Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Some Additional Thoughts on "Debunking the European Antichrist" by Rodrigo Silva

Update 22 September 2009: For the obvious reasons Ray Gano at Prophezine.com has re-published Rodrigo Silva's "Debuking the Eurpoean Antichrist" article which first appeared back in January of this year. Not only did Rogrigo Silva's article utterly fail to refute Dr. David Reagan's (.pdf link) "Will the Antichrist be a Muslim?" article, but his erroneous ideas have also been thoroughly refuted by Nathan Jones, Bill Salus and Don Koenig. In the same vein, Jacob Prasch also exposed the similarly "shallow, wobbly and hollow foundation" of Joel Richarson's "The Islamic Antichrist." Within this blog and in addition to this rebuttal of Silva's article I have posted others which are similarly themed: Assyria Destroyed, Philistia Destroyed, Legion Ten Fretensis Fulfills Bible Prophecy, and "Debunking the Islamic Antichrist."

In reviewing once again the "tortuous logic" propagated by the likes of Shoebat, Richardson and Silva, an item which I had at first overlooked in Silva's article jumped out at me. This item is in the beginning of the article where Silva accuses Dr. Reagan of dogmatism, insufficiently examined premises, and arrogance. And what was the object of Silva's unwarranted scorn of his brother in Christ? I'll quote Dr. Reagan verbatim, the last sentence of which I hightlight as it is key and absolutely correct per the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded by Matthew:
"Shoebat and Richardson argue that the Roman legions that carried out the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD were composed primarily of Arabs, mainly Syrians and Turks. They therefore conclude that the Antichrist will arise from the Syrians or Turks and will be a Muslim. This is really grasping at straws in the wind! It doesn’t matter whether or not the legions were composed of Australian Aborigines, it was the Roman government that decided to destroy Jerusalem, it was the Roman government that gave the orders, and it was Roman generals who carried out the destruction. Rome was the rod of God’s judgment and it is from the Roman people that the Antichrist will arise."
Rodrigo, these are not arrogant words. On the contrary, Dr Reagan has restated what our Lord Jesus Christ stated in His condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. I noted this specific item in my latest article "All these things be fulfilled..." which I repeat for emphasis in support of Dr. Reagan and to reprove, refute and exhort Rodrigo Silva, et. al, regarding Rome and Daniel's identification of the Antichrist's origin in Chapter 9, verse 26:
The absolute truth of this statement, aside from the fact that it was uttered by our Lord God incarnate, is reinforced in the prophetic truth of what our Lord had said just moments before to the Scribes and the Pharisees. In Matthew 23:1-35 Jesus lays out in detail how all of the offenses committed over many years and the innocent blood spilled from the murder of Abel to their murder of Zacharias will come upon them [Israel] in the following explicit way: “Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon [tautÄ“ genea] this generation.” (Matthew 23:36)

The generation of which Jesus spoke was living in the period from 66 to 136 AD when the Jews' three wars against the Roman Empire occurred, and with each war came more disaster, Diaspora and death upon the Jews, exactly as Jesus had foretold. The first Jewish-Roman war was also known as the Great Revolt which began in 66 AD, saw the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the city and the sanctuary at the hands of three Roman legions as prophesied by Daniel and culminated in the fall of Masada in 73 AD. The second Roman Jewish war was also known as the Kitos war and occurred throughout the Roman Empire between 115-117 AD. The third and final war is known as the Bar Kokhba Revolt from circa 132 to 136 AD. The sum total of years between 66 and 136 AD, consistent with Jesus declaration of “this generation,” was precisely 70 years in duration.
There is no question that the Roman Empire was indeed was "rod of God's judgment upon Israel." This rod of judgement was used by the Lord on three distinct occasions between 66 and 136 AD, the sum total of which amounted to 70 literal years, or according to Psalm 90:10, a generation without strength. It is with great dismay that I must note the error of my bretheren in being ignorant of these explicitly prophetic words of our Messiah.

"Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." 2 Timothy 4:2 (NKJV)

UPDATED 11 February 2009: Bill Salus has a new entry directly related to this subject on his PROPHECY DEPOT blog. The entry is titled "IS THE EUROPEAN ANTICHRIST A SATANIC MYTH?" A comment I submitted to Bill's entry is also included in the comments below.

2 February 2009 (UPDATED with additional data 9 February): I was reading the above named article by Rodrigo Silva at raptureready.com and came away with some items on what I think are inadvertant admissions that count against the argument he is attempting to make, interpretive or historical errors, and one clear faux pas.

