Israel and the Middle East

Silk said:
I'm not taking my view from anything but scripture. (well..and actual history). Scripture via the NT, includes Rome - the empire which went "diverse" and remains with us today. It was not named by the OT prophets because Rome didn't exist then. I do not hold with a revived Roman empire because the roots of Rome resides, still, with us today. As east and west. Rome started as a Republic and only went to one ruler after Julius Ceasar (and thus the reign of the ceasars') just before Christ's time. It separated to east and west. Islam comes up in the east at 600 AD and hasn't stopped to this day. The 4th empire is long lived and for all intents and purposes east and west supply the legs with the right leg (west) "favored". But this scenario brings the full world of men, all men into the equation and this is required to fulfill prophecy. IF Islam, out of the east, attempts one world dominion, scripture tells us what will happen - they won't succeed because of Israel and it's protected state.
Click to expand...

Silk.....what we are seeing here in our conversations with "Straightshooter" is his thinking that the Antichrist possibly be a Muslim and the coming World Wide Empire will be the Eastern Block of Muslims countries. Now this is a relatively new idea that seems to be catching on today due mainly to the growth of Islam and the revival of its territorial goal of conquering the world for Allah.

There are several books written on this that relate to this topic. Probably the one that our brother is linked to and the one that
provides the best biblical foundation is entitled The Assyrian Connection. It was written in 1993 by Phillip Goodman, and a revised edition was published in 2003. Now I do not know that to be the case at all and it is only an assumption on my part.

In his book, Goodman argues that the Antichrist will rise from the Eastern wing of the old Roman Empire, coming from the ancient Greek sphere of influence that was incorporated into that empire. Getting even more specific, he argues that the Antichrist will come from the Seleucid area of the Greek sphere — specifically, from Assyria, meaning either modern-day Syria or Iraq.
This by the way is the same area where Antiochus Epiphanies came from. Although he never specifically states that the Antichrist will be a Muslim, he leaves this distinct impression by claiming that he will come from an area dominated by Islam.

He also uses Micah 5:5 to identify the A/C as Assyrian. Personally I do not believe there is any validity to the use of Micah 5:5 to determine the national identity of the Antichrist. Micah 5:3-15 is entirely about the Millennium. The Antichrist will be dead and gone during that time. Rev. 19:20-21 says that at the Second Coming of Jesus — at the end of the Tribulation — the Antichrist and his False Prophet will be thrown into the lake of fire where they will be tormented eternally (20:10).
Therefore it seems clear to me that all the prophet is saying in Micah 5 is that during the Millennium the Lord will protect Israel from all its natural enemies.

What am I saying???? With all due respect to Straightshooter, it is my opinion that it is the Revived Roman Empire made up of the 10 members of the European Union that will make up the One World Order that produces the A/C and IMO he will probably be a Jew.

But hey........I was sure that Alabama would be Ohio State last week so what do I know.
 
Who is speaking to revived Roman empire? - not me. It does not divert to any of what you said (ie: RCC and European AC). It speaks simply to the east of the old Roman empire. Under no circumstances has Islam held any strong sway over the west. East and west have "knocked knees" from the beginning since 600 AD. East and west encompasses all humanity - Islam has never done that on it's own and only threatens to do so now. The NT speaks only of Rome as an empire period. It's in scripture and one can't take it out or is there no NT prophet?
 
"Isn't that telling us that the Antichrist, referred to as "the prince who is to come," will be from"the people who destroy the Temple." Those people proved to be the Romans who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD."

It is not for sure

The people of the prince that shall come were not the Romans in the first century

They will be the people of the little horn of Daniel's visions who has not yet come .... the Muslims of the Middle East

70 AD was not the time of the end as the preterist teaches and the Roman incursions are not even in the scope of the prophetic visions

The visions contain nothing of events upon the earth after the Lord's cutting off in about 33 AD [the ending of the 69 week decreed for Israel].... total silence pervades after and still at this time

Even the Lord tells the same in His discourse about the matter .... His projection is a much longer view of the 70th week decreed which is still pending as we speak .... but most likely close at hand

He did not speak of 70 AD and the period was obviously not "the time of the end" out in front of us today

