Friday, February 20, 2009

Southern California Prophecy Conference

So. California Prophecy ConferenceCalvary Chapel Chino Hills
4201 Eucalyptus Ave., Chino CA 91710
909.393.7100 / www.calvarycch.org

Doors open Friday, February 20th at 5:00 p.m.
FREE Admission! No registration required.

If you live near Southern California you don't want to miss one of the biggest Bible Prophecy Conferences of 2009!

Speakers and Subjects:

  • Dr. David R. Reagan - "What Happens When You Die?"

  • Tim LaHaye - "Will You Be Left Behind?"

  • Ed Hindson - "Is the Antichrist Alive Today?"

  • Mark Hitchcock - "The Late Great United States"

  • Bob McEwen - "Freedom in Crisis, A World View" and "Finding Hope in the Global Crisis"

  • Britt Merrick - "Why God Has Given Us Bible Prophecy"

  • Jack Hibbs - "What Are the Last Days and Why Should You Care?"

  • David Hocking - "What's About to Happen in the Middle East"

  • Paul McGuire - "The Coming One World Religion"

Learn more at the Southern California Prophecy Conference website!

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

We need Walid Shoebat, Joel Richardson, Rodrigo Silva, Ray Gano, Chuck Missler, Scot Dryer, Joe Vankoevering, etc. at this conference as well.

loki said...

What I really appreciate about Chuck Missler is that he's not dogmatic and that he admits his views, in different areas, might be wrong.

Anonymous said...

I agree Loki. Missler states, "With the current world turmoil surrounding Iraq and the Middle East, it is likely that the coming months and years will bring some striking changes. It is essential that we stand back from our presumptions and prejudices and listen carefully to what the Biblical text is telling us. We are living in exciting times, but we need to be diligent in our study of God's Word. The only certain barrier to truth is the presumption that we already have it."

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/437/

Unfortunately, some of the speakers attending the conference have a difficult time admitting to error.

loki said...

I see more issues here than just those conference speakers having a difficult time admitting error. I see that the mainstream European view has been well-challenged by some compelling articles and books (Shoebat/Richardson etc) but now the Euro mainstream people have counter-pointed. And I think they’ve done it very well.

monty said...

I have to agree that there has been pathetic flare-ups from both sides of this debate. But I like the heat and the passion. I will say this though, after reading "Joel Richardson"'s [or whatever his real name is] response to David Reagan, if he does not pretty much say that he is sorry in his next article, I'm writing him off as a real jerk.

Mitchell said...

At the very least I would like to see Reagan apologize for accusing Richardson of being "misleading" and calling Shoebat the things he did, and to admit that the Sunni branch of Islam does in fact believe in the Mahdi (they have even proclaimed it is mandatory for all Muslims). More than enough proof has already been provided to Reagan.

As for the European camp's counter argument, it fails to acknowledge that a Muslim Antichrist is indeed a likely possibility. Heaven forbid that many prior books of prophecy would have to be rewritten. Shoebat and Richardson are rock solid in their arguments, and when all is said it done the Antichrist rising out of the eastern leg of the Revived Roman Empire is the most likely scenario in my opinion, relegating the western leg of the Revived Roman Empire to little more than a Revived Roman Umpire.

Anonymous said...

Rodrigo Silva makes a good point on his latest article (found at http://www.beastfromtheeast.org/Antichrist_Contradictions.html) --

"Conclusion

As we have seen, there is much contradiction surrounding the idea of a Roman Antichrist. Many argue that the Antichrist must be of Roman origin, yet chose European leaders as their favorite candidates for the Antichrist who have no Roman origin. Next time someone tells you that the Antichrist must be a leader of Roman origin, ask him: Who is your candidate for the Antichrist? If he or she points to any European leader from France like Nicolas Sarkozy, from Spain like Javier Solana, from England like Prince Charles or even to Barack Hussein Obama who many say is the Antichrist but who is of African, not of Roman origin, you can tell him or her the following:

''You have just proven your own theory wrong’’

Then you go ahead and explain why.

A point to consider

The Roman Empire included both Europe and the Middle East. People have heard the European side emphasized for so long that they equate the word Rome with Europe. If someone suggests anyone within Europe, then they entertain that theory. But if someone suggest an Antichrist outside of Europe, then it is attacked as a novel idea and "unorthodox". How is a Middle Eastern Assyrian Antichrist one lick different than a British, French, Spanish or German Antichrist? Neither is Italian and all are equally "Roman" as far as Roman citizenship is concerned during the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It is time people start thinking with logic.

Next time you go to a prophecy conference, ask your favorite prophecy teachers all these questions and see what they will say. Most likely you will not receive a plausible answer. That being the case, your radar antennas of discernment should go up and point you to another direction."

Anonymous said...

I would like to see Rodrigo Silva at this prophecy conference.

Nathan Jones said...

You won't want to miss Phillip Goodman's Tulsa International Prophecy Conference on April 1-3. Our sister ministry's led by Gary Fisher and Don McGee will be guest speaking.

It was a lot of fun in 2008! Looking forward 2010's (should we be here) when Dr. Reagan will guest speak again.

loki said...

I don’t have a firm view of where the AC originates from and I’m definitely playing catch-up with the issues. I can see the possibility of a few prophetic curve balls thrown in before the end. I personally think the power base will be in the west even if the AC ends up having an Assyrian ancestry, but I might be wrong.

If the AC is a Muslim then he is only overtly so at the beginning.

Dan 11:36-39 And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done. He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these. A god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. He shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god. Those who acknowledge him he shall load with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.

I also struggle with the idea that Israel will ever be able to build a Temple on the Mount while the Islamic countries have a strong voice. Perhaps the Temple is built elsewhere? I cannot envision a DEVOUT Muslim AC giving Israel any latitude whatsoever, unless extraordinary circumstances demand it.

Blessed said...

While you all were blogging, I actually went to the so cal prophecy conference and it was totally Biblically based, none of the speakers claimed to be the end all and be all of prophecy interpretation. Each one of them referred to what Scripture states. It was a blessing for all who went.

son of thunder said...

Up until recently I was a Muslim anti-christ advocate until I did a little research on Daniel 11:38. The word translated "forces" in the KJV and "fortresses" in the NASB comes from the word Ma'owz which can mean "human protection." It has no connotation of warfare or jihad, but of protection. The use of this word tells me the Anti-christ must be a secular humanist.

The word translated "god" is 'elowahh which means either God or false god. We can probably safely assume that God is not the right interpretation. So that leaves us with a false god. What could be a more false god than man?

The word "honor" is kabad, meaning to bring honor or honor to oneself. So a very literal translation could be: But instead, he will bring glory to the false god of humanity, a god his fathers did not acknowledge as being a god; he will bring glory to himself with gold, silver, costly stones and treasures.

This isn't to say that he isn't of Arab descent, but a practicing Muslim? I now think differently.

Mitchell said...

son of thunder,

Your Hebrew word definitions are lacking. Are you using a condensed Hebrew lexicon?

The word you refer to from Dan 11:38 (H4581 - ma`owz) is from H5810. "ma`owz" means "a fortified place; figuratively, a defence:--force; fort(-ress), rock, strength(-en), (X most) strong (hold)." Though it can figuratively mean "human protection" it is not used in such a context.

H5810 `azaz aw-zaz' a primitive root; to be stout (literally or figuratively):--harden, impudent, prevail, strengthen (self), be strong.

There is a reason why every translation uses the word "fortresses" or "forces". Look at the context of Daniel 11:38, what the Antichrist does he accomplishes by force.

I agree that the word for "god" refers to a false god. If he is Muslim, the Antichrist's false god is Allah.

H3513 (kabad) means "glorify, be (make) glorious (things), glory, (very) great, be grievous, harden, be (make) heavy, be heavier, lay heavily, (bring to, come to, do, get, be had in) honour (self), (be) honourable (man), lade, X more be laid, make self many, nobles, prevail, promote (to honour)"

Whether he brings honor to himself or brings glory to his false god in his evil endeavors is moot. The end result is still the same -- the Antichrist promotes his false god by using force, which brings legitimacy in the eyes of his followers to both him and their false god Allah. Mohammad did the exact same thing - promised his followers victory at the hands of Allah, and when they won their battle this strengthened Mohammad in the eyes of his followers, and consequently glorified their false god at the same time.

Mitchell said...

And what do Muslims say after a victory in battle? "Allahu akbar" which means "Allah is greater". This is the Takbir of Islam.

loki said...

“Whether he brings honor to himself or brings glory to his false god in his evil endeavors is moot.”

I don’t think so because the Daniel verses appear to me to propose that he exalts himself above all, and that is not the MO of a devout Muslim. He may well manoeuvre his position by pretending to be devout but he eventually has to come out and that raises issues regarding how his followers might react to this self-aggrandizement. Ultimately, he cannot be a committed Muslim and if his followers are devoted Muslims then they would rebel. The fact that people are willing to worship him is problematic (I think) from a devout Muslim perspective.

