European Antichrist Contradictions

Transcription

1 European Antichrist Contradictions By Rodrigo Silva 02/06/ and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (Daniel 9:26) This passage in Daniel tells us that the people of the prince (Antichrist) that shall come would destroy Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD when the Roman army invaded Jerusalem. In our articles The People of the Prince that Shall Come: Who Are They? and Debunking the European Antichrist, we saw that the soldiers of the particular legions that destroyed the Temple were of Syrian (Assyrian) ethnicity. Although they were considered Roman citizens by the latter half of the first century AD, the Roman government gave Roman citizenship to the peoples throughout the empire whether they were Greek, Britons, Spaniards, Gauls, Syrians, Egyptians, Arabs, etc. Many prophecy writers reject this fact and argue that the people who destroyed the Temple were Romans ethnically, therefore, the people that will give birth to the Antichrist must be of Roman origin. Let s suppose for a moment that this is true and examine some of the modern theories regarding the Antichrist s nationality. There has been much speculation concerning who the Antichrist is today. There are those who argue that Javier Solana of Spain, who is the Secretary General of the European Union, is the Antichrist. Others keep suggesting that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is the Antichrist. A few years ago some said that King Juan Carlos of Spain was the Antichrist and an entire book was dedicated to prove that Prince Charles of England is the Antichrist. But wait a minute! Isn t the Antichrist supposed to be of Roman origin according to these writers? Wasn t it the Romans who destroyed the Jewish Temple in 70 AD? Most will indeed argue that it was the Romans who destroyed the Temple, yet they will point to a candidate for the Antichrist who has no Roman origin whatsoever. The major problem is that most people today tend to equate all Europeans with the Romans who according to their view destroyed the Temple in 70 AD. Any quick search on the original Romans will show that they were a Latin group who later conquered all the Italic tribes before Rome became an empire. The Romans did not represent all the European tribes of antiquity. By the end of the fifth century AD many European tribes such as the Gauls, the Franks, the Germanics, the Angles, the Saxons, the Celts, etc. began to invade Roman dominated areas and form their independent kingdoms. Although these groups were under the yolk of the Roman Empire, none of them were of Roman origin. The Romans were associated with Italic Latin tribes. 1

2 Map of non-roman European Tribes around 500 AD Today we have the French who came out of the Gauls and the Franks, we have the British and the English who came out of the Britons, the Angles and the Saxons, we have the Germans who came out of the Germanic peoples, we have the Spanish and the Portuguese who came out of the Iberians and the Celts, etc. These ethnic groups had no connection with ethnic Romans before the Roman Empire conquered these regions. There could have been many inter-marriages between the Romans and these different ethnic groups after the Romans conquered their areas but they maintained their ethnic identity for the most part. If the Romans were the ones who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD, as argued by many, and the Romans were associated with Italic Latin tribes of Italy, then why all this confusion pointing to European leaders who have NO Roman origin as the Antichrist? Let s consider French president Nicolas Sarkozy for example. His is said to be the son of an aristocratic Hungarian immigrant father and his mother is said to be of French Catholic and Greek-Sephardic Jewish descent. It appears to me that he does not have Roman background unless he has any far Roman ancestry. Arguing so would be mere speculation. Javier Solana of Spain is said to be of a well-known Spanish family and is the nephew of diplomat Salvador de Madariaga. His ancestry probably goes back to the Iberian peoples of Hispania, not to the Romans who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD. Arguing so would be mere speculation. 2

