Who is the antichrist? - part 2

"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." -- Andy Warhol

What would the antichrist be if he could only squeeze fifteen minutes of fame from the attention-span challenged public? He wouldn't be the Robert Redford look-alike/demon possessed/hypnotist/all around world-beater of the Left Behind books, that's for sure. He couldn't be. The fact is that in a world like that the antichrists of the type that we saw in the last post would be small fish in a huge, swirling ocean of humanity. You would need something else to work your corruption on a society like that. Something more pervasive.

The third time -- If you are a Protestant you probably think that very little good ever came from the Catholic church. You could not be more wrong.

We love to read the book of Acts and talk about the zeal in the early church, but the early church had a dark side as well. Yes it was characterized by hospitality; it was also characterized by heresy and falling away from "sound doctrine" at the drop of travelling antichrist's hat. These are the ones John singles out when he says, "they came from us, but did not remain in us."

The word Catholic means "universal" and it created a standard that protected centuries of believers by making heresy clearly visible as heresy. It was a God-ordained institution. It's breakup was God-ordained as well. By the fifteenth century the Catholic church had become a cumbersome, worldly monster and reform from within was no longer possible. The reformers would have to break away and become something else, but make no mistake, even as necessary as it was it still had the side effect of reopening the Pandora's box of heresies.

For every Martin Luther there was a Jan Bockelson, cult leaders taking advantage of the sudden doctrinal void in order to tell people that they were the real truth and the life. All over Europe believers turned back to pure worship of the God of the Bible; unfortunately, at the same time, all over Europe, people turned to heretical movements like the Cathars and Anabaptists.

The third rise was directly created not only by the hardship of the times, but also because of the opportunity afforded by the collapse of the "universal" church.

The half a time -- In all three of the earlier times, surrounding circumstances provided an opening for men who possessed the inclination to travel the path of the antichrist. But the inclination wasn't enough, these men also had to posses certain abilities. Charisma was the main requirement: specifically the ability to communicate a passionate message of cosmic significance. Now rhetoric (the ability to persuade with words) was the end goal of centuries of Western educational curriculum. A good speech could influence the masses, and an influential person had to master the spoken and written word.

We still make a big deal out of our leader's speeches, but we are not greatly influenced by them anymore. Think about the last presidential election. You saw the speeches, and then what happened? If you were watching on most channels you saw a political commentator who then 'rated' the speech. They told the viewers whether or not it was a good speech, and what they thought the speech would accomplish. So, who then was more influential, the speech-giver or the people who reinterpreted the speaker's message.

And now we find ourselves at the heart of the matter: how is a modern-day antichrist different from the earlier versions and how is the "man of lawlessness" different from an antichrist. This is not easy to explain and I'm going need to name certain names to illustrate my points.

Point 1) Barak Obama is not "the antichrist".

There was a "prophet" who, prior to the last election, claimed that the next American president would be the antichrist and that he would have a woman for his VP. Now, with all due respect to any of you who heard this on Christian talk radio and gave it more than a second's consideration, unless you think that Joe Biden is a very advanced cross-dresser you have to admit that this so-called prophet was flat out wrong.

But again, saying that he was merely 'wrong' misses the point. The very notion that our current president could be an antichrist -- let alone "the antichrist" -- reveals a basic misunderstanding. First of all, remember that an antichrist is one who corrupts people by tricking them into worshipping him rather than God. It is not a person whose politics you don't approve of. Yes, some people 'idolize' Mr. Obama, but as far as I know he has never yet claimed divinity and that mistaken idol-worship must for now fall squarely on the heads of the worshipful masses.

Saying that he could be "the antichrist" is a different matter. When John warns his readers of "the antichrist" in 1 John 2 the differentiation between "antichrist" and "antichrists" is a simple one: antichrist (singular) is the one of the antichrists (plural) who you have to worry about because he is going to try and corrupt and destroy you. Let's be clear on this, "the antichrist" is only "the antichrist" because he is the one antichrist who shows up at your door. For John's readers there was one obvious candidate for "the antichrist", that being the Roman emperor who claimed divinity, hated Christians and first began turning Christian-killing into an art form -- ie: Nero. For you, if you hear about David Koresh on the news then he's an antichrist. If he is your next door neighbor then, for you, he is "the antichrist". What about someone like the fictional Nicolai Carepthia who merits the status of being everyone's next door neighbor due to his powers and abilities?

