Does Daniel Debunk the Assyrian Antichrist?

Part One by Bill Salus

Relatively recently a small circle of individuals have injected into the Christian Church a paradigm shift in Antichrist thinking. They advocate that this beastly individual has Assyrian origins. Oddly the book of Daniel, which seemingly issues the most pivotal prophecy regarding the origin of this personage, does not once mention the Hebrew word Ashur, or Ashshur, which is translated as Assyria, or Assyrian. This term is utilized within the Old Testament approximately 135 times; however, Daniel considered by many to be a prophetic authority on the subject of the Antichrist, apparently didn’t feel the Assyrian shoe fit the foot of this coming crazed world leader.

This is striking in that among all the prophetic books within the Bible, perhaps excepting the book of Revelation, the book of Daniel alludes to this individual as much, if not more than, all the others. Daniel calls this individual by several names like the beast, representing his hostile disposition, and the horn, alluding to his authority; however, he never labels him the “Assyrian”. Similarly, Daniel issues numerous telling descriptions of him; like he speaks pompous words and declares himself above all that is called God, but the one who hails from Assyria, is never referenced among Daniel’s defining terms.

Perhaps one might think that Daniel was given information about the Antichrist, but not necessarily about his ancestral roots. However, Daniel 9:26 refutes this presumption in that it gives us the most detailed literal account within the entirety of scripture as to the origin of this individual. Therein we are informed that the Antichrist will originate from the people who would eventually destroy the city of Jerusalem, and the sanctuary, referring to the second Jewish temple.

According to world history books and traditional Church teaching this was accomplished by the Roman Empire, which In 70 A.D. did indeed destroy both the City of Jerusalem and the second Jewish Temple in apparent fulfillment of Daniel’s powerful prophecy. Hence the book of Daniel, rather than being vague about the origins of the Antichrist, could easily be considered the foremost book of Bible authority on the subject matter.

To date the best argument I’ve heard advanced by these Assyrian Antichrist advocates to refute Daniel’s claims, is that it wasn’t actually the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. Rather, they argue that the Roman legion(s) responsible for the destruction consisted largely of Assyrian soldiers. This argument shows its weakness in several areas.

First, thematically the book of Daniel deals primarily with four Gentile world empires: the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and the Romans. The Assyrian empire had for the most part already come and gone by the time of Daniels prophetic discoveries.

To suggest that it was the Assyrian soldiers within the Roman legions whom Daniel was actually alluding to, even though it was the Romans who wielded world authority and issued the command to destroy Jerusalem and the Jewish temple, makes no sense whatsoever.

Secondly, historical precedence typically dictated that the subservient soldiers of any ruling kingdom or empire became the subjects of that kingdom or empire. In this instance, even though the Roman Empire was known to employ non-Roman troops within its ranks, such as defeated Assyrians, these troops operated solely under the command of their Roman leadership. The legions that destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple did not do so out of their own independent accord, but acted solely under the direct authority and instruction of the Roman Empire.

A secondary Assyrian Antichrist argument has been advanced that the Roman Empire, after the death of Theodosius 1 in 395 AD, underwent an East / West split and that the Eastern section could be considered as much a part of the Roman empire that Daniel referred to as could the Western. Daniel did seem to foretell of such a split in Daniel 2:33 where he described the fourth Gentile empire having legs made of iron. Since “legs” is in the plural most scholars concur that Daniel’s fourth empire refers to the Roman Empire, and that Daniel was describing such a split.

The Assyrian advocates suggest that the Antichrist arises out of the Eastern leg, since the Western leg today best describes the European Union, which is not geographically connected to ancient Assyria. In Daniel's time Assyria encompassed modern day Syria and parts of Northern Iraq.

There are two primary arguments against the Eastern leg being the leg from which the Antichrist comes: the "Historical" and the "Prophetical". The Historical argument will conclude part one of this article and the Prophetical will be discussed in part two.

The Historic argument is based upon the understanding that the capital city of the Roman Empire at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the second Jewish temple was in Rome, which then and today is located in the Western leg of the former empire. This provides at least one solid argument that the Beast does not come from the East.

Furthermore, much of the Eastern leg of the Roman Empire was swallowed up by the Turkish Ottoman Empire during its reign from 1517 to 1917; especially the territory formerly recognized as ancient Assyria. As such today the former Assyrian territory has no Roman connection. Therefore, should any future charismatic world leader arise from ancient Assyria he or she would likely be without Roman roots, and could not be the Antichrist described in Daniel 9:26.

The prophetic argument starts with Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 & 39 and concludes with several chapters in the book of Revelation. To preface the prophetic argument one must first understand that the Assyrian advocates need the Antichrist to be a Muslim. This is quite obvious, since should this devilish character emerge on the world scene soon out of Assyria, a predominately Islamic territory, the logical conclusion is that he would be a Muslim. After all, Daniel did make a religious connection with this individual when he said in Daniel 11:36, “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods…”

Some of the Assyrian proponents have suggested that the harlot religious system of Revelation 17 is Islam and that it is the magic carpet so to speak, upon which the Beast rides into world power. Thus to diffuse the Assyrian argument we must address the role of Islam in the agenda of the Antichrist.

Some, like Joel Rosenberg, Dr. David Reagan, myself, and others, have suggested that in the aftermath of the fulfillment of the Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 & 39 prophecies, Islam is dramatically diminished. The theory is that both of these prophecies likely occur before the Antichrist arrives on the world scene and that the 19 populations involved in these two major sequential prophetic events, which go down in defeat, are all predominately Islamic. Thus the conclusion can be drawn that when the Beast from the West arrives, he will find Islam as a religion largely irrelevant and of little utility in his bid for world dominance.

Needless to say, the Assyrian advocates have to group the Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 & 39 events all into the Antichrist’s Armageddon campaign for this reason. Islam cannot be diminished prior to Armageddon since, in their estimation, the Antichrist is a Muslim.

I will presume that the reader is familiar with the Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 & 39 prophetic events and move on to address the Revelation argument in part two of this article series. If not I recommend the following books: Footsteps of the Messiah by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg, Northern Storm Rising by Ron Rhodes, and Isralestine by yours truly.

To preface part two of this article I highly recommend the reading of an article authored by Dr. David Reagan released in his Lamplighter Magazine January – February edition, entitled “

The Antichrist, Will He Be A Muslim?

Map accessed 1/7/09 at http://scriptures.lds.org/en/biblemaps/5


Chris said...

Satan will use even false assumptions and misinterpretations of scripture for who he will likely pick to be his man when the time comes in order to deceive the world. Some want to believe he might pick a muslim but this does not jive with scripture and future events that have not happened yet.

Thanks for your work

Todd Strandberg said...

Hey Bill,
That is a very good article. I posted a link to it on our Newest Articles section


Anonymous said...

Every joint supplying !!! I had wondered why so many people thought the antichrist had to be assyrnian, you answered the question I didn't know how to ask.

God Bless You Again

Bro. Jones

Dr. David Reagan said...

Bill I thought the article was very well done.

Anonymous said...

Bill I enjoyed your article
the Assyrian.


Lynn said...

Hi Bill,
You covered this subject well in this article. There are those who want to see Islam play a prophetic part in the end times and it does in your Ps.83 scenario. However, they want to go a step further and fit Islam and a Muslim leader into the Anti-Christ mold and it just does not fit for many reasons that you have shown. Islam is a formitable religion in our world today and has brought us fanatics that are responsible for the mass majority of terrorism as we know it. However, the Anti-Christ will bring in something completely new with its own set of lies and wonders that will shake up this world so that even the "elect" could be deceived. Remember, Israel signs a covenant of peace with this leader and accepts him (little h) as their Mesiah. It would be a far reach to ever believe that Israel would accept any Muslim as their Mesiah and that is a fact.

Anonymous said...

Lynn said that Israel would not sign a peace treaty with a Muslim, and I agree with that, but What if Israel didn't know he was a Muslim? Supposing he used the term "Christian" to describe himself? Thanks.Jack

Anonymous said...

Thanks for all the comments - Regarding Lynn's I agree with your comments, but I don't suggest that Israel will accept the Antichrist as their Messiah. This beast provides Israel with a false 7 year covenant that they will agree to, but this doesn't mean that they receive him as their Messiah. Ultimately according to Zec. 13:8 this devilish individual is responsible for a massive Jewish genocide attempt, killing two-thirds of their population. He also abominates their temple at the mid-point of that period. Dr. Fruchtenbaum teaches that the beast won't even offer the Jews the mark of Rev. 13.

Bill Salus said...

The above anonymous comment to Lynn was from me, I posted it prematurely without acknowledging who it came from.

Sean Osborne said...


Yet another excellent article supporting a "Roman" or Western antichrist.

As always the Bible prophetically interprets the Bible. The prophecies given through Daniel are 100% God's Word; those words were referenced specifically by the Lord Jesus Christ during the Olivet Discourse as well as by the giver of all prophecy (God Almighty) as recorded in the first verses of the Revelation and the text thereof.

Daniel has specifically identified that Antichrist will not come from the eastern leg of the Roman Empire as has been erroneously interpreted and propagated by Richardson, Shoebat and others.

As stated above, the Word of God itself provides us the proof through specific symbolism.

The basic reference is Daniel 7, reinforcing both Daniel 2 & 5, and the symbolic descriptions of the GENTILE kingdoms of his day and those that would follow.

The Lion which had the wings of an eagle that were torn off and then which was stood up like a man was the Babylonian Empire;

The Bear with three ribs in its mouth (representing the future Persian conquests of Lydia (western Turkey), Babylon, and Egypt) was the Medo-Persian Empire;

The LEOPARD with four wings and four heads that was given authority to rule over all kingdoms that had come before it, was without question the Macedonian/Greek Empire of Alexander the Great, and the division of his empire into four lesser empires after his death (the horns and little horns play a critical roles in the overall interpretation of the history of gentile empires in the future years to our present day);

And finally the fourth beast was what we all know to be Rome - (and here it is not the two legs which are all important, but rather it is the ten toes of iron and clay).

At this point I will pause to ask a couple of questions.

The Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ, has always been western based- to the west of Israel.

Why would God imply an "eastern interpretation" or understanding mindset to the Antichrist and his physical kingdom?

Why would God, through Christ provide the Western world such prophecy through a Western man such as John of Patmos, IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, if God were intending an "eastern" meaning?

These questions are not rhetorical, and defy all common logic when responded to the those of the erroneous interpretive exegesis being discussed here.

One final question:

Was not Jerusalem and the 2nd temple destroyed by Legio X Fretensis (10th Roman Legion) which itself originated in Sicily and Calabria, (Straits of Messina)Italy exactly, explicitly as foretold by Daniel regarding the people of origin for the Antichrist?

One final prophetic maneuver is required at this point, and we are moving to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him..."

Chapter 13, verses 1 and 2 (NIV):

"And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion."

Verse 1: Ten toes, horns, seven heads now instead of ten, and 10 crowns - are of primary inportance and all link directly to and specifically imply ROME as the earthly political-military power.

Verse 2: The beasts are given in exact reverse order as that of Daniel's prophecy with the Leopard first (implying a secondary primacy to Greece, and the subsequent primacies of absorbbed powers of the conquered attributes of Medo-Persia and Babylon.

This final- primarily the beast has the Roman heads/horns/crowns, the body of the Macedonian/Greek leopard (no wings), the grasping power of the Medo-Persian Bear's claws and the Babylonian Lion's mouth which gives it all verbal authority over the many nations of the world.

There is NO QUESTION that the correct interpretive exegesis of all these God-given prophecies is that of a Western-based kingdom and origin for the coming Antichrist.

Anonymous said...

Bill, Ive read and studied both points of view, East and West, and honestly, both sides make their cases (in my opinion which is due in part to me not being a scholar). I realize no one can be too dogmatic on some points of prophecy, but to me the exciting part of all this is, we truly dont know exactly what will happen and it leaves the door wide open for God to show His creativity. Thank you for sharing the talents with which God blessed you! Gina E

Bill Salus said...

Sean: thanks for the blog comments, as usual they have your scholarly flare. Gina: It is good that you have reviewed both sides of the Antichrist equation, as have I, and I agree that in Biblical interpretation we are not to be dogmatic. However regarding the Antichrist, God has informed us through Daniel 9:26 with specificity the vicinity of his origin, and I don't think that the God leaves creative wiggle room theory applies on this particular topic.

SeanOsborne said...

I was in a bit of a rush to complete that last comment and in my haste inadvertantly omitted one other key three-part point which "eastern leg" proponents omit from their exegesis.

1.) At no time was the Parthian Empire part of the eastern leg of the Roman Empire. The Parthians claimed an empire by defeating the Seleucid heirs of Alexander's Macedonian/Greek Empire. The Parthian Empire was the eastern polar geopolitical counter weight to that of Rome (Not unlike Russian and Red China are today to the US and NATO).

2.) Of the individual nations or kingdoms within "eastern leg" of ancient Rome, we know that Turkey and modern day Iran are defeated by God in Ezekiel 38/39. The Arabian (Islamic) nations of Sheba and Dedan (Saudi Arabia & Yemen) are opposed to that same invasion along with Tarshish and "all its young lions," (i.e. interpreted as sea-faring nations of the West). Syria looses its own political core of Damascus virtually overnight as a result of Isaiah 17's prophetic events. And, finally, the rump of the ancient Babylonian Empire is now aligned with the West politically, economically and militarily for the forseeable future - despite the presence of Islam.

3.) When God's Word speaks prophetically about a military power of the East, that reference is specifically to the "Kings of the East" and their 200 million man army which comes from a point farther east than Persia according to the sum literal text relating to those kings, the Euphrates River and the number of mankind killed prior to the arrival of that eastern army on the east bank of the Euphrates Divinely dried up river bed and marshland.

Joel richardson said...

Hi Bill,

I posted a response with some of my thoughts last evening but they seem to have been deleted. Did they get through to you?

Bless ya,

Joel Richardson

Anonymous said...

A verse showing that the Antichrist may be an Assyrian:

''From you, O Nineveh , has one come forth who plots evil against the LORD and counsels wickedness.'' (Nahum 1:11) NIV

The Assyrians live in Nineveh, Iraq today. It is in Northern Iraq near Mosul. This is not the only verse that points to the fact the Antichrist may be an Assyrian. There are couple of scriptures that call him the Assyrian or the King of Babylon. I have to look them up. Bill, you can't completely rule this out.

When we look at Bible Prophecy, we have take in consideration all of the books of the Bible not just Daniel. The book of Daniel didn't have the final say on the matter. There were other prophets who spoke on the matter as well.

Kris Siew said...

Can any one answer a question for me? Any ideas on how Obama fits in to the scenario. It is a fact he was born in Kenya. He moved to Indonesia as a child, and became a citizen there while he also study to be muslim. Only upon deciding to go in to politics did he become "Christian" and attend the lovely Mr. Wright's congregation. Could he possibly be the antichrist?

Bill Salus said...

To the anonymous blogger who quoted Nahum 1:11 in suggestion that this infers an Assyrian Antichrist. Nahum wrote this prophecy prior to the destruction of Nineveh in 612 B.C. It is commonly taught that this prophecy has already found its final fulfillment. The other Assyrian references you allude to need to be researched to see if they have also found their final fulfillment.

Anonymous said...

You're only approving comments that agree your view....that's not very nice. I know for a fact that I posted a comment that wasn't rude or anything but you have yet to post it so that only leads to me to believe that you don't want anyone commenting on this blog with an opposing view. I don't think this will get posted....I just wanted to let you know.

I completely understand you not approving comments that are rude, obnoxious or from unbelievers, but to completely shut out other believers that provide info that may debunk your theory is just plain wrong. There is nothing wrong with being open to the possibility of the antichrist coming from the east.

Bill Salus said...

To the anonymous blogger who said I'm posting only the blogs in agreement with my view. I don't know who you are, but if I feel a blog has been presented that provides solid biblical exegesis I post it, whether or not they agree with my view. The ones I have received thus far that have not been posted, which apparantly included yours, have either proven to have questionable or unsound exegesis, or are still under my review and study. I have received numerous blogs on this particular article and am attempting to look at them in the order received through the filter of the worthiness of their content. This is a supervised site for the purposes of sound study, and not a platform for unsolicited unsound commentaries.


