A Biblical Response to Evil and the Man of Sin.

[Jonathan Dane]

11 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Sorry.  Not even .....   (maybe once, for a time).....

Besides, today, it has been destroyed from within itself .....

Help me out - are you denying that America is the world's present-day superpower? If I understand you correctly, that is a denial of the obvious.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases

Besides the military, we are the number producer of energy and our economy out-ranks nearly everybody. 
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37053

Our GDP is nearly double that of the country in second place (China)
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php

Yes - America is the world's greatest superpower as the earth is truly round. (Yes -- many Christians also deny the later.)

[Jonathan Dane]

On 6/23/2019 at 3:51 AM, Diaste said:

It is pretty clear considering the line of succession of the Precious Metal Kingdoms to the Iron Kingdom in Dan 2. Gold, Silver and Brass all ruled from Babylon. If one remains in the regional line of succession only Islam ruled the area as arguably the greatest conquering force the world has ever seen, after the Khan's. Rome at it's height never ruled the region of Mesopotamia apart from some incursions they pulled back to the Levant and focused on the banks of the Mediterranean and north to Europe. Islam holds that area to this day, over 1400 years of rule there. Best candidate for the Iron Kingdom and I would go so far as to say it is the very Iron kingdom as spoken of by Daniel.

The idea of Rome as the Iron Kingdom is built out the misuse of Rev 17:10-11. It's impossible in my mind to think this is a prophecy of the past when Jesus tells John, “Come up here, and I will show you what must happen after these things.” Do we really think Rev 17:10, "...Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come;" is speaking to the past? Seriously, a prophecy is by nature future, the iteration of events is history. A real problem is"one is". This is commonly interpreted as Nero. John was exiled by Domitian in the 90's AD, long after Nero, to the Isle of Patmos, which is where John received the revelation from Jesus. If the 'one is' is Nero then 'Five have fallen...' works. But if the 'one is' is the Emperor in the time John received the revelation then it's Domitian, who is the 12th, and the popular interpretation falls apart. There's more but you get the idea; not Rome, Islam.

The fourth beast kingdom is NOT Islam.

From my book:

·         Daniel’s visions relate to secular Gentile kingdoms―not religions. Islam is a religion and is certainly not secular.

·         The ten-toed, or ten-horned kingdom, of Daniel clearly arises towards the end of the age, just prior to the return of Christ. Conversely, Islam has been around for centuries.

·         According to Daniel 2, the ten-pronged kingdom will arise from the same governments or territories which made up the ancient Roman Empire. According to Daniel 7, these horns are on the head of a Roman beast. Islam did not come from the Roman Empire, but from Arabia, most of which fell outside of the Roman Empire. Currently, Europe is less than 10% Muslim.

·         According to Daniel 9, the people of the prince that shall come, will destroy Jerusalem. This occurred in 70 A.D. at the hands of the Romans, hundreds of years before Islam even existed. The prince that shall come, is the Antichrist, who will stem from a Revived Roman Empire, not Islam. A Muslim Antichrist, although possible, is highly unlikely given Daniel 11’s assertion that he will not honor the gods (plural) of his fathers―Islam is monotheistic.

·         Suggesting that the Antichrist will come from an Islamic Kingdom begs the question: Which one? Islam does not have a single cohesive Islamic Kingdom. Most battles in the Middle East involve Muslims fighting Muslims.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Jonathan Dane

[Jonathan Dane]

On 6/23/2019 at 3:51 AM, Diaste said:

 

I assume you mean Dan 9:20.

"While I was speaking, praying, confessing my sin and that of my people Israel, and presenting my petition before the LORD my God concerning His holy hill" - Dan 9:20

Not sure how this makes your case so I'm thinking it's a typo and you meant Dan 7:20, "I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn whose appearance was more imposing than the others, with eyes and with a mouth that spoke words of arrogance."

Today's breakdown:

This could apply more so to Kim Jong Un than anyone else on the planet. Not saying it could not apply to The President but honestly; an imposing appearance, arrogant words; what politician has not done this?