Sorry, no. You see, Warhol was right. But don't take his word for it. Besides, noticing a phenomenon after it has already started is marginally impressive, but predicting it two thousand years in advance... that takes real talent. Observe below: (the italics are mine)


The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. --Revelation 17:12

It says hour and not minutes, but then the unit of time known as a minute hadn't been invented yet. An hour was the smallest. Not only does the above verse prophesy a time when leaders will come and go like spring fashion, but another passage is going to do something else that Warhol couldn't do; it is going to explain why.

Next post, point 2) the antichrist's entourage.

Who is the antichrist? - part 1

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. -- 1 John 2:18


The word "antichrist" appears a grand total of five times in the scriptures; four times in 1 John, once in 2 John. It never appears in the book of Revelation. Most of what modern theologians think they know about the antichrist comes from Paul's description of "the man of lawlessness" found in 2 Thessalonians 2 and are based on the assumption that the man of lawlessness and the antichrist are one and the same. This is not quite true. But I can't simply tell you how it is false. It's a bit like Matthew 24, where I can't just give the answer because you don't yet understand the question. Let's look at the history of the antichrists, first remembering two things: 1) an antichrist is someone who denies that Jesus is the Christ (ie: the savior), they do this to prop themselves up as savior and take for themselves the worship that rightfully belongs to God. 2) a spike in "antichrist" activity is a sign of the "last hour".

The first time -- I've already told you that historians are aware of at least forty so called "messiahs" that went around claiming to be the chosen one, or at least not denying the title when it was foisted upon them, during the Roman occupation of Israel. That's an average of about one every four to five years. That's not how they came, of course -- spread out I mean. Most times a decade would pass and then three or four would pop up all at once.

What is interesting about this is the way these "messiahs" came and the way they were treated by the religious authorities. Now let me tell you up front, there's not a lot of information on any of the first century messiahs other than Jesus, so I'm having to make certain assumptions, but apparently the other "messiah" rarely if ever claimed to fulfill any of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the long awaited savior. Does that not strike you as odd? Remember that one of the knocks on Jesus was that He came from Galilee, which the religious authorities believed was a violation of prophecy. So Jesus was given a hard times because He fulfilled some, but in their eyes, not all of the Old Testament prophecies. Yet forty others gained followings (which sometimes included those same religious authority figures) without ever seriously attempting to defend their messianic claims. How?

The other "messiahs" were rebels, military leaders claiming to be the one who could cast off the yoke of Roman rule. If I'm understanding it right the Pharisees, Saducees, Herodians often treated these messiahs like modern day political candidates, backing the one who they believed could benefit them the most. Let me state that again: they treated God's plan of salvation like something they could control, like it was a contract, the terms of which they should rightfully be able to dictate.

So the first flood of antichrists occurred because of the messianic expectations built into the Old Testament prophecies as well as the peculiar aspects of the Roman occupation -- and by that I mean that not only were the Roman Pagan culture totally at odds with Jewish culture, but prior to the Roman invasion the Jews had recently thrown off another Pagan regime, the Seleucids. So for another Pagan regime to conquer you so soon after you believed that you had been "saved" from paganism, the Jews naturally turned to and took solace in those messianic prophecies as being the only things that could truly save them (ie: "it's going to take a miracle if we're ever going to be rid of these pagans forever").

In general terms, the first rise of the antichrists took place due to a preexisting set of expectations and a surrounding backdrop of worldly hardships.

The second time -- As I wrote in History isn't what you think it is it became quite fashionable in the 12th-14th centuries to foist messianic expectations on the kings and emperors of the age. Now understand something: a sense of longing, of something unfulfilled, is every bit as much a part of being human as awkward puberty years and opposable thumbs. We all have a sensation of need, although one person's belief on how the need can be remedied may be very different than another's. For medieval man, Christianity was something that you did (through recitations in Latin, giving of offerings, ceremonials performances, etc.) but it was not something that you understood, and certainly not something that, for most, shaped your identity or -- here's that word again -- your expectations.

