Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 46 of 157 (528451)
10-06-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
10-06-2009 6:50 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
quote:
there is another reason why it couldnt be the northern king Seleucas IV. Sure he may have had an intent to steal treasures from jerusalems temple, but it was his brother who profaned the temple by dedicating it to a foreign god.
How is that a reason why it couldn't be Seleucus ? There's nothing in the prophecy that states that Antiuchus profanation of the Temple has to occur between verses 19 and 20.
quote:
the position of king of the south was held by the Egyption Ptolemaic dynasty for over 130 years, but During the battle of Actium, in 31 BCE, the roman ruler Octavian defeated the forces of the last Ptolemaic queen, Cleopatra VII, and Mark Antony. After Cleopatra
committed suicide Egypt became a Roman province. The king of the south was now in Roman hands.
By the year 30 BCE, Rome had supremacy over both Syria and Egypt and therefore they dominated over the king of the north.
So not only was seleucas dead by this time, but the dominant king was Rome...the new king of the south.
there is another reason why it couldnt be the northern king Seleucas IV. Sure he may have had an intent to steal treasures from jerusalems temple, but it was his brother who profaned the temple by dedicating it to a foreign god.
the position of king of the south was held by the Egyption Ptolemaic dynasty for over 130 years, but During the battle of Actium, in 31 BCE, the roman ruler Octavian defeated the forces of the last Ptolemaic queen, Cleopatra VII, and Mark Antony. After Cleopatra
committed suicide Egypt became a Roman province. The king of the south was now in Roman hands.
By the year 30 BCE, Rome had supremacy over both Syria and Egypt and therefore they dominated over the king of the north.
So not only was seleucas dead by this time, but the dominant king was Rome...the new king of the south.
All of which assumes that verse 20 is about the situation after 30 BC - which begs the question.
Neither of your two "reasons" has any basis in the text of the prophecy. So you have failed to answer AGAIN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 6:50 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Peg, posted 10-07-2009 4:14 AM PaulK has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 47 of 157 (528523)
10-06-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
10-05-2009 11:58 PM


Re: Getting into Daniel
Thank you for your interpretation Peg. It is very enlightening to see the various ways in which different people plug in different historical events into Daniel 11.
I think the point that Paulk is eventually going to get to after the disagreement about Seleucis IV is that there is a better reason to think that the verses following 11:20 are referring to Antiochus IV.
Antiochus established a covenant with the Jews which he broke half way through when he desecrated the temple. You even seem to recognize this historical fact later but deny that it is described in Daniel 11 even though it is right there plain as day. There is also much foreshadowing of Antiochus earlier in Daniel regarding the beast with the 10 horns. A little horn appears, knocks down 3 others, and takes control. This describes the situation with Antiochus exactly regarding the succession of 10 kings of Syria and Antiochus IV basically had to eliminate 3 rivals to the throne to take over.
All this discussion is fascinating and I am interested to see where it goes but I don't loose the OP in this so I would ask that you please reply to my next statement.
Basically the position you are taking is more akin to #1 of the 3 options I gave earlier with a small caveat. You are in fact robbing Daniel of what would otherwise be a very cohesive fulfillment infered by not just chapter 11 but previous chapters. You don't consider double fulfillment but rather you plug in progressive histories as fulfillment instead. You also abandon the very connected sequence of history that Daniel is describing in favor of one with a number of gaps which it seems is not the most straight forward reading of the scripture. This is ESPECIALLY given the fact that we have in history a more than viable alternative that does not break the continuity.
I am not, in theory, claiming that you are wrong. I would just like for you to justify why you are choosing this method of interpretation considering the features you have to abandon in order to get there. My guess is that you are doing this because of a percieved need for inerrancy but I only mention that because I would like to start off with a hypothesis and not to prejudge any motives. I REALLY TRULY want to tease out if there are scholarly, logical, or other motives for doing these gymnastics with prophecy because I DO NOT want to just handwave your arguments away as purly theological.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 10-05-2009 11:58 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 10-07-2009 4:22 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 48 of 157 (528820)
10-07-2009 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
10-06-2009 7:06 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
PaulK writes:
How is that a reason why it couldn't be Seleucus ? There's nothing in the prophecy that states that Antiuchus profanation of the Temple has to occur between verses 19 and 20.
Paul i apologise! i did make a mistake on seluceus. Seluceus was the immediate successor of Antiochus III. But Seluceus was not the next King of the North as i stated in msg 41
peg writes:
Msg 41: Vs 19 ends with Antiochus III falling and not being found...Antiochus III in 187 BCE He ‘fell’ in death and was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV, thus was no longer found.
