description of the A.C.

[pagal]

Ok, now I'm not asking WHO It is since it doesn't matter really but rather what description the bible hints towards him.

My friend and I were discussing it and I said the bible calls him the "Assyrian" and she was intruiged and then I said, but I've heard people quote a verse in daniel saying he must be ROMAN since it says that he will be of the same people who destroyed the temple?

:scratch......
where is that again?

[HollowofHishand]

Daniel NEVER said the AC would be Roman. But the AC would be the prince of THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD COME. So the question is, who were the people that came? There are many places on this board that hash this out over and over. I would say that we know satan is the prince of darkness, that he was the real prince of the people who destroyed the temple. Bush is my president, but Christ is my prince and God is my king.
So this makes the references to the Assyrian easy to plug in. It will be an Assyrian who is indwelt by satan.

[Copperhead89]

The AC is a spirit- it pervades the religious system. Especially here in America. You probably have the doctrine of AC and devils all over your church right now. You can tell it easily. Any thing that changes the meaning or intrepretation of what the gospel of Christ is or what God said is anti. Listen to Paul Washer on
www.heartcrymission.com
this will give some perspective to the seriousness of this issue. Read the overcomer challenges to the church in Rev. ch 2,3 and so on.
The Assyrian, Philistine, Moabites, Jezebel and others are examples of how the kingdom of darkness think and operate.

[usaf_chaplain]

Ok, now I'm not asking WHO It is since it doesn't matter really but rather what description the bible hints towards him.

My friend and I were discussing it and I said the bible calls him the "Assyrian" and she was intruiged and then I said, but I've heard people quote a verse in daniel saying he must be ROMAN since it says that he will be of the same people who destroyed the temple?

:scratch......
where is that again?

I think the Assyrian connection is certainly a possibility, although I believe it is a remote one that is built around conjecture more than what the text actually says. But it is possible. But the greater weight of Scripture leans in the direction of his being of Roman descent. With that in mind, other texts describe what he will be like:

1. 1 John 1:18-19 -- He is described as the "Antichrist" which means he will be (a) "against" Christ, and (b) "in the stead of" or "instead of" Christ.

2. 1 John 2:22 -- He is a liar who denies that Jesus is the Christ.

3. 1 John 4:3-6 -- He denies Jesus is from God (or is God) and also is described as "falsehood".

4. 2 John 1:7 -- He is a "deceiver"

5. Daniel 7:7-8 -- He speaks "boastfully" (apparently, he is stuck on himself).

6. Daniel 8:23-25 -- He is described as "sternfaced" and "a master of intrigue" which means he will be deceptively wise...no wonder, he will be able to fool most of the world. In fact, the Bible says if it were possible, he'd deceive even the elect of those days.

7. Daniel 9:25-27 -- He will be a peacemaker, albiet a pseudo one.

8. 2 Thess. 2:3-12 -- He is described as the lawless one or "man of lawlessness." He will perform "mircacles, signs and wonders" in order to deceive.

Hope this helps.

Maranatha!!!

[usaf_chaplain]

Daniel NEVER said the AC would be Roman. But the AC would be the prince of THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD COME. So the question is, who were the people that came? There are many places on this board that hash this out over and over. I would say that we know satan is the prince of darkness, that he was the real prince of the people who destroyed the temple. Bush is my president, but Christ is my prince and God is my king.
So this makes the references to the Assyrian easy to plug in. It will be an Assyrian who is indwelt by satan.

Well, you are correct. Daniel didn't use the word "Roman" to describe this prince. But the people who destroyed the temple/Jerusalem were most definitely Roman (General Titus and his Roman troops). Therefore, the weight of conclusion is that he is a descendant of these people, therefore of Roman descent. It's the only conclusion good hermenutics will lead us to in the Daneil text.

Maranatha!!!

[usaf_chaplain]

The AC is a spirit- it pervades the religious system. Especially here in America. You probably have the doctrine of AC and devils all over your church right now. You can tell it easily. Any thing that changes the meaning or intrepretation of what the gospel of Christ is or what God said is anti. Listen to Paul Washer on
www.heartcrymission.com
this will give some perspective to the seriousness of this issue. Read the overcomer challenges to the church in Rev. ch 2,3 and so on.
The Assyrian, Philistine, Moabites, Jezebel and others are examples of how the kingdom of darkness think and operate.

There is a spirit of antichrist as you so rightly put. In fact, the Bible never really calls this person "The Antichrist". It's a title many have given him based on various texts that use the word "antichrist". But, there is a man coming on the scene who will be the embodiment of everything antichrist, and for this reason, we call him The Antichrist.

