Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Daniel

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

  • #61
    Re: Daniel

    Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I gave my precise objections. Antiochus fits up until v35

    The new boastful ruler from v36:
    Invades Israel
    Does not rule Moab
    Follows an unknown God
    Comes to his end at the "beautiful holy mountain"

    Antiochus never conquered Israel, he inherited it.
    Antiochus followed Zeus
    Antiochus ruled Moab
    Antiochus died in Iran

    I see many incidents completely failing to match, you see every incident matching. Unless you have a really good explanation covering those discrepancies, Antiochus is not the boastful ruler of v36-45

    In addition there is also the immediacy of the "distress" and "resurrection" to deal with.
    There are simple answers to what appear to you to be clear prohibitions in viewing this as Antiochus 4.

    1) To say Israel "inherited, but did not conquer, Israel" is to deny that Antiochus put down what he perceived to be rebellion against his authority.
    2) Antiochus did rule over Moab, but that country was spared much of the hostilities, since those people opposed Israel.
    3) The fact Antiochus put up an idol to Jupiter in no way means he gave his allegiance to that god. On the contrary, Antiochus did this to commit sacrilege against all religion, viewing himself as superior to "the gods." He was making Israel turn to Hellenism and commit apostasy against their own religion.
    4) Antiochus had a military post, or citadel, in Israel. It was to this post that Antiochus was heading when he died. The passage does not say he died in Israel.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Daniel

      Originally posted by randyk View Post
      There are simple answers to what appear to you to be clear prohibitions in viewing this as Antiochus 4.

      1) To say Israel "inherited, but did not conquer, Israel" is to deny that Antiochus put down what he perceived to be rebellion against his authority.
      2) Antiochus did rule over Moab, but that country was spared much of the hostilities, since those people opposed Israel.
      3) The fact Antiochus put up an idol to Jupiter in no way means he gave his allegiance to that god. On the contrary, Antiochus did this to commit sacrilege against all religion, viewing himself as superior to "the gods." He was making Israel turn to Hellenism and commit apostasy against their own religion.
      4) Antiochus had a military post, or citadel, in Israel. It was to this post that Antiochus was heading when he died. The passage does not say he died in Israel.
      1) He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land

      2) Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand.

      3) He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors...
      he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver (ps the Greeks called their main deity Zeus, not Jupiter. Antiochus honored Zeus with a statue of Zeus in the Jewish temple, this was honoring the God of his fathers)

      4) 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.

      If you are satisfied with your explanations, we can leave it there. Those 3 ancient regions coincide with Jordan. I am waiting to see a boastful ruler from Syria who completely conquers Israel and Egypt, honors a God unknown to his fathers, and yet does not rule Jordan. He comes to his end at the beautiful holy mountain at a time of distress and resurrection.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Daniel

        Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
        1) He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land

        2) Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand.

        3) He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors...
        he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver (ps the Greeks called their main deity Zeus, not Jupiter. Antiochus honored Zeus with a statue of Zeus in the Jewish temple, this was honoring the God of his fathers)

        4) 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.

        If you are satisfied with your explanations, we can leave it there. Those 3 ancient regions coincide with Jordan. I am waiting to see a boastful ruler from Syria who completely conquers Israel and Egypt, honors a God unknown to his fathers, and yet does not rule Jordan. He comes to his end at the beautiful holy mountain at a time of distress and resurrection.
        Yes, I'm not only satisfied with my explanation, but I'm satisfied that you're illegitimately trying to insert the Antichrist into an historic prophecy that had *nothing to do with the Antichrist.* You're trying to insert, mystically, things into these prophecies.

        If this was really from God, it would've said something like. "This is the Little Horn mentioned earlier, the one who will emerge out of the 4th Beast, in the midst of 10 horns, and he will do these exploits, A,B,C..."

        But no, the prophecy takes us from Darius of Persia to Antiochus 4, and then declares these are the exploits he will do, A,B,C... Do you see the difference, brother? No, you're apparently attached to your need to put Antichrist into a conversation where it was never introduced. Sorry, that's just the way I see it.