And there is still not one stone standing of the ancient temple and related buildings to this very day .... and there will not be during the coming tribulations of the 70th week decreed

Neither did a remnant part of Israel flee in 70 AD as stated here [Zechariah 14:4-5; Mathew 24:15-16; Revelation 12:6; 12:14]

Neither did all of the things taken together here [Luke 21:20-36]

The 70th week decreed for Israel [same as the Lord's period of trial and judgment .... the tribulation coming upon the whole world] containing the events of the unfulfilled balance of prophecy has not yet begun

And it will not begin until this [Romans 11:25] .... the Lord will execute the coming 70th week for Israel [Daniel 9:24-27] .... the time of the end of this present age

 
Straightshot said:
"I'm not taking my view from anything but scripture. (well..and actual history)"

This is you problem .... you are adding historical data that is not contained in the scope of the Bible prophets

Believe what you want Silk, but the Roman Empire is not in the prophetic vision which are all silent regarding the era of Rome's rule in the past .... and the revival of the same is not there either .... this is not going to happen and is an inserted speculation

And will will point out that Daniel's visions do name the second and third kingdoms in advance .... but not the fourth .... because the fourth is an outgrowth of the third still pending

.... Rome is not in the visions of any prophet and neither did Rome began as to rival kingdoms one north and one south of Israel as were the two divisions of the third .... this same divided setting is reflected by the two divided legs of iron still pending at this time

One leg will be the northern kingdom of the little horn and the other the southern kingdom of Egypt .... this divide is forming as we speak .... and the leader of Egypt will oppose the little horn's ambitions to rule over the entire Middle East to include to include Egypt [Daniel 11:40; 11:42]

These things are still pending, but not far off .... and the setting is certainly not one of ancient Rome's beginnings .... Rome's presence in the past was not at all or even close to the fulfillment of the vision for many reasons

The image refutes this idea; 1 head of gold, 2 arms and 1 chest of silver; 1 belly and 2 thighs of bronze; .... and 2 legs of iron [one defeated, and the other the forming the feet of iron and clay]

All exactly and precisely correct by the historical record through the third divided kingdom .... the balance of the fourth divided and then consolidated is still pending at his time .... the kingdom of the little horn yet to be revealed
Click to expand...

You said.............
"And will will point out that Daniel's visions do name the second and third kingdoms in advance .... but not the fourth .... because the fourth is an outgrowth of the third still pending."

But according to Daniel 7:7- he did identify a FOURTH kingdom and that kingdom destroyed the 3rd which was Greece. It does not seem to be explaining an outgrowth but a total destruction...........
"After 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.
 
I'm inclined to agree that AC will arise out of Iraq/Iran and Assyrian holds some sway with me, altho I haven't read the books mentioned. I don't know about European Union but darkness is surfacing in all quarterrs.
 
Straightshot said:
"Yep, at 1 time I was naive and read a lot of H. W. Armstrong. I strongly DON'T recommend his writings. What started me off NON-believing his doctrine was that he was a 'salesman"

There are spin offs today of HWA's teaching, but again with variations .... the WWCG continues under different pied pipers

The only reliable source for truth are the scriptures themselves .... not the inventions of men with ambitions to make merchandise of the hearers

The Bible prophets must be interpreted literally at face value, and where symbolism is given one can find the symbol defined literally in the context of the same passage or in other related scriptures

Interpretation must never be reduced to allegory and metaphor, datings must not be arbitrary set, and there are to be no speculative additions or deletions [Revelation 22:18-19]

And all of the prophetic scriptures can be understood correctly with the Lord's guidance over time .... He is not a God of confusion
Click to expand...
Agreed. I would not know any other way.
 
Look, Straight, I'm only disagreeing about Rome as the 4th empire because it has continued, altho much changed , from Christ's time, and is the only empire that includes ALL the world, not just the mid east. The prophecies include ALL of the world - not just the known world of the OT prophets.
 