But the context is not boasting about himself nor the show of arrogance in relation to political contemporaries, it's boastful words against the Most High God, it's the arrogance to lift himself up over the power of God himself.

"...and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 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." - 2 Thess 2

"And he shall speak [great] words against the most High," - Dan 7

"...and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart,and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes;" - Dan 9

I fail to see where the context of the arrogant boasting is in the political theater. That's really meaningless as everyone is doing it. It doesn't stand apart. One boasting they are greater than the Creator does, a stark and hideous contrast to your garden variety political posturing. 

"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," - Dan 11

"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." - Dan 11

But to the point you make, "They're all pawns in Trump's hands." Do you have evidence of this? Putin is not a Trump pawn. Neither is Kim Un. Maduro maybe? I don't think so. I do believe most world leaders have criticized our President harshly except Netanyahu, Duterte, a handful of others. He gets most of the backlash from the Mideast and European leaders, President Xi, PM Trudeau, President Obrador, etc.

President Trump doesn't even control politics in the US, nor the politicians. 

I have no issue with ascertaining the identity of the beast, whomever it may be, but we need to be careful and stay in context, in peace, and truth, in the Spirit; This will advance the cause of Christ.

Do you seriously not see anything unique in the man in question? (I try to refrain from using his name as much as possible.) I mean seriously, if you cannot see that this person has taken boasting to a level hitherto unknown, I don't know what to say.

Furthermore, at a whopping 5'7" I wouldn't say that Kim Jun-un has "an appearance larger than his contemporaries." Sorry. The other guy? Yes. And when he's with them, he makes sure he's front and center, even going so far to shove them out of the way at photo ops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4rWVOeEI7Y

And yes, I meant Daniel 7:20. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Jonathan Dane

[Diaste]

13 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

You're making a critical error, namely, that "anti-types" must fully mirror their corresponding "types." Daniel 8 establishes Antiochus Epiphanes as a Greek type of Antichrist. But there is nothing in Scripture that demands the Antichrist originate from the nation of Greece. Doesn't Scripture say of Christ, "Out of Egypt I called my Son."? Does that mean that the Messiah of Israel is Egyptian? By your logic - it does. 

Well, Jesus was born in Bethlehem as recorded in Matt and Mark.  Then, "When the magi had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up!” he said. “Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him." Matt 2

Christ was born in Israel and lived in exile in Egypt, therefore He is originally a Jew and and Israelite. The same could be true about the beast, born in one land, in exile in another.

Scripture demands the beast originate from one of four possible locales. These locales are designated by the notable rulers that succeeded Alexander, so in general the beast must come from where Ptolemy, Cassander, Lysimachus or Seleucus ruled. Maybe it's specific to a bloodline as in the case of Antiochus IV, a direct descendant of Seleucus I. So whether it's a region or lineage I don't know, but I do know it removes Rome from consideration as Rome did not arise from the Diadochi.

13 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

The Antichrist will indeed be head over a revived Roman Empire. Whether or not this includes America (or Greece for that matter), there is nothing that demands he originate from Greece. (He is also called the King of Babylon, King of Tyre, the Prince of Tyre and the Prince of Israel)

I hope I didn't say the beast must originate from Greece. There are one of four possible areas or bloodlines from whence the beast cometh. My bets are on Seleucus and the Mideast for the reason that Daniel follows that line of succession and Islam, and it's current iteration, fits with prophecies in Daniel much better than the other three possibilities, including the exile component as mentioned above.

 

13 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

By the way, I see the Little Horn, the Beast and the Antichrist as one in the same. Perhaps you see more than one individual. I disagree with those who assign various individuals for these roles. This only breeds confusion.

Yes, of course. One and the same, though he's never called 'antichrist' by Jesus so I don't use that term unless that's the audience requirement.

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Dane said:

The fourth beast kingdom is NOT Islam.

From my book:

·         Daniel’s visions relate to secular Gentile kingdoms―not religions. Islam is a religion and is certainly not secular.