        Antiochus 4 did, in fact, sweep through many countries, including Israel. From Wikipedia: "The guardians of King Ptolemy VI Philometor demanded the return of Coele-Syria in 170 BC, but Antiochus launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, conquering all but Alexandria and capturing King Ptolemy." Antiochus led this attack into Egypt in 170 BC, and he led another one into Egypt in 168 BC because he heard that Ptolemy 6 had established a co-ruler in Ptolemy 8. It was on this 168 BC invasion that Antiochus was turned back by the Roman Ambassador, at which time Antiochus heard of a rebellion against him in Israel. This caused him to turn back to secure his holdings, not just in Israel but also in Persia to the East.

        2) God spared Moab and neighboring countries to Israel by letting Antiochus vent his fury primarily at Israel. Those neighboring countries, like Antiochus, were hostile to Israel, and did not fight Antiochus.

        3) I don't care if Jupiter was called Zeus--same god! You're deflecting. The issue is that Antiochus called himself "Manifest God," indicating that he was equal to or greater than the greatest god of the Greeks. Antiochus was *not* honoring Zeus as the god of his fathers, but rather, trying to get the Jews to turn to Hellenism and to idoilatry. Antiochus called himself "God Manifest," meaning that he saw himself as higher than the Greek gods.

        4) As I said, the Scriptures did not say that Antiochus died in Jerusalem at his military citadel perched there. Rather, it said that he would pitch his military tent there. In fact, it was as he headed towards that place that he died. Instead of acknowledging my point, that the Scriptures did not say he would die there, you just re-quote the passage. Again, it *does not say* he would die in Jerusalem!

        So if you want to bank your beliefs on things that aren't said, go ahead. There is no Antichrist in this passage. You have to read it into the passage. All you have is mention of the future resurrection after these things are related to Daniel.

        And I explained that to you. Daniel was told that following the death of Antiochus, Michael would arise, because a time would issue in which there would be continuing and even greater threats to the Jews, to both their religion and their homeland. In fact, Christianity is that religion today, and it continues to be persecuted. And the Jewish homeland continues to be "under siege" by Arabs and Muslims.

        This time of intense tribulation began back in the time of the Romes, immediately following the death of Antiochus 4. And this time of tribulation will end when Christ comes again to deliver Christians and to save Israel.

        We should not get confused about what the exploits of Antichrist will be. They are clearly spelled out in Dan 7 and in the book of Revelation.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Daniel

          Originally posted by randyk View Post
          Yes, I'm not only satisfied with my explanation, but I'm satisfied that you're illegitimately trying to insert the Antichrist into an historic prophecy that had *nothing to do with the Antichrist.* You're trying to insert, mystically, things into these prophecies.

          If this was really from God, it would've said something like. "This is the Little Horn mentioned earlier, the one who will emerge out of the 4th Beast, in the midst of 10 horns, and he will do these exploits, A,B,C..."

          But no, the prophecy takes us from Darius of Persia to Antiochus 4, and then declares these are the exploits he will do, A,B,C... Do you see the difference, brother? No, you're apparently attached to your need to put Antichrist into a conversation where it was never introduced. Sorry, that's just the way I see it.

          Antiochus 4 did, in fact, sweep through many countries, including Israel. From Wikipedia: "The guardians of King Ptolemy VI Philometor demanded the return of Coele-Syria in 170 BC, but Antiochus launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, conquering all but Alexandria and capturing King Ptolemy." Antiochus led this attack into Egypt in 170 BC, and he led another one into Egypt in 168 BC because he heard that Ptolemy 6 had established a co-ruler in Ptolemy 8. It was on this 168 BC invasion that Antiochus was turned back by the Roman Ambassador, at which time Antiochus heard of a rebellion against him in Israel. This caused him to turn back to secure his holdings, not just in Israel but also in Persia to the East.

          2) God spared Moab and neighboring countries to Israel by letting Antiochus vent his fury primarily at Israel. Those neighboring countries, like Antiochus, were hostile to Israel, and did not fight Antiochus.

          3) I don't care if Jupiter was called Zeus--same god! You're deflecting. The issue is that Antiochus called himself "Manifest God," indicating that he was equal to or greater than the greatest god of the Greeks. Antiochus was *not* honoring Zeus as the god of his fathers, but rather, trying to get the Jews to turn to Hellenism and to idoilatry. Antiochus called himself "God Manifest," meaning that he saw himself as higher than the Greek gods.

