EU, Solona in Bible Prophecy?

ScottW

ScottW

Founder
Staff member
Okay... I just *love* starting these type of threads. :) Now that all of you have had your little "take" on America, let's turn the tables to the EU.

Entertain me for awhile... Let's take a look at Bible Prophecy... never mind if you believe the Bible or not...

For those American's not UP on everything... the EU is the European Union. While we were worried over who would be president, the EU just had a nice little Constitution signing party in Rome on Oct 29th. Following, Javier Solona, who has been happily working his way to the top introduced a new 7-page peace plan to help establish peace between the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The Bible prophecized many moons ago that Israel would at some point in time become a nation again. In 1948, after almost 2000 years of not existing, Israel was re-born. It also says that that generation would see the coming of Christ.

We also find in the Bible that Isreal makes a 7-year peace convenant with the beast or anti-Christ. The beast is called the "Revived Roman Empire". Interestingly, we don't really see the USA in end-times prophecy, that could be because of a number of different reasons... that either a) from Israel's perspective for endtimes prophecy, that the USA doesn't matter, it's not an enemy of Israel... or something happens and the USA is no longer a factor. Many theories and ideas abound, but that is not the point of this discussion.

Let's take a look at an old testament prophecy concerning the 70th week of Daniel (Daniel 7:7-8, "After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts."

So, what is the meaning of all this? Well, as with most things in the Bible, this is not the only thing that references end time events and through other writings in the Bible. Basically, to make a long story short, the fourth beast is the Revived Roman Empire, the other "beasts" have already come talked about in earlier verses. The beast has 10 horns... which are generally accepted as 10 nations. The little horn is seen as the anti-christ.

We also know that in the end times, Israel makes a convent with the beast/anti-christ, a 7-year agreement. Now, you might say, how did anyone know way back then that a) Israel would cease to exist, b) that Israel would after 2000 years come back, and that c) they would be in need of peace, meaning they have a enemy banging on their doors constantly? Well, hey, I could make the conclusion, but then that would spoil it.

The European Union was made of of 10 primary countries. Recently, I believe they have added like 25 addition (or a total of 25) countries, but these all have less power or influence. (Im not a big follower of the EU stuff, but probably more so than most Americans). Now, here is Javier Solona who just recently got the title of Foriegn Minister and he was like a High Representative or something up until just recently. This guy's power was given by Recomendation 666, part of the EU Constitution. Interestly the Bible says the number of his name (the antichrist) is 666. Coincidence?

Notice the Bible verse I quoted above... THREE HORNS where pulled out by their roots. Now, Solona (possible small horn) have some issues to deal with, after all... (check out this news story) Germany, France and Britian don't really want to surender their power or influence to the EU, unless of course they control it. But Solona has other ideas. Interestingly, another article out today fears that France may not ratify the new Constitution. This would be BAD news for the EU. All these countries are suppose to get the ratification process done over the next 2 years or by the end of 2006. The EU's financial cycle beings Jan 1, 2007 and is well, a 7 year period. (hmmmm). There is a big push by Solona to get the Israel-Palestine issue in place by the time Jan 1, 2007 rolls around to be on the 7 year budget. The article went on to say that any country that doesn't ratify might as well, not be part of the EU.

So, which THREE orginal HORNS will be uprooted by the small horn?

I have read Germany might be one of the first to ratify... I don't think Britian has even taken on the Euro as a currancy... so I have no idea where they stand on the EU Constituation.

Of course... this is only touching the ice-berg... you have other "odd" things like the EU Parliment building (one of two I believe) in France is mimic'd after that Tower of Babel. That seems a little odd. For those clueless, when men built the tower of babel before, God destroyed Babylon and confused the languages and dispelled everyone. Yea, quit babelling!! you make no sense!

Alright... so... obviously, for the skeptic, this is not nearly enough information to prove anything... but seems kinda odd don't you think? All this happening before our eyes...

Scott
 
you are an evil mod. you do realize how much conflict this is gonna cause right?
all i have to say is...LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL!
 
I'll be back soon to take part to the discussions. Need to find a bigger free time-window for such kind of posting. ;)
 
The Bible prophecy of the restoration of Israel is part of the old Testament and as Jesus said "All of the prophets and the law prophesized to John." He said he was the conclusion of the law. All things in the old Testament were to be fulfilled in his work to establish "the kingdom of Heaven on Earth."