I’m not trying to be difficult - I just see this as a real issue along with the rebuilding of the Temple, although there’s no doubt in my mind that God can sovereignly use Islam for His purposes if He so wills.

Mitchell said...

I agree loki, my point was that it is his actions of using force in the name of Allah that gives him the ability or legitimizes the exaltation of himself. All he would have to do is either claim to be the Mahdi (or perhaps claim to be indwelt with the spirit of Mohammad. Just look at the name Mohammad -- it means "The Most Praised One", even above the God of Israel.) He could claim or be declared to be the Mahdi, who is exalted by Islam to be above all of creation and is claimed by Islam to sit in the Temple of God in Jerusalem. The Mahdi in Islam has titles that only belong to God. (Dr. G. F. Haddad, Living Islam, The Prophetic Title: The Best of Creation). To claim to be the Mahdi is to exalt himself above Yahweh the God of Israel.

The Mahdi, like Muhammad, exalts himself above all that is called God. In other words, he gives himself titles that only belong to God. The II Thessalonians 2 text is perfect and no serious mind can deny — it does match Islam’s deification of a man.

http://www.prophezine.com/PZArticles/CHALLENGESByWalidShoebat/tabid/795/Default.aspx

Sal said...

But, since Islam pilfered the idea of a returning Messiah from Christianity, then the Mahdi concept is pure theological fiction, and so no Mahdi can return if there's no such person to begin with.

Nathan Jones said...

Mitchell, Bible prophecy (and this Blog) is about hope and victory in the Lord, not theological combatancy. I want to foster discussion, but trolling the blog and jumping on anyone's comments like you've been doing to push the single-topic "Antichrist is a Muslim" theory isn't best practice. There are blogs out there, like Joel's Trumpet that dwell on this, and I invite folks who want to focus on that topic to visit there.

I don't wish anyone to feel they can't post without being jumped all over on, and will delete further comments or initiate the review feature if this continues. Thank you for your understanding.

SeanOsborne said...

The antiChrist (false messiah) WILL NOT be a Muslim or of the Islamic flase religion because Jesus Christ said so.

In Jerusalem it was Jesus who said to the Jews:

"I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive."

John 5:43

This proves that the antiChrist, the false Messiah, will not come in the name of the false moon god "allah", but he will come in his own name and will be received.

In the one blasphemous act, an abomination that makes desolate, will declare himself to be God.

No Muslim would ever declare himself to be "allah." It is an impossibility.

Besides, by the time this event takes place in mid-Tribulation, Islam will be but a footnote of history.

Mitchell said...

Sal, you may believe that the Mahdi concept is "pure theological fiction", but the Muslim world of nearly two billion does not. They have their own false eschatology, but they are so convinced of its truth they may even try to self-fulfill what they believe.

Mitchell said...

Hi SeanOsborne,

You seem quite certain from one verse that Antichrist cannot be Muslim because of what Jesus said in John 5:43. This is adding meaning to the text (eisegesis) when John 5 has absolutely nothing to do with the Antichrist. Even David Reagan acknowledges that John 5:43 has nothing to do with the Antichrist.

As for no Muslim ever declaring himself to be Allah, please realize that they do not even need to outright declare this. As I've already stated all he would have to do is sit in the temple of God and proclaim to be the Mahdi. The Mahdi is exalted by Islam to be above all of creation and is claimed by Islam to sit in the Temple of God in Jerusalem. The Mahdi in Islam has titles that only belong to God. (Dr. G. F. Haddad, Living Islam, The Prophetic Title: The Best of Creation). Therefore, to claim to be the Mahdi is to exalt himself above Yahweh the God of Israel.

Your assertion that Islam will be but a footnote of history by the mid-point of the tribulation is another example of reading meaning into text that isn't there, and is based upon the assumption that Gog/Magog is a separate war from Armageddon that destroys Islam. What you are contending is that Christ physically comes down in wrath, shakes the planet, crumbles mountains, sinks islands, sends hail, fire & brimstone and destroys the invading armies, feeds their bodies to ravenous birds, gives them a burial place in the valley and proves to the world that He is God during the Gog/Magog battle, then goes back up to Heaven and comes back down and does the exact same thing all over again a few years later. This is illogical. Consider this -- if the mountains are thrown down per Ezekiel 38:20, what mountains will there be to be thrown down a second time per Revelation 6:20? These are not two different wars. They are separate descriptions of the same event. Think of the descriptions from Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, Daniel, John for instance as different pieces to the same puzzle.

Mitchell said...

Nathan, I agree, and understand.

SeanOsborne said...

Hi Mitchell,

Brother, with all due respect, please refrain from adding meaning or connotation to things I did not say much less specifically address or even infer in my comments above. Also, I assumed nothing.

Aside from that, I am explicitly certain that Jesus was referencing the antiChrist in John 5:43. In support of this exegesis I cite page 122 of Clarence Larkin's book "Rightly Dividing the Word" (published in 1920).

with respect to your previous comment, "They [the Muslim world] have their own false eschatology, but they are so convinced of its truth they may even try to self-fulfill what they believe" is an impossibility.

The Qur'an and Islamic ahadith hold to some very specific items with respect to the identification of their anticipated al-Mahdi. He must be an Arab, from the tribe of Banû Hãshim, he must come from the house of (Ahlul-Bayt) Mohammed, he must be a direct descendant of Muhammed via his daughter Fatima and her son Husayn, he must make his appearance in Mecca, and he must establish a world government under Islam. The are over 50 Sunni Islamic sources that cite these specifics. The Shi'a number of references is even more numerous albeit they differ from the Sunni specifics.

These things make it quite impossible for any Muslim to merely "self-fulfill" to completion the appearance (zuhur) of their al-Mahdi. Many have tried before and failed.
It's akin to attempting to prove a negative - can't be done because the basic premises of Islam are completely false and demonic in nature.

loki said...

Sean I read John 5:43 today and thought exactly the same thing.

It’s one thing to note that Muhammad or the Black Stone is venerated/praised or even worshiped but quite another to claim that Muslims will worship a man above, or on a par with, Allah. Evangelicals point disapprovingly to Catholics for worshiping Mary and venerating saints (with good reason) yet, at the moment, there’s no way a Catholic would consider Mary as being above God the Father. It may be that the AC is able to manipulate the minds of the Islamic masses when he finally arrives on the scene but this is speculative.

I don’t know who the “god of fortresses” is. Daniel was written long before the Koran. I don’t necessarily agree with the following article but it does have some interesting ideas.

God of Fortresses
As for the Mahdi, I found this article interesting too.

THE MUSLIMS ALSO EXPECT THE MAHDI
The Muslims after the death of prophet Muhammad made their own innovations and fabrications that have no basis in the Quran. They even wrote many books to compete with the book of God, the Quran. The book that God called, the BEST HADITH and asked His true believers to follow no other book than His Quran. In these fabricated books of hadith, stories of a future coming righteous man, named Mehdi, Mahdi or Imam Al Zaman, were circulated. Al Mahdi, El Mehdi or Imam Al Zaman have no basis or origin in Islam or its Holy book, the Quran. Quran ONLY talks about a consolidating and unifying messenger of God who would come after all the prophets have come (see Quran 3:81). The Quran named that messenger of God, the Messenger of the Covenant . In essence he fulfills all the expectations of the Jews, Christians and Muslims of a unifying figure for all of God's messages.

I skimmed through Walid’s article on Prophezine. A lot of the issues he raises and argues for are over my head at the moment. In fact I first came across Walid on Zola Levitt’s website and was very impressed by his witness. However, his contention that John saw the word Allah in Rev 13:18 doesn’t gel with me.

Mitchell said...

Hi SeanOsborne,

I am sure that Clarence Larkin is a good writer, but citing him is not proof that John 5:43 is a reference to Antichrist. It is but an assumption on the part of some, and the context of 5:43 bears this out.

As for the possible self-fulfillment question regarding the Mahdi, do you truly believe it is out of the question that the religious establishment of Islam (whose god is Satan - the father of lies) is incapable of falsely producing evidence so that any future al Mahdi figure meets the requisite criteria to claim such title, or that in the absence of said proofs they would therefore preclude an otherwise seemingly valid candidate? This Mahdi figure does not need to claim the title immediately. It may be that after he is successful in establishing his coalition of Islamic nations and after receiving the support of the Muslim masses as a new leader for Muslims all over the world that he claims the title AT THE TIME he sits in the temple of God (therefore confirming the suspicions of many). All he has to do is sit in the temple and claim to be the Mahdi that the Muslim world has been waiting for.

Satan is setting up the Muslim world to accept the Antichrist with arms wide open. I believe firmly that the empire of the Beast is already here, we see it on the news every day, in the papers, on the radio, etc. If Islam is not the system of Antichrist we need to believe that:

* Yet a different nearly two billion people will also be specifically antichrist as the most important fundamental ("shirk") of an as yet unknown European religion.

* Yet a different nearly two billion people will also follow a different, as yet unknown, European false prophet.

* Yet a different religion will also "wear out the saints" by murdering Jews and Christians (Dan 7:25) - and by beheading.

