Prophetic shocker: Romans didn't destroy Temple

ChristopherPaul · #1 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 09:43 AM

Prophetic shocker: Romans didn't destroy Temple
Author compiles evidence showing Mideast people razed Jerusalem

Quote:

Posted: August 21, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

One of the central tenets
of the Christian belief in a coming Roman Antichrist is under fire because, as the author of a new book shows, the destruction of the Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was actually carried out by peoples from the Middle East, not Europe.

As Joel Richardson, author of "The Islamic Antichrist," writes today in WND's commentary section, one of the pillars of the European Antichrist theory is a prophecy in Daniel 9: "The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."

When the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and the city of Jerusalem sacked, while under Roman occupation, many prophecy scholars assumed the future dark prince needs to be Roman. However, historical research by Richardson now suggests otherwise.

He points out Emperor Augustus made a series of sweeping reforms that led to dramatic changes in the ethnic make-up of the Roman armies. After this time, the army was increasingly composed of anything but Italian or European soldiers. Instead, he writes, they were composed of what were known as "provincials," or citizens who lived in the provinces – the outer fringes of the empire.

'In the last days perilous times shall come ...' 'Islam & The End Times,' a new 3-DVD set, unlocks the scriptural foundation for an Islamic Antichrist – the case is overwhelming.

Richardson's research found the army that destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem was actually overwhelmingly comprised of Middle Eastern peoples, not Europeans. Explicit accounts cited come from Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Titus Flavius Josephus as well as more modern scholars and historians.

"All said, the historical evidence is overwhelming. After examining a sampling of evidence from both ancient historians as well as the most cutting-edge modern scholarship
to date, we may very confidently conclude that the 'Roman' soldiers in the Eastern provinces that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple were in fact Eastern peoples – the inhabitants of Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia and Egypt," Richardson writes. "Again, they were the ancestors of the modern-day inhabitants of the Middle East."

Richardson's "The Islamic Antichrist" has debuted at No. 1 on Amazon in two religious categories and held those positions for nearly two weeks.

It's not only a hot book at Amazon, it is also hot in e-book format at Scribd. But it is offered autographed only at the WND Superstore.

In "The Islamic Antichrist," Richardson, a student of Islam, exposes Western Christians to the Muslim traditions. He says most Christians have no idea of the stunning similarities between the biblical Antichrist and the "Islamic Mahdi."

Richardson's book stands in stark contrast to most other popular prophecy books of the last 40 years.

The student of the Middle East says that after decades of reading popular prophecy books and even best-selling fiction like the "Left Behind" series, millions of evangelical Christians around the world are expecting the Antichrist to emerge from a revived Roman Empire, which many have assumed is associated with the Roman Catholic Church and the European Union.

Not so, argues Richardson. His book makes the case that the biblical Antichrist is one and the same as the Quran's Muslim Mahdi.

"The Islamic Antichrist" is a book almost certain to be greeted in the Muslim world with the same enthusiasm as Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses." The author is prepared. He has written the book under a pseudonym to protect himself and his family.

"The Bible abounds with proofs that the Antichrist's empire will consist only of nations that are, today, Islamic," says Richardson. "Despite the numerous prevailing arguments for the emergence of a revived European Roman empire as the Antichrist's power base, the specific nations the Bible identifies as comprising his empire are today all Muslim."

Richardson believes the key error of many previous prophecy scholars involves the misinterpretation of a prediction by Daniel to Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel describes the rise and fall of empires of the future, leading to the endtimes. Western Christians have viewed one of those empires as Rome, when, claims Richardson, Rome never actually conquered Babylon and was thus disqualified as a possibility.

It had to be another empire that rose and fell and rose again that would lead to rule of this "man of sin," described in the Bible. That empire, he says, is the Islamic empire, which did conquer Babylon and, in fact, rules over it even today.

Many evangelical Christians believe the Bible predicts a charismatic ruler, the Antichrist, will arise in the last days, before the return of Jesus. The Quran also predicts that a man, called the Mahdi, will rise up to lead the nations, pledging to usher in an era of peace. Richardson makes the case these two men are, in fact, one in the same.