"There are several books written on this that relate to this topic. Probably the one that our brother is linked to"


Absolutely not linked just so you know, and certainly not to Goodman

There are few today that really understand the prophetic word for many reasons .... primarily because of non-adherence to the prophetic scriptures and adding extra-biblical speculations

I will continue to post my view to completion on this thread and must press on ... there are many other related factors to present

I don't mind your premature interactive dialogue, but I must finish, so I will not entertain the side tracking as much .... just so you know

I do understand your view on the Roman issue as well, or maybe even more so than you ..... I just do not believe that it is the correct one
 
"Christ did, indeed, speak to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD."

I don't think He did .... He was asked by members of Israel about the "time of the end" which was not 70 AD

The idea of 70 AD being the time of the end is essentially a preteristic/replacement theological view from those who claim His dealings with Israel have all passed .... so the methodology used is to push all or part of the 70th week decreed into the past .... none of this significant time frame has yet to transpire .... but it is near
 
Straightshot said:
"Isn't that telling us that the Antichrist, referred to as "the prince who is to come," will be from"the people who destroy the Temple." Those people proved to be the Romans who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD."

It is not for sure

The people of the prince that shall come were not the Romans in the first century

They will be the people of the little horn of Daniel's visions who has not yet come .... the Muslims of the Middle East

70 AD was not the time of the end as the preterist teaches and the Roman incursions are not even in the scope of the prophetic visions

The visions contain nothing of events upon the earth after the Lord's cutting off in about 33 AD [the ending of the 69 week decreed for Israel].... total silence pervades after and still at this time

Even the Lord tells the same in His discourse about the matter .... His projection is a much longer view of the 70th week decreed which is still pending as we speak .... but most likely close at hand

He did not speak of 70 AD and the period was obviously not "the time of the end" out in front of us today

And there is still not one stone standing of the ancient temple and related buildings to this very day .... and there will not be during the coming tribulations of the 70th week decreed

Neither did a remnant part of Israel flee in 70 AD as stated here [Zechariah 14:4-5; Mathew 24:15-16; Revelation 12:6; 12:14]

Neither did all of the things taken together here [Luke 21:20-36]

The 70th week decreed for Israel [same as the Lord's period of trial and judgment .... the tribulation coming upon the whole world] containing the events of the unfulfilled balance of prophecy has not yet begun

And it will not begin until this [Romans 11:25] .... the Lord will execute the coming 70th week for Israel [Daniel 9:24-27] .... the time of the end of this present age
Click to expand...
It pains me to say this but I have to disagree with you my brother. That does not make any one right or wrong, only that I see it differently than do you.Actual recorded history without a doubt tells us that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD by Vespasian, his son Titus.

"THE PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE THAT SHALL COME" does in fact refer to the Romans since this prince is to be distinguished from Messiah the Prince of verse #25. Therefore the prince of verse #26 is the A/C and his people are the Roman people. These events actually happened AFTER the first 69 weeks of years but still before the final week spoken of in verse #27. That final 7 years is still future.

Daniel 9:27.........
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

"And HE' in verse #27 refers back to "The prince that shall come" of verse #26 and predicts the coming of a Roman during the Tribulation Period after the Rapture.....IMO.

Not only was the city destroyed but also the Temple. Israel was broken off because of unbelief at the crucifixion of Christ.
 
Straightshot said:
"Christ did, indeed, speak to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD."

I don't think He did .... He was asked by members of Israel about the "time of the end" which was not 70 AD

The idea of 70 AD being the time of the end is essentially a preteristic/replacement theological view from those who claim His dealings with Israel have all passed .... so the methodology used is to push all or part of the 70th week decreed into the past .... none of this significant time frame has yet to transpire .... but it is near
Click to expand...

I am not intending to say 70 AD was the "end of time" only that Christ said this temple will be destroyed - not one stone remaining (paraphrase) and then switches to His resurrection. That's all I meant. Is he did prophesize the temple (and His own imminent death) destruction
 
"The prophecies include ALL of the world - not just the known world of the OT prophets."

I would have to say no ... the prophecies are all focused upon the Middle East of the past .... and the future still pending .... none of them contain events upon the earth between the ending of the 69th week decreed for Israel .... and the beginning of the 70th

Will the whole world be affected by the events of the 70th week?