 7After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it [was] diverse from all the beasts that [were] before it; and it had ten horns.

"Diverse" from the beast before it. This alteration or change is most likely the difference between some form of civil government and the wholly diverse theocratic government.

If you study the history of the Metal Kingdoms and Rome, one sees they were nearly the same in their approach to governance. Much like western countries the citizens of the Metal Kingdoms enjoyed a great deal of freedoms including the freedom to practice any religion, so long as it didn't lead to sedition against the ruling power. This in particular is on full display under Roman rule where Jews practiced their unique form of religion and citizens were allowed to worship the god of their choice; the same as in Babylon.

It is said the criteria for the beast kingdoms is persecution of the Jews. Well that may be true in an isolated instances. The Jews were taken into exile in Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar at the order of the Most High God. Alexander did not persecute the Jews. Egypt did not persecute the Jews until a Pharaoh rose that did not know Joseph. Under Roman rule the Jews had a great influence on the Empire in civics, science, agriculture, trade, etc. In fact Rome did not persecute Jews in scripture, Jews persecuted Jesus and his followers. Several centuries later the tables turned as Christianity became legal and Christians in the Roman Empire began to persecute the Jewish people.

Islam fits much better as they nearly destroyed all of Israel through neglect and held rule over the area for centuries. A very diverse form of government was the power wherever they conquered, as well as forced conversions, taxes and slavery. Islam under Mohammed, and the radical form of Islam we call ISIS, fits this too perfectly, "...brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it:" ISIS literally does this, videos prove it. For centuries Islam swept across the Mideast, Northern Africa and Europe, destroying all religious artifacts through the idea they were an affront to Allah. The Metal Kingdoms were opposite as they built many images and edifices to a wide range of gods and goddesses, even to the emperor-god ruling at the time.

Not Rome.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Dane said:

·         The ten-toed, or ten-horned kingdom, of Daniel clearly arises towards the end of the age, just prior to the return of Christ. Conversely, Islam has been around for centuries.

True, but that's not a criteria based in scripture, if they were 'around' or not. However, the Islamic form of government in the form of the Ottoman empire was dissolved in 1920 by the defeat of the allies. One could certainly say Islam no longer ruled and that empire is defeated and gone.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Dane said:

·         According to Daniel 2, the ten-pronged kingdom will arise from the same governments or territories which made up the ancient Roman Empire. According to Daniel 7, these horns are on the head of a Roman beast. Islam did not come from the Roman Empire, but from Arabia, most of which fell outside of the Roman Empire. Currently, Europe is less than 10% Muslim.

That's just not true is it? Only three kingdoms can be gleaned from Daniel's prophecies, the fourth is never mentioned by name. Rome as the Iron kingdom and an iteration in the Iron/Clay kingdom is supposition, not fact.

1 hour ago, Jonathan Dane said:

·         According to Daniel 9, the people of the prince that shall come, will destroy Jerusalem. This occurred in 70 A.D. at the hands of the Romans, hundreds of years before Islam even existed. The prince that shall come, is the Antichrist, who will stem from a Revived Roman Empire, not Islam. A Muslim Antichrist, although possible, is highly unlikely given Daniel 11’s assertion that he will not honor the gods (plural) of his fathers―Islam is monotheistic.

In Daniel 9 the passage in question contains some ambiguity. It's not the Temple that's destroyed it's 'sanctuary'. The Chaldee word is 'qodesh' which designates holiness or sacredness and is not synonymous with an edifice. As far as I can see, may be wrong, but the Temple is called a 'house' or a 'heykal' not a 'qodesh'. If true, which I believe it to be, then the "people of the prince that shall come,"  who destroy are not destroying buildings, they are taking the well being in sanctification; literally the 'excitement of being set apart'. 

Rome could fit here, but so does Islam.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Dane said:

·         Suggesting that the Antichrist will come from an Islamic Kingdom begs the question: Which one? Islam does not have a single cohesive Islamic Kingdom. Most battles in the Middle East involve Muslims fighting Muslims.

