sugarhitman

oh by the way spin as for as the 4th beast being an elephant he says the the teeth were made of iron.....not ivory.

spin

This is not a response to my message. Please answer the post and don't try to cop out like this.

In the meantime, to answer your question, please read 1 Macc 3:45.

Not with Israel, but "with the many". You should read the text more carefully. Yes, Antiochus made a covenant with the many. He installed the high priest Alcimus who did his bidding.

In 175 Onias III the high priest, god's anointed prince, was held in Antioch, eventually to be killed around 172 BCE, when Alcimus got to the high priesthood. Antiochus IV, getting tired of the progress in Jerusalem invaded in 167 BCE. Approximately half a week of years later, the temple was retaken and Antiochus died "not by human hands".

Crap. Another of your baseless claims. Do try to deal with my post rather than hiding from it.

Rome even appears in ch 11 as I've already told you, disguised as the Kittim in 11:30. This is the famous meeting between Antiochus IV and Popillius Laenas outside Alexandria, when the Romans rushed envoys to Egypt by ship in order to prevent the fall of Egypt. Rome then disappears from the text.

Now please go back and deal with my last post.


spin

spin

Doh! And the lion had eagle's wings; the bear which had three ribs in its mouth; and the panther had four wings.

I'm waiting for a response to my post #208.


spin

Nero's Boot

...what? No, they most likely not know shit-all about YHVH, other than the fact that those crazy Israelites only had one god to watch over them. It must've seemed shocking to Israel's neighbors that the Jews only had one divinity; polytheistic cultures generally do not believe in omnimax gods: Point in case, even Zeus could not overturn the working of impersonal Destiny. Really, there are plenty of passages in the Old Testament that seem to indicate even the ancient Jews did not believe YHVH was omnimax. ("Iron chariots," anyone?) All this omnimax business seemed to be a much later add-on.

So, back to my original point: No, the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians and Greeks knew next to nothing about the God of Israel. Nope, sorry. They knew of Enlil, Horus, Apollo and suchlike.

--they most likely didn't even know that the Israelites had an entire fabricated "history" NB

sugarhitman

To spin: He confirms a covenant with many but the focus is on Israel not the Gentiles. You still have not answered my question does Antiochus destroy the city and the temple? Does he stand up to the Prince of princes? Does he arise after the Messiah is cut off? Let me answer that for you. No. And no my friend the Messiah is not a temporary priest, nor the priests the hosts of heaven. God calls himself the Lord of hosts. verse 24 of ch.9 says to anoint the MOST HOLY this is the Messiah Jesus Christ who is the Lord of lords, Kings of kings and Prince of princes. He is Messiah the Prince and the Anti-Christ will resist him....not Antiochus.

Johnny Skeptic

Obviously not, a good example being that Ezekiel did not mention Alexander. Are you going to tell us that it would not have been helpful if Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander? If God wanted people to believe that he can predict the future, he would easily be able to prove that to everyone's satisfaction. Isn't that correct?

Same as before.

Find what?

Everyone in the world would like to know if there are beings in the universe who are able to predict the future.

But you do not have any credible evidence that God inspired Daniel to write that. Logically, inspiring and preserving texts indicates that whoever inspired and perserved them wants people to have access to them. As it was, hundreds of millions of people have died without knowing anything about the God of the Bible. Regarding people who did know about the God of the Bible, it is quite suspicious that God played favorites based upon geography, meaning that people who lived closer to Palestine first learned about the God of the Bible. If God did not have anything to do with the spread of the Gospel message, it is a given that the first people who heard about it would have been people who lived closer to Palestine. No loving God would play favorites based upon geography.

What is "truth"?

On the contrary, when Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre, some Jews would have given up Judaism. No Jew who lived during Ezekiel's time witnessed the final destruction of all of Tyre.

As far as I know, a sizeable majority of Jews have always rejected Christianity.

As of course, you still have not explained why God broke his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar. If you do not have a reasonable explanation for that, it does not matter whether or not God sometimes predicts the future if he is a liar.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

[qutoe=Farrell Till] The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.[/quote]

Of course, there is already plenty of other evidence that God is a liar. For instance, Old Testament Jews were taught that the messiah would be genetic descendant of David. Matthew contradicts that by claiming that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Do you mind telling us why God chose the Jews to be his chosen people?

spin

Nobody said anything about gentiles. And not all of Israel -- just the many. I'm glad we are clear.

Apparently you didn't read what 1 Macc 3:45 said.

Of course, with his attack on the latter's people, the temple and Jerusalem.

He arrives in Jerusalem after the anointed high priest is cut off, of course. Just read the text.

When you are looking in the wrong place, you can't answer it for me, so you shouldn't really expect to come up with anything useful.

Of course, there is nothing about the anti-christ in Daniel. This is just willful ignoring of the text because you want there to be a reference to the anti-christ. The anti-christ is a christian idea and you shouldn't expect it in a Jewish text.

But then the christians stole the Hebrew bible which is a Jewish literary collection and have been trying to use it for their own nefarious ends for nearly two millenia. Daniel is part of the Jewish cultural heritage, not christian.

If we remember that Daniel is in Babylon and is speaking -- he says -- during the time of "Darius the Mede", the anointed prince in Dan 9:25 appears at the end of the seventh week of years after the Cyrus decree. No matter how hard you try to manipulate this text, you won't seriously make it about the christian Jesus. It is of course about Yeshua the high priest, who came back to Jerusalem at the rebuilding. The other anointed one many years later was Onias III, who was removed from office and eventually killed about seven years before the temple was liberated by Judas Maccabaeus.