* Yet a different religion will also change the times - by creating its own calendar. (Daniel 7:25)

* Yet a different religion will also attempt to change laws - by ignoring the Sabbath as well as imposing Islamic Sharia law, in the place of legitimate laws of sovereign nations, throughout the world. (Daniel 7:25)

* Yet a different religion will also build yet another abomination (Dome of the Rock) on the Temple Mount that is specifically antichrist, which contains mosaic inscriptions inside and out that read "Far be it from God's glory that he should have a Son".

* Yet a different religion will establish in a few years what took Islam almost 1400 years to establish.

Are we really to believe that the nearly two billion antichrist Muslims in antichrist Islam today, will all convert to a different as yet unknown European antichrist religion, operated by some as yet unknown antichrist charismatic European leader, and this in a period of just a few years?

Mitchell said...

hi loki,

The Muslim link you provided is to an Islamic cult who believes that the "Messenger of the Covenant" is a man named Dr. Rashad Khalifa. (This is the "Christian equivalent" to David Koresh and the Branch Davidians). The Sunni and Shia believe in al Mahdi.

son of thunder said...

For the record, Mitchell, I used Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

SeanOsborne said...

loki,

Excellent! As we all know, the Word of God is the only literally living document of written reference in existence on planet Earth. Every jot, iota or communicative word of its composition is the unquestionable Truth; it comes directly from the Word of the living Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I'll also note that any claim that Muslims, the Qur'an or any ahadith in Islam which claims the al-Mahdi is worshipped on a par with or above Allah is absolute nonsense. Complete rubbish. Within the completely bogus Islamic theology the al-Mahdi is nothing more than the reappearance of the final "rightly guided" Islamic Imam. The claimed personage of the al-Mahdi is a satanic deception; if anything based upon the superstition of a mere child who, in a now quite ancient Islamic 'urban legend,' fell down some middle eastern water well and very probably died as a result.

Mitchell,

Clarence Larkin is one of the greatest Dispensational authors and preachers of relatively modern times. I included the links in my comment above specifically to point you in that direction. However, aside from what Larkin, as well as the exegesis of others, I hold that the conviction placed upon me by the Holy Spirit regarding John 5:43 is all the reference of validity and truth necessary. You can believe what you want, I know differently by the conviction of the Holy Spirit what the Gospel of John attests to. This is in and of itself is nothing even remotely close to an assumption. Period.

As for the al-Mahdi, let me be perfectly frank and literal ... to hell with Islam. Period. There will be no "al-Mahdi" as it is like Islam, a falsehood in the extreme. I made this clear earlier. The universal religion and worship of the antiChrist as controlled by the False Prophet makes any Islamic wannabe character a moot point. Islam is soon to be a mere footnote among the rest of this world false religions. So ridiculous is the notion that its not worthy of the bytespace we are using to discuss it. It is absolute garbage.

As for your comment: "Are we really to believe that the nearly two billion antichrist Muslims in antichrist Islam today, will all convert to a different as yet unknown European antichrist religion, operated by some as yet unknown antichrist charismatic European leader, and this in a period of just a few years?"

What does the Word of God say on the matter? Are "we really to belive..."???

Yes, I belive the Word of God. I hope you do also. He says it will be so. I believe Him; to hell with Islam.

Mitchell said...

Hi SeanOsborne,

I probably agree with you in more areas than I disagree with you brother. Yes, to hell with Islam because that is where it comes from, the pit of hell. And that's where its final resting place will be.

As for Clarence Larkin, he is just a man, and no opinion of man is the final authority. I prefer to stay with Scripture first and foremost, and refer to various writers and commentators on occasion (for what it's worth, "Jamieson, Fausset & Brown" sees no relation to Antichrist in v.43, stating "How strikingly has this been verified in the history of the Jews! "From the time of the true Christ to our time, sixty-four false Christs have been reckoned by whom they have been deceived"). However, please do not imply that because I disagree with you regarding John 5:43 and its association (or lack thereof) with Antichrist that I am somehow not led by the Holy Spirit. Numerous writers and commentators (including David Reagan) do not see any relation with Antichrist in this verse, are none of them guided by the Spirit? The purpose of the Gospel of John is to prove the deity of Christ, that He is the Son of God.

I agree, that al Mahdi is a falsehood, an evil lie from Satan, as is Islam as religion. However Islam teaches this lie to the masses of Muslims and is believed by both Sunni and Shia (and is declared obligatory for all Muslims to believe in). WE know that it is false, but Muslims believe it to be true.

Islam and its teachings are absolute garbage, I agree 100% with you Sean. We all do. And those who hold the position of an Islamic Antichrist do not give credence to any Islamic "prophecy" in the sense that it is divinely inspired. Not in the tiniest least. As many of us can see, Islam's false eschatology borrows bits and pieces from true Biblical prohecies, but is corrupted with their twisted Islamic teachings and is, in fact, antithetical to what the Bible is teaching us. I don't think, however, that just because we know that Islam is a false religion that we should arbitrarily turn a blind eye to what it teaches the masses of Muslim followers, especially in terms of their own (false) eschatology. As Christians, we can see Biblical prophecy unfolding before our eyes, such as the creation of Israel in 1948, but since Islam borrows those bits and pieces of true Bible eschatology Muslims will view it as "proof" of their own "Islamic eschatology", and some can conceivably even attempt to self-fulfill some of their twisted eschatology. For instance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated publicly many times that he wishes to hasten the return of the promised "Rightly Guided One" and is seeking to create the conditions necessary for the return of this Mahdi figure.

Having said that, let me be clear -- one does not connect Antichrist to Islam merely because of what Islamic eschatology teaches about their Mahdi, but one can connect Antichrist to Islam because of what Biblical eschatology teaches about the Antichrist.

Question - why do you believe that Islam will soon "be a mere footnote" among religions?

What does the Word of God say on the matter? Are "we really to believe...

When it comes to the depictions of the Last Days, Antichrist, his actions, the nations that come up against Jerusalem, etc. the Word of God describes perfectly the nature and intent of the false religion of Islam today.

SeanOsborne said...

Mitchell wrote..."one does not connect Antichrist to Islam merely because of what Islamic eschatology teaches about their Mahdi, but one can connect Antichrist to Islam because of what Biblical eschatology teaches about the Antichrist."

Anyone who connects the Antichrist to Islam is the willful or not victim of a poor exegesis of Daniel 9:26. Antichrist will come from the people who are responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D.

"The people" who accomplished that destruction were those of the Roman Empire, via their armies, principally, Legio X Fretensis, Legio V Macedonica and Legio XV Apollinaris, under the command of Roman General Titus Vespasianus. The soldiers of Legio X were Italians from the region of the Straits of Messina; Legio XV from the mixed Illyrian-Celtic people of the region of Pannonia along the Danube River, and Legio V were of the Thraco-Illyrian people in the region of the lower Danube formerly known as Moesia.

In sum, the "people of the prince" were Europeans and Roman citizens.

Mitchell wrote..."Question - why do you believe that Islam will soon "be a mere footnote" among religions?"

Because of the one-world religion that worships the Beast according to the Word of God. The religion of the False Prophet will oppose ALL religions, it will worship the Beast alone, the man indwelt by Satan, and as Saint Paul described the one-world religion of those coming days "“all that is called God, or worshipped.” That includes Islam. ALL relgions which exist prior to the advent of the worship of the Beast. This is very unambiguous Bible prophecy; it could not be more clearly stated in The Word.

son of thunder said...

The more I read and the more I study, I have to agree with Dr. Reagan, SeanOsborne and others. Many people don't realize that Islam is dying slowly, just Google muslims leaving islam and take a look. People are leaving that pagan religion and many are coming to Christ (hallelujah).

But on the other hand, many people are also leaving Christianity (which, i think, will also become a footnote in human history) due to the efforts of groups like Freedom from Religion, athiests, evolutionists, and humanists, which all place man in the place of God.

I am a former Islamic Antichrist/ al-Madhi theorist (that's not to say I'm not in error, I just don't believe that's what the Bible teaches, and thank God, I won't be here to find out). That's not to say that Antichrist isn't of Arab descent due to the Arab population growth in Europe, but al-Madhi isn't Arab -- he's Persian.

Wherever Antichrist is from, the Bible clearly states that humanism will be the new religion. I believe that is the great apostasy which the Apostles wrote about. Look how many churches are turning to New Age mumbo-jumbo, for example. Europe isn't turning to Islam as a replacement religion, they are turning to humanism; as is nearly every other nation.

loki said...

I tend to agree with the humanist concept of the AC. If Islam is Antichristian, humanism is, arguably, even more so. Look at abortion, eugenics, unrestricted sexual expression, homosexuality, same-sex marriage etc, and one of the primary concepts of New Ageism is that we are all gods.

Mitchell said...

Hi SeanOsborne,

SeanOsborne writes, "Anyone who connects the Antichrist to Islam is the willful or not victim of a poor exegesis of Daniel 9:26. Antichrist will come from the people who are responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D."