Richardson is the co-author with Walid Shoebat of "God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible" and co-editor of "Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out." "The Islamic Antichrist" is published by WND Books and is available autographed in the WND Superstore.

***toddpedlar*** · #2 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 09:57 AM

Shows how eschatological presuppositions can force interpretations of data. So what if the Roman army was in those parts composed in part of 'locals'? The makeup of the Army is immaterial when it comes to deciding whether Rome in fact destroyed the city... it seems to me that it can only matter if you're previously committed to a premillenial end-times hysteria type of eschatology.

Theoretical · #3 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 10:03 AM

Besides all of the other criticisms that could be made, why does it matter what ethnicity blew up the temple if they were under Roman orders?

Also, I think it makes an essentially similar argument to those who blame the whole of ethnic Jews now for those who killed Christ. Islam didn't exist at A.D. 70, so the only common link would be ethnicity. It strikes me as ethnic/race-baiting.

***toddpedlar*** · #4 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 10:07 AM

Actually, come to think of it, Josephus records that Titus's army had a number of Egyptians and Syrians among the soldiers... I don't recall whether the statement is "most" or "many" - and it's certainly not "all", which I don't think the author of the book could demonstrate anyway.

TimV · #5 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 10:32 AM

A mistake in every paragraph! Par for the course for WorldNetDaily. Maybe we should hold a contest to see how many mistakes there actually are. I'll start

Quote:

Rome never actually conquered Babylon and was thus disqualified as a possibility

Mr. Richardson should have paid a visit to Mr. Googlesearch and typed in Map/Roman Empire/Iraq. Not that anyone who reads WorldNetDaily without physical pain would have thought to do so.

-----Added 8/21/2009 at 10:32:04 EST-----

Quote:

"All said, the historical evidence is overwhelming. After examining a sampling of evidence from both ancient historians as well as the most cutting-edge modern scholarship
to date, we may very confidently conclude that the 'Roman' soldiers in the Eastern provinces that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple were in fact Eastern peoples

Of the Roman Legions that participated in crushing that particular Jewish revolt:

The 5th was stationed in Macedonia shortly before the war
The 6th was recruited in Spain
The 10th was recruited in Spain
The 12th was stationed in the Mideast for a lengthy period and was probably mostly composed of Mideasterners
The 15 was stationed in German areas and had been for some time. They were sent to the Mideast only 8 years before the war broke out.

Hamalas · #6 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 10:34 AM

Proving once again why I can't stomach WND....

Scott1 · #7 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 10:38 AM

A classical, time tested resource historical account. The Roman Empire was an ascending world empire at this point in history.

Amazon

Hungus · #8 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 11:36 AM

WorldNetDaily is the dispensational version of Weekly World News. Hmmm maybe Batboy destroyed the temple.

TimV · #9 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

"All said, the historical evidence is overwhelming. After examining a sampling of evidence from both ancient historians as well as the most cutting-edge modern scholarship
to date, we may very confidently conclude that the 'Roman' soldiers in the Eastern provinces that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple were in fact Eastern peoples – the inhabitants of Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia and Egypt," Richardson writes. "Again, they were the ancestors of the modern-day inhabitants of the Middle East."

Quote:

It had to be another empire that rose and fell and rose again that would lead to rule of this "man of sin," described in the Bible. That empire, he says, is the Islamic empire, which did conquer Babylon and, in fact, rules over it even today.

With huge Turkish and Iranian armies standing on the borders of Iraq (and sometimes crossing that border) calling the Mideast a Muslim Empire is like calling Ireland, England, Croatia and Serbia part of a Christian Empire. I guess.

kvanlaan · #10 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 01:56 PM

Do you mean like this:

Axis History Factbook: Foreign Volunteers

Same idea, for the most part.

**Marrow Man** · #11 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hungus

WorldNetDaily is the dispensational version of Weekly World News. Hmmm maybe Batboy destroyed the temple.

Actually, I think it was the alien who threw his support to Bill Clinton before having the affair with Hillary.

TimV · #12 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 02:59 PM

I thought of that one too, Kevin. "SS Nederland fought on the Russian Front, therefore Holland was a German ally".