Seleucas IV became the new syrian king of the North, while the King of the south remained a egyption ptolomic king.
Seleucus never had a struggle with the king of the south. He did try to steal treasures from the temple at jerusalem to pay his fathers debt to Rome, but Jerusalem was never the king of the south. In any case, he was killed before any serious conflict arose which is why later i said that it was his brother AntiochusIV who was the king of the north. It was his actions that caused the Jewish uprising under the Maccabees with a battled that lasted three years and was eventually intervened in by Rome.
PaulK writes:
All of which assumes that verse 20 is about the situation after 30 BC - which begs the question.
Neither of your two "reasons" has any basis in the text of the prophecy. So you have failed to answer AGAIN.
there is a long time period between vs 19 and vs 20
Aniochus IV ruled as king of the north until 163BCE
But Vs 20 is speaking of a new King of the north and i'll explain why.
After the death of AntiochusIV 163BCE, Syria was subjugated to Rome and eventually became a Roman province in 64BCE. See the sixth syrian war
Because Rome had supremacy over both Syria and Egypt neither of them could be considered to be in the position of the kings of north and south at that time. It actually means that Rome became the new dominating force and in turn, the new king of the North.
so verse 20 has to be speaking about Rome and the one who ruled it was Caesar Augustus.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2009 7:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2009 5:10 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 49 of 157 (528822)
10-07-2009 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jazzns
10-06-2009 11:18 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
Jazzns writes:
You don't consider double fulfillment but rather you plug in progressive histories as fulfillment instead. You also abandon the very connected sequence of history that Daniel is describing in favor of one with a number of gaps which it seems is not the most straight forward reading of the scripture.
there is evidence that there are gaps in the verses.
Why do you think there should not be gaps, and what sort of time frame do you think the prophecies need to be fulfilled in?
I have in mind that Jesus repeated the prophecy of Daniel 11:31 "31And there will be arms that will stand up, proceeding from him; and they will actually profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant [feature]. And they will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation."
Jesus quoted from that verse and told his disiples to be prepared for this event. This shows that this particular verse was yet for a future time. It actaully occured 66CE and 70CE
obviously, this was many years after the events of Vs18-19 which happened almost 200 years earlier
So what sort of time period between versus do you think is reasonable to expect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jazzns, posted 10-06-2009 11:18 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 10-07-2009 11:24 AM Peg has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 50 of 157 (528826)
10-07-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Peg
10-07-2009 4:14 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
quote:
Paul i apologise! i did make a mistake on seluceus. Seluceus was the immediate successor of Antiochus III. But Seluceus was not the next King of the North as i stated in msg 41
Since the Kings of the North seem to be the Seleucids (see Daniel 11:4) I would disagree. What are your reasons for saying otherwise ?
quote:
Seleucus never had a struggle with the king of the south. He did try to steal treasures from the temple at jerusalem to pay his fathers debt to Rome, but Jerusalem was never the king of the south. In any case, he was killed before any serious conflict arose which is why later i said that it was his brother Antiochus IV who was the king of the north. It was his actions that caused the Jewish uprising under the Maccabees with a battled that lasted three years and was eventually intervened in by Rome.
This appears later in the prophecy. Remember that the King of 11:20 only succeeds Antiochus III, sends someone to extract money from Judah and dies shortly afterwards. Seleucus IV did all these things.
In other words you seem to be disqualifying him BECAUSE he fits with the prophecy, which seems to be a very odd attitude.
quote:
there is a long time period between vs 19 and vs 20
I know that you claim that, but there seems to be absolutely no textual support for such an idea.
quote:
Aniochus IV ruled as king of the north until 163BCE
But Vs 20 is speaking of a new King of the north and i'll explain why.
After the death of Antiochus IV 163 BCE, Syria was subjugated to Rome and eventually became a Roman province in 64 BCE. See the sixth syrian war
Because Rome had supremacy over both Syria and Egypt neither of them could be considered to be in the position of the kings of north and south at that time. It actually means that Rome became the new dominating force and in turn, the new king of the North.
so verse 20 has to be speaking about Rome and the one who ruled it was Caesar Augustus
The 6th Syrian war does not start until after the reign of Seleucus, so you need to disqualify him - and Antiochus IV - before it is even relevant to the interpretation of 11:20. All your argument attempts to do is argue that it is legitimate to regard Rome as taking on the roles - but it does nothing to suggest that verse 20 is where it does so. (And I would argue that it is unsuccessful even in doing that).