Obviously, I disgree brother that Antichrist must only come from the Western leg. I find it odd that you are dogmatic that Antichrist must come from Europe yet still call Charles Larkin "one of the greatest Dispensational authors and preachers of relatively modern times". Even Clarence Larkin believed that Antichrist would not come out of Europe, writing:

Quote:

"The ''King of the North’’ was the King of Syria, and his character and conduct is described (Dan. 11:36-39) as similar to that of the ‘’Little Horn’’ that came out of one of the ''Four Horns’’ it is clear that the Antichrist is to come from Syria. That the ''King of the North’’ spoken of in Dan. 11:21-31 was Antiochus Epiphanes there can be no doubt, but that he was not the ‘’Little Horn,’’ or the Antichrist, who is to come out of Syria in the ‘’latter days’’ is clear from the remainder of the chapter from the 35th verse, which describes the conduct of the future Antichrist. The intervening verse, the 32nd to the 35th inclusive fill in the gap between the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the appearance of the Antichrist. There is no intimation that Antiochus Epiphanes is even to be regarded as a ‘’type’’ of Antichrist. They are distinct historical personages, each dealt with in his own place, and though they resemble each other in some respects, yet they must not be confounded with each other. The term ''North'' and ''South'' are applied to Syria and Egypt because of their geographic relation to Palestine (the Pleasant of Glorious land. Dam. 8:9, 11:16, 41). In the thought of Jehovah, Jerusalem is at once the geographic and moral centre of the earth. We are to understand therefore by the ‘’King of the North’’ the King of Syria, which also included Assyria. This fixes the locality from which the Antichrist shall come, for we read in Isa. 10:12 –

''That when the Lord hath performed His whole work upon Mount Zion and on Jerusalem (which will not be until Christ comes back), I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria (Antichrist) and the glory of his ''high looks’,’’

And we read in Isa. 14:25 –

''I will break the Assyrian (the Antichrist) in my land (Palestine), and upon my mountains ‘tread him under foot;’ then shall his yoke depart from off them (Israel), and his burden depart from off their shoulders.’’

The context shows that this prophecy is connected with the restoration of Israel to their own land and the time of the downfall of the Antichrist. To recapitulate, we see from three visions of Daniel that –

1. He learned from the ''Little Horn'' of the Fourth Wild Beast, that a Mysterious and Terrible Personage was to arise in the ''Latter Days''

2. He learned from the ''Little Horn'' that came up on one of the ‘’Four Notable Horns’’ that took the place of the ‘’Great Horn’’ on the He-Goat, that that ''Terrible Personage’''was to come out of one of the Kingdoms into which the Grecian Empire was divided as the death of Alexander the Great

3. He learned from the vision of the ''King of the North'' that that ''Terrible Personage’'' would come out of the Syrian division of Alexander’s Kingdom.’’ "

End Quote (Dispensational Truth Or God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages - Clarence Larkin, p. 118).

If Clarence Larkin were alive today he would in all likelihood be among those who believed Antichrist would arise out of Islam. Would you still call him one of the greatest Dispensational teachers then?

SeanOsborne writes, "[Islam will soon be a mere footnote among religions] Because of the one-world religion that worships the Beast according to the Word of God. The religion of the False Prophet will oppose ALL religions, it will worship the Beast alone, the man indwelt by Satan, and as Saint Paul described the one-world religion of those coming days "“all that is called God, or worshipped.”"

Sounds like you're describing Islam itself. Mohammed is a false prophet. This is not debatable. Mohammed's religion opposes ALL other religions. This is not debatable. Let's get a quick lesson on Islam by a former Muslim:

"FACT—MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE BLACK STONE

Islam teaches that every Muslim must get his sins cleansed by venerating The Black Stone at least once in their lifetime, since the Black Stone is black due to it taking away the sins of Muslims. From a biblical definition — not only do Muslims deify Muhammad, they also deify the Black Stone — this idol takes the position of Jesus Himself, since only Jesus can remit all sin.

Even the Book of Acts addresses such issues: Everyone knows that Ephesus is the official guardian of the temple of the great Artemis, whose image which fell down to us from heaven (Acts 19:35).

Will Reagan say that these did not worship Artemis or her image?

The image of Artemis is strikingly similar to the meteorite stone image in Mecca which Allah commands 1.3 billion Muslims to literally bow down and prostrate themselves toward at least seventeen times during their five daily prayers.

Al-Tirmidhi, one of the greatest Muslim commentators notes “many years ago, the Black Stone was, “whiter than milk; it was only later that it became black as it absorbed the sins of those who touched it.”

Even the stone according to the Bible is an “image”. Biblically speaking, an image does not only mean a statue. Likely, the image of the beast can include a stone.

FACT—MUSLIMS WORSHIP MUHAMMAD

Muhammad’s name literally means “The Most Praised One”. If this alone is not worship, I do not know what else is. Can Reagan deny that Muslims elevate Muhammad over Yahweh? What you will find here is an astounding yes. Muhammad “The Praised One” is a title of deity. This is a name of blasphemy. The Antichrist system blasphemes God. Of course Muslims do not claim that they worship Muhammad. Yet they do. Allah himself in the Quran commanded: “Allah and His angels pray upon the prophet [Muhammad]. O ye who believe pray upon him and salute him with a worthy salutation” (Qur’an 33:56). Even Allah himself prays upon Muhammad. Reagan is in checkmate, he can either insist on his view and defend Muslim claims, or abandon his uneducated guesswork. Without Muhammad, there can be no Islam and without believing in Muhammad, no one can become a Muslim. The Islamic creed mandates it “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” Muslims elevate Muhammad with God for no Christian would be mandated to state, “There is no God but Yahweh and Ezekiel is His messenger.”

Allah in the Quran even shared many of his names with Mohammed. He holds a uniquely exalted status unparalleled by anything or anyone else. He is given the title Al-Maqam-Al-Mahmud (The Glorious). The Mahdi who Muslims believe is the essence of Muhammad, likewise is called “glorious”, Ahmadinijad stated: “pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi — may Allah hasten his reappearance.”

Muslim scholar, Dr. G. F. Haddad, in an article with a blasphemous title, The Best of Creation states “[There is no] other Prophet [other than Mohammed] or angel-brought-near with whom Allah Most High shared as many of His own Names in the Qur’an as He did with the Prophet. With respect to his foremost name—Mohammed—peace be upon him, consider the poetic verse of Hassan ibn Thabit (RA): ‘And He drew out for him [a name] from His own Name so as to dignify him greatly: The Owner of the Throne [God] is The Glorious [Mahmûd], and this is the Praiseworthy [Mohammed]!’”

Islam claims that God, whose name is Mahmud, or the Glorious or the Praised One, named Mohammed after Himself. This is quite the claim. Mohammed wanted to be like God. Even intersession is attributed to Muhammad “It may be that thy Lord will raise thee to a praised estate’ (Qur’an 17:79), a station which the Prophet said none but he would receive. And this is the Station of Intercession at the right of the Glorious Throne.”

Only Jesus is positioned at the right hand of God where He is the only one that intercedes for mankind: “Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us” (Romans 8:34). One will never find in the Scriptures Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos, Habakkuk, or Jeremiah given such titles.

FACT—MUSLIMS WORSHIP MAHDI

Like Mohammed, the Mahdi is exalted by Islam to be above all of creation, and is claimed by Islam to sit in the Temple of God in Jerusalem. Mahdi in Islam has titles that belong only to God.

Now, lets examine II Thessalonians 2 that Reagan uses as evidence to write-off for Islam. Antichrist “oppose and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (II Thessalonians 2:4).

The Mahdi, like Muhammad exalts himself above all that is called God. In other words, he gives himself titles that only belong to God. The II Thessalonians 2 text is perfect and no serious mind can deny — it does match Islam’s deification of a man."

http://www.prophezine.com/PZArticles/CHALLENGESByWalidShoebat/tabid/795/Default.aspx

Anonymous said...

The Third Jihad - a 30 minute video you can watch for free online.

http://blip.tv/file/1382254/

loki said...

Here are some take out comments discussing end-times from a Muslim website:

As Muslims, we must seek refuge with Allah from the tribulations in general, and from the torments of the Antichrist in particular; we must pray to Allah openly and in secret, to help us remain steadfast both in this world and in the Hereafter. And Allah knows best.

The Final Battle

Authenticity of Hadiths Pertaining to Al-Mahdi

In the links we see that the Mahdi is, indeed, a feature of some Islamic eschatological systems. However, it’s patently obvious to me by the comments in the links that the average committed Muslim is NOT directed to worship any Mahdi/Messianic figure ABOVE Allah. Yet that is exactly what the AC requires for himself. For devout, mainstream Muslims, Allah is SUPREME regardless of whether they prostrate themselves before a STONE. As a former Catholic I see similarities with that mentality and custom.

Good points re Clarence Larkin. Just a smidgeon further, he states.…

The Antichrist, therefore, in all probability will be a Syrian Jew, for it is not likely that the Jews will accept as their Messiah one who is not a Jew, unless the claimant by false pretence makes them believe he is one. This, however, does not prevent the Antichrist being A Roman citizen, and a king of the revived Roman Empire, for Saul of Tarsus was both a Jew and a Roman citizen.