Going to his guess piece for WND, he quotes several scholars who said that the Legions were manned by provincials. Then he says that since those Legions were in the Mideast, they must have been manned by Mideasterners. It simply never occurred to him to wonder how long they'd been there.

Richard Tallach · #13 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 03:11 PM

More dispensational hoopla

It's sad that brothers and sisters in Christ take this seriously because of the dispensationalist grounwork they've already thoroughly imbibed.

LawrenceU · #14 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

More dispensational hoopla

It's sad that brothers and sisters in Christ take this seriously because of the dispensationalist grounwork they've already thoroughly imbibed.

I'm just sitting here trying to picture some one with a stein of dirt. . .

Hungus · #15 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

I'm just sitting here trying to picture some one with a stein of dirt. . .

You have never seen anyone drink Pabst Blue Ribbon, Bud Light Or Miller? Oh yeah, I guess not from a stein though.

busdriver72 · #16 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 04:40 PM

Hello-
We recently concluded two study series; Daniel and Revelation. (Not at the same time.)
The Bible does seem to indicate that the geographical area from which the "anti-christ" will come (as well as those who will surround Israel) will come from areas that we identify as Islamic. I don't know that this actually indicates that the Islamic religion will be involved, though. Reading the type of religion ushered in at the end time, there will be image worship (of the Beast.) While Islam is anti-christian in nature, I wonder if the worship of the Beast will supplant even Islam itself?

BertMulder · #17 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 04:47 PM

How about the current pope flirting with Islam?

Richard Tallach · #18 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by busdriver72

Hello-
We recently concluded two study series; Daniel and Revelation. (Not at the same time.)
The Bible does seem to indicate that the geographical area from which the "anti-christ" will come (as well as those who will surround Israel) will come from areas that we identify as Islamic. I don't know that this actually indicates that the Islamic religion will be involved, though. Reading the type of religion ushered in at the end time, there will be image worship (of the Beast.) While Islam is anti-christian in nature, I wonder if the worship of the Beast will supplant even Islam itself?

Dear Busdriver,

What are the Scripture passages that point to this?

Yours,
Richard.

busdriver72 · #19 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Dear Busdriver,

What are the Scripture passages that point to this?

Hi Richard

Which part specifically?
I'll have to dig up some of my notes from my sermons which deal with the specific passages to give you an organized answer.

Dao · #20 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hungus

... maybe Batboy destroyed the temple.

Perhaps Jesus came with his angles and destroyed the temple along with Jerusalem. You know God came in the clouds 5 times or so. Some books, I've read, had arguments about Jesus not being seen during the destruction of Jerusalem and used the armies instead. Perhaps many nations were called at once. There are some debates on the Second Coming happened in AD 70 and the one in the future. Does anyone here believe the second coming already happened?

***toddpedlar*** · #21 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hungus

... maybe Batboy destroyed the temple.

Perhaps Jesus came with his angles and destroyed the temple along with Jerusalem. You know God came in the clouds 5 times or so. Some books, I've read, had arguments about Jesus not being seen during the destruction of Jerusalem and used the armies instead. Perhaps many nations were called at once. There are some debates on the Second Coming happened in AD 70 and the one in the future. Does anyone here believe the second coming already happened?

I certainly hope not. That is a heretical view, and blatantly contradicts the confessions and the ecumenical creeds of the church.

kalawine · #22 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

A mistake in every paragraph! Par for the course for WorldNetDaily.

I realize that I'm getting

here but doesn't it really discourage you the way WND and others like them ruin the good name of Conservative news media? Grrrrrr...

Hungus · #23 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dao

Does anyone here believe the second coming already happened?

If the Parousia has already occurred, we are all hosed. Is it even possible to hold to the 2nd coming in ad 70 and not be a full preterist?

