What does the term "rapture" means to you - other than the dictionary definition of "upcatching"?

[Jonathan_Gale]

What continues to "restrain" the rise of Antichrist is government that originated from the Roman Government, which is what government issuing out of European Civilization is. Even the US is the product of European Civilization and Government. And, I might add, American Government is very mixed with pagan ideas. For example, the commandment to "have no other gods" was changed to "tolerate all other gods."

Nevertheless, American Government was given the ability to resist division and Antichristianity for hundreds of years. Still, the Antichrist will come to our world, and American Government is getting more tolerant of it. We agree on the dangers of Biden's America.

Maybe you're thinking about Romans 13, where it says governing authorities are God's ministers appointed to punish evil, and they do not bear the sword in vain, that I absolutely agree. But these ministers are prone to get corrupt, and they will, and God holds them accountable, you know. In Psalm 82, God harshly judged these corrupt ministers and condemn them to fall. That hardly qualifies any of them as the "restrainer".

 

[Douggg]

The rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead in Christ event of 1Thessalonians4:15-18 is repeated in 1Thessalonians5:9-11, as Paul continued in his letter.

1Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

The comfort is that believers up to that time will not have to go through the great tribulation.

It will take place "anytime" between right this very second and when the Antichrist goes into the temple, sits, claims to have achieved God-hood. It may happen pre-70th week (the corrected name for the pre-trib rapture) or it may not. But it has to happen before the Day of the Lord begins - like a thief in the night.

The first portion of the 70th week is not tribulation, but a false messianic age of the world saying peace and safety.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead in Christ event of 1Thessalonians4:15-18 is repeated in 1Thessalonians5:9-11, as Paul continued in his letter.

1Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

The comfort is that believers up to that time will not have to go through the great tribulation.

It will take place "anytime" between right this very second and when the Antichrist goes into the temple, sits, claims to have achieved God-hood. It may happen pre-70th week (the corrected name for the pre-trib rapture) or it may not. But it has to happen before the Day of the Lord begins - like a thief in the night.

The first portion of the 70th week is not tribulation, but a false messianic age of the world saying peace and safety.


View attachment 334702

Well, sorry to disappoint you, I'm in the minority who believe the 70 weeks of Daniel being continuous 490 years without any gap, especially not a 2000 plus year gap between the 69th and the 70th week. The 70th week was fulfilled by Jesus, after that the temple was burned to the ground and the Holy Land was left desolate, hence the "abomination of desolation."

 

[Douggg]

Well, sorry to disappoint you, I'm in the minority who believe the 70 weeks of Daniel being continuous 490 years without any gap, especially not a 2000 plus year gap between the 69th and the 70th week. The 70th week was fulfilled by Jesus, after that the temple was burned to the ground and the Holy Land was left desolate, hence the "abomination of desolation."

Thanks for sharing your view.

While I disagree, my point was that pre-trib is a misnomer, because the 7 years is not all tribulation. Pre-trib proponents steadfastly stick to their normenclature even though it is not correct.

Another fallacy that has come out of the pre-trib camp is the covenant to be confirmed for 7 years in Daniel 9:27 is a peace treaty. It is not a peace treaty, but the Mt. Sinai covenant - which Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 that all future leaders of Israel, confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant on a 7 year cycle, in the fall feast of tablernales.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Thanks for sharing your view.

While I disagree, my point was that pre-trib is a misnomer, because the 7 years is not all tribulation. Pre-trib proponents steadfastly stick to their normenclature even though it is not correct.

Another fallacy that has come out of the pre-trib camp is the covenant to be confirmed for 7 years in Daniel 9:27 is a peace treaty. It is not a peace treaty, but the Mt. Sinai covenant - which Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 that all future leaders of Israel, confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant on a 7 year cycle, in the fall feast of tablernales.

I tend to let the bible interpret itself. Regarding the covenant, it's a reference to the new blood covenant made by Christ for the remission of sins:

"The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israeland with the people of Judah." (Jer. 31:31)
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. " (Matt. 26:28)

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is not true. In 300-400AD a Hymn writer and preacher wrote about caught up happening before the great tribulation. Anyone can search and even see the scrolls and what he wrote. It was also talked about before 300-400ad it was written also in 1600 shall I go on? A man that has passed GF had a show on TBN where he showed those scrolls 300-400AD and showed what was written. Later he showed even more stuff written before 300-400ad. People like Perry Stone agree with him or not matter not but he also has shown this stuff as many others have over the years.