Clarence Larkin “Dispensational Truth” p 118

His “The Book of Revelation” is good reading as well.

Mitchell said...

hi brother loki,

Sure, Muslims will deny that they would ever worship an image, or even a man. But their actions say otherwise. Satan wants nothing more than to be like the Most High and to be worshipped. A Satan-possessed Antichrist will be cunning and deceitful enough to convince even Muslims to worship him.

Re: Clarence Larkin, when he wrote his book Islam was all but a dead religion. But look at it today, it has come back to life to the point where it threatens western civilization, and Syria today is over 90% Muslim, and the percentage of non-Muslim politicians in Syria is next to nil. Also, keep in mind that the eastern leg had Assyrian soldiers who were considered Roman, even though they were not born in Rome. The Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia located in Asia Minor in modern day Turkey, yet he was considered Roman.

SeanOsborne said...

Mitchell wrote:

"Obviously, I disgree brother that Antichrist must only come from the Western leg."

Mitchell,

I didn't say "western leg" did I? I repeated what Daniel was Divinely inspired to write, namely, that :Antichrist will come from the people who are responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D." I then identified those "people" via the historical record of those events in 70 A.D. These are FACTS which are indisputable.

Clarence Larkin was discussing Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and he most certainly was an archetype or foreshadowing of the coming Beast due to his actions regarding the Temple in Jerusalem.

And gues what... there's another indisputable historical fact to note at this specific point -- Antiochus IV Epiphanes was of pure Greek/Macedonian descent (i.e. he was not a "Syrian). His family lineage going back to Seleucus I Nicator, a cousin of Alexander the Great's and one of his best and most favored generals.

Moreover, another descendant of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a commander of the Roman auxila supporting the legions in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This Auxilia of the Roman Army was brought to Jerusalem by Gaius Julius Archelaus Antiochus Epiphanes as reported by Flavius Josephus in his historical record. He was also of Greek/Macedonian ethnicity.

As for Walid Shoebat's challenge - been there, done that. No sound exegesis stands on just one leg and five toes.

Sound exegesis stands on two legs and ten toes.

Some additional research results are relevant to the point I've been making with respect to Daniel 9:26. I'm going to repeat, with bold emphasis, what I blogged to Bill Salus' PROPHECY DEPOT website this past Monday.

"From: "Structural history of the Roman military"

Under the heading of:

"Imperial legions and reformation of the auxilia (27 BC – 117 AD)"

We read...

"The legions, which had been a mix of life professionals and civilian campaigners, was altered into a standing army of professionals only.[60] The actual structure of the cohort army remained much the same as in the late Republic, although around the first century AD the first cohort of each legion was increased in size to a total of 800 soldiers.[61] However, while the structure of the legions remained much the same, their make-up gradually changed. Whereas early Republican legions had been raised by a draft from eligible Roman citizens, imperial legions were recruited solely on a voluntary basis and from a much wider base of manpower. Likewise, whereas Republican legions had been recruited almost exclusively in Italy, early Imperial legions drew most of their recruits from Roman colonies in the provinces from 68 AD onwards. One estimate places the proportion of Italian troops at 65% under Augustus in c. 1 AD, falling to around 49% by the end of Nero's reign.[62]


Bas-relief carving of a Roman legionary out of battle dress, c. 1st century AD (Pergamon Museum, Berlin) Since the legions were officially open only to Roman citizens, Max Cary and Howard Hayes Scullard argue that at least in some provinces at this time "many provincials must have been recruited who lacked any genuine claim to Roman citizenship but received it unofficially on enlistment",[63] a practice that was to increase in the second century.[64]"

Wikipedia

Citing:

Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 91
Hassall, The Army, p. 325
Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 91
Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 98
Cary & Scullard, A History of Rome, p. 338
Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter I, p. 36

Again, another historical fact-of-record can be cited as proof that Roman citizen-soldiers came from the "people" which Daniel stated in his prophecy would destroy "the city and the sanctuary."

SeanOsborne said...

One more point with respect to Syria...

I maintain that Isaiah 17 and Pslam 83 occur prior to the Tribulation. This is apparent because in neither is there any mention of the 3rd Temple or of Temple worship in Jerusalem. Dotto for Ezekiel 38/39.

And what happens to these nations as a directresult of these imminent battles and wars?

Is Israel victorious or are the Syrians and Arabs? It's a no brainer because "the Bible tells me so."

And by the time the subsequent war of Ezekiel 38/39 occurs ... what is the mindset of Saudi Arabia and Yemen as revealed by Ezekiel? The very meek, defensive and highly defensive "have you come to take a spoil" is all that these Arabs will offer.

In all instances Bible prophecy makes crystal clear that these nations will not be whatthey are today when Tribulation time rolls around.

loki said...

I’ve carefully read Walid’s points about praising Muhammad and the praying etc. However, the bottom line is that Muslims do not worship (in the true sense of the word) anything except Allah. Allah is supreme and modern pious Muslims wouldn’t tolerate any person claiming they are above Allah. It’s true that the Antichrist will deceive the masses because Scripture tells us so. But I don’t think Muslims are particularly inclined to be deceived based on Walid’s arguments. That said, I really do worry about Iran's president and his Mahdi beliefs given Iran's nuclear aspirations. But that's a slightly different issue.

“Re: Clarence Larkin, when he wrote his book Islam was all but a dead religion.”

That implies that Larkin was influenced by the current situation rather than his Biblical understanding. In fact he foresaw Israel back as a nation based on Scripture – as did Scofield and J C Ryle. Islam has had notoriety and infamy ever since Muhammad. Even C S Lewis used Islamic themes in his final eschatological Narnian Chronicle “The Last Battle” - although that doesn’t make him a prophet.

From that site I linked to earlier:

...I would like to say that there are Hadiths reported about Al-Mahdi that are true in general, but most of them do not reach the degree of authenticity. It may be only one of these Hadiths that is regarded authentic. Moreover, it is only a few of them that are considered sound, while most of them are weak.

Muslims who are of Ahl-us Sunnah (mainstream Muslims) believe that a man of the Prophet’s clan will be born before the end of this world and lead an ordinary life as any other one; he may commit mistakes and will need to be reformed like any other one. Then Allah will choose him to reunite the Muslims and guide them to the right path.

This is all what should be believed about Al-Mahdi. There is no religious text to the effect that it is a religious duty to wait anxiously for him. Moreover, Muslims should not believe anyone claiming that he is Al-Mahdi unless there is clear evidence to that effect, as many people have claimed to be so.

Mitchell said...

hi SeanOsborne,

Historians can be quoted until we are blue in the face -- you can quote those who seem to support your position, I can quote those who appear to support mine. But the fact remains that Scripture gives us sufficient, clear and explicit details regarding the origin of Antichrist. For example, he is desribed as the last "king of the north" in Daniel 11. He is called "The Assyrian" elsewhere. Many scholars, commentators and teachers today and throughout history such as Clarence Larkin acknowledge this fact. Indeed, Antichrist will come from the people who were responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD, and we know that there were soldiers of those legions from Assyria, yet those from Assyria (which encompasses Lebanon, Syrian and Iraq or the region of the old Babylonian Empire) were also considered Roman because they answered to Rome. Even the Apostle Paul, who was born in Tarsus - a city in Cilicia located in Asia Minor in modern day Turkey - was considered Roman.

When we read Scripture line upon line, precept upon precept and employ sound hermeneutics we come to the realization that Antichrist will arise out of the region of ancient Assyria. And these were among they who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

As for your note on Ezekiel 38 and 39, it should be quite clear after careful study that this is indeed the battle of Armageddon. Remember, line upon line and precept upon precept.

Those who believe that Gog/Magog of Ez 38-39 is different than Armageddon are contending that Christ physically comes down in wrath, shakes the planet, crumbles mountains, sinks islands, sends hail, fire & brimstone and destroys the invading armies, feeds their bodies to ravenous birds, gives them a burial place in the valley and proves to the world and Israel that He is God, then goes back up to Heaven and comes back down and does the exact same thing all over again a few years later because the world conveniently forgot the utter destruction that happened a few year prior. There is no logic to this. Consider this -- if the mountains are thrown down per Ezekiel 38:20, what mountains will there be to be thrown down a second time per Revelation 6:20? These are not two different wars. They are separate descriptions of the same event.

We need to keep in mind that just because certain details are left out of Ezekiel's description when compared to other descriptions does not automatically mean that he is talking about a different war. Biblical prophetical literature (just as the four Gospels) can often speaks about a single event yet with details often included or omitted depending on the prophet. Joel will not include all the same details of Ezekiel, who will not include all the same details as John, who will not include all the same details as Daniel, etc. Zechariah describes additional details regarding Jerusalem, Ezekiel describes the same battle but with additional details regarding the nations themselves specifically. In both instances it is God who draws them into the valley so that He can destroy them. Think of the descriptions from Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, Daniel, John for instance as different pieces to the same puzzle.