BTW my comment about batboy was in reference to the virtually iconic story from the Weekly World News (which I consider of a similar level of reporting as World Net Daily)

busdriver72 · #24 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009, 10:39 AM

Richard, in response to your inquiry, this weekend I dug up my study notes.
It had been a while, so I wanted to be accurate in what I was going to say, and search for opinions as well.
I recall now that I saw some parallels between Daniel 11:36-45 and Revelation 16:13-16.
In Daniel 11:37 some translations say "no regard for the gods of his fathers" and some say "no regard for the God of his fathers." This was in an evening Bible study setting and it was discussed that this had a Semitic ring to it.
"God of our fathers" is used by Jews, of course to refer to the God of Abraham, Isaac and jacob. Islam, however, has the same view, considering "Allah" to be the God of Abraham, isaac and Jacob...whom they claim are their Fathers as well. I recall now that nothing definite could be concluded as to the race/genetics of the end time "king"/"Beast,", but he could be of Semitic origins.
We also speculated that this "king" mentioned at the end of Daniel could possibly be the "anti-christ" as we call him, or the beast. Some texts seem to allude to the fact that at some point this king/beast makes an alliance with nations around him, and that he has entered Israel and setup shop in Jerusalem. As he invades the "Beautiful Land" (Israel?) note that certain lands are not invaded or destroyed, such as Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites.
Could it be they are spared because they are part of the treaty with him?
The descendants of these peoples now occupy the areas north and east of Israel. The Euphrates river (mentioned in Revelation) is a long standing division between "east" and "west" from a Biblical standpoint. Countries that can fall into this area include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan...Islamic countries populated by descendants of those mentioned in Daniel.
In Revelation we see armies from this area moving toward the Holy Land, and in Daniel we see this "king" disturbed about an invasion from the north and east. In both accounts these armies seem to end up in the same area. In Daniel 11:45 it is "between the seas and the beautiful holy mountain," which many scholars consider to be equal to the area Revelation called Armageddon (the valley of Megiddo.)
These invading forces appear to be targeting the beast (or the king) at first.
Revelation mentions demonic spirits that proceed forth and influence the kings of the earth (the text may suggest they intervene with these Kings/armies from the east.) Other nations get involved, too. What ends up happening (possibly through the deception of these demonic spirits) these armies are persuaded to fight against Christ at His return.
That is where I drew the possibility that the end-time "king" (beast) could be Semitic in race (but not a citizen) and that the invading armies couid be from what we know as currently Islamic countries?
Am I far off on this?

TimV · #25 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Am I far off on this?

Just remember when you have a "could be" with twenty other possibilities, every "could be" you add after that reduces the chance you've gotten it right by 1 over 20 times 1 over 20. So the first speculation gives you one chance out of 20 of being right, the second 1 out of 400, the third 1 out of 8000 and so on :-)

Zenas · #26 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Shows how eschatological presuppositions can force interpretations of data. So what if the Roman army was in those parts composed in part of 'locals'? The makeup of the Army is immaterial when it comes to deciding whether Rome in fact destroyed the city... it seems to me that it can only matter if you're previously committed to a premillenial end-times hysteria type of eschatology.

If the Roman army were made up of Gauls, would the French have destroyed the Temple?

busdriver72 · #27 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Perhaps Jesus came with his angles and destroyed the temple along with Jerusalem. You know God came in the clouds 5 times or so. Some books, I've read, had arguments about Jesus not being seen during the destruction of Jerusalem and used the armies instead. Perhaps many nations were called at once. There are some debates on the Second Coming happened in AD 70 and the one in the future. Does anyone here believe the second coming already happened?

Interesting, but probably not.
Many suggest that the coming of Christ is going to be hard to see or notice.
The Scriptures don't really seem to indicate that.
Jesus Himself said that His coming would be like the lightning going across the sky....sort of hard to miss.
And Paul in 2nd Thessalonians addressed erroneous speculations about the coming of Christ. Some were wondering if they had missed it. Paul encouraged them and basically said "Don't worry, folks....you will know!"
In chapter 2 he said that day will not come until the great apostasy (falling away) comes first....the arrival of the "man of lawlessness......the son of destruction." There have been several in history who many thought WAS this person, but we WILL know.

Richard Tallach · #28 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009, 11:12 AM

Dear Ralph

Am I far off on this?

I wouldn't see eye to eye with you on your current general eschatology, i.e. on what is to happen between now and Christ's return, and/or after Christ's return as premills believe.

