Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Daniel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Daniel

    Originally posted by az331 View Post
    I've read Daniel maybe 14 times ...I think I am on my 13-14th time on the full Bible. I have always been intrigued by the prophesies but for some strange reason Daniel didnt really jog my deep interest like some other Revelation stuff. I just finished it again and this time its more interesting.
    Daniel 11 is indeed describing the antichrist from a different angle. The only 2 countries I can match to the south king and the north king is Saudi
    Arabia and Iran. Nothing else fits at all to me. In looking at Sauds current leader I can see one of the wealthy leaders mentioned but its hard to say exactly which one. The antichrist seems to be following a king and is not royalty by birth. That would help him be popular with more common people. But its clear from more prophecy that he wont have the world or anything near it following him. He will only control a portion of the world.
    And I wonder if translations have erred in that they make it out that he is bigger than he really will be. A big part of the world will ignore him
    and America,China,Ammon etc will not be supporters.
    Can anyone here match up any of the kings described or the daughter with recent events?Or the many battles/threats between the North and South? Its possible we still have a ways to go before those come to pass...There might be more years left than it seems..before Christ return.
    And I'm gettin old.
    Daniel 11 is all about the Greek lineage, it goes all the way to the TYPE Anti-Christ in Antiochus who had a TYPE False Prophet in Jason the High Priest who tried to Hellenize the Jews but then the Maccabeans Revolted. Verses 32-33.

    Then in verses 33-35 we see the transition unto the End Times where many are made WHITE {via Jesus blood} and then the End Times are shown in Daniel 11:36-45 and the Anti-Christ is shown. Don't buy into all this other stuff you see guys trying to push. People who can't see the Anti-Christ here, be weary about anything they say. Some say the Anti-Christ isn't here at all, others say the Anti-Christ stretches from verse 21-45, both are in error.

    As per who the King of the South and King of the North is, well the King of the North is the Anti-Christ a MAN, the Man of Sin, the Little Horn, the Beast etc. etc. The King of the South might be a conglomerate of Nations, it really doesn't matter, we know the Anti-Christ Conquers Israel and THE MANY (Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 8:25 speaks of THE MANY Nations} and Daniel 11:40-43 shows us who they are, they are Israel, All of North Africa, and of course the nations he rolls through, Lebanon and Syria, basically he has to Conquer the whole Mediterranean Sea Region to be a Beast like Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome was.

    Notice he can't Conquer three peoples, they make up modern day Central/Southern Jordan where God is going to protect the Jews that Flee from the Beast !! {Petra/Bozrah}.

    So its the whole region he conquers, the KOTS cout be a Turkish King, Saudi Arabia or a North African conglomerate, who knows, but we know he Conquers Israel and all of North Africa, and the other nations around the Mediterranean Sea Region, thus he is the BEAST like the others were. By the time hes finished his E.U. Kingdoms and North Africa, Israel, and other Nations will make his "FOOTPRINT" look exactly like the Old Roman Empires "FOOTPRINT". That's why the Little Horn is said to ARISE out of the Fourth Beasts Head. Hes really a 5th Beast.............7th Head.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Daniel

      Originally posted by az331 View Post
      Daniel 11 is indeed describing the antichrist from a different angle. The only 2 countries I can match to the south king and the north king is Saudi
      Arabia and Iran. Nothing else fits at all to me. In looking at Sauds current leader I can see one of the wealthy leaders mentioned but its hard to say exactly which one. The antichrist seems to be following a king and is not royalty by birth. That would help him be popular with more common people. But its clear from more prophecy that he wont have the world or anything near it following him. He will only control a portion of the world.
      And I wonder if translations have erred in that they make it out that he is bigger than he really will be. A big part of the world will ignore him
      It is true that parts of Daniel 11 refer to the antichrist, the wording shows the end times context: 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life

      I therefore agree that the chapter ends with the antichrist, yet the chapter starts with historical events, not future events. The beginning of chapter 11 is clearly about the kingdoms of Persia and then Greece, and it's 4 divisions in history. In this way you have incorrectly defined who the king of the north is, it is one of these 4 Greek kingdoms. History shows that it is the Syrian based "Seleucid" kingdom. The Egypt based Ptolemy kingdom is the king of the south, and all the interactions between these two Grecian kingdoms match with history.

