I would disagree on a few points. As per the AC's
Roman lineage I believe the prevailing thought on the
'prince' or ruler of the second part of Daniel 9:26 is in
reference to the anti-messiah. The Roman Titus ordered
and executed the destruction of the city and the sanctuary,
therefore the ruler to come would seemingly have to be a
descendant of a true Roman. Being Roman isn't
really a stretch for any particular sub-group as at that
time, Rome ruled almost all of civilization. Paul
declared himself to be Roman, though he was a Jew of
Israel. The Roman legions like X Fretenses (10th
of the Sea Straight) were made up of the conquered peoples
of the Romans, whether Syrian, Israeli, Macedonian,
etc. If the 'prince' or ruler is referencing the
anti-messiah, the Bible (not me) says that his people would
destroy the city and the Temple, which happened in 70
AD. It is historical fact those people were Roman,
made of various European, African and SW Asia
" And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be
cut off, but not for himself: and the people of
the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and
the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall
be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations
are determined." - Dan 9:26 KJV
The end of that 1st Jewish-Roman War occurred 3 years
later by the Dead Sea at Masada in 73 AD. That
diaspora, the dispersion of the Jews from the holy city and
the sanctuary didn't end until 1967 when the Jews retook the
city and the sanctuary at the 6 Day War. So if the
count ended with Titus, the destroyer of the Temple as the
7th legitimate Roman emperor, then when the AC consolidates
the world with a Rome-like power, he will be the 8th.
Obama is also the 8th ELECTED American President since the
Jews retook Jerusalem in 1967. Is America with her
Senate and Roman-like world power the resurrection of
Rome? I don't know. We act like it.
On the second point, the 'departing' or more accurately
the great 'falling away' that the KJV interprets from the
Greek word 'apostasia' (Strong's G646) is in reference to
the DEFECTION, the APOSTASY from the Church, which would
agree with Dan. 11:30 describing the antichrist's agreement
with those who FORSAKE the Holy Covenant. The passage
in II Thess. 2:3 has been debated here ad nauseam. It
is doubtful there will be an agreement on the
interpretation of this passage until the Lord comes.
The apostasy has begun, whether or not folks see it.
Obama, clearly espousing antichristian ideals, could have
NOT come to power without an agreement to vote with a large
portion of church-goers in America. Whether Obama is
thee AC or not, I believe the POINT of II Thess 2:3-8
is that a general defection from the true Church will open
the door for the AC to achieve power. The 'restrainer'
being diminished yeilds the world to an antichristian
power. A majority not affected by the 'mystery of
iniquity' (that was at work in the church even back then) will restrain the AC from
gaining power. When the 'mystery of iniquity'
prevails, an apostasy or defection from the church will
yield world power to the AC. The apostasy facilitates
power for the AC.
Whether Obama is thee AC of course is debateable.
However, the many attributes which he posseses and espouses
are antichristian, a truth which is self-evident. If
he is not the one, he IS the model with NO deficit of
Biblical AC attributes.