I didn't say he would come from an Islamic kingdom. He will be Islamic but it seems clear he is small, little horn, and rises to power through supernatural means, and subdues three countries. The bible is Israel-centric and so with that in mind I would interpret the 10 kingdoms as those nearest to Israel. There are OT scriptures that confirm this. ISIS was trying this holding a great deal of territory in Iraq and Syria but failed. In my mind it's out of the scope of scriptural teaching to assume the beast has to be the leader of an existing country when prophecy tells us he comes from the remains of the Diadochi in general, and from the Seleucid empire in particular, which ruled from the Mediterranean to the Indus, if one assumes Daniel 11 follows the Seleucid line to at least Antiochus IV, which it does.

[Diaste]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Do you seriously not see anything unique in the man in question? (I try to refrain from using his name as much as possible.) I mean seriously, if you cannot see that this person has taken boasting to a level hitherto unknown, I don't know what to say.

Not when scripture says the boasting is against the Most High God and all other gods, elevating himself to a status above every god; to wit.

 4Who 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. - 2 Thess 2

36And 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, - Dan 11

This is not simple self promotion like every other politician. This is blasphemy of the highest order. Any proof any politician does this? Anywhere?

Islam does. They boast Allah is higher than Jesus. Seems they fit better than even the second lowest form of ideology on earth.

 

2 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

And yes, I meant Daniel 7:20. 

Okay. But how does this fit with your claim? I don't see a single person anywhere speaking out against the Most High God using boastful words. That would exhibit the pinnacle of arrogance, a level well beyond even that of the most narcissistic politician, imo.

 

 

[JoeCanada]

19 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

You're making a critical error, namely, that "anti-types" must fully mirror their corresponding "types." Daniel 8 establishes Antiochus Epiphanes as a Greek type of Antichrist. But there is nothing in Scripture that demands the Antichrist originate from the nation of Greece. Doesn't Scripture say of Christ, "Out of Egypt I called my Son."? Does that mean that the Messiah of Israel is Egyptian? By your logic - it does. 

The Antichrist will indeed be head over a revived Roman Empire. Whether or not this includes America (or Greece for that matter), there is nothing that demands he originate from Greece. (He is also called the King of Babylon, King of Tyre, the Prince of Tyre and the Prince of Israel)

By the way, I see the Little Horn, the Beast and the Antichrist as one in the same. Perhaps you see more than one individual. I disagree with those who assign various individuals for these roles. This only breeds confusion.

Hi JD,

If we look at the Roman Legions at the time of Titus, they were a mix of ethnic composition. Because Rome had spread out so far, they could no longer fill the military with Italians only. So they recruited locally. The auxiliary armies under General Titus were a mix of soldiers......Arabians, Celts, Egyptians, Syrians, Moesians..... but mostly Arabian and Syrian. 

According to the historian Josephus, two unidentified soldiers wearing the uniform of the Roman legions, started the fire that ultimately consumed the Temple in Jerusalem. Josephus also writes that Titus didn't want the Temple damaged, as Titus was in awe by the grandeur of it......(Josephus, Flavius, The Complete Works, The War of the Jews)

The "people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary"...... It was either Arabian or Syrian soldiers who actually torched the temple. They had such a hate for the Jews that they could not resist burning it down, against the wishes/orders of Titus.

Micah tells us this:

And He will arise and shepherd His flock in the strength of the Lord. In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God and they will remain (Heb. meaning “live in safety”),  Because at that time He will be great to the ends of the earth. This One (Jesus) will be our peace when the Assyrian invades our land, when he tramples on our citadels. (Micah 5:4-5)

This is the reference to the Antichrist who Jesus defeats at His coming.

