Christianity and the End Times

quote:

---

The requirements come from reading the WHOLE Bible, which is full of references to the nature of the Messiah who is to come, and that is THE Messiah in Daniel 9,

---

The text does not specify THE messiah. Thus it is only necessary to be a messiah. Cyrus qualifies for that.And I don’t think that a famous monarch, called the Lord’s anointed by Isaiah, with an important place in Jewish history should be considered a nobody.

quote:

---

Really, PK, get some perspective here. No scribe would waste ink on such a prophecy.

---

It’s just one event in the prophecy, not the focus. And I think that authorising the Jews to return to Jerusalem was pretty important, don’t you ?

quote:

---

Oh I see, you are following some idiot modern "scholars" then. The ones who don't believe in prophecy so pretend Daniel was written after the events prophesied. Oh wow. No wonder this conversation is such a bust. So THEY say Messiah the Prince is Onias the High Priest? What a blasphemous joke.

---

I don’t know who considers Onias to be messiah the prince. I don’t.
But your hate of modern scholarship does not diminish their knowledge or the skills.

quote:

---

THOSE are the people w3ho are making up what they want to believe since they don't believe in anything supernatural and must fit the Bible tot their own ignorance.

---

Yawn. Your nastiness is hardly convincing.

quote:

---

The fact is that the prophecies in Daniel are beautifully fulfilled in history, since all four empires prophesied have risen, and in Jesus Christ who is Messiah the Prince, so well fulfilled that we can see that there is one small part that hasn't yet been fulfilled, that Seventieth Week.

---

Yawn. Which is why you have to make things up to claim fulfilment, and keep insisting that your opinions dictate the meaning.Now instead of ranting and raving why don’t you go away and find real evidence that the Jews used a 360 day calendar without any corrections to keep it in line with the solar year.

quote:

---

Cyrus was a big frog in the Persian pond of his time but he is not known outside the pages of scripture whereas Jesus is known throughout the world,

---

Wrong. Cyrus is world-famous. Ever hear of the Cyrus cylinder ?

quote:

---

...the Messiah has to be a JEW, and a descendant of King David. Sheesh

---

Cyrus is a messiah according to the Bible. You can disagree if you like but your mere opinion isn’t going to change mine.

quote:

---

Again, get some perspective here. Cyrus wasn't the only King who authorized the Jews to return and rebuild Jerusalem. Whoever the king was who sent Nehemiah was another, but I'd have to look him up.

---

Cyrus provided the original authorisation, as you ought to know.

quote:

---

there are lots of little messiahs, men chosen by God for limited purposes. There is not going to be a major prophecy attached to them

---

Where by attached to you mean having any role at all ? Because that seems pretty daft to me. Antiochus has a bigger part in the prophecy.

quote:

---

THE Messiah is to "save His people from their sins," not just rebuild the city.

---

The only thing about the prince messiah in the prophecy is that he will come after the first 49 years. That hardly shows that he has to be THE Messiah.

quote:

---

The seventy weeks STARTS with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, it specifically prophesies the coming of MESSIAH THE PRINCE, THE Mesiah prophesied throughout the OT as far back as Eden, it can't be Cyrus and it can't be Onias. That is so absurd it is hard to believe this conversation is happening.

---

The only absurdity is your idea that simply stating your opinions is any sort of convincing argument. The seventy weeks might start for instance with Jeremiah 30. Daniel 9 even starts with Daniel reading from Jeremiah. Or it might start with the presumed date of Isaiah 44. It doesn’t have to be a royal command.And again the text does not specify THE messiah. The messiahs only play a minor role in the prophecy anyway. Your assumptions are not facts. Just assumptions.

Sure Faith, the Bible is just a joke to you. Thanks for letting us know.

quote:

---

I said very clearly what is trivial, Paul, and it is far from your spin on it. It is your choice of two "messiahs" in the place of "Messiah the Prince" who is certainly Jesus Christ, who DID come to redeem His people and set up and eternal kingdom. And it DID happen.

---

That’s your opinion. The text of Daniel argues against it.

quote:

---

You've chosen two messiahs who could not possibly accomplish such a feat, who didn't come at the end of sixty-nine weeks of years as the prophecy requires, and ignored the one true Messiah the Prince who DID come at the end of sixty-nine x seven years, and DID "put an end to transgressions" and save His people from their sins.

