Prophetic shocker: Romans didn't destroy Temple

WorldNetDaily ^ | August 21, 2009

[Lee N. Field]

Hint: Eusebius wrote about them.

[topcat54]

"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."

"... abounds with proofs ...". Sure it does. More eschatology on crack.

A death match between two competing works of fiction. This ought to be good.

[topcat54]

The revived Roman empire doesn’t necessarily mean Rome itself but all the other countries involved in that. None of us really knows, but it’s fun to speculate.

It may be "fun" for you, but it is a useless exercise and disgraces our Lord who gave us His Word for something other than our personal amusement.

[Lee N. Field]

A death match between two competing works of fiction. This ought to be good.

Superman vs.....

[Lee N. Field]

My memory of such things is faint, indeed. It may be that a refresher would be worth it when I have the time.

You really should. "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

However, it is striking that some seem to construe themselves as the only readers of such histories . . . somewhat blah blah blah

< shrug>

[topcat54]

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.

Many "prophecy scholars" assume (wrongly) that there will be a "future dark prince". It's just another example of

[Marysecretary]

think what you like, topcat. We eagerly await the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and we do not shame Him with our speculation. That seems to be YOUR problem, not ours.

[topcat54]

Sorry, but “it’s fun to speculate” indicates a low view of the person and work of Jesus Christ, as if the Word of God is a personal play thing. It’s also an excuse for shoddy exegetical work.

[Marysecretary]

I don’t consider the word of God a plaything. But people have always been interested in who the AC might be. Nothing wrong with that.

[thatjoeguy]

You missed my point, physically yes the Roman’s destroyed the Temple (as an example) but the Jews clearly desecrated and caused the ruin of the city and the Sanctuary.

Daniel 9:26
... and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy (cause the ruin of) the city and the sanctuary ...

Strong’s translation on the word ‘destroy’:
“A primitive root; to decay, that is, (causatively)ruin (literally or figuratively):...

In this case: literally. So I say again, it was the Jews that caused the destruction of the Temple and is therefore (according to Daniel) the ‘people’ of the prince.

JB

[r9etb]

Somehow the Arch of Titus in Rome documents the sack of Jerusalem.

Well, Rome was sacked by Vandals, after all.... Perhaps Mr. Farah can unveil "proof" showing that they brought some Islamic stone-taggers with them.

[Uri’el-2012]

/s

;-)

[wagglebee]

The Roman Empire was probably at their strongest in the first century AD (CE), had some other group sacked Jerusalem the Romans would have surely used this as an excuse to attack whatever group attacked Roman territory.

It is absurd to believe that the Arch of Titus would have even been build were it not true. The Arch was built within a few years of the destruction and there would have presumably been large numbers of prominent Romans who were personally involved in sacking Jerusalem, had events been different they would have said something. Finally, what reason would Josephus have had to lie?

[safisoft]

In this case: literally. So I say again, it was the Jews that caused the destruction of the Temple and is therefore (according to Daniel) the ‘people’ of the prince.

My point was that even Judaism acknowledges the responsibility for the judgment of the Almighty - but in the same regard, the ones that actually burned the Temple are the ones that will be ALSO be dealt with - and the Hebrew linguistics indicate that the people of the prince are the ones that actually destroyed it through direct action. The notion that "cause to ruin" [shachat] is used to differentiate between the Romans and the Jews is not correct linguistically. Both ir [city] and ha-kodesh [the Holy] have the verb shachat. shachat is used throughout the TaNaKh to indicate the word "destroy." For example, look at Genesis 6:13 - did the Amighty destroy the earth with a flood, or did the sinners of that age? Certainly they brought it upon themselves, but it was a DELIBERATE act of the Almighty to open the fountains of the deep.

[TASMANIANRED]

Bit of a problem with his timing.. Mohammed wasn’t born for several centuries.. There was no Islam at this time.