          4) As I said, the Scriptures did not say that Antiochus died in Jerusalem at his military citadel perched there. Rather, it said that he would pitch his military tent there. In fact, it was as he headed towards that place that he died. Instead of acknowledging my point, that the Scriptures did not say he would die there, you just re-quote the passage. Again, it *does not say* he would die in Jerusalem!

          So if you want to bank your beliefs on things that aren't said, go ahead. There is no Antichrist in this passage. You have to read it into the passage. All you have is mention of the future resurrection after these things are related to Daniel.

          And I explained that to you. Daniel was told that following the death of Antiochus, Michael would arise, because a time would issue in which there would be continuing and even greater threats to the Jews, to both their religion and their homeland. In fact, Christianity is that religion today, and it continues to be persecuted. And the Jewish homeland continues to be "under siege" by Arabs and Muslims.

          This time of intense tribulation began back in the time of the Romes, immediately following the death of Antiochus 4. And this time of tribulation will end when Christ comes again to deliver Christians and to save Israel.

          We should not get confused about what the exploits of Antichrist will be. They are clearly spelled out in Dan 7 and in the book of Revelation.
          I was going to leave the chat there, but then I decided you need a rethink on some of your points:

          1) Daniel 11:37-38 states that he will exalt himself, and ALSO states "he will honor a god of fortresses, a god UNKNOWN to his ancestors.
          Self exaltation, and Zeus were both known gods that Antiochus is associated with, these were common occurrences in the Middle East. Yet this boastful ruler will honor an unknown god , a god of fortresses. You still have not covered this point.

          2) In context of "INVASION", Moab will be "delivered from his hand". (v40-41). The verse is saying that Moab will be spared an invasion, the obvious implication is a region outside his control will be spared invasion, not within his control.

          3) Stopping a rebellion is nothing like an invasion, v41 says "He will invade the beautiful land". He did not invade Israel, he inherited it, and he settled strife there. Settling strife is not an invasion.

          4) As for where Antiochus dies, the verse points to an Israel war and location:
          "he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. He will pitch his tents between the seas and the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end"
          Although Israel was in rebellion, Antiochus went with his main army to the East to war against the Parthians, and that is where he died, in the Iran area. A fortress existing in Israel is not what the verse is referring to. It is mentioning the details of a great war in Israel which the boastful leader participates in, associated with reports to the north and east. From the perspective of Antiochus, his troubles were in the South (Judea) and East (Parthia).

          I find that your detail just does not have an impressive fit on the level of the historical fit of verses 1-35 which fit history well. A resurrection context makes more sense, the boastful leader coming to his end "at that time" of the resurrection according to the text.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Daniel

            Originally posted by randyk View Post
            Everything was cool up until now. You suggested "that same prince," ie the prince whose people would destroy Jerusalem and the temple, would "make a firm covenant with the many at the start of the final seven-year period, but in the middle of that "week" he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering in the temple; and there will be abominations and complete destruction."

            Up to here much of what you said is pretty much agreed on by most. But your casual assumption that the Prince who destroys the temple is the "same prince" who 1) makes a covenant, and 2) ends sacrifices and offerings is very debatable. Just as debatable is the idea that the actual destruction of the temple takes place inside of the last 7 years.

            It is my view that the last "Week" is only a half week, because the Messiah, the "Anointed One," comes after the 483 years and makes a covenant for the final "Week." But he is cut off, terminating the efficacy of the sacrifices and offerings, in the "midst of the Week." The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem follows *after* the end of the 70 Weeks, in the generation in which Messiah is "cut off."



            I agree that the 70 Weeks has nothing to do with eschatology. It has to do with the 1st Coming of Christ, with his being "cut off," and with the aftermath, in which God brings judgment upon the Jews and Jerusalem. Temple worship is destroyed.

            But when was temple worship rendered effective--in 70 AD, when the temple was destroyed, or earlier, when Christ was "cut off?" I believe it was in approx. 30 AD, when Christ was "cut off." It was only after that event that the temple was destroyed.

            This would be somewhat debatable with me if it was not for the fact Jesus explained all this in the Olivet Discourse. Jesus said, in that Discourse, that "all these things will take place in this generation." That is, the destruction of the temple would take place in *his* generation.