---

Without a certain start date - which you don’t have - you can’t say who did or did not come at the end of the 69 weeks. And that’s before we include the fact that you are prepared to assume massive gaps in the count.Moreover neither messiah is said to put an end to transgressions - which surely hasn’t happened anyway. I only have to deal with what the text says, not your assumptions.

quote:

---

It DID happen,

---

That’s not what you’ve been saying before. According to you the seventieth week hasn’t even started.

quote:

---

Daniel 10 through 12 revisits the prophecy of Greece under Alexander's generals after Alexander defeated Persia, with a very detailed account of wars between Egypt under the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, toward the end of which Antiochus IV, who called himself "Epiphanes" arose and was defeated by the Maccabees.

---

Which is more evidence that Daniel is dealing with the period of the Maccabean revolt.

quote:

---

There is also a switch in context toward the end of this account which takes us far into the future and a final Antichrist who resembles Antiochus IV in enough ways to make him the model.

---

You assume that there is a switch in context, but the text is a continuous narrative with no sign of it.

quote:

---

While the descriptions in Daniel 11 of all the prophesied movements of the armies of Egypt and Seleucia have been fulfilled in reality in great detail, as recognized by historians, the events of Daniel 12 that deal with the very end times are not all that clear and await illumination as the time approaches, specifically relating to that dangling Seventieth Week.

---

The illumination is here. You just reject it because it doesn’t fit with your beliefs.

quote:

---

Here the four decrees to rebuild Jerusalem are identified, but it turns out only one of them is a command to rebuld the city itself, the other three are about rebuilding the temple, so since the prophecy starts with a decree to rebuild the city that's the right starting point.

---

Unfortunately for your argument we have strong evidence that the intended end point is in the Maccabean period. Unless you have equally strong evidence for the start point your argument fails.And you do not. It is only speculation that the word to restore Jerusalem is a command from the Persian emperor. Thus, listing them is not adequate.Note also, that Christian apologists often prefer the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra since 458 BC gives a better date.I’m still waiting for evidence of a 360 day year without corrections - even your quote admits that there were corrections which would have made the 490 years longer than if the year was simply 360 days long.

quote:

---

You have no evidence at all because there is exactly ZERO fulfillment of the prophecy in the Maccabean period. ZERO.

---

You mean apart from the rise of Antiochus, and his attacks on the city and ending the sacrifices and putting up pagan altars in the Temple....

quote:

---

Calling this mere speculation is silly.

---

But it is speculation. There is no mention of the source of the command in Daniel.

quote:

---

I don't know how you can continue to make such a ridiculous claim, Paul, you have NO grounds for your choise of the Maccabean period.

---

I have the actual text of Daniel. If you consider that worthless then that is your problem.

quote:

---

Oh and the date of Artaxerxes' decree is not tp Ezra in 458 BC, which was just another about the temple, it's the one to Nehemiah in 445 BC

---

Well you just go and tell the people who disagree with you that they are wrong.

quote:

---

But if anybody is computing dates based on wanting them to validate their own prejudices it's you. Clearly you prefer the Maccabean period to the lifetime of Jesus Christ though the actual prophecies point to Christ, and you have to make everything up to get things to point to the Maccabean period..

---

So you think that I wrote Daniel 8 and Daniel 9-12 and parts of Daniel 9, too. Well no, I didn’t make them up. Unlike the addition of a gap into the prophecy of seventy weeks (four times bigger than the span of the prophecy!) or the change of context in Daniel 11 you assume.

quote:

---

ABE: There is plenty of prophecy in Daniel involving the Maccabean period but not the prophecy of the seventy weeks. The little horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes who desecrated the temple and was defeated by the Maccabees.

---

Then it is very odd that the prophecy of the seventy weeks fits the Maccabean period so much better than it does the time of Jesus.

quote:

---

After the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel 9, there is a lengthy prophecy from Daniel 10 through 12 which takes us back to the Maccabean period, but then it ends with the final Antichrist who comes from the Roman Empire

---

Daniel doesn’t even mention the Roman Empire and the brief mention of the Republic of Rome hardly gives it a central position (did you know that the phrase a line in the sand comes from a confrontation between a Roman commander and Antiochus?)And if you read Daniel 10-12 you will see that there is no change to talking about Rome. It still talks about the Kings of the North and the South, established as the Diadochi kingdoms in 11:4

quote:

---

But the seventy weeks counts to Jesus Christ, its final week reaching into the future to the final Antjchrist

---

Until you come up with a better reason than it didn’t happen it only reaches seven years past a messiah being cut off. (And most if it did happen in the years after Onaias’ murder)

quote:

---

You keep doing this, Paul, making assertions about how your interpretation is right without offering any evidence for it.

