Interplanner
Newbie
Sorry its a bit incomplete. There is a rebellion mentioned in 8:13. A rebellion has a leader. The leader is described later in 8, and there are lines from Josephus that were from ch 8 to describe him.
Upvote
0
So, according to Josephus, the little horn cannot be Antiochus, right?Sorry its a bit incomplete. There is a rebellion mentioned in 8:13. A rebellion has a leader. The leader is described later in 8, and there are lines from Josephus that were from ch 8 to describe him.
Although I don't agree that the abomination of desolation Jesus was speaking of, had anything to do with Titus - if you are saying Titus did the abomination of desolation, then Antiochus was not the "last" abomination of desolation, by your statement. Which Antiochus would not be the little horn of Daniel 8.
There is no argument about the Medes and Persians. So you are wasting our time over something that is not disputed.
No-one is arguing that the King of Greece is in the text of Daniel 8, as being a king.
No, no-one is arguing about those points.
The point is that in Daniel 8:8, it is the four direction of the four kingdoms that is in focus. And that in Daniel 8:22, it is only Alexander the king referenced, but not the follow up kings. It is their kingdoms, not the kings themselves.
22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
The little horn waxes strong from one of the geographic regions that was once one of the four kingdoms, at the time of the end.
If that were the case, then the messiah would be cut off at a 1/2 week interval. But the text indicates after 69 weeks (62+7), not after 69 and 1/2 weeks.
Those text don't quantify Jesus doing something according to 3 1/2 years. It is just not there. They are not making a Daniel 9, confirmation of the covenant for 7 years argument. Those are third tier sources you are providing. I go by the original source, the bible.
Sorry its a bit incomplete. There is a rebellion mentioned in 8:13. A rebellion has a leader. The leader is described later in 8, and there are lines from Josephus that were from ch 8 to describe him.
lol, you had several just recently. It's the descriptions of how horrible the rebels were.
book 5, ch 10,
4, 7
How can Anitochus be the little horn, if the little horn commits the last transgression of desolation, and you yourself say that Titus committed an abomination of desolation 300 years later?.There were two abomination of desolations in Daniel: one that occurred about 175BC under Antiochus IV, and another in the 1st century under the Romans. Antiochus IV was the little horn in Daniel 8, by virtually all historical accounts.
No-one is arguing who Antiochus was historically.The time of the end of what? The scripture, apocrypha and historical records, combined, provide plenty of information on the little horn, Antiochus IV, who was a descendant of Seleucus, one of the four kings that received their kingdoms from Alexander.
Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, hailed as the messiah, riding the donkey, the beginning of that last passover week. 4 days later he was crucified at the end of 69 weeks.How long after 69 weeks--after his arrival, baptism, and anointing--was Christ murdered, Doug? The text does not say he was murdered at the end of 69 weeks, but that he arrived at the end of 69 weeks.
Jesus was not in Jerusalem, at the time he was baptized by John the Baptist, which was in the Jordan river . The 62 weeks (plus the 7 weeks) is when the messiah arrives in Jerusalem.Therefore, his anointing occurred at the beginning of the 70th week, and he was murdered about 3.5 years later, which was the midst of the week, as explained in vs.27.
But you quoted some commentator, who referred to themI would not consider Eusebius and Augustine as third-tier sources.
But that is neither here nor there.
The input to a person's eschatology is not attributable to one or two individuals in my case; it's hyper complex. God has made me an expert on the end times and the Antichrist in particular.What amazes me is how you claim the Bible is your original source, but your doctrine did not exist (in Protestant circles) until the 19th century. Are you claiming you were not influenced by Scofield's or other dispensational or futurist agenda?
probably not. I am hopeful that the great falling away from preterism, of them at this site at least, takes place when the EU forms that ten leader government over there.Frankly, Doug, I don't believe we will agree on anything.
.
It is about a rebellion that desolates the city. How many of such rebellions have their been down through Israel's history?
How can Anitochus be the little horn, if the little horn commits the last transgression of desolation, and you yourself say that Titus committed an abomination of desolation 300 years later?.
