Christianity and the End Times

quote:

---

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.

---

According to your assumptions. However the fact that the end is the time of the Maccabean revolt according to Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 is a fact that cannot be reasonably ignored.Also the fact that Antiochus does fit the description of the little horn in Daniel 7 further supports the idea that they are the same. That events in Daniel 9 are also seen in Daniel 11 is also relevant. And that’s just off the top of my head.

quote:

---

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.

---

By which you I mean that I reject your interpretation of Daniel 7 and 9 because it contradicts Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12.That’s the difference.

quote:

---

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.

---

I understand that you must put doctrine ahead of the Bible and I am not demanding you change that.The only reason to continue this discussion is for you to deal with the serious problems in your assertions. If you can’t reasonably do that I have no reason to change my mind. I have the interpretation that best fits the text.

quote:

---

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.

---

In other words you get to arbitrarily shove the end of the prophecy off into the future because it failed.Nope. The prophecy says 490 years. No mention of any gaps. Inventing one because it failed is twisting the text.But you’ve already proved my point that Christianity misrepresents the end time prophecies - proved it ad nauseum. So you can stop. I don’t need any further repetition.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

That’s your assumption. It finds no support in the text of Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12.

quote:

---

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.

---

That’s all interpretation. The fact that I disagree with your interpretation is not an argument in your favour.

quote:

---

So yep, this discussion has reached senility and it's time to stop.

---

Fine. Based on the actual text rather than Christian doctrine, you can’t provide any sensible reason for inserting a 2000 year gap into Daniel 9. You can’t provide any support for the alleged change of context in Daniel 10-12, and the text is against such an idea, too. You can’t justify the idea that Daniel 8 is about anything but the end envisaged in Daniel 2. You can’t even come up with a justifiable list of four empires.That’s certainly a good point for the discussion to end - for me.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

That isn’t true and you have no excuse for not knowing it after your failure to produce textual support for the claims I listed.All the points I raised were clearly based on doctrine not text. Putting off the seventieth week of Daniel 9 is - in your own words- based on the fact that the events didn’t happen on schedule. It is only doctrine that says that a prophecy can’t fail.There’s nothing in the text of Daniel 8 to say that the end it refers to is anything other than the end shown in Daniel 2.It’s even worse with Daniel 10-12. There is no indication of a change of context in the text.There is no textual support for the idea that the fourth empire goes away and somehow comes back (despite being destroyed as an empire or a kingdom or even a pathetic group of exiles holding onto a pretence of rule) nor that there will be other empires which get ignored despite occupying the same region the text is concerned with.

quote:

---

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

---

Then quote the text that says that they are different. Quote the text that says that the little horn of Daniel 8 comes from the third empire. Quote the text that says that they are different people. You can’t because it isn’t there. It is all interpretation.

quote:

---

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

---

If we straightforwardly read Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 in the light of Daniel 2 there will be no empires after the Maccabean revolt. The end is the end of the Empires (Daniel 2:44). You contradict this by interpreting Daniel 7 and Daniel 9 as referring to a later empire.

quote:

---

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.

---

Telling the truth is not devious spin. No matter how much you hate it.

Trying to insert Jesus into the Old Testament can only be dogma.The Old Testament was written by Jews for Jews and ask any Jew if there are references to Jesus and the answer will be "No!"It is Christian Dogma and only Christian Dogma that sees references to Jesus in the Old Testament.

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.

Yes. That is the Party Line, AkA Dogma. BUT...none of those assertions are found in the Old Testament but rather are all products of later marketing.

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.

There are many many Messiahs in the Old Testament but Jesus is not one of them. The whole concept of the Messiah as marketed in Christianity is a post-Judaic creation that developed over time.Jesus is not to be found in the Old Testament writings.PaulK's analysis is right on the money based on what is actually found in Daniel and it is simply another example of ultimately failed prophecy.The issue is that Christian Dogma over the ages has tried to force fit a desired conclusion into unrelated proof texts.And mankind is what will crush the serpent under foot, not some messiah. Genesis 2&3 are a "Just So Story" trying to explain why things are as they seemed at the time; why childbirth seems more painful for humans than other animals, why we fear snakes, why we wear clothes, why we farm instead of being hunter/gatherers and most importantly, why man dominates women.It has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.

Your arguments might be a little more persuasive if they were text-based rather than based on slinging around insults. Exactly where is Paul's interpretation unworkable rather than just "liberal"?And I know that you won't take this advice, but regardless of how convinced you are about the evil of Catholicism, rants about how "vicar" means "anti-Christ" when everyone knows it does not, are not helpful to your case. Edited by NoNukes, : 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.