Agenda07

But they should be by the standard you're using: if being occupied by Romans or Germans is sufficient cause to turn all Europeans into 'Romans' (even those who weren't occupied by Romans...) then it stands to reason that everyone occupied by these 'New Romans' must also turn into Romans, no? It's rather like Vampirism on a national scale.

Of course, no sane person would regard 'Romanism' in this way, and this is why your argument fails: your definition of 'Romans' is utterly incoherent. You've committed yourself a priori to considering a set group of nations as 'Romans', and now you're desperately trying to find a plausible definition which includes all of them while excluding the rest of the world.

Amaleq13

Can you list these ten "kings", please?

spin

This is repeat rubbish. Obviously, if the Medes are one horn of the beast in Dan 8:3 and the Persians are the bigger horn which came second, then the Medes and the Persians are two separate powers. The book of Daniel knows it. Scholars know it. The only people who don't are those who can't open books.

Again, if the kingdom was going to be divided between the Medes and the Persians they are two separate powers. Read Daniel.

Wrong emphasis. The kings of Media and Persia are TWO HORNS on one animal. Can't you get this simple issue straight? They are two separate powers with a shared cultural heritage.

This is no help to the absurd claim. See the previous response.

This is more rubbish. Does the location of Ecbatana (Achmeta) change with the arrival of a new dominant power?

Empty rubbish.

The people who want to create the unhistorical entity "Medo-Persia" have to project it onto the ram.

Even you see that they are two separate entities.

Think about your confusion a little. The bigger horn came later. Perhaps you think this bear should have been a crab.

This doesn't make sense.

Read about Ezekiel's four living creatures in Ezek 1:5ff. They have four faces and four wings. They are Babylonian gryphons, visible in Persian Babylon.

The Greeks were a new group which forced its way into the area. That's why their beast is like nothing seen before. It is the Seleucid elephant -- with its long teeth (tusks) and its feet that trample and break all in its way --, used in Judea during the supression of the Jewish religion under Antiochus IV.

This stupidity is like Brito-America -- a piss weak invention that represents nothing.

Where in history did the Medes conquer their allies the Babylonians?? They were on the same side.

But, because you have backed yourself into a corner, you have to make the absurd appeal based not on historical evidence but your willful desire you argue against the evidence in order to bolster your folly.

This is about as clear as mud. Why is the fourth beast an elephant, when the Roman symbol is the eagle? The only reason is that you want it to be.

Your theory doesn't explain the information in the text. It doesn't explain how Daniel can see the Medes and the Persians as two separate entities with the Persians coming later.

Like many funda mentalists sugarhitman cannot read the source text and make sense of what is written there.

Dan 9:25-27 talks of two distinct anointed people. One is an "anointed prince", just as Yeshua ben Jehozedek, the anointed high priest who was also crowned (Zech 6:11f). The other is an "anointed one" who is cut off, the high priest Onias III, removed during the reign of Antiochus IV.

What's interesting here is the skullduggery the christians perform to make these two people one. Here's the KJV:

25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Notice where the colon is after "threescore and two weeks". This allows the linking of the seven weeks with the 62 weeks which are conflated in 69 weeks and so the time between the decree and the anointed prince is 69 weeks and the two references to anointed people can be conflated. However, this pays no attention to the Hebrew text and depends on a colon in the KJV. The Hebrew grammatically separates the the seven weeks from the 62 weeks and the 62 weeks belong to what follows, while the 7 weeks goes with what went before. Here is the JPS version which shows a correct translation:

25. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.

What does the separation of the seven weeks from the 62 weeks mean? That the anointed prince came seven weeks after the decree, while the anointed one came 62 weeks after him. There are two anointed figures. The first figure I've related to Jeshua ben Jehozedek, crowned in Zech 6:11f, hence an anointed prince.

The text then refers to the proclamation of Cyrus to rebuild the temple (and hence renew the city). The rebuilding is done during the time of Yeshua. It shall stand until the arrival of Antiochus IV who cut off an anointed one, Onias III, and stopped daily sacrifices, along with polluting the temple with the desolating abomination.

Drivel.