You're thinking of St. Ephrem the Syrian. However the work you're thinking of isn't by St. Ephrem, but something else.

Unfortunately, in the desire to try and use patristic sources to defend pretribulation rapturism some have enthusiastically, but wrongly, presented a medieval Latin text (texts, more accurately, presented in synthesis when shown translated into English on the internet) as a genuine work of St. Ephrem.

If you're interested in a fairly deep dive into that material, try this out: Did pseudo-Ephraim believe in the Rapture? Some notes on the manuscripts, the passage and its Greek origins

St. Irenaeus is also often dragged into this, where his work against the Gnostics is cherry-picked; though in the same work he contradicts those who interpret him wrongly.

I continue to feel comfortable saying that pretribulation rapturism is a modern idea. Attempts to demonstrate otherwise consistently rely on either mis-represented works or, in the case of Pseudo-Ephrem, something utterly obscure and ambiguous.

Had pretribulation rapturism been a common teaching at any point in the history of Christianity, we'd have solid evidence. We don't.

For example we have plenty of evidence of Chiliasm/Premillennialism being taught by many in antiquity--so the modern pre-millennialist actually does have clear evidence of early support for the idea; even if most Christians today do not subscribe to it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Douggg]

I tend to let the bible interpret itself. Regarding the covenant, it's a reference to the new blood covenant made by Christ for the remission of sins:

"The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israeland with the people of Judah." (Jer. 31:31)
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. " (Matt. 26:28)

Me too. Daniel 9:27 does not say "new" covenant, but "the" covenant.

In Daniel 9:4, Daniel identified what "the" covenant is. The covenant that God made with Daniel's people.

4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

When Gabriel appeared to Daniel in verse 21, Daniel recognized him right away, from the vision Daniel had about the time of the end little horn's 2300 days, recorded in Daniel 8.

Then in verse 23, Gabriel told Daniel to consider the vision.

Then in verse 24, the 70 weeks (of years) include the vision and prophecy (about the little horn implied).

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

So the full seven year 70th week remains unfulfilled, until the time of the end vision of the little horn and the 2300 days are fulfilled.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Me too. Daniel 9:27 does not say "new" covenant, but "the" covenant.

In Daniel 9:4, Daniel identified what "the" covenant is. The covenant that God made with Daniel's people.

4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

When Gabriel appeared to Daniel in verse 21, Daniel recognized him right away, from the vision Daniel had about the time of the end little horn's 2300 days, recorded in Daniel 8.

Then in verse 23, Gabriel told Daniel to consider the vision.

Then in verse 24, the 70 weeks (of years) include the vision and prophecy (about the little horn implied).

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

So the full seven year 70th week remains unfulfilled, until the time of the end vision of the little horn and the 2300 days are fulfilled.

This is yet another example where two people draw polar opposite conclusions from the exact same information. In Dan. 9:24, notwithstanding the other five objectives, why is sealing up the vision and prophecy still waiting to be fulfilled until the end of time? What is scheduled to take place at the end of time is the opposite of sealing up - Jesus opened the seven seals, and the two witnesses are empowered to prophesy, what was used to be sealed up is being revealed. Since you mentioned the Little Horn, for two thousand years nobody knows who that is, because his identity had ALREADY been sealed up at the end of the 70th week, hence the fulfillment of this prophecy!

And by the way, technically the new covenant is the restoration of the OLD covenant, the same old God made with Abraham. It was broken at Mount Sinai through the idolatry of the golden calf, Moses literally dropped the original sets of tablets and broke it; this sin remained until it was washed by the blood of Christ.

 

[Douggg]

This is yet another example where two people draw polar opposite conclusions from the exact same information. In Dan. 9:24, notwithstanding the other five objectives, why is sealing up the vision and prophecy still waiting to be fulfilled until the end of time?

Not until the end of time, but until the time of the end.

Jesus opened the seven seals, and the two witnesses are empowered to prophesy, what was used to be sealed up is being revealed.

Jesus opened the seven seals revealing the things that will take place right before Jesus's return - the events of the 1260 days, the 3 1/2 days, the 42 months, the time/times/half time.

Since you mentioned the Little Horn, for two thousand years nobody knows who that is, because his identity had ALREADY been sealed up at the end of the 70th week, hence the fulfillment of this prophecy!

His identity will be revealed in the time of the end, the days in which we now live. He will be a Jew. His religion Judaism, initially. Becomes the leader over ten leaders of the EU, before Gog/Magog takes place. We are right at the door.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Not until the end of time, but until the time of the end.