Isaiah also refers to the Antichrist in this passage:

And the Assyrian will fall by a sword not of man, and a sword not of man will devour him. So he will not escape the sword, and his young men will become forced laborers.  His rock will pass away because of panic, and his princes will be terrified at the standard,” Declares the Lord, whose fire is in Zion and whose furnace is in Jerusalem. Behold, a king will reign righteously and princes will rule justly. Each will be like a refuge from the wind and a shelter from the storm, like ^[a]streams of water in a dry country, like the shade of a huge rock in a parched land. Then the eyes of those who see will not be blinded, and the ears of those who hear will listen.  (Isa. 31: 8 – Isa. 32:3)

A second passage from Isaiah:

Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel.  A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, Only a remnant within them will return; A destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness.  For a complete destruction, one that is decreed, the Lord God of hosts will execute in the midst of the whole land. Therefore thus says the Lord Godof hosts, “O My people who dwell in Zion, do not fear the Assyrian who strikes you with the rod and lifts up his staff against you, the way Egypt did. For in a very little while My indignation against you will be spent and My anger will be directed to their destruction.” (Isa. 10:21-25)

This passage is very obviously about the end-times and not about ancient times. The phrase "a complete destruction, one that is decreed" is a direct quote from Daniel 9:27, which is the primary verse about Daniels 70th week.

I don't see the Antichrist be head over a revived Roman Empire at all. 

 

[Jonathan Dane]

8 hours ago, Diaste said:

Well, Jesus was born in Bethlehem as recorded in Matt and Mark.  Then, "When the magi had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up!” he said. “Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him." Matt 2

Christ was born in Israel and lived in exile in Egypt, therefore He is originally a Jew and and Israelite. The same could be true about the beast, born in one land, in exile in another.

Scripture demands the beast originate from one of four possible locales. These locales are designated by the notable rulers that succeeded Alexander, so in general the beast must come from where Ptolemy, Cassander, Lysimachus or Seleucus ruled. Maybe it's specific to a bloodline as in the case of Antiochus IV, a direct descendant of Seleucus I. So whether it's a region or lineage I don't know, but I do know it removes Rome from consideration as Rome did not arise from the Diadochi.

I hope I didn't say the beast must originate from Greece. There are one of four possible areas or bloodlines from whence the beast cometh. My bets are on Seleucus and the Mideast for the reason that Daniel follows that line of succession and Islam, and it's current iteration, fits with prophecies in Daniel much better than the other three possibilities, including the exile component as mentioned above.

 

Yes, of course. One and the same, though he's never called 'antichrist' by Jesus so I don't use that term unless that's the audience requirement.

But you're missing my point. You are taking an OT type and woodenly forcing all its particulars onto its correspebeing anti-type (in this case, the Antichrist.)

Jesus stayed a short period in Egypt, but he was not Egyptian. Was Moses a type of Christ? Yes. Was Moses a murderer? Yes. Do this mean the Jews should have been looking for a murderer as their Messiah? No.

People that assume that every detail of a type must be found in the anti-type frankly do not understand biblical typology. That's not how it works.

Scripture nowhere states that the AC must be a native born citizen of those ancient territories. Show me the verse. You are making assumptions.

I do believe that the last beast kingdom will be a revived kingdom based on ancient Rome. Daniel 9 proves it and Daniel 2 and 7 support it. Do you seriously think that Daniel just skipped over the great Roman power that put Christ on the cross? That Daniel said, "Okay, Babylon, Persia, Greece, skip over Rome to arrive at Islam." Hardly.

That said, does the Greek kingdom play into the last beast. Yes. Revelation says he has a body of a leopard. And The "man of the hour" has ties into all those places. This is true if we look at his ancestry or even the history and influence of the country in which he rules.

Bear in mind this also, the AC has yet to step into his end-time role. Before that happens, there will be a tremendous restructuring territory and power. At that time, the Antichrist will likely no longer be a president of a country.

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Jonathan Dane

[Jonathan Dane]

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

Not when scripture says the boasting is against the Most High God and all other gods, elevating himself to a status above every god; to wit.

This is not simple self promotion like every other politician. This is blasphemy of the highest order. Any proof any politician does this? Anywhere?

 

The boasting against the most high God will happen when he sits the temple proclaiming HIMSELF to be GOD. Islam does not teach that its adherents are themselves gods. It is simply another false religion that denies the divinity of Christ. 