In order to understand how the visions are interrelated, the anointed one who is cut off in 9:26 is the prince of the host against whom the litte horn acts arrogantly in 8:11 and is the prince of the covenant who is swept away in 11:22b. Of course not long after the mention of each the regular sacrifice is stopped. The same basic story is being told each time and we know that Antiochus both removed the high priest and stopped the regular sacrifice, while polluting the temple.

Antiochus is the last great Greek king: the male goat of ch 8 is the king of Greece, while the great horn is Alexander and the little horn, still from the king of Greece, stopped the regular sacrifice! The king of the north and the king of the south, ch 11, come directly after Alexander, so they are still Greek, and the king of the south carries spoils of to Egypt so he is clearly Ptolemy and he fought the Seleucid king.

How long do you intend to keep your head in the sand? Every sorry excuse for an interpretation of Daniel that you have does not compare with the coherence of reading Daniel's visions, ch 7-12, in the light of the Seleucid empire down to the time of Antiochus IV.

You have not dealt with the material in post #208. You are running further from it, clutching at straws as you go. I suggested that you turned to a scholarly commentary on Daniel (you know, written by a recognized university scholar), but of course you didn't. You are too happy in your sty of contentment to peep out at reality. I know that you won't listen to anyone who you don't trust and cannot analyze the data for yourself, so ultimately I am wasting my breath talking to you, wouldn't you agree?


spin

Jack the Bodiless

I have already challenged you to find a single verifiably-fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, and you have failed to do so.

So, let me now spell out the terrible truth as plainly as possible. Maybe you won't miss it this time.

There are NO specific and verifiably-fulfilled prophecies anywhere in the Bible.

Hence, by your own criteria:

YOURS IS A FALSE GOD.

Johnny Skeptic

Then why didn't God give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar like he promised to?

Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander?

sugarhitman

In the Book of Daniel the Abomination that causes desolation is an 11th king of the 4th empire that arises after the 10 ( note the ten kings coexist at the same time. The only king to arise afterwards is the little horn. According to Spin's list they rise in chronological order) Here is a list of kings of Seleucid Syria: 312-281 Selecus the I Nicater
281-261 Antiochus I Soter
261-246 Antiochus II Theos
246-225 Seleucus II Callinicos
225-223 III Ceraunos
223-187 Antiochus III The Great
187-175 Seleucus IV Philopater
175-164 ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES
164-150 Antiochus V Eupator
162-150 Demetrious I
150-145 Alexander Balas
(145-139 and 129-125) Demetrious II
139-129 Antiochus VII
******
69-64 Antiochus XIII
65-64 Philip II
The little of Horn of Daniel is an 11th and final king who would arise in the "latter time of their kingdom" I.E. At the end of their kingdom. Antiochus was an 8th king and certainly not the last as Greek Syria endured a full century after his death. He was not a King who did as he will because Syria since the days of his father was already under the power of Rome. In the battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C. Rome defeated Antiochus III (before then in 197 Rome defeated Philip of Macedon Rome was then in "defacto control of Greece"). Previously he was ordered to pay Rome ten thousand talents (Treaty of Apamea) and to "furnish hostages, including his son Antiochus Epiphanes." All his days Antoichus IV paid tribute to Rome He was thus a vassel king of Rome.

The Little Horn will also conquer Egypt " He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But He shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver and over the precious things of Egypt." "In Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria, the Roman abassador , Gaius Popillius Laenas, presented Antiochus with the ultimatum that he evacuate Egypt and Cyprus immediately . He drew a circle in the earth around the (weak) king with his walking stick and demanded an unequivocal answer before Antiochus left the circle. Dismayed by his public humiliation, the king quickly agreed to comply." Antiochus had never conquered Egypt because Egypt had as its protector The new Roman power. So Antiochus does not fit this part either.

"He shall enter also into the glorious land, AND MANY COUNTRIES SHALL BE OVERTHROWN." Antiochus certainly did not "overthrow many countries" he does not fit this as well.


The little horn is seen not to come from one of the four horns (nowhere in the bible does a horn come out of another horn but replaces the previous horn note in Daniel this horn uproots three horns not coming out of one as spin suggests) But is seen as coming from out of one of the "four winds." Ths horn is seen as arising in the latter (end) time of the Grecian empire. This horn is the prince (that shall come) of the "people that shall destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the Temple after its rebuild). The little horn comes after The Messiah is cut off (spin says this messiah is a high priest that was murdered by Antiochus. But note that the little horn arises AFTER the messiah is cut off. Indeed the little horn stands up against The Prince of princes (at Jesus second coming) but does not overcome him. The defeat or murder of the Messiah goes against the book of Daniel because "he shall stand up against the Prince of princes, but he shall be broken without hand." Meaning he will not murder or even be successful against this Messiah, therefore spin's high Priest is not the Prince of princes.) There is only one power that fits these descriptions....Roman empire. In ch.12 of Daniel during the war between the northern and southern kings, Rome came to power. As both Egypt and Judea sought help from Rome against Syria. This is how Rome came into the glorious land. It was the Romans not the Syrians who both destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (no matter how spin tries to spin, he can in no way prove that Syria did these things.... even if he keeps mentioning maccabees (which he has yet to qoute). Yes friends the people of the prince who shall come will come as a European. And he will arise in the end times.:wave:

Resources

Encyclopedia Britannica (1981)
Breasted, James H. "Ancient times, a History of the Early World"
"The Conquest of Civilization"
Bright, John, "A History of Israel"
Garraty, John, "The Columbia History of the World"
Hayes and Moon, "Ancient and Medieval History"