            But he warned his disciples to flee when they saw these things begin to take place. In other words, when the Romans approached the holy place, trampling upon sacred Jewish territory, there would be time to flee. (The Romans had long been here. But this constituted a military invasion, and as such, a hostile incursion.)

            But we know that there was little time to flee in 70 AD, when the temple was actually destroyed, and Jews were trapped inside Jerusalem. So what are we to think?

            Actually the Roman Army appeared twice at Jerusalem, the 1st time withdrawing, allowing the Christians to flee. And then the Romans returned under Titus, in 70 AD, to destroy the temple. Even then, other Christians may have been able to flee from their fields. But those inside Jerusalem were trapped, and could not escape.

            This is a strong argument for the "abomination of desolation," in Dan 9.27, to be the 1st appearance of the Roman Army at Jerusalem. This took place in 66 AD. But there was no covenant, and the destruction of the temple did not bring a break in any covenant. It seems much more likely that the covenant refers to the confirmation of the covenant of Christ with the Jews, which appeared to be broken at the cross. God had no covenant with the Jews after the cross, aside from the Abrahamic Promise. And the Romans had made no covenant with the Jews that they then broke.

            Jesus explains that this desolation of the temple would take place, not as a broken covenant, and not as something inside the final seven years. Rather, he says it would take place later, in "this generation." In fact, the temple was destroyed by the end of 40 years from the time Christ predicted this. It appears the abomination of desolation took place in 66 AD, and the actual desolation took place in 70 AD, immediately after the 70 years prophecy was fulfilled in the death of Christ.
            A few clarifications needed.

            Let's look at Daniel 9:26-27---"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

            Since it says the sanctuary would be destroyed by a prince, which would have to include the end of sacrifices in that sanctuary, then he must still be referring to the same prince when he says the sacrifices would end in the middle of the last seven years.

            There was indeed a covenant. Vespasian, his son Titus, Agrippa II, and several governors and kings did meet in early 67 AD in Ptolemies, north of present day Haifa. There they committed to a united effort to subdue the rebelling Jews. This covenant lasted until the fall of Masada, seven years later, and in the "midst" of that seven years, the offerings were stopped by Titus' destruction of Jerusalem.

            The abomination Daniel referred to as his was connected to the halting of the offerings, which would be 70 AD. Josephus records the event in the clouds in the spring of 66 AD, which would be at the very end of the 483 years. But he had no way of knowing what that event really was.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Daniel

              Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
              A few clarifications needed.

              Let's look at Daniel 9:26-27---"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

              Since it says the sanctuary would be destroyed by a prince, which would have to include the end of sacrifices in that sanctuary, then he must still be referring to the same prince when he says the sacrifices would end in the middle of the last seven years.

              There was indeed a covenant. Vespasian, his son Titus, Agrippa II, and several governors and kings did meet in early 67 AD in Ptolemies, north of present day Haifa. There they committed to a united effort to subdue the rebelling Jews. This covenant lasted until the fall of Masada, seven years later, and in the "midst" of that seven years, the offerings were stopped by Titus' destruction of Jerusalem.

              The abomination Daniel referred to as his was connected to the halting of the offerings, which would be 70 AD. Josephus records the event in the clouds in the spring of 66 AD, which would be at the very end of the 483 years. But he had no way of knowing what that event really was.
              Yes, that is one accepted opinion, and there is a certain amount of logic to it. I only disagree with it for the following reasons.

              The idea that the destruction of Jerusalem is connected with the termination of sacrifices and offerings comes from another major event foretold in Daniel--the prophecy of Antiochus 4. He entered the temple and desecrated it, thus terminating regular worship there at that time.

              I don't believe what Antiochus did perfectly matches what the Romans did. They violated Jerusalem with their pagan presence, in an act of aggression, ultimately leading to the destruction of the temple. The "sacrilege" they committed against the temple was an act of aggression, and not an act of terminating regular worship. They destroyed the temple--not just end regular worship.

              So when was the regular worship of the Jews actually terminated? It was when Christ died on the cross, ending the OT legal dispensation. All worship from the Jews, following that period of time, was heterodox, as far as God was concerned. It was no longer valid under the New Covenant system. True worship, from the point of the cross on, was Christianity. That was stifled, but not destroyed.

