Daniel Chapter 11: Important!

random person · Nov 14, 2014

Chapter 11 of Daniel covers about 100 years of fulfilled history.

It is speaking about the Seleucid Empire (King of the North) and the Ptolemaic Empire (King of the South).

It literally spans generations which includes wars, treaties, and marriages.

For example, Daniel 11:5-6, concerns the marriage between Antiochus II (Seluecid) and Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II (Ptolemaic).

And again, Daniel 11:17, concerns the marriage between Ptolemy V (Ptolemaic) and Cleopatra I, daughter of Antiochus III (Seleucid).

There are many players, from the Seleucid Empire, Antiochus III, Seleucus IV, and the notorious Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

From the Ptolemaic Empire, Ptolemy IV Philopator, Ptolemy V Epiphanes, Ptolemy VI Philometor, and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes.

This chapter speaks of the conquests of Antiochus III, the harsh tributes of Seleucus IV, and other details.

It speaks about Ptolemy VI declaring war on Antiochus IV in A.D. 170-169 and being crushed and forced to make a treaty with his uncle, to make Antiochus IV overlord over Ptolemaic empire. Alexandria revolts and deposes Ptolemy VI in favor of his younger brother Ptolemy VIII. The latter of whom prepared and successfully repulsed an invasion by Antiochus in A.D. 169. But Antiochus IV second expendition against Egypt in A.D. was a success and he plundered the temples of Egypt. However, Rome intervenes and forces Antiochus IV to surrender his conquest of Egypt whereby Antiochus Ephipanes turns his rage and fury against Jerusalem and the covenant people leading to the Abomination of Desolation.

This just a summation of the Daniel 11, BUT it is not a future event.

It is a saga between the Seleucid Empire (King of the North) and the Ptolemaic Empire (King of the South). It covers nearly a hundred years A.D. 252 to A.D. 163, it begins with the death of Alexander and a splitting of a world dominant empire, a marriage, the conquests of Antiochus III and ends with Antiochus IV three wars with both his nephews Ptolemy VI & VIII, the Abomination of Desolation, and his death.

vinsight4u · Nov 14, 2014

Choose Wisely · Nov 14, 2014

Daniel 11
6 And in the end of years they shall join themselves together;

The things before this verse have occurred.

That is all.

random person · Nov 14, 2014

vinsight4u said:
Daniel 11 splits off to the end times where a new army type
comes in verse 13.

after certain years
a great army

Baloney!

Daniel 11:6 In 249 BCE, King of the South Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent his daughter Berenice to marry King of the North Antiochus II Theos. But Antiochus II was poisoned and Berenice was assassinated.

Daniel 11:7-8 King of the South, Ptolemy III Euergetes, the eldest son of Ptolemy II and brother of Berenice.

Daniel 11:10-19 King of the North, Antiochus III.

Daniel 11:20 King of the North, Seleucus IV Philopater.

Daniel 11:21-30 King of the North, Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his powerstruggles and wars with his two nephews, King of the South, Ptolemy VI & VIII. And his humiliation at the hands of Rome.

Daniel 11:31-33 The King of the North, Antiochus IV Epiphanes' Abomination of Desolation.

Daniel 11:34-35 The King of the North, Antiochus IV Ephiphanes' dies shortly after being notified of his armies defeat in Judea at the hands of Judas and the Maccabees.

There is the brief gist of it.

precepts · Nov 15, 2014

random person said:
Chapter 11 of Daniel covers about 100 years of fulfilled history.

It is speaking about the Seleucid Empire (King of the North) and the Ptolemaic Empire (King of the South).

It literally spans generations which includes wars, treaties, and marriages.

For example, Daniel 11:5-6, concerns the marriage between Antiochus II (Seluecid) and Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II (Ptolemaic).

And again, Daniel 11:17, concerns the marriage between Ptolemy V (Ptolemaic) and Cleopatra I, daughter of Antiochus III (Seleucid).

There are many players, from the Seleucid Empire, Antiochus III, Seleucus IV, and the notorious Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

From the Ptolemaic Empire, Ptolemy IV Philopator, Ptolemy V Epiphanes, Ptolemy VI Philometor, and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes.

This chapter speaks of the conquests of Antiochus III, the harsh tributes of Seleucus IV, and other details.

It speaks about Ptolemy VI declaring war on Antiochus IV in A.D. 170-169 and being crushed and forced to make a treaty with his uncle, to make Antiochus IV overlord over Ptolemaic empire. Alexandria revolts and deposes Ptolemy VI in favor of his younger brother Ptolemy VIII. The latter of whom prepared and successfully repulsed an invasion by Antiochus in A.D. 169. But Antiochus IV second expendition against Egypt in A.D. was a success and he plundered the temples of Egypt. However, Rome intervenes and forces Antiochus IV to surrender his conquest of Egypt whereby Antiochus Ephipanes turns his rage and fury against Jerusalem and the covenant people leading to the Abomination of Desolation.