Joel I got your initial blog, and have it under review. I must admit it deviates from most all traditional teachings on the subject matter, from which I have gleaned over the years. I would suggest you read Dr. David Reagan's recent article on the subject matter entitled The Antichrist, Will he Be a Muslim. I think he has covered the subject professionally and objectively. David is a respected scholar and considered by many as an expert on Bible prophecy and the subject of the Antichrist. I think his arguments in his article will adequately apply and answer your recent blog. As an Assyrian Antichrist advocate you and several others have introduced a paradigm shift in Antichrist thinking, and it will be up to all of you to find a subscribing audience willing to listen to your non-traditional teaching. As for me I'm convinced that Daniel adequately describes the Roman origins of the Antichrist.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bill,

you didn't post my comment but that's ok:) I read the article you suggested to Joel by Dr. David Reagan, he's actually one of my favorite bible teachers. I have never read this article and it was quite an interesting read! This is why, I say that each side of the debate has made some excellent observations. That was an excellent article by Dr. David Reagan. For those who who would like to read it, it can be located here:




Joel Richardson said...


Here is the link to my response to Dr. Reagan's article.


Bless you,


Joe said...

Scripture interprets Scripture always and I really enjoyed this article. Sometimes looking outside the box can really illuminate things. I'm saying these things are fact just that they may have some relevance to the discussions taking place on the blogs.

1. The muslim messiah will come and reign for 7 years promising peace.
2. Europe(Western Empire)is fast growing in muslim population, even to the point where the British Government is legally allowing sharia law for their muslim population. I could go on about how the Union is coddling muslims.

These are things that I take into consideration when looking into Bible Prophesy.
Also what I take into consideraton is the fact that the head of todays remnant of the Roman Empire, sits on a throne in Rome with the inscription, in Latin, "Instead of Christ". The Pope is trying to incorporate all religions into one.
Whoever the beast may be I know I'll be watching from a birdseye view.
Definitely enjoyed the article.

SeanOsborne said...

An anonymous commenter wrote:
"The book of Daniel didn't have the final say on the matter."

The Lord's prophesy to Daniel wasn't final? I beg to differ. I believe the prophecy given to Daniel was the Lord's final say in the matter. Why else would He repeat himself on the prophesy given Daniel, not once, but twice more for a total of times?

Once again for emphasis sake only, it is clearly seen in both the Olivet Discourse of our Lord while He walked this Earth and in our heavenly Father's 'revelation' to His victorious Son and thereafter given to John on Patmos -- the prophesy given to rendered by Daniel regarding this last days subject matter have been specifically repeated and confirmed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

This three-time repetiton has a considerable importance that stands it above the rest.

Joel Richardson wrote:
"Sometimes looking outside the box can really illuminate things."

Joel: You just got done writing that Biblical Scripture interprets Biblical Scripture.

Since that is unassailably the truth, then of what possible utility would it be to the believer to look "outside the box" in order to illuminate things?

Consider the Islamic (Submitted)sources Walid and yourself cite specifically.

At the core of Islam(Submission), is the original narrative of the encounter which reveals that Muhammad was choked 3 times by an impostor demonic spirit (a spirit which most certainly was NOT Gabriel). That this spirit was not Gabriel is a fact in itself proven by the Word of God multiple times within the "box" of the Holy Bible as recorded in every appearance of Gabriel before a human being to whom he carries a message from God.

In an appearance before Muhammad we are to believe that Gabriel chokes an illiterate Arab boy (Muhammad cannot read nor write) to within an inch of his life and in so doing terrorizes him so that Muhammad flees to his wife Khadiga to hide him lest that spirit terrorize him further?

No! No! No! Islam (Submission to a false god) is a Satanic deception upon mankind.

So, please tell us then, why would any member of the Bride of Christ go into satanically deceptive Islamic sources AND ACCEPT THEM AS FACT to illuminate REAL truths already told us by the One True God?

Would yourself or Walid offer a response to refute these facts?

Anonymous said...

Dear bloggers below you will find Joel Richardson's blog comments to my Daniel debunking Assyrian Antichrist article. I have reviewed Joel's comments and in fairness to him, have decided to post them. Although I disagree with his biblical exegesis, you can draw your own conclusions. Furthermore I'm not interested in this blogsite becoming a debate forum. If bloggers feel compelled to debate Joel's comments, please visit his site and deposit your comments to him directly.
Joel's comments below...

Hi Bill,

I hope its okay to comment since I am one of those whose position is being discussed. Very briefly, Daniel 2 does not speak of a Roman Empire. It cannot. The candidate to be the fourth empire has to meet the Biblical criteria set forth. First, it has to have had crushed ALL of the previous three empires (Daniel 2:40). This is namely Babylon (loosely think Iraq), Persia (loosely think Iran) and Greece (loosely think Greece and Turkey). However the Roman Empire did not fulfill these most basic biblical requirements. The Roman Empire never even reached Persia and did not "crush" Babylon. Barring one small excursion for a few months in AD 116, under Emperor Trajan, the Roman Empire did reach the ruins of Babylon, but were immediately beaten back upon Trajans death. But regarding Persia, The roman Empire is largely a non-issue. A good purusal of a few maps will show this to be quite clear. Secondly, regarding its demise, when the final Empire is destroyed, ALL of the other empires will also by virtue be destroyed as well. (Daniel 2:34-35) If the Roman Empire were fully revived today and if it were crushed by the Kingdom of Christ, Persia would be unscathed and Babylon would be largely intact as well. So regarding its rise and its demise, Rome simply does not fit the most basic Biblical criteria. Daniel 2 and the fourth kingdom is not a propehcy about the Roman Empire. The historical Islamic Empire however fulfills the geographical requirements to a tee. If the Scriptures fit, we must submit. We have no other choice. Moving on to Daniel 9:27, it was not the "Kingdom of the prince" to come, not the "nation to come" but the "people" (am). The people that destroyed the Temple were Arabs and Syrians. This is attested to in great detail by historians from this time. Josephus & Tacitus make it very clear who these "people" were. Under the Roman domination, the soldiers who served were recruited from the local region where they were garrisoned. The legions involved in the destruction of the Temple (the 10th, 5th, 15th, 3rd and the 18th) were all Middle eastern legions and composed of Arabs and Syrians. If one is determined to say that these must have therefore been Romans simply because they were under Roman authority (certainly not all of them were even citizens) then you would also have to call the Jewish people Romans as well. But certainly this would be foolish. And the people that destroyed the Temple were certainly not Europeans. Beyond this, in both Daniel 8 and Danil 11 it is clearly Antiochus Epiphanies whose story is built upon to portray the coming Antichrist. Yet he ruled from the Middle east, from the Seleucid empire, which perfectly aligns with the Assyrian identification. Simply because daniel does not sue the word, "Assyrian" is a strange argument. He points us to the precise region. Same picture, different angle. My probelm with your approach is that you sem to ignore or avoid the very clear description of the Assyrian who Micah 5 tells us will inaved Israel and be destroyed by Christ. This fact flows perfectly with the Islamic end Time Paradigm but is contradictory to the European Position. Remember, all Scripture must flow together. It cannot be contradictory. The Islamic position brings all difficult passages together. The European position is fraught with contradictions. Lastly, Daniel 12 says that the book of Daniel is sealed UNTIL the end times. While I always strive to stick to historically majority positions, this is one place where the Bible actually indicates that the majority position (The Roman emphasis of the Book of Daniel) is in fact the least likely position. It advocates a contrarian position. Otherwise this claim that the passage is sealed means nothing at all. Also, the huge elephant in the room for any who would say that the Islamic nations are all about to soon be destroyed in a prelude to the actual coming Antichrist Kingdom, is that Jesus is repeatedly portrayed in dozens of passages throughout the prophets as being present, and waging war against nations that it lists by name. They are all Muslim nations. Micah 5 as I mentioned above is but one example. The overwhelming evidence here in essence eliminates any possibility that the Islamic world will be defeated prior to His return. Again, if the Scripture fits, we simply must confrom to it and not demand that it conform to our positions. Also, I would ask that your readers read my response to Dr. Reagan on my blog which will be posted here with the week. www.joels-trumpet.com

Bill Salus said...

The anonymous above regarding the Joel Richardson comments was me, Bill Salus.

SeanOsborne said...


I had no intention to create a debate within the comments section of this article on your blog. My purpose was only to provide historical fact and context to some errant exegetical claims being made. My apologies for the unintended intrusion upon your purposes of this blog. I have more to say regarding the above response, but will take it to Joel's site.

Bill Salus said...

Sean - I found all of your comments about this topic to be very informative as usual, and you are always invited to blog on this or any of my articles. I was not inferring to your blogs when I suggested this site not be used as a debate forum. Your blogs help reinforce what my article states from a sound exegetical perspective, and as such I and others have gleaned good insights from them. Feel free to blog further should you be so inspired.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bill,

Good article. Linking it up to my site.

I'm in agreement with you concerning the Assyrian Antichrist arguments. Daniel made it crystal clear that the Antichrist would be of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary and that, as you correctly noted, was the Roman empire in A.D. 70.

All one needs to do is look up pictures of the Arch of Titus to see where the spoils of war from the destruction of same were taken! They were victoriously carried to Rome, not any Middle Eastern nation.

SeanOsborne, in a comment above, wrote: "..why would any member of the Bride of Christ go into satanically deceptive Islamic sources AND ACCEPT THEM AS FACT to illuminate REAL truths already told us by the One True God?"

An excellent point made there in the form of a question, in my humble opinion.

God bless you all.

In Christ,

SeanOsborne said...

Bill, Yes I would like to make a few futher comments directly from my research to shed more historical light on some specifics posted above regarding the statement from Joel.

"The Roman Empire never even reached Persia and did not "crush" Babylon."

Incorrect. The Roman Empire did engage the Parthian Empire in warfare. The Romans won a few battles, and lost a few against the Parthians. As many as 10,000 Roman soldiers were captured by the Parthians and sent east as forced labor border guards in what is today known as Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Babylon was conquered by Rome, but therewas no long-term occupation of this short-lived Roman province which was known as "Babylonia."

"The people that destroyed the Temple were Arabs and Syrians. This is attested to in great detail by historians from this time. Josephus & Tacitus make it very clear who these "people" were. Under the Roman domination, the soldiers who served were recruited from the local region where they were garrisoned. The legions involved in the destruction of the Temple (the 10th, 5th, 15th, 3rd and the 18th) were all Middle eastern legions and composed of Arabs and Syrians."

This is absolutely incorrect according to historical sources, including those cited by Joel. I am going to repeat myself by quoting my response to an article by Dr. David Reagan (posted on the Bible Prophecy Today blog) which deals with this same subject matter. I have made some very minor edits to improve the wording of my comments or correct spelling of certain words.

"With respect to the Roman legions that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, I have seen Joel cite elsewhere an argument which you also cite above that those Roman legions consisted of Syrian and Arab conscripts and not citizen-soldiers of Rome. This argument is patently ridiculous and I would like to expound on why this is so.

The four primary Roman legions involved were:

Legio X Fretensis (The 10th Roman Legion), whose name Fretensis literally means "of the straits," was composed of soldiers who were recruited in Italy by Julius Caesar's heir (Octavian) from the geographical regions on either side of the Straits of Messina (Sicily and Calabria). Legion 10 soldiers were interacting with our Lord - particularly in Jerusalem - as described in the Gospels. And nowhere in the Gospels are these Roman soldiers described as "Syrians" or as "sons of Ishmael!" This is because they were Roman soldiers commanded by Roman officers.

Legio XII (12) Fulminata, Legio XV (15)Apollinaris and Legio V (5)Macedonica were also composed of Roman soldiers, recruited from what is present day Italy, and led by Roman officers of historical reknown just as Legio X (10) Fretensis was. Roman veterans of these legions,along with those of Legio VIII (8) Agusta, founded the Roman settlement known as Berytus, otherwise known as modern day Beirut, Lebanon.

Legions Fulminata, Apollinaris and Macedonica were stationed in the Middle East in a manner no different than that of Germans, Britons, Italians and Americans were stationed in the Middle East during WWII, or are to this day. The locals near these deployed areas ("syrians" or "arabs") took care of menial tasks, and had, at best, logistical support roles. They were in no conceivable manner representative of "the people of the prince who shall come."

Legions Fulminata, Apollinaris and Macedonica were camped during the seige of Jerusalem circa AD 70 to the west of Jerusalem, on Mt. Scopus. Legion 10 Frestensis camped on the Mount of Olives, directly in front of the Temple and was the primary Roman military force under the command of Roman General Titus Vespasian which destroyed the "city and the sanctuary."

Finally, in the aftermath of the destruction of "the city and the sanctuary" the gold taken from the Temple, the instruments of worship, the vessels, and Jerusalem as a whole were taken to Rome and melted down into Roman coins and inscribed with the words "Judea Defeated."

The Jewish military commanders of this same military campaign fought against the Roman legions, Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala, were summarily sentenced and (respectively) executed or put in prison for life in Rome. None of these things occured in a Syrian or Arab capital city! They occured in Rome, and prove that Rome is "the people of the prince who will come."

Joel Richardson said...

Hi all,

First, Bill, thank you for posting my very brief and sloppy response. Embarrassing.

Secondly to Mr. Osbourne. Is that a quote from me? If so, I sound like a corporate goof. But as to your question: If I understand you correctly, you have misunderstood my research. Islam is indeed demonic. I fully agree with you. My history is as an evangelism missions guy to Muslims. So I am very well studied concerning Islam. But I certainly ascribe zero prophetic value to Islam's prophecies other than to instruct us as to what Muslims are expecting. They are expecting a man who will gather a coalition of nations to attack Israel and set up the One World rule of Islam from the Temple Mount and rule for seven years. They are expecting a false Messiah to return from heaven to claim to be Jesus Christ and to be the Son of God. They are also expecting Jesus to return to abolish Christianity and kill Jews. You get the idea. They have been set-up.

As for your thoughts regarding the Roman Legions, I have numerous citations that establish who the peoples were from Josephus and Tacitus. The majority were Arabs and Syrians and were thoroughly acknowledged as such by those contemporary historians. While Legion 10 may have originated in Italy at one point, by 70 A.D. they were garrisoned in Antioch, in Syria on the border of modern day Turkey. here is my e-mail address. I can send you some references if you want em':


Lastly, I am certainly not here to debate either. But my question to Bill is regarding Micah 5. Regarding the Messiah born in Bethlehem, it says that when the Assyrian invades Israel, that the Messiah would deliver the Jews from him.

"He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders."

How do you interpret this passage? Your article does not address this.

In any case, thanks again Bill for letting my post go through.

Bless you,
Joel Richardson

Joel Richardson said...

Hi Sean,

I just wanted to actually accompany my comments with at least a couple of short references. Roman citizenship was given to those who served fifteen years in the Legions. I think I had said ten. In any case, if merely living under Roman dominance was all that was enough to declare a people "Roman", then I suppose that Reagan would also say that Jesus was a Roman. You get the idea. But regarding those that destroyed the Jewish temple (The people of the prince to come):

[T]he greatest part of the Roman garrison was raised out of Syria; and being thus related to the Syrian part, they were ready to assist it.

The Wars of The Jews: History of the Destruction of Jerusalem By
Flavius Josephus Trans.William Whiston BOOK II: CHAPTER 13:Para7

This force was accompanied by... a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbors…

—Tacitus The History New Ed edition Book 5.1 Editor: Moses Hadas, Translators: Alfred Church, William Brodribb (Modern Library; New York, 2003)

Bless ya, Joel

Anonymous said...

In Daniel every time it talks about a Prince it is talking about an angelic being. Daniel 10:13 illustrates this most clearly. It talks about kings as people and princes as "the prince of the kingdom of Persia", or "Michael one of the chief Princes." I am trying to understand what God is trying to tell us in the verse "the people of the prince who is to come...". This is not definitive in that the prince could be of any people and his people could refer to those who follow Satan or the Antichrist. The clearest statement is "the people of the prince" and the people in this case seem to be from Scythia. Does anyone ever thought about this? I do not think it is a slam dunk sure thing that it is Rome. Was there a people who spiritually followed Satan at the time? Were these people involved in the destruction of the temple?

Bill Salus said...