[HollowofHishand]

Well, you are correct. Daniel didn't use the word "Roman" to describe this prince. But the people who destroyed the temple/Jerusalem were most definitely Roman (General Titus and his Roman troops). Therefore, the weight of conclusion is that he is a descendant of these people, therefore of Roman descent. It's the only conclusion good hermenutics will lead us to in the Daneil text.

If the AC is to be of Roman decent, then why does the Bible call him the Assyrian 11 times? Can you tell me how I should reconcile this to still be Roman? Especially this verse: Micah 5:5 And this [man] shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
The whole chapter 5 of Micah deals with Israel's history from Christ's birth to his second coming.

[usaf_chaplain]

If the AC is to be of Roman decent, then why does the Bible call him the Assyrian 11 times? Can you tell me how I should reconcile this to still be Roman? Especially this verse: Micah 5:5 And this [man] shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
The whole chapter 5 of Micah deals with Israel's history from Christ's birth to his second coming.

The Assyrian connection is a possibility to consider and I certainly wouldn't rule it out. But again, I think the weight of Scripture leans in the direction of his being of Roman descent, or at least coming out of the European leg of the Empire. However, that being said, France's president proposed last year a Mediterranian Union similar to the EU, which I found very, very interesting in light of endtime prophecy. So the Eastern leg of the Empire might still have something to add to all this before it is all over. But right now, I'm still leaning West...LOL.

Anyway, the Micah 5:5 passage you mentioned I believe was probably fulfilled in history. God has used "the nations" to judge His people in the past and in this case, Assyria was God's instrument of judgment against Israel in 722 BC and Judah in 701 BC. And I also think this passage is representative of enemy nations opposed to the Lord in general. So in that case, we might even say the US is Assyrian as it seems our President is determined to oppose the Lord by pressuring Israel to give up its land for "peace".

Furthermore, the phrases, "prince of the people who is to come," and then "he will make a firm covenant" (Dan. 9:26-27) tell us WHO he is (or will be since it is yet future). He will be the leader of the Roman sphere. Other passages describe WHAT he is (or is like or will be like). For example, he is (1) the man of sin (lawlessness) in 2 Thess. 2. He is the (2) Assyrian (Micah 5:5, and other passages). He is (3) the King of Babyon (Is. 14:4). He is (4) The little horn (Dan. 7:8-24). He is (5) the son of perdition (2 Thess.). We could go on and on but I think this is enough for now.

What we do know is that the Antichrist will arise out of system of 10 nations/kings/political leaders. These "10" are the toes in Dan. 2 and the 10 horns in Dan. 7. Since we know from history that Rome never fell but broke apart, we conclude (and rightly I believe) that the 10 toes/horns are its final form that we can anticipate will occur sometime in the (probably near) future. Since the Roman empire broke into an Easter/Western halves, with the Eastern half surviving much longer than the west, again, we should not be too quick to write off the possibility of the final form including both the West and the East. This is why Sarkozy's proposal for a Mediterranian Union similar to the EU almost blew me off the couch when I read about it. He has sense started really pushing for it, though some of the Mediterranian nations have been skeptical.

But alas, we shant be here to see this final form, whatever nations/regions it may include. So there's room for a little conjecture on our parts :)

Maranatha!!!

Well, that's my 2.5 cents for what it worth.

[HollowofHishand]

I agree that the Roman empire was east and west "legs". The question for us to ponder is this: If the 10 horns equate with the ten toes, then from which leg will the little horn emerge and subdue which of the other three toes?

Also, the little horn we are told: "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great,"

But it is what follows that must be thought upon: "toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land]."

If it goes south, east and towards the pleasant land (Israel) then the little horn must be either north or west depending on which direction Israel is to it. Or can it?
It can't be north or Israel would be to the south and we already know that is not true.
It can't be west or Israel would be to the east and we already know that is not true either (never mind the Med. Sea thing)
So that just leaves us with the little horn coming from the south or east of Israel. And those countries are Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Also to note about the Roman Empire from http://answering-islam.org.uk/Walid/gog.htm

"Now, to the mystery. Regarding Antichrist, in Chapter 17 of the Book of the Revelation we are provided with some key information which is generally overlooked. In that chapter, Antichrist is referred to as the beast. In verse 3 we are told the beast has seven heads and ten horns (verse 3). Fortunately, verses 9-10 give some indication of what this means. "The seven heads are ... seven kings ..." Then we get a further explanation of these kings:

five have fallen,
one (the sixth) is,
the other (the seventh) "has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while."