During that age the kingdom of Heaven was just too remote, and I mean "kingdom of Heaven" in both the sense of a future place of promise as well as God's spirit reshaping your life and identity right here and now, the very same way that Jesus means it when He begins a parable with the phrase, "The kingdom of Heaven is like..." For the medievals who did not own a Bible, who did not have a "personal" savior, but rather subcontracted out their spiritual needs to a professional priest, those needs I mentioned earlier naturally focused on the one agent that they could conceive of as being both willing and able to deliver them from that needy state -- their worldly rulers. Because of this several generations of Kings like Frederick Barbarossa would be worshipped as gods.... and some of them liked it.

Again, the second rise of the antichrists was caused by a preexisting set of expectations (those being the messianic qualities placed on human rulers) and a surrounding backdrop of hardship (this time a complex mish-mash of economic decline, disease, and the encroaching Muslims).

Next post, we finish with the third rise of the antichrists and I begin attempting to explain how the man of lawlessness is certainly an antichrist, but an antichrist is not necessarily the man of lawlessness.

Matthew 24 - part 3

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. -- Matthew 24: 36-41

Read the above. Now, tell me: who is it that is being "taken"? Are these servants of the Lord being raptured up to Heaven, or are these children of the devil being dragged to Hell?

The answer isn't so simple. For now just notice that there is nothing in the passage to tell you one way or the other. The whole thing is incredibly vague. Now let's back up.

So far in chapter 24 we have seen Jesus twice talk to the disciples in specific detail about the near-term events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the early church. Twice we have seen Him then broaden out and discuss the fall of man in a more general way. Now He does it one final time:

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. -- Matthew 24: 32-35

Jesus answers the disciple's question "When will this happen?" with a statement that says, "In this generation." in other words, "You guys better pay attention, some of you are going to see this."

But, but, but, I was told that "generation" could refer to the Jewish race. That would be an outlandish translation. Also, Jesus would have been something of a heel to answer the 'when?' question with the oh-so-informative "Some Jews will still be alive somewhere when it happens" answer. But Jesus, that doesn't tell us anything. "So?".... Can you really see Jesus doing that?

The reality is that some people with a particular translation feel the need to defend that translation by making certain passages say something that they never intended to say. The logic goes like this: Jesus can't mean both "this generation" and "all these things have happened" because he hasn't come back yet. So they have to try and play word games to get the meanings to square with observed reality.

Except that He has come back. In fact, for that generation alone, He came back twice!

The first time He came back to life three days after His death on the cross. The second time He came in the form of the Holy Spirit -- which He even refered to as "My spirit."

Question -- So which was Jesus talking about in 32-35? That generation or the final generation?

Answer -- Both.

Remember how vague 36-41 sounds? Now we get the reason why. Like I said in the last post, at this point the disciples are still very much confused about Jesus' future comings and goings. Not only does Jesus have maneuver around their misconceptions, but He is somewhat limited in what He can tell them. Face it, Jesus -- the living embodiment of love -- is not going to be one to tell people the date and time of their own deaths. Knowing that tends to suck the joy out of life. So what does He do? He gives them what they need: a few basic watch-signs to give a heads up when their end is near. He also leaves a few crumbs of information to help them understand that the end of Jerusalem is not going to be end of everything.

Once more to try and make this clear -- The preterist says that everything that Jesus told the disciples was fulfilled in the 1st century AD. I'm telling you that they are right. The futurist says that most of what Jesus told his disciples was meant for people in a later age. I'm saying that that is correct as well.

Yes it happened in the 1st century. Then it happened again in the 11th and 12th centuries, and another time in the 15th and 16th centuries. It will happen one final time. If that time does not take place in our current generation I will be utterly stunned.

Next, we look at the antichrist.

Matthew 24 - part 2

Anachronism -- an error in chronology; especially: a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regards to each other.

I used to be a part of a Science Fiction and Fantasy writers group. Most of the others in the group loved the creative bursts of actually putting pen to paper, but weren't so keen on studying their topics. For the fantasy writers, this meant anachronisms... a lot of them. No, your medieval hero does not yearn for the excitement of the big city (medieval cities were just as boring as medieval villages. They only smelled more exciting, and by exciting I mean disgusting.) No, he's not happy that he's losing weight while on his adventure (medieval folk were not sedentary and did not have all of our excess calories. Pudginess was a sign of health and considered attractive back then.) He doesn't put his gold in a bank (feudalism and banking don't coexist well), and seeing a dead body does not throw him into some introspective loop (he's seen one or two already... "bring out yer dead!").