By no means is this an all-inclusive review of Silva's article, but just items I'm going to present as insights which may initiate further thought and analysis on this topic.

Silva wrote:
"Now, the fact that the Roman legions that destroyed the city and the Temple (mainly legion X Fretensis) comprised of Syrian soldiers lead us to identify the people of the Antichrist as Syrians, therefore the Antichrist must be a Syrian."

Rodrigo Silva has done those supporting the traditional Antichrist exegesis a superb favor by citing as "fact that the Roman legions destroyed the city and the Temple." This is a key admission. Silva confirms the longstanding view which indentified Legio X Fretensis (LXF hereater) as one of the primary Roman legions involved in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, and supports a literal fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy concerning the origin of the future Antichrist in declaration of "the prince of the people who will come"

However, Rodrigo Silva's most blatant error is found in his description of the legionaires of LXF as "Syrians." This error is non-exegetical because there are no detailed Biblical texts to interpret regarding the Roman citizen-soldiers in LXF. Secular historical records and sources, such as that of the non-Biblical Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, are all that exist to research the subject.

The sum my research of these sources is as follows.

Gaius Octavius Thurinus was born in Rome, the Roman Republic, on 23 September 63 BC. In September 45 BC, Octavius was adopted by his great-uncle Julius Caesar and immediately took the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. It was just six months later, in March of 44 BC, that Julius Caesar was assassinated by the Roman senatorial mob. It was during 41-40 BC between the age of 22 and 23-years old that Gaius Octavianus founded the LXF in the region of Calabria and Sicily, Italy. It is this region from which the name Fretensis, meaning 'of the sea straits' was derived according to the great German historian Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903). In 31 BC, after Gaius Octavianus defeated the forces of Marc Antony at the Battle of Actium, the final battle of a Roman civil war, he became Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar.

After Actium LXF was sent to Cremona in northern Italy where many of the Calabrian and Sicilian legionaire veterans were pensioned and discharged. Legio X was then re-staffed by nortern Italians from the colony in Venice. Legio X was then re-deployed into the Balkans and then to its new base at Cyrrhus in extreme northern part ofthe Roman province of Syria.

Cyrrhus had been founded as a Greek colony by Seleucus (Seleucus I Nicator) circa 300 BC, a couple of decades after having receiving his portion of Alexander the Great's empire, exactly as prophecied by Daniel in chapter 11, verses 2-4. Seleucus was one of Alexander's principal Macedonian generals and may have even been his cousin. Cyrrhus is a Macedonian name and had been populated by Macedonians, Greeks and eventually Romans for over 300 years by the time LXF arrived there in garrison.

Cyrrhus was selected as LXF's base of operations for this very reason - it was a distinctly Macedonian/Greek (i.e. European) colony as were many others in the area (i.e. Antioch, Seleucia, Laodicea and Apamea) which were almost exclusively populated by ethnic Greeks, Macedonians and Romans. LXF stayed encamped in Cyrrhus until it was redeployed to Judea which had been an administrative part of the Roman province of Syria since 6 AD. Thus was the core of LXF manned and commanded by European stock, the "people of the prince who is to come."

Silva wrote:
"In fact, the opposite is true. In his work, "The Wars of the Jews," book 6 chapter 4, Josephus who most likely was an eyewitness to these events says that the Roman government DID NOT want the Temple to be destroyed. The Roman soldiers did it out of disobedience to the Roman government simply because they hated the Jews."

No, the opposite is not true by any means. Firstly, there's no 'most likely' about it, Flavius Josephus was present at the siege, taking and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. In one instance in the run-up to the taking of Jerusalem, Josephus was a direct participant in beseeching his fellow Jews to stand down in their rebellion against Rome. Josephus wasn't able to witness the entirety of that epic struggle with the same battlespace awareness of our modern warfighting observation capabilites within electronic command and control. However, he was able to view specific events at specific locations, and as any good historian was able to seamlessly blend his experiences with the eyewitness accounts of others in different parts of the city over the entire duration of the siege, capture and destruction. I would argue that Flavius Josephus makes this abundantly clear in his narrative.