Jesus opened the seven seals revealing the things that will take place right before Jesus's return - the events of the 1260 days, the 3 1/2 days, the 42 months, the time/times/half time.


His identity will be revealed in the time of the end, the days in which we now live. He will be a Jew. His religion Judaism, initially. Becomes the leader over ten leaders of the EU, before Gog/Magog takes place. We are right at the door.






View attachment 334707

Don't you think it's ridiculous that God would put a 2000 plus year gap between the 69th and the 70th weeks without mentioning it? When these 70 weeks (of years) were decreed, anybody who read it, either in original Hebrew, in Greek or in English, would naturally think of it as a continuous period of time without any interval, and none was indicated. My point is just that the "he" who confirmed or made a covenant, depending on your bible version, in 9:27 is Jesus, not the Beast. This is the only OT prophecy that gave a specific timeline of the Messiah's arrival. We've got other prophecies concerning the Antichrist and the end time such as the vision of the beasts, but not this one.

 

[Zao is life]

This is yet another example where two people draw polar opposite conclusions from the exact same information. In Dan. 9:24, notwithstanding the other five objectives, why is sealing up the vision and prophecy still waiting to be fulfilled until the end of time? What is scheduled to take place at the end of time is the opposite of sealing up - Jesus opened the seven seals, and the two witnesses are empowered to prophesy, what was used to be sealed up is being revealed. Since you mentioned the Little Horn, for two thousand years nobody knows who that is, because his identity had ALREADY been sealed up at the end of the 70th week, hence the fulfillment of this prophecy!

And by the way, technically the new covenant is the restoration of the OLD covenant, the same old God made with Abraham. It was broken at Mount Sinai through the idolatry of the golden calf, Moses literally dropped the original sets of tablets and broke it; this sin remained until it was washed by the blood of Christ.

The little horn was the king of the Seleucid Empire, but did not fulfill all that was prophesied about him. The lion, the leopard and the bear (he ruled over all the territory of the former empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia and the Eastern part of the Macedonian/Greek Empire of Alexander the Great, with the exception of Ptolemiac Egypt). By the time of the little horn who fulfilled the prophecy (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) the kingdom was partly strong and partly divided, and lost territory to the Parthians (Persia). Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire were the legs of iron and feet of iron and clay- or it's referring to the divided Seleucid kingdom after the expansion by the Parthians - but the little horn is also this:

The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth - all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world - will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come. Revelation 17:8

The Seleucid Empire and its little horn was both Daniel's 4th beast and the beast mentioned in Revelation 17:8 and Revelation 13:2-3. The 4th beast and its little horn was partly fulfilled in the person of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes - but both Daniel chapter 7 and Daniel chapter 12 project that kingdom forward to the end of the age and return of Christ, because not all has been fulfilled yet.

Now the beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. The dragon gave the beast his power, his throne, and great authority to rule. One of the beast's heads appeared to have been killed, but the lethal wound had been healed. And the whole world followed the beast in amazement. Revelation 13:2-3.

It has nothing to do with Rome and the Western Roman Empire.
​

The lion, the leopard and the bear​

​

Rome​

The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth - all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world - will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come. Revelation 17:8

Persia is now gearing up for the final liberation of Jerusalem from Jewish rule. World war is coming. The beast will rise as the victor.

This is regardless of the fact that since the death and resurrection of Christ, the only city called the holy city (three times in the Revelation) is the New Jerusalem. Fact of the matter is the beast is on earth, rising from the bottomless pit, and the Revelation identifies it as the lion, the leopard and the bear.​

 

[Douggg]

Don't you think it's ridiculous that God would put a 2000 plus year gap between the 69th and the 70th weeks without mentioning it?

He does. It is called the time of the Gentiles.... Luke 21:24.

Luke 21:20-24, 70 AD .....2000 year time of the Gentiles......then Luke 21:25-36, time of the end.

 

[Douggg]

My point is just that the "he" who confirmed or made a covenant, depending on your bible version, in 9:27 is Jesus, not the Beast.

The little horn person will not be in his beast king stage at that time - but instead as the perceived messiah by the Jews, his Antichrist stage.

 

[RandyPNW]

If there were merely 10 righteous people in Sodom, God wouldn't have nuked the city. 10 is the minumum quorum. And because there was not even 10, just the small family of Lot, God tolerated Sodom and Gomorrah no more, He took them out and supernaturally put an end on that wickedness.