      It is only from verse 31 to 35 that the events that relate to the Syrian/Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes have a dual fulfillment. These events also apply to a future character who is clearly in end times /resurrection context. This is why there is much tribulation terminology in those five verses (desolation, abomination, end to sacrifice, covenant, time of the end). This terminology continues into Chapter 12, which is also an end times chapter.

      In conclusion: Although I believe the first part of Daniel 11 was fulfilled in ancient history, I believe you are correct to identify the antichrist in the chapter, I believe you are correct to show he is from the Middle East, and does not have full control over the whole world. Certain countries clearly escape his complete dominance as per Dan 11:41. His title as "King of the North" indicates a Syrian/Seleucid base, yet he also controls Israel, described as the "beautiful land" in v41.
      Last edited by DurbanDude; Sep 16th 2019, 12:51 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Daniel

        Originally posted by marty fox View Post
        I think that the one in Daniel 11 was Antiochus epehanies

        I see Nero as the one in 2 these 2 and Jesus came in judgment on him
        Neither of those two fit with the Bible prophecies. A4E is described earlier in Daniel, but Nero; never.

        What is your problem with thinking that there will come a wicked world ruler? Actually it won't be greatly different from the ones we have now!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Daniel

          Originally posted by Keraz View Post
          Neither of those two fit with the Bible prophecies. A4E is described earlier in Daniel, but Nero; never.

          What is your problem with thinking that there will come a wicked world ruler? Actually it won't be greatly different from the ones we have now!
          I don' think that Nero is mentioned anywhere in Daniel

          I don't have any problem with a future world leader I just think that Nero fulfilled it already. There are many bad leaders is the world and always will be but I just don't believe that there will be a world leader

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Daniel

            Originally posted by az331 View Post
            Can anyone here match up any of the kings described or the daughter with recent events?Or the many battles/threats between the North and South? Its possible we still have a ways to go before those come to pass...There might be more years left than it seems..before Christ return.
            And I'm gettin old.
            Regarding time frames, as per my previous post, all those marriages etc have already been fulfilled. The future events are firstly a rebuilt temple. Then a Syrian leader possibly armed by Turkey will take over Israel, and also war against Egypt. Together with Turkey, they will dominate a large region of the Middle East. He will rule for 3.5 years until the second coming.

            These events could occur in the near future.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Daniel

              Originally posted by az331 View Post
              I've read Daniel maybe 14 times ...I think I am on my 13-14th time on the full Bible. I have always been intrigued by the prophesies but for some strange reason Daniel didnt really jog my deep interest like some other Revelation stuff. I just finished it again and this time its more interesting.
              Daniel 11 is indeed describing the antichrist from a different angle. The only 2 countries I can match to the south king and the north king is Saudi
              Arabia and Iran. Nothing else fits at all to me. In looking at Sauds current leader I can see one of the wealthy leaders mentioned but its hard to say exactly which one. The antichrist seems to be following a king and is not royalty by birth. That would help him be popular with more common people. But its clear from more prophecy that he wont have the world or anything near it following him. He will only control a portion of the world.
              And I wonder if translations have erred in that they make it out that he is bigger than he really will be. A big part of the world will ignore him
              and America,China,Ammon etc will not be supporters.
              Can anyone here match up any of the kings described or the daughter with recent events?Or the many battles/threats between the North and South? Its possible we still have a ways to go before those come to pass...There might be more years left than it seems..before Christ return.
              And I'm gettin old.
              Dan 11 is a historically fulfilled prophecy. Nothing remains unfulfilled. The king of the north represents the Seleucid Kingdom while the king of the south denotes the Ptolemies. The future antichrist is not in Dan 11 although it hasn't stopped some with limited understanding of the passage from adding their own theories about the AC into the mix.

              Dan 11 has been debated several times, perhaps you should avail yourself from some of the previous debates on the topic.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Daniel

                Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                Dan 11 is a historically fulfilled prophecy. Nothing remains unfulfilled. The king of the north represents the Seleucid Kingdom while the king of the south denotes the Ptolemies. The future antichrist is not in Dan 11 although it hasn't stopped some with limited understanding of the passage from adding their own theories about the AC into the mix.

