Showing posts with label Islamic Antichrist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic Antichrist. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Arguments Against a Muslim Antichrist

by Bill Salus


Troublesome times, filled with stage setting prophetic signs, have many concerned they live in the last generation. As such, many eschatologists field questions about the Antichrist whose reign of terror dominates the final generation.

Topping the list is the curiosity over his origin. Will he be a Jew, Gentile, Muslim, or perhaps a Supernatural being like the Nepilim in the ancient Days of Noah?

According to the majority consensus of several experts interviewed by Dr. David Reagan of Lamb and Lion Ministries, there doesn’t seem to be a Jewish bone in Antichrist’s body. Their views can be watched here or read in my blog article called “Is the Antichrist, a Jew, Gentile, or Supernatural.”

Additionally, those pondering the supernatural origins of the Antichrist comprise a minority thus far. In fact, the first time I had heard about it was in a radio interview I hosted with end time’s expert and co-founder of Rapture Ready, Terry James. During the Prophecy Update radio program Terry made a compelling argument for a supernatural Antichrist. This fascinating interview took place on November of 2010 and can be heard here.

However, through a process of deductive reasoning, it appears most scholars believe the Antichrist is either a non-Muslim Gentile or a Muslim Gentile. Traditional teaching points to a non-Muslim Gentile Antichrist rising out of the Revived Roman Empire. Advocates of this view point to Daniel 9:26, which says this crazed individual will be a Roman. The prophecy declares the Antichrist will come out of the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple, an event fulfilled in 70 A.D. by the Roman Empire.

In January 2009 I wrote an article called “Does Daniel Debunk the Assyrian Antichrist.” This article hit a sensitive nerve among those interested in the origin of the Antichrist and prompted 143 blogs, including many from author Joel Richardson of the bestselling book “The Islamic Antichrist.”

Recently, I was asked by Dr. David Reagan to pen my position on several questions related to the Antichrist. One of them was regarded with the potential for a Muslim Antichrist. Some of the best teaching on this controversial subject is written in a transcript entitled, “The Muslim Antichrist Theory and Evaluation” by Dr. David Reagan.

Dr. Reagan's excellent article points out that Islamic eschatology also has an Antichrist called the Dajjal and that similarities between the Islamic Dajjal and biblical Antichrist exist. Muslim Antichrist advocates often use these similarities to argue their point. However, any similarities between the two are inadmissible due to the fact that Islamic scribes had several thousand years of previously recorded biblical prophecy available to them, which enabled them to fabricate the features of the Dajjal.

Summarized below are a few of the reasons I don’t believe the Antichrist will be a Muslim.

To hypothesize the Antichrist could be a Muslim, which is a relatively new paradigm shift in thinking, ignores the prophetic ramifications of Psalm 83, Ezekiel 38, and the first four seal judgments of Revelation 6:1-7. Prophetic insights written in Isralestine, The Ancient Blueprints of the Future Middle East, suggest Psalm 83, and possibly Ezekiel 38, appears to occur before the Antichrist rides in on the world stage as the "white horseman" of the apocalypse in Rev. 6:1.

As pointed out in the Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 arguments below, the fulfillment of both prophecies will negatively impact the religion of Islam. Therefore, by the time the Antichrist emerges, Islam should be undergoing a deepening crisis in faith thereby hindering any Muslim's bid for world worship.

The Psalm 83 Argument

Psalm 83 is a confederation of ten predominately Muslim populations that will invade Israel to reclaim Palestine for the Palestinians. They will be decisively defeated by the Israeli Defense Forces as per Ezekiel 25:14, Obadiah 1:18, and elsewhere. This defeat will serve as a severe “punch to the gut” of the Islamic faith. Muslims worldwide will be shocked to witness today’s tiny Israel militarily overpower their present surrounding Arab foes.

The Ezekiel 38 Argument

In the aftermath of the I.D.F. victory of Psalm 83, the predominately Muslim nine-member coalition of invaders of Ezekiel 38:1-6 will make their bid to invade Israel to capture Israeli plunder and booty. We are informed in Ezekiel 38:18 - 39:6 that the invaders will meet their doom via the divine doings of the Lord rather than the I.D.F. The defeat of the Ezekiel invaders will be nothing less than a powerful “uppercut to the jawbone” of Islam.

In the aftermath of these two victories the downward slide of Allah will be observable as Muslims worldwide will become increasingly disenchanted with their Islamic faith. This is already occurring. Fueled by the Internet and social networks, many Mideast Muslim youths are looking beyond the confines of seventh-century Islam and state censored media for a brighter democratic future. Allah’s downward slide partially fulfills the prophecy in Zephaniah 2:11, which foretells the fall of all false gods.

These two Pre-Tribulation prophetic events, Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38, should assure that Islam is both crippled and compromised by the time the predicted wars of Revelation 6 occur. These apocalyptic wars predict indiscriminate death and destruction worldwide putting Islam well within its sites. As a result, Islam should be “knocked out for the final ten – count” before the midpoint of the seven – year tribulation arrives.