              Therefore, the major event, in this respect, was the death of Christ. He was the Anointed One whose leadership was determined to bring about the fulfillment of the 6 things mentioned in Dan 9.24. Israel's sins would come to a head, and those sins would be dealt with, followed by a complete end to the temple system, as well as an end to Israel's hope under the Old Covenant of Law.

              Rome would indeed bring an end to the temple, but it would not be in order to terminate any military covenant, which has no application to this prophecy whatsoever. The covenant had to do with God's agreement with Israel under the Law. And Christ's intention was to complete the 70 Weeks period by fulfilling the 6 things mentioned. In order to fulfill these things he had to be "cut off," thus bringing an end to the legal system itself.

              This was not Rome cutting off God's agreement with the Jews under the Law. Rather, this was Christ's being "cut off" that terminated God's agreement with the Jews under the Law. And it was the termination of this divine protection that precipitated the eventual destruction of the temple in "that generation." That is, it was the generation that rejected Christ who would see the end of their temple worship.

              The "people of the prince to come" emphasizes not the "prince" but rather, the "people" of the prince. Therefore, the one who makes covenant to fulfill the 70 Weeks refers back not to the prince whose "people" are referred to. Rather, the one who makes covenant refers back to Messiah who makes covenant, and then is "cut off."

              In other words, the cutting off of Messiah is explained to be the process in which he makes a covenant to fulfill the 70 Weeks, but then is "cut off." This then leads to the destruction of the temple--obviously, a divine judgment against those who "cut off" the Messiah.

              Again, destroying the temple would in effect cut of animal sacrifices made by the Jews. But that worship had already been rendered ineffective by the death of Christ 40 years prior! It was not a covenant that God honored any longer, and thus could not be violated by the Romans.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Daniel

                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                Yes, that is one accepted opinion, and there is a certain amount of logic to it. I only disagree with it for the following reasons.

                The idea that the destruction of Jerusalem is connected with the termination of sacrifices and offerings comes from another major event foretold in Daniel--the prophecy of Antiochus 4. He entered the temple and desecrated it, thus terminating regular worship there at that time.

                I don't believe what Antiochus did perfectly matches what the Romans did. They violated Jerusalem with their pagan presence, in an act of aggression, ultimately leading to the destruction of the temple. The "sacrilege" they committed against the temple was an act of aggression, and not an act of terminating regular worship. They destroyed the temple--not just end regular worship.

                So when was the regular worship of the Jews actually terminated? It was when Christ died on the cross, ending the OT legal dispensation. All worship from the Jews, following that period of time, was heterodox, as far as God was concerned. It was no longer valid under the New Covenant system. True worship, from the point of the cross on, was Christianity. That was stifled, but not destroyed.

                Therefore, the major event, in this respect, was the death of Christ. He was the Anointed One whose leadership was determined to bring about the fulfillment of the 6 things mentioned in Dan 9.24. Israel's sins would come to a head, and those sins would be dealt with, followed by a complete end to the temple system, as well as an end to Israel's hope under the Old Covenant of Law.

                Rome would indeed bring an end to the temple, but it would not be in order to terminate any military covenant, which has no application to this prophecy whatsoever. The covenant had to do with God's agreement with Israel under the Law. And Christ's intention was to complete the 70 Weeks period by fulfilling the 6 things mentioned. In order to fulfill these things he had to be "cut off," thus bringing an end to the legal system itself.

                This was not Rome cutting off God's agreement with the Jews under the Law. Rather, this was Christ's being "cut off" that terminated God's agreement with the Jews under the Law. And it was the termination of this divine protection that precipitated the eventual destruction of the temple in "that generation." That is, it was the generation that rejected Christ who would see the end of their temple worship.

                The "people of the prince to come" emphasizes not the "prince" but rather, the "people" of the prince. Therefore, the one who makes covenant to fulfill the 70 Weeks refers back not to the prince whose "people" are referred to. Rather, the one who makes covenant refers back to Messiah who makes covenant, and then is "cut off."