In the time of Daniel, Isaiah and Malachi, the kingdom of David and Solomon were no more. The Jewish people had been scattered and taken into captivity in Babylon. The Temple was sacked and over run. Ezekiel's dry bones were the people of the old Testament. No expectation was for two comings of Christ, only one.

Due to the disbelief of the people of his time he was crucified. See the dual qualities of prophesy in the old Testament. If you do this, this will result, but if you do that, that will result. (I could quote direct scriptures, but there are too tooo many and don't want to tire my non-religious brethren. As Yogi Berra said "you could look it up." ;)

Jesus was rejected because he did not fill the mold that the leaders of the day had for him. He was an outcast, a misfit who did not parrot their platitudes about right and wrong. He was - by all contemporary accounts - a bastard child, the son of that carpenter. Even his own cousin, John the Baptist, didn't recognize his role to minister to Jesus and work together with him since he was the Lord. (See Matthew 11 - please pray for an open mind when you do. Refer to Matthew 5:19 and reflect on the meaning of "least in the kingdom of Heaven.")

How else can we understand Paul who laments Jesus' death in Corinthians 2:8 - "no one of the leaders of this age knew this for if they had, they _would not_ have crucified the lord of glory." Or Jesus' own word "you're desire is to do your father's (the devil) will," or the apostles words - "by evil hands you have done this."

So to imply that the old Testament is a prophecy of the present situation is a stretch. The old Testament testified to the first coming of Christ, not the second.

Still, since Jesus was murdered we have waited 2000 years for his return. There are myriad parallels between Jewish history and Christian history. But they are reflections, not direct prophesy.

Revelations, a last-minute tack on to the Bible, one that was hotly disputed and finally accepted as cannon as much for the omega quality of it as for it's prophetic value (i.e. Genesis is the alpha, Revelation the omega), speaks directly of the situation at the turn of the first century, not as prophecy of the eventual second advent. Again, until the providence comes to a conclusion, circumstances will reflect those of history, but not as prophesized damnation.

Still he will come again - and as the angels spoke to the disciples at his ascension, "why do you stand looking at the clouds?" When Christ returns it will be the same way he went, down the one-way street of life (ref John the Baptist, born to Zacariah and Elizabeth, was "the Elijah" who rose to heaven on a chariot of fire and was to come back to herald the advent of Christ.)

Yet when he comes again - "will he find faith on earth?" There is certainly faith aplenty on earth today, the question is - is it the type of faith that will recognize someone who is not your perfect idea of what is to come? What if he's a Black African, a Red Indian or - God Forbid - a white European?

Seems a little more humility might be in order.
 
Interestingly, we don't really see the USA in end-times prophecy
Click to expand...
Probably because it wasn't discovered yet ...
The European Union was made of of 10 primary countries. Recently, I believe they have added like 25 addition (or a total of 25) countries, but these all have less power or influence.
Click to expand...
The EU started out with 6 states: The Benelux, Italy, Germany and France. We were at 15 already and recently 10 have been added: total of 25. Officially all are equal (politically), but there are some restrictions due to economical reasons.
Coincidence?
Click to expand...
Yes, unless you are superstitious and bad at statistics.

Regarding the ratification, Solana has very little to say about that. There is obviously a strong push to accept the new consititution, and the governments are pushing it, but it depends on referenda (popular vote) whether it will be ratified or not.

I don't think Britian has even taken on the Euro as a currancy... so I have no idea where they stand on the EU Constituation.
Click to expand...
The UK has not yet accepted the Euro as currency. All in all they are pretty euro-skeptic.

Alright... so... obviously, for the skeptic, this is not nearly enough information to prove anything... but seems kinda odd don't you think? All this happening before our eyes...
Click to expand...
Sure. :) At least it is entertaining. I'm sure you already know about http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/

Besides the mathematical difficulties of fitting 10 horns on 7 heads (which probably caused the removal of three horns, as that was easier than adding three heads), I am curious about your interpretation of the lady of negotiable affection that comes with the beast. It says that the woman is a city, undoubtably Rome, which will be ravaged and burned by the horns (which are said to be kings, and the heads mountains ... all these kings and mountains make me think of Dwarves ...). Now if the 10 horns would be ten european nations, in what sense would they make Rome "desolate and naked"? Financially? Don't worry: Italy is already broke!