                Dan 11 has been debated several times, perhaps you should avail yourself from some of the previous debates on the topic.
                HI Trivalee,

                If all of Daniel 11 is history, how do you explain that this king of the North comes to his end at the time of the resurrection?

                45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life

                Some of limited understanding see a less than literal resurrection there. I guess it's possible to see symbolism anywhere, yet it's safer hermeneutics to see symbolism only where it's obvious, otherwise to take things literally. I see the resurrection in that wording.
                Last edited by DurbanDude; Sep 17th 2019, 04:13 PM. Reason: Fixing emoticon ;)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Daniel

                  Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                  HI Trivalee,

                  If all of Daniel 11 is history, how do you explain that this king of the North comes to his end at the time of the resurrection?

                  45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life

                  Some of limited understanding 😁 see a less than literal resurrection there, I guess it's possible to see symbolism anywhere, yet it's safer hermeneutics to see symbolism only where it's obvious, otherwise to take things literally. I see the resurrection in that wording.
                  When you stand back from a scene larger gaps seem smaller. Trees that appear close together may actually be some distance apart.

                  It's the same in these kinds of prophecies. From Daniel's perspective, the general resurrection of the saints may appear to be the next thing on the ticket.

                  In reality, Daniel 12 speaks of a period of Great Tribulation for the Jewish People that begins relatively soon in history following the death of Antiochus 4. Though this Great Tribulation began for the Jews in 70 AD, a couple of hundred years after the death of Antiochus 4, in history it appears pretty soon afterwards.

                  Rome had already begun to wield its influence in that region during the reign of Antiochus 4. Over the next couple of hundred years Rome became the major power ruling Israel, leading to the fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple worship.

                  This Great Tribulation of the Jews, which began in 70 AD, was to continue, according to Jesus, "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." In other words, it was this Great Tribulation of the Jews that would lead to the resurrection of the saints, at a time when the Son of Man comes back to deliver his people in Israel.

                  In the Olivet Discourse Jesus was still under the Law and spoke primarily of the Jewish People. He spoke of the deliverance of the Jews by referring to his return for those in Israel who followed him. But it was not long afterwards, after the cross, when Jesus expanded the numbers who would be saved at that time. It would include his followers from all nations.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Daniel

                    Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                    HI Trivalee,

                    If all of Daniel 11 is history, how do you explain that this king of the North comes to his end at the time of the resurrection?

                    45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life

                    Some of limited understanding 😁 see a less than literal resurrection there, I guess it's possible to see symbolism anywhere, yet it's safer hermeneutics to see symbolism only where it's obvious, otherwise to take things literally. I see the resurrection in that wording.
                    DurbanDude: Dan 11 and 12 is the account of the fate of Daniel's people and the final struggle between the various "Beast Kingdoms" that oppressed Israel which finally set the stage for the coming of the Messiah.

                    The exploits of A4E ended in Dan 11:31 after he was disgracefully forced out of Egypt by the Roman ambassadors (ships of Chittim v-30). In his humiliation, he returned and took out his frustration on the hapless Judeans. Verses 32-35 address the aftermath of his onslaught against Jerusalem and the Maccabean revolt.

                    However, the stage changes from v-36 with the introduction of the 'king' without the prefix of either north or south. This new king is Herod the Great! After the death of A4E, the Seleucid dynasty waned; although there were many Seleucid kings after A4E, none of them had the military might nor the inclination to trouble Judea. So Israel consequently enjoyed about a hundred years of autonomy and self-rule under the Hasmoneans.

                    Unfortunately, Israel's autonomy ended in 63BC after Jerusalem fell under Pompey's assault, thus bringing Rome into the scene to actively replace the Seleucids' as the king of the north. But before Pompey returned to a hero's welcome in Rome, he left a large Roman garrison in Jerusalem and Damascus that remained till 70 AD and beyond.