Hi loki,

As we edge closer to D-Day, if you will, we are beginning to understand Bible prophecy in a clearer light. If there is prophecy that is sealed until the time of the end, it makes sense that our understanding of events and global conditions will begin to be expanded the closer we approach the return of Christ. During the days of Larkin Israel was not yet a nation, yet he was able to know that a time was coming when Israel would be reborn. But he could never have fully understood the nature of the hatred that would also be aimed at Israel after its birth as well. We now understand that the nations that surround Israel that will come against Jerusalem at Armageddon hates Israel because of their anti-Jew, anti-Christ and anti-Truth religion of Islam. If there were no Islam, the hatred we see aimed against Israel today would be virtually nonexistent by comparison.

SeanOsborne said...

Mitchell,

It is most interesting to note that when real-world historical facts stand in direct opposition to the views of the "eastern leg" proponents they are summarily dismissed. The chief proponets of your view, Shoebat and Richardson, rely heavily on secular and even Islamic sources as the under-girders of support for their position. Again, the historical facts, both Biblical and secular, and sans any twisting or unwarranted exegetical acrobatics stand as testiment to the truth and literalness of Daniel 9:26, to wit, a revived Roman Empire will be the power base of the antichrist.

Secondly, and with all due respect brother, I find your current understanding and interpretive rendering of Daniel 11 somewhat lacking wherein you state: "he is desribed as the last "king of the north" in Daniel 11."

Nowhere in Daniel 11, in any translation, is there a description of the antichrist as the "last king of the north". It simply does not exist.

A correct exegetical rendering of Daniel 11 would hold that these verses are descriptive of the wars fought between two of the four rump empires that came out of Alexander the Great's Empire. The primary belligerents are clearly the Seleucid Empire of Seleucus I Nicator and the Egypt-based Empire of Ptolemy. The Seleucid kingship is herein prophetically traced so that by verse 21 we see the personage of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

As discussed in my comment above, Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a precursor or prototype of the coming antichrist. In verse 30 we see the rise of the Roman Empire into the Middle East, and the effect this initial Italian-Roman arrival ("ships of Chittim") has on Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and we see the precusor 'abomination of desolation' in the abolition of the Temple daily sacrifice and the standing up of a Jupiter Olympius statue in the Temple.

Again, as stated above, Antiochus IV Epiphanes was an ethnic Greek/Macedonian. This 11th chapter of daniel also serves as not only an unerrant, precise prophetic view of the period of years between Alexander's Empire and the Roman Empire relative to the Holy Land, but it also is a prophetic template of the arrival of the Beast Kingdom, and the specific, repeated act of an image of the antichrist, the "Abomination of Desolation," which will be stood up in the coming 3rd Temple by the False Prophet.

This brings me to write here and now of a critical item of understanding. This is something I have understood via the discernment granted by the Holy Spirit for many years now, and wish to impart to all my brothers and sisters in the Lord.

It is this specific act of Abomination which our Lord keyed upon in His Olivet Discourse. I believe this absolutely critical for those left behind after the Harpazo to come to understand.

I believe Jesus words in Matthew 24:15 are the clearest sign that the act of standing up the antichrist's image in the Temple (the Abomination) directly results in the removal of the Restrainer (the Desolation) - the Holy Spirit - from this earth for the final 3.5 years of the Great Tribulation.

Mitchell said...

Hi SeanOsbourne,

Real world historical facts are not in any opposition to the 'eastern leg' view at all. It is a historical fact that the "people of the prince" included Assyrians, and it is a fact that Scripture calls Antichrist "the Assyrian", and it is a fact that Daniel 11 also calls him the "king of the north", and it is a fact that he will come from the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. This debate reminds me what the Jewish theologians would have sounded like when discussing the Messianic prophecies - does He come from Bethelehem, Nazareth, or Egypt? Obviously, the answer was all three...

As for Daniel 11, I presumed that you understood the full context of this chapter. There is a clear break in the flow of history between verse 35 and verse 36 of Dan 11. Right up until verse 35 we are dealing with past history, but verse 36 onwards are events that are yet future. Dan 11:35 says, "And some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time."

time of the end = "eth qets" - literally, until the end of time

This is a specific eschatological term that refers to the last days. Daniel says it again in verse 40. When Daniel was written everything was future prophecy, but the scope is beyond the Persian and Greek eras. After this there is no historical data for verses 35-45 and there is no indication that the events recorded in those verses were fulfilled during the life of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Notice the prophetic context of the following verses:

Dan 11:36-37, "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

Sound familiar? It should. Notice "indignation" in verse 36. In a prophetic context this term is used almost synonymously with the tribulation period, and the description is very similar to other Scriptures referring to Antichrist. Antiochus Epiphanes was proud but he never magnified himself above every god. He religiously worshiped the gods of the Greeks and tried to force the Jews to do the same!

2 Thess 2:3-4 reads, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Was this fulfilled already as well?

Let's continue looking at the context of Daniel 11 to see if there are more clues regarding the timing of these prophecies.

Dan 11:40-12:2, "And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt."

Sound familiar? I probably don't need to quote Matthew 24:21, or of Rev 20:5 that speaks of the resurrection at the end of the last days.

In summary, the historical king of the north which occupies a good portion of Daniel 11, beginning with verse 6, is the ancient King of Assyria, who is not European. The future portion of the prophecy in Daniel 11 beginning in verse 36 with a reference to the "king" who shall "do according to his will" is clearly the future Antichrist and is also referred to as the "king of the north" in verse 40 whom the king of the south comes against, thus identifying Antichrist with the historical King of Assyria.

The previous three prophecies in Daniel all refer to the Antichrist, and it makes sense that Daniel's final prophecy follows the same pattern as well.

Mitchell said...

SeanOsborne writes, "I believe Jesus words in Matthew 24:15 are the clearest sign that the act of standing up the antichrist's image in the Temple (the Abomination) directly results in the removal of the Restrainer (the Desolation) - the Holy Spirit - from this earth for the final 3.5 years of the Great Tribulation."

Do you believe that when people see the Abomination of Desolation that many people will come to Christ during the 3 1/2 years of Great Tribulation, perhaps due to the 144,000 Jewish evangelists?

loki said...

If there were no Islam, the hatred we see aimed against Israel today would be virtually nonexistent by comparison.

Don’t you believe that for one second. The hatred for Israel transcends and precedes Islam; is not confined to the Middle East and is ultimately satanic. Remove Islam and you will still have the satanic persecution of Jews. You only need to follow what’s occurred throughout history. Our own WCC and NCC churches hate Israel. Do research on the polemics of Stephen Sizer and Hank Hanegraaff and anti-Israel propaganda in the media. Don’t make the mistake in thinking that similar hatred cannot come out of Europe or elsewhere. In fact a Euro AC (of Assyrian or whatever origin) would probably utilize Islamic hatred for his own ends.

SeanOsborne said...

Mitchell,

Please direct us to the book, chapter and verse where
"Assyrians" are taking part in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.

And before you do this, please take care that you have not assumed the use of the word Assyrian as anything other than an archetype (as in a model of, a prototype) descriptor.

Take care that you have not confused the ancient Assyrian people with the subsequent Syrian Arabs.

The Assyrian people have been a Christian people since the time of Christ, and have been persecuted to the point of big-time genocide by Muslims in their original homeland since the Muslim conquest of the 7th Century A.D. (i.e. between 634-638 A.D.)

I hope you are aware that, prophetically speaking, there is no connection between the ancient Assyrians and the modern-day Syrian Arabs.

There is a reason Isaiah describes the destruction of Damascus in chapter 17 of his book in the way he does. And there is a reason why Daniel's prophecies are worded the way that they are. Be careful, because if you have confused these two distinct ethnic peoples, then we'll have to deal with that issue later.

Mitchell wrote:
"there is no historical data for verses 35-45 and there is no indication that the events recorded in those verses were fulfilled during the life of Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes."

Excuse me, but I didn't say those verses did specifically that. I daid those verse were dual-purpose and I made quite clear that I was referring to verses 31 & 32: ("His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him." This event is an established historical fact of 167 BC which led to the Maccabean revolt and the eventual establishment of the Hasmonean Jewish Kingdom of 140-37 B.C.

Mitchell said...

Hi SeanOborne,

A few points need to be made again, it seems that you're not fully understanding a few things I am saying or where I'm coming from.

As you know, Scripture does not contradict Scripture and sound hermeneutical application of the text bears this out consistently. All references to Antichrist will therefore be harmonized, just as Old Testament Messianic references stating that Messiah comes out of Bethelehem, Nazareth, and Egypt have been harmonized.

First, please keep in mind that ancient Assyria includes territories represented by present day Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.

Scripture refers to Antichrist - the last days leader who comes against Israel and is destroyed by Christ at His coming - on a number of occasions as "the Assyrian" specifically, and not just as an archetype.

For example, Isaiah 30:30-31 reads, "And the LORD shall cause his glorious voice to be heard, and shall shew the lighting down of his arm, with the indignation of [his] anger, and [with] the flame of a devouring fire, [with] scattering, and tempest, and hailstones. For through the voice of the LORD shall the Assyrian be beaten down , [which] smote with a rod."