This just shows that God "nuking" Sodom was not intended to target righteous Lot. Even if Lot had remained in Sodom and suffered the "nuke," he will not have been the target of God's Wrath.

So in the endtimes, whether people are able to escape towns that are nuked or not, Christians are not the object of God's Wrath. But He would show them that they are indeed not the targets, and if they die, it is not a judgment against them.

 

[RandyPNW]

Why do you speak so highly of the Roman empire? You do know that we’re talking about the restrainer of the Antichrist, not the Antichrist himself, right? I’m glad that we agree on some things, but I really don’t get this.

Yes, I'm now confused, as well. We are talking about the Restrainer, who restrains the coming and appearance of the Antichrist. Daniel indicates that before Antichrist appears the 4th Kingdom, the Roman Empire, must exist for a long while as an Empire, and ultimately break up into States. Then, at some point, there will be 10 major States issuing out of this old Empire that will be taken over by the Antichrist.

So the idea is that the Restrainer is the Roman Government, as believed by the early Church Fathers, and also what I believe. It is not that this Government is good. It certainly can be good at times, when the Government is Christian.

But the point is, Roman-originated Government, ie Christian Europe, will be a solid block, an empire, until the time comes for it to be broken up into small states. And as you likely know, that is the process that has been going on for centuries now. Since the fall of Rome in 476 and the fall of Constantinople in 1453, there has been a gradual shift away from Roman imperialism to States with claims to the original Roman imperial mandate. We still see that process being played out between Russia and Ukraine. The former Soviet Empire is gradually being reduced to a number of independent States.

The "Restrainer" is not mentioned by name, by Paul, because he is living under Roman Government, and dares not identify Rome in any of these prophecies. Neither does the Apostle John identify Rome explicitly in his various prophecies about the same. They would be charged with sedition if they did so.

If the "Restrainer" was the Holy Spirit, Paul would've identified Him as such. There would be no danger in doing so. But he didn't, which makes Roman Government the more likely identity of the "Restrainer." Paul referred his readers to earlier teaching, which was likely private teaching about the book of Daniel and the 4th Kingdom, Rome.

Yes, I'm sure we have many things in common. That won't change while discussing some differences?

 

[RandyPNW]

These are the false Christians who get left behind, but they repent during the reign of Antichrist, who will persecute and kill them. Revelation 6 9 'When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?'11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers[c] should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.' We see the Martyrs were given white robes now. Why are they not wearing white robes already? Revelation 4 says this ' Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads'. The number 24 is symbolic and represents all the Christians. So why do the Martyrs get white robes later? Revelation 7 is a further prove of that “Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?” 14 I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.' So the martyrs under the throne are coming out of the great tribulation


Revelation 15 1 Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and amazing, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is finished.


The seven churches represent all the churches until Christ comes. We can see all the seven churches present today also. I believe that revelations chapter 2&3 describe the Church age, then rapture happens, then chapters 4-20 is the 7 years after the rapture and we can see parallelly what goes in Heaven and on Earth. Yes this happened to the church in Philadelphia, but that church also spiritually represents churches who went through the persecution.

Revelation 16 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.” 2 So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth, and harmful and painful sores came upon the people who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. - seems to me that people will also bear God's wrath.


I am the opposite. I am the only one with pre-trib view in my church, everyone else that I spoke to about eschatology amillennialistic. Now why that is, I do not know. But the pastor was kind enough to invite me to his house for a discussion about this, and even though we disagree, God's name was glorified. As long as we love each other even in our disagreements is all that matter. But one thing we all agree on, that He is coming soon to take us home

How funny is that? A Pretrib in an Amill church, while I'm a Postrib in a Pretrib church! It's a testament to both of us that we don't let peripheral difference destroy our brotherly unity with others.

I've given the reasons I'm Postrib, and they are indeed formidable arguments. Most of history had no Pretrib message--did Christians fail to understand Paul for 1830 years? I don't think so.

Also, 2 Thes 2 explicitly argues for Postrib. Pretribbers dispute the obvious statement from Paul that Christ can't come for his Church until Antichrist is revealed 1st.

The book of Revelation was written to encourage Christian to endure great tribulation and even martyrdom for Christ. It was not to encourage them to seek escape from this time.

Anyway, Darbyism has its strength, which I believe is derived from his emphasis on the restoration of Israel (Premillennialism). I just reject any notion of escape from the reign of Antichrist--escape from God's Wrath yes, but not escape from the time when we are encouraged to be strong.