Dear Anonymous your suggestion that the referencing of prince in the book of Daniel only alludes to an angelic being is not 100% accurate. Daniel 9:25 clearly refers to the Messiah Jesus Christ.
“Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall,Even in troublesome times. Daniel 9:26 alludes to another prince to come, and that is the Antichrist, most all scholars adhere to that teaching whether or not they think his origins are Roman or Assyrian. My article clearly argues that this Antichrist prince will be of Roman origin.

Bill Salus said...

In response to Joel Richardson's question about Micah, here is what Dr. David Reagan emailed me today.

"As I said in my article, The Antichrist, Will He Be A Muslim, the Micah 5:3-9 passage concerns the Millennium. It has nothing to do with the Tribulation.

Here’s what I wrote: “Micah 5:5
Nor do I 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. Revelation 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).

I believe that all the prophet is saying in Micah 5:5-6 is that during the Millennium the Lord will protect Israel from all its natural enemies — as symbolized by Assyria (the enemy of Israel at the time the prophet wrote).

Joel Richardson said...

Hi Bill,

Do you agree with Dr. Reagan? When it says of the Messiah that "He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders." that this is a reference to the millennium and that in fact no invasion ever actually takes place? Just curious as to your personal opinion on this.


Don Koenig said...

Hi Bill,

It is nice to see some scholarly arguments by Dr. Reagan, and yourself against all the latest hype that the Antichrist will come out of Islam.

I have commented on and posted links to Dr. Reagan's article and your own article on my blog. I have taken a position against this teaching for quite some time now. I am glad to now see some support against the popular rising tide teaching that the Antichrist comes out of Islam.

The concept of an Islamic Antichrist does not even meet the test of common sense. We would have to assume that Islam would take over the world and that all not written in the Lamb's Book of Life would willfully live under Islam and its harsh Islamic laws. That is absurd. It is an impossibility. There would be counter-revolution in a flash once Liberal and homosexual heads started rolling.

This Antichrist figure is called the "man of sin" he opposes God's law and that is why people party when he kills the two witnesses that God sends. People want to be free to live in their sins and do what they think is right in their own eyes.

Even Muslims would not worship a man and scripture clearly says the whole world will worship the Beast Antichrist.

There is a great danger in this paradigm shift to make the Antichrist Muslim. It will actually help set the stage for a military and religious world war against Islam that will actually bring the western Antichrist into power as the pseudo Christian savior who opposes demonic Islam.

Nevertheless, who will save the world from that savior after he defeats Islam or morphs Islam into pluralistic world Universalism? He will have the backing of Rome and all Harlot religion and persecute those who believe in polarizing dangerous doctrines like the literal second coming of Jesus.

When Satan is cast to the earth he will incarnate this figure and He will then claim to be above anything called God and demand to be worshiped? only Jesus Christ at His second coming will deliver mankind from his power.

Christians and Jews need to be careful that they do not fall into the same delusion that will come upon the whole world. The biblical illiterate world will eventually come to think that Islam fulfilled the prophecies of the Beast Antichrist and they will look toward the Harlot for guidance and be looking for a "New Age" Christ to defeat all religious fundamentalism and set up the Beast worldwide "New Age" kingdom that God identifies as Babylon.

The deliverance that will come from Islam from the Western powers and the great religious Harlot is a much greater danger than Islam to the world because it will be immensely popular to all people on earth who will not repent because they love living in their sins.

Bill Salus said...

In response to Joel Richardson's recent blog regarding Micah 5. Micah 5:1 likely alludes to the coming Assyrian invasion of the Northern Kingdom. The Northern Kingdom lasted from about 931 BC until 722 BC, at which point it was destroyed by the Assyrians, in final fulfillment of Micah 5:1.

Micah 5:2 teaches, that although the Northern Kingdom would be destroyed by the Assyrians, the expanse of the destruction would be limited to the Northern Kingdom and not also be the cause of the destruction of the Southern Kingdom, which is where Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Messiah would be. Bethlehem was then a Judean town about 6 miles Southwest of Jerusalem.

This prophecy served dual purposes, first it identified the Messiah’s birthplace, and secondly it brought comforting prophetic news to the Southern Kingdom.

Micah 5:3-15 primarily foretells the coming of future events, many of which find their fulfillment in the Messianic Kingdom. I see no reason whatsoever to associate the Assyrian referred to in Micah 5:5-6as the same individual referred to in Daniel 9:26.

The Assyrian has come into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and destroyed it in 722 BC. Another Assyrian will be invading the modern day Jewish State according to Psalm 83:8, perhaps finding application with Micah 5:5. In this Psalm 83 battle Assyria, at least Damascus therein, is likely laid waste according to Isaiah 17:1

God will deliver the Jews from the Assyrian(s). Terms like “we will raise against him” in Micah 5:5, and “they shall waste with the sword the land of Syria” in Micah 5:6 allude to a military response operable in plurality, rather than a defeat by a Messiah in singularity.

In my humble estimation to suggest that the Assyrian in Micah 5:5-6 is the self-same individual alluded to in Daniel 9:26, who then is destroyed single-handedly by the Messiah is questionable at best.

Bill Salus said...

This is a postscript to the comment to Joel R. about Micah 5:5-6. Not all tranlsations say "He shall deliver us from the Assyrian". The Revised Standard Version tranlates "they". Also the American Srandard Version say "he" utilizing the lower case. Causing us to question is this "He", "he", or possibly even "they" being alluded to.

SeanOsborne said...


Anything written by Tacitus was hearsay at best because in 70 AD Tacitus was just a 14-year old boy. His writing on this subject are the equivilent of my own son describing the coalition forces or specific units in Operation Desert Storm. The point here being that it was an American-led military force, composed first and foremost of American commanders and their troops that executed the lions share of the actual conquering of the enemy forces, but there were token units of Syrian, Egyptian and other Arab military units on the field of battle.

Even still and in accordance with my dismissal of Tacitus account, what he wrote in Vol II, Ch.5 of "the Jewish war" was that the was was begun under Vespasian who had Roman Legios 5(V), 10(X) and 15(XV) committed to prosecute the war. He describes the Roman Egyptian garrison as "knights of Rome", not knights of syria or of arabia. And therein is the sum of Tacitus input. Not a whole lot of anything IMHO.

Daniel 2:40-43 provides the first description of the fourth kingdom from who the people of the prince who will come arises.

"Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay."

There is no question that Daniel's prophetic description here specifically identifies this kingdom as what we know to have been the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire completed its conquest the Holy Land, including Egypt, in 63 BC. It was act at the pinnacle of this conquest when Roman General Pompey entered the Holy of Holies in the Temple.

Legio X Fretensis was THE elite legion of all the Roman legions engaged in the taking of Jerusalem. To Legio X Fretensis specifically was the mission given to assault Jerusalem's wall in front of the Temple and the Temple itself.

I have also read the account of Flavius Josephus. I am very much aware that Josephus wrote in his "War of the Jews" (Book 6 Chapter 1) that Antiochus Epiphanes arrived at a Jerusalem already beseiged by Roman toops under the command of General Titus; that Antiochus Epiphanes arrived with a "considerable number of armed men" among whom was included a predominant group specifically identified by Josephus as "Macedonians" who were merely schooled in Macedonian combat tactics, but were not Macedonian, nor even worthy of that nomenclature. Yet there is no mention by Josephus of these armed men, and the Macedonian boys, (described by Josephus as young, tall and just out of their childhood) as being "Arabs" or "Syrians." And what he does say aboutthem is that they failed to breach Jerusalem walls, were bascially pin cushions for the Jewish defenders spears and arrows.

It was, as stated before, Roman Legions, led by the elite Legio X Fretensis, and composed of Roman commanders and their Roman troops which did the actual breaching of Jerusalem's walls at Antonia and took the city and the sanctuary - exactly as described by Daniel.

In all of this, not once does Josephus attribte the sacking of Jerusalem and the Temple ("the city and the sanctuary") to "syrians" or "arabs."

Josephus account has reference after reference after reference to this military conquest attributed to "the Romans", "the Romans", "the Romans", etc., etc., .etc, ad infinitum.

I find all attempts to paradigm shift the prophetic Word of God into meaning the eastern Roman leg, Syrians or Arabs, or of Islam to be the epitome ofall strawman arguments because it is wholly unsupported by secular historical facts the proponents have chosen to cite.

Benjamin said...

Hey Bill,
I've been reading a lot on this "son of perdition", the "prince to come" as it were. I really appreciated your article and your links, and I'm looking to pick up your book soon and glean from it as much as I can.

There is something that I thought you could help me clear up, scripturally speaking.

I've read in a few commentaries about Christ's archetypes - David, Boaz, etc. - that are also in his bloodline lineage. Could that be the case with this Antichrist, as Satan loves to counterfeit God's works.

Where Nimrod was the first dictator and was in spite of God, founding Babylon and Nineveh (which was in Assyria) ... and Where Isaiah mentions "the Assyrian" and Stephen (in Acts)mentions the Pharoah who didn't know Joseph as being Assyrian... is there a possible "lineage of lawlessness" at work that could link all the antichrist-archetypes, including Antiochus Epiphanes, together?

Also, is there the possibility about him being a descendent of one of the tribes of Israel, being where this prince could claim heritage? It would give him credence in Jewish circles. Jesus said "I come in my father's name, and you don't receive me. One will come in his own name, and him you will receive" - wouldn't that mean they'll accept this guy as Messiah? I would think he'd have to have Jewish ancestry for them to even think about it.

One last thing - what about the tribe of Dan? Israel's prophecy about Dan being judge of his brothers, as a lion's whelp; Moses' prophecy of Dan being a serpent "who bites the heel" of the horse, sending the rider backward.. (and how that may relate to the protoevangelicum in Genesis) ... then Chronicles not mentioning the tribe of Dan in their listing of the children of Israel - and finally Revelation, where the 144,000 do not include that tribe at all.

Would it make sense, since Dan moved toward Lebanon after the inter-Israelite wars and then was taken by Assyria (where being Samarian Kingdom-of-Israel idolaters at the time, it's conceivable they would've intermarried with Assyrians) - could he be a Danite in the way of Samson the judge, and yet be both Jew and Assyrian, fulfilling all the requirements?

Any clarity you can help me with would be most appreciated.

GREG said...

I believe that The Assyrian concept is Sound, What isnt sound is the belief that Just because he is a Assyrian he will be a Muslim when the Assyrians are A Christian people. They can trace there Christian roots back to 100 AD. To say without a doubt he will be Assyrian is foolish, To say without a doubt he will not be is foolish and to believe just because A man is a Assyrian he will be Muslim means you didnt research your subject matter. The Antichrist Might be a Assyrian , might not, Best look those people up for yourself and form your own opinion.

Anonymous said...

Does it really matter where the antichrist comes from? I, for one, will not be here when he is revealed, so where he comes from is of very little importance to me. Shouldn't we all be more involved in leading people to a saving knowledge of Christ instead of spending time debating the origin of the antichrist? Certainly, it is a very interesting topic, but really of no great significance to those of us who eagerly look for Jesus to come and take us up to heaven before the antichrist is revealed.

SeanOsborne said...

Anonymous said...
:Does it really matter where the antichrist comes from?"

From my persective it most certainly does, and that perspective is directly related to Bible prophecy and all things eschatological.

Let me put it this way - what does the Bible tell us is the purpose of prophecy?

And in order to understand prophecy - i.e. the Bible interprets the Bible - we must therefore dig into His Word for meaning and interpetation as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, what value can be assigned by engaging in this type of study and also in discussing these subjects with our brethren?

Moreover, to understand prophesy and effectively use it as a tool in witness to the un-saved about the Lord, about real-world events ocurring right now and in the near-term, how we know of them in detail and in advance.

Each of us has a mission, a purpose as designed by the Lord, what Bill and others are doing is fulfilling His tasking.

Bill Salus said...

Greg thank you for your blog comment above, from my article you realize that I believe the Assyrian argument is unsound. Although I disagree with them, I also think it sound that the Assyrian Antichrist advocates presume the Islamic connection of the individual, if indeed he were to be an Assyrian. However for the sake of your argument, the fact of the matter is that the Assyrian advocates predominately believe the Antichrist will be a Muslim, and thus you can argue that point with them. Keep the stimulating blogs coming I greatly appreciate them.

GREG said...

I wasnt really directing my post at you but the discussion as a whole. I see the points made by you and by those who feel He will be a Assyrian, I think You put the Assyrian argument to bed,At least From the standpoint of the Antichrist being a Muslim Assyrian.A christian Assyrian changes the direction of the argument. Which leaves us with more study before this can be seen as a dead end.

Sean Osborne said...

The attempt to paradigm shift from a Roman to Assyrian/Islamic "beast" as suggested by Joel and Walid is very much indicative of surface-skimming scholarship.

The crux of the matter lies in identifying "the people" of the prince who will come which destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

Circa 70 AD Roman Legions were composed of two classes of soldiers.
"Legionaries" were foot soldiers (pedes) who were the rank and file ground assault troops and had to be a Roman citizen ("Cive") in order to enlist in the legion. Being a Roman citizen itself was a privileged social status bestowed only upon males in Italy proper. No foreign nationals were allowed the privilege of serving in the Roman Legions.

The Roman citizen-soldiers of Legio V Macedonica (LVM), Legio X Fretensis (LXF), and Legio XV Apollinaris (LXVA) which surrounded Jerusalem were from Italy and it was they who destroyed the city and the sanctuary under Roman Commander-In-Chief in Judea General Titus Flavius Vespasianus. This is established fact and the literal fulfillment of Daniel 9:26b (NIV) or Daniel 9:26a(YLT).

The "Auxilia" were male non-citizens of Rome They were primarily horsemen and archers. Their legal status was that of "provinciales" under the Roman legal code known as ius Latii (Latin Right) - which meant they were second class citizens, one step above women and two steps above slaves.

Additionally, circa AD 70 and even predating back to 300+ years earlier when Alexander the Great conquered Syria, that land and culture was totally transformed from what it had been under empires previous to Alexander's into a purely Hellenistic culture. Any reference to "Syrian" soldiers by Josephus circa 70 AD does not make a reference to Syrians as we understand them today, but to fully Hellenized provinciales of the Roman Empire (S.P.Q.R.)

Anonymous said...

Why couldn't the antichrist be one from both sheres of influence: a man from the region of the old Assyrian empire, who would one day take a position of prominence within the reestablished Roman Empire?

The book of Revelation, chapter 17, makes reference to a false religious system that appears to be riding the back of the beast and this "antichrist" system. I've often wondered: who is controlling whom? Is it the rider - this mystery Babylon - controlling the beast, or is this "whore" going along for the ride?

As controversial as it may be, there is and has been a religious system in place in Rome and has existed there for centuries. And in recent decades, where this religious institution resides, has become a city-state. So, the leader of the Vatican is both a relgious and a political leader.

The antichrist is supposed to appear as a peacemaker and with just a few men at his disposal, takes over globally. Who better to imitate and oppose Christ, than a man of a "religious" nature? He already claims attributes of God: "Holy Father"; infallible in declarations of faith and morals; makes claims that without being a member of their Church, that salvation is impossible; etc.

Could it be that the next pope, could be a cardinal from the region where the old Assyrian Empire had it roots? If I understand and interpret prophecy correctly, the "mystery babylon" religion and where it resides will be destroyed, and thus this religious/political figure could flee back to his roots and set up his kingdom in a revived Babylon.

And how fitting, that the very region where it all began - the downfall of the man Adam, the keys of man's dominance over the governance of this world usurped by Satan - would again culminate in this area where the coming of Christ would destroy this man of sin.

It is of course mere speculation and ultimately time will tell, but I think a man of Assyrian roots could also be a leader of the revived Roman Empire - a political/relgious one at that (until it is no longer necesaary for him to use the religious aspect of this vehicle to control man).

Joel Richardson said...


You stated:

"Being a Roman citizen itself was a privileged social status bestowed only upon males in Italy proper."

?? The Apostle Paul was a Roman Citizen. Paul was from Tarsus in Cilicia. (Ie. Syria, or Asia Minor (Turkey.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a typo.

Blessings, Joel

Bill Salus said...

Joel R.- thanks for your recent blog. I presume you noticed in your visit to my site that in addition to including Dr. Reagan's Micah response I have also responded in back to back blog posts to your question about Micah.

SeanOsborne said...


I fail to understand why you're not up to speed regarding the facts surrounding those who lived within Imperial Roman society 20 centuries ago. Are the data points I cited regarding the hierarchical classes of Imperial Roman society new news?