SO, you need to ignore the fact that 11:20 is naturally read as referring to the immediate successor of Antiochus III. That that successor actually fits the prophecy better than your alternative candidate. That there is no mention of the Roman conquest of either state anywhere in Daniel (although the conquests of Babylon and Persia - and the division of Alexander's Empire are given prominent mention). And there are more problems to come in later verses.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Peg, posted 10-07-2009 4:14 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 10-07-2009 7:01 AM PaulK has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 51 of 157 (528832)
10-07-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
10-07-2009 5:10 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
PaulK writes:
Since the Kings of the North seem to be the Seleucids (see Daniel 11:4) I would disagree. What are your reasons for saying otherwise ?
because Seleucid IV was killed before he had any major conflicts with the king of the south whereas his brother Antiochus IV actually did have a major conflict with the Egyption King of the South.
remember the kings are always in coflict with each other and the prophecy is about those conflicts.
If Seleucus IV did not have any conflicts, how can he be identified as the king of the North?
PaulK writes:
Remember that the King of 11:20 only succeeds Antiochus III, sends someone to extract money from Judah and dies shortly afterwards. Seleucus IV did all these things.
But Seleucus IV did not do such things against the king of the South. The prophecy is about the struggles between these two kings. He was too busy trying to pay off his fathers debt to Rome to wage in any major conflicts with egypt. It was only his brother who did this which is why its reasonable to say that his brother became the king of the north.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2009 5:10 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2009 7:39 AM Peg has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 52 of 157 (528836)
10-07-2009 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Peg
10-07-2009 7:01 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
quote:
because Seleucid IV was killed before he had any major conflicts with the king of the south whereas his brother Antiochus IV actually did have a major conflict with the Egyption King of the South.
So they exactly fit the prophecy ! 11:20 mentions no conflicts with the King of the South so obviously that ruler can't have any such conflicts.
quote:
remember the kings are always in coflict with each other and the prophecy is about those conflicts.
If Seleucus IV did not have any conflicts, how can he be identified as the king of the North?
I don't think that it means that they must always be fighting wars even when the prophecy doesn't mention any ! And if the prophecy is about those conflicts then it should mention them - and there is none mentioned in Daniel 11:20.
Seluecus IV can easily be identified as King of the North because the Kings of the North are the Seleucids (see Daniel 11:4 for important context).
quote:
But Seleucus IV did not do such things against the king of the South.
So he didn't do something that the prophecy doesn't mention him doing (and ought to mention if he did !). This is supposed to be an argument ?
quote:
...The prophecy is about the struggles between these two kings. He was too busy trying to pay off his fathers debt to Rome to wage in any major conflicts with egypt. It was only his brother who did this which is why its reasonable to say that his brother became the king of the north.
Aside from the problems with your reasoning which I have already dealt with (and the fact that Antiochus IV appears later in the prophecy) you don't identify Antiochus IV as a King of the North either. You jump straight to Augustus. So again, you are only undermining your case.
I'm still waiting for any real justification that Daniel 11:20 is about Augustus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 10-07-2009 7:01 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Peg, posted 10-07-2009 8:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 53 of 157 (528840)
10-07-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
10-07-2009 7:39 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
PaulK writes:
Seluecus IV can easily be identified as King of the North because the Kings of the North are the Seleucids (see Daniel 11:4 for important context).
his brother was seleucid... why do you think Antiochus IV was not?
PaulK writes:
Aside from the problems with your reasoning which I have already dealt with (and the fact that Antiochus IV appears later in the prophecy) you don't identify Antiochus IV as a King of the North either. You jump straight to Augustus. So again, you are only undermining your case.
i dont believe i did that,
i have maintained that Antiochus IV became the next king of the north after the death of his father Antiochus III
Antiochus IV was the next king of the north who participated in a major battle with egypt as my link shows. He became known as Antiochus the Great because of this battle with Egypt. Is this where the confusion is coming in?
PaulK writes:
I'm still waiting for any real justification that Daniel 11:20 is about Augustus.
i tried to explain it but obviously not very good.
Rome had subjugated both Syria and egypt... This made Rome the new King of the north. Vs 20 says that "And there must stand up in his position one who is causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom.."
It says that 'there must stand up in HIS position'
as this is a follow on from vs 19, then the 'position' we are talking about is the position of the King of the North (Antiochus IV)
A new ruler would stand up in the king of the norths position. This has to be a roman ruler because Rome was the new dominant world power at this time.