What does this remind you of?

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4,8: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God... And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."

Clarence Larkin, whom you described as "one of the greatest Dispensational authors and preachers of relatively modern times", discussed Dan 11 and wrote that:

"The 'King of the North’ was the King of Syria, and his character and conduct is described (Dan. 11:36-39) as similar to that of the 'Little Horn' that came out of one of the 'Four Horns' it is clear that the Antichrist is to come from Syria. That the 'King of the North' spoken of in Dan. 11:21-31 was Antiochus Epiphanes there can be no doubt, but that he was not the 'Little Horn,’ or the Antichrist, who is to come out of Syria in the 'latter days' is clear from the remainder of the chapter from the 35th verse, which describes the conduct of the future Antichrist... Jerusalem is at once the geographic and moral centre of the earth. We are to understand therefore by the 'King of the North' the King of Syria, which also included Assyria. This fixes the locality from which the Antichrist shall come".

Geographically, Scripture is pointing to the Middle East. But how can that be if Dan 9:26 is referring to a Roman Antichrist from a "revived Roman empire" and therefore European? Some are incorrectly assuming that, because it was a Roman army, the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary were only Romans from Europe. However, it was customary for Rome to conscript soldiers from territories they had conquered. In this campaign the Roman troops were largely Syrians/Assyrians. Therefore, the ruler who will come will be of such origin, as Scripture states. There is no contradiction, and European proponents have no choice but to either deny that Scripture refers to Antichrist as "the Assyrian" (or that such reference is an archetype only) or deny that the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD included Assyrians.

Chuck Missler agrees Scripture directs us to a Middle East origin of Antichrist, writing, "All of us, I suspect, tend to equate the Roman Empire with Western Europe, and there have been many books suggesting conjectures involving Rome, the Vatican, and the rise of the European Union, etc.

We, too, have published numerous materials exploring these possibilities. However, all of us may have been subject to a myopia ("nearsightedness") by overlooking the fact that the Roman Empire had an eastern leg that, in fact, survived the western leg by a thousand years!... There are a number of Biblical texts that strongly suggest that ... Antichrist, will emerge from the region of the eastern leg of the Roman Empire, and that profoundly impacts our prophetic perspectives."

Daniel referred to the Antichrist as "the leader who will come", the "little horn", "the beast", "the stern faced king" and as Clarence Larken points out, the Antichrist is referred to as the "king of the north" as well in Dan 11. The king of the north and the land of the north is what Jeremiah called the territory of Assyria and Babylon. The Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonians in 626 B.C. Both the Assyrian capital of Asshur and the Babylonian capital of Babylon were located in present day Iraq. These empires essentially comprised the same territory which included present day Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon. (And it is interesting that in Isaiah 14 the Antichrist is called both the Assyrian and the king of Babylon).

Are there more clues in Scripture? Yes! In Revelation 13, John said that the Antichrist and his kingdom would be like a lion, a leopard and a bear. Daniel used these likenesses for the Babylonian, Media-Persian and Greek Empires. The Bible repeatedly indicates that the Antichrist will come from the Middle East.

SeanOsborne writes, "Excuse me, but I didn't say those verses did specifically that."

You should have known that I was referring to verses 35-45 due to the context of the discussion. Why explain a history lesson that we're already aware of? But I digress ...

I am curious to hear your position regarding the following:

SeanOsborne writes, "I believe Jesus words in Matthew 24:15 are the clearest sign that the act of standing up the antichrist's image in the Temple (the Abomination) directly results in the removal of the Restrainer (the Desolation) - the Holy Spirit - from this earth for the final 3.5 years of the Great
Tribulation."


Do you believe that when people see the Abomination of Desolation that many people will come to Christ during the 3 1/2 years of Great Tribulation, perhaps due to the 144,000 Jewish evangelists?

loki says, "Don’t you believe that for one second. The hatred for Israel transcends and precedes Islam; is not confined to the Middle East and is ultimately satanic."

It sure does, I agree loki. However, these are the last days, and Satan is the god of Islam who is using Islam to rise up against the elect of God. I would argue that 99% of the hatred against Israel today is due to Islam and due to the corrupting Islamic influence in Western nations, and I believe that God is allowing Islam to become what it has for His ultimate purpose.

SeanOsborne said...

Mitchell wrote:
"In Revelation 13, John said that the Antichrist and his kingdom would be like a lion, a leopard and a bear. Daniel used these likenesses for the Babylonian, Media-Persian and Greek Empires. The Bible repeatedly indicates that the Antichrist will come from the Middle East."

As with most of your error filled exegesis, it is conducted as if you're walking a buffet line of different foods and side dishes, picking that which agrees with your mindset and omitting that which does not.

The quote above is yet another prime example of this habit.

Number one - The Revelation of Jesus Christ ORIGINATED WITH GOD ALMIGHTY.

The father gave the Revelation to the Son, who gave it to John on Patmos. Therefore it is scripturally incorrect to say that "John said." He didn't God said it.

Secondly. You have conveniently omitted from Revelation 13:1-2 some critical information, information which I will now quote verbatim to illustrate the gross errors that you make in your exegesis.

"And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion."

This is a reiteration of the 4 world empires prophecy that God gave to Daniel. The cricial thing about this is that the empires are named in reverse order.

Beast Empire - Rome
Leopard Empire - Greece
Bear Empire - Persia
Lion Empire - Babylon

This verse is telling us point blank that the Beast and his Beast Empire come from the 4th Empire and will have the three previous empires rolled up within it.

Mitchell - as I have stated from the get-go, and here again for the LAST TIME I will instruct that according to God's Word -- the Beast Empire stands on TWO LEGS AND TEN TOES.

I am now done with this discussion as there are better things to do with my time than to repeat what has already been clearly stated in the Bible and properly interpreted.

SeanOsborne said...

Mitchell wrote:
"I am curious to hear your position regarding the following:"

SeanOsborne writes, "I believe Jesus words in Matthew 24:15 are the clearest sign that the act of standing up the antichrist's image in the Temple (the Abomination) directly results in the removal of the Restrainer (the Desolation) - the Holy Spirit - from this earth for the final 3.5 years of the Great Tribulation."

I think I have unambiguously stated my position in what I wrote.

Mitchell said...

Hi SeanOsborne,

As a Christian theology major in college of four years I am well versed in exegetical and hermeneutical application of the Biblical texts. If you disagree with what I say, that is fine, but please do not accuse me of blatant "error filled exegesis". I have shown you numerous reasons from Scripture exegetically and especially with sound hermeneutics why Antichrist will come from the Middle East, yet you still refuse to acknowledge all of the Scriptural support due to your presuppositions. That is your choice, and we can agree to disagree.

I am not sure what your point is stating that the Revelation of Jesus Christ originated with God Almighty. We already know that John wrote Revelation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

SeanOsborne writes, "This is a reiteration of the 4 world empires prophecy that God gave to Daniel. The cricial thing about this is that the empires are named in reverse order."

So your contention is that the legs of iron are the Roman Empire and the feet of iron and clay is a Revived Roman Empire of some type of European confederacy? A common understanding. But let's have a look with what Scripture really says since there is a problem with this theory. Daniel 2:40 reads, "And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others."

Note that the fourth kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the other kingdoms. This is not true of the Roman empire. When examining a map of the Roman empire during its greatest extent, we find that it did not even reach beyond the Euphrates River in Babylon. For the Roman empire to have crushed all the other kingdoms, it must have been able to conquer the Grecian and Medo-Persian empires. Rome conquered the Western portion of the Grecian empire but not the Eastern portion. Rome did not even reach the heart of the Medo-Persian empire (Iran) which extended East to the Indus River. The fourth kingdom had to conquer all the areas of the 3 previous kingdoms in order to meet the criteria of the text in Daniel 2:40.

Some argue that the two legs of the image in Daniel 2 are the East-West division of the Roman empire. In his excellent article titled Daniel's Scope of Prophecy Does Not Include Rome!, Dave Watchman writes:

"After that the belly and thighs of brass represent the Grecian Empire of Alexander the Great, today we would call the Middle East. Then the two legs which are merely extensions of the thighs represent two of the four generals which this vast territory was divided up between at the death of Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:21-22). General Ptolemy to the south took over an area around Egypt, and General Seleucid in the north took over an area we would call Syria today, and of course Israel was a land bridge between the two. Then the feet, which are merely extensions of the Grecian legs, represent the future Antichrist Empire; which is the focus of the entire Book of Daniel in the first place.