                    Having installed Herod by Mark Antony as puppet king of Israel in v-36, it wasn't long before Rome was plunged into a civil war precipitated by the assassination of Julius Caesar. By this time, Mark Antony was comfortably ensconced with what would be the last of the Ptolemies on the throne - Queen Cleopatra. When war broke out between Mark Antony's forces (here referred to as the king of the south) and Octavius Caesar's army (king of the north), M. Antony struck a preemptive strike by attacking Octavius forces first, v-40.

                    Wars between Israel and Egypt has for millenniums been fought on land given the proximity of the two nations, yet the battle describes the involvement of many *ships*. The battle in v-40 is actually that of Actium in 31BC. Now, how did a Roman civil war concern Jerusalem? Simple. To consolidate his throne, Herod had no choice but to support M. Antony's army, although he cleverly switched sides after perceived that Octavius was going to win.

                    The tidings from the east and the north in v-44 refers to the troubling news of the Magi (the two wise men Matt 2:3) and also, news that two of his sons had conspired to usurp his throne and had gone to Rome to seek support. Rome had by this assumed the position of the 'north'. Finally, Dan 11:45 describes the horrific death of Herod who having been plagued by protracted undisclosed illness, had moved to his winter place in Jericho where he eventually died.

                    Dan 12 refers to events of the end times and verse 1 deals with the Great tribulation when Michael will stand up in defence of God's people, particularly the Jews. And verses 2-3 refers to the resurrections of the just and the wicked. This is merely a synopsis, a detailed version naturally takes several pages I had written in the past.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Daniel

                      Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                      DurbanDude: Dan 11 and 12 is the account of the fate of Daniel's people and the final struggle between the various "Beast Kingdoms" that oppressed Israel which finally set the stage for the coming of the Messiah.

                      The exploits of A4E ended in Dan 11:31 after he was disgracefully forced out of Egypt by the Roman ambassadors (ships of Chittim v-30). In his humiliation, he returned and took out his frustration on the hapless Judeans. Verses 32-35 address the aftermath of his onslaught against Jerusalem and the Maccabean revolt.

                      However, the stage changes from v-36 with the introduction of the 'king' without the prefix of either north or south. This new king is Herod the Great! After the death of A4E, the Seleucid dynasty waned; although there were many Seleucid kings after A4E, none of them had the military might nor the inclination to trouble Judea. So Israel consequently enjoyed about a hundred years of autonomy and self-rule under the Hasmoneans.

                      Unfortunately, Israel's autonomy ended in 63BC after Jerusalem fell under Pompey's assault, thus bringing Rome into the scene to actively replace the Seleucids' as the king of the north. But before Pompey returned to a hero's welcome in Rome, he left a large Roman garrison in Jerusalem and Damascus that remained till 70 AD and beyond.

                      Having installed Herod by Mark Antony as puppet king of Israel in v-36, it wasn't long before Rome was plunged into a civil war precipitated by the assassination of Julius Caesar. By this time, Mark Antony was comfortably ensconced with what would be the last of the Ptolemies on the throne - Queen Cleopatra. When war broke out between Mark Antony's forces (here referred to as the king of the south) and Octavius Caesar's army (king of the north), M. Antony struck a preemptive strike by attacking Octavius forces first, v-40.

                      Wars between Israel and Egypt has for millenniums been fought on land given the proximity of the two nations, yet the battle describes the involvement of many *ships*. The battle in v-40 is actually that of Actium in 31BC. Now, how did a Roman civil war concern Jerusalem? Simple. To consolidate his throne, Herod had no choice but to support M. Antony's army, although he cleverly switched sides after perceived that Octavius was going to win.

                      The tidings from the east and the north in v-44 refers to the troubling news of the Magi (the two wise men Matt 2:3) and also, news that two of his sons had conspired to usurp his throne and had gone to Rome to seek support. Rome had by this assumed the position of the 'north'. Finally, Dan 11:45 describes the horrific death of Herod who having been plagued by protracted undisclosed illness, had moved to his winter place in Jericho where he eventually died.

                      Dan 12 refers to events of the end times and verse 1 deals with the Great tribulation when Michael will stand up in defence of God's people, particularly the Jews. And verses 2-3 refers to the resurrections of the just and the wicked. This is merely a synopsis, a detailed version naturally takes several pages I had written in the past.
                      Thanks for the explanation of your view. Kindly clarify who the "he" is from v36? It is one character, yet you seem to involve both Rome and Herod.

