Sheshonq

So you will not support any of your claims?

They have more patience for your games than I do. I've watched you duck and dodge responsibility for way too long.

I'm interested in the evidence to support your claims.

You, however, appear to only be interested in trying to change the subject and shift the burden of proof. Neither tactic works with me.

Time to put up or shut up - can you support your claims above?

Sitamun

If we follow this logic:

Czar Nikolas II was British
Kaiser Wilhelm II was British
Queen Victoria was German
Albert II, prince of Monaco is American

From what I've researched Cyrus seems to be Persian. The EXPERTS say he's Persian. Born in Persia, ruled Persia. Not a mede. POSSIBLY some Median heritage (there seems to be some speculation, I'm not certain how much or how credible it is). In any case, this argument of yours (like all your arguments) is pretty weak. Almost as if your grasping at straws.

sugarhitman

Sorry. But I will not report anyone. Ill just wait for Spin, who actually addresses my questions whether Im right or wrong...evidence or not. Sheshong has resorted to this because he knows he cannot address these questions. I dont mind actually.....he and his ways are in the publics view.

Toto

This tale seems to be the basis for claiming that Cyrus was the grandson of Astyages.

funinspace

:rolling: Having pot and kettle issues? ROTFLMAO You have been avoiding, fearing, dodging the below question since the first page of this thread…

Sheshonq

When confronted with someone who holds your feet to the fire on the subject of citing supporting evidence, you buckle under the pressure. So it's not surprising that you prefer someone who will play your game.

You have never asked a question that I couldn't answer.

The point you are deliberately missing is that these are your claims. You have the burden to support. The audience doesn't have any obligation whatsoever to answer your string of questions.

What's in the public view is your inability to back up your claims and your transparent attempt to change the subject whenever someone mentions that fact.

Sheshonq

Indeed. Since Toto has stolen my thunder, I may as well reveal that I posted the same thing to arnoldo weeks ago. And it was a discussion that sugarhitman was actively involved in. So the claim that I cannot answer his question is wrong; in point of fact, I already answered it - but as usual he wasn't interested in listening.

That earlier post illuminates two flaws in sugarhitman's crippled hypothesis:

1. Neither sugarhitman and arnoldo can tell the difference between (a) legend and (b) actual history; and

2. As Sitamun posted earlier, the ethnic origin of a ruler is not relevant; the kingdom they rule and their allegiance is what matters. Which is why the German House of Windsor is actually British.

sugarhitman

Okay what empires are you talking about. Daniel is only concerned with those empires over Israel.

Amaleq13

Where is your list identifying the ten kings?

spin

As usual you refuse to respond to the post you are pretending to answer to. You brush it aside and set up more smoke to screen your inability to respond. Remember this:

Ill just wait for Spin, who actually addresses my questions whether Im right or wrong...evidence or not.

Please pay me the same courtesy of addressing my responses.

You are deliberately confusing methodologies of two different visions. The second vision explains that the Medes are one horn and the Persians who came later are the other horn. The writer is dealing with two different powers. You know that before Cyrus turned the tables on the Medes that the Persians were subservient to the Medes. After he came to power the Medes became subservient to the Persians. That's why the Medes are recorded as paying tribute to the Persians. You continue to ignore reality for your fairy tail.

The second vision deals with three powers, two of which were Iranian peoples, hence they are two horns of the one animal. The first vision simply deals with four powers.

The Medes, who are the bear, were responsible for defeating three major powers, the Assyrians, the Urartians and the Lydians. These are the three ribs in the mouth of the bear. The bear rose up on one side, the north, for that was where it did its conquests.

You are insinuating "dual powers". History tells a different story. First the Medes were powerful, then the Persians. This is what Daniel says in ch.8.

The problem is that Daniel is stuck with the Jeremiah prophecy in 51:11. He has to go with the Medes. The writer's solution is to presume a Median conquest to fulfill Jeremiah. You've seen the historical record. Cyrus is responsible for conquering Babylon. There is no wiggle room. But then the writer of Daniel didn't have the Cyrus Cylinder or the Nabonidus Chronicle.

Where did you get that idea? I think you're making things up again.

What makes you think -- assuming for your argument's sake that the third beast is Greece -- that either the four wings or the four heads represent the fleeting period of the diadochi? The second vision gives little attention to the break up of Alexander's empire into four. It's interest was first the power of Alexander, then the activity of the little horn. You're joking if you think that the first vision would linger on such a minor historical development at the cost of more important ones.

That it never actually happened doesn't change the effect of the Jeremiah prophecy on Daniel.

Utter rubbish. Cyrus was a Persian.

Rubbish. Cyrus defeated the Medes and they became part of his empire.

Rubbish. This is just baggage from Daniel you have to believe against the evidence.