Read carefully now the anatomy of this metal man image as it is dissected into each of it's parts by the Authorized King James Bible in Daniel 2:32-33 :

This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 33) His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

Lets read again the description of the third Grecian Kingdom:

The text says ...his belly and his thighs of brass. It doesn't say his 'belly and his hips' of brass, or it doesn't say his 'belly and loins' of brass; IT SAYS HIS BELLY AND HIS THIGHS OF BRASS. Now we know from our own body, the thigh ends just above the knee, and the legs are extensions of the thigh; in other words as that Ole song goes 'the FOOT BONES connected to the ...LEG BONE: the LEG BONES connected to the ...THIGH BONE' etc. So the legs and feet are merely extensions out of Alexander the Greats Grecian Empire; therefore making it impossible the Antichrist Kingdom in the feet will come out of the Roman Empire/E.U.! This is where the kings of the North and kings of the South in Daniel Chapter 11 come from: extensions of the Grecian Empire."

It appears that Babylon had to be the center of the kingdoms that ruled after the Babylonian empire. This was true with the Grecian and Medo-Persian empires but not true with Rome. Even though Rome could cross the Euphrates and reach Mesopotamia around the year 116 AD, this only lasted a few months until the Roman emperor Trajan died and the Romans retreated from the region. Babylon must have been the center of the fourth kingdom as it was the center of the first three kingdoms. According to Revelation 18, Babylon will be the center of the Antichrist's kingdom which is the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2. Babylon was the Lion in Daniel 7 and the lion's mouth is seen on the beast of Revelation 13.

Another reason why Rome cannot be the fourth kingdom is seen in Daniel 2:34-35:

"Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth."

Here we read that the stone which symbolically represents God's kingdom will destroy the Iron, the clay, the brass, the silver and the gold (Babylon) TOGETHER! This means that when Christ returns he will destroy all the kingdoms of Daniel 2 at the same time. How can that be since Babylon, Persia, and Greece ruled in the past you might ask? Even though Daniel saw these kingdoms as successive empires, he also saw them coming back together in the future. This is true in Revelation 13 where we read that the three beasts of Daniel 7 which represent the same kingdoms of the metal image of Daniel 2 are seen together as a composite kingdom made of the body parts of the leopard (Grecian), bear (Persian) and lion (Babylonian) empires.

The fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 must be a conglomeration of the 3 previous kingdoms since all of them are destroyed together when Christ returns. If Rome was not in view in Daniel 2, which kingdom is supposed to be the fourth then? A very little mistake has led prophecy students to conclude that there will be a revival of the Roman empire to be the kingdom of the Antichrist. This mistake goes as follows: Most prophecy teachers say that since Rome fell, no other empire has ruled any part of the world, therefore Rome must return to form the kingdom of the Antichrist. History shows quite the opposite. After the Western section of the Roman empire fell in 476 AD, the Eastern section with Constantinople as its capital continued on until about 1453 A.D, when it finally fell to the Islamic Caliphate of the Ottoman Turks.

History shows that the Ottoman empire conquered the entire Middle East, parts of Asia, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Southwestern Europe all the way to Spain, yet prophecy teachers say that no other empire ruled since the fall of Rome. Before the Ottoman empire, there was another empire which conquered the entire Middle East, parts of Asia, North Africa etc. around the year 850 AD. This was the Islamic empire and as we can see, it ruled much of the world including the three previous kingdoms of Daniel 2, namely the Babylonian, Persian and Grecian empires which ruled the entire Middle East. It seems quite clear from the text that the Middle East is what is in view in Daniel 2.

It is hard to conclude whether the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 which crushes all the others is the Islamic empire or the Ottoman empire. Since both empires basically ruled the same areas and had the same objectives, i.e. bring the dominated areas under Islamic rules, we can conclude that they can be one and the same in two different stages.
This Islamic-Ottoman kingdom alone qualifies to be the fourth kingdom of Daniel which was supposed to crush and brake is pieces the Babylonian, Persian and Grecian empires. As the Islamic empires conquered the three first kingdoms of Daniel 2, it crushed them and as the Islamic empire divided the conquered lands in different section under different rulers, it literally broke the others in pieces as the text says in Daniel 2:40.

Today Islam is growing to be the major power in the Middle East. Islam is not just a religion as many assume but it is also a form of government, a judicial system and a political ideology. It could be classified as a theocracy just as Israel was a theocracy in ancient times when the Torah and Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) shaped the lives of the Israelites. The Koran is not only used as a religious book, but as a political and judicial document which shapes the policies of Islamic nations in the Middle East. The text in Daniel says that the fourth kingdom will produce 10 kings as seen in the image of the ten toes of the feet of the image which are a mixture of Iron and clay:

"And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken." (Daniel 2:42)

The toes of the image which are ten are mixed with a new element (clay) which makes the kingdom partly strong and partly broken. In the following verse Daniel explains what the weakness of the clay represents:

"And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay."

Here we see that they (the toes) shall MINGLE themselves with the seed of men but shall not be united just as iron is not MIXED with clay. It is interesting that the words MINGLE and MIXED are translated from the same Aramaic word ARAB (Strong's 6151).

Some have suggested that the Aramaic word ARAB refers to the Arab peoples. The Strong's concordance itself says that an Arabian is a related entry to the Aramaic ARAB. We read that the kings represented by the toes will not cleave one to another even as iron does not mix with clay. This is referring to a division among these kings. Even though they are politically united they do not have the same goals.

Could it be that this is referring to the fact that within Islam itself there are disagreements regarding how to follow Islamic rules. This is a fact that can be seen in the Islamic world as some nations are Shiites whereas others are Sunnis. These are two branches of Islam that oppose each other. Could it be that Daniel was given insight into the differences of beliefs among the 10 kings of the feet of the image who supposedly are Arabs? Could it be that these differences are what the clay refers to in order to make the kingdom partly broken?

The Return of Babylon, Persia and Grecia

As we have seen in this article, the Iron, the Silver, the brass and the gold will be destroyed at the same time. This suggests that the Babylonian, Persian and Grecian empires will be present in the end times and will be partly united into a single kingdom to be destroyed by Jesus Christ. The current situation in Iraq is paving the way for this nation to become a major player in the region. Revelation 18 makes it very clear that Babylon must be the political and economic center of the Antichrist's kingdom.

The Persian bear is awakening. Persia officially changed its name to Iran in 1935. Iran is currently becoming one of the strongest nations in the region militarily with the production of intercontinental ballistic missiles and the goal of producing a nuclear bomb. Persia (the bear) is said to crush with its feet in Daniel 7 and the feet of the bear are seen in the beast of Revelation 13. The regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan were also under Persian control.

Grecia is also arising. We should take notice of the fact that when we refer to the Grecian empire we should not think of modern Greece or Athens. The Grecian empire was divided into four major sectors and later the Seleucid dynasty which ruled the regions of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan was the major power that came out of the Grecian empire and according to Daniel 11, the Antichrist comes out of this Grecian division which is North of Israel. The other major division of the Grecian empire was the Ptolemaic dynasty which ruled the regions of Egypt, Libya and Northern parts of Sudan.

Do you get the picture now? Here we have a total of 10 Islamic nations that could be the 10 kings that will come out of the fourth kingdom.

1 Iraq
2 Iran
3 Pakistan
4 Afghanistan
5 Turkey
6 Syria
7 Lebanon
8 Egypt
9 Libya
10 Sudan

Since Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nations of the Middle East were under the dominion of these kingdoms and of the Islamic-Ottoman empire, we can have more than 10 Islamic nations as candidates for the 10 kings. In our article titled The Ten Kings of the Beast: They Come From the East we explored the identity of possible 10 Islamic nations to be the 10 horns of the beast of Daniel 7 that will be the 10 toes of the feet of the image in Daniel 2.

Conclusion

Popular prophecy teachers all point to Rome as the fourth kingdom of Daniel. They all say that Rome must return in the form of a European confederacy in order to bring forth the 10 nations that will for the kingdom of the Antichrist. The text in Daniel seem to skip Rome which began as a Western kingdom and jump to the Islamic empire which ruled the entire Middle East, the geographical context of Daniel 2. Today we see that the Islamic nations of the Middle East that were within the confines of Babylonian, Persian and Grecian domination are rising to power and are threatening the very existence of Israel which will be the main target of this kingdom. The European Union does not fit these description as many assume. Only the Islamic nations of the Middle East meet the criteria of Daniel 2 in order to fulfill biblical prophecy.

http://www.beastfromtheeast.org/Daniel_2_Middle_East.html

monty said...

Sean Osbourne,

On Bill Salus's blog you confidently argue that only Italians were allowed to serve as soldiers in the Roman legions. Yet on this blog, you cite Santuosso, a Roman Scholar, who states that Nero in 70 AD, less than half of the soldiers were Italians. And this is with reference to the whole of the Roman Empire, not just the Eastern legions, which would have been far less Italian.

The reason I bring this up is to test your integrity. As I have observed this whole argument unfold, I have seen a refusla to admit error on not only Dave Reagan's part, but even moreso on yours. I see you as completely unwilling to acknowldge being wrong no matter what the evidence shows. When shown to be wrong, you generally move on, essentially tacking in the wind, coming up with new and ever-evolving claims all the while insulting anyone who disagrees with you. Are you willing to admit that you were wrong and that by 70 AD less than half of all Roman legions were made up of Italians despite your adamant claims on Salus's blog that they were ALL Italians?

Monty,
A humble observer.