                      For example it was Rome who conquered Egypt, not Herod. Rome invaded Israel, not Herod. By the time Herod was in power these things had already been done. Yet Daniel 11 says the same "he" did all these things.

                      Also you don't explain the resurrection that occurred at the time of his death:
                      45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at[f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. AT THAT TIME Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But AT THAT TIME your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Daniel

                        Originally posted by randyk View Post
                        When you stand back from a scene larger gaps seem smaller. Trees that appear close together may actually be some distance apart.

                        It's the same in these kinds of prophecies. From Daniel's perspective, the general resurrection of the saints may appear to be the next thing on the ticket.

                        In reality, Daniel 12 speaks of a period of Great Tribulation for the Jewish People that begins relatively soon in history following the death of Antiochus 4. Though this Great Tribulation began for the Jews in 70 AD, a couple of hundred years after the death of Antiochus 4, in history it appears pretty soon afterwards.

                        Rome had already begun to wield its influence in that region during the reign of Antiochus 4. Over the next couple of hundred years Rome became the major power ruling Israel, leading to the fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple worship.

                        This Great Tribulation of the Jews, which began in 70 AD, was to continue, according to Jesus, "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." In other words, it was this Great Tribulation of the Jews that would lead to the resurrection of the saints, at a time when the Son of Man comes back to deliver his people in Israel.

                        In the Olivet Discourse Jesus was still under the Law and spoke primarily of the Jewish People. He spoke of the deliverance of the Jews by referring to his return for those in Israel who followed him. But it was not long afterwards, after the cross, when Jesus expanded the numbers who would be saved at that time. It would include his followers from all nations.
                        I do see that sometimes prophecies may compress events that have larger gaps. Nevertheless in this instance a specific phrase is used: AT THAT TIME. This means at that time.

                        Yet history shows at the time of Antiochus' death, Israel entered a time of relative peace under the Maccabees. This does not fit in with 12:1 At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then.

                        Not only that, but Dan 12 concerns the end-times and refers to a 1290 day period, starting with an abomination. This is an obvious reference to the abomination mentioned in the same vision in Dan 11:31. Thus the time of distress could be that 3.5 year period, not necessarily an extended timeframe.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Daniel

                          Plenty is unfulfilled. Interesting why some would argue so about it. LIke they have a stake or something. The AC is coming. Thats not debate able.
                          Within 10 years everything will be made clear.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Daniel

                            Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                            I do see that sometimes prophecies may compress events that have larger gaps. Nevertheless in this instance a specific phrase is used: AT THAT TIME. This means at that time.

                            Yet history shows at the time of Antiochus' death, Israel entered a time of relative peace under the Maccabees. This does not fit in with 12:1 At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then.

                            Not only that, but Dan 12 concerns the end-times and refers to a 1290 day period, starting with an abomination. This is an obvious reference to the abomination mentioned in the same vision in Dan 11:31. Thus the time of distress could be that 3.5 year period, not necessarily an extended timeframe.
                            "At that time" seems to refer the death of Antiochus 4, and the event to take place is the rise of Michael the angel. So if anything was to take place "at that time," it was the rise of an angel, and not the endtimes.

                            What connects the rise of the angel to the endtimes and to the resurrection is the fact that Israel's troubles begin "at that time" and end in the endtimes. This is precisely what Jesus said, that a great tribulation would happen to Israel in this period following the rise of Michael, and it would continue until the times of the Gentiles are completed. That would take place *in the endtimes.*

                            Of course, if you don't define the Great Tribulation this way, and if you don't connect Michael's rise to the beginning of the Great Tribulation, I can see your point. But of course, I see it the way I do, and it makes good sense to me.

                            I would just add this, that Michael's rise had something to do with the aftermath of Antiochus 4's death and with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which precipitated the Great Tribulation Jesus spoke of in Luke 21.20-23. And I suggest that Michael arose, knowing that following the reign of Antiochus 4 Israel would be left in a state of vulnerability to the coming rule of Rome. This would challenge the very existence of Israel, particularly after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Daniel

                              Originally posted by randyk View Post
                              "At that time" seems to refer the death of Antiochus 4, and the event to take place is the rise of Michael the angel. So if anything was to take place "at that time," it was the rise of an angel, and not the endtimes.