Yes .... no nation on the earth will escape the coming related judgment

But the prophets speak only of this coming time and directly relate it to Israel and the populations of the Middle East who are all literally all identified
 
Straightshot said:
"Christ did, indeed, speak to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD."

I don't think He did .... He was asked by members of Israel about the "time of the end" which was not 70 AD

The idea of 70 AD being the time of the end is essentially a preteristic/replacement theological view from those who claim His dealings with Israel have all passed .... so the methodology used is to push all or part of the 70th week decreed into the past .... none of this significant time frame has yet to transpire .... but it is near
Click to expand...

I am not in any way saying that 70 AD was the end my friend. That is Preterism and is completely un-biblical as is replacement theology.

Not sure where your thinking is coming from on that as I have not mentioned it ay all. I am only saying that the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and Jesus did actually talk about the event.

Jesus prophesied both the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

Matt. 24:1-2........& Luke 21:5-6..............
"Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 'Do you see all these things?' he asked. 'I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down'".

In his well known prophecy about the end of the age recorded by Matthew and Luke, Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem which came to pass 40 years after his death and resurrection.

Because the disciples as most of the Jews of their day (especially the Essenes and the Pharisees) were looking for a Messiah to come who would restore national Israel, set up an earthly kingdom, and destroy the existing Temple and build a new one in its place, they were anxious to know when this would happen..........
They asked, "When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (Matt.24:3).
 
Silk said:
I am not intending to say 70 AD was the "end of time" only that Christ said this temple will be destroyed - not one stone remaining (paraphrase) and then switches to His resurrection. That's all I meant. Is he did prophesize the temple (and His own imminent death) destruction
Click to expand...

Correct!!!!
 
Straightshot said:
"There are several books written on this that relate to this topic. Probably the one that our brother is linked to"


Absolutely not linked just so you know, and certainly not to Goodman

There are few today that really understand the prophetic word for many reasons .... primarily because of non-adherence to the prophetic scriptures and adding extra-biblical speculations

I will continue to post my view to completion on this thread and must press on ... there are many other related factors to present

I don't mind your premature interactive dialogue, but I must finish, so I will not entertain the side tracking as much .... just so you know

I do understand your view on the Roman issue as well, or maybe even more so than you ..... I just do not believe that it is the correct one
Click to expand...

You said..........
"I don't mind your premature interactive dialogue, but I must finish, so I will not entertain the side tracking as much .... just so you know. I do understand your view on the Roman issue as well, or maybe even more so than you ..... "

I really appreciate your knowledge and preparation concerning the Scriptures.

But your ability to communicate with others......not so much.
 
And still, I can see most of your other points and agree, at least, to some large extent. I simply wanted to point out, in my view I'm still unconvinced that the old Roman empire wasn't the 4th empire. So far it gives me no problems, otherwise with the rest of what you are saying as applies the middle east. I have no doubt the middle east and Israel are the focal point of end times. When the prophets say the "whole" world - I think whole world - not only the middle east.
 
"When the prophets say the "whole" world - I think whole world - not only the middle east."


Do the scriptures tell of Nebuchadnezzar ruling the "whole world"?

Did he?

The world outside of the Middle East was filled with people at the time of the neo-Babylon's rule

Think about it
 
Straightshot said:
"When the prophets say the "whole" world - I think whole world - not only the middle east."


Do the scriptures tell of Nebuchadnezzar ruling the "whole world"?

Did he?

The world outside of the Middle East was filled with people at the time of the neo-Babylon's rule

Think about it
Click to expand...

I have and the Prophets in the OT were speaking for God about Israel and the "known world" inhabited by those who believed in the true God and those who don't. I think God was also speaking to posterity in scripture and while the focus and focal point all along is Israel and the world at large. In the end it will still be about that Israel and the world who rejects God. From Noah on - all generations came from this and spread throughout the world - outside the focus but do you expect God forgot the rest? We are at the point where God's people live throughout the world. Why not think on that or do you think God missed Rome when He chose to incarnate thru Christ? If for no other reason Rome has significance. Because it no longer looks the same as when it started - the word "republic" the west so loves to expound as a form of governent all hails from Rome. And Rome is the only empire that has 2 legs - east AND west.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top