3 Prince Charles of England is believed by some to be the Antichrist. They say his name calculates to 666 both in English and Hebrew. A prophecy writer who believes Prince Charles is the Antichrist says the Antichrist must be a prince of Roman ancestry, yet in his research he mentions prince Charles lineage going back to Scandinavians, Merovingians, French and British royalty and even to Kind David of Israel and to Mohammed, the founder of Islam, none of which has anything to do with real Roman origin. One prophecy author says he believes the Antichrist will be a Roman of Italian descent. Although I disagree with him due to the fact that the soldiers who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD were of Syrian (Assyrian) ethnicity, he appears to be the only one who is being honest with his view of the Roman Antichrist by saying he must be of Italian descent. We have seen that the Romans were associated with Latin Italic tribes of the Italian peninsula of southern Europe, not with any other European tribes where the French, the British, the Germans, the Spanish came from. Another very prominent prophecy writer in writing about the nationality of the Antichrist said that the Antichrist could be an American Jew. How can he be an American Jew if the people who destroyed the Temple were the Romans as promoted by this same writer? The original Romans were pagan Italians of the Latin Italic tribes of the Italian Peninsula in southern Europe, not Jews of Hebrew ancestry from the Middle East. It appears that there is a huge contradiction with the idea of a Roman Antichrist being associated with other European peoples such as the French, British, Spanish, Germans, etc. If they are so sure that the Antichrist will be of Roman descent, then why point to European leaders who have no connection with original Roman ethnicity? Neither a French, nor a British, nor a Spanish, nor a German leader could be chosen as a candidate for the Antichrist unless his genealogy clearly shows that his ancestors intermarried with ethnic Romans and as I said before, arguing so without any proof would be mere speculation. Misapplying Scriptures to these European Leaders Every time European leaders such as French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Secretary General of the European Union Javier Solana of Spain or any other appear on the international platform offering to broker peace in the Middle East, there are those who will go wild quoting a specific passage from Daniel which says:... and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. (Daniel 8:25) This is a popular passage referring to the Antichrist that people like to apply to European leaders, yet they totally ignore the geographic connection to the Antichrist this passage refers to. In Daniel 8 we read about the conquest of the Medo-Persian Empire by the Grecian Empire which is represented by a goat with a large horn. Later the large horn is broken and four other horns grow in its place. The personage who is said to destroy many by peace is said to rise out of one of the four horns and is called the little horn. Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land]... So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of 3

4 the end [shall be] the vision... And the rough goat [is] the king of Grecia. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.: and the great horn that [is] between his eyes [is] the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. (Daniel 8:8-9, 17, 20-25) Here we learn that the little horn who shall destroy many by peace rises out of one of the four horns of the goat which correspond to the four divisions of the Grecian Empire which are: 1. Macedon, Greece 2. Thrace, Asia Minor (Turkey) 3. Egypt 4. Syria Assyria, Babylon and Persia The little horn is also said to rise during the latter time of their [divided Grecian] kingdom, destroy the mighty and the holy people (the Jews) and stand against the prince of princes (Jesus Christ). Many will say that this was fulfilled in the life of Antiochus Epiphanes. Although Antiochus may have fulfilled some of this prophecy, the final fulfillment will take place when the Antichrist appears for Antiochus did not destroy the holy people, his armies were defeated by the Maccabean revolt in 165 B.C. Antiochus did not rise against the Prince of princes (Jesus Christ) who had not yet been born. Besides, the vision in this chapter is said to be for the time of the end. In Daniel 11 we have the literal version of this prophecy with much more details added. We read about the division of the Grecian Empire and the latter struggles between two of those divisions, namely the Kings of the South also known as the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt and the Kings of the North also known as the Seleucid dynasty in Syria which included Assyria. According to Daniel 11:30-45, the Antichrist will be the last ruler of the Seleucid or Syrian division of the Grecian Empire, so the little horn in Daniel 8 who is also the Antichrist comes out of the horn which represents the Syrian division. As we can see, there is a geographic connection to the Antichrist in these passages and that connection is the region of Syria which included Assyria in ancient times, not Rome or Europe as a whole. Some might argue and say that this passage of Daniel 8 can only apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, not to the future Antichrist. I then ask: If that is the case, then why do they apply verse 25 to European leaders if the entire passage only refers to Antiochus Epiphanes? People have to ignore the entire context and pick and chose verses to apply to European leaders in order to prove their views. But, the entire chapter of Daniel when read in context does not allow for this kind of interpretation. 4

5 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. 5