Christianity and the End Times

That is false. I abandoned that discussion because there's only so far one can go with speculations about an unknown future. All the prophecies we've discussed so far have a known fulfillment we can point to -- the historical sequence of the empires, the breakup of Greece and the emergence of Antiochus Epiphanes who is defeated by the Maccabees, and the coming of Jesus Christ and His crucifixion. We also know that the Roman Empire has to be the fourth empire prophesied because that was the empire into which Christ was born. All that is history, not speculative future.But the idea of a continuation of the Roman Empire into the future has not been fulfilled so everything concerning it can only be speculative and tentative. I don't have to know anything for sure about it, but since I have some ideas about it I have offered them. I( can't prove it because it hasn't come, and I may change my mind about it as time goes on. There is no point in pursuing it further because there is no way to know how it will play out. We have to wait and see. You are continuing a discussion that is purely speculative on your part as well as mine. There is no point in pursuing it and I returned to the earlier discussion because it refers to history that we can argue about with more certainty.

that is a problem from your point of view because of your way of looking at the prophecies, but I think there is a fulfillment to come that you can't anticipate, and for that matter I may not be anticipating it all that well either. But I don't want to discuss these speculations with you beyond this point because you don't know and I don't either and besides, your way of dealing with the prophecies is so off the charts wrong there's just no point.

Just a reminder that you garble up Daniel 7 and 9, confusing the Roman little horn with the Greek little horn, and mangling the seventy weeks prophecy which doesn't have anything to do with the Maccabean period you've arbitrarily made your intended goal, ignoring the fact that the weeks do count to Jesus' lifetime instead, and probably exactly to his entry into Jerusalem. But you've got things so confused there's no point in getting into that discussion yet, it would just confuse the confusions all the more.
; Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except for the fact that Antiochus is the type or symbol or model for the future Antichrist who is based on the little horn of the fourth empire of Daniel 7, there is no relation to the other prophecies. Daniel 8 and 10-to 12, except for a few verses at the end of each, refer to the Maccabean period, Daniel 7 and 9 refer to the fourth empire and to Jesus Christ, and with the verses at the end of each of the chapters to a future time that hasn't yet come, and that is what you are ignoring.Is there any point in continuing this discussion? It's very clear by now what our different interpretations are and there doesn't seem to be any way either of us is going to change. You have your scenario, I have mine and we seem to have come to the usual impasse. If there is something in particular you would like me to address I'll take a look at it but beyond that I think I've done it for this thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No I don't, I just have to deal with the seventy weeks and all that is left after the crucifixion is the one seventieth week of the prophecy, which has no fulfillment in the time frame you are insisting on and therefore looks to the future.abe This won't mean anything to you but as I've been immersed in these prophecies on account of this thread -- for which I should thank you by the way since it's allowed me to get more deeply into the Daniel prophecies -- I'm appreciating them a lot more. For instance, because the sixty-ninth week does appear to arrive at the entry into Jerusalem where Jesus announces his Messiahship, and the seventieth week has no fulfillment in that time period, that means everything after that is outside the prophecy of the weeks until the future when the seventy weeks are resumed with the seventieth week. And that means the Church Age in some sense starts after the Palm Sunday entry into Jerusalem, includes the crucifixion and the destruction of the temple and most of the city by Titus plus the rest of the New Testament and the following two thousand years of history to the present. But up to and including the entry into Jerusalem we are still in the Daniel prophecy of the seventy weeks, which is mostly addressed to ethnic Israel, and when the seventieth week finally comes around it will be ethnic Israel that again emerges as the Saints of the Most High for the grand finale of the prophecy which was addressed to Daniel's people and city, which will also be the grand finale of planet Earth and then Jesus will return. It's all about time inside and time outside the seventy weeks. Thanks for drawing my attention to that. Really really interesting prophecy going on here. /abeBut again, I'm not sure there is any point in continuing this discussion as I say above, we are just going to keep repeating our separate views.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It wasn't intended as argument, it's a summary.

It's AN end it is not THE end. Daniel 7 and 9, plus the last verses of all these chapters, take us to THE end. They are similar, not identical, and this is how you miss the entire point, that not only does one come from the fourth beast and the other from the third, but they appear in widely separated times in history. But you're never going to get this, you have no understanding of how biblical prophecy works.So yep, this discussion has reached senility and it's time to stop. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just one last thing: you keep saying I'm basing my views on doctrine, I am not, absolutely everything I've said here comes straight out of my reading of the scripture. It's all there and anybody who is interested in getting into the book of Daniel should see that. It is you who deviate from scripture by ignoring the fact that there are two separate little horns IN SCRIPTURE, NOT DOCTRINE, one in Daniel 7 that comes out of the4 fourth kingdom and one in Daniel 8 from the third kingdom, this is SCRIPTURE, not assumption or interpretation as you try to claim. There is no contradiction between Daniel 7 and 9 and Daniel 8 and 10-12 because they CLEARLY DEAL WITH DIFFERENT PROPHECIES, one about gtreece qand the other about the fourth kingdom or the Roman Empire and the coming of the Messiah or Jesus Christ. THIS IS ALL IN THE SCRIPTURE, you are indulging in devious spin when you try to make it out to be my interpretation as imposed on it. You misread scripture, it's all there as I've described it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But the text of Daniel 9 does happen to count down to Jesus who is their Messiah, which was recognized by many of them when He came; you know, His Jewish disciples for instance amd another ten thousand or so which you can count in the Book of Acts. There were some such as Anna and Simeon who knew when He was to come and knew immediately that the baby Mary and Joseph brought to the temple was the Messiah. They knew the scriptures so they knew when His time had come.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK you insist I get further into all this and I will try, but it may take some time.