So if the 7 heads are the 7 hills of Rome (as it says right there in the Bible) and the 10 horns are Kings of Rome, well, we get a problem, because there only have ever been 7 (mythical) Kings of Rome, from Romolus up to the Republic. What now? Well, you could say that the next "king" could be an emperor ... but do you count Julius Cesar himself as the first Emperor or the last ruler of the Republic? Who then would be the tenth? And why say that they would hate Rome? They were the men who made Rome great! Rather, the horns and kings would be other kings, attacking Rome! So it could be the Vandals, the Goths, etc. But there is a lot of confusion about the kings at the end times, as there also are 7 (other?) kings, of which 5 have been, one is, and one has to come. The beast itself is the eight. So could this be the kings of Rome and the Roman Empire after all?

What then about the little horn and the three removed horns? Deposed kings? Ruined kingdoms? A vocal leader? A preacher? Could he be referring to the Reformation? The little horn, the anti-christ being Luther?

Anyway, the beast only has power for 42 months, that's a little less than 4 years (so don't worry, Bush has been in office longer now, so he cannot be the Beast ...), but at this time "he who kills with the sword shall die by the sword", so it's a good time to be against the war right now. However, the harlot woman is drunk on the blood of christian martyrs, so there might be some more war coming against the one nation under god.
 
Many wars have been fought in the name of gods and their books. George W. Bush believes he is on some god's path when he breaks that same god's rules (those about lying and killing for example...). ScottW - apparently - voted for that president. I say: Don't feed the troll.
 
The beast is called the "Revived Roman Empire".
Click to expand...

What, if, instead of taking this passage literally, as in the physical space that the Roman Empire used to be (Europe), we take this metaphorically ( like the rest of your argumetn with horns and whatnot)... wouldn't the new Roman Empire be the U.S? Nowadays, the United States is the most influental empire on earth...

Not that that really proves anything. This prophecy stuff is just a whole lot of wild guessing until you realize what it means later when it actually happens.
 
I _really_ had to laugh out loud now. Thanks, g/re/p! You made my morning. Now I still need more coffee...
 
Why fight over who the anti-christ is. It is clear to me that whoever it is has not yet been revealed completely. I say this because the bible says he will hold powers similar to Christ so as to deceive many. I have not heard of Bush or Solana doing any "feeding of the multitudes" or raising from the dead type of things, yet. I am not saying neither of them are decent candidates cause they probably are ,except Bush leaves office soon, I am only saying no one has been clearly shown as the antichrist yet. Keep watching folks so that you are not one who is deceived. For the Lord has told me I willl " Behold" "Soon" in dreams.- more importantly we should all watch and wait for our soon returning Lord in the clouds
 
Revelations was written by Apocalypse of John. He had a beef with Rome. Much of what he wrote could apply to today (i.e. The Treaty of Rome). Equally, it could apply to the Rome of his day

The Talmud, the Bible and the Qu'ran are pretty ambiguous and none follow an accurate time frame. They are open to much misinterpretation and are actively manipulated by both Jew, Christian and Muslim fundamentalist.

The greatest threat to us now (as opposed to the Nazis and later the Soviets) is religious fundamentalism, which justifies its existence on a narrow interpretation of the three Holy Books and actively seeks inter-religious confrontation.

Bush, Blair, Bin Laden and Sharon all conspire(d) for the same.
 
wifemarsha: Hello, welcome to the forums. I'd like to just make clear that I wasn't serious about Bush, don't worry.

rhisiart: I'd agree that religious texts can be taken out of context or misinterpreted, and "abused" by people of any religion (or of none... !). Although I'm no fan of religious fundamentalism, I'd disagree that it is the greatest threat to us now, as I think we face far, far bigger threats from other areas. Also, I'd like to sound a note of caution about when people start bashing religion, as we could equally say atheist fundamentalism is a big problem (intolerance etc.) and, if I want to stir things up a bit, it can be argued that the most barbaric/murderous regimes of the 20th century were "atheist." ;)
 
Last edited:
Those didn't fight for "atheism" or anything, or with atheism as a rule or reason. There are, however, many religious wars. What are the bigger threats than religious threats? I'd say we'd be pretty good right now if terrorism as well as the war on terrorism weren't and no God or god would have to have a puppet attack other countries/religions etc.
 