Roman history from The Social War (which pitted the Italian Marsi and the Samnite tribes and their would-be break-away republic of Corfinium against Rome) in 90 BC forward to the era of our Lord through to 70 AD are crucial benchmarks of knowledge in order to make claims about who was - or who was not - a citizen (Cive) of Rome, and who were peregrini and who were provinciales. The crux of the argument regarding the "the people" depends upon this information.

Cetainly any researched book concerning the specifics of that pivotal era requires the acquisition of such knowledge, including Roman Imperial civil status under ius Latii, through diligent research, does it not?

Joel Richardson wrote:

"The Apostle Paul was a Roman Citizen.

Given the information above ... was he really? Or was he a provinciale and covered only as a second-class citizen as granted under ius Latii due to his having been born in Tarsus, Cilicia?

By what aspect of Roman law (i.e. Lex Julia) would the Roman garrison in Jerusalem arrest Paul if he trully were a Roman Cive, scourge and torture him, imprison him there and then in Caesarea?

Didn't full-Roman Cives have rights and privileges against such treatment, and in particular the fact that Paul broke no Roman law (the apparently false charge that Paul had taken a gentile into the Temple)?

"Paul was from Tarsus in Cilicia."

Correct, a Roman province.

"(Ie. Syria, or Asia Minor (Turkey)"

It's one or the other, not either/or. A good look at any map of that era reveals that the autonomous political entity (i.e. province) of Cicilia (modern-day Çukurova, Turkey) was never a part of the Syria.

Our Lord was born in the Roman province of Judea. Was he also a Roman citizen with all rights and privileges?

Joel Richardson said...


Yes, Bill I saw your response. Thank you for the clarification.


You gave a long answer to my question. And to be honest, I am not sure what your answer means. You said that only those from Italy were afforded Roman Citizenship. I mentioned that Paul was a Roman citizen. Do you disagree that Paul was a Roman citizen?

SeanOsborne said...

Joel Richardson wrote:

"You gave a long answer to my question. And to be honest, I am not sure what your answer means. You said that only those from Italy were afforded Roman Citizenship. I mentioned that Paul was a Roman citizen. Do you disagree that Paul was a Roman citizen?"


My thoughful response in the form of posing 7 specific questions for you were quite unambiguous.

I am beginning to suspect that the reason you did not understand my questions was they fail to conform with your preconceived notions regarding who was and who wasn't a citizen of Rome, and the legal rights of the Imperial class-system.

You can prove my suspicion incorrect by answering the 7 specific questions i have posed to you:

1.) Are the data points I cited regarding the hierarchical classes of Imperial Roman society new news?

The second question was prefaced by this statement:

"Roman history from The Social War (which pitted the Italian Marsi and the Samnite tribes and their would-be break-away republic of Corfinium against Rome) in 90 BC forward to the era of our Lord through to 70 AD are crucial benchmarks of knowledge in order to make claims about who was - or who was not - a citizen (Cive) of Rome, and who were peregrini and who were provinciales. The crux of the argument regarding the "the people" depends upon this information."

2.) Certainly any researched book concerning the specifics of that pivotal era requires the acquisition of such knowledge, including Roman Imperial civil status under ius Latii, through diligent research, does it not?

3.) Given the information above ... was he [the Apostle Paul] really [a full Roman citizen]?

4.) Or was he a provinciale and covered only as a second-class citizen as granted under ius Latii due to his having been born in Tarsus, Cilicia?

5.) By what aspect of Roman law (i.e. Lex Julia) would the Roman garrison in Jerusalem arrest Paul if he trully were a Roman Cive, scourge and torture him, imprison him there and then in Caesarea?

6.) Didn't full-Roman Cives have rights and privileges against such treatment, and in particular the fact that Paul broke no Roman law (the apparently false charge that Paul had taken a gentile into the Temple)?

7.) Our Lord was born in the Roman province of Judea. Was he also a Roman citizen with all rights and privileges?

Joel said...


I am not playing games here. Once more, you stated:

"Being a Roman citizen itself was a privileged social status bestowed only upon males in Italy proper."

I asked if this statement was intentional or if you misspoke. Your response was not answer my simple question. Instead you started throwing out smoke flares in the form of convoluted questions laden with Latin. Now you are making demands of me and questioning my sincerity? Right.

So if you still cannot answer this question without posing demands, then it only proves to me that I am wasting my time with you.

My position is that Paul was indeed a full Roman Citizen. Jesus was not. If you disagree, then state so and why. In clear English this time, please.

A few Scriptures to consider in the mean time:

Acts 16:36 And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace. 37But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. 38And the serjeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans.

Acts 22:25 As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, "Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?" 26When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. "What are you going to do?" he asked. "This man is a Roman citizen." 27The commander went to Paul and asked, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?" "Yes, I am," he answered. 28Then the commander said, "I had to pay a big price for my citizenship." "But I was born a citizen," Paul replied. 29Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains.


Bill Salus said...

Sean and Joel; I am stepping into moderate, the demeanor of the communication is now fringing on sarcasm, rather than discussion. I appreciate both of you blogging, and am thankful that this site has provided a forum for open discussion, however please remember that others who might read this article and these blogs, might be stumbled rather than blessed by argumentative communications.

Feel free to blog further, but please adhere to my intent to communicate constructively in order that viewers might glean information from your respective scholarship.

I commend you both for attempting to articulate your understanding, and Joel you know from the article where I stand on what Daniel 9:26 represented, but in fairness I have consented to allow you to present your case upon this page. I trust that should you blog further that you will put your kindest and best foot forward.

SeanOsborne said...


Thank you for stepping in to moderate this discussion.


When I wrote, "Being a Roman citizen itself was a privileged social status bestowed only upon males in Italy proper," it was no mistake, that is the historical record according to all scholarly sources on the Roman Empire.

I do not believe the the Apostle Paul was a full Roman citizen (Cive Romani) in the sense of my statement above because had he been he would have have a Roman name.

The status of Cilicia as a Roman province is confirmed in this regard according to the 1907 book "The Cities of St. Paul" by William M. Ramsay, who was the first Professor of Classical Archaeology at Oxford University.

In this book (Ch. II, p-198) it states "Any Roman Tarsian born about the time of Christ [as Paul was] would probably have as his Roman names either Gnaeus Pompeius, or Gaius Julius, or Marcus Antonius, for he would bear the [praenomen and nomen of the official to whom he owed the citizenship."

Saul of Tarsus, and then Paul of Tarsus, had never been known by such a name, which leads to the conclusion that whatever status of citizenship of Rome Paul had laid claim to was not that of a full Roman citizen (Romani Cive), but a lesser class of citizenship under Roman law (ius Latii), such as the aforementioned Provinciales or Peregrini.

According to Roman law, under no circumstances could a Roman citizen be whipped or tortured.

However, all of that being the historical record, the real issue here is that of the status of the Roman legions - the soldiers of which had to have been full Roman citizens, and more importantly, the status of the soldiers of the Auxilia, who were not awarded with Roman citizenship until after their term of military service to the Empire.

Therefore, the Auxilia, the Roman-Seleucid (a/k/a "Syrian") cavalry and archers brought to the ongoing seige of Jerusalem by Gaius Julius Archelaus Antiochus Epiphanes - as reported by Flavius Josephus - were not Roman citzens.

Moreover, cavalry and archers are not the types of ground-pounding combat troops who breached the walls at Antonia, or sacked the Temple, rending it stone by stone into rubble. Those combat actions were undertaken by the Roman citizen-soldiers in Legio X Fretensis under the command of General Titus Vespasianus which literally completed the prophecy of Daniel and points to the nationality of the coming Antichrist.

Joel said...


Thanks for your response. Overall, you make some points worthy of consideration, but in the end, the weakness of your argument rests in your refusal to acknowledge that Roman Citizens (and the Roman Legions) included far more than just ethnic Italians. Paul said that he was A Roman citizen, and you argue that he was not. All of my sources say that there were several means by which someone could become a Roman Citizen, and being an ethnic Italian was certainly not the only means. From my brief research, I also understand that by the middle of the first century, actual Roman Citizens only made up about 40% of the Legions. The rules were relaxed by the period that we are discussing. But all back and forth arguments aside, we can look to all of the various modern sources that we desire, but in the end, it is those contemporary historians who tell us the ethnicity of those that we are seeking to identify. And they are quite clear, not only of the primarily Syrian and Arab ethnicity of those soldiers but also of the hatred that these had for the Jews. A hatred that was markedly absent among the actual Italians such as Titus who made repeated efforts not to destroy the Temple. Beyond all of this, the claim for a Middle Eastern Antichrist extends far beyond this one issue. I appreciate your desire to defend the Roman paradigm as I held to this position all my life as well. But in the end, the evidence simply fell down and the Berean in me now points me in another direction.

Bill Salus said...

Joel thanks for your professional blog. Like Dr. Reagan suggested in his recent article, your authorship is to be commended. When you suggested to Sean that the evidence simply fell down regarding the Roman paradigm, did that evidence include your questionable inference that Micah 5 alludes to the Assyrian as the Antichrist?

Relative to Daniel 9:26 it is the most pivotal passage in the entire Bible regarding the origin of the Antichrist, and candidly for me your arguments have not changed by thinking on the matter.

I have not read your book, however the interpretations I've read thus far from those Assyrian Antichrist advocates that attempt to interpret Assyrian related passages within the Bible to the Antichrist are questionable at best.

On semi-related matters if you get the time, let me ask you: Do you believe the Antichrist exists today? Do you believe in the Rapture event, and if so where do you locate it on the Tribulation timeline? Does Walid Shoebat believe in the Rapture to your knowledge, and if so where does he put it on the timeline?

Anonymous said...

I concur with Greg, who allows that the antichrist could be Assyrian or otherwise. As for him being Muslim, isn't there supposed to be some kind of hybrid, ecumenical One World religion that gets imposed upon all, and takes from all of the mainstream world religions, combining into a big "Green Pot" of earth worship? In that case, what does it matter if he's Assyrian and Muslim, or not? Just wondering.

Joel said...


I would not call anything I've written here "scholarship", but thank you. We are all just redeemed fools and babes (1 Corinthians 1:27, Luke 10:21)doing our best to grapple with His word and be faithful as we teach others, amen?

Very briefly, I am not a pre-tribber. Walid does hold to a pre-trib position. My position is that regardless as to which position one holds on this, we should use wisdom and as in all things in life, "hope for the best and prepare for the worst". When I first became a believer, I would clash with various cultists in my city (Boston). After getting hammered in conversations with for instance a Jehovah's Witness (again, I just got saved), I would ask the JW what would happen to me if I never became a JW but remained a Christian. He would explain that after I died, I would enter into a state known as soul-sleep. Then after the Millennium, I would be resurrected and if I had lived righteously, I would be resurrected to life eternally. But if I were unrighteous, I would be essentially annihilated. I would then tell the JW that is he is wrong, then he goes to hell. My point in telling this story is that we all have to do a cost-benefit analysis of those things that we believe an teach others. Not only for our own sakes, but pastorally for the sake of those who we are teaching. If the Pre-tribbers are wrong on the rapture, then the potential resulting confusion,unpreparedness and potentially even ship-wreck of faith for some is enormous. If I am wrong, I will simply be pleasantly surprised someday. But in the mean-time, I am prepared for any terrible event, including for instance, a massive economic melt-down. :) So that is my perspective on the rapture: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Regarding the Middle East Antichrist issue, obviously Bill, its strength rests on a host of passages that would take far too long to detail here. One of its many strengths lies in the host of passages that portray the return of Christ in the Old Testament for instance. They overwhelmingly portray Christ fighting and judging nations that are all Middle Eastern. This is at the time of His return.

When I held to the Roman Paradigm, there were a host of passages that I always wrestled with. Many that didn't fit without some pretty serious finagling. But once I determined to be a student of the Word and not simply a good student of my teachers, the Middle East perspective came into clear focus, and all of the various passages throughout the Bible that spoke about the End Times began to flow together without contradiction or without the need to dismiss other passages.

For instance, let me ask you a question: According to your perspective, after the Gog and Magog Battle of Ezekiel 38,39, what will become of Libya and Cush? Will they be decimated? Will they be rendered irrelevant? Or will they still be a relevant fighting force in the earth when Christ returns?

Bless ya, Joel

Sean Osborne said...

I believe any attempt to place Islam as the final world conquering religion and political force of the Last Days is not only questionable but also Biblically refutable.

I believe Daniel's prophetic picture, as repeated explicitly by God's own Revelation to Jesus and thereafter to John on Patmos, makes it abundantly clear that the Antichrist (and the forced worship of him as God incarnate by the False Prophet; the image of Antichrist as an animated, speaking statue standing within the Holy Place of the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem) will make the most devout follower within Islam, were one still to exist at that time, declare such acts absolute blasphemy.

I believe there is a very, very good reason why Ezekiel declares that Dedan and Sheba (Arabians) voice the same unified sentiment as western Tarshish and all its young lions, when Magog, Iran and that unholy confederation comes against Israel!

Think about this! According to the Lord, the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia, the origin of not only Islam but of its most virulent strain of Salafist (i.e. Wahabbist) Islam oppose the Russian/Iranian-led confederation of currently Islamic nations marching with the intent to loot and destroy Israel.
Moreover, the Lord declares through Ezekiel that Israel at that time will be “a land that has recovered from war,” and that “they live in safety.” What war prior to the War of Gog/Magog is it prophetically likely for Israel to have recovered from and to finally be living at peace, free from any fear of the Arab neighbors who have been at war with her for a minimum of the past 60 years? Could it be the overnight war of Isaiah 17, or the war of Psalm 83, or both in combination?

Along with Joel Rosenberg, Dr. Reagan, Bill Salus, and many more I believe Sunni Islam, as we currently know it, will soon be greatly diminished if not completely overthrown, very probably as a direct result of the outcome of the aforementioned wars, the last of which God intervenes directly.

Furthermore, I believe that many in Islam will convert to Jesus Christ in very vast numbers prior to the Harpazo. In some way they will be confronted by the falsehood of their formerly beloved prophet and false moon-god. This pre-Islamic moon-god "Allah" will be blatantly exposed as the deception that it is by Almighty God.

I believe were this not so, our God would have told us so in Genesis chapters 10, 16 and 21, and especially in Daniel 7:14; Zephaniah 3:9 as well as in the blessings to all mankind, which includes the descendants of Ishmael, through the Abrahamic Covenant.
In light of my Genesis thinking, I reasonably ask, is there any passage in Genesis concerning the descendants of Ishmael, which foretells that they will rule the entire earth as the conquering armies of Antichrist’s kingdom?
Associate Director
Northeast Intelligence Network

Susan u.k. said...

“The Assyrian” is a description, not a title, or nationality of the coming A/c.

I am relieved to at last find opposition to this latest gnostic teaching. Along with the theory of "Post Tribulation", the enemy has invaded the very heart of the 'camp of the saints' in order to bring division and confusion.

On the surface, this latest 'revelation' seems intelligent and persuasive, yet upon analysis, it is no more than the ‘newspaper exegesis’ of old.

My understanding is from decades of Bible Study, not a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to new revelation.
To be brief, I understand that historically, the Assyrians were incredibly cruel, barbaric heathens and were despised by all ancient nations including the Israelites. As they were, so shall ‘he’ be. The following sites describe their cruelty.

Susan u.k. said...

“The Assyrian” is a description, not a title, or nationality of the coming A/c.

I am relieved to at last find opposition to this latest gnostic teaching. Along with the theory of "Post Tribulation", the enemy has invaded the very heart of the 'camp of the saints' in order to bring division and confusion. On the surface, this latest 'revelation' seems intelligent and persuasive, yet upon analysis, it is no more than the ‘newspaper exegesis’ of old.

My understanding is from decades of Bible Study, not a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to new revelation.
To be brief, I understand that historically, the Assyrians were incredibly cruel, barbaric heathens and were despised by all ancient nations including the Israelites. As they were, so shall ‘he’ be. The following sites describe their cruelty.

Joel Richardson said...

Susan U.K.

Just curiosuly, upon what do you base your certainty on this issue? is this merely your opinion, or do you have any supporting Scriptures to support your view?

