Christianity and the End Times

They are the last small kingdoms, not an empire, nor any one of them an empire, MENTIONED in those chapters, but they are not the last EMPIRE revealed in Daniel: that is the Great and tTerrible Beast of Daniel 7 where the kingdoms you are talking about are identified with the THIRD empire and not the fourth.Not only is the fourth described as great and terrible, far surpassing the three previous empires -- do you really want to compare either Egypt or Seleucia with Alexander the Great's enormous conquests? -- but it is also described as DIFFERENT from "all kingdoms" in some essential way that is not identified: "Devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces." There is nothing in the four Greek kingdoms that this describes, not even the Seleucids. Their wars were confined to the area of the eastern Mediterranean and were between two antagonists, not the whole world.The seven rulers of the Seleucids plus three who tried to take the throne do NOT represent the prophecy of the ten kings of the Great and Terrible Beast, ten actual ruling kings, THREE OF WHOM were subdued by the little horn. FACE IT, THIS IS NOT ANTIOCHUS. It is a similar type of character who has not yet appeared in history.And these warring kingdoms basically just disappeared from history although there are weak remnants of them in Egypt and Syria. And more important, they were not succeeded by the everlasting kingdom of God ruled by the saints of the most High which is how the prophecy of Daniel 7 concludes. So if we believe the prophecy, all that must be yet future.

That's for the simple reason that it hasn't been fulfilled, that the prophecy so far has only completed the sixty-nine weeks to Messiah the Prince. The prophecy says that "seventy weeks have been determined upon your people and your holy city to put an end to transgressions..." end to sins, anoint the most holy, I forget the rest of it, but the point is that it doesn't give a particular time frame this has to happen in. Of course we expect it to be continuous but when you've tallied it all up there just happens to be this one dangling week or seven years. And although Jesus put an end to sins for believers, the prophecy seems to look forward to a complete end of transgressions, and that certainly has not yet arrived, which adds to the conviction that there is yet another seven years to come to fulfill the prophecy, which would be the covenant of seven years made by the future Antichrist....You see it differently but I think all the rest has been fulfilled quite nicely, 49 years to rebuld Jerusalem and the temple after the Babylonian Capitivty, plus another sixty-two years adding up to sixty-nine, to Messiah the Prince, which certainly lands in Jesus' lifetime according to our most inadequate calculations and probably smack on the entry into Jerusalem if we were better at the calculations, but in any case they do not go anywhere near the Maccabean period.And all I've seen of your timing claims hardly even touch on what is required by the prophecy. If I missed it then please repeat it so this won't drag on forever.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But the Rome of the prophecy is yet future.

If the rest succeeded and it did, then the last week will also succeed.Also, putting it off to the future has the interesting effect of spanning the time of Christianity and linking the Old Testament to the future, making it continuous in that sense. I've noted other ways in this discussion that Israel seems to be the main player in all the end times scenarios, while the Church is not so clearly present, which MIGHT be support for the Rapture theory. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The future Roman Empire does have to be recognizably continuous with the original for the prophecy to make sense. Even you should recognize it when it is revealed. It may not come in our lifetime of course, but if it does I know I'll recognize it. I see it as waiting in the wings to suddenly burst upon the stage of history. It's going to be "different" from all other kingdoms, remember. And it's going to devour the whole world. Of course maybe I won't be around to see it, maybe I'll get raptured. Funny, I haven't even really believed in the pre-trib Rapture, but maybe I'm going to have to.

Just a thought. Remember there have been conscious attempts to continue the Roman Empire, including Hitler's Third Reich, following an earlier Second Reich or German empire, which usually counts the Holy Roman Empire as the First Reich, and we've had some wannabe Caesars of course, witness titles like "Czar" and "Kaiser." The IDEA of the Roman Empire has never really died. And there may yet be one to emerge with an even more evil Hitler at its helm. Just a thought.

