Friday, July 11, 2014

July 16: The Fateful Day is Almost Here

This is the SECOND blog post I made today. If you want to see the first one, GO HERE. However, they do stand alone (you don't have to read the one to understand the other, etc.)

So the fateful day has almost arrived!
The EU Council will be choosing the new High Representative on Wednesday, July 16. The High Representative position is the Lisbon treaty's successor position to Javier Solana's "High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy." To see why I think this position is so important, see the overview RIGHT HERE. 

Not to mention this, the past EU High Representative had quite a few very conspicuous and weird 666 connections. To see a summary of those, go to this thread on Fulfilled . Surely, you can find a 666 connection to almost anyone you want to, if you look hard enough. However, the High Representative already did lots of unprecedented things that appeared to fulfill prophecy. It looked like a great theory, all by itself, without the 666 connections.  However, his 666 connections were so strong and numerous, that it was hard to believe that they meant nothing.

But alas, he retired, and was replaced by Catherine Ashton. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with a woman holding political office. But it is quite frustrating, considering there is no way on earth the Antichrist will be a woman. Also, Javier Solana stepped down and was replaced by a woman, very close to the midpoint of the first seven year treaty between the EU and Israel ever. (Again, if you don't know what I'm talking about, go to the overview RIGHT HERE. )

So now, that woman's term is almost up. The EU foreign policy chief has a 5 year term that is renewable once. Ashton didn't want to go for a second term, so she decided to step down at the end of her term. Her term expires in October or December. So they have to pick a replacement before then. Which is why all the heads of the EU countries are meeting on July 16 for a special EU Council Summit to decide the new High Representative, and the new EU Council President.

It looked for a while that the strongest candidate for the job was Radek Sikorski. If we think the Antichrist will someday hold the office of the high representative, he was the best candidate their was. He was also the strongest candidate in the EU. Here is a previous blog post on why I think so. He is very hawkish, wants to split EU and US defense alliances, is very outspoken against Russia, and wants to revitalize the 7 year European Neighborhood Policy. He also wants the EU to become a "superstate."

But he recently got caught in a scandal saying that his ties with the U.S. were "worthless." He also said some bad things about David Cameron. So a lot of analysts say that this really hurt his chances at becoming the next high rep. What is more, lots of think tanks and analysts are saying that the ENP is broken, and needs fixed by a new strong High Representative.

But it appears to be "business as usual" as one article said. When choosing the high rep, the heads of states are more worried about "ticking all the boxes." For example, the new commission president is a man, from Luxembourg, and part of the EPP party. Well, that means that the other jobs have to given to someone who is not a man, or EPP, and perhaps from a different region in the EU. This article on Europe Decides shows the incredible balancing act that the outgoing EU council president must perform in order to please everyone. He has to balance political party, gender balance, North-South balance, and so forth.

This is likely why the Italian foreign minister is the front runner to become the next EU foreign policy chief. She barely has any experience. But keep in mind, this didn't stop them from nominating Catherine Ashton as the last high rep. All the think tanks keep prodding the EU to actually choose a strong person, and get its foreign policy pulled together. But all of these cries are falling on deaf ears. They are more worried about ticking all the boxes than say, job experience, in a position that pays more than President Obama.

Please don't be confused! I have no problem with women holding political office! What is frustrating is that she can't be the Antichrist. And we might get two people in a row that are just non-starters.

Yes, emotionally this was/is pretty upsetting. I was very discouraged when I learned that they would likely choose Mogherini for the job instead of someone who could be the Antichrist.

However, Sikorski and Lajkak are still potential nominees. If you want to go to the Europe Decides website, there is a great article there about the "rubik's cube" that Herman Van Rompuy has to solve to please everyone and tick all the boxes. Sikorski is still a possible combination.

Herman's Checklist

Who knows what they will decide. Perhaps they will choose Sikorski, perhaps Mogherini, perhaps the Bulgarian woman (also high on the list). But as frustrating as this would be emotionally, the theory remains untouched logically. There is nothing at all about having the next high representative be a woman that would destroy the theory or hurt it in any way. At least, it won't be hurt any worse than it was in 2010, when Javier Solana was not the man we thought he was.

The "EU as revived Roman Empire" theory still stands the test of time. I will quote from my previous blog post that I made today:

The EU theory is a relatively simple theory. It explains all of the facts decently well. And all those facts are "pulled together" by one thing...the EU. The EU "unifies" lots of different facts about prophecy in a relatively simple way without too much forcing.
  1. Ten nation alliance does merger with the EU over several years
  2. EU has a "common purpose" in foreign policy (i.e. Common Foreign and Security Policy) (See Revelation 17:17 NASB)
  3. A high representative, whose job it is to be the person who carries out the "common purpose" 
  4. Lots of 666 connections associated with the high representative 
  5. Has a 7 year framework for building treaties with it's neighbors, including Israel
  6. Is a VERY divided kingdom
  7. When you add in the 7 year covenant countries, it even looks like the Roman Empire
What is the chances that NONE of these things mean what we think it means? What is the chances that they are all wrong?!?