Then we learn from verse 11 that the end-time beast "an eighth" is also "one of the seven." That is to say, he will be a repeat of one of the seven.

If, on the other hand, kings refers to world empires and/or their rulers (i.e., Alexander/Greece, Caesar/Rome, Hitler/Germany, etc.) then we have the following picture:

five (empires) have fallen: One is (the Roman), another (the seventh) that will come and remain only a little while is the Islamic Empire that took over the Roman. Remember that the Roman Empire ceased to exist in the West and moved to the east (Byzantium in Turkey).

"And the beast which was, and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction". Do you see the "WAS" above? Do you see the "and IS NOT"?

At the time John wrote Revelation The Roman Empire was ruling, yet John specifically says "is not". This rules out the Revived Roman Empire theory."

[usaf_chaplain]

I agree that the Roman empire was east and west "legs". The question for us to ponder is this: If the 10 horns equate with the ten toes, then from which leg will the little horn emerge and subdue which of the other three toes?

Also, the little horn we are told: "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great,"

But it is what follows that must be thought upon: "toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land]."

If it goes south, east and towards the pleasant land (Israel) then the little horn must be either north or west depending on which direction Israel is to it. Or can it?
It can't be north or Israel would be to the south and we already know that is not true.
It can't be west or Israel would be to the east and we already know that is not true either (never mind the Med. Sea thing)
So that just leaves us with the little horn coming from the south or east of Israel. And those countries are Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Also to note about the Roman Empire from http://answering-islam.org.uk/Walid/gog.htm

"Now, to the mystery. Regarding Antichrist, in Chapter 17 of the Book of the Revelation we are provided with some key information which is generally overlooked. In that chapter, Antichrist is referred to as the beast. In verse 3 we are told the beast has seven heads and ten horns (verse 3). Fortunately, verses 9-10 give some indication of what this means. "The seven heads are ... seven kings ..." Then we get a further explanation of these kings:

five have fallen,
one (the sixth) is,
the other (the seventh) "has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while."

Then we learn from verse 11 that the end-time beast "an eighth" is also "one of the seven." That is to say, he will be a repeat of one of the seven.

If, on the other hand, kings refers to world empires and/or their rulers (i.e., Alexander/Greece, Caesar/Rome, Hitler/Germany, etc.) then we have the following picture:

five (empires) have fallen: One is (the Roman), another (the seventh) that will come and remain only a little while is the Islamic Empire that took over the Roman. Remember that the Roman Empire ceased to exist in the West and moved to the east (Byzantium in Turkey).

"And the beast which was, and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction". Do you see the "WAS" above? Do you see the "and IS NOT"?

At the time John wrote Revelation The Roman Empire was ruling, yet John specifically says "is not". This rules out the Revived Roman Empire theory."


I fail to see how this rules out anything. Unless of course your building a theology around the words "was" and "is not". But rather than do that, let's actually look at the verses using good hermeneutics.

Verse 9 -- "seven mountains" are often interpreted to mean Rome, which sits on 7 hills. The final worldwide system of false religion includes, but will not necessarily be limited to Rome. However, here, the 7 mountains in context likely refer to the 7 kingdoms and their kings of v. 10.

Verse 10 -- "seven kings" are representative of the 7 great world empires. Those would be (1) Egypt, (2) Assyria, (3) Babylon, (4) Medio-Persia, (5) Greece, (6) Rome, and (7) the Kingdom of Antichrist.

Verse 10 -- "five have fallen, one is, the other..." -- When John wrote, the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonians, Medio-Persian and Greek empires had gone out of exenstence, all fallen. Rome still existed and the Antichrist's empire had not yet come. When it does come, it will be brief according to Rev. 12:12 and 13:5.

Verse 11 -- "was and is not...an eighth" -- The Antichrist's kingdom is said to be both the seventh and eighth kingdoms because of his supposed demise and resurrection. He is the seventh king before the eighth king is after his "resurrection" when he destroys the harlot's religious empire and demands exlusive worship of himself (see v. 16) at the pain of death.

Again, keep in mind that Rome NEVER fell. It only broke apart over time. Daniel is VERY clear in Daniel 9:26-27 this guy will be a 'prince' of the people who destroyed Jerusalem. The people who destroyed Jerusalem were clearly and without question Romans. It is this 'prince' who 'confirms a covenant' with Israel in verse 27 of Daniel 9. More is written about the time/events of verse 27 than any other time period/events in Scripture. It is the subject of Matthew 24-25, Rev. 4-19, and a few other places.

Well, there you have it :thumb

Maranatha!!!