And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders. Micah 5:6

If "the Assyrian" is merely a reference to the Antichrist's personal characteristics, then does "the land of Assyria... the land of Nimrod" also to be taken allegorically to be referring to Europe?

Bless You, Joel

Susan u.k. said...

Hello Joel
As a woman, I do not feel comfortable debating Scripture with men.

My opinion is not without considered knowledge and understanding of Scripture reaching over at least forty years. That, of course, does not make me ‘right’, and certainly there is so much more to my statement than is written.

‘Common sense’ is a factor in Bible study which is largely ignored these last days. That, combined with the inability to reason within context, are, I believe, the main reasons for error.

My statement was ‘brief’, in order to express my gratitude and thanks, that The Lord has now lifted up a standard against this latest ‘flood’ of Gnosticism.

For too long we have been willing, for the sake of peace among the brethren, to ignore these weakening opinions. I have come to realise that the Post Tribulation theory is an insidious ‘snake’ biting at our hopping heels. Likewise, the Islamic theory is beginning to have the same effect.

I find Walid Shoebat a personable man with a fascinating testimony, but, regarding his teaching he is in dire need of correction and not the encouragement he has been given by leading, and otherwise credible, Bible teachers.

Yes, I know my statements are dogmatic, I am grateful for the opportunity, and the freedom to make them.

Every blessing to you.
Susan U.K.

Anonymous said...

Ive considered this too. In ancient times To call someone a Assyrian was to name them as a Barbaric Tyrant beyond compare. The prophets may have used this name to place the proper image in there followers minds.
Definitely something to consider.

SeanOsborne said...

Dear Susan, our sister in the Lord from "across the pond."

Wow! It is absolutely refreshing to see someone make the statements you have made.

I am parictularly fond of your description of the "eastern leg" false teaching as "gnostic" and those propagating such as being in "dire need of correction."

Your choice of the word "gnostic" is positively superb in that those fostering such errant teachings are doing so from a perceived position of superiority over their fellow brethren. You are absolutely correct in your characterization.

I pray there are many more like you "across the pond."

Susan u.k. said...

Hello Anonymous I am thankful I made myself understood, and I heartily agree with your consideration. I liken it to someone obnoxious being branded ‘Hitler’; it’s the same difference to me.

Many years ago I was told that museums hid the Assyrian artefacts discovered by archaeologists, as they were considered too vile for public viewing. The few pictures I have seen on line leave me in no doubt this is the case.

Hello Sean, Thank you for your encouragement, usually, I am at the ‘stiff end’ of a ‘brush off’, and I strongly suspect that my fellow ‘pond life’, sincerely hope that I am a ‘one off’.

At times I feel akin to ‘Mrs Elijah’, but thankfully, praise The Lord, there are those who have not ‘bowed the knee’ to Baal, though they be few and far between.

When all is said and done, it is best to avoid PC niceties (with love I hope), then we all know where we stand. Gnosticism well nigh destroyed the early Church, so it is not surprising that the enemy is still trying his old tactics during these last days. I hope and pray those ensnared by it will turn and repent.

Keep up the good work Bill! May God love and protect you in your efforts.

Blessings to you all.

Joel Richardson said...


Thank you for your response. I understand your position of not wishing to argue Scripture with men. I assure you that I have no intention to argue with you. I am still curious however as to how you personally believe what the "land of Assyria... the land of Nimrod" should be interpreted in Mich 5:6 Would you be willing to elaborate just so that I might understand your perspective that has come from so many years of diligent study?

Also, I must admit that I am fascinated and rather bemused by the notion that the Islamic End Time Perspective or the Post-trib position represents "Gnostic" thought. Would you be also willing to elaborate on this?
Just curiously, would you also say that Chuck Missler (Holds to the Assyrian Antichrist perspective), David Pawson (post-trib), Dave Hunt (Believes that Gog is Antichrist) are "gnostics" as well?



Joel Richardson said...


I can assure you that the positions that I hold, I most certinly do not hold with any attitude of superiority over any of my brethren. As I stated above, we are all but babes and fools wrestling to properly understand and teach His word. If I have ever conveyed an attitude of superiority, then that is something that I would quickly repent of. in my interaction for instance with Dr. Reagan, I have striven to be as respectful as possible. I admit that I got squirrely with you in one post, but I figured that you are a big boy who can take a tad bit of razzing. So while I would be happy to repent if I ever find pride in my heart, as for my actual positions, like Luther, here I stand a captive to my convictions - those I cannot repent of. e-mail me Sean menosabe@hotmail.com and I will send you some info that details my perspective far better than I can do here in this format.

Bless You, Joel

Bill Salus said...

Attached is another good Antichrist perspective from Don Koenig.

Anonymous said...

I'm getting really tired of this Roman/Assyrian Antichrist argument that I seem to find everywhere lately. Things tend to get heated quickly and the scholarship goes off the charts and over the heads of most of us simple folk, not that there's anything wrong with that. We need to study God's Word, but we need to study it in humility.

Dear Heavenly Father, You gave us Your Word and call us to study, yet Your thoughts and ways are higher than our thoughts and ways. You alone know the end from the beginning. I thank You that Your Word is enough for us. In Your wisdom You hide and reveal Truth in its' time. Help us be one, Father, as we wait for You to show us Your ways and keep the enemy, the deceiver, the liar from blinding us to those ways with our pride or knowledge or tradition or plain stubborness. Amen.

IMHO, none of us KNOW the answer to the question of the origins of the AC, but here are a few things that seem ironic to me.

First of all, Satan must relish seeing good Christian men getting into heated discussions about his 'secret identity'. I mean that would be just like him, wouldn't it?

Secondly, the unflinching devotion of each camp (Roman/Assyrian) to conflicting points of view may be confounding and confusing enough to the weak in faith to cause them to stumble. I've been a Christian for 30 years and it wears me out, but I know God is not a God of confusion so I just take a deep breath and a warm bath.

Finally, as I said before, I believe that no one is 100% correct in there position. It is quite possible that both point of views may be right. Let's not forget that Jesus was refered to in the O.T. by many names and even portrayed as having different qualities. i.e. The Lion of the tribe of Judah and a man of sorrows. He was also a Nazarene, who was born in Bethelehem and called out of Egypt. So there were seemingly conflicted ideas about Christ in the O.T. which all turned out to be true.

One particular endtime passage that confounds me is Zechariah 5 and the ephah of evil that is taken to Shinar. I have heard that discussed very rarely and yet it describes something which was in one place and taken to another, Babylon, so go figure. For instance who are you? Could you be an American born to Puerto Rican, Lutheran parents in Kansas who went to Florida State University and moved to Idaho? Of course you could.

I'm sure that the rabbis were arguing about Messiah in 30 A.D. Sadly they missed Him. Ah, but no, not sadly, for it was in rejecting Him that His blood was shed for all of us. So you see, sometimes with God, up is down and left is wrong and right is twice.

There were two people who knew who Jesus was, Anna and Simeon. They prayed, they sought, they waited.

Let's not beat one another over the head with this issue as we all strive to find the Truth. Frankly, I read all of the great men of God who have posted here and I try to glean the truth from each of them. I thank God for all of you and the years of study you have spent, but I don't expect to understand it all until it's my turn to sit down with Jesus and have Him explain it all to me.

Blessings In Christ,
My Two Cents

Susan u.k. said...

Hello Joel

I said ‘debate’, not ‘argue’ Scripture. One is two sided, courteous and rational, the other isn’t.

Forgive me if I misjudge you, but I sensed a sarcastic tone in my ‘so many years of diligent study’, thereby tempting this ancient Brit to ‘daub on the woad’. My aim was to be brief and explain that I have had the time to consider things.

Regarding Assyria, Nimrod and Micah; I have no intention of discussing any private interpretations of Scripture. 2Peter 1:20

If you do not yet understand what Gnosticism is, I politely suggest you quickly find out; however I am not the person to educate you.

Although the Post Tribulation theory is ‘old’, it still fits Gnostic thought which brings confusion and division to the heart of the Body. As the disciples themselves expected the imminent return of Jesus, any other expectation is an error of Gnostic teaching.

I am not judging men Joel, I am testing a spirit. I have respect for the men you mentioned, and agree with them where I can. Largely I avoid those with the Post Tribulation view as, perhaps unwittingly, this theory causes strange changes in other scriptures. I also find many of them antagonistic, sarcastic and proud. Largely, for peace of mind, I have to ‘wink’ at those areas where I see an error in understanding. That is to say, I remove the bones from the fish and try to enjoy my meal.

Now Joel, that’s me done on the matter. Before posting my support of Bill, I had not read this blog. I had no idea what had, or had not already been voiced on the matter. None of what I have written has been directed at you. I haven’t the ‘foggiest’ idea of who you are, or what you do; so I am not being personal.

May the Lord bless, and keep you and those you love. May he lead you in the way He knows is best for you all.

Greg S said...

We learn by debate, when it becomes abusive that's one thing, But to say this doesn't need to be discussed is strictly a matter of opinion.I believe it is.

Anonymous said...

It's all very interesting (an understatement), entertaining, and confusing at the same time. However, knowing or not knowing exactly where the AC will hail from, in the end, will not make a bit of difference to those of us who will be gone by the time he is revealed anyway. Just a thought (since we will be gone anyway), but maybe the clues left to us in prophecy about who he is and where he comes from, are for tribulation saints, to aid THEM in properly identifing the AC, and not subject matter for arguing and debate among us now. For whatever reason, our Lord didn't think it expedient nor important for us to know exactly where he comes from and who he is, other wise, we'd have been given clearer information (such as our being able to clearly identify who is involved in the Ezekiel 38 and 39 invation). He (capital H) told us that the man of perdition would not be revealed until we are taken out of the way. Like the timing of the rapture, we can suppose, we can give good guesses, we can know the season, and it makes for some wonderful indepth bible study. But this is not something we will know for sure this side of the rapture. No amount of bible study or debate is going to change that because He has already told us we will not know. Eli

Greg S said...

Of the three different opinions on the timing of the rapture I have chosen to believe the Pre Rapture, But just in case I'm wrong, Id like to have a clue what to be looking for should We all still be here when he arrives.

Anonymous said...

As for me I am Pre-Trib too, but I consider the following two Scriptures to be great gifts of discernment for the Church, Tribulation Saints, Jews or anybody at anytime trying to find the Messiah.

The first was given to us by Jesus Himself:

Matt.24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

The second is:

Rev. 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.

These verses give great security against making any errors regarding false christs throughout the Church Age. Personally, I believe the Church will be gone when this event happens, but if we make these passages our guardians, then until this miraculous Second Coming of Jesus Christ occurs for all on the Earth to see at once, we can be sure we are safe. In other words, they will keep us from drinking anybody's KoolAid!

I don't think it is wrong to discuss our theories on the AC, if it can be done in a brotherly fashion, but we were not told to watch for the AC's appearing but for Christ's.

Anonymous said...

I was inclinded to buy your book at one time, then I read your blog. I also read the article by David Reagan, which seemed like a personal attack on the authors who posed the Assyrian issue. I suggest you read the articles by Rodrigo Silva. They are much more researched then anything I've read about a European antichrist, and scriptually sound. Since Jerusalem is the center of the earth, why would the antichrist be European. Do you also believe that Jesus was a thin, pale, gaunt European type with long hair (as is typically depicted since the Renaissance)? It's nonsense. Europe isn't in the Bible, no matter how hard we try to make it. The Bible is about Israel and the Church. The west will be devestated by the Rapture when many are taken and the earth shakes. You can trust in Jesus or continue to know everything about the Bible already, just like the Pharisees. You can only serve one master, God or money- not both. I trust in Jesus Christ and frequently learn more of the TRUTH. This means I realize I am wrong on some issues and toss them aside, only sticking to the good. Of course I'm not a PhD in theology or published author, only a man who places his faith in Jesus [like certain Apostles frequently mentioned:)]. Don't lose your faith over money. If you study with an open heart and change your mind (or reaffirm your old ideas from people who thought of it long before you), it may cost book sales, but you will still have your salvation. PRIDE is the reason for the devil's fall. If you aren't careful you may live to see where the antichrist comes from personally. Stay strong in the faith and don't blindly follow others. After all, we may all be wrong. May God bless you. Love, a Hopeful Brother.

Joel Richardson said...

Susan, Anonymous and Greg,

Amen and amen. I am in full agreement that the tone of this discussion has often taken on a tone that is unnecessary. Dr. Reagan's critical article toward me and others was quite a shock to me to be honest. To be called "very misleading" or "gnostic" or to be likened to a prophet of Baal for instance is very odd to me.

For now, the Euro-centric perspective on the end times prevails among the Body. I refer to that which I believe as Islamic End time "theory". I believe that the Scriptural basis for this theory is far more convincing and simple to understand then the Euro-centric perspective. But one thing that we should have learned from the Pharisees is not to become too calcified, crusty and proud in our dogmatic positions regarding prophecy. This is why this very Scriptural theory is something that the Body should welcome. We need to be alert and aware and most of all humble.

Blessings, Joel

Bill Salus said...

Dear Anonymous; I'm glad you like Rodrigo's articles and saddened that you aren't interested in Isralestine. I believe Rodrigo has a gift for writing, and do consider him a friend. However I have studied many great scholars, and personally find his Antichrist related articles, at least the few I've had time to read, extremely long and lacking sound biblical exegesis in some areas.

This is my personal opinion, and is not intended to belittle your or Rodrigo's views.

I believe as Rodrigo continues to develop his writing gift he will learn to say more in less space. I do respect your opinion, and thank you for your comment.

Perhaps after Psalm 83 occurs, you will reconsider the purchase of my book, as numerous others have. In fact I just got word today, that Calvary Chapel distribution, loves the book and will be promoting throughout their 800 Church bookstores. Perhaps there is one near you, if you change your mind.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Salus,
I am actually very interested in the book Israelistine. Though we disagree about the antichrist's origin, I find that even people who disagree with others can have great information. I would also give congratualtions to the popularity of your book, as Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi recently infringed on the title [slightly modified of course ;)] calling for an "Israstine".

Mr. Silva's articles are longer (due in part, I believe) because he gives the reader his sources, as they were written. This is so a person could read what was said about the subject. I find it very helpful, a sort of study guide. I am a bit confused about your reference to the 'lack of sound biblical exegesis in some areas'. I think Rodrigo Silva, a true man of God, gives a good model of Biblical research. As far as I'm aware, he has received no awards for his work, just ridicule. He believed the European model after receiving salvation, as did I (and most, I'm sure- EU, anyone). He studied the Scripture like a good Berean, however, and humbly decided he was wrong.

Just because an idea has been around for a long time, or most people believe it, doesn't mean it's correct. After all, most people didn't accept Jesus as the Saviour at first.

When all eyes are on Rome or the European Union, they are off of the Bible. When Jesus comes for the Church, I hope we can all embrace in worship as it was meant to be. Jesus is, after all, what we wait for- not the antichrist.

I hope to see you there, as are Mr. Silva, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Shoebat, I'm sure. I sincerely hope you much success in all you do. Love always, Your Brother in Christ

Anonymous said...

From what I see going on today I tend to believe the revived Ottoman Empire will be the last. I don't see this earth having the time needed for Islam to be put down and the coming in of another. Europe is actually falling under Islam domination. I doubt there is going to be a strong or weak revived Roman Empire. Israel is in grave danger unlike ever before. We are already on the verge of a 2nd holocost. The signs are there, everywhere, even in the US. The end, I believe, is nearer then we think.

Bill Salus said...

Dear Anonymous, the end is indeed very near, as is a Greater Israel, and along with this nearby coming Israel, so will likely come a diminishing islam. Be careful to be caught off guard, like the Hamas just were, by looking at Israel through the world's lesser view.

Stephan G said...


I've read abit of your theory of a coming "greater Israel" in the very near future. I'm afraid that you have the timing confused with the period after Jesus returns. There are numerous Scriptures that speak about a greater Israel, but this is only after Messiah returns. As Dr. Fruchtenbaum so correctly stated in your interview with him, there are only two regatherings to Israel: One for judgement and one for blessing. The first regathering we have already seen. The Jewish people are now about to be judged. Then after they have been nearly all killed (two thirds) and the remnant taken captive as so many of the propehts so clearly state, then Jesus brings them back to the land to be blessed. You really need to speak with Dr. Fruchtenbaum about this and also study more. You are truly distorting the Word of God and leading the Church into great false expectations.