fryke said:
Those didn't fight for "atheism" or anything, or with atheism as a rule or reason. There are, however, many religious wars.
Click to expand...
Hang on... A couple of things there... One: yes, some of these regimes made atheism a point of the new system, persecuting (including murder of) those who were believers. That, to me, is inescapable. (Also, there are branches of this that we can go into, such as how atheist fundamentalists tend to argue that atheism makes them more reasonable and removes conflict.) Two: I dislike it when atheists remark about "religious wars," refusing to accept that an act could be perpetrated in the name of theism, but not actually stemming from the beliefs, but, on the other hand, refuse to accept the reverse (i.e. when accusations are made about atrocities in the name of atheism). "You can't have it both ways," as they say.

I continue to take the line that we are all human and have the same flaws! Those who are religious are not superior to atheists, and atheists are not superior to believers. I think a group who disagrees with either part of that sentence is "part of the problem," shall we say.
fryke said:
What are the bigger threats than religious threats?
Click to expand...
Take your pick... A coming energy crisis. Environmental issues. The divided between rich and poor (including on a world wide basis). The drive of materialism. More "routine" clashes between nations on the world stage, particularly when other nations are used as pawns. And so on. All brought about by man.

fryke said:
I'd say we'd be pretty good right now if terrorism as well as the war on terrorism weren't and no God or god would have to have a puppet attack other countries/religions etc.
Click to expand...
It was a bit hard to follow that sentence, but, from my interpretation of what you meant, I really, really have to disagree.
 
I just realised how awful that sentence was to read. Sorry. ;) ... What I meant was: Most of the ongoing wars really _are_ about religion, and if you'd take away all of those, we'd actually have the time and the money to solve things like the energy crisis along with the environment. A materialistic approach is not a problem per se. In fact, it'd be the solution.

The energy crisis is nothing ethereal, it's a materialistic problem that can be solved. The environment is suffering and that's connected to the energy problem, but it's also connected to the ongoing wars, where millions (money) in weapons (material) are wasted (environment) in order to uphold a status quo about oil (energy crisis). In the name of gods that have changed their faces a thousand times, because they're man-made icons. Even if you _do_ believe in a god, you have to admit that the way "God" is used in the current wars, it's simply not a good thing.

I know you can't just erase religion. But it's certainly worth marginalising and personalising it WHEREVER you can. Have your own, private religion. Believe and trust what you want, I know I do. But as soon as you lead "your people", your "nation under God" into (several) wars on a worldwide basis, you're a problem that has to be solved.

I agree that the flag under which you do that doesn't really matter and that some 20th century monsters have abused atheism. But again: They didn't really uphold any atheistic thoughts. Atheism, for them, was just yet another small thing to abuse. They could've chosen Christianity (for ease of use), but probably wanted to replace religion (talk about hybris) with their own myths, so they first had to take religion down for _that_ reason, not for the sake of saying there is no god.
 
Btw.: Hitler was a Catholic who thought he was fighting Jews for "God". Stalin, after Hitler invaded, brought the Church back because he thought it might help. They were never really atheists on the one hand, and they never did these things "in the name of atheism" or anything similar. Hitler, quite clearly, tried to uphold the Arian race thing he was all about. Stalin held the communism idea high. Religion/atheism was a side note. Comparing those to fundamentalist muslims like Bin Laden or fundamentalist christians like Bush jr. is way off.
 
bbloke said:
rhisiart: .... I'm no fan of religious fundamentalism .... I'd disagree that it is the greatest threat to us now.
Click to expand...
Global warming & economic inequality are just two of the biggest threats at the moment. However, I think we're sitting on a ticking bomb. As far a extreme religious fundamentalism is concerned, I don't think we've even scratched the surface yet of the horrors to come.

bbloke said:
rhisiart: Also, I'd like to sound a note of caution about when people start bashing religion..
Click to expand...
I think religion is fair game for a bit of bashing, given the deliberate manipulation of the scriptures over the years by so called Holy men simply for political gain.

However, spirituality and a belief in God/Allah/Vishnu (or whatever) is an entirely different thing. I would never disrespect an individual's personal spiritual existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top