This ruler would also have to have somethign to do with Judah 'the splendid kingdom' The first Roman emperor, Octavian, also known as Caesar Augustus made Judea a Roman province of Judea. In 2BCE, he ordered a registration, or census, then in 14 CE not long after he died as a result of illness.
So he fits perfectly.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2009 7:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2009 8:45 AM Peg has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 157 (528847)
10-07-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Peg
10-07-2009 8:26 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
quote:
his brother was seleucid... why do you think Antiochus IV was not?
What on earth are you talking about ? I never said any such thing.
quote:
i dont believe i did that,
Then go back and read the thread. You say that Daniel 11:19 is about Antiochus III and the next "King of the North" in 11:20 is Augustus.
quote:
i have maintained that Antiochus IV became the next king of the north after the death of his father Antiochus III
Antiochus IV was the next king of the north who participated in a major battle with egypt as my link shows. He became known as Antiochus the Great because of this battle with Egypt.
So where - according to you - is Antiochus IV in the prophecy given that you have already claimed that it jumps straight from Antiochus III to Augustus ?
quote:
i tried to explain it but obviously not very good.
Given that all of your reaosns are obviously invalid. "not very good" seems to be an understatement.
quote:
Rome had subjugated both Syria and egypt... This made Rome the new King of the north. Vs 20 says that "And there must stand up in his position one who is causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom.."
At the end of the reign of Antiochus III (which is where we are at with Daniel 11:19 - according to you) Rome had not subjugated Syria or Egypt, Seleeucus IV took the place of Antiochus III and sent Heliodorus to extract money from Judah. In other words your "explanation" doesn't explain anything at all.
quote:
It says that 'there must stand up in HIS position'
as this is a follow on from vs 19, then the 'position' we are talking about is the position of the King of the North (Antiochus IV)
That is Antiochus III according to your own Message 35 The successor to Antichus III was Seleucus IV according to your own Message 35.
Thus Seleucus IV fits here.
quote:
A new ruler would stand up in the king of the norths position. This has to be a roman ruler because Rome was the new dominant world power at this time.
Not according to you earlier:
...Driven from Greece and Asia Minor and having lost nearly all his fleet, Antiochus III ‘turned his face back to the fortresses of his own land,’ Syria.
After he "fell" by death in 187 BCE he was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV, the next king of the north.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Peg, posted 10-07-2009 8:26 AM Peg has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 55 of 157 (528886)
10-07-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Peg
10-07-2009 4:22 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
With respect Peg, I said a lot more in my reply to you than just the issue of continuity. I disagree with you that there is evidence for gaps but that is not the main point I was making. The main reason to think that there is continuity is also that the verses after 20 describe the actions that Antiochus IV took that we have independed history for which include making the 7 year covenant, breaking it halfway through, desecrating the temple, the foreshadowing with the vision of the beast with 10 horns, etc. I also specifically asked you for your opinion concerning the reason for your choices of interpretation.
As much as I do rather enjoy using this example in Daniel as a framework for the OP, I really hope to avoid this thread JUST becoming an argument about what is a valid interpretation of Daniel. I may disagree with your interpretation but I am vastly more interested in any REASON you have for that interpretation that goes beyond theological needs.
Jesus mentioning Daniel is a good clue but he could very well have just been using it as a reference since what happened in 70AD was not at all like what Daniel describes. In 70AD the temple was destroyed. Daniel describes the temple being desecrated yet staying intact which is exactly what happened during Antiochus' time.
If you believe that Jesus MUST be meaning that Daniel is unfulfilled then again I'll ask you WHY you believe that over the simpler explanation. Certainly I realize that I am fighting against a tendency to defend your particular belief on this issue, but as I am forming my own beliefs I need more than just the apologetic reasoning.
Please don't dismiss my criticism, I am trying to tease out something that is very important to me.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 10-07-2009 4:22 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2009 7:16 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 10-08-2009 7:53 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 157 (529002)
10-07-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jazzns
10-07-2009 11:24 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
Jazzns writes:
Jesus mentioning Daniel is a good clue but he could very well have just been using it as a reference since what happened in 70AD was not at all like what Daniel describes. In 70AD the temple was destroyed. Daniel describes the temple being desecrated yet staying intact which is exactly what happened during Antiochus' time.
More significant than anything Jesus said, I have cited the reference to Daniel's 10 horned beast kingdom as the latter day global empire depicted by the prophet John in the book of futures and end time which Daniel aluded to in chapter 12, that his prophecy would be sealed/hidden until the end times. Here we are 2500 to 2700 years downstream with Israel back in place and all of the corroborating stuff relative to Daniel coming into focus.