You fail to understand that just as the king of the north and the king of the south in ch.11 are the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, so the two legs and their feet in ch.2 are also the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. You fail to understand the significance of the feet and toes that are partly of potter's clay and party iron and why they are so. Sometimes one is stronger than the other and vice versa. You can read about the fluctuating fortunes of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies in a hellenistic history book, such as Edwyn Bevin's works "The House of Ptolemy" and "The House of Seleucus". (In the meantime check out the Syrian_Wars.)

Because you are dealing with the wrong understanding of the feet and legs you fail to understand the significance of the mingling of the seed in 2:43, which is a reference to marriage between the two powers.

Because you are dealing with the wrong understanding of the fourth beast you fail to understand who the ten horns/kings are, who the three are that the little horn removes and who the little horn is.

Because of your willful blunders you simply don't understand the text. Of course, I've explained all this issues to you in past threads. You have no excuse in not having coherent answers.

More drivel.

<wave>


spin

spin

Oh and moderators, how come this thread has been allowed to exist simply to duplicate what has already been shown to have no basis?


spin

spin

While you're waiting for more of sugarhitman's cock and bull, here's the real ten kings:

Alexander
Seleucus I
Antiochus I
Antiochus II
Seleucus II
Antiochus III
Seleucus III
Seleucus IV *
Antiochus (son of S4) *
Heliodorus *

It is here that the little horn uproots three previous horns. Antiochus IV came to the throne after Heliodorus assassinated Seleucus IV and installed his son on the throne, then decided to rule himself. Antiochus IV removed them, so three kings fell in order that he could become king.

Dan 7:7. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots

spin

Doug Shaver

What arguments? Sugarhitman is infallible. Therefore, there can be no arguments against his claims. QED.

Jack the Bodiless

But the kingdom WASN'T divided.
Nope.
...Except that they did no such thing.

Sugarhitman, here is the fact that you keep overlooking.

The author of Daniel relied on Jeremiah, and Jeremiah was a false prophet.

Jeremiah (and Isaiah) falsely prophesied that the MEDES would take (and destroy) Babylon.

This never happened. Persia conquered the Medes, and then took Babylon without destroying it (indeed, it went on to become the biggest city in the world).

Daniel was written after this. The author was "caught between a rock and a hard place". He somehow had to handle the contradiction between Jermiah and actual history. Hence the muddled references to "Darius the Mede", and the attempt to divide Babylon between the acually-existing Persian empire and the (by then) NON-existent Median one.

sugarhitman

Spin I have a few questions for you.

The Greeks are clearly shown to split into Four kingdoms. The third beast leopard has four heads how can this not be Greece and how can this apply to the Medes or Persians? The Ram has two horns with one of them rising up later and higher than the first. The bear beast is seen rising up on one side, which shows that one side is higher than the other side (a lop sided bear). We know from history that it was the Persians who were first weaker then the Medes rising up in power higher than their brethern uniting the Medes and Persians into one kingdom. How can they not be the dual powers seen in Daniel's vision with one of them clearly powerful than the other?


If the Medes are the second kingdom alone (the silver arms and the lop sided bear) that would mean that they had to conquer Babylon alone which did not happen. And that they would have ruled Israel alone. (The four beasts of Daniel all ruled over Israel, which is why Daniel focuses on them alone). The Medes alone never ruled over Israel. And if the Persions are the third kingdom or the four headed leopard tell us why is this so what would make them the four headed leopard? The Medes never conquered Babylon so how can they be the suscessor or the second kingdom? History has it that Cyrus was both a Persian and Median and that he united the Medes and Persians and then conquered Babylon. The Person who was made ruler over Babylon was a Median. (Gubaru? Cyaxeres II? Darius the Mede? all three (more likely the same person) were Median. Gaburu is said to be a Median General of Cyrus. Cyaxeres is said to be the son of Astyages whom Cyrus made ruler over Babylon. Darius the Mede...well the name speaks for itself...but all are Medes.) The Medians fought alongside with the Persians and both Daniel and records say that a Mede was appointed ruler over Babylon...."Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians" and a Mede was made ruler over the realm of Babylon.