So who is the Messiah in your opinion, the one who it is said in Genesis will come and "crush the head of the serpent?" Or the Messiah the Prince of Daniel 9 who is to come sixty-nine weeks after a command to rebuild Jerusalem? PaulK has a couple of messiahs he thinks fill the bill although they came and went a long time ago, didn't arrive according to the prophecy of sixty-nine weeks, and don't fit any of the messianic prophecies. Do you have a favorite since you think it's not Jesus Christ?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Reading more in the commentary I've been posting from on this thread I found this on the fourth empire of the statue of Daniel 2: Well I could have guessed you were following a liberal interpretation, juust found the evidence. Perfect example of how liberals mangle the scripture in order ot impose their prejudices on it. this is how you arrive at Greece and not Rome eh? Kind of makes a mess of the pretty symbolism of the statue which has the two-nation Medo-Persian empire represented by the chest and two arms, which echoes the symbolism of Medo-Persia in the bear of Daniel 7 which has one side higher than the other which symbolizes that one part of the empire is stronger than the other, and likewise the symbolism of the ram in Daniel 8 which has one horn that is higher than the other. The liberal interpretation destroys this beautiful symbolism.And of course makes all the symbolism of the fourth kingdom apply to Greece, which is ridiculous since none of it describes any kingdom that has yet appeared on the earth, and then it must also turn the Great and Terrible beast of Daniel 7 into Greece as well, and try to make the little horn there the equivalent of the little horn in Daniel 8 though the one arises out of ten kings, subduing three of them, and the other arises out of one of four kingdoms.This certainly reflects your own mangling of the scripture. How can one possibly debate someone who does this to the text and then accuses me of imposing MY interpretation on it? The liberal view destroys the integrity of the text in a hundred ways. It's even got you accepting two messiahs that come nowhere near the sixty-nine years to Messiah the Prince of the text. Oh it goes on and on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I refer to what the text says, NN, to the images I'm talking about. I've made it very clear where PaulK mangles it. It is actually very hard to copy out the portions that are pertinent and anybody who reads the text can see the images I'm describing. It would help if I could quote the text though. I'll make a bigger effort.As for the Catholic Church most of it comes from the writings of the Reformers and I've also posted the Latin and its meaning before, VICARIVS FILII DEI and how its Roman numerals add up to 666. Yes I know I should quote it all again but at least it IS there and
"vicar" does mean what I said it means even if historically it has been muddied over.Mostly I'm talking to PaulK and have given up on persuading anyone here anyway. He knows what I'm talking about even though he has to deny it.

It is the Bible that tells us that the Antichrist is identified by the number 666. This one works, all the others are ridiculously inadequate.

I read the text and then I read the commentary preparing to do what you'd asked me to do. While reading the commentary I came upon the statement about how liberals treat the text of Daniel 2. OK I look forward to what you come up with. Meanwhile the liberal view fits what you've been saying about Daniel 7 where you turn the fourth kingdom into Greece which is what the commentary says liberals do with Daniel 2. Interesting with all this complaint about how I don't quote scripture how you hardly ever do. And you don't even bother to paraphrase it, which I at least do. So now I have to go look this up to find out how the two legs fit the Diadochi kingdoms which we know were four and not two? Yes it is. And please take note, NN: What good would it have done for me to actually quote the verses that describe the arms of the statue and the lopsided bear and the ram with one horn higher than the other. Yes it's all online but tracking down three different locations takes work and how would it be better than paraphrasing as I did in this case? And here's the upshot: I quote it and he just treats it the same way as he treats my paraphrase. Just calls it odd, end of subject. Two arms, a bear with a difference between his two sides, a ram with a difference between its two horns, which certainly looks to me like a lot of similarity in the symbolism and he waves it sll away with "just odd." And says it's just interpretation. Well of COURSE it's interpretation. Nobody would even notice the sequence of two parts in the images if it wasn't pointed out, and in pointing it out it is interpreted. Daft? To point out that the circumstances of their arrival in history are completely different? Again, how can one expect to have a rational conversation with someone you treats the information as you do? I sometimes keep going if I want to work out the argument even if my opponent is a mad destroyer of all reason.What I started to do earlier today I may yet finish but it will take a while: to muster all the references to the little horn and the prince who is to come to show how they are both similar and different and how the text changes which you keep denying. You want the proof and I'll still try to muster it, unless your mangling of the whole enterprise just drives me to abandon the whole futile mess. \=The text SAYS the little horns arise out of completely different circumstances. THIS IS NOT INTERPRETATION.Next you say I should show how you are mangling the text without identifying the context of my remark so I can't show it.But I've given many ways already, including the fact that you try to make the two different little horns mentioned above into one. How can you make such a statement in the teeth of the fact that your messiahs DO NOT FIT THE SIXTY-NINE WEEKS PROPHECY THE TEXT SAYS POINTS TO THE MESSIAH? THIS IS FACT, THIS IS TEXT, THIS IS NOT INTERPRETATOIN. 69 is 69, it is not 49 or 7 or whatever other wrong number applies.This discussion is impossible but NN wants ME to correct my approach!. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.