Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 01-27-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I think it's hard (for the skeptic) to understand that the Roman Empire is prophesied to become "revised" in much the same way that the countries in europe are joining together to form a political and economic union.

This is simply wrong-headed, but you won't know until you deal with the text, starting with Dan 11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The book of revelation discusses this in depth and ties in prophecies for the Roman Empire from the past and the future.

This is just bad scholarship. Revelation is irrelevant to the writing of Daniel, though Daniel is not irrelevant for the writing of Revelation. Daniel influenced the writers of Revelation, not vice versa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

If I were a skeptic I wouldn't believe it myself.

If you were a skeptic you wouldn't be so gullible as to believe it.

I'm still waiting for a better scenario that covers more than the one I provided.

spin

spin · 01-27-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Even if when they see it happening they still will not believe.

Even if you opened your eyes you wouldn't understand

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

I believe all this rejection comes from fact that if these things are true. Then what Jesus said about heaven and worse Hell is also true....this is what they fear so all must be rejected.

The only rejection I see is you refusing to deal with Dan 11. You've been avoiding it so long: here. What's the matter sugarhitman? You haven't got the conviction to demonstrate a better context? Yeah, we know. Nothing up your sleeve.

spin

makerowner · 01-27-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why do you refuse to read the Maccabees quote I gave so long ago? ...I guess it would mean you opening your eyes.

Deal with Dan 11.

spin

Question. Was the Temple completely destroyed as well as the city? Did Antiochus completely destroy the temple where there was not a stone on another? No you say. Then Antiochus is not the little horn power...Rome is. The real king of the north are the Romans....Europeans. :wave:

The "no two stones together" thing comes from the NT, and is therefore irrelevant. Read the quote from Maccabees. Antiochus burned down part of the city and built a fort on top of it; he set up a statue of himself as Zeus in the sanctuary and sacrificed a pig on it. READ THE QUOTE!

arnoldo · 01-27-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Question. Was the Temple completely destroyed as well as the city? Did Antiochus completely destroy the temple where there was not a stone on another? No you say. Then Antiochus is not the little horn power...Rome is. The real king of the north are the Romans....Europeans. :wave:

The "no two stones together" thing comes from the NT, and is therefore irrelevant. Read the quote from Maccabees. Antiochus burned down part of the city and built a fort on top of it; he set up a statue of himself as Zeus in the sanctuary and sacrificed a pig on it. READ THE QUOTE!

Yes, Jesus said "no two stones together" and that happened with the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 AD. I suppose that prophecy was written after the fact?

makerowner · 01-27-2008, 04:36 PM

To the mods: Can we split Johnny and arnoldo's side-discussions off into another thread? Thanks.

arnoldo · 01-27-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

To the mods: Can we split Johnny and arnoldo's side-discussions off into another thread? Thanks.

Agreed. I want to stay on topic on Daniel. I will stop responding to off topic comments. In reference to Daniel:
More documentation that Daniel is canon and prophecy is meant to edify believers from I Maccabees Chap. II 31-52

Quote:

Now when Mattathias should die he said unto his sons. Call to remeberance what acts our fathers did in their time:....Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation...Joseph in the time of his distress...and was made lord of Egypt.....Daniel for his innocency was delivered from the mouth of Lions.

Toto · 01-27-2008, 05:49 PM

The side discussion has been split off here

spin · 01-27-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

To the mods: Can we split Johnny and arnoldo's side-discussions off into another thread? Thanks.

Agreed. I want to stay on topic on Daniel. I will stop responding to off topic comments. In reference to Daniel:
More documentation that Daniel is canon and prophecy is meant to edify believers from I Maccabees Chap. II 31-52

Quote:

Now when Mattathias should die he said unto his sons. Call to remeberance what acts our fathers did in their time:....Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation...Joseph in the time of his distress...and was made lord of Egypt.....Daniel for his innocency was delivered from the mouth of Lions.

Yes, Daniel was written in two contexts. Dan 1-6 doesn't know anything about the persecution under Antiochus IV. That's why the statue doesn't feature the ascendency of the Seleucids and the marriage of Berenice (Ptolemid) to Antiochus II is the only clear historical reference in the dream. (Chronologically, this section is linear: first Nebuchadnezzar, then Belshazzar and finally "Darius the Mede".)

Dan 7-12 features Daniel's visions, not royal dreams. And all those visions feature events that lead up to, and include, the persecution of the Jews. Obviously, Dan 7-12 date to ~165 BCE. (This section goes back to Belshazzar then "Darius son of Xerxes, by birth a Mede" and Cyrus.)

spin

Jack the Bodiless · 01-28-2008, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

3.Ch.9. Restoration of Israel, coming Messiah,death of the Messiah, destruction of the temple and Israel by the Romans, rise of the Beast.

As has been pointed out many times, all of this was "fulfilled" in the time of Antiochus, not by "the Romans".

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

In revelations the various beasts kingdoms are united into one Global Government headed by the ten horns (Europeans) and the beast (the Beast).

Are you saying that, in sugarhitmanworld, there are only ten countries in the European Union?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Judaeans at the time considered Jerusalem to have been destroyed.

If the temple still stood and the city remained then it was not Destroyed. What the Romans did was far worse then what Antiochus did. The Temple was completely destroyed by the Romans, the fact that it is not there now is a testimony to its complete destruction as Jesus predicted not a stone remaining upon a stone. The Romans are the little horn as well as the 4th kingdom. There is a big difference between Destroyed and Damaged. :wave:

Are you one of those "KJV-only" types who apparently believe that the Bible was written in English?

Here's a hint: the words "destroyed" and "damaged" do not appear anywhere in the Bible.

Try using a concordance to find out which words were actually used, and what those words mean.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-28-2008, 06:03 AM

Message to arnoldo: Please reply to my two most recent posts in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235305 at the MF&P Forum.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-27-2008, 04:36 PM	#225
makerowner Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,962	To the mods: Can we split Johnny and arnoldo's side-discussions off into another thread? Thanks.

01-27-2008, 05:49 PM	#227
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The side discussion has been split off here

01-28-2008, 06:03 AM	#230
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: Please reply to my two most recent posts in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235305 at the MF&P Forum.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.