Some of the examples above -- and I'm not even giving you the worst -- are pretty sad, but the reality is that keeping any sort of anachronism out of your historical musings is hard to do. The story doesn't even have to be in a historical setting. One quick example:

My all time favorite novel is Lucifer's Hammer. It's a wonderful romp through an America devastated by a meteor strike. Still, one of the main characters grabs pepper bottles by the armful when it's obvious that this is an apocalypse because he thinks it a smart thing to do. His rationale is that these will be valuable since pepper traded pound for pound with gold in Western Europe during the Renaissance. This is an anachronism. What the character (the writers really) don't understand is why pepper was so valuable back in the day. You see, Western European culture in the Renaissance was segregated between rich and poor. Rich people were considered noble, decent, sugar and spice and everything nice. Poor people were base and low and there were all sorts of laws to make sure that they knew their place. So for the Europeans, the most important thing for anyone well to do was to make sure that everyone else knew by God that you were well to do. When spices from the East were first introduced, they carried a status symbol and the rich would douse them on everything at their banquets as a sign of wealth. This was a fad, and like all fads it wore off. So no, pepper doesn't have the intrinsic value that would justify grabbing it by the armful before the starving hoards raid the grocery stores.

That was a tricky one. Matthew 24 has a tricky one too.

In the last post we saw Jesus give specific instructions for a near-term apocalypse then make these sorts of, "Oh, yeah, and later the world ends," statements that seem to gloss right over the most important details. Then it's almost as if he huddles the Jewish listeners back together and says, "Alright, back to the important stuff. Watch for fake messiahs."

In verse 27 He tells his listeners not to believe reports of His return since, as will be explained at length in the later New Testament books, you won't need a report when Jesus returns; you'll know.

24:28 Wherever there is a carcass, the vultures will gather.

Jesus uses vultures as a sign, or visible evidence, of an event. He uses it to say, "watch for the signs and you can prepare for the event."

24:29 Immediately after the distress of those days, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.

And here it is. C.S. Lewis looked at this and thought that Jesus must have been mistaken about the date of His own return. But it wasn't Jesus who made the mistake. It was Lewis.

1) The first thing to understand is what the disciples are really asking when they present the initial question: "Tell us," they said, "When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age." Matthew -- 24:3. But this shouldn't even be a question, should it? They are using the exact same language as we would if we were asking about the rapture and final judgement. Don't those words mean the same thing to them?

Anachronism. No, the disciples meant something totally different.

In Matthew 16 Jesus tells His disciples that He will be killed. Peter tells Jesus he won't allow it. Jesus tells Peter what he can do with himself... or something. Whatever their understanding of what was happening during Jesus' final trip to Jerusalem, they still didn't understand that Jesus was going to: 1) die physically, 2)then return physically, 3)then ascend into Heaven, 4) then return in the form of the Holy Spirit, 5) then finally, return physically. Luke 21:36-49 recounts Jesus' appearance to His disciples after His crucifixion and resurrection. This was when the lightbulb came on:

Then He opened their minds so that they could understand the scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in His name, to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." -- Luke 21:45-46.

Point 1 -- In Matthew 24 the disciples did not understand what they were asking or what Jesus was telling them.

2) So what did they mean?

Imagine that your church was the only church in the world. It's a big church. It has satellite buildings, still, it's the only game in town (or on planet Earth for that matter). Your fellow parishioners are the only other Christians in the world. Everyone else believes something totally different that what you and the others in your church believe. You don't associate with those people outside your church, and they think you're a freak. Now, Jesus tells you that your church, the church, is going to burn to the ground. Think for a moment. What's the one question you'd ask Him?

No, planet earth did not end when the temple was burned and torn to pieces by the Romans in 70 AD. The world didn't end. But their world -- the one that had so much meaning to the Jewish disciples -- did in fact end!