                In other words, the cutting off of Messiah is explained to be the process in which he makes a covenant to fulfill the 70 Weeks, but then is "cut off." This then leads to the destruction of the temple--obviously, a divine judgment against those who "cut off" the Messiah.

                Again, destroying the temple would in effect cut of animal sacrifices made by the Jews. But that worship had already been rendered ineffective by the death of Christ 40 years prior! It was not a covenant that God honored any longer, and thus could not be violated by the Romans.
                Okay. But Gabriel specified the subject as being the end of the Jews and Jerusalem, not about the crucifixion of Christ.

                The abomination of Antiochus is in the form of a statue of Zeus set up in the sanctuary, sparking the Maccabees revolt. That abomination was removed and the sanctuary was cleansed. Jesus is not talking about that abomination because he wouldn't be born for 163 years. The Roman abomination was in the form of the Roman camp eagles being set up on the Holy of Holies after the city fell. The sanctuary was destroyed and of course never cleansed.

                Yes, there was a new covenant, the old done away with, but as a matter of record, the Jewish tradition continued until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It was the end of the temple that ended those Jewish traditions forever.

                We can argue over our theories and interpretations of scripture, but it will have no conclusions because it is in the realm of theology and is therefore not provable. I cannot over emphasis the theological importance of the death and resurrection of Christ, but I believe its introduction to Daniel 9 is misplaced.

                What is provable is the overwhelming evidence in history of the fulfillment of the specifics mentioned in Daniel's prophecies. And it is that evidence that provides the only real proof that God is alive and the stories are true.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Daniel

                  Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
                  Okay. But Gabriel specified the subject as being the end of the Jews and Jerusalem, not about the crucifixion of Christ.

                  The abomination of Antiochus is in the form of a statue of Zeus set up in the sanctuary, sparking the Maccabees revolt. That abomination was removed and the sanctuary was cleansed. Jesus is not talking about that abomination because he wouldn't be born for 163 years. The Roman abomination was in the form of the Roman camp eagles being set up on the Holy of Holies after the city fell. The sanctuary was destroyed and of course never cleansed.

                  Yes, there was a new covenant, the old done away with, but as a matter of record, the Jewish tradition continued until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It was the end of the temple that ended those Jewish traditions forever.

                  We can argue over our theories and interpretations of scripture, but it will have no conclusions because it is in the realm of theology and is therefore not provable. I cannot over emphasis the theological importance of the death and resurrection of Christ, but I believe its introduction to Daniel 9 is misplaced.

                  What is provable is the overwhelming evidence in history of the fulfillment of the specifics mentioned in Daniel's prophecies. And it is that evidence that provides the only real proof that God is alive and the stories are true.
                  The Roman abomination was in the form of the Roman camp eagles being set up on the Holy of Holies after the city fell.
                  If this is so then how come Jesus told them to flee when they see it? If it was what yo state then it would be to late to flee.

                  Matthew 24:15-21
                  15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

                  I think that Luke tells us what it was

                  Luke 21:20-24
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Daniel

                    "[...] and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined."

                    This says it is "the people [OF the prince THAT SHALL COME--not the same "prince" verse 25 spoke of]" is who will "destroy the city and the sanctuary (see Luke 21:20,23; and Luke 19:41-44 [what Jesus had said ON the very day that He did the Zech9:9 thing, and the very day that the 62 Weeks [69 total] was fulfilled, on Palm Sunday]; and Matthew 22:7 [all regarding the 70ad events which would follow His "shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself [or, and have nothing]"]), but notice...

                    at the end of the "70ad section" of the Luke 21 passage I mentioned above (the 70ad section being Lk21:12-24a, with part b following on from there), where verse 24 says, "and they shall be led away captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles [see also Rev11:2] UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled" ("the TIMES of the Gentiles" having started in 606/605bc [think: Neb's dream/statue/image, with Neb as "head of gold"] and representing "Gentile domination over Israel" [not referring to the so-called "church age" and being completely distinct from the phrase "the FULNESS of the Gentiles")] and concluding at His Second Coming to the earth [having nothing whatsoever to do with "our Rapture," etc]), so that...