Daniel, in fact, interpreted Nebucadnezzar's dream and had a couple of other visions which corroborate with his 10 horned beast vision, all of which depict the end time messianic kingdom more or less as the end of Gentile world empires.
You, nor any of the other participants in this thread appear to be interested in this significant data which addresses your OP with evidence.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 10-07-2009 11:24 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Jazzns, posted 10-08-2009 10:42 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 57 of 157 (529088)
10-08-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jazzns
10-07-2009 11:24 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
no problem, im not the best at explaining things but im always willing to give it another go.
Jazzns writes:
The main reason to think that there is continuity is also that the verses after 20 describe the actions that Antiochus IV took that we have independed history for which include making the 7 year covenant, breaking it halfway through, desecrating the temple, the foreshadowing with the vision of the beast with 10 horns
fair point, im happy to examine it closer. You've takent the popular view and the Jewish tradition on this verse and it seems reasonable becaues Antiochus IV did attempting to stamp out true worship in jerusalem, he built an altar over the great altar in the temple. The Apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees (1:54) applies this prophecy to those events.
But this was only the Jewish interpretation of matters, not an inspired revelation. Jesus Christ gave the inspired revelation when he showed that the prophecy was yet future.
Antiochus IV rule goes back to 164bce. But im not trying to say that he was not the king of the North at that time. He certainly was back then. What i'm saying is that the timing of Vs 20 is actually the first century.
Dan11:21 says that the "leader of the Covenant" would be broken by the one who is despised. Now this 'Leader of the Covenant' is none other then Jesus christ. This means the king who was then standing must have been ruling in the 1st century and not over 160 years earlier.
No matter how you look at it, if Antiochus was the one who stood up in Vs 20, then there is still a gap of 160 odd years between vs 20 and vs 21. The 'leader of the Covenant' is Jesus.
Jazzns writes:
Jesus mentioning Daniel is a good clue but he could very well have just been using it as a reference since what happened in 70AD was not at all like what Daniel describes. In 70AD the temple was destroyed. Daniel describes the temple being desecrated yet staying intact which is exactly what happened during Antiochus' time.
im happy to examine that closer too
quote:
Daniel 11:31"And there will be arms that will stand up, proceeding from him; and they will actually profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant [feature]. And they will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation."
Its important to understand what the 'disgusting thing' is and how it causes desolation and also what the 'constant feature' is and how it is 'removed'
the Disgusting thing is related to idols as Deut 29:17 shows 'And YOU used to see their disgusting things and their dungy idols'
The constant feature were the sacrifices. This part of Isreals worship was established by Moses and was continued day and night for centuries. Exodus 29:38And this is what you will offer upon the altar: young rams each a year old, two a day constantly. ...42It is a constant burnt offering throughout YOUR generations..."
When the No webpage found at provided URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870%29Roman armies that came in 70CE with their ensigns, they were virtually idols and were disgusting to the Jews. The roman army stood in a holy place when they entered the temple with these idols.
That destruction was far worse then anything Antiochus IV had done previously. The destruction of the temple in 70CE was final and even to this day what stands in the temple at Jerusalem??? A mosque! The 'constant feature' has been gone since the temples destruction.
So Jesus words were the true application of the prophecy, not the maccabees. Jesus knew that a greater destruction was ahead which is why he told his listeners to 'flee to the mountains' when they saw jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies. This was actually the first visit by Rome in 66CE. They didnt actually enter jerusalem, they camped outside for a while, then left. 3 years later Titus came back to deliver the final blow.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 10-07-2009 11:24 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Jazzns, posted 10-08-2009 10:58 AM Peg has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 58 of 157 (529122)
10-08-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
10-07-2009 7:16 PM


Daniel & Revelation
Sorry Buz,
I totally meant to reply to you and just plumb forgot.
More significant than anything Jesus said, I have cited the reference to Daniel's 10 horned beast kingdom as the latter day global empire depicted by the prophet John in the book of futures and end time which Daniel aluded to in chapter 12, that his prophecy would be sealed/hidden until the end times. Here we are 2500 to 2700 years downstream with Israel back in place and all of the corroborating stuff relative to Daniel coming into focus.
First of all, if Daniel as supposed to be hidden until the end times then the end times must have stared at least around 150BC because we know that the Jews at the time had multiple (and sometimes different) copies of Daniel.