Point 2 -- to the disciples "sign of your coming" = when are you going to save us from what happens here (ie: the loss of the temple and the access to God and special status before God that it represented). For them "coming of the end of the age" = and when exactly is this horrible thing going to happen.

When Jesus focuses on the near-term events He is answering their questions. When He speaks more broadly He is placing those events in their overall context.

In the next post we finish the chapter and Jesus give us our first picture of the rapture... or does He?

Matthew 24 - part 1

C.S. Lewis was a brilliant man. Language is a primary human means of expression and understanding human thoughts; Lewis had a gift for languages. In other words, he had a gift for understanding things. He was fluent in something like seven or eight of them by the time he finished the English equivalent of high school. Like I said, a brilliant man.

But even the most brilliant men can be wrong. Lewis once wrote that Jesus was mistaken when He said that the events of Matthew 24 would happen in the lifetimes of the people within earshot. Now, Mr. Lewis meant this an example of how the Bible could be trusted, since it recorded even its own flaws, though most evangelicals (myself included) could have done without this little bit of corroborating "evidence".

Lewis was wrong. The Bible never records Jesus' mistakes. How could it. He never made any.

24:1-2 -- Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to Him to call His attention to the buildings. "Do you see all these things? He asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.


In the spring of 70 AD the city of Jerusalem fell to the Romans. A last group of defenders rallied inside of the temple, probably believing that God would protect them while they were inside. The Romans burned them out and in doing so, the gold leaf on the ceiling, as well as the golden nails that pointed up from the roof (to keep the birds off) melted into the stones. For days the Romans pulled the stones off of each other, one by one, in order to pry out the gold after it had cooled.

For reasons we will discuss in the next post, the disciples were a tad disconcerted by the prophecy. They asked Jesus about this, his coming and "the end of the age".

24:4-5 -- Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name claiming, ' I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.


Jesus wasn't kidding. During the Roman occupation (63 BC to 135 AD) historians have identified forty different 'Christs'. These were Jewish military leaders who promised 'salvation' from the Romans. And yes, they deceived many, which is why the Romans kept bringing legions in to put down the rebellions.

After this Jesus says the end is still to come and gives a vague, ominous statement of wars and famine.

24:9 -- Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death...

Eleven of the twelve disciples were martyred. Only John lived out his natural life, dying somewhere toward the end of the first century.

After this, Jesus covers the next nineteen centuries in the span of two sentences:

24:12-14 -- Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm till the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

You could preach a sermon on verse 12. Probably fill a book with all the pregnant meanings in those three verses. For now, just notice that Jesus has spent most of his time so far addressing the specific, near-term future of the people to whom He is speaking. After that He gives a brief, "Then a bunch of stuff happens and the world ends" summary.

Now He goes back to the near future of the disciples and early church members:

24:15-16 -- So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel -- let the reader understand -- then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

According to early church records, when the Romans under Titus were approaching Jerusalem the church located in the city did just what this passage told them to do: they ran for it. The record doesn't say exactly why, but apparently they took this passage to mean that just like Antiochus' approach in 168 BC the next approach will mean a repeat of death and mayhem at the hands of the pagans. And this turned out to be the wise interpretation since nearly all the people who stays were killed after a long, horrific siege. Josephus lays out the gory details in his history, The Jewish Wars, I won't go into the carnage except to say that Jesus' statement in verse 21 "for there will be a great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be equaled again," was certainly true for His people, the Jews. This was the worst they ever had it.

Time to play with the kids. I'll start with "...wherever there is a carcass" next.

Another religious nut saying the end is nigh... so what?

"There is no sanctuary." -- from the movie 'Logan's Run' (1976)

In Logan's Run, the world's surviving population lives in a dome city long after whatever calamity drove them permanently indoors. The rules of bubble-city life are simple: no one leaves and at thirty you get "renewed" -- an elaborate ceremony where everyone gets to watch you die. Logan is a Sandman, a bubble-city policeman, and gets assigned to find out where the "runners" are going when they try to escape the domed slice of Heaven. His mission is to find this place (called sanctuary) and destroy it.

But there is no sanctuary. The runners were all getting turned into salad by an unfriendly android named Box. Sanctuary was a mass delusion that people wanted to believe so badly that for them, it became real.