                    what we see in Daniel 9:25-27 is SEQUENTIAL. Meaning, what happens in 27a comes AFTER what verse 26a's description of "the people [OF the prince THAT SHALL COME, not he himself] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" (the 70ad events of Lk21:20,23 [12-24a,b]; Lk19:41-44; Matt22:7...) <--but not that this part is the end of everything pertaining to them! For we see in Lk21:32, that the "TILL ALL BE FULFILLED" necessarily INCLUDES what v.24 had just spelled out ("and they shall be led away captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled [at the end of the trib at His Second Coming to the earth, in Rev19, per Rev11:2]"). These are the contents of vv.26b and 27a,b,c in Daniel 9 (considered SEQUENTIALLY, and by viewing the parallels): "desolationS are determined" etc.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Daniel

                      Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                      1) He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land

                      2) Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand.

                      3) He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors...
                      he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver (ps the Greeks called their main deity Zeus, not Jupiter. Antiochus honored Zeus with a statue of Zeus in the Jewish temple, this was honoring the God of his fathers)

                      4) 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.

                      If you are satisfied with your explanations, we can leave it there. Those 3 ancient regions coincide with Jordan. I am waiting to see a boastful ruler from Syria who completely conquers Israel and Egypt, honors a God unknown to his fathers, and yet does not rule Jordan. He comes to his end at the beautiful holy mountain at a time of distress and resurrection.
                      I agree with everything until you get to the "Syria" portion.

                      He will be an "Assyrian" which basically means a Turk, but he will not be from the region per se. He must be born in Greece {one of four Generals has to be Greece}. Thus the Daniel 11 chapters essence. He must come to power in the E.U. thus the Daniel 7 prophecy he arises out of the Fourth Beasts Head and last but not least he must be born in Greece hence the Daniel 8 prophecy that he will arise out of the Greek lineage, in the END TIMES. It all has to be meshed into one understanding to get the prophecies.

                      He is an Assyrian {Turk} born in Greece {they border each other} and he comes to power in the E.U.

                      I started understanding this a few years back when it hit me that this Beast has to both ARISE out of the Fourth Beast AND one of the Four Generals Kingdoms in the END TIMES, thus only Greece out of the Four is in the E.U., thus only a man born in Greece could fulfill this prophecy.

                      If you really want to see the origins if this "PEACE TREATY" or 7 year agreement and the MANY NATIONS that he conquers google the "European Neighborhood Policy". Its an Agreement that exists NOW which runs in 7 year cycles, its between the E.U. and MANY NATIONS..........

                      European Neighbourhood Policy
                      From Wiki


                      The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is a foreign relations instrument of the European Union (EU) which seeks to tie those countries to the east and south of the European territory of the EU to the Union. These countries, primarily developing countries, include some who seek to one day become either a member state of the European Union, or more closely integrated with the European Union. The ENP does not apply to neighbours of the EU's outermost regions, specifically France's territories in South America, but only to those countries close to EU member states' territories in mainland Europe.

                      The countries covered include Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia in the South and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine in the East. Russia has a special status with the EU-Russia Common Spaces instead of ENP participation.

                      The EU offers financial assistance to countries within the European Neighbourhood, so long as they meet the strict conditions of government reform, economic reform and other issues surrounding positive transformation. This process is normally underpinned by an Action Plan, as agreed by both Brussels and the target country.

                      These agreements were renewed in 2014 after 7 years and are set to be renewed in 2020.

                      The MANY are seem here IMHO. The Anti-Christ will just REUP this agreement with some kinda TWIST.

                      If you look at the Map on this page with the E.U. and all these Nations {MANY} it looks exactly like the Old Roman Empire Map !!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Daniel

                        I've often wondered... I've read that the word "many" in Daniel 9:27 is "la rab bim [H7227]" and can mean "with the many" "for the many" "unto/to the many"... with the definite article (not sure if this is true, I'm not very good at reading Hebrew); and that this precise word is used only elsewhere in Esther 4:3, Isaiah 53:11, and Daniel 11:33 (all/each speaking of "Israel" ['those of Israel'], it seems to me).

                        So, could it be possible that "the prince THAT SHALL COME" (whom I believe to be the AC, man of sin, beast of Rev13:1/"mouth" of 13:5 and the rider of the white horse with a bow of Rev6:2, and the "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'" of Matt24:4/Mk13:5 of the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" of many more BPs to follow; etc) will "confirm" a [or the?] covenant "with the many," meaning, "with the many OF Israel"? (whether this means, as two separate parties "with" each side [having a part], or means "ALONG WITH" them [as in, alongside them as they do], I cannot tell which, for certain...)

