Replies

I serously doubt that members of the EU will war with each other going forward, they are too well integrated.

consider for hought:

IF / when The U.N. is finally given an independant funding stream, it will become an unbridled beast. It is currently a bridled beast, corrupt and nearly unacountable but limited in ability due to its dependance on the U.S. for money.

The UN security council with 5 permanent membership and 5 revolving membership ie 10 seats of power, or 10 horns.

One of security council members will war on 3 others causing them to lose their seats on the council...

I'm glad this came up here on FR. It's been something I've been thinking about since I read an article on WND by Joel Rosenberg that espouses Islam and a muslim anti-christ as the best case scenario for interpreting Ezekial 38 & 39 and that this is the Battle of Armageddon.

This scenario does not fit the Bible. Let me explain. If you look at Revelation 16:12-16, where it describes who is going to be invited to this battle it says this:

"And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared."

13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

There are two things that you need to look at. #1 - The Euphrates River. That this river is dried up is significant because there's no way the Asian nations can take part in the final battle with it in the way. It's just too deep and big for them to cross. #2 - The spirits "go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty."

So we see from these passages that the entire world will be involved in this last battle for the 1000 reign of Christ. It isn't just Islam and the islamic nations.

Now, if you look at passages in Ezekiel, specifically 38 & 39, the nations involved in this war are vastly different. The nations mentioned in this war are: Gog, Magog, Meshech and Tubal, Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya, Gomer, and Togarmah. These nations are pretty much all islamic, and if they aren't they soon will be. Of course we're talking about Russia, Iran, Libya, Turkey, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, possibly even Germany and France. These are all islamic nations, nothing more, and their chief leader is Russia. We all know Russia has been stocking nations like Iran, Syria and Lebanon with arms preparing for this war.

God supernaturally intervenes in this war and destroys those nations who take part, leaving only 1/6th of the population alive. It would be utterly impossible for some Islamic messiah to rise from the ashes, sort to speak, if the those nations have been destroyed.

And something else to think about. When will this war take place? It can't logically take place at the beginning of the Tribulation because the Israelites are said to be "burning the weapons for 7 years." They can't be going out from their homes and doing that when the second half of the Tribulation begins and the Israelites are fleeing for their lives. It can't be after the Tribulation. So logically it would have to occur before the Tribulation and possibly even the Rapture of the Church, which means we could quite possibly see this war happen.

So there's my take on this whole matter. Rosenberg is great to listen to and his books are phenomenal, but I believe he has this part wrong.

The future kingdom of Antichrist, which I believe to be the ever-growing European Union, the revived Roman empire if you will, is, at some point, going to have ten "horns" or primary seats of authority.

Yeah, sure. We've heard it all before. First it was the Common Market. The futurist prophecy gurus like Hal Lindsey were all agog about the possibilities for Jesus’ return Real Soon Now® back in the ‘80s when the Common Market approached 10 nations. Then it shot past 10 nations without stopping to catch its breath. Then there was the European Economic Community. Same nonsense from the futurists. Now what is the EU up to, like 27 countries? And what do we get? More nonsense. “Oh, we’re sorry, we meant the ten kings/toes, etc means ten MAJOR nations. We must have missed that the first time we dreamed this stuff up. ‘Core Europe” yeah, that’s the ticket. WEU, does that get us the theory we need? For the moment?”

Of course the Bible does not support such nonsense. The futurists are making it all up as they go along.

And all they are left with is more twisted claims and unsubstantiated theorizing about these “clear end times prophecies” of futurism.

It’s a sham, my friend. Folks who truly know their Bible can see right through it. They are not suckered in to the “just wait and see” approach of futurists. The only thing that futurists can manage is to change their tune on cue when current events take a right turn.

So this core Europe might have ten “horns.” That’s plausible. But are there any features which this core Europe might have in common with the Beast, besides the ten horns which it does not (yet) have?

Why would such a creation be likened to Imperial Rome? UEW is founded in Brussels, clearly not a city built on seven hills. Apart from Italy, the nations included would extend beyond the Northern reaches of Imperial Rome, while most of the Central, Eastern and Southern territories upon which Rome was built.

On the other hand, why would a “core Europe” be coterminous with the WEU as it stood only between 1995 (when Greece entered) and 1999 (when Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic). True, the latter three (and the seven to join since then) are labelled “associate member” countries, but this is an historical accident, not one of any meaning to a successor “core Europe” since the new countries are all part of EU and NATO, which defined the WEU in the first place. Isn’t the successor “core Europe” what you’re really talking about, since the WEU is mostly disbanded? Why would “core Europe” include Greece and France, but not Poland? (Both Greece and France spent much of the Cold War outside NATO.)