Secondly, the Roman soldiers hated the Jewish defenders for a couple of reasons. One reason, as Josephus reported, was that the rebellious Jews had routed a small garrisoning contengent of LXF in Jerusalem. This is the same LXF contingent which just 30 years earlier had been in direct contact with the Lord Jesus Christ, had been the enforcers of what little taxation they could extract from Judea and the basis for the Lord's comment to "render unto Caesar (Tiberius) what is Caesar's, and unto God what is His," had whipped and ridiculed a captive Jesus with a crown of thorns, crucified him, and finally, gambled for His garment. All of this was done by the Roman soldiers of the LXF. During all of this activity there is not one mention in God's Word that these Roman soldiers were "Syrians" or "Arabs". They were Roman soldiers, period.

According to Flavius Josephus, the Jewish revolt against Rome began in 66 AD in Caesarea and quickly spread to Jerusalem. The son of the Temple Kohen Ha-Gadol (i.e. the high priest), a man named Eleazar ben Simon, led the rebellious Jewish troops in their driving of the LXF Jerusalem garrison out of the city. This eviction of Roman power from Jerusalem continued in a northward progression and led to the complete annihilation of the newly arrived Roman 12th Legion Fulminata (LXIIF) under the command of Gaius Cestus Gallus by the same Jewish force under Eleazar ben Simon's command at the Battle of Beth Horon. The defeat of LXF, and the annihilation of LXIIF, was a tremendous blow to the pride and prestige of the Roman Empire, and resonated badly all the way to Rome itself, even into Caesar Nero's private chambers. The Romans were uniformly determined to make a strong, violent example of the Jews in their upcoming retribuition campaign; the retaking of Judea would be an example for all other restless provinces to seriously consider prior to embarking on similar acts of folly - particularly those in Egypt who would have been Rome's target had not the Jews rebelled first, humiliated the LXF, destoyed LXIIF and had re-taken not only Jerusalem but virtually all of Judea.

LXF was permitted the 'honor' when it came time after the siege to storm the city. It's position of encampment on the Mount of Olives laid the Temple before them as a shining strategic target they were determined to achieve. Once the fortress of Antonia was breeched and the city taken there was an ensuing rampage of the LXF and individual Roman soldiers identified by name in Josephus' account. The Temple was razed exactly as Jesus had predicted it would be 30 years earlier, and all arguments related to this not being the desire of General Titus are rendered moot.

Silva wrote
"Then did Caesar, both by calling to the soldiers that were fighting, with a loud voice, and by giving a signal to them with his right hand, order them to quench the fire... And now, since Caesar was no way able to restrain the enthusiastic fury of the soldiers...And thus was the holy house burnt down, without Caesar's approbation... It is pretty clear that Titus and Caesar as the rulers of the Roman government did not want to Temple to be destroyed and actually gave the order to stop the fire so the Temple would not be destroyed."

Rodrigo Silva has made here a silly faux pas in that he has promoted General Titus Flavuius Vespasianus to Caesar, a postition held his father, Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, who was in Rome at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd Temple. Titus would not become Emperor of Rome until 79 AD upon the death of his father. What Rodrigo Silva does not realize in his reading of Josephus is that Josephus was actually quoting General Titus, who would become Caesar at a point some 9 full years into the future, in 79 AD, and upon the death of his father Caesar Vespasian Augustus. The obvious conclusion is that Josephus, or others unknown, wrote or edited this account of the Jerusalem siege and Temple destruction at a point no earlier than 79 AD when General Titus Flavius Vespasianus succeeded to the Roman throne after the death of his father and became Caesar himself. Thus the references to words spoken by "Caesar" in Josephus account were actually words spoken by Titus, but attributed to him with the honorific titile of "Caesar."

Silva wrote:
"How could Paul having been born in Tarsus in Asia Minor be a Roman? The answer is simple. When the Roman Empire conquered a region, it established Roman law and required that from that time on, some privileged ones and those who served for a number of years be considered Roman citizens."

Incorrect. Saul of Tarsus (later Paul the Apostle) was born to his father, an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, in the city of Tarsus, Roman province of Cilicia. Paul the Apostle did not directly make the claim of Roman citizenship, but it is recorded that he made this citizenship claim by the author of Acts 21 and 22. In this the Acts author states that the Roman Tribune informed Paul that he had paid a great sum to obtain his Roman citzenship (*), to which Paul replied that he was a natural born Roman citizen. This very strongly implies that Paul's citizenship was (a) due to his father's having purchased it, or (b) that the family has previously rendered outstanding service to Rome and were awarded their citizenship, or (c) the family was actually a part of the Herodian family descended from Antipater (Herod the Great's father).

