The Assyrian

[Biblewriter]

"Therefore will Israel be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites."
--Micah 5:3 NIV

At the time this was posted, I did not notice one detail about it.

This passage specifically promises that Israel's abandonment will end at the time when "the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites." This again speaks of a return of all Israel, not of part of it, and says that God's abandonment of Israel will end at that time.

 

[valuecard]

that was really intersting bible writer

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #22 of this thread:

The falsehood of this statement has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Greetings.

Actually, it has never been proven from the scriptures or from any
historical sources that Isaiah 10:5-34 wasn't fulfilled by
Sennacherib's invasion of Judah in Isaiah chapters 36-37. Nor has it
been proven from the scriptures that the Assyrian in Micah 5:5 and
Isaiah 30:31 can't be the Antichrist.

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #26 of this thread:

While ancient Assyria expanded to include essentially all of mordern
Syria, Assyria itself, and thus "the land of Assyria," was the northern
part of modern Iraq. Its capitol was Nineveh, which was located at
the site of modern day Mosul, the center of the insurgency in Iraq.

The ruins of ancient Nineveh are across the river from Mosul. Nothing
requires that "the Assyrian" of Micah 5:5 and Isaiah 30:31 has to
come either from the ruins of ancient Nineveh or from Mosul. He
could come from somewhere else which used to be part of the
ancient Assyrian Empire, and/or he could be descended from an
ancient Assyrian individual, and so have Assyrian blood in him.

 

[Bible2]

Dale posted in message #27 of this thread:

What does "seven shepherds and eight principal men" mean? It could
refer to a time when Israel is a Republic, with no single leader.

Greetings.

In Micah 5:5, "this man" is the returned Jesus, whose first-coming
birth had just been referred to in Micah 5:2. Micah 5:5 is referring
to what will happen at Jesus' second coming (Zechariah 14:9,14,
Zechariah 12:5-14).

Dale posted in message #27 of this thread:

"Therefore will Israel be abandoned until the time when she who is in
labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the
Israelites."
--Micah 5:3 NIV

This sounds like a prophecy of the nation of Israel's return to the Holy
Land in modern times, and it is from the crucial chapter, Micah Five.

In Micah 5:3, "the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth"
could symbolically refer to the salvation, the spiritual rebirth (John 3:7),
of all of the unsaved elect Jews at the second coming (Romans
11:25-28, Zechariah 12:10-14). In Micah 5:3b, "then the remnant of
his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel" could refer to all
of the Jews and Gentiles who were already in the church/Israel being
joined to them in Israel during the millennium (Matthew 19:28,
Revelation 20:4-6).

 

[Bible2]

Dale posted in message #30 of this thread:

Iraqi troops invaded Israel in 1948 but not in 1967. There is one
other occasion when Iraq was in conflict with modern Israel. As the
1991 Persian Gulf War loomed, Saddam Hussein fired Scud missiles
into Israel.

Before the second coming of Jesus, even before the rise of the
Antichrist (Daniel 11:21-45), Iraq could invade Israel again. An Iraqi
Baathist General could defeat both Israel and Egypt (Daniel
11:15-17; in verse 17, the original Hebrew word translated as
"daughter" is "bath") with a gigantic Iraqi Army built up by the U.S.
to defeat Iran instead (with the idea of ending Iran's nuclear-
weapons program and extremist regime).

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #31 of this thread:

I agree that this sounds reasonable, but nothing in modern times has
even come close to a fulfilment of Isaiah 10:28-32

Sennacherib could have followed the path of Isaiah 10:28-32 with
part of his forces when he invaded Judah (Isaiah chapters 36-37).
An Iraqi Baathist General could travel down the same ridge with part
of his forces during a future defeat of Israel (Daniel 11:15-17).

Biblewriter posted in message #31 of this thread:

Also, in Isaiah 14, immediately after prophesying the defeat of
Sennacherib, the Lord tells Philistia not to rejoice at his fall, because
one of his descendants will come again and slay them. (Yes, I know
this is an interpretation, and not explicitly what it says, but read the
passage for yourself and see if you do not agree that that is what it
means.

"Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that
smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth
a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent. And the
firstborn of the poor shall feed, and the needy shall lie down in
safety: and I will kill thy root with famine, and he shall slay thy
remnant. Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art
dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none
shall be alone in his appointed times." (Isaiah 14:29-31)

"Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that
smote thee is broken" (Isaiah 14:29) could refer to the Philistines
rejoicing over hearing about the death of Tilgathpilneser king of
Assyria, who could have gone into Philistia when he came into Judah
during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:19-20).