Gosh. I thought Gubaru was Chinese... using the same evidence that you have: none. He was probably the fairy godfather, using the same evidence. Don't you understand that you can't simply claim that the satrap of Gutium was whoever you want him to be? You make yourself out to be a complete no-hoper.

Besides Wiki, which isn't primary or secondary evidence, there is no reason to believe that Gubaru was a Mede.

Rubbish. Evidenceless rubbish. This idea seems to be foreign to you: you need evidence to make meaningful claims. Butterfly logic such as what you have espoused doesn't cut the grease.

Darius the Mede is fantasy.

The Medes fought for the Persians as any vassal has to.

Your source disagrees with you. It explicitly says that the Medes and the Persians were separate powers and that the Persians came later and were stronger than the Medes.

You mean that Astyages and Cyaxares stopped having being kings because their kingdom was vanquished? Absurd.

The Parthians were also of the same animal, as were the Sassanids, yet they were each different kingdoms.

Rubbish.

Rubbish... you're going to give me repetitive stress.

Read the source text. The explanation it gives is that the horns on the elephant-like beast were ten kings. It also says that the two horns of the ram were the kings of the Medes and the Persians, ie one Mede and one Persian. The text says that they were separate.

Read the text. The Medes came first and the Persians came later. They are separate according to Daniel.

Umm, regarding 165 BCE you are talking rubbish. You are dumbing not trying to place the text in its writing context. I have shown that ch.11 is specifically about the struggle between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies down to the time of Antiochus IV. You accept that ch.8's little horn is Antiochus IV. The same abomination which makes desolate in 11:31 is present in 9:27 clearly making Antiochus the prince whose troops destroy Jerusalem (as per 1 Macc 3). Each of these visions ends with Antiochus IV, who died in 164 BCE. Get the context of writing clear. At the time of his reign there had been ten kings. and he got to the throne with the death of the three.

Yup. Didn't happen. The ten kings did and the little horn did. But not the setting up of a kingdom... unless you want to consider the setting up of the Hasmonean kingdom. Maybe that's what the writer meant.

You're confusing dream with vision. The ten horns are kings. The feet of the statue are the Seleucid and Ptolemy kingdoms that couldn't get their act together through marriage (2:43).

What are you talking about? The heirs to Alexander after the squabbles of the diadochi were the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. You still haven't read about the Syrian Wars.

This is pure rubbish.

Again pure rubbish. The one like a son of man was Michael who was in fact going up to heaven with the clouds. (He is a latter day Baal, the cloudrider, returning to Mt Zaphon after having defeated the monsters of Yamm -- the sea in 7:2.)

I do wish you'd stop mixing up dream with vision. In the days of the kings of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.

As I said, Michael. He is the one who has fought for Israel by doing battle with the princes of Persia and Greece (see 10:20f). He is not a man, but he is like a son of man, ie he has the form of a human, while his opponents have beastly forms.

For its opposition to god and its crimes against his people.

Onias is not Michael, the one like a son of man.

He talks about Onias three times: 8:11, 9:26 and 11:22. The one like the son of man is neither Onias nor a messianic figure, though later christianity, totally confused with the book of Daniel, took him to be. This is a grave problem when a group that is ignorant of Jewish literature steals it for their own. How can you expect them to understand the literature of another culture?

Yup.

And you say that because of what evidence?

He doesn't. You aren't reading Daniel. You are doing eisegesis on it. You are reading in your desired conclusions.

OK, you have to respond to the evidence I've put forward in my annotated ch.11, showing what is wrong with it, before you spout anything more on the subject. You were amazingly silent when I posted the data.

He sent his forces to Jerusalem first in 175 BCE, later with Lysias. Later he sent an Athenian senator to deal with Jerusalem (2 Macc 6:1), so his forces were present long before the arrival of Antiochus.

Read the text of 1 Macc 3.

No. Daniel is apocalyptic, not messianic. You are confused because you've been taught to believe that someone anointed must be the messiah, but the high priests of Yahweh were all anointed.

I never claimed that Onias was the messiah. He is merely the head of the temple who was cut off by Antiochus IV in 175 BCE. He is the prince of the host in 8:11 to whom Antiochus acted arrogantly, the anointed one cut off in 9:26 and the prince of the covenant in 11:22 who is swept away.

You are confused about Dan 9:25-27. Judas Maccabee rose up asking god, according to 2 Macc 8:3, "to have mercy on the city that was being destroyed and about to be leveled to the ground. Antiochus arrived sometime after that.

As you haven't responded to what I said on the issue, I'll wait for you to do so.

If you cannot deal with the evidence don't show your utter incomprehension of it.

And, if you cannot respond to the issues in this post, then don't bother simply asking more questions reformulating your already espoused beliefs.


spin