(*) This is also important. Only Roman citizens served in the Legions of Rome. The Auxilia formations were not Roman citizens. This detail goes a long way in refuting the claims of those who maintain a nationality of "Syrian" or "Arab" for the soldiers of the LXF. Had any "Syrians" or "Arabs" been members of the LXF they would also of necessity had to have purchased their Roman citizenships as did the Tribune who questioned Paul. Therefore they would be, by definition, Romans.

NOTE: Cyrrhus' ruins lie 14 km northwest near modern-day Kilis, Turkey which is on the present-day Syrian border.


SeanOsborne said...

From my perspective there are three basic avenues of approach to investigating or
researching the context of the attributes of the Antichrist as prophetically given by the
Lord to the prophet Daniel. That Jesus Himself referenced Daniel in His own dialogs on
the subject of the "last days" speaks volumes to the absolute validity of the prophecies
Daniel has presented to us, or provided us. Therefore the Biblical text of Daniel speaks
for itself and is interpreted without error via the Holy Spirit.

The other two avenues are to, (a) search for secular historical records such as those
created by the Roman Empire partisan and Jewish eyewitness Flavius Josephus, and (b)
those which rely upon Satanically-derived false prophecy from the false religion of Islam.

Regarding the latter, I would like to challenge anyone to find reference within Biblical text that Satan has the same omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent power of God Almighty.

Those who disagree are invited to tell us where it is stated within the text of the Bible that Satan knows the future in detail or bestows the gift of inerrant prophecy? The answer to this question should be as obvious as brilliant day light as opposed to a moonless and cloud-filled sky at night. It's a no-brainer.

Regarding the secular historical sources cited. Those texts are not under the spiritual
admonition as is the text of the Revelation of Jesus Christ... meaning that they may well
have been edited or added to, or changed in unknown ways or manners, (i.e. partisan
pro-Roman views) which we could not possibly be aware of without direct sourcing to those
potential edits or changes to the text. So, those sources of information are taken at
face value by the secular world. Yet we all know they are not Biblical, and therefore are
not inerrant. This speaks for itself, and my citing of these secular sources is merely to
"fight fire with fire," so to speak, in that the "eastern leg" proponents rely so heavily
upon these two sources because the Biblical text does not contain such details.

Nevertheless, the secular historical record does contain much supporting information as
to firmly confirm the national or continental identity on the origin of the coming
Antichrist and his "Beast" system of global governance.

It is not in the "eastern leg" alone, nor centered on the false Islamic religion, but
rather within the sum of both legs and all ten toes of the feet seen in the vision as
recounted by Daniel.

It is a resurgent world empire that absorbed the world empires before it in Babylonia
(Lion), Medo-Persia (Bear), the Macedonian-Greek Empire of Alexander (Leopard) and then,
finally, Rome (Beast).

Why else would the Lord have had Daniel had so explicitly describe to the rise and
ultimate division into four part of Alexander the Great's Empire were it not a key
component of the "last days" empire of the Antichrist? This goes without saying that the
template or precursor prototype antichrist, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, was an ethic
Greek-Macedonian; a direct Greek-Macedonian descendant of Seleucus I Nicator. In modern
terms of ethnicity this indicates he will be a European.

Nathan Jones said...

Sean, I'm referring all the visiting "Antichrist is a Muslim" folks over from The Christ in Prophecy Journal at http://www.lamblion.us to your excellent research here on the subject. Thanks!

SeanOsborne said...


The sum of research information here is for any and all to freely make use of. The focus has been to refute the emergent and wannabe paradigm of an Islamic Assyrian Antichrist.

God the father through the prophet Daniel and by way of Yeshua Mashich to John on Patmos are all the Biblical sourcing we need to know the truth of this prophetic issue.

A key Biblical passage not mention as yet on these pages is found in Daniel 8:9-14.

Read carefully the initial passage of verse 9 which clearly denotes from what direction the Beast comes:

"Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land."

Out of one of the beast horns something grows to the south and east and towards Israel.

This Beast clearly lies to the west of Israel and it expands eastward and southward and towards Israel.

This verse clearly does not describe the rise of Islam coming out of Arabia. This verse does describe the rise of a Eurocentric Beast empire. Other verses in Revelation describe the Beast empire as I've noted previously... the reverse order of the original set of empires prophecied by Daniel -- The Roman Beast, the Greek Leopard, the Persian Bear and the Babylonian Lion.