I don't believe Christians "left behind" will "repent." This is only a 3.5 year period, according to Daniel and the Revelation (not Dan 9). In Dan 7 and 12 we are plainly told Antichrist will reign for only 3.5 years. And people don't repent, become mature Christians, and suffer martyrdom for Christ in just a few years! Neither can weak, repentant Christians become strong enough to spread the Gospel around the world in just a few years when the world will be opposed to the Gospel under Antichrist!

All this sounds too much like a myth. And in my opinion, it is. Makes a great sci fi film, though.

 

[RandyPNW]

Thanks for sharing your view.

While I disagree, my point was that pre-trib is a misnomer, because the 7 years is not all tribulation. Pre-trib proponents steadfastly stick to their normenclature even though it is not correct.

Another fallacy that has come out of the pre-trib camp is the covenant to be confirmed for 7 years in Daniel 9:27 is a peace treaty. It is not a peace treaty, but the Mt. Sinai covenant - which Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 that all future leaders of Israel, confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant on a 7 year cycle, in the fall feast of tablernales.

Hi Doug. My view of this may be of interest to you.

I now believe that the one who "confirms a covenant" is the Roman ruler (whoever was in charge at the time), who is not *making* a covenant, but actually *confirming* God's covenant indirectly. He confirms it by bringing about the promised judgment that the Law promised would come upon Israel if they do not keep the Law.

The Covenant of Law was broken in the midst of the 70th Week (Dan 9) when the Roman ruler put Christ to death, thus ending God's recognition of Israel's sacrifices in the Temple.

I've had to do this to adjust to my brother's criticisms, who pointed out that the pronouns need to be consistent, and that a pronoun is usually directly preceded by the earlier subject. In this case, "the people of the ruler to come" appears to be the Roman Army, as identified by Christ in Luke 21, who said that Jerusalem would be encircled by armies.

So if the "ruler to come" is the Roman ruler, then to be consistent the one who confirms the covenant must also be a Roman ruler. In this case, it was Pontius Pilate who had Christ crucified, destroying God's covenant with Israel under Law, rendering all animal sacrifices useless.

The sacrifices were what kept Israel in covenant with God, but upon killing Christ there was no more covenant between God and Israel. The veil was rent, and the covenant was rendered inoperable. The Covenant of Law was, in reality, "confirmed" by its own destruction. And that was exactly what the Law had foretold, that it would fail, making Israel's restoration something that must happen independent of the Law.

 

[RandyPNW]

Maybe you're thinking about Romans 13, where it says governing authorities are God's ministers appointed to punish evil, and they do not bear the sword in vain, that I absolutely agree. But these ministers are prone to get corrupt, and they will, and God holds them accountable, you know. In Psalm 82, God harshly judged these corrupt ministers and condemn them to fall. That hardly qualifies any of them as the "restrainer".

No, the belief that the Roman Government was the "Restrainer" is a belief the ancient Church Fathers held to. Their reasons for believing this may be varied, but my own argument is that Daniel portrays the rise of Antichrist as coming not immediately, but only after a long continuation of an imperial tradition, followed by a breakup into States, and finally reconsolidation by Antichrist.

It is the structure of a unified Empire that initially prevents the rise of Antichrist. And this imperial structure has continued even after the two halves of the Empire broke up into States. Roman-originated Government is *still* preventing the rise of Antichrist. But he can't be far off!

 

[Timtofly]

What I oppose is the false marketing of this doctrine, which is basically alien abduction with a christian label on it. That's deception from the devil and it has no basis from the OT. And just because Enoch and Elijah MIGHT have been "taken" doesn't mean we will be as well. I believe in life, death and resurrection, which should've been the core belief of every Christian, and the real rapture is just a part of it.

We are already in a state of death. Just being removed from Adam's dead corruptible flesh is a resurrection from eternal death to eternal life. The soul does not even go into the earth. This body returns to dust, and is never resurrected.

Those in Paradise since the Cross already have a permanent incorruptible physical body. They have been physically serving God day and night in that Heavenly Temple for 1993 years per Revelation 7.

The dead in Christ literally in a state of death are those currently physically walking around on the earth. All the rest of the church is enjoying eternal life.

 

[Douggg]

So if the "ruler to come" is the Roman ruler, then to be consistent the one who confirms the covenant must also be a Roman ruler.

Yes, but you have the wrong Roman ruler. And the Roman empire of the wrong era.

The little horn person, who will become leader over 10 EU leaders. That's the next prophesied event.