Bill Salus said...

Dear Stephen G. I have listened to over 60 of Dr. Fruchtenbaum's tapes, and read my two personally autographed books from him called The Footsteps of the Messiah and Israelology. I have had several luncheons with him, and been part of his filming of Why, Is God Still Saving the Gentiles video. It was at this session that he personally encouraged me to author isralestine.

Additionally the back of my book Isralestine is endorsed by him, and he has personally emailed me on numerous occasions, and informed me therein that we are in substantial agreement, and that Isralestine contains valid arguments.

In addition to all of the above I'm in possession of an email shared only with Dr. David Reagan of Arnold's personal debunking argument about Walid Shoebat's Antichrist claims.

Now what exactly did you want me to come to understand about Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum? I'm very familiar with his Isaiah 11:11 interpretation, and have included his arguments in my book.

You claim I distort the truth, and yet Arnold himself has slightly vascillated on his position of the timing of Psalm 83 to some degree. His footsteps book clearly puts it in the Tribulation, and I respectfully disagree. In my radio interview with him, he says it could occur at any time, but he cares not to speculate.

I think you might want to listen again to our interview and read my book. You referenced that you have read some of my Greater Israel teaching. Thus you are likely alluding to my WorldNetDaily article on the subject. Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily has read Isralestine and commented to my publisher and friend Tom Horn that it answered prophecy questions he's had for over 30 years.

Perhaps you might want to consider the possibility that prior to the judgment of Israel comes the prophecies regarding a Greater Israel that ultimately foolishly falls apostate again, and then comes their judgment.

Stephan G said...


In your most recent interview with Dr. Fruchtenbaum, he states that there are only two re-gatherings to Israel. One for judgment and one for blessing. You have taken the present regathering for judgment and are trying to say that Israel will accomplish that which will only happen when Yeshua Ha Mashiach returns. You mentioned you have a signed copy of Fruchtenbaum's books, but cannot site supporting Scriptures to back your claim. Your position is dangerous because it sets up Christians for a let down when Israel is judged.

Anonymous said...

bill I have read your book and completely agree with you!!!shoebat and richardson are both false teachers and need to be removed from the churches. walid shoebat is a fake and is still a muslim trying to trick us christians into a war!! but we are not decieved!!! his ecegesis is for idiots and he doesnt even no his bible everyone knows that israel will soon rule over the entire arab world after they destroy the surrounding psalm 83 nations and take over there lands. these guys need to get a life and start listening to a real sholar and real teachers like doctor reagan and bill salus!!!!!

Bill Salus said...

Stephan G. thanks again for taking the time to blog here. Isralestine is filled with supporting scriptures supporting my Greater Israel position. I agree with Dr. Fruchtenbaum, that Israel will be judged, and then blessed. However I see scripture alluding to a Greater Israel, emerging just prior to their pending judgment. For instance the Israel that Russia invades in Ezekiel 38 & 39 appears to be a far wealthier Israel than that of today. Both Dr. Fruchtenbuam and myself put the Ezekiel 38 invasion prior to the Tribulation period.

God owes the Jews a Seventieth Week lasting for seven years, commonly referred to as the Tribulation period. I believe that Israel will enter into that Tribulation period from a position of empowerment. I presume that it is your view that the lesser Israel of today will be the Israel that enters that treacherous judgment period. I respectfully disagree and author my reasons in Isralestine and several related articles posted upon my sites.

Furthermore please notice that I don’t suggest that your presumption endangers Christians, I simply state my views in print and media interviews. I am cautious to suggest that those views that differ from mine are dangerous. In my estimation this potentially serves to stumble new believers and non-believers, who likely have no idea about these prophetic matters.

Blessings from Isralestine

Bill Salus said...

Susan from the U.K. my email address is info@isralestine.net Feel free to email me your thoughts. As per your request, I have not posted your recent blog, however I see no reason to withold it from posting. Let me know if you change your mind and would permit me to post your interesting blog.

Bill Salus said...

Dear Anonymous; thank you for your complimentary blog about Isralestine and my scholarship, that means much to me. Please allow me to suggest that I don’t believe that Walid Shoebat and Joel Richardson should be ostracized from the Churches. Although I don’t agree with some of their views, I believe that their respective works encourage people to dive into the scriptures like the Berean's of Acts 17:10-11 and study for themselves.

Conversely Walid Shoebat is one of the Churches most valuable sources of information regarding Middle East Terrorism, and it would be a pity to prohibit him from forwarding his expert opinions on the subject. I’ve seen him on popular news programs and feel that he puts the Churches best foot forward regarding the treacherous role of Terrorism in the turbulent world today.

We all need to be cautious in voicing our assessments about fellow believers. I trust that God searches their hearts and minds to know where they stand in Christ. I am constantly reminded to pull the plank out of my own eye rather than identify the speck in my brothers. My concern as stated in a previous blog above to Stephen G. on this article, is that we as Christians had ought to error on the side of polite caution about expressing our views. There are those new and non - believers who may be stumbled by reading generally harsh views.

Anonymous said...


jesus called the pharasees snakes and paul told the jews to castrate themselves and told them to go to hell!! these gnostics need to be cast out of the churches!!!! i know that agree that they are ghnostics because you did;t tell these others to not call them that if you agree that say it!! there is no room for bein wimpy!! post-tribbers and these secret muslim gnostics need to be called out not praised!! if you do not think that calling them gnostics will stible someone then you must agree. now do what is right and stand up for GOD!!!

Bill Salus said...

Dear Anonymous, after you have read my previous be cautious to stumble the new and non believer blogs, are you asking me to castrate, I mean cast the first stone at these Assyrian Antichrist advocates? This is not the course of action I advise. Do you remember the praise and worship song, The Battle Belongs to the LORD? I say that prayer and study will go alot farther in these matters. Also in your enthusiasm you have mis-spelled a few words. Take the time to be calm, gather your thoughts, and review your blog submissions. In so doing I think they will be better received by the broader diverse blog readership.

Anonymous said...


do you agree or not that this is a form of gnosticism? yes or no?!!

Bill Salus said...

Dear Anonymous, please give me your definition of Gnosticism. I believe that the Assyrian Antichrist advocates have the right to state their cases. I find that they don’t all agree with each other in their conclusions, and as such it is hard to summarize exactly whom they identify this coming beast as. I feel Dr. David Reagan’s article that I have linked in my article above does the best job to present their menu of arguments in a nutshell fashion.

Being a Pre-Tribber, I don’t expect to be around to experience his escapades, which likely commence in Revelation 6, after the Church is taken out in Revelation 4 & 5, and my interests are more centered upon prophecies that I believe can be better understood now, like the Rapture, Psalm 83, and Ezekiel 38 & 39, the luke warm emerging ecumenically minded Laodicean Church, etc. I primarily wrote this Antichrist article because I think Daniel 9:26 is the pivotal passage in guiding people to discover the origin of this coming crazed individual.

Many of these Assyrian advocates discard the Roman Empire’s involvement in the fulfillment of Daniel 9:26, or they keep the Roman Empire in the equation, but suggest that the Antichrist will come out of the Eastern leg of the Roman Empire. They all believe he will have some form of Assyrian roots, but are split as to whether he will be a Muslim, (Joel Richardson, Walid Shoebat) or perhaps a Christian, (Rodrigo Silva) or perhaps something else?

Personally I suggest you keep your eye on the Middle East, and the potential for Psalm 83 to find final fulfillment very soon. This then followed by Ezekiel 38 & 39 invasion of Israel. The Church may or may not be here in either instance. I don’t see Islam being the harlot magic carpet that some Assyrian Beast rides in upon, in the aftermath of the above events and certainly not if Isaiah 17:1 occurs prior.

However the bottom line is to be a like the Berean’s in Acts 17:10-11 and search the scriptures daily to see if these things be so

Bill Salus said...

If you have submitted a recent blog yet to be posted, it is under review, and may or may not be posted, and if posted may not be posted in a timely manner. This is because I'm traveling to Phoenix to do two television shows for Jewish Voice. Please be patient until I return.

SeanOsborne said...

I would agree with the very limited use of the term Gnostic ONLY as a rebuke in that it applies to the secondary definitive sense of the word denoting a superior knowledge being conveyed by certain "eastern leg" exegesis proponents.

I make this specific and very limited distinction in accordance with what most Bible scholars and teachers concur to be sound exegesis of Bible prophecy, as well as being within the context I opined above on January 12th.

It remains my own position that there is no utility whatsoever to the Bride of Christ to delve into Islamic sources - Satanically deceptive source - to render insights into the Word of God that we are to perpetually abide by.

We already know in detail that Islam is a deception and all of its texts, ahadith and commentary have been propagated in support of that original deception. Therein lies the total depth we need venture with our Christ-like hearts and minds.

Yeshua Ha-Mashiach IS the focus, not Islam, its false ideology, theology or some mythical al-Mahdi character.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for a clear, concise view of a Roman connected Anti-christ. Daniel, I too believe, makes it very clear. Why would conservative Bible students accept other obvious scriptural facts and statements and not accept this one?
Daniel had such prophetic insight and Divine inspiration that he certainly would have understood if, indeed, an Assyrian Anti-christ would arise in the end time. History is clear on who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD - the Romans. In the final analysis, it really does not matter. The Rapture will take the church out before the Anti-christ is revealed (II Thess. 2). God Bless, Tom

Jodi said...

Dear Kris Siew:

There are numerous indicators that Obama could be the Antichrist:

1. He will be European: Obama has British citizenship through his father.
2. He will be Jewish, "Christian", or Israeli: Obama claims to be a Christian, and there is a group in Northern Israel claiming they are related to him.
3. He will be Muslim: Obama was once a practicing Muslim.
4. He will be Assyrian: The group in Northern Israel claiming to be related is ethnic Syrian.

Is he the Antichrist? I don't know. If he's not, he's a pretty convincing dress rehearsal.

Greg S said...

The fact that Assyrians exist in the world was news to me a couple of years ago. The Fact that there Christian and Not Islamic is a factor to not be over looked. I feel The Antichrist will rule The European Union, there are over 250,000 Assyrians in Europe, there are 250,000 in America, We are looking for a man That is ment to remain unknown to us until the allotted time. So finding him beforehand will be Impossible, That's Right Impossible. But this forum helps us to have a broader view of who he might be. He could be a European Assyrian with a Jewish Father and Christian Mother. There are so many possibilities. We will never be 100 percent sure untill he shows up.So Assyrian is a possibility and non Assyrian is equally possible. Muslim on the other hand Would be close to impossible. Even Israel will look on him as a savior, they would never trust a Muslim. So many factors going against Islam as the religion of the Antichrist. Still I am open minded and I know The Antichrist could against the odds be Muslim.
On this subject we should be open to all possibilities. That way we will not be caught un-aware.

Anonymous said...

To Greg S.

That is the ABSOLUTE most intelligent, inspired post on this blog. I think it should be the end of all blogging on this site because it really is the end to the arguement.
God bless you, sir.

Anonymous said...

i cannot see how the Antichrist will be a muslim.for one the Bible says he will magnify himself above anyone called God and that would include allah.

Anonymous said...

To teach that Daniel 9:26, or any part of the book of Daniel, connects the future "prince that shall come" to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. is in total error and very destructive to the truth of God's prophetic word.

The begining of the understanding of this prince and of his people begins with the two prophecies of Jesus that both contain the phrase that not one stone shall not be left upon another; Luke 19:43-44 and Luke 21:624. The first describes 70 AD, the second the 'coming prince'. Understanding begins with comparison of the descriptions of the two invasions, and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Titus and his Roman troops fulfilled only the invasion of Luke 19. Titus has nothing to do whatsoever with Luke 21.


tman said...

After reading all of the arguments from both sides, the argument that the Antichrist is an Assyrian/Muslim is very convincing. I think it is only a matter of time before most Bible prophecy teachers re-examine their view of eschatology and concur.

Great topic of discussion!!

Susan uk said...

Hello Bill
My dear young friend 'phoned me today. She has bought me 'Isralestine'! I look forward to the read.
Hope and pray all is going well.:)

SeanOsborne said...

From: "Structural history of the Roman military"

Under the heading of:

"Imperial legions and reformation of the auxilia (27 BC – 117 AD)"

We read...

"The legions, which had been a mix of life professionals and civilian campaigners, was altered into a standing army of professionals only.[60] The actual structure of the cohort army remained much the same as in the late Republic, although around the first century AD the first cohort of each legion was increased in size to a total of 800 soldiers.[61] However, while the structure of the legions remained much the same, their make-up gradually changed. Whereas early Republican legions had been raised by a draft from eligible Roman citizens, imperial legions were recruited solely on a voluntary basis and from a much wider base of manpower. Likewise, whereas Republican legions had been recruited almost exclusively in Italy, early Imperial legions drew most of their recruits from Roman colonies in the provinces from 68 AD onwards. One estimate places the proportion of Italian troops at 65% under Augustus in c. 1 AD, falling to around 49% by the end of Nero's reign.[62]

Bas-relief carving of a Roman legionary out of battle dress, c. 1st century AD (Pergamon Museum, Berlin)Since the legions were officially open only to Roman citizens, Max Cary and Howard Hayes Scullard argue that at least in some provinces at this time "many provincials must have been recruited who lacked any genuine claim to Roman citizenship but received it unofficially on enlistment",[63] a practice that was to increase in the second century.[64]"



Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 91
Hassall, The Army, p. 325
Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 91
Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 98
Cary & Scullard, A History of Rome, p. 338
Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter I, p. 36

Anonymous said...

If you would study all of the Scripture, and ponder (think with reason, logic, and some common sense) you would learn that the Antichrist comes out of the Islamic culture, is in all probability an Arab, will come from the position of king of an Arab nation north of Israel, come from the territory of the old Seleucid Empire, and will eventually rule ten nations, no more.

Neither will he be "wounded" in the head. The heads of this beast from the sea represent nations - the horns with crowns represent the kings of those nations. The Antichrist is represented as a horn. The nation of Israel is the head that was wouned to death, and yet lived!


Harriet said...

I am certainly not the most scholarly person, just a simple mom, grandma and devoted follower of Jesus, and frequent Rapture Ready website reader. I read through much of this blog and came away with this thought:

Are all you guys discussing this topic believers in a mid or post trib rapture? Maybe I am simply missing something entirely, but if you are pre-trib believers, why are you expending all this time and mental energy to figure out who antichrist is? Seems like there are much more profitable exhortations and teachings than trying to figure out who will be in earthly power while we are at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Just a thought.

GREG said...

I believe in the Pre-trib rapture, But just in case the timing of the rapture isn't exactly as we think it is Id like to have a clue who we might be dealing with.

Anonymous said...

Amos 3:7 states “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” You and I (believers in Jesus) are the prophets today. It is our responsibility to study the Scriptures, all of it, and to learn its truth. This truth is not only to be told the “church” but to be told the world. The Rapture will not happen until we learn the truth of it and tell the world; That is God’s way. Look at how God always warned the Israelites, time and time again, before He did something. God has not changed. The Antichrist is part of that which is coming on this world. The world will not know who he is until after the Rapture but the study of his origin will also teach us other things we must know of the time soon to come upon the world.


Susan u.k. said...

Hello Bill

I have just received ‘Personal Update’ from khouse. On page 11 is ‘The Three Challenges: The Debate Over Antichrist’ Part 1 by Walid Shoebat.

I am unsettled by this and just want to express my concerns.

Firstly, I am troubled that Chuck Missler has so readily embraced Walids theory. I know he has one of his own, but as yet I have felt too troubled to read it. I know CM had a past bad experience, as a result he is open minded and compassionate toward ‘out of the box’ thinkers. However I fear CM may be going too far with this one? This, along with using the infamous ‘god TV’ to promote various messages, is leaving me feeling unhappy and confused.

I realise ‘god tv’ is a separate issue, yet is nonetheless connected. Through Bible study, I felt certain The Lord was emphasising ‘come apart and be separate’. 2Cor.6:14-18. 7:1. One good apple added to a basket of rotten apples will not transform the decay into new life. As time has passed, this has kept me safe from ‘bad’ fellowship that entertains The Word of God along side ‘satanic sentences’.

This may seem extreme, but to me it is a question of not allowing the camel to put its nose into my tent, lest it soon evicts me from my place of refuge.