If they nominate a woman, all that means is the Antichrist hasn't come yet, no more, no less. I have a hard time believing that the 666 connections don't mean anything at all. And prophetically, the High Representative does fit best to be the Antichrist, as far as I can tell. They are the person designated to fulfill the EU's "common purpose" (i.e. common foreign and security policy).  And the new commission president doesn't really strike me as the Antichrist type.

All the analysts are whining about how weak this current ENP is. But we know in the Bible that the 7 year covenant will be a "strong" covenant. This last one was very weak, and the current one doesn't look much better. It has hardly stopped the Arab Spring or prevented any of the political disasters we have seen today.

The next ENP cycle is in 2020-2027. The next high representative will be nominated about one year before that begins (around 2019). So that would be a very fitting time for the Antichrist to come to the scene. He could ascend to power, then make a brand new 7 year covenant that actually has strength to it. Russia tensions could be getting worse, so there will be increasing frustration if the next EU foreign policy chief (2015-2019) does a bad job. There could be increasing fears about what to do with Russia. Furthermore, Britain will become even more keen on exiting (around 2017), since nothing is really changing. Other states could be interested in exiting as well. It also gives time to rebuild the Jewish temple.

There are five scenarios that could happen July 16:

Scenario 1: A woman is chosen for the top job. She is not the Antichrist. We have to wait longer.

Scenario 2: A man is chosen for High rep, but doesn't turn out to be the Antichrist. Same as scenario 1.

Scenario 3: They nominate a man who could be the Antichrist. He serves 5 years, then gets reelected for another 5 years, terminating his job around 2024 (close to the midpoint of the 2020 cycle).

Scenario 4: They nominate a man who could be the Antichrist. He does what the influential Carnegie Think tanks want him to do, and "reboots" the ENP in 2015.

Scenario 5: God surprises us, doing something totally different. His perogative.

I will be praying a lot this week. I pray that we won't be made to wait again. But as others have told me, it is indeed up to him. 

Your How-To Guide for Building a Good End Times Theory

Building a Good End Times Theory

Pardon the ambitious title, but I would like to make a post about making a good end times theory. A loose definition for a theory is "an explanation that best accounts for all the facts we have."

We make end times theories based on Scripture, and see how those line up with world events. Indeed, the "EU as the end times Roman empire" is an end times theory, but one that I believe is strongly based on Scripture. 

We used to have an end times theory on who the Antichrist was. We thought that theory was really good. But the theory, at least as it was formulated at the time, turned out to be wrong.

Obviously, we are all interested in the truth, even if that leads us to inconvenient places. What we need to use, when analyzing end times theories, is criteria for a good theory. The characteristics of good theories in general are actually the criteria we need to use for building end times theories.

Building a Good Theory: An Example from Christian Apologetics

So what are the characteristics of a good theory? Christian apologist Dr. Michael Licona, who studies the resurrection of Jesus, has a pretty good list in my opinion. You will find each of these criteria throughout philosophy journal articles, but he does a nice job of making a good comprehensive list. Here's his list:

Characteristics of a Good Theory
  1. Explanatory scope - does the theory provide a decent explanation of all the facts, or just some of them? Example: "Jesus disciples hallucinated him after his resurrection" does not have good explanatory scope, because it doesn't explain other details, such as the empty tomb. It leaves loose ends "hanging." 
  2. Explanatory power - does the theory provide a good explanation of all the facts, or do we have to force it? Example: "Jesus resurrection story is just a metaphor" does not have good explanatory power. Even though it explains all the details, it doesn't explain them very well. 
  3. Plausibility - is this theory likely, given other background information we have about the same subject? Example: "which is more likely, Jesus resurrection, or multiple simultaneous group hallucinations occurring to several different types of individuals?" Though people don't rise from the dead on a regular basis, multiple group hallucination seems even more "impossible" than a resurrection. 
  4. Less ad hoc (ad hoc means contrived) - does the theory have to make up other facts out of thin air, just to explain this theory? How much does it "force it?" Example: "Jesus didn't rise from the dead, his long lost twin brother stole the body, then pretended to be Jesus in front of his disciples." 
  5. Illumination - Does our theory answer other questions about other subject matters and open up other areas of inquiry? Example: does Jesus resurrection help us answer other questions as to why the early Christians behaved the way they did? Yes it does. 
  6. Simplicity (this is not on Licona's list, but its very important) - is the theory the simplest explanation of all of the facts? Example: "Disciples hallucinated Jesus after his death, but someone else stole the body" is not a very simple theory, because it has two different explanations, instead of one. 
  7. Falsifiable/testable (this is not on Licona's list, but its also very important) - can you at least, in principle, prove the theory wrong? Example: "Jesus disciples hallucinated the resurrection of Jesus" is very UN-falsifiable because there is nothing you could say to prove it wrong. Imagine someone using a "hallucination defense" in a court room, and claimed that all the witnesses to their murder were merely hallucinating. What could you say to prove them wrong? It would be really hard, because the theory is in principle, permanently safe. 