This just a summation of the Daniel 11, BUT it is not a future event.

It is a saga between the Seleucid Empire (King of the North) and the Ptolemaic Empire (King of the South). It covers nearly a hundred years A.D. 252 to A.D. 163, it begins with the death of Alexander and a splitting of a world dominant empire, a marriage, the conquests of Antiochus III and ends with Antiochus IV three wars with both his nephews Ptolemy VI & VIII, the Abomination of Desolation, and his death.

Though you're on the right track, you're mixing up Antiochus IV with Antiochus III the Great. It is he that's repelled by Rome, does the abomination, etc.

ebedmelech · Nov 15, 2014

precepts said:
Though you're on the right track, you're mixing up Antiochus IV with Antiochus III the Great. It is he that's repelled by Rome, does the abomination, etc.

This would not be correct based on Daniel 11:28-31:
29 At the appointed time he will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before.
30 For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.
31 Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.
This was undoubtedly Antiochus IV. The historical books of 1-4 Macabbess give the historical account we know as "the Maccabean Revolt" which was against Antiochus the IV.

precepts · Nov 16, 2014

Originally posted by ebedmelech:
This would not be correct based on Daniel 11:28-31:
29 “At the appointed time he will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before.
30 For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.
31 Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.
This was undoubtedly Antiochus IV. The historical books of 1-4 Macabbess give the historical account we know as "the Maccabean Revolt" which was against Antiochus the IV.

You're mixing apples with oranges. Antiochus III the Great is who ended the Aaronic priestly lineage, not Antiochus IV; and the Maccabean Revolt has nothing to do with Dan 11:28-31. It has to with Antiochus III the Great who, thru the Ewes who foresook the covenant of Levi, polluted the sanctuary with non-Aaronic priests. According to history, the only thing Antiochus IV did was force himself on Israel, so-call sacrificing a pig on the altar. He never negotiated with Ewes who forsook the covenant to do what he did. Antiochus III the Great did. Plus, history dictates thru the succession listed in Daniel that Antiochus III is the King that comes in with flattery. It is chronologically noted. :priest:

ebedmelech · Nov 16, 2014

precepts said:
You're mixing apples with oranges. Antiochus III the Great is who ended the Aaronic priestly lineage, not Antiochus IV; and the Maccabean Revolt has nothing to do with Dan 11:28-31. It has to with Antiochus III the Great who, thru the Ewes who foresook the covenant of Levi, polluted the sanctuary with non-Aaronic priests. According to history, the only thing Antiochus IV did was force himself on Israel, so-call sacrificing a pig on the altar. He never negotiated with Ewes who forsook the covenant to do what he did. Antiochus III the Great did. Plus, history dictates thru the succession listed in Daniel that Antiochus III is the King that comes in with flattery. It is chronologically noted.

Precepts, I ask you to provide your sources on this. I think you really have it mixed up.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says you're wrong:
ANTIOCHUS III. THE GREAT - JewishEncyclopedia.com

ANTIOCHUS IV., EPIPHANES - JewishEncyclopedia.com

precepts · Nov 16, 2014

Originally Posted by ebedmelech

Precepts, I ask you to provide your sources on this. I think you really have it mixed up.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says you're wrong:

ANTIOCHUS III. THE GREAT - JewishEncyclopedia.com

ANTIOCHUS IV., EPIPHANES - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The "Jewish" encyclopedia's wrong, and you didn't ask me for sources. You're telling untruths.

How do you expect the "robbers" of the Jews to tell you the truth? The fact I mentioned the abomination of desolation being the desolation of the Aaronic priestly lineage should of been revelation enough, but you totally ignored that important statement. Why?

The Maccabee's, with all due respect, is and was a heretical order that spawned the Pharisees and Saducees sects of Christ's time. There was no son of Aaron as high priest during Christ's time.

An outline and study of Daniel 11 that I did matching the verses to the chronology using Wikipedia's quotes on the Seleucid kings of the North:

The King of the North was Seleucus I Nicator, founder of the Seleucid empire. He reigned from 305 - 281 bc. He was suceeded by his son, Antiochus I Soter who reigned 281-261 bc.
1st and 2nd Syrian Wars.

Dan 11:5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and [one] of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion [shall be] a great dominion.

--- Ptolemy I and his son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (great dominion)

========================================================

Dan 11:6 And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in [these] times.

--- Berenice, also called Berenice Syra, was the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his first wife Arsinoe I of Egypt.

In 261 BC she married the Seleucid monarch Antiochus II Theos, who, following an agreement with Ptolemy (249 BC), had divorced his wife Laodice I and transferred the succession to Berenice's children.