I would now opine that the destruction of Islamic power wrought in Psalm 83/Isaiah 17 Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 38/39 will create a geo- politicalm military and financial power vacuum which Israel, first and foremost, expands into, and the rest of which is "devoured" the Euro-based Beast empire of the Antichrist.

Anonymous said...

The problem I have with the "Euro-based Beast empire of the Antichrist" is this: For some reason I find it a little difficult picturing millions of Italians running around Western Europe (and else where) with machetes lopping off untold thousands of heads. When was the last time you heard of an "Italian suicide bomber"?

There are several references in the OT that describe the Antichrist as "The Assyrian" while the word "Roman" is not mentioned anywhere in the OT and only five times in the NT---all in the Book of Acts.

Every nation described in the OT as coming against Israel in the last days and every nation describes as being punished for coming against Israel are Moslim countries, while not a single European nation is mentioned.

Sorry, guys, something is missing here. There's too many blank spaces and nobody seems to have the answers. If anyone would care to enlighten me feel free.

SeanOsborne said...

Anonymous wrote:
"The problem I have with the "Euro-based Beast empire of the Antichrist" is this: For some reason I find it a little difficult picturing millions of Italians running around Western Europe (and else where) with machetes lopping off untold thousands of heads."


Wherever you got the grossly overstated mental image of "millions of Italians running around ... with machetes lopping off untold thousands of heads" from, I can assure you it is not from a Biblical source. In fact it is a decidedly unbiblical mental image IMHO. Therefore, for a Christian it should not be a problem.

Anon continues...
"There are several references in the OT that describe the Antichrist as "The Assyrian"..."

Well, do you know why the Antichrist is described as "Assyrian?" Because of the military practices of the Assyrian's (Assur in IRAQ) back in Isaiah's era, and begining with the Assur/Assyrian King Tilgath-Pileser I. They were known to be exceptionally cruel, barbaric. A certain number of surviving enemy soldiers and captive civilians would be impaled or skinned alive/flayed (their skin would be peeled off their living bodies). The Assyrians were infamous for such unspeakable horrors. That is why the Antichrist is described as an "Assyrian." That description, however, does not necessarily indicate that he will literally be an ethnic Assyrian.

"every nation describe[d] as being punished for coming against Israel are Moslim [Muslim or Moslem] countries..."

Baloney. This kind of mindset is based upon a faulty exegesis. No nation on earth is described in the Bible as being Muslim or Islamic. Most certainly not in Isaiah 17, Psalm 83 or Ezekiel 38/39 where the countries or ethnic groups are specifically named. And those which happen to be under Islamic rule at this time are destoryed during these coming military engagements; all of which occur prior to the arrival of Antichrist and Daniel's 70th Week.

Hopefully I've begun the process filling in some of the blank spaces you've perceived up to this point. The answers are in the Word of God and are available to all via proper hermeneutics in exegesis. From this will come your personal enlightenment.

Anonymous said...

First, you wrote:
"Wherever you got the grossly overstated mental image of "millions of Italians running around ... with machetes lopping off untold thousands of heads" from, I can assure you it is not from a Biblical source."

Rev. 20:4 makes mention of those who were beheaded for their witness of Jesus Christ.

In your estimation, how many martyrs will be beheaded during the Great Tribulation and who does the beheading? The number must be substantial otherwise the Bible wouldn't have made mention of it.

Secondly, I think the Assyrian is called an Assyrian because he's an Assyrian. You stated that the Roman Antichrist is called an Assyrian because of his cruelty. If you're looking for cruelty why look any further than Nero or Caligula---they could teach the Assyrians a thing or two about cruelty.

Thirdly, you wrote: "And those which happen to be under Islamic rule at this time are destoryed during these coming military engagements; all of which occur prior to the arrival of Antichrist and Daniel's 70th Week."

Could you explain just how this will come about and who does it? I just heard about this a short time ago so it's a little new to me.
You said they are "destoryed during these coming military engagements" preformed by who?

SeanOsborne said...

1.) The act of decapitation is not limited to Islam. It existed long before Islam. Decapitations are occuring in Mexico these days - so does that make the Mexican decapitators Islamic?

It's a silly assumption of the EL-IA crowd that because some, (there's no telling how many or how few are deapitated) of the Tribulation Saints will be decapitateded by the minions of the Antichrist that Islam is the source of that inhuman act. Not true. Satan is the father of terror, and decapitation is a terroristic act.