Source for this list.
I remember reading about many of these when taking my philosophy of science class (which, as you can guess, focuses a lot on what a good theory is). But Licona does a great job of listing all of them together. Dr. Licona often debates people who do not believe in the resurrection. Usually, his opponent has some other theory to explain the historical facts, other than the resurrection. What Licona does in debate, is show how the resurrection "theory" meets all 5 of this criteria much better than the opponents theory (i.e. the disciples stole the body, the disciples hallucinated Jesus after his resurrection, etc.) He does a fantastic job, and is probably one of the best experts on the resurrection today.

So How Does this Relate to Prophecy? 

According to philosopher Richard Swinburne, the best theory is the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts. As you can see, Richard Swinburne's definition is basically a shorter version of Licona's. These are the things we need to keep in mind when evaluating all theories in life.

...And they are the things we need to keep in mind when evaluating a theory about prophecy.

Solana Theory was a Great Theory for Awhile

When making a theory about who the Antichrist is, or prophecy in general, we need a simple theory that accounts for all the facts that doesn't force the details (i.e. is not ad hoc). Also, it needs to be "testable." There has to be some way to prove it wrong.

The original ENPI/WEU/666 theory was a good theory. It was simple and "unifying." It explained all the facts quite well and everything seemed to "fit together" pretty good (i.e. explanatory scope). It also had very good "predictive" power. It was "testable" in that it could be proven wrong. All we had to do was wait for the midpoint.

But the theory's validity took quite a hit when Javier Solana retired before the midpoint. The theory was still simple, unifying, and explained all the facts, but it involved a lot more "force fitting." It became much more "ad hoc" (i.e. contrived). We had to postulate an additional fact that wasn't supported by any other evidence. We had to suppose Solana would not retire, despite having all the evidence say that he would. Furthermore, it was no longer testable or falsifable after the midpoint. 

Is The EU Theory a Good Theory?

While we may have been wrong about Solana, I don't think we are wrong about the EU. I think the EU theory is very well-supported, especially if we set it up to make "modest" claims.

The EU theory is a relatively simple theory. It explains all of the facts decently well. And all those facts are "pulled together" by one thing...the EU. The EU "unifies" lots of different facts about prophecy in a relatively simple way without too much forcing.
  1. Ten nation alliance does merger with the EU over several years
  2. EU has a "common purpose" in foreign policy (i.e. Common Foreign and Security Policy)
  3. A high representative, whose job it is to be the person who carries out the "common purpose" 
  4. Lots of 666 connections associated with the high representative 
  5. Has a 7 year framework for building treaties with it's neighbors, including Israel
  6. Is a VERY divided kingdom
  7. When you add in the 7 year covenant countries, it even looks like the Roman Empire

All of these facts aren't strewn around to different people or countries. They all are united in the EU. Furthermore, when stated more modestly, it is a very good theory that isn't too ad hoc. Many of the things we would expect from the end times Roman empire are found in the EU. After all, what are the chances that not just one, but not just two, but ALL of these facts are found in ONE organization, and it not be the end times Roman Empire? I think we are still on the right track

What I'm saying is, even if a woman gets elected on July 16, the "EU theory" remains untouched. It is still a fantastic explanation of the facts, even though it is taking a lot longer than expected to fulfill. Which leads me to my next blog post...

I will be having two blog posts today. This is probably the less interesting one. But I think it's important to look at the features of a good theory. 

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Quora: My Answer to: "Christians: How Soon Do You Think Jesus is Coming Back?"

Another Social Media Site We Could Use for Influence

Here is my answer to the question "How soon do you think Jesus is coming back? on Quora.

Quora is a great question and answer site, I highly recommend it. "Justasheep," whom I'm sure most of you know, has an account as well.

I used to only use it for Christian apologetics purposes. The site has a strong non-religious and socially liberal bent, so I thought they would dismiss end times stuff. But apparently the Christians on there are reasonably receptive to good news about Jesus' return.

(Granted, their receptivity may be skewed by the fact that I used lots of Quora credits, to promote the answer. So the amount of apparent "receptivity" to eu-related prophecy ideas may be a little skewed by the fact that I promoted it to death and made the answer come up a very disproportionate amount in their feed. That is my way of giving my unnecessarily long-winded answer much more attention than it deserves!)

Anyhow, if you are knew to my blog, the Quora answer should summarize what this website, EU Prophecy News, is all about, as well as one perspective on what the wider movement is about.

Perhaps we can use this as yet another means of outreach, if a major event happens, along with using each of our blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc. I think Quora is classified as a social media site.

The High Representative and July 16

Sorry for the slow updates. I'm waiting for the European Council meeting on July 16 when they decide the EU Council President and the High Representative. Once they make these decisions, I will post in some form or another. As you likely know, I am part of a group that regards the High Representative office as potentially prophetically significant.

It looks like Radek Sikorski is still in the running, but some people think his recent tape scandal cost him the job. Lots of others think that a woman will get one (or both) of the positions, but the main complaint is that the leading female candidate from Italy lacks experience. But who knows. The last female candidate (Catherine Ashton) also lacked experience. They also complain that it's a southern country, and not willing enough to stand up to Russia.

I am very interested in seeing where this all goes. I hope we don't get severely disappointed. But yet, we have to have faith, no matter what. Who knows? Something really big could happen.

Keep watching!