Could I see Mr. T doing that in the future? Absolutely. Not one doubt in my mind. That day is coming.

You are no doubt a smart guy and genuine believer. I just believe your system is blinding you to the giant orangutan in the room. If Islamic End-time Theory is correct, then my conclusions are wrong. But is Islamic End-time theory correct? I do not believe so. Some of my wife's and my best friend hold that view. In order to make that system fly, the biblical puzzle pieces are twisted and stretched beyond credulity to fit. Do I believe Islam is a factor in the end times? Absolutely. But the end-time system is as false as the religion itself, in my most humble opinion. I think we should let this rest for now. I cannot dismantle the entire system in this format. Neither do I desire to.

[Jonathan Dane]

2 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

Hi JD,

If we look at the Roman Legions at the time of Titus, they were a mix of ethnic composition. Because Rome had spread out so far, they could no longer fill the military with Italians only. So they recruited locally. The auxiliary armies under General Titus were a mix of soldiers......Arabians, Celts, Egyptians, Syrians, Moesians..... but mostly Arabian and Syrian. 

According to the historian Josephus, two unidentified soldiers wearing the uniform of the Roman legions, started the fire that ultimately consumed the Temple in Jerusalem. Josephus also writes that Titus didn't want the Temple damaged, as Titus was in awe by the grandeur of it......(Josephus, Flavius, The Complete Works, The War of the Jews)

The "people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary"...... It was either Arabian or Syrian soldiers who actually torched the temple. They had such a hate for the Jews that they could not resist burning it down, against the wishes/orders of Titus.

Micah tells us this:

And He will arise and shepherd His flock in the strength of the Lord. In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God and they will remain (Heb. meaning “live in safety”),  Because at that time He will be great to the ends of the earth. This One (Jesus) will be our peace when the Assyrian invades our land, when he tramples on our citadels. (Micah 5:4-5)

This is the reference to the Antichrist who Jesus defeats at His coming.

Isaiah also refers to the Antichrist in this passage:

And the Assyrian will fall by a sword not of man, and a sword not of man will devour him. So he will not escape the sword, and his young men will become forced laborers.  His rock will pass away because of panic, and his princes will be terrified at the standard,” Declares the Lord, whose fire is in Zion and whose furnace is in Jerusalem. Behold, a king will reign righteously and princes will rule justly. Each will be like a refuge from the wind and a shelter from the storm, like ^[a]streams of water in a dry country, like the shade of a huge rock in a parched land. Then the eyes of those who see will not be blinded, and the ears of those who hear will listen.  (Isa. 31: 8 – Isa. 32:3)

A second passage from Isaiah:

Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel.  A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, Only a remnant within them will return; A destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness.  For a complete destruction, one that is decreed, the Lord God of hosts will execute in the midst of the whole land. Therefore thus says the Lord Godof hosts, “O My people who dwell in Zion, do not fear the Assyrian who strikes you with the rod and lifts up his staff against you, the way Egypt did. For in a very little while My indignation against you will be spent and My anger will be directed to their destruction.” (Isa. 10:21-25)

This passage is very obviously about the end-times and not about ancient times. The phrase "a complete destruction, one that is decreed" is a direct quote from Daniel 9:27, which is the primary verse about Daniels 70th week.

I don't see the Antichrist be head over a revived Roman Empire at all. 

 

I've heard those arguments (recruitments, etc.) before. I'm not sold - sorry. It's stretches the bounds of credulity that Daniel just skipped right over the power that hung Christ on the cross - especially when Daniel 9 makes a direct reference to it. Islamic end time theory holds water like a steel sieve. Islam is a religion that manifests itself in many splinter kingdoms. There is no unified Islamic kingdom. The vast majority of Muslims die at the hands of other Muslims. The Bible has an animal name for it. It's not a lion, it's not a bear, nor a leopard. It's an ass (a donkey). (Genesis 16:12) Want to see how terrifying soldiers are from Islamic countries? Just watch them march down the street in a military parade and compare that to, say, North Koreans marching.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Jonathan Dane