In 246 BC, when Ptolemy died, Antiochus II took up again with his first wife, Laodice. The Syrian King died shortly after, many suspect from poisoning. Queen Berenice claimed the Regency for her son, Seleucus[citation needed] and conquered Soloia with her army, however, she and her son were both killed by Laodice as well. Berenice's brother was Ptolemy III Euergetes.Dan 11:7 But out of a branch of her roots shall [one] stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:

========================================================

Dan 11:8 And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, [and] with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue [more] years than the king of the north.

Dan 11:9 So the king of the south shall come into [his] kingdom, and shall return into his own land.

----- Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-222 bc) succeeded their father and set about to avenge his sister's murder by invading Syria and having Laodice killed. This is also mentioned in the Book of Daniel 11:6.

Ptolemy III defeated Seleucus II Callinicus (246-225 bc), Third Syrian War.

----- During this war, the Third Syrian War, he occupied Antioch and even reached Babylon.[7] In exchange for a peace in 241 BC, Ptolemy was awarded new territories on the northern coast of Syria, including Seleucia Pieria, the port of Antioch. The Ptolemaic kingdom reached the height of its power. This war is cryptically alluded to in Daniel 11:7-9.Dan 11:10 But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and [one] shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, [even] to his fortress.

=====================================================

Dan 11:11 And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, [even] with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand.

Dan 11:12 [And] when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down [many] ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened [by it].

Dan 11:13 For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.

Dan 11:14 And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

Dan 11:15 So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither [shall there be any] strength to withstand.

Dan 11:16 But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.

Dan 11:17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand [on his side], neither be for him.

---- When Ptolemy returned to Egypt, Seleucus recovered Northern Syria and the nearer provinces of Iran.

=======================================================

Dan 11:18 After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause [it] to turn upon him.

---- However, Antiochus Hierax, a younger brother of Seleucus, was set up as a rival in Asia Minor against Seleucus by a party to which Laodice herself adhered.

========================================================

Dan 11:19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

--- At Ancyra (about 235 BC) Seleucus sustained a crushing defeat and left the country beyond the Taurus to his brother and the other powers of the peninsula. Seleucus then undertook an anabasis to regain Parthia, the results of which came to nothing.

========================================================

Dan 11:20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes [in] the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

----Seleucus III Soter, called Seleucus Ceraunus (243 BC 223 BC), was a ruler of the Hellenistic Seleucid Kingdom, the eldest son of Seleucus II Callinicus and Laodice II. His birth name was Alexander and was named after his great uncle the Seleucid official Alexander. Alexander changed his name to Seleucus after he succeeded his father as King. After a brief reign of three years (225 BC-223 BC), Seleucus was assassinated in Anatolia by members of his army while on campaign against Attalus I of Pergamon. His official byname "Soter" - Greek: means "Saviour", while his nickname "Ceraunus" - Greek: means "Thunder".

======================================================

Dan 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

---- Antiochus III the Great (222-187 bc), son of Seleucus II Callinicus, Seleucus III Soter's brother.

Check the chronology.

precepts · Nov 16, 2014

Ebedmelech

It was in Antioch that the Jews first made the acquaintance of Hellenism and of the more corrupt sides of Greek culture; and it was from Antioch that Palestine henceforth was ruled, although the defeat of Antiochus by the Romans at Magnesia (190) materially crippled his power.

A quote from your link showing Antiochus III's involvement in corrupting the Jews, introducing those that would forsake the covenant to Hellenism. This quote also verifies he's the one the ships of Chittim attacks.

ebedmelech · Nov 16, 2014

Precepts, I have studied this thoroughly through secular and biblical historians, so I'll simply call peace, and you can go with what you think. It's up to you to research your own facts, but I tell you now I know you have Antiochus III and Antiochus IV rather mixed up in your facts, but it's obvious you don't think so.

It's your choice to say historians are wrong...but I leave you other online resources:

http://www.cbcfb.org/russwatsonss/History%20of%20the%20Maccabees%201.pdf

http://paultanner.org/English%20Docs/Daniel/Introductory/App%20O%20-%20Antiochus.pdf

http://greek-language.com/bible/palmer/11hellenisticage.pdf

precepts · Nov 16, 2014

ebedmelech said:
Precepts, I have studied this thoroughly through secular and biblical historians, so I'll simply call peace, and you can go with what you think. It's up to you to research your own facts, but I tell you now I know you have Antiochus III and Antiochus IV rather mixed up in your facts, but it's obvious you don't think so.

It's your choice to say historians are wrong...but I leave you other online resources:

http://www.cbcfb.org/russwatsonss/History%20of%20the%20Maccabees%201.pdf

http://paultanner.org/English Docs/Daniel/Introductory/App O - Antiochus.pdf

http://greek-language.com/bible/palmer/11hellenisticage.pdf

The ending of the Aaronic priestly line has no effect on you, huh?

ebedmelech · Nov 16, 2014

precepts said:
The ending of the Aaronic priestly line has no effect on you, huh?