Isaiah 17 is done by the IDF with the assistance of God. Psalm 83 is likewise. Ezekiel 38/39 is God's direct intervention.

Bill Salus said...

Sean I appreciate your exhaustive effort to debate this Islamic Antichrist paradigm shift that is captivating so many unseasoned souls. We know that this relatively new hypothesis will be naturally refuted in the aftermath of the fulfillments of Isaiah 17:1, Psalm 83, and Ezekiel 38 & 39 before the tribulation period commences.

However until that time, voices like yours reduce these Islamic AC advocates to revising history, poorly predicting the future, and in Walid Shoebat's case mere name calling.

Ray Gano seems to have dug out of the dusty archives the Rodrigo Silva article in order to fuel the East West debate, which most of us have grown tired of. I can't tell you how many people have informed me of how they use to support Gano's ministry, however now that he has gone off the deep end with this East West nonsense, they have turned away from his Prophezine ministry.

That's unfortunate because he does present many other relevant prophetic topics.

May the Lord continue to bless you with profound prophetic wisdom and courage in this East West debate.

SeanOsborne said...


I go and execute my missions where the Spirit leads. Refuting, Rebuking and Extolling the failthful against this false teaching has always been one of the primary purposes behind Eshatology Today.

You are absolutely correct that the literal fulfillment of Isaiah 17, Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38/39 will render the false teaching of the Eastern Leg-Islamic Antichrist [EL-IA] proponency the bankrupt and decptive theorem it has always been since its inception.

Of late i have had a very, very difficult time thinking of this EL-IA nonsnese as a "paradigm shift." A true paradigm shift occurs when a majority of belief shifts to a new view from a previously long-held view. The EL-IA theorem has never and will never even come close to approaching a majority view among true believing Christians - not prior to Harpazo, and most certainly not after it.

So, the mission to educate against this false teaching will continue vigorously and unabated until the Harpazo occurs.

Don Koenig said...

Sean, thanks for your great research on this issue.

The Islamic Antichrist issue fails for many other reasons besides the arguments that certain people claim that the Roman Legions were really mostly mercenaries from Planet X (Yes,I did renew my hyperbole license).

I will get a wee bit off topic here but I think it ties in even if the Muslim Antichrist proponents deny it.

In my opinion, what fuels all this Muslim Antichrist speculation has very little to do with Bible prophecy. It seems to me that a strange cult of date setters have now sprung up that insist that the Antichrist must take power about 2012 and the only way in their mind that date is humanly possible is to also make the Antichrist regional, limited, and Muslim.

I think the real root of all this is speculation from Mayan, Mahdi, Planet X, Bible Codes, Nostradamus,time distance codes, and fig tree parable speculations (I am sure I missed some) making a 2012-2019 return of Christ required. (I am not accusing Silva of believing this)

Notice that none of this speculation comes from anything actually taught in Bible prophecy. That should give people some clue about the source of all this.

The real problem is that people writing this stuff and especially those reading these various speculations and becoming part of this date setting cult are feeding off each using circular reasoning designed in hell for some sort of deception.

Another problem I am seeing now is that some well known names in Bible prophecy are also using some or all of this stuff in their "Bible prophecy" teaching? By doing so they are helping to promote these circular reasoning date setting leaders and their books.

Anonymous said...

Sean is correct. Decapitation has not historically been limited to Islam. How about Rome and more recently the French revolution? That alleged problem is minor compared to the problems of a bona fide Islamic AC actually allowing a Temple to be rebuilt and signing a covenant with Israel. Why would he if he wields so much power? And any cursory investigation into Islam’s teaching on the Mahdi reveals that he is not considered a deity but an ordinary man not to be worshiped. The AC demands worship. If the hordes do worship an Islamic AC then they cease to be Muslims.


Rapture Forums said...

Excellent article and I think you have done a great job showing the error and eisegesis of the Islamic AC crowd.

Dr. David Cooper gave us the Golden Rule of Intereptation and that was:


As we all know from the history books and Rodrigo admitted himself in his article, it was the Romans who destroyed the Temple and City so there is no need to go out and use eisegesis to invent an alternative interpretation.

This is a case closed issue against the IA theory. Game. Set. Match.

Bravo Sean!!

SeanOsborne said...