I tend to be a post-millenialist of a historical and orthodox preterist bent.

A large part of what you're talking about in Daniel was fulfilled in the inter-testamental period by Alexander and the Seleucids, including Antiochus Epiphanes, and even Cleopatra and the Triumverate. I agree that Antiochus was a pointer to the future Beast (Nero, Rome, statist and pagan persecution of God's people).

Large parts of the eschatological scheme we end up with have to be taken with at least a little pinch of salt, since it's a diificult area. The "Four [or Five] Last Things" are non-negotiable however: the physical, visible, literal and personal Second Advent of Christ which I believe coincides with the End of the World and the beginning of the New Heavens and New Earth; the Resurrection of the Righteous and Wicked; Heaven; Hell; and the Last Judgement.

The proper order of the above would be :-

(a) Death

(b) Heaven or Hell

(c) Second Advent

(d) Resurrection of the Righteous (which includes the "Rapture" of the raised Righteous to meet Christ) and shortly thereafter the Resurrection of the Wicked

(e) Last Judgement

(f) New Heavens and New Earth and final abode of the damned in Hell.

You may be need to read some books like Lorraine Boettner's "Millennium" and Iain Murray's "Puritan Hope" to get a "feel" for a more Reformed than Dispensationalist and largely futurist approach to these things.

Maybe others can recommend introductory resources on these issues.

Here's Murray's book. He shows how many of the Puritans and Reformed were motivated by postmillennialism, and how John Nelson Darby starting about 1830 muddied the waters in this area for many by imposing his dispensational and futurist interpretation on the Bible. This took off in a big way in the USA in evangelical circles under the influence of Cyrus I. Schofield and his study Bible. Basically the Reformed believe, i believe rightly, we should be looking at the overall structure of Scripture in the light of its Covenants rather than Darby's dispensations.

Amazon

***toddpedlar*** · #29 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenas

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Shows how eschatological presuppositions can force interpretations of data. So what if the Roman army was in those parts composed in part of 'locals'? The makeup of the Army is immaterial when it comes to deciding whether Rome in fact destroyed the city... it seems to me that it can only matter if you're previously committed to a premillenial end-times hysteria type of eschatology.

If the Roman army were made up of Gauls, would the French have destroyed the Temple?

Not sure if you're supporting my point or arguing against it, so I'll just answer.

NO. The Romans would have destroyed the Temple. (Given that Gaul was under Roman control since Julius Caesar's day, anyway, it was a Roman territory) It was their army - of which fact there is no doubt historically. Roman legions, commanded ultimately by Titus, destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. Again, the particular nations from which those legions were drawn - nations under the rule of Rome, in any case, so whether it's Syrians, Egyptians, or locals, it's the Roman Army.

Zenas · #30 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009, 11:20 AM

I'm supporting you.

The Roman army, as I understand it, could have been made up of people whose heritage was from all over the known world at that time. It doesn't make it any less than the Roman army though.

busdriver72 · #31 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Large parts of the eschatological scheme we end up with have to be taken with at least a little pinch of salt, since it's a diificult area.

True. It can make your head hurt after a while.

Quote:

The "Four [or Five] Last Things" are non-negotiable however: the physical, visible, literal and personal Second Advent of Christ which I believe coincides with the End of the World and the beginning of the New Heavens and New Earth, the Resurrection of the Righteous and Wicked, Heaven, Hell, the Last Judgement.

Amen!

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 11:35:51 EST-----

Quote:

Just remember when you have a "could be" with twenty other possibilities, every "could be" you add after that reduces the chance you've gotten it right by 1 over 20 times 1 over 20. So the first speculation gives you one chance out of 20 of being right, the second 1 out of 400, the third 1 out of 8000 and so on :-)

I know what you mean.
Really, we were just studying and talking. No one (including me) has determined exactly how it all will unfold nor even supposes that we could. We weren't worried about getting it right, you know. Regardless of who we speculate will or won't be the Beast, where he's from, etc, it doesn't change how we are to live and serve the Lord.
Can't you see us in heaven sitting around saying "Hey, you know, my interpretation was in the top 8,000!"