No.

The promise is that Jesus would come through the tribe of Judah as well as a Son of David! So there's certainly a disregard for the law of the high priest but it doesn't affect the line of Messiah. While the priesthood was excluded to Levites and the High Priest through Aaron Christ is NOT promised through the priesthood.

Hebrews 5:6 makes it very clear the priesthood Jesus came through was NOT of Aaron, but Melchizedek:
6 just as He says also in another passage, You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.

Once again, I will hold to the view that Antiochus IV is the one who corrupted the priesthood when he appointed Menelaus as priest because Antiochus kicked Jason out. Jason was of the line from Zadok.

precepts · Nov 16, 2014

Originally posted by ebedmelech:

No.

The promise is that Jesus would come through the tribe of Judah as well as a Son of David! So there's certainly a disregard for the law of the high priest but it doesn't affect the line of Messiah. While the priesthood was excluded to Levites and the High Priest through Aaron Christ is NOT promised through the priesthood.

Hebrews 5:6 makes it very clear the priesthood Jesus came through was NOT of Aaron, but Melchizedek:
6 just as He says also in another passage, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Once again, I will hold to the view that Antiochus IV is the one who corrupted the priesthood when he appointed Menelaus as priest because Antiochus kicked Jason out. Jason was of the line from Zadok.

Click to expand...

Jason might have been a Levite, but I guarantee you he wasn't a direct firstborn son of the firstborn sons of Aaron's priestly lineage. But if you're so convinced list his lineage back to Aaron.

Here's another interesting thought. Antiochus III was before Jason, and the so-called high priests before Jason weren't from the direct firstborn lineage of Aaron either; so how do you explain them and their lack of credentials before Jason?

Last but not least, it doesn't surprise me that you're not concerned with what happened to the firstborn lineage of high priests, eventhough it affects scriptural facts regarding the Maccabees and prophecy, but to each its own. :pray:

ebedmelech · Nov 16, 2014

precepts said:
Jason might have been a Levite, but I guarantee you he wasn't a direct firstborn son of the firstborn sons of Aaron's priestly lineage. But if you're so convinced list his lineage back to Aaron.

There's NO WAY you nor I can know. Furthermore why would the lineage concern me except that I'm a Jew living at that time?

precepts said:
Here's another interesting thought. Antiochus III was before Jason, and the so-called high priests before Jason weren't from the direct firstborn lineage of Aaron either; so how do you explain them and the lack of credentials of these high priests before Jason?

Of course it's interesting if you have it backwards...and I'm convinced you do. You are the one arguing against the history. You insist the Jewish encyclopedia is wrong, as well as other resources, yet you produce NOTHING to the contrary. That's what's interesting.

precepts said:
Last but not least, it doesn't surprise me that you're not concerned with what happened to the firstborn lineage of high priests eventhough it affects scriptural facts regarding the Maccabees and prophecy, but to each its own.

Only if I'm Jewish under the Old Covenant...and if I accept this which you assert with ZERO evidence. Nothing insist that the priesthood was ever corrupted, you insist on that. This was an event prophesied by Daniel which happened, so HOW does it affect anything??? That is untenable precepts. The facts are the temple was cleansed and the priesthood restored! Everything you assert is what you think as far as I understand because you've produce NOT ONE FACT. When you can...I'm willing to listen or read, as the case may be.

precepts · Nov 16, 2014

ebedmelech said:
There's NO WAY you nor I can know. Furthermore why would the lineage concern me except that I'm a Jew living at that time?

You're trying to avoid the facts. The fact is the documented account of Antiochus IV and Jason's dealings doesn't prove the priesthood wasn't corrupted before them. Man's history is trying to proclaim that but the "robbers" of Israel have a lot to do with that interpretation. The history of the high priest lineages disappears from Nehem-h and appears one generation before Jason, which is suspect. The fact there's no history to prove these documented persons lineage, or the history doesn't go pass Jason's so-called grandfather, proves the culprit isn't Antiochus IV.

ebedmelech said:
Of course it's interesting if you have it backwards...and I'm convinced you do. You are the one arguing against the history. You insist the Jewish encyclopedia is wrong, yet you produce NOTHING to the contrary. That's what's interesting.

How have I not produced anything when I posted an outline of Dan 11 prophecies next to the historical fulfillments, aligning scripture with the order of the kings of the North and South successions and wars? If you had took the time out to compare the verses with the historical facts, you would have seen that it was Antiochus III that fulfilled the little horn role based on the sequence of events and his position in the successions. Instead, you rely on the "robbers" of the people of Israel, the ones who created the hellenistic Pharisee and Sadducee sects contrary to the real Israel's existence