In addition to the objections identified above, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 declares the Antichrist will someday have the audacity to declare himself as god. Such a declaration flies in the face of Islam’s primary tenet that “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet or messenger.” According to the prophecy the Antichrist opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Once the Antichrist fulfills the 2 Thess. 2:4 prophecy a fatwa would certainly be issued to assassinate him if he was a Muslim. When this fact is pointed out to Muslim Antichrist advocates they often point out that Revelation 13:3-4 and Rev. 17:7-11 suggests the Antichrist will die. But, they argue these passages also suggest he will subsequently resurrect to rule the world.

The logical question then arises, "Wouldn't that prompt the issuance of another fatwa against his life?" In order to avoid an unending vicious cycle of fatwa, death, and resurrection they speculate that fatwa’s calling for the Antichrist’s death ultimately cease to be issued. Such a conclusion is difficult to support scripturally. Thus, the 2 Thessalonians argument also opposes the Muslim Antichrist theory.

Furthermore, attempts to identify a Muslim Antichrist often require historical revisionism and sensational newspaper exegesis. Historical revisionism occurs when Muslim Antichrist advocates discount Roman responsibility over the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. They teach Arab conscripts, even though they were subservient under Roman rule, did the dirty work. This argument is highly suspect and easily refuted. (Refer to the blogs here).

Newspaper exegesis occurs by focusing on Islam’s adversarial role in current Mideast events rather than appropriately ordering the Israeli war prophecies described in Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38. Muslim Antichrist advocates attempt to give Islam longevity by conveniently incorporating these prophecies into the campaign of Armageddon.

It is commonly taught that the final Armageddon battle, whereby the Antichrist and his armies are defeated, occurs during the latter part of the seven-year Tribulation period. Many, including myself, believe the Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 prophecies occur independently from, and in advance of, the final Armageddon battle. Therefore as stated above, before Armageddon comes Islam will be “knocked out for the ten – count

It appears humanity is about to witness the fulfillment of Psalm 83 followed by Ezekiel 38. These two powerful prophetic events should render Islamic eschatology, which has no Godly inspiration apart from that clumsily plagiarized out of the bible, useless. There will be a biblical Antichrist and he may be alive today. But, it is highly doubtful that he will be a Muslim.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Another Nail in the Islamic Antichrist/al-Mahdi Coffin

27 February 2010: New Info in Comments Section

21 February 2010: The proponents of the spiritually bankrupt teaching that the Biblical Antichrist will be one and the same person as the Islamic al-Mahdi insist that the first sentence in the two-sentence verse found in Revelation 20:4 provides compelling evidence for this association:
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands.
Thus is the above offered as one of the principle, no pun intended, "pillars" of the Islamic Antichrist speculation founded upon a single word used a single time in the Word of God Almighty. In the interests of economy, this rebuttal lumps all of the Islamic Antichrist proponents into one basket because they all basically propagate the identical speculation on this subject. Thus with one stone shall this rebuttal strike many birds.

It totally escapes the attention of the Islamic Antichrist proponents that a historical template of early apostate "Christian" origin might be inferred as a precursor in the prophecy of Revelation 20:4; it is a historical fact which reflects a template for both a completely European Antichrist and a completely European False Prophet: Charlemagne and Pope Leo III.

Charlemagne (Karolus Magnus a/k/a Charles the Great, a grandson of the famous Karolus Martellus), is universally acknowledged as the greatest of all the medieval European kings. A warrior king, Charlemagne was the protector of the medieval European Church, and the defender of a United Europe against neighboring pagan barbarians of various ethnicities as well as invading Islamic armies. He was crowned "Imperator Augustus" as the Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III on December 25, 800 AD, and became the first unifying crown in Europe since the breakup of the Roman Empire. It was the right of the Pope to preside over the coronation of European kings, and the duty of those kings to protect and defend the Roman Catholic Church. Charlemagne was so highly esteemed through his unifying of Europe and its successful defense against barbarians and invading Islamic armies that he was given the appellation "Father of Europe."

All non-Christian rebellious subjects, all pagan enemies and all captured Islamic soldiers were offered a chance to spare their own lives by conversion and baptism into Christianity. Those who rejected the offer were summarily beheaded. Some historical accounts say Charlemagne oversaw the opportunity afforded pagan Saxons to convert by being baptised as Christians. A total of 4,500 refused and all lost their heads on that single day.

Clearly, in the post-Harpazo (Rapture) world, a template is existent within the European apostate Christian historical record for the beheading of any person who in the future who refuses to acknowledge the Antichrist, worship him or his image or accept his mark in their hand or forehead by steadfastly witnessing commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God. To speculate that such decapitations are a uniquely Islamic trait are completely unfounded and take on the appearance of garden variety newspaper exegesis.

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.

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

Featured Post

Positional Statement on Salvation

19 January 2016: It has become necessary due to recent events that I present a Positional Statement which explains in detail per Script...