To simplify; Walids A/c theory, to me, screams “Straw man” very loudly and persistently. He misrepresents then argues for affect.

I have a DVD of Walid with Dave Hunt who frankly, looks as incredulous as I felt listening to his wild speculations on prophecy. Dave tried to correct him, but with the bit between his teeth, Walid seemed incapable of being sensible or listening to sound reasoning.

Walid is an intelligent man BUT as a believer, he is still very ‘young’. Frankly he is being allowed far too much authority and freedom to promote theories that should have been discussed and dissected in private with ‘elders’.

Walid is a modern day ‘Appolos’ Acts18:24-26. He needs an ‘Aquila’ to explain to him the ways of God more accurately. Dave Hunt tried, but in my view, is undermined by his promotion by Chuck Missler.

In addition Walid says “Consequently, I get challenges daily, not only by Muslims who want me dead, but also from Christians who are dogmatic about their views”. This is very emotive language. Because I do not agree with his interpretation of Scripture, I am scorned as ‘dogmatic’ and put along side those who would attack him physically.

I am dogmatic, definitely! When I know what I know and what I read does not marry with what another say’s, I stick to my guns. I don’t shoot anyone down with them; I just insist that they are mistaken. Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father except by Me”. How dogmatic is that!

Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns, they are very real to me, and I am not at all happy for the necessity to criticise someone like CM.

To Harriet.
We are much the same and RR is my Homepage and I love it. Your concern is valid, but when told to ‘search the Scriptures’ there wasn’t a proviso ‘except the A/c’. As unpleasant a subject it is, it is necessary to have a handle on ALL of God’s truth. Even A/c can be used as a tool for witnessing. RR is right not to encourage wild speculation as to his identity; it can be hurtful and cruelly judgmental.
God bless x

Susan u.k. said...

Crumbs! I seem to have killed your blog!!
Sorry about that Bill!!!

Bill Salus said...

Dear Susan from the UK, I sincerely doubt that you "killed the ongoing blog". Bloggers tend to move on to different blog conversations about topics of their interest. This blogsite has experienced an abundance of notable blogs, yours included, from which I'm thankful.

Blessings to you

Susan uk said...

Oh there you are Bill! I have been hoping to hear something about CM and whether or not he is willing to have a debate about this eastern leg A/c. Sean Osbournes article was really challenging, and I would have thought CM would be willing to reconsider his position. Have you heard anything via Calvary Chapel? What do they say about it?
Every blessing to you Bill.

Bill Salus said...

Susan - I've heard that Chuck Missler may have shifted his opinion about the origin of the Antichrist, but am not sure. An open invitation to debate the origin of the Antichrist was issued about a month or so ago through Prophezine.com and it included Missler along with Shoebat and several others. I'm not sure if anyone from the European Antichrist camp has accpeted the invitation.

I responded to a personal invitation to debate Walid Shoebat about that time by declining primarily due the fact that we both have produced sufficient works already available for public consumption that adequately depict our differing views.

What Calvary Chapel thinks about the apparent shift in Chuck Missler's Antichrist thoughts, I think would border upon concern, however I'm not their spokesman. Calvary Chapels tend to teach the European Antichrist model.

I came to know the LORD through a Chuck Missler book of Revelation study, so I have extremely fond feelings for his saintly status. If he has shifted his position I presume he has his sound reasons.

Good to hear from you and you can visit Sean Osborne's site and connect with him at www.eschatologytoday.blogspot.com

SeanOsborne said...

Susan UK,

Thank You for the kind words regarding my article.

If the rumors of Chuck Missler embracing the "Eastern" are true, and I have very serious reservations that they are despite an appearance with Walid Shoebat, then I would hope my article would hold enough of a "cause and effect" for him to rethink and apply discernment to this issue.

I am working on a new project, tentatively titled "The Road to Revelation."


I believe in the Pre-Tribulation Harpazo(Rapture) of the Bride of Christ as modeled in the Old Testament 'template' of the ancient Hebrew betrothal, elopement and wedding feast scenario.

I firmly believe in Holy Spirit-led exegesis of Bible prophecy.

I firmly and literally believe in a final Beast empire that will stand up initially on two legs and ten toes, that this Beast empire will originate from the remnant of the nations of ancient Rome, have have the attributes of Alexander's Macedonian-Greek Empire (leopard=speed of conquest), Persia (bear=incredible military power) and Babylon (lion=the grasping power of the lion's claws). The person of the Antichrist will be in the Biblical template of the Macedonian Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, possbily of Hellenic or southern European ethnicity, and within family directly descended from Jewish davidic or rabbinical bloodlines(DNA).

Now allow me to explain what I oppose and why.

Based upon my own observations, I believe that the majority of the "Eastern Leg-Islamic Antichrist" proponents believe in a Post-Tribulation rapture or no rapture at all.

They believe we will still be here during the Tribulation; they believe they will be able to tell us "Traditionalists" something akin to "We told you so."

I believe this group almost invariably practices eisegesis with respect to Bible prophecy, with a heavy reliance on false Islamic eschatology to buttress their points.

This group is in for a rude awakening.

I oppose this "eastern leg" ideology.

I refer to the "eastern leg" as an ideology since the sum of their interpretive product is eisegetical in nature.

Were it exegetical in nature I would consider it an opposing exegesis or theology.

I oppose it due to the inherent false teaching they impart upon those who are not members of the Bride of Christ and may be "Left Behind" in the wake ofthe Harpazo.
How will they fare in a world where the "eastern leg" false teaching - attributed to "Christianity" has been proven by real-world events to be absolutely false. Here is where I deem our Lord's admonition against false teachers to be directly appropriate, and must be opposed tooth and nail due for the sake of the un-saved souls.

We MUST leave behind a Biblically correct exegesis that points to Father, Son and Holy Spirit...

instead onewhich highlights the Beast( eventually Satan incarnate), the False Prophet, and the demonically animated Temple idol of 'Abomination of Desolation' infamy.

Blessing to all,

Susan uk said...

Hello Bill
It is encouraging to hear that CM may be at least willing to reconsider. I’m sorry you had to decline the debate; but if not you, then I hope someone like Sean (who I see as a potential Rockweiler for the cause:)would take part in an organised debate with a ‘devil’s advocate’ at hand.

IF Calvary Chapel are concerned, I trust they will publicly address it as not all of us have the benefit to hear it from the pulpit.

I am also fond of CM. Khouse is very impressive and has been a source of great teaching and encouragement. Making it difficult to disagree with someone I have come to respect. You USA believers may not be fully aware of the weight of responsibility you have on your shoulders? As the Lord’s final bastion for proclaiming His Truth, we need you to stand firm for all our sakes. Imho!

Reading Seans blog,I agree with you that Psalm 83 precedes Ez.38 and neither are in the 7yrs. As much as I love Dave Hunt, I cannot agree with him that the Armageddon description is the same as Ez.38‘Similarities’ do not equate ‘same’. Neither have I seen any evidence to suggest these wars occurred in history. As I have already written my reservations to you, I will not repeat myself.

Hello Sean, I am so pleased to see you are still contributing to Bills blog.
I do hope your reservations are correct! I may be reading too much into what Chuck Missler says. If you can find the time, you may hear and read what he says on

“Prophetic. End Times”.
Antichrist: An Alternative Ending. 60/40 Broadcast. http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP100/

CM’s article “An Alternative Ending” http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/433/

Further more, listening to the “Strategic Perspectives III” - 2008 conference, I was alarmed by the reaction of the congregation. As CM was announcing the next speaker, there were loud cheers, screams and general euphoria when CM announced Walid Shoebats name. I was ‘gobsmacked’! Perhaps my ‘Britishness’ influenced my reaction; whatever – I didn’t feel at all comfortable as it brought to mind the ‘Toronto’ type hysteria. In my view, Walid’s message spoiled an otherwise excellent conference.

This can be heard on ‘Current Events’.

I have also detected a touch of ‘post-trib’ woven into what I have heard from Walid. Certainly I have felt ‘imminency’ was being called into question, and expressed this to Bill. However I just cannot quite put my finger on it.

In addition, Walid and Dave Hunt both agreed that Ez.38 is ‘Armageddon’, but they were arriving at it from different directions.
I think it is dealing with these scriptures that I suspected a touch of ‘post?’ It seemed Walid was IN the Tribulation with the Church, whereas Dave Hunt and Chuck Missler are OUT of the Trib. with the Church.

I admit it was subtle, and I may have the wrong end of the stick. IF I am right, it bothers me that Dave and Chuck were not fully aware of the discrepancy?

YES! I am very hopeful that your succinct article will stir CM to ‘rethink’. You have approached your reasoning much as CM does himself. I was certainly impressed – well done and Praise The Lord for it!

I look forward to reading your new project!
God bless both of you in all your efforts revealing His Truth!

Anonymous said...


I do agree that “we must leave behind a Biblically correct exegesis….”

But first, I must apologize to Post Tribulationists for your statements such as “I believe this group almost invariably practices eisegesis with respect to Bible prophecy, with a heavy reliance on false Islamic eschatology to buttress their points.” I have communicated with many Post Tribulationists and have never seen what you accuse them of. A belief in the Post Tribulation doctrine does not automatically make them wrong on their belief of the source of the Antichrist

I say “them” because I am a Pretribulationists. In fact I can say with validity “Thus says the Lord; The taking away of the church occurs 30 days before the start of Daniel’s seventieth seven.” (Curious? Start with Daniel 12:11, and compare this verse with Daniel 9:27).

Now, to get back to your theory about the source of the Antichrist.

First, I strongly suggest you study the history of Israel and its relationship with the first six of the seven Gentile empires that God sends upon “Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem”. (There is not room here to fully explain all things so I must assume that you know some of the basics.) The nation of Israel became a part of every one of these empires that are shown to us pictorially in the Red Dragon of Revelation 12. Reason then tells us (because that is the pattern of God) that the nation of Israel must therefore also be a part of the coming seventh empire. (Remember, the word of God revolves around Israel and His chosen people, the Jews, in all texts concerning the “last days”, not the European Union.)

Second, I strongly suggest that you study the Bible, all of it. When the book of Daniel is “unsealed” to you (the key to understanding Revelation), you will find that the beast from the sea ( Revelation 13) is itself the seventh head of the Red Dragon. You will also find that the heads of this beast from the sea represent nations and the horns with crowns represent their kings. One of those kings is the Antichrist; one of those heads is the nation of Israel. Israel is the head wounded (killed) by the sword, and yet came alive! The description of this beast from the sea identifies the territory from which the beast comes – the wild beast, Rome; the head of the lion, Babylon: the feet of the bear, Medo-Persia; the body of the leopard, Greece.

Now, study Daniel 10 and 11. Find the purpose of the continuing account of the interactions of the king of the north and the king of the south. Is it not to show us that the focus is always on the position (vs. person, or ethnicity) that is the king of the south and the king of the north? Verse 11:35 is history; Antiochus IV filled that position. Verse 11:36 is future; the Antichrist fills that position. (Again, I must assume you know the basics.) The third invasion (“the latter”) of the king of the north into the country of the king of the south of verse 11:29 has yet to occur. This invasion is described in verses 41 and 42. What countries are “uprooted” (Daniel 7) in this act?

Now, back to history: Where is the territory of the kings of the north? What part of the territory of the Roman Empire is that? Who (and of what culture and belief) are the kings of that territory today?

Back to the Bible: Daniel 11:37 says of this king of the north “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” The first and last “regards” are “religious” in content; “the god (generic god in Hebrew) of his fathers” and “any god.” Again, using God’s pattern and reason, the center phrase “the desire of women” then also must be religious in content. What is the Islamic's cultural and religious attitude toward “the desire of women”? Also, the Bible tells us that those of the Jews who do not receive the mark of the beast nor worship his image are beheaded. What culture is noted for their beheadings?

Now, compare that above to the culture and religion of the territory from which the Antichrist is to come. What is the conclusion?

P.S. The “image of the beast” is a man.


Susan uk said...

Dear Annonymous

Having lit the blue 'touch paper' I do hope you retired immediately? :)

Sean requires no help from me, but for myself, I want to say that what I have heard from Walid’s teaching, he definitely does have a heavy reliance upon "false Islamic eschatology". It may be helpful to understand a 'mindset', but that is as far as the East is from the West toward understanding Biblical prophecy. What has Christ to do with Baal, or light with darkness? Zero!

Regarding the views of your Postrib friends on this subject, I feel sure that the days are still too early for the majority to have jumped upon this 'bandwagon', but 'jump' they assuredly will once they mistakenly assume it as a potential weapon against pretrib. imho.

SeanOsborne said...

Hi Susan uk,

Regarding CM, (I read the link you provided on the text version of An Alternative View, "The Return of Nimrod?") I note that the title of his artice is not a statement but a question. This indicates to me (at first glance) that he is considering the possibility, but has not yet committed to that particular "Alternative View".

CM confirms that Dan. 9:26 was the Roman Empire. On solid ground here.

Then CM applies "myopia" as a generalization and descriptive label upon all of us for our view that Rome had two legs. He then segue's into talk of the east-west split, and focuses on the eastern leg and then unnecessarily extends that to where the prophecy did not lead.

I have pointed this out numerous times... the act of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem occured when Rome was a unified Empire - there was no east west split, so the prophecy is specific to that event. End of story, so to speak. There is no need to extend anything... the prophecy was literally fulfilled and the people of the prince to come have been identified - the power was European, the people of the prince to come were European. Any extension departs from exegesis and becomes eisegesis.

Had the Lord intended to warn us that Islam and the Eastern Leg would be the source of the of the Antichrist and the Beast Empire... then why has the empire statue interpretation been rendered unto us by Daniel as standing on two legs and ten toes?

Eastern Leggers have therefore intentionally chopped off the western leg and the attached five toes. They have conducted a radical amputation where none was prescribed or necessary. This is the true myopic rendering that I see here; it is a fully eisegetical rendering of the original prophetic statement.

The Beast Empire is standing on two legs with ten toes. The people from whom the Antichrist will arise have been firmly and positively identified. Period.

Then we get to the Seleucid discussion, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The focus here is on Syria, with islam transposed on top. No, Epiphanes was a Macedonian and the Seleucid Empire was a Hellenic Empire. It was European in nature. This aspect is overlooked completely. It is a major oversight of tremendous prophetic consequence.

Then we get to Micah and the "Assyrian." The subject is not dealt with in the detail that I have discussed previously from my own research. There are two sentences CM writes which are in error.

"The Assyrian empire preceded the Babylonian empire by several centuries. This empire embraced the region we know today as Syria and Iraq.

The first world dictator was Nimrod (whose name means "we rebel"), who ruled from Babylon."

The first sentence is incorrect. Assyria and Babylon were contemporary rivals. They fought each other and other competing regional powers for a long time. I hope CM conducts further research to correct this. Further research would make the suggestive question he posed moot.

I do not believe there is any utility whatsoever for the Bride of Christ to consider an "alternative view" on this topic. Discus it once, find the obvious flaws, and round file it. This process is what our British cousins refer to as "sorting it out." In my view CM has not "sorted it out" correctly.

Rome II is coming, and it will encompass most, if not all, of the territory of Rome I. These are the military conquests or simple territorial takeovers of the coming Antichrist which will be facillitated by the wars of Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38/39. In Europe, northern Africa, Western Asia, the Middle East and a large part of Central Asia the awesome military power of the Antichrist will have no earthly peer - with the lone exception of the Kings of the East.

Anonymous said...

Sean asked the question “Had the Lord intended to warn us that Islam and the Eastern Leg would be the source of the of the (sic) Antichrist and the Beast Empire… then why has the empire statute interpretation been rendered unto us by Daniel as standing on two legs and ten toes?” The answer is simple – Daniel "rendered" no such thing! The image seen by Nebuchadnezzar is taken by men as the image of a man (or to be politically correct, a person); what would we expect that would have a head, breast, arms, belly and thighs? And, unless I am mistaken, most men have two legs.

Now, if Sean would actually read what the Word does say, and use exegesis rather than eisegesis, he would have to report that Daniel said of this image, “His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay” (Daniel 2:33). It is by reason alone that we interpret this image as having two legs and ten toes. The “interpretation…rendered unto us by Daniel” is not as Sean claims, it is “As the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron…And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided…” (Daniel 2:40-41). Daniel only speaks of the kingdom (by exegesis, the fifth kingdom) as divided. Daniel did not divide the legs!