"For out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice" (Isaiah
14:29b) could refer to Sennacherib king of Assyria subsequently
going into Philistia when he came into Judah during the reign of
Hezekiah (Isaiah 36:1), the son of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:20).

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #33 of this thread:

It is a very common notion that the Antichrist attacks Jerusalem,
but there is no scriptural basis for this idea.

The Antichrist will attack Jerusalem at least three separate times.
He will first attack Jerusalem when he defeats an ultra-Orthodox
Jewish "Messiah"/"prince of the covenant" and then "cuts" a seven-
year treaty with him (Daniel 11:22-23, 9:26-27). Two or three years
later, the Antichrist will attack Jerusalem again when he breaks that
treaty, stops the daily sacrifices (Daniel 9:27b), attacks the temple,
and enters into the temple and proclaims himself God (Daniel
11:31,36, Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:4). Jerusalem will then
be trodden down by the Gentiles during the 42 months of the
Antichrist's reign (Revelation 11:2b, 13:5b). Then, at the very end
of the tribulation, the Antichrist will attack Jerusalem again, right
before Jesus returns (Zechariah 14:2-5) and destroys the Antichrist
(Revelation 19:20, 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9, Isaiah 30:31).

Biblewriter posted in message #33 of this thread:

It is clear from many scriptures that Jerusalem will be attacked, But
these same scriptures just as clearly say who leads this attack. That
attacker is "the Assyrian." Not even one scripture identifies this
attacker as either 'the Antichrist" or as "the beast."

The scriptures don't have to refer to the Antichrist by the same term
every time. The man who will sit in a Jewish temple in Jerusalem and
proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew
24:15) and rule the world for 42 months and be worshipped by the
world (Revelation 13:5-8) is the Antichrist who "shall come" (1 John
2:18). That's why Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was
a disciple of the apostle John, says: "speaking of Antichrist, [Paul]
says, 'who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,
or that is worshipped'" (Against Heresies 3:6:5, quoting
2 Thessalonians 2:4); "when this Antichrist shall have devastated all
things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and
sit in the temple at Jerusalem" (Against Heresies 5:30:4b); "the
number of the name of the beast ... the name of Antichrist" (Against
Heresies 5:30:1).

 

[Biblewriter]

Greetings.

Actually, it has never been proven from the scriptures or from any
historical sources that Isaiah 10:5-34 wasn't fulfilled by
Sennacherib's invasion of Judah in Isaiah chapters 36-37. Nor has it
been proven from the scriptures that the Assyrian in Micah 5:5 and
Isaiah 30:31 can't be the Antichrist.

This argument is so silly that it would be funny if it were not so serious.

You have imagined a campaign that is recorded in neither scripture or secular history, a campaign that is distinctly different from the campaigns recorded in both scripture and secular history, and argue that "there is no proof" that it didn't happen, even after being shown that archeologists have found extensive proof of the actual campaigns fought, and no evidence whatsoever of your imagined campaign.

The only "proof" you would accept wpuld be an ancient comment that Sennacherib did not do this. But historians do not record what was not done, they only record what was done.

Such nonsense is unworthy of anyone claiming to be a teacher of scripture, and your persistence in maintaining it is nothing more than stubbornness, even as your claim that all the future attacks on jerusalem are made by the Antichrist, even when it was demonstrated that the scriptures most absolutely do not say that it is the Antichrist who does these things.

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

This argument is so silly that it would be funny if it were not so
serious.

Note that it has never actually been proven to be silly.

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

You have imagined a campaign that is recorded in neither scripture
or secular history,

Note that no campaign has been imagined. All that has been said is
that Sennacherib could have fulfilled Isaiah 10:28-32 at the same
time that he fulfilled all of the rest of Isaiah 10:5-34, during his
campaign against Judah in Isaiah chapters 36-37.

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

a campaign that is distinctly different from the campaigns recorded
in both scripture and secular history,

Note that if Sennacherib did fulfill Isaiah 10:28-32 during his
campaign against Judah, this would not necessarily make his
campaign distinctly different from the campaigns recorded in both
scripture and secular history. For nothing in Isaiah chapters 36-37
or in secular history requires that Sennacherib couldn't have fulfilled
Isaiah 10:28-32 during his campaign against Judah.

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

and argue that "there is no proof" that it didn't happen, even after
being shown that archeologists have found extensive proof of the
actual campaigns fought, and no evidence whatsoever of your
imagined campaign.