Some people consider Islam or perhaps the Ottoman Empire to be the other leg of the statue in Daniel 2, one being the Roman Empire.l

Something to do with the fact that the Middle East was part of the Roman Empire and mostly Christian too, before Islam took it over. I don't know all the reasoning, I just keep these things in mind to see what develops. I think a main way the future Roman Empire will be "different" as the prophecy says, is that it will be frankly religious, headed by a true Antichrist who puts himself in the place of God. Of course the Reformers identified the Pope as putting himself in the place of God and also pointed out that he sits in the "temple" as defined in the New Testament as the people of God. A revived Holy Roman Empire may be a good model for the continuation of the Roman Empire. It's too early to be sure of anything. Wait and see.

There's continuity at least in the Roman trappings of the Roman Church, as the garb comes straight from the Romans, and the title "Pontifex Maximus." It obviously has nothing to do with Christianity. The robes, the weird headgear, the jewelry and so on, the enormous wealth. And the rosary comes from the pagan religions, and statues of "gods" which have been changed into "saints" and doing signs like the sign of the cross, nothing to do with Christianity. The title "vicar of Christ" could be directly translated "antichrist" since it means "substitute for" or "in the place of" Christ. I'm supposing it's the religious aspects of the Roman Empire that are likely to be the main identity of the prophesied end times Roman Empire, because its primary identity is enemy of God, and the prophecy describes it as different from other kingdoms. The pagan religious aspects would dminate, more than the institutions of government. though those may be part of it too when the whole thing comes together. Superficially anyway. The Popes tend to be too old for many of the characteristics of the Antiochus type of Antichrist who is a leader of armies, so there are things that don't quite fit as well as things that do. Wait and see. Islam could even be united in some way with the Roman Church. Wait and see.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How about we go back to the main topic. I did ask you to spell out your timing to the Maccabean period because I missed it. Please do that?

For that matter I'd like to see how you spell out the whole seventy weeks. You said something about the Messiah coming right after the initial 49 weeks, but what does the sixty-two weeks extend to, and the sixty-nine, and exactly where does the seventieth week fit in?

And even your comment about the Messiah coming after the first 49 years needs support. Which of your two messiahs and when did he appear?But since you haven't answered shall I suppose you can't relate your scenario to the seventy weeks prophecy at all?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It works beautifully. Oh but we do. The statue of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 clearly shows the same list of four empires as all the other prophecies to come. They are not named in all the prophecies but they all have the same characteristics to identify them as the same four empires. Daniel 7 spells out the same ones as the statue, I thought it named them there but it doesn't but they are all the same. The statue's head of gold is Babylon, and so is the lion of Dsniel 7; the two arms of the statue are Medo-Persia as is the bear of Daniel 7 that is raised up on one side as is the ram with the lopsided horns in Daniel 8. they all symbolize a two-nation empire, and two of the images show the empire to be made up of one nation that is stronger than the other. The brass belly of the status, the leopard with four wings and heads of Daniel 7 and the goat with the notable horn that becomes four horns from one of which emerges the little horn are all Greece conquering by Alexander the Great and then breaking up into the four kingdoms out of which comes Antiochus Epiphanes the little horn. He is always depicted as coming from Greece. The legs of iron of the statue and the Great and Terrible Beast of Daniel 7 are interpreted to be the Roman Empire although it is never named in Daniel while all the other empires are named. It clearly follows Greece and can't be the four kingdoms that supplanted Alexander because 1), they are four in number, 2) they are not Great and Terrible by comparison with the three previous kingdoms. The little horn of Daniel 7 comes from the fourth kingdom/empire while the little horn of Daniel 8 comes from one of the kingdoms that succeed Alexander and we know him to be Antiochus Epiphanes.All the prophecies relate to the same empires, but Daniel 8 and 10 to 12 focus in on the two in the middle and then exclusively on Greece in two of the successors to Alexander. This is all easily shown from the scripture alone. You are right to focus on Antiochus Epiphanes' defeat by the Maccabees as a major part of the prophetic picture but you are wrong to ignore Daniel 9 which shows the bigger context of the coming of the Messiah and the fourth empire. Since you obviously can't show any timing from the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 to support your scenario you are missing the big picture by trying to squeeze it all into the prophecies concerning the Maccabean period. It doesn't fit. Because Daniel 7 and 9 contradict it.The Maccabean period is spelled out in some detail but if you leave out the greater context of the fourth empire and the coming of the Messiah you miss that it's meant to be a foreshadowing of something far bigger, which we know by the description of the fourth empire as more terrible than all the others, and far off in the future, which we know because of that unfulfilled final week.Antiochus and the Maccabean struggle are meant to be helps to us to understand this yet-future Antichrist and his times, which will bring an end not just to the struggles of Israel but the entire world.And this bigger picture depends entirely on understanding the meaning of the seventy weeks. Since you slight that one major prophecy you are missing the big picture and reducing the prophetic meaning of Daniel to a small local event in which Israel prevails over its enemy, which is in reality intended to foreshadow the end of the world and the triumph of God in Jesus Christ which will bring ALL history to an end.

