Satan-King of Empires Part ll

God allows these powers to arise for various purposes. Rome established peace on Earth so that Jesus could be born at a time of peace, and the Gospel of the Kingdom could be spread abroad throughout the peace of the Roman Empire. He allowed Alexander and the Greeks to encourage the very beautiful, very expressive Greek language in which the New Testament was written, and their interest in religion and the supernatural and in philosophy and beauty and art.

God allowed it because it facilitated the spread of the Gospel under the New Testament Church. They could all speak the same language. Everybody spoke Greek and Latin during the days of the Early Church, and a lot of them spoke Hebrew too, as well as their local language. So the Greek language and interest in philosophy and religion and the supernatural helped to spread the Gospel, and they spread it mostly in Greek.

The Roman language, Latin, was the language of the government and the law and politics, and the Roman Empire enforced peace on Earth so that the disciples, as Roman citizens some of them, could travel very easily from country to country with no passports, no visas, no problems. They were Roman citizens and they could travel all over the World without any governmental problems at all, and in a time of peace when it was very easy to do so.

Both the Greek and Roman empires actually facilitated the spreading of the Gospel in the long run, so God allowed them. Then the Devil would always go too far. Obviously God, in a way, used the Devil to inspire Alexander the Great to conquer the world so quickly and spread the Greek language all over the World and its interest in the supernatural and religion and philosophy and so on, which later helped the spread of Christianity.

God obviously then allowed the Roman Empire to overcome the Greeks to spread a worldwide strong government that kept the peace. He just as good as said that the Roman Empire was of Him, officers of the law and so on. (Romans 13.) In fact He indicated by that that every great World power is of Him, is His creation, even if He allows the Devil to be its creator or king.

Satan has always wanted to rule the world, and he's going to get his final chance in the Antichrist when he will really rule the whole world and with tremendous power. So he moved on to the Romans, but when they began to persecute the Christians too much, God destroyed Rome.

Since Rome there's really been no great grand world empire, until the later smaller empires like the Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, Italian Empire, British Empire--but they were all small and never really ruled all the World. They were constantly in conflict with each other, and not one of them was a world government like these previous ones.

The United States then superceded all those former empires, fought and won battles with them--with the British, the Spanish, the French and so on--and America literally became the ruling power of the World.The United States is really a commercial empire, she's not ruled the World politically, but commercially with the American Dollar. So it could be symbolic that the Antichrist Kingdom is going to be a combination of both.

(New York City became its commercial capital, and the commercial capital of the world.--- Almondtree Productions)

Independent.UK

Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos

Not since JFK has there been such a reservoir of expectations

20 January 2009

As the new US administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.

That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread.

At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings. Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.

The nadir of the international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.

The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organisation of the world. The economic world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order. Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point.

So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place, so far without achieving more than stemming incipient panic. International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonised in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome.

America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterised too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences. The result was a certain inherent unilateralism – the standard complaint of European critics – or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.

Not since the inauguration of president John F Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.

The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.

The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernisation of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.

Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasising infrastructure development and domestic consumption. It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 per cent that Chinese experts define as the line that challenges political stability.

What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the ASEAN-plus-three concept. At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order. Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.

The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the postwar period – except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.

The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programmes with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process. We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance. An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope. (Bold print by Almondtree Productions)

The author was National Security Adviser, 1969-75 and US Secretary of State, 1973-77.

© 2009 Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.

The Antichrist is now waiting to be revealed. (2 Thessalonians 2) It seems like it is going to be something rather sudden as in when you suddenly reveal something. Either the World's going to suddenly wake up to who it is, or he's going to suddenly step on the world scene in some dramatic way to solve some great problem like the Mideast question or Jerusalem or the oil, etc. (economy).

He is apparently going to come very suddenly to the fore, very suddenly revealed--in which again he's imitating Christ--Christ's Second Coming when the Lord is going to be suddenly revealed in the sky. That would certainly follow consistently his record of trying to imitate Christ and the Millennium with his false messiahship and his false millennium. So it seems he's going to have a sudden revelation.

He's going to cause the confusion and then take advantage of it and take over and solve it.

He causes the world's great confusion--he's the author of it, but then he apparently solves it and rules the World. So once again it will be the Devil incarnate, the Devil in person, the Devil in the body of a man, this time ruling the entire World as the Antichrist. So that certainly sounds like a very logical sequence of events.

If the Devil was the king of two great world empires, one commercial and one political, why couldn't he also have been king of all the other great World Empires? Every one of them was anti-God and anti-Christ, from Egypt to the end. All except the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and that's why God symbolized him as gold, and amongst the beasts as a lion, the king of all beasts.

The Bible definitely teaches that the Antichrist will be the Devil in person, the Devil in the flesh, to rule the world's last great World Government or kingdom. So apparently it seems the Devil has been the king of all these great World Empires and their capitals, possessing their kings and running their governments.

There also hasn't been a great world empire that has not persecuted the people of God. So obviously these World Empires were ruled by the Devil who persecuted God's Kingdom and God's people right to the very end, from Pharaoh to the Antichrist.

David Berg

Edited by Almondtree Productions