Note that nothing requires that archaeologists have managed to
find proof of every actual campaign in history, or every part of
every actual campaign in history. While there may be proof that at
least the bulk of Sennacherib's army went down the coast,
archaeologists may not have yet found any proof that Sennacherib
fulfilled Isaiah 10:28-32 with just part of his army, simply because
he and the forces with him passed down the ridge so quickly that
they didn't leave any lasting marks, and the towns on the ridge
could have been so insignificant and unknown outside of Israel that
Sennacherib didn't bother to boast on any monuments about
causing the people in those towns to flee.

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

The only "proof" you would accept wpuld be an ancient comment
that Sennacherib did not do this.

Actually, no, acceptable proof could be anything recorded by an
historian which could be used by us to show that what Sennacherib
did would have made it impossible for him to have also done Isaiah
10:28-32.

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

But historians do not record what was not done,

That's right, but what historians do record can sometimes be used
to show that some additional thing could not possibly have been done.

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

they only record what was done.

That's right, but that should be qualified in the sense that historians
haven't recorded everything that has been done throughout history.
That would mean that a thousand years in our future, someone could
say that we two individuals never actually existed, simply because no
historian bothered to write about us, or even ever heard of us. History
captures but a small slice of all that happened in the past.

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

Such nonsense is unworthy of anyone claiming to be a teacher of
scripture

Note that it has still never been proven to be nonsense. And hopefully
we can avoid all ad hominem, as it adds nothing to the discussion of
the subject in question.

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

and your persistence in maintaining it is nothing more than
stubbornness,

Hopefully we can also avoid all mere-rhetoric, as it too adds nothing
to the discussion of the subject in question.

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

even as your claim that all the future attacks on jerusalem are made
by the Antichrist,

Note that it hasn't been said that all of the future attacks on
Jerusalem will be made by the Antichrist. For a predecessor to the
Antichrist, an Iraqi Baathist General, could make an attack on
Jerusalem (and leave a siege against its walled Old City) when he
defeats both Israel and Egypt (Daniel 11:15-17; in verse 17, the
original Hebrew word translated as "daughter" is "bath") with a
massive Iraqi Army built up by the U.S. to defeat Iran instead (with
the idea of ending Iran's nuclear-weapons program and extremist
regime). Also, a thousand years after the Antichrist, the Gog/Magog
event will involve an attack on Jerusalem (Revelation 20:7-9, Ezekiel
chapters 38-39).

Biblewriter posted in message #50 of this thread:

even when it was demonstrated that the scriptures most absolutely
do not say that it is the Antichrist who does these things.

Note that it hasn't been proven that the Antichrist won't also attack
Jerusalem when he first comes into power (Daniel 11:21-22), and then
attack Jerusalem again two or three years later when he commits the
abomination of desolation (Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15,
2 Thessalonians 2:4), and then attack Jerusalem again three or four
years later (Daniel 11:45), right before Jesus returns (Zechariah
14:2-5).

 

[Biblewriter]

The Antichrist will attack Jerusalem at least three separate times.
He will first attack Jerusalem when he defeats an ultra-Orthodox
Jewish "Messiah"/"prince of the covenant" and then "cuts" a seven-
year treaty with him (Daniel 11:22-23, 9:26-27). Two or three years
later, the Antichrist will attack Jerusalem again when he breaks that
treaty, stops the daily sacrifices (Daniel 9:27b), attacks the temple,
and enters into the temple and proclaims himself God (Daniel
11:31,36, Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:4). Jerusalem will then
be trodden down by the Gentiles during the 42 months of the
Antichrist's reign (Revelation 11:2b, 13:5b). Then, at the very end
of the tribulation, the Antichrist will attack Jerusalem again, right
before Jesus returns (Zechariah 14:2-5) and destroys the Antichrist
(Revelation 19:20, 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9, Isaiah 30:31).

You are making one of the most common errors in interpreting Bible prophecy. You are rolling all the end-time "bad guys" into one and calling this conglomerate "the Antichrist.'

There is not even one scripture that says that the Antichrist will attack Jerusalem even once, much less three times.

Neither is there even one scripture that says the Roman "beast" will attack Jerusalem.

The only end-time individuals that are specifically mentioned as attacking Jerusalem are "the Assyrian" and "the king of the north." There is not even a partial clause of scripture to justify calling either of these individuals "the Antichrist.' But earlier in this thread I have already posted significant evidence to conclude that both of these prophetic names refer to the same end time individual.

 

[Biblewriter]

Note that it hasn't been proven that the Antichrist won't also attack
Jerusalem when he first comes into power (Daniel 11:21-22), and then
attack Jerusalem again two or three years later when he commits the
abomination of desolation (Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15,
2 Thessalonians 2:4), and then attack Jerusalem again three or four
years later (Daniel 11:45), right before Jesus returns (Zechariah
14:2-5).

