European Antichrist Contradictions

New Article from Rodrigo Silva of Beast from The East. Check it out. Once again, Rodrigo makes some truly excellent observations. He demonstrates something that I have been saying for somtime: While the historical position of the Church has been that the Antichrist would come from a revived Roman Empire and from somewhere within the former regions of that Empire, this does not demand a European Antichrist. The Roman Empire included much of the Middle East and Northern Africa as well, did it not? As far back as the 3rd century, Cyril of Jerusalem stated that the Antichrist would come from Syria. It is in modern times that the false equation of Roman = European has become cemented into the mind of large segments of the Church. This really shows that more of us are good students of our teachers than we are of the Bible and of historical facts. The emphasis within prophecy communities on the EU for the past twenty five years has all of the Church myopically looking only there. So today if someone suggests that King Charles or Nicolai Carpathia (fictitious person in Left Behind series) could be the Antichrist, then Roman theorists will gladly entertain such a notion. But once one crosses the Bosporus or the Mediterranean, into for instance Turkey or Syria, then we have somehow gone off the reservation and can no longer play in the reindeer games. Yet Syria and Turkey are every bit as much “Roman” as England or Romania or Germany etc. The Church needs to wake up to the fact that they have exchanged the historical Roman position for the modern and unbiblical European position. So great job Rodrigo for highlighting this fact so well! Of course, I still argue that the Bible nowhere says that the Antichrist will come from the Roman Empire. In fact the Roman Empire does not meet the most basic Biblical criteria to be the fourth Empire of Daniel 2. But that’s another issue altogether…

1 Comment

Post A Comment