Sounds hokey, you say? Maybe a few idiots would believe in some totally fictional place, but never a whole city.

I think it's perfectly plausible. In fact I think the vast majority of people have their own version of sanctuary and they hold to it even in light of the most damning of contrary evidence.

Question: Aren't Christians always saying that the world is ending?

Answer: Yes and no.

Yes, no matter how far back in history one goes, you can always find a few disaffected individuals proclaiming the imminent destruction of the world. Jesus and the apostles actually get accused of this, although as we will see, mostly that's owes to confusion over the whole 'times' concept. Historically, the people walking around with sandwich boards telling us that we are doomed are people who have decided that civilization would be better off gone. For them, sanctuary is the apocalypse. Strange, I know. And yes, this is always a small fringe group. But they can be noisy nonetheless. After all, when you want the world to die then the end times becomes your moment of vindication (we talked about vindicating moments in Why doesn't my life make sense and What are the trumpets) and if you're off your rocker you may want everyone in earshot to know that you're about to be vindicated.

Now for the 'no'.

Most Christians do not take solace in the idea that the world is going to be burned to a cinder... and they never have. But that doesn't mean that sanctuary for this group is the place that Jesus has gone ahead and prepared for them. If you are reading this now you likely fall into this category. Don't beat yourself up over it. There is a simple reason for this; Heaven is a difficult concept to wrap one's brain around. So most of us create a kind of pleasant metaphor for Heaven. It's our sanctuary.

In History isn't what you think it is - part 1, I talked about Emperor Frederick the Second and the poor saps who accepted his fraudulent replacement. Those "sleeping emperor" myths fell out of a belief system called millenarianism -- the idea that God was going to bring about a 1,000 year long party for Christians on this world and that someone like Frederick the Second could usher those good times in. That 1,000 year long holiday was sanctuary for generations of Christians. Life was hard and a 1,000 year long party sounded so good it just had to be the true interpretation.

Millenarianism is virtually gone today. These days, the average Christian makes sanctuary out of the end times prophecies by convincing themselves that the likely time for fulfillment is at the end of their own lives. So, the typical fifty year old Christian with an optimistic outlook will say that the world will end in thirty years, whereas the twenty year old thinks it's more likely that God will come back sixty years from now. Etc. etc.

At the other end of the spectrum there is Michael Schermer, skeptic poster-child, who often mocks Christian eschatology (the notion that the world can any time in the next billion years). They're all deluded, he says. They don't realize the power of science and human ingenuity. But that's his sanctuary. It's a pleasant delusion, nothing else.

A good example of the reality came last week. Last Thursday the UK Guardian ran a story on insiders in the IEA (International Energy Agency) calling attention to the fact that they have been pressured by governments (like ours) to underreport the rate at which oil supplies are dropping. A couple of days later it ran a follow up story lamenting that the news -- which they seemed to think was a blockbuster -- had hardly caused a ripple in the worldwide press. After all, if the IEA is exaggerating the supply numbers for oil, and if our modern civilization and our lives for that matter depend on that oil supply....

But that's the thing about sanctuaries of all stripes; they can seem so believable that anything that intrudes into the fantasy is viewed as craziness. The people at the UK Guardian may have just as well been walking the streets with a sandwich board.

Now, on to Matthew 24.

The end times investment portfolio - part 2

Gold -- We're getting into the better asset classes, but things like gold and silver are still not without their problems. I think gold values will definitely increase over the next few years, especially compared to our dead-in-the-water currency. Gold is a safe haven when times get bad. Unfortunately, it's not that much of a safe haven when times get really bad. Desperate countries tend to seize the gold assets of their citizens. Can't happen here, you say? Actually it already has.

On April 5, 1933 during the Great Depression the new President, Franklin D Roosevelt, demanded that everyone surrender their gold assets to the government. Any US citizen found in possession of more than $100 worth of gold coins/bullion was subject to arrest. If and when that happens again gold will only be useful as a trading instrument on the black market. And there you run into another problem. You see, it's difficult to tell gold's karat weight just by looking at it, so black marketeers tend to value pure gold no differently than they do cheaper gold alloys. This means that in the tribulation a handful of pawnshop jewelry will likely be just as valuable as a handful of pure gold coins.