The ram and the goat are two kingdoms not three. The horns on the ram are said to be the KINGS (if the Medes were completely subjugated by the Persians then why are they still called a king by Gabriel?) and they occupy the same animal...the same kingdom...this shows without a doubt the dual nature of this kingdom. You say they are seperate, but the ten horns of the fourth kingdom says "and the ten horns are ten kings who shall arise out of this kingdom" ten horns on one beast....ten kings from the same kingdom. Also the Grecian goat poduces four kings...four kings out of the same kingdom....so why not two kings on the ram? Explain that. Why do the Medes and Persians horns has to be seperate kingdoms on the same animal?


Also the ten horns cannot be the kings of Syria because your ten kings came after one another and there were in fact 21? kings that arose in Syria. But the only king to arise after is the little horn. The ten kings coexist together "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom..."

Also the ten kings are the reason the fourth kingdom is divided: "And where you saw the feet and toes, part of clay and iron, THE KINGDOM SHALL BE DIVIDED.....THEY SHALL MINGLE THEMSELVES WITH THE SEED OF MEN, BUT THEY SHALL NOT CLEAVE ONE TO ANOTHER, EVEN AS IRON IS NOT MIXED WITH CLAY....AND IN THE DAYS OF THESE KINGS SHALL THE GOD OF HEAVEN SET UP A KINGDOM WHICH SHALL NEVER BE DESTROYED..."

The kingdom of Greece nor Syria was never divided between ten kings....four kings for Greece....and the kings of Syria were never divided...because there was only one king ruling at different times. So explain all this to us the readers.


Also the Book of Daniel is purely Messianic. The son of man he saw coming with the clouds is the Messiah the son of David. The kingdom that God sets up in the "days of these kings" is the Davidic kingdom which all Jews look forward too. Also in ch. 7 after the little horn speaks great things (blasphemy) and after his destruction (verse 11, ch 7) we read this:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold one like the ("a" if you prefer) son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days.....and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that ALL people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Chapter 7 verses 13-14.


This is the Son of David the Messiah who else can it be? And why is the beast (the fourth kingdom) slained? Because of its opposition to this Messianic figure...and this Messianic figure is not the high priest Onias III. (unless you are saying that Onias is the one to recieve an everlasting kingdom....good luck with that interpretation).


Daniel is talking about the Messiah not a High Priest. The beast is slain because of its hostility to tis person which brings us to this: "he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes, but he shall be broken without hand." Ch.8: 25


This Prince of princes is the same one who recieves the eternal kingdom...the Messiah. So why would Daniel switch from this Messiah to an earthly priest?



Ch 11 begins with the dispute between Egypt and Syria. Antiochus is not the king of the north
(that is the little horn). The power of Rome made its way into the mid east because of this dispute as a peace maker. It rose to power during the latter end of the Grecian empire, coming out of one of the Grecian colonies...Italy.


And also if Daniel was wriiten during the days of Antiochus why do Gabriel say this "and the people of the PRINCE THAT SHALL COME SHALL DESTROY THE CITY AND THE TEMPLE." The Prince who is to come. How can Antiochus come later if he is already there? And no he did not destroy the Temple or the city. The Prince is the little horn power who in earlier chapters is connected with the coming of the Davidic Messiah. And this Messiah is certanly no Onias III. The destruction of Isreal happens after the death of the Messiah.....the Prince comes afterwards.



About the 70 weeks. You and others are trying to rewrite what that means because the Messiah did arrive during the 62 weeks.....which would prove that Yeshua is the Messiah. The Jews have already said curse is the man who tries to figure out the 70 weeks. It would be no suprise to me that they have altered those weeks to deny the Truth that Yeshua is the promised Messiah.

funinspace

Why are you still arguing about the USSR and empires over Israel? I haven’t said boo about them in my many recent posts. It seams you are trying to avoid answering my question (#4), that I now have asked many times.

You still ignore my point (4) If you claim these other empires are just a subset of the Roman empire, then logically the Roman empire is just a subset of the Greek empire. Therefore you do not have your proclaimed 4 kingdoms. :wave:

Below is some information on the emergence of the Roman empire and how Greece gave the Romans their gods, reading and writing, and even were settlers all over the Italian peninsula:

http://www.roman-empire.net/founding/found-index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia

Amaleq13

sugarhitman,

Where is your list of the "ten kings"?