---

But I have offered evidence for it. And you pretend it doesn’t exist. But I’m still waiting for any evidence for a 360 day year, used without any additional corrections. Or any real evidence for a gap in the seventy weeks or for Rome playing any part beyond the minor one in Daniel 11.You don’t even admit to the evidence I pointed out in the post you are replying to.

quote:

---

We are talking about the seventy weeks of Daniel 9. That is no part of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. That is in Daniel 8 and again in Daniel 11m not in Daniel 9..''

---

Daniel 9:26 has the attacks on Jerusalem. 9:27 has the ending of sacrifices and the pagan altar.

quote:

---

For pete's sake, we know the emperiors issued decrees or commands for the work on the temple, and we know that Nehemiah asked to go to Jerusalem, also asked for timper to rebuild the gates of the city, and the emperor granted his request, and he was going specifically to rebuild the city not the temple.

---

So ?

quote:

---

I don't know what text you are reading but this is all very clear in mine.

---

Daniel 9:25. Where does it say that the command comes from a Persian Emperor ?

quote:

---

I can't believe you said that.

---

Nevertheless it is true. The idea that the Roman Empire is mentioned is an interpretation based on false assumptions. The mentions of the Diadochi Kingdoms in Daniel 8 and 11 are clear. But there is no such mention on the Roman Empire. Even the Roman Republic’s intervention in Antiochus’ wars isn’t obvious unless you know the history.

quote:

---

So of course it isn't named. But just as the other two empires did arise during his time that had been prefigured by symbols in visions, so we know that the empire that followed them that was also prefigured in his visions was the Roman Empire.

---

Or, since we know that it is the Diadochi kingdoms that are the final Empire (as Daniel 8 and 10-12 make clear) Rome obviously isn’t part of it. (And isn’t it awkward for your interpretation that Rome is gone and that there have been other Empires since then?)

quote:

---

Oh yes I read Daniel 10 to 12, and it is clear that the events change at the very end of the prophecy so we know the topic is no longer Antiochus but an unknown similar figure yet to come.;

---

Then why is it still talking about that Diadochi Kings in 11:40 ? Where is this change and what justifies the idea that there is a change?

quote:

---

Yes I can't deal with all your false evidence, sorry. Maybe I can come back to it or maybe I should just leave you to your false ideas.

---

In other words you are the one relying on assertion.

quote:

---

But I want to give the commentary on Daniel10 to 12 where the scene shifts to the future version of Antiochus known as the Antichrist, where the events stop fitting Antiochus and are clearly still unfulfilled

---

And you will notice how little that conclusion relies on the text of Daniel. Antiochus, of course, called himself a god Epiphanes means God Manifest. And, as I have pointed out Daniel 11:40 is still about the Diadochi monarchs (see Daniel 4)

Daniel 10-12 is back to how God is going to smash Antiochus and the Greeks and set up the eternal Jewish KingdomDaniel 10 gets angels involved. It’s another end times prophecy, and starts with the Greeks coming to defeat the Persians.Daniel 11 is the meat of this prophecy. Again Alexander’s kingdoms are divided and the successor kingdoms - named after the four cardinal directions here - are the focus. Only the North (Seleucids) and South (Ptolomies) are of real significance.There are echoes of Daniel 9 here, more evidence that the seventieth week really is about Antiochus’ dealings with the Jews.Daniel 9:25 ...And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood...Daniel 11:22 With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the prince of the covenantAnd this goes on, until the end of the chapter. There is no shift, just as in Daniel 8 the focus is firmly on Antiochus.Daniel 12 completes it, saying that Michael will intervene, there will be great troubles for the Jews, but they will be redeemed, even the dead who will return to life.There is more on timing, though: Again this makes a mess of some futurist interpretations. If the daily sacrifice had been taken away and the abomination set up in 70AD or before, then this period should have been completed, even if the days are read as years. So, it’s back to everything being in the future.So, in conclusion Daniel places the end times in the Maccabean period, explicitly in Daniel 8 and 11. Daniel 7 and 9 link to those, (Daniel 9 referencing events of the period) and nothing says otherwise.Christian interpreters usually can’t accept this but nevertheless it is there.

The commentary ignores all sorts of important stuff. No justification for dividing the seventy weeks, no justification for using a calendar that there is no record of the Jews ever using.Without justification for those points it just falls apart.