Repayment of debts -- this one will never go out of style. If you are looking for a safe place to put your money, put it into the debts hanging over your head -- car payment, house mortgage, whatever. The current bankruptcy laws in this country are all predicated on the notion that lenders won't go out of business if a few of their creditor are not able to repay. In circumstances where that is not the case the government allows lenders to compel creditor repayment with things like debtors prisons. Trust me on this one, being out of debt will be better than being in debt in the near future.

On a related note. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to try and give a countdown to a US financial collapse, however I caught Peter Costa (a financial analyst) on CNBC Thursday giving his prediction; he think the US government will be in bankruptcy 18 months from now.

Food -- This one is tricky. The US currently produces about 50% more food than it consumes. Even if our currency became worthless tomorrow there is no reason to think that our government couldn't cobble together some sort of voucher program by the end of the week. The problem of empty store shelves wouldn't happen here overnight. It would take a year or so. But famine is one of the hallmarks of a "time" and the tribulation will be the worst of the lot... and you can't eat gold.

The US has a spread-out infrastructure that assumes we will be able to transport all that food across the hundreds of miles of state highway. Unfortunately, we import most of our fuel. If Mr. Costa is right and the US begins defaulting on its debts in 18 months then we will have a very difficult time buying foreign oil which will make it awfully tempting for our military to simply take it since we are already there and this will likely cause other nations to.... sorry, this line of thinking is the sort of thing that makes me curl up in a fetal ball and watch Entertainment Tonight until I can convince myself that the biggest problem facing this nation has something to do with Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.... Ahh. I feel better already. Man that Kanye West is a jerk.... What were we talking about again?

Buy cans, buy dry foods, buy peanut butter. You want high calories and long shelf life. Yes, I said high calories and I don't care what your BMI is. Don't worry, we may all be going on a diet together before too long.

Firearms -- The Biblical prescription to "turn the other cheek" is not a call to pacifism. For the ancient Jews a slap on the cheek was an act of provocation. Jesus was telling his listeners not to be provoked into a fight. When it came to the fights themselves, they didn't settle matters with their fists (hardly anyone did back when a broken hand could mean a permanent disability). No, the Jews settled fights the same way everyone did in the ancient middle east: with knives. We usually translate the word as "sword" and Jesus actually has his disciples take stock of how many weapons they are carrying (Luke 22 36:38). They had enough to fight off bandits and that seemed to be the emphasis.

Bandit attacks and general lawlessness are endemic in countries during economic collapse. If you have anyone that you do not want to see kidnapped (the big thing in post-collapse Argentina) then I would recommend you own a firearm and a substantial amount of ammunition. Learn how to use it. Also buy a cleaning kit.

The tribulation is going to be a gun fight. I wouldn't recommend bringing a knife to it.

Miscellaneous -- Camping equipment, a stock of any medicines you might need, wine keeps forever and hard liquors become useful as medicinals and trading goods.

Yourself -- skills, abilities, and areas of knowledge. Learn to forage (yes, there are edible plants where you live). Learn to knit. Anything that could make you less reliant on civilization.

Property -- In each of the last three "times" the best predictor of survival was the ability to pack up, leave civilization such as it was, and flee to the countryside until the hardest of the hard times had passed. This is the one ace that a Bill Gates might have up his sleeve that still wouldn't put him at an advantage over the average Amish person, but would probably make him more prepared for the hard times than you and me.

If you are in the financial position to buy land in the countryside, preferably with a stand of fruit and nut trees nearby, as well as access to clean water, then I envy you.

Seek ye first -- I saved the best for last, and this one we can all do: invest in relationships with others and with your creator. Not only is it the only investment that pays dividends in the life to come, but it also pays off in this one as well. Others) Whatever you know, whatever you have, we are still -- all of us -- going to find ourselves lacking something when the times get truly difficult. It would be nice then if a few other people could still stand the sight of you. God) in my opinion the most important attribute in a survival situation, right above 'high pain threshold' and 'flexible mindset' is the all-important 'reason to go on living'. God gives purpose, don't forget Him and don't succumb to bitterness just because your life suddenly isn't going the way you planned it.

Next post: but aren't people always saying that the world is ending? Why is now different?