Posted on 08/23/2009 5:16:05 AM PDT by kingattax
One of the central tenets of the Christian belief in a coming Roman Antichrist is under fire because, as the author of a new book shows, the destruction of the Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was actually carried out by peoples from the Middle East, not Europe.
As Joel Richardson, author of "The Islamic Antichrist," writes today in WND's commentary section, one of the pillars of the European Antichrist theory is a prophecy in Daniel 9: "The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."
When the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and the city of Jerusalem sacked, while under Roman occupation, many prophecy scholars assumed the future dark prince needs to be Roman. However, historical research by Richardson now suggests otherwise.
He points out Emperor Augustus made a series of sweeping reforms that led to dramatic changes in the ethnic make-up of the Roman armies. After this time, the army was increasingly composed of anything but Italian or European soldiers. Instead, he writes, they were composed of what were known as "provincials," or citizens who lived in the provinces – the outer fringes of the empire.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
No, but they destroyed the U. of Pennsylvania and Bucknell.
Who did? The Romans or the Middle Easterners? lol
The Kenyans?
Whoever said that the antichrist would be Roman?
Made head of the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps, and the Muslim Mahdi, but only after he manifests himself, and fools the people of the world into thinking he is divine.
I’ve looked at the subject and from the historical evidence the Jews actually ‘destroyed’ the city and the temple, the Roman’s simply quelled the uprising. The proper translation of the word ‘destroy’ is to ‘cause ruin’, check it out; Strong’s Concordance.
I wrote a short blog about this subject (http://www.snwh.net/blog/2009/01/17/who-dunnit/) with more information explaining what actually happened.
They're moving into being a positive spiritual danger.
End Times Ping.
This is World Nut Daily at it’s dishonest worst. Farah’s obsession with nutbag “prophecy” ruins his credibility, which is sad because he sometimes has some significant scoops.
All the article says is that the Roman armies of the time were no longer composed of Roman freemen but largely of non-Roman “auxiliaries.”
This has never been a secret. Everyone who has a smattering of knowledge of Roman history knows this. The Romans drew on the peoples outside the Empire to fill the ranks of the legions. They had to, and not just in the late stages of the Empire but at this time period because there just weren’t enough old-Roman-Republic-type free men to staff the kind of army required to defend the Empire. And people wanted to enter Roman army service because it was a path inside the empire, a path to Roman citizenship.
But under whose command did these “auxiliary” troops destroy Jerusalem? Roman command.
The Empire had been multi-ethnic for centuries. People from “outside” ethnic groups had always served as provincial administrators and governors. They had always been recruited into the armies.
And the British did the same in India and throughout their empire and the French did the same and so on and so forth.
Farah’s a fool to publish this as breathless discovery.
Then again, he’s not a fool. It’s his niche and it drives web-traffic to his site, web-traffic of a certain credulous “prophecy”-drunk Bible-thumpers.
Farah is nothing if not sensationalist.
More “news” from WND.
I should make a small correction. I should not have written that provincial governors came from the ranks of the conquered peoples. Non-Roman “local” ethnics served as “kings” or “rulers” of subject or allied kingdoms or other political units. I think actual provincial governors continued to be pretty much taken from the old Roman nobility at least during these centuries. But a lot of conquered peoples were ruled by rulers of their own ethnicity, as long as the rulers understood who was boss. Or there’d be a dual rulership—as with Herod, a subject king and the Jewish aristocracy going back to the Maccabeans side-by-side with the provincial governor, Pontius Pilate.
Yeah, I was never taught that, or believed that. The false messiah would be just that-false. He didn't necessarily have to be from "Rome". Believers will know it when we see it. Obama is a "type" -and not a very successful one at that!
I always thought there was something devious about Bucknell.
How did you come up with the head of the Catholic church as a possible candidate?
Thanks.
Will check it out.
Interesting assertions.
I think the prophecies yet to be fulfilled . . . indicate that the ‘revived’ Roman empire will be a key player in the satanic END TIMES tyrannical global government.
Seems to me, that’s already true. It’s essentially from that empire that the elites in control arose.
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.-- Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 25, paragraph 6
We saw this coming years ago when Farah added prophecy nutjob Hal Lindsey to the WND stable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.