                        Thoughts on this??

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Daniel

                          I personally don't think that the 70 weeks has anything to do with 70AD or the Olivit discourse

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Daniel

                            I have a couple of questions for those arguing that the future antichrist is the "king" in Dan 11:36 who came to his end in v-45.

                            1. In Rev 13:4 we told that nobody (flesh and blood) can fight against the Antichrist. If we believe that God inspired Apostle John to write Revelation, are we to believe that the Bible is in error then given that a mysterious Egyptian will supposedly rise against him?

                            Some claim (e.g. my good friend, RevelationMan) that it might not necessarily be Egypt, but Saudi Arabia or Turkey. But the problem with this view is that Daniel's narrative is specific that the king of the south is based in a country south of Jerusalem, e.g. Egypt. And neither Saudi Arabia nor Turkey is south of Jerusalem.

                            2. Rev 13:7 says that "power was given to him over all kindreds and tongues and nations ". The plain interpretation is that the Beast will have sovereign rule (even if he has to use proxies) over the whole world in his little time of 3.5 years. I've heard some claim that his influence will be limited to some parts of the world only. I'm not sure that those who hold this view have truly paid attention to the prophecies regarding the AC's influence.

                            My query, therefore, is, given his worldwide influence according to scripture, why then do some insist the AC is the king of the north from Dan 36-45? Why not the evil king of the world? Furthermore, most generally agree that the Beast will use Jerusalem at some point as his HQ. If this is true, doesn't it yet make it impossible for him to be the "king of the north" since Jerusalem is the focal point in Dan 11 rather than the north?

                            The Seleucids were based in Syria, which is north of Jerusalem, hence, the prefix of the king of the north. So let's say that perchance, the AC makes Damascus his base, will the title of "king of the north" not contradict John's vision of his worldwide reach and influence?

                            I need some answers on how he could be the king of the north and not the world?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Daniel

                              Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                              I personally don't think that the 70 weeks has anything to do with 70AD
                              Me too.

                              24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city,

                              to finish the transgression,
                              to make an end of sin,
                              to make atonement for iniquity,
                              to bring in everlasting righteousness,
                              to seal up vision and prophecy
                              to anoint the most holy place.



                              We all know when atonement for iniquity was made (the cross -70th week ), so it stands to reason that the other 5 points came to pass as well.
                              40 years later in 70AD the walls came tumbling down.
                              And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Daniel

                                Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                                I personally don't think that the 70 weeks has anything to do with 70AD or the Olivit discourse
                                I think it is a mistake to not view Daniel 9:25-27 as being "SEQUENTIAL," as in the following:

                                1) "62 Weeks" [69 Weeks total] completed on Palm Sunday [Zech9:9; Lk19:41-44]

                                2) He/Jesus/Messiah "cut off" ("after 62 Weeks" [69 Weeks total completed]); and then the 70ad events [as Lk19:41-44 had said; also Matt22:7; also Lk21:23,20 (in the "70ad" section of the Olivet Discourse of Lk21, that is, in vv.12-24a [pt b following on from there])]

                                3) then lastly, the "for ONE WEEK [7-yrs]" thing [last in the SEQUENCE]



                                And this SEQUENCE is consistent in what we see also in:

                                --[btw] Matt22:7 [70ad events] and 22:8 ["THEN SAITH HE to his servants," which "THEN SAITH HE to" necessarily took place FOLLOWING these 70ad events (He's in Heaven at this point, recall)--I can supply scriptures to show what I mean...]; and

                                --the TWO distinct "SEE-then-FLEE" of the Olivet Discourse, with its SEQUENCE and TIMING clues therein (proving them to be distinct and wholly separated in time/history--one in the 70ad events which PRECEDES "the beginning of birth pangs"; the other "far-future" and FOLLOWING "the beginning of birth pangs" ["the BOBPs" being IDENTICAL/the IDENTICAL events in all three: Matt24:4-8/Mk13:5-8/Lk21:8-11])

                                --more...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X