No-one is arguing who Antiochus was historically.
.
The issue is who is the little horn who commits the last transgression of desolation at the time of the end. It is the time of the end of the kingdoms of this world having dominion over the earth.
Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, hailed as the messiah, riding the donkey, the beginning of that last passover week. 4 days later he was crucified at the end of 69 weeks.
Jesus was not in Jerusalem, at the time he was baptized by John the Baptist, which was in the Jordan river . The 62 weeks (plus the 7 weeks) is when the messiah arrives in Jerusalem.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
But you quoted some commentator, who referred to them
The input to a person's eschatology is not attributable to one or two individuals in my case; it's hyper complex. God has made me an expert on the end times and the Antichrist in particular.
I will say that I am not a dispensationalist, but a futurist, and have never read Scofield. You have not seen me quote any commentator, except that long after I formulated my futurist view, 30 years or so, I discovered that Arthur Pink had some common thoughts on the subject - even back in 1923, so I sometimes point that out. His work is available on line - "The Antichrist by Arthur Pink". Pink himself may have been a dispensationalist, I don't know. But I am not.
I am hopeful that the great falling away from preterism, of them at this site at least, takes place when the EU forms that ten leader government over there.
I will say that I am not a dispensationalist, but a futurist, and have never read Scofield. You have not seen me quote any commentator, except that long after I formulated my futurist view, 30 years or so, I discovered that Arthur Pink had some common thoughts on the subject - even back in 1923, so I sometimes point that out. His work is available on line - "The Antichrist by Arthur Pink". Pink himself may have been a dispensationalist, I don't know. But I am not.
No, I am not. But if you read the free online work by Pink on the Antichrist, http://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/antichrist01.htm you will find that his views are futurist, and not historist (a separate issue from dispensationalism) which holds that the papacy is the Antichrist. Pink counters that notion.I must admit I have never heard you quote any commentator. Are you familiar with this work by Arthur Pink?
"The Application of the Scriptures: A Biblical Refutation of Dispensationalism", by Arthur W. Pink
.
No, I am not. But if you read the free online work by Pink on the Antichrist, The Antichrist - By A.W. Pink you will find that his views are futurist, and not historist (a separate issue from dispensationalism) which holds that the papacy is the Antichrist. Pink counters that notion.
I will go take a look at the link. So, it appears Pink, like me, is a futurist, but not a dispensationalist. Thanks.
When do you understand the following verses are to be fulfilled?
1. Before the Tribulation begins;
2. 3 1/2 years before the Tribulation begins and into the first half 3 1/2 of the Tribulation (7 years):
3. During the Tribulation;
4. After the Tribulation;
5. Other.
Give any verses that come to mind, or tell us if your comments are personal opinions.
Ez.39:9 "And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire (paraphrased) "all the weapons of war" and they shall burn them with fire seven years."
Ez.39:12, And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying them (their enemies in the last days) that they may cleanse the land."
Keep in mind ver.9 speaks of 7 years.
Phil LaSpino
Where is the little horn identified in Ezekiel 38/39?Ezekiel's vision has two parts
The invasion of Israel by Satan's little horn at the Middle of the 70th week
.... and then will come the battle of Armageddon 1260 days later
Ezekiel's vision does not include any other details and one must search other prophets for events of the first 1260 days and those leading up to the battle of Armageddon like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Joel, Micah, and Zechariah
Armageddon will last for 30 days and then Israel will be commissioned to clean up the land for use during the Lord's millennial kingdom upon the earth just after
I must admit I have never heard you quote any commentator. Are you familiar with this work by Arthur Pink?
"The Application of the Scriptures: A Biblical Refutation of Dispensationalism", by Arthur W. Pink
.
"Where is the little horn identified in Ezekiel 38/39?"
The Lord is addressing Satan [Gog] [Ezekiel 38:17]
Satan Is the one behind the human little horn and king of the north
Satan is the "god" of this present world who operates through human kings [Ezekiel 28:1-28]
The human little horn is the first beast of Revelation who is empowered by Satan [Revelation 13:1-4]