS ONE. (HEIS) again, point blank, identifies the number of persons of God! The “but” points out the contrast between multiple persons in a mediation party v the “one” of God. God is not like a mediation party with multiple different persons. …..”the express image of his person” ( the person of God; singular not plural).Any attempt to lay claim otherwise is willful ignorance and delusional nonsense

    NOTE: don’t be that one in prov 26:12 over my use of the word “fool” here prov 18:13 ( ) “But but, the gospel of John…the Gospel of John …look look…” which is quite ironic since the gospel of John does not leave ANY room for multiple different persons of Jesus and father. However the gospel of John does leave a few verses that facilitate God’s promise in 2 Thess 2:11/ Isaiah 66:4 (take note of “HAND” in verse 2,14..You just can’t make this stuff up…God is surely laughing at these fools; Ps 2:1&4)

    ……Mark 12:28…Which is the first commandment of all? 29. …Hear, O Israel; THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD: 30. And ………..this is the first commandment….. 31. And the second is…..

    TRINITARIANS CONFESS JESUS /THEY ARE NOT POLYTHEIST BUT ARE MONOTHEIST LIKE A LIAR & THIEF WHO “CONFESS” THEY DO NOT LIE OR STEAL The simple fact is that just because you confess or deny that you are in an adulterous relationship and denounce all forms of adultery has nothing to do with whether or not it is in fact adulterous! .. …A rose by any other name is still just a rose AND calling it a water lily does not change the definition of what a water Lilly or a rose is either!…No, Trinitarians confess & preach literally …”ANOTHER JESUS” 2 Cor 11:4

    - Like a thief in your house caught stealing your things insisting he was not there stealing “I CONFESS I am NOT stealing”. You just do not “properly understand” what he is doing/saying. Further, since you never had a “proper understanding” of what he is doing/saying you have no business accusing him since you do not even know what you are talking about in the first place. It is with and in your own ignorance that you base your “false accusations” & “ad homonym attacks” against him…… Ridiculous of course it is ……2Thess 2:11; Titus 1:16; 2Tim 3:5;

    - A Favorite tool for pathological liars is to use incongruent definitions or create oxymorons out of synonyms such as “a person” and “a being” so as to claim that your god is THREE DIFFERENT PERSONS but ONLY ONE BEING: Which is (1) no different then trying to claim that “THREE DIFFERENT CARS” is “THE ONE VEHICLE” (2) blatant demonstration of the dishonesty & sorcery these children of hell will employ with “a strait face” (which is in part what it means to be a pathological liar)
    ……but, ah i remember how this game is played… “God is three in one” (or 1in 3 or 3in one et al) should have given you a hint, harking back to Satan in The garden…God said you will die…Satan comes along and states no you will be more WISE……today .God said He is one; but Satan’s children come along and say no three is more WISE and humble in the face of God’s grandeur only “a mystery” that can be understood “in faith”. God uses head and right arm to explain the distinctions between father and son.. However, the Trinitarian heretics say to the effect: “NO, that is just a figure of speech, or that is not what God really means. What God is really saying is that God is three different persons”. Fools, hypocrites and blind guides, God said he was One and by your traditions and vain imaginations have taken the words of God and made them of no effect, refashioning God into your image!

    You can download the complete FREE book from

    #2 SECOND COMING Thou Fool! “I come quickly” so “Hold fast
    till i come”… NOT …“in another 2000 yrs I might be coming soon any time now, so hold fast”!?! …those that deny the second coming of Christ in the war of AD70 are practicing a damnable heresy in denying the lord that bought them ( 2Peter 2:1-2 ;2Tim 4:8/ you cant love an appearing you deny& the context is the 2nd coming not the first)… Mat 7:23..”I NEVER KNEW YOU” …..Mat 10:33. But whosoever shall deny me before men……..sound familiar?…. If I said I am coming to your house in this generation when these things happen but no one knows the day or hour what fool would think I might be coming in 2000 years latter!?!? ..2 Tim 4: 4. And
    they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be TURNED UNTO FABLES.
    2Thess 2: 11. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.



    #3 There is a sharp contrast between THREE groups :

    (1) “PREDESTINED DAMNED” who were NEVER written in the book of life ………..Rev 17: 8 WHOSE NAMES WERE NOT WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, …as contrasted …EPH 1: 4. According as he hath CHOSEN US in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD

    (2) “MANY CALLED”= ONLY and ALL SAINTS (those who come to Christ) are written in the book of life … Philippians 4:3… ……Rev 21:27; (Only saints are Called and elect; Rom 1:6-7 et al) This is THE CHRUCH and ONLY these can have their names blotted out of the book of life ….….Heb 12:23 to the general assembly and CHURCH of the firstborn … WHICH ………are WRITTEN in heaven,

    (3) THE FEW CHOSEN: Those saints who were alive in group #2 who are now physically dead. They died “faithful” these are the FEW that were chosen faithful…….Rev 3:5. ……; and I
    will not BLOT OUT HIS NAME OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, (Ps 69:28) …. These are the FEW that are CHOSEN and now that they have died and are saved then “once saved THEY CAN NEVER BE LOST”

    Predestination….its true..its all true…download here

    • 123s of Christianity
      1) do away with the Sabbath day and “worship” “lord” on sun day
      2) call the Messiah I.H.S., an invention only 500 yrs old
      3) teach that there is a ” new covenant in Christ” even through the Messiah they claim to follow renewed the covenant and gave us forgiveness and followed YHWH commandments perfectly.

  • jdp…It was from the very beginning one opposing God and his creation Lucifer i.e. Satan corrupted his mind by his beauty wanting to replace God and have man worship him. So Satan continues to corrupt man by snatching-taking the good seed planted by Godly mankind to naught, thus mankind follows the evil one, and makes war on the good of God. Wars and rumors of war to the end of days as foretold on Gods Word, the Bible How should you respond towards such a future? War and evil to the end of days?, To protect your self and family you need to belong to God and his Son’s church the Christ. Jesus established his Church and stated that nothing could prevail agaiunst his Church, so if in his church your peotected individually and collectivly. To be fully protected one must put on the full armor of Christ meaning one must be [Baptized] for remission of Sin for Baptism is a shadow of burial and resurection to life which the Lord did he was buried and on the 3rd day arose from the grave.Thus if we are physically dead,having put on Christ we will be raised at the last day to be with Christ in the heavenly places. This is a most perfect free gift by God showing and doing for us for those who believe, but that day, hour, time no one knows but the Father, but we do know time is very short and each passing dat it becomes shorter, a clue was given paraphrased, When the Olive tree buds you know time is near, not a generation shall pass until all is complete meaning when Israel sprouts as a nation, again its closer 70 years have now passed and that day of the lords return is much closer, so why wait to be protected do it TODAY.

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.