Second, it is important to point out that John the Revelator wrote with full knowledge of the text of Daniel so I fail to see anything amazing about him using similar iconography.
The IMPORTANT point though is that you are doing something similar to Peg which if you read back to my post where I listed 3 methods of interpretation, you are also seemingly choosing #1. I started this thread to talk about double prophecy because that is now the interpretation of Daniel was presented to me by other Christians but so far it seems like you and Peg are simply denying that Daniel has a cohesive Maccabean period fulfillment at all. (maybe it is a JW thing?) Which is fine by the way. Please don't take me as bashing that, I welcome all opinions.
What I am more interested in understanding is WHY you interpret this way. I am less interested in apologetics as I am in reasoning.
In my mind, you are sacrificing what would otherwise be an amazing display of prophecy fulfilled (Daniel predicting the persecution under Antiochus), to push prophecy back in order to attain some specific theological end which may or may not extend to all Christianity or even all Bible interpretation.
Also, I don't want to make Revelation off limits because if it helps as part of the OP I want to talk about it but I am less interested in validating end times prophecy in and of itself. Again I am primarily interested in this thread to talk about the reasoning behind prophetic interpretation.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2009 7:16 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 10-08-2009 11:16 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 59 of 157 (529127)
10-08-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
10-08-2009 7:53 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
As much as I want to reply to your interpretation point by point, Peg I feel like when I do that you ignore the main point of my reply even when I point it out explicitly.
I want to establish agreement on one thing about your interpretation of Daniel. By you splitting it up and pushing things out from the Maccabean period you are in fact trading a cohesive existing fulfillment for, (what I am guessing is) your personal theological reasons.
Other Christians that have spoken to ACCEPT the fulfillment of Daniel in the Maccabean period but claim that the last bit about the end times is yet to come and that there will be another fulfillment in the future because of Revelations (similar to Buz's reasoning). That is why I started this thread talking about double fulfillment.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 10-08-2009 7:53 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 10-08-2009 8:14 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 60 of 157 (529308)
10-08-2009 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Jazzns
10-08-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Getting into Daniel
Jazzns writes:
Peg I feel like when I do that you ignore the main point of my reply even when I point it out explicitly.
I thought i did answer your question directly. You wanted to know what reasons there were for accepting 'another' interpretation other then the application to the time of the maccabees. I explained that it was because Jesus used Daniels prophecy about the disgusting thing as something yet to come. This means that according to Jesus, the fulfillment of Vs20 could not have been 163 years earlier.
Jazzns writes:
By you splitting it up and pushing things out from the Maccabean period you are in fact trading a cohesive existing fulfillment for, (what I am guessing is) your personal theological reasons.
Yes i guess i am. Im going by Jesus words. As a christian, his words are more important then that of the Maccabeean rebels. Yes they did apply the prophecy to Antiochus IV but that does not mean they were correct in their application.
If you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, then you'd have to accept that his words are truth as he said they were. You'd also need to explain why Antiochus IV did not desolate the temple in the same complete sense that the Romans did.
I would think that this is evidence that the prophecy was more fulfilled by the Romans seeing they put Jewish worship completely out of action...that is complete annialation. The priesthood was never reinstitued in Isreal and the 'constant feature' of sacrifices was gone and still is gone. Antiochus had a 3 year battle that ended and the temple suffered no permanent damage. Life went on and the temple and its priesthood survived.
Jazzns writes:
Other Christians that have spoken to ACCEPT the fulfillment of Daniel in the Maccabean period but claim that the last bit about the end times is yet to come and that there will be another fulfillment in the future because of Revelations (similar to Buz's reasoning). That is why I started this thread talking about double fulfillment.
Vs 20 has been and gone and it wont happen again, just as Vs 22 has been and gone with Jesus the messiah being killed that wont happen again so obviously not all these verses can have a double fulfillment. There are prophecies that do have a double fulfillment though but i dont believe these verses are one of them.
We have already entered the 'end times' and we are living them right now. The modern day kings of the north and south are active right now. History shows that Britain took on imperial power in the 17th century. During the following century, British influence in Egypt increased and after 1882, Egypt was actually a British dependency. When World WarI broke out in 1914, Egypt belonged to Turkey and was ruled by a khedive, or viceroy. After Turkey sided with Germany in that war, Britain deposed the khedive and declared Egypt a British protectorate. Gradually Britain and the United States became the Anglo-American World Power and together, they came into the position of the king of the south.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Jazzns, posted 10-08-2009 10:58 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2009 2:03 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024