The fourth kingdom by God’s word is represented by “legs of iron”; period, end of story.

Sean's theory based on "divided legs" is built on eisegesis only.


Susan uk said...

Hello Sean
I have really appreciated your response. It has been more than I had hoped for, and has helped me through the ‘fog’.

CM does indeed begin with a question. I see now it was his context shift that ‘threw’ me. He/they have ignored the vital timing; then appropriated the wisdom of hindsight.

This particular ‘British cousin’ says ‘Sorted! Cheers! ta, ever so’.

Many blessings x

(Ps. Shock! Horror! Mrs. Obama put her arm around her Majesty the Queen! If she doesn’t come back, she'll be in ‘the Tower’! Naughty lady. ;)

Small business web site design said...

nice post

SeanOsborne said...

hmlegare said...
The answer is simple – Daniel "rendered" no such thing! Daniel did not divide the legs!


Daniel most certainly did render (i.e. adj.present, deliver) unto Nebuchadnezzar, and subsequently unto all mankind via the Word of God, the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as it was revealed to him by the Lord in a night vision. (Daniel 2:19-23)

I did not suggest in any way that Daniel divided the legs. Your interpretation of my comments above are in big-time incorrect.

Your suggestion that I have not read this chapter is also grossly inaccurate.

I have read Daniel 2 more times and in more depth than there are individual vowels and consonants in this reply.

Daniel 2 suggests very strongly that both the dream of Nebuchadnezzar which caused him sleepless nights and the interpretation thereof provided to Daniel came from God to fulfill His prophetic purposes. That interpretation is completely unambiguous.

Anonymous said...

I was a Pre-Trib believer most of my life until I learned about the ENPI a few years ago. Now I am Pre-Wrath. How can anyone say we willl know who the AC is at the beginning of the 7 year peace confirmation (by him signing) if the Word of God says he will be revealed in the middle? Debate all you want, but God's people will know at the middle when he's revealed...then our garthering together to Himslef (Jesus). God bless.

rg said...

This is probably a dead thread but I thought I'd respond to the last comment anyway. First I’m not sure how the possibility that the ENP might be Daniel’s 70th week justifies the pre-wrath position over mid-trib. Perhaps it’s because the concept has been mainly promoted by the pre-wrath camp? Second, by now it should be rather obvious that the signing of the ENP was not the beginning of the tribulation. It was bad scholarship to begin with. Lastly, a close examination of Thess does not say that we cannot know who the AC is prior to mid-week.

Anonymous said...

Please tell me why people ignor the fact that the bloodlines of Abraham, Issac and Jacob are the foundation of Christianity and that bloodline will forever be in the geneology of Christianity..When the Bible speaks of Israel it means Christianity TOO..
fOR instance Ezekiel 38-8.. After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land [that is] brought back from the sword, [and is] gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.
This is about America.. We are tha land that was always laid waste.We are gathered here from all nations on earth and we have always been safe.. The land of Israel in the middle east has never been peaceful....They have never been safe. and they were also not a land laid waste prior the return of jews..
Verse 11..And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, THIS IS AMERICA...We are those at rest and in peace..
Ezekiel 38 and Psalms 83 are both about AMERICA and CHristian Israel...
Why do people forget the shed blood of the apostles and early CHristians who were the descendants of Israel..

Anonymous said...

REVELATION 20-8 shows us who the body of antichrist are..They are the men who are numbered as the SAND OF THE SEA SHORE..THESE ARE ISHAMEL'S DESCENDANTS...THESE ARE THE BODY OF ANTICHRIST .These are muslims who deny the father and the son.. 1 John2-18...
Rev, 13-1 John stands on the SAND OF THE SEA... This is broad way of Matt7 that is build on SAND...
This in itself proves mohammed was the antichrist.. He was their head,, their messiah, their deliverer..He was a complete counterfeit of the real messiah Jesus..right down to his claim that he would return in the hour of judgement...That man will be the antichrist(LUCIFER IN FLESH) we must deal with today.. Mohammed also said he would return with the name HUSSEIN..

rg said...

On what basis do people believe the church is the new Israel? For an in-depth refutation of that I suggest Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s “Israelology” in which he systematically addresses all the verses (Romans, Galatians etc) that some theologians use to support that claim.

Muhammad was just a man who is now dead. Even if he did make that prophecy, he has no power to fulfill it.

Anonymous said...

RG, you misunderstand... I did not say Christianity is the NEW ISRAEL..I said the bloodlnes of the early converts and the apostles WHO ARE the actual blood line descendants of Abraham, isaac and Jacob.. These early converts and apostles had children and their children had children and their children had children..SO CONSEQUENTLY THE BLOOD LINES OF ISRAEL ARE STILL IN CHRISTIANTIY.. unless they were all sterile..

Jesus however did say that he would restore the kingdom of god to that part of Israel that rejected him..That has not happened yet.. but soon..Jesus is the kingdom..

Tom said...

As a fairly new believer, seeking to learn and understand the word of God, I was pleased to come across this blog and read through all the comments. Now, having said that, I also must state that I was very disappointed by the attitudes some held toward others. Frankly, I'm not sure what to believe in regards to whether Islam will be the A/C religion that dominates the world or if it will be the Catholic (Roman) Church, but I can tell you that reading through the comments, it is those that hold the Roman view that come across as the most dogmatic and condescending in their views. They accuse the others of taking on an air of superiority, but in reality in my opinion it is they that are projecting such an air. I'm trying to learn and praying for God's guidance. I'm not trying to convince anybody that I know it all as I see many doing on here. The key point missing from all the comments I read is Grace! Let's not be so focused on the end-times and our interpretations that we stop teaching the Gospel. JMHO.

Bill Salus said...

Tom I don't mean to be smug and welcome to the faith. Fortunately these eschatological matters don't affect soteriological matters.

I thoroughly disagree with your assessment as to who is more dogmatic. It appears you may not be familiar with Rodrigo Silva's work. Check out this link and follow it through.

Also Walid Shoebat, a Muslim antichrist advocate, is on the record for calling Sean Osborne a pin head whose bald head is like his bald blankety blank. You can google it and see the quote.

In the article link above I warn about this very behavior. The more you read up on the subject you should see that the other camp tends to be more close minded. You will also see that they distort historical facts and poorly predict prophecy in order to shape their new antichrist paradigm shift.

You will also see that they are in a minute minority compared to the majority of reputable scholars on the subject.

SeanOsborne said...


Welcome brother into the family of the Bride of Christ. I do accept on faith that you are truly one of us.

It is rare to see someone who self-identifies as a new babe in the Lord to become so interested the whole food of such detailed eschatological matters. Be that as it may, and I warmly welcome you into such discussions, it is only from within sound Biblical instruction that this subject matter is correctly understood.

In no manner whatsoever can any non-Biblical source used as the equal of God's Word, particularly anything from Islamic traditions as a demonic impostor is the source of those traditions. We know from God's Word that neither Lucifer, the former cherub that he was, nor any of his fallen demons, were created with omniscience of future events. Lucifer knows nothing of future events except that which has been uttered by the true prophets of God. This is why al so-called Islamic prophecy is utterly false and can be given any sanction by Christians whatsoever. Lucifer knows he has but a short time before he is thrown into hell for a millennium of time.

Regarding your statement, "Frankly, I'm not sure what to believe in regards to whether Islam will be the A/C religion that dominates the world or if it will be the Catholic (Roman) Church..." you will find in studying the Word of God that neither Islam nor Roman Catholicism fulfills the criteria established by the angel Gabriel in the interpretations given to the prophet Daniel for the religion of the Antichrist, or the False Prophet.

In Daniel 11:36-39 we see with crystal clarity that the false god of Islam cannot possibly be the god of the Antichrist -- (the false god of Islam is actually a demonic impostor of Gabriel, but that is another subject for another conversation). The false god is the Antichrist himself who at the mid-point of Daniel's 70th Week is fully indewlt by the king of demons, the fallen angel Abaddon/Apollyon when Archangel Michael, the "restrainer" of 2 Thessalonians 2, releases from the abyss in Revelation 9 and thereby enables the workings of Lucifer upon this earth in the final 42 months of the Great Tribulation.

Aside from these Biblical facts - and these are facts as they are directly from God per the book known as the Revelation of jesus Christ - there are several dozens of others which I am sure you will shortly make your acquaintance. Many of us stand ready to answer any and all of your questions my younf brther in Christ.


ruth said...

Antichrist is a total counterfeit of God's works with man...
He is the sprit of lucifer..
He will come as a messiah, a counterfeit of Jesus... Like Jesus he will claim blood lines to Abraham,.. He, like Jesus, will bring a covenant gospel of the kingdom... He like Jesus will claim he is the way, the truth and the light... He, like jesus, will
claim to return in Judgement day...

He, as John said, will deny Jesus is SON OF GOD...
He being satan will deny Jesus death as
Matt 16 -21,22,23, reveals..
Hitler was the counterfeit of the antichrist...Hitler was a monster but mohammed was worse..
Stop and think... How would satan claim he is god and above all that is called god except by claiming he is THE GOD OF ABRAHAM..

An interesting fact is that the Allah of ancient arabia was the moon god they called both Allah and Huban...The bible calls him SIN...
2 Thessalonians says THE MAN OF SIN WILL BE REVEALED...
Jude 1-9 compares Cain's way with the Balaam and Korah's deceptions and with end time deception...Balaah and Koran's deception was of SIN the moon god.. The golden calf was a symbol for Sin the moon god.. When God said to Cain""SIN LIETH AT THE DOOR... He meant SIN at the door cain went through seeking god..Sin the moon god was called the door to heaven..

God also said he declared the end from the beginning.. The tree of life was God's wisdom and comparable to the gospel of life.. The knowledge tree was the counterfeit of God's wisdom and is comparable to the false gospel mohammed brought... and muslims like cain rise up and kill all who oppose their way...

2 Thessalonians says the MAN OF SIN will be revealed...IN HIS TIME...This is his time....and he has been exposed..

He as prophecied has returned...This is the antichrist we must deal with today...

There is much more in the Bible to prove these things....

Sean O. said...


Just think where we might be today had not Paul "spiced up" Peter when the need arose.


Don M. said...

Excellent points brother Mark!

Bill Salus said...

Ruth; I presume you believe the Antichrist is a Muslim. If so, how would you interpret Daniel's prophecy below?

Dan. 11:36 “Then the king (Antichrist) shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.

Do you suggest that the Antichrist will exalt and magnify himself above Allah?

ruth said...

I think as the bible says that antichrist is a spirit...He is lucifer... He indwells those that follow him...They are also called antichrist....I think mohammed was the antichrist/lucifer in flesh.. ....he came in the last days...The last days are 1000 years each.. 2 peter 3-8..
Mohammed said he would return in judgement hour.. I think this is the antichrist the world is facing now and do not even know it...As prophecied the entire world will be deceived..They are.. 1.8 billion muslims think allah is the god of abraham and many christiaans, jews and others also think allah is the god of abraham...They think there are three abrahamic religions.This is the first lie that causes people to accept islam as a relgion... There is not three...There is one Abrhamic religion.. It is of Abraham, Isaac,and jacob and those Jesus adopts..

The bible also says there were many antichrist among the apostles then...The Idumeal (descendants of Esau and Ishmael) who were forced converted in judaism were the antichrist of John's day... Their doctrine was identical to Islam today..The gnostics were also the antichrists of John's day.. The false gospel of mary, john, etc were from the gnostics... dead sea scrolls.. ...all lies except the o.t. and maybe enoch's books...

you need to reread the other post.. I think you missed the point of it..

ruth said...

Abraham had two sons...Isaac was dubbed as the STARS OF HEAVEN. Ishmaels descendants were dubbed as the SAND OF THE SEA SHORE..

In Isaiah 14 -13...Lucifer said he would exalt his throne above the STARS OF GOD... He did this by claiming Ishmael was the chosen line over and above Isaac's line which is as the STARS OF(god)HEAVEN..
He said ALSO HE would sit upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north...This would be the dome of the rock on mt zion...

In Rev 20-8 satan gathers and deceives the men who are numbered as the SAND OF THE SEA to battle Jesus...
These are gathered into the broad way whose foundation is built on SAND...
This SAND FOUNDATION is identified in Rev. 13-1.. John stands on the SAND OF THE SEA and sees the beast..The 2nd earth beast and he kills all who wont accept the beast.. Muslims are this earth beast false prophet of Rev 13 and matt 7...
Matt7 calls the false prophet workers of iniquity...this is because they teach the mystery of iniquity of 2 thess 2... THis mystery is that lucifer is claiming he is god and above god..
It is not over....Mohammed promised to return as the SUNRISE in the west....This would be one and the same as the APOLLYON of Rev 9-11... Lucifer throughout time posed as the apollo sun god...He is here now...Mohammed also said his name would be HUSSEIN when he returns.. and there is much more about these things...
There is so much too it, it is mind boggling

Mark said...

Perhaps some defenders of the "Roman" origin of the Anti-Christ, in their zeal to present what they understand to be Biblical Truth, will come across to those who dabble in 'shades of Gray' opinions, as being too strong or even arrogant and condescending. I know I come across that way at times, without meaning to be. Then there are those times when some folks push my buttons and get me a little torqued up, and I do mean to put a little spice in my comments. I am not necessarily proud of these 'spicy' comments, but I would be lying if I said that these 'spicy times', never happen. I can't be sure, but I suspect this probably happens to most of us here, though most of you guys seem to keep a better handle on the spice than I do.

As for not forgetting Grace, well I think Grace is cover very adequately through out the majority of the Churches. Sin and repentance, and even hell, are almost as unpopular as Eschatology, these days. But for being 28% of the Bible, Prophecy is taught the least, save for enclaves such are our very small and relatively obscure crevice on the Internet. If there is a deficiency in the Church today, it is the lack of eschatology teachings, yet it is from the prophecies in the Bible that our Savior's and the Father's identities are found, and it is there that those who will not accept Yeshua Hammashiach's as their Messiah and Savior before the rapture, will find Truth, Yeshua and the Father in the days after the Church. Prophecy is the seed which we sow for those left behind, so that they might realize before it is too late, that the Bible is the Word of the El Elyon, and that their hope is not in man or even their own hands, but in the promises, which include Grace, Forgiveness and Salvation, found in the Word of YHWH! It is prophecy fulfilled, in the coming future, that will give Grace, Forgiveness and Salvation, new legs, so to speak, and lead millions to Salvation in the most horrid of times.

That is my humble opinion. And that is why I include prophecy when talking to the lost... to plant those seeds.

Blessings to all!

Maranatha! Mark

Bill Salus said...

Ruth I have to say your eschatology is all over the place. Nowhere to my knowledge does the Bible connect Ishmael's descendants being dubbed as the sand of the sea. Certainly anything that is contrary to Christ is antichrist, however the Bible speaks of a coming world leader commonly called the antichrist. His origins are described in Daniel 9:26 as my article emphasizes.

Some suggest he's an Assyrian Muslim. I disagree with this theory. This is the topic of the article discussion.

Anonymous said...

Assyrian Muslims represent about 1 percent of the Assyrian Population, If the Antichrist was to be Assyrian he will claim to be a Christian.

Bill Salus said...

GS - If the Antichrist is an Assyrian he will have to survive Psalm 83, since Assyria is a known member of that Arab confederacy.

If he's a true Christian, he will probably be Raptured before the confirmation of the false covenant, and he certainly wouldn't be crafting any such covenant especially if he's a true believer. He could be a Christian in name only,but Daniel 11:36 seems to eliminate the possibility that he's a name only Christian or a Muslim either.

Most Assyrian references allude to former Assyrian kings and not the Antichrist.

Anonymous said...

I said in my post HE WOULD CLAIM TO BE A CHRISTIAN,Doesn't mean he will be one. I claimed to be Christian for 40 years, I wasn't a Christian until 2006. Assyria is in Northern Iraq, they don't have there own homeland at this time, SO there are part of Iraq without much say in what happens to them, There 99% Christian, They deal with Persecution from the Kurds on a daily basis, Im not saying the AC will be a Assyrian Im just saying if it turns out to be so He has a 99% chance he will claim to be a Christian. Also since the Assyrians are pushing for there own homeland if a Man steps up from Assyria to champion there cause he would be a man to watch. No one has stood up for Assyria as of yet.