Your noting of the cultish nature of the EL-IA proponents is very appropriate and nicely tucked into in the knowledge we all hold so near and dear - none it is is accurate exegesis and ultimately based upon sound doctrine or Biblical teaching. Having just renewed my own hyperbole license I'm also free to say that true Bereans would of near absolute necessity catch a clue in this confrontation between opposing views.


Very well stated... the eschatological points you make above are integral to the God-inspired teaching of the prophet Daniel. These issues have repeatedly been conceniently, and most likely intentionally, overlooked by the EL-IA proponents. Again, astute Bereanism as work on their accout - NOT!!!


Roger that Bro! Dr. David Cooper's 'Rules of Interpretation are Christian Biblical hermeneutics defined, and the standard of sound Biblical exegesis, it is 2 Timothy 2:15 defined in plain English. Those whose false teaching we oppose appear to be ignorant of these rules.

Nathan Jones said...

Once the Legions are proven to be manned by Roman Europeans, the supporter of an Eastern Antichrist will then move on to say that according to historical accounts the auxilaries that accompanied the Roman legions were manned by Arabs numbering some 40,000+, and therefore the majority of the invaders were of eastern peoples anyways.

How do you respond to that, Sean?

SeanOsborne said...


We have proven beyond the point of academic ambiguity that European, non-Arab soldiers were the core of the 10th, 15th and 5th Legions which destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. This data is posted within this blog and also in direct responses to Joel Richardson on Bill Salus' blog. The Roman Auxillia were non-Arabs as well, but that's a moot point because the Auxillia were not used to assault the city walls nor to exploit the breach at Antonia Fort, nor did they assault the temple, burn it and then rend it stone from stone to get to the melted gold within the stones.

It is preposterous for the EL-IA clique to declare that because fully Hellenized Seleucid Syrians were involved as Roman Auxilliaries that the Antichrist will be an Arab and a Muslim. Utterly preposterous. Assyrians were neither Arabs or Muslims. Arab Muslim armies would not enter the former realm of the Hellenized Seleucid Empire for hundreds of years after the sacking to the City and the Sanctuary.

As Dr Reagan has said, and I have proven with Matthew 23:34 - the Roman Empire was the rod of God's judgment upon the withered fig tree that was Israel. That judgement occured exactly as our Lord foretold - in one generation between 66 and 136 AD.

All other arguments are grasping at straws made of ether.

I will speak to this issue in greater detail a little later on.

Rapture Forums said...

Excellent points Sean. We know that the history books record the Romans as being the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple.

Going back to Dr. Cooper's excellent Golden rule of interpretation, there is simply no reason at all to try to "shoehorn" the EL-IA theory where it doesn't belong.

Your research is well done and is a breath of fresh air for those who are seeking sound and biblical theology.

Keep up the good work. ;-)

God bless.

SeanOsborne said...

Yes, it is a fairly ridiculous exercise to debate issues with those shoe-horning EL-IA believers.

As preposterous as it is, they would attempt to have us accept and believe that the Greek Seleucids were instead Arab Syrians. They are unwilling to wrap around their heads that the forerunner Antichrist, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, was a European Greek, that he attempted to force Hellenization down Israel's national throat. The useful but not divinely inspired (apocryphal) book 1 Maccabees records all of this in great detail. Yet in their mind Greeks are Syrian Arabs, and ultimately, Romans are Syrian Arabs. How ludicrous.

As Nathan stated above, they are presented a Biblical and historical fact and instead of acknowledging that fact will move off to attempt another shoe-horning angle.

Next thing you know is that they'll attempt to tell us that THIS IMAGE is not Titus' Arch in Rome, that it does not show General Titus and his Roman soldiers entering at Via Sacra in Rome with the golden menorah, table of shewbread and trumpets from the Temple... no, according to the EL-IA clique these are really Syrian Arab Muslims in Damascus.


SeanOsborne said...

Anonymous said:

"In response to Bill Salus' comments, Ray Gano has become irrelevant today on the Bible prophecy scene... He's definitely headed down the wrong theological path."


I think it necessary to limit your original comment just to the two sentences above. Had you provided a real name or email to attribute the whole of your comments, then I might have treated the submitted comment differently than I have in editing it.

SeanOsborne said...

Anders Branderud's comment has been deleted.

1.) The deleted comment denies that Jesus is the Christ, Yashua ha-Mashiach.

2.) The deleted comment linked to the website of an apostate, former baptist minister who preaches heresy and has committed the unpardonable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit/Ruach ha-Kodesh.

Anders Banderud is permanently banned from posting comments to this blog.