What is far more to the point is that it has never been proved that the Antichrist will do any of these things.

 

[Biblewriter]

Note that no campaign has been imagined. All that has been said is
that Sennacherib could have fulfilled Isaiah 10:28-32 at the same
time that he fulfilled all of the rest of Isaiah 10:5-34, during his
campaign against Judah in Isaiah chapters 36-37.



Note that if Sennacherib did fulfill Isaiah 10:28-32 during his
campaign against Judah, this would not necessarily make his
campaign distinctly different from the campaigns recorded in both
scripture and secular history. For nothing in Isaiah chapters 36-37
or in secular history requires that Sennacherib couldn't have fulfilled
Isaiah 10:28-32 during his campaign against Judah.

It has never been proven that Sennecherib fulfilled any portion of Isaiah 10. But I have already presented extensive evidence in thei very thread that isaiah 10 is not talking about Sennecherib.

Actually, no, acceptable proof could be anything recorded by an
historian which could be used by us to show that what Sennacherib
did would have made it impossible for him to have also done Isaiah
10:28-32.

This, again, is error. I have already presented scriptural proof that the Lord specifically said that Sennecherib would not come before Jerusalem.

But to repeat, I will quote the entire passage from Isaiah 19:20-34 here:

20Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, That which thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria I have heard. 21This is the word that the LORD hath spoken concerning him; The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. 22Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel. 23By thy messengers thou hast reproached the Lord, and hast said, With the multitude of my chariots I am come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon, and will cut down the tall cedar trees thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof: and I will enter into the lodgings of his borders, and into the forest of his Carmel. 24I have digged and drunk strange waters, and with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers of besieged places. 25Hast thou not heard long ago how I have done it, and of ancient times that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste fenced cities into ruinous heaps. 26Therefore their inhabitants were of small power, they were dismayed and confounded; they were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb, as the grass on the housetops, and as corn blasted before it be grown up. 27But I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy rage against me. 28Because thy rage against me and thy tumult is come up into mine ears, therefore I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest. 29And this shall be a sign unto thee, Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof. 30And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall yet again take root downward, and bear fruit upward. 31For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this. 32Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it. 33By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into this city, saith the LORD. 34For I will defend this city, to save it, for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.

 

[Biblewriter]

Thread resurrected for kotel.

 

[zeke37]

You are making one of the most common errors in interpreting Bible prophecy. You are rolling all the end-time "bad guys" into one and calling this conglomerate "the Antichrist.'

There is not even one scripture that says that the Antichrist will attack Jerusalem even once, much less three times.

Neither is there even one scripture that says the Roman "beast" will attack Jerusalem.

The only end-time individuals that are specifically mentioned as attacking Jerusalem are "the Assyrian" and "the king of the north." There is not even a partial clause of scripture to justify calling either of these individuals "the Antichrist.' But earlier in this thread I have already posted significant evidence to conclude that both of these prophetic names refer to the same end time individual.

so, you belive that these two, the king of the north and the Assyrian, are the same individual, but the antiChrist is not also the same individual.

do you think that either of those two prophetic names are the son of Perdition? or not.

 

[Biblewriter]

so, you belive that these two, the king of the north and the Assyrian, are the same individual, but the antiChrist is not also the same individual.

yes

do you think that either of those two prophetic names are the son of Perdition? or not.

not

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I'm not sure where the statement in the OP that the Assyrian is never mentioned by biblical prophecy teachers is justified here!?!
Huh?
This is nothing new here..google "The Assyrian of Micah" and you wil find hundreds of pages discussing this....carry on.

 

[zeke37]

[/color]

yes



not

perdition is a key word to me....for God to name one, the son of Perdition....in 2Thes2...and then teach us just who it is that goes into perdition in Rev12, 17 and 20....is not coincidence...

do you see a difference?

ps. I am not saying that you are wrong in your view of the King of the North and the Assyrian....this is one of the subjects that I am interested in...but have not fully explored.

 

[Biblewriter]

perdition is a key word to me....for God to name one, the son of Perdition....in 2Thes2...and then teach us just who it is that goes into perdition in Rev12, 17 and 20....is not coincidence...

do you see a difference?

ps. I am not saying that you are wrong in your view of the King of the North and the Assyrian....this is one of the subjects that I am interested in...but have not fully explored.

There can be no doubt that the Antichrist will go into perdition, that is, hell. But that does not make him Satan himself.

I believe that the Antichrist will be the last human ruler of Judah, which is now called Israel, and that he is the false prophet of Revelation.