Well, I do have such a different scenario in mind I probably did miss your way of working out your own, so please forgive me for missing it, and for the sake of improving communication and defending your own point of view, please repeat your calculations. All that is irrelevant to the question I'm asking you, so I continue to suppose you are just avoiding the fact that you have no answer. Which you can't have because there is no way the seventy weeks have anything to do with the Maccabean period.It is sufficient for my scenario that the sixty-nine weeks counts to the lifetime of Jesus no matter which starting point is used, and no matter which calendar is used, and there is no getting around that. There is nothing whatever in your scenario that fulfills any of the seventy week prophecy, not one part of it. Well I'm very certain of my interpretation and if anybody is desperate I would suppose it must be you because you continue to avoid the glaring fact that your Maccabean scenario fits nothing whatever in the seventy weeks prophecy. All your accusations and carrying on serve only to put up a smokescreen as far as I can see.

Ah, at last. OK So now you have to get TO the Maccabean revolt. But that is a huge straw man since I've said nothing about an extra 280 sevens. All the seventy weeks prophecy is fulfilled in what I've described up through the coming of the Messiah, and the only thing left out is the last week, seven years, which is understood to be yet future. Please stick to justifying your own scenario instead of making false accusations against mine. Oh the dates work out fine for anybody who isn't determined to make a mess of them. We get to the time of Jesus by them. Yes, Jeremiah's prophecy launches the new prophecy but seventy years is not seventy sevens of years. The Babylonian Captivity is coming to an end after seventy years and Daniel has just discovered that by reading the book of Jerimiah, and now he is being introduced to a prophecy of things to come after the end of the captivity. This is very confused. You are making Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years for the duration of the Babylonian Captivity into your starting date for the seventy weeks? And believe me it took me some doing even to figure this much out. Is there anything in Jeremiah's prophecy that suggests a command or decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, because that is the starting point given for the seventy weeks. You don't quote it which requires me to look it up but if I do that now I know from experience I'll lose my post so I'll have to do it later. I've never seen any reference whatever to Jeremiah's prophecy as related to the command to rebuild Jerusalem so I think it's fairly safe to assume it isn't there. The command has to be one of the four quoted in the commentary I posted earlier on this thread, only one of which actually mentions the city, the others being about rebuilding the temple. You have NO justification for making Jeremiah your starting point. No wonder the timing is such a mess if you start from there.Then you've got Cyrus' conquest of Babylon as the 49th year or first seven weeks of the seventy weeks prophecy? How did you arrive at that? Oh, it's "in the period when he was active?" In other words it doesn't work at all, even if it made sense. What does Cyrus' conquest have to do with the seventy weeks' prophecy? You make him into the Messiah I guess? But even the 49 years you claim for that doesn't work. Well I see that your timing is even more confused than I expected it to be. It doesn't work, period.; Anything calculated from Jeremiah is going to be wrong in relation to anything in Daniel's prophecies, but why not give us the numbers so we can see how wrong? Well there's your problem, you are assuming an intended end date based on your own misreading of the prophecies. It doesn't fit and you make that the fault of the prophecy? Your problem is that Daniel 9 doesn't have anything to do with the Maccabean period. You are imposing the other prophecies that ARE about that period onto this one which isn't about it. There isn't the slightest relation to the Maccabean period in Daniel 9. None of the seventy weeks has anything to do with the Maccabean period. Well, you are right, there aren't any plausible options once you've decided that the Maccabean period is the intended end date.Well, thank you for spelling all that out after all so I can get a better idea of how wrong it is. No wonder I kept ignoring it, I couldn't make any sense of it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.