sugarhitman

The indentity of the 4th beast can be indentified by the Angel's hint "The people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city (Jeruselem) and the sanctuary (Temple)." The Romans are the only people after the Babylonians who destroyed Israel. This is one of the easiest to figure out. I believe Chapter 11 deals with the rise of Rome. Because during the conflicts between Syria and Egypt a new power arose....Rome. The people and the prince who are to come are the European powers...the European powers came out of the Roman Empire. :wave:

makerowner

You've already been shown the sections from 1 Maccabees relating to this:

"From them came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king; he had been a hostage in Rome. He began to reign in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks." (1 Macc. 1:10 RSV)
"After subduing Egypt, Antiochus returned in the one hundred and forty-third year. He went up against Israel and came to Jerusalem with a strong force.
He arrogantly entered the sanctuary and took the golden altar, the lampstand for the light, and all its utensils. He took also the table for the bread of the Presence, the cups for drink offerings, the bowls, the golden censers, the curtain, the crowns, and the gold decoration on the front of the temple; he stripped it all off. He took the silver and the gold, and the costly vessels; he took also the hidden treasures which he found. Taking them all, he departed to his own land. He committed deeds of murder, and spoke with great arrogance." (1 Macc. 1:20-4 RSV)
"Two years later the king sent to the cities of Judah a chief collector of tribute, and he came to Jerusalem with a large force. Deceitfully he spoke peaceable words to them, and they believed him; but he suddenly fell upon the city, dealt it a severe blow, and destroyed many people of Israel. He plundered the city, burned it with fire, and tore down its houses and its surrounding walls. And they took captive the women and children, and seized the cattle. Then they fortified the city of David with a great strong wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. And they stationed there a sinful people, lawless men. These strengthened their position; they stored up arms and food, and collecting the spoils of Jerusalem they stored them there, and became a great snare. It became an ambush against the sanctuary, an evil adversary of Israel continually. On every side of the sanctuary they shed innocent blood; they even defiled the sanctuary. Because of them the residents of Jerusalem fled; she became a dwelling of strangers; she became strange to her offspring, and her children forsook her. Her sanctuary became desolate as a desert; her feasts were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into a reproach, her honor into contempt. Her dishonor now grew as great as her glory; her exaltation was turned into mourning." (1 Macc. 1:29-40 RSV)

Judaeans at the time considered Jerusalem to have been destroyed.

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter. If Daniel was able to predict the future, he could easily have made prophecies that very few people would have disputed.

spin

Naughty. The list is far from complete. What about the other canonical books that are fewer than Daniel? Beside the ones you've listed below it, there's Joshua, Judges, the two Kings, the two Chronicles, Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther, etc. Eight is quite sufficient to show that the book was well respected. As I said, having one if it wasn't a kosher book is strange in itself. However, you're only counting the copies of canonical Daniel material. There are several non-canonical works as well, which would bring interest in Daniel up over the number for Numbers.


spin

spin

You've been shown that you are not correct in your "only people" claim, but you don't want to know.

I don't care about what you believe. I care about what you can show. Show me a historical context which explains all the things I indicated regarding Dan 11 and more. Then we can talk. If you can't, you should accept the Syrian context, shouldn't you? :angel:



spin

sugarhitman

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:

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

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:

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. The book of revelation discusses this in depth and ties in prophecies for the Roman Empire from the past and the future. If I were a skeptic I wouldn't believe it myself.

spin

When are you going to read the Jewish answer to your own question? Never. You ain't interested in knowing.


spin