                              What connects the rise of the angel to the endtimes and to the resurrection is the fact that Israel's troubles begin "at that time" and end in the endtimes. This is precisely what Jesus said, that a great tribulation would happen to Israel in this period following the rise of Michael, and it would continue until the times of the Gentiles are completed. That would take place *in the endtimes.*

                              Of course, if you don't define the Great Tribulation this way, and if you don't connect Michael's rise to the beginning of the Great Tribulation, I can see your point. But of course, I see it the way I do, and it makes good sense to me.

                              I would just add this, that Michael's rise had something to do with the aftermath of Antiochus 4's death and with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which precipitated the Great Tribulation Jesus spoke of in Luke 21.20-23. And I suggest that Michael arose, knowing that following the reign of Antiochus 4 Israel would be left in a state of vulnerability to the coming rule of Rome. This would challenge the very existence of Israel, particularly after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.
                              If Antiochus is the character who comes to his end, it's not just the rise of the archangel Michael that must occur then. There should also be a time of distress at that time, and a resurrection at that time. Neither a time of distress for Israel, nor a resurrection occurred then at Antiochus' death.

                              Your view is a bit of a stretch. If one sees this as the death of the antichrist, the distress of the day of the Lord, and the resurrection, then this fits better.

                              Not only that, but the Rev 11 abomination then ties in more smoothly with the Dan 11 abomination.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Daniel

                                Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                                If Antiochus is the character who comes to his end, it's not just the rise of the archangel Michael that must occur then. There should also be a time of distress at that time, and a resurrection at that time. Neither a time of distress for Israel, nor a resurrection occurred then at Antiochus' death.

                                Your view is a bit of a stretch. If one sees this as the death of the antichrist, the distress of the day of the Lord, and the resurrection, then this fits better.

                                Not only that, but the Rev 11 abomination then ties in more smoothly with the Dan 11 abomination.
                                You're really not seeing my scenario, which I believe to be what the Scriptures are saying. The Scriptures are repeating in ch. 11 what they had said in ch. 8, that a terrible ruler would come to rule over Israel, and threaten both Israel's religion and Israel's existence. This was Antiochus 4, who was evidently a foreshadow of the Antichrist.

                                Of course, Antiochus 4 was *not* the Antichrist, and would die, as all men do. And it was after his death that God was anticipating a time of approaching distress for Israel once again. In other words, Antiochus 4 was just the beginning of a time in Israel's history in which both their religion and their existence would be tested.

                                And as I said, it was necessary for Michael to rise *at that time* because Rome arose at that time, to assume control over Israel, and to eventually destroy the Jewish religion, as well as Jerusalem, their holy city. This was the beginning of the Great Tribulation that Daniel is shown, and which lasts until the resurrection, or the end of the age.

                                If you are going to represent my position as inept, please represent it properly. You're certainly not being rude, but seeing it as I do it doesn't appear to be a "stretch" at all. In fact, it seems to actually be what the Scriptures are saying.

                                I don't see how you can interpret it any other way? To do so appears to insert a lot that just isn't there. There is no Antichrist at all.

                                This is all about the time immediately following the reign of Antiochus 4. The leap ahead to the endtimes, and to the resurrection, is not in reference to the Antichrist at all. Antichrist is only found in ch. 7.

                                And the Great Tribulation Jesus referred to in Luke 21.20-23 clearly was associated with the fall of Jerusalem and with the fall of the temple in 70 AD. That is clearly the context for the beginning of the Great Tribulation. And this Great Tribulation lasts throughout the NT era, as long as the Jews remain in Diaspora, until the end of the age, when the Son of Man returns to establish judgeship for those who are his disciples.

                                Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

                                I've regularly seen brothers rail against my position, in this respect, denounce it, speak of it derogatorily, or just ignore it. But it is what it is. And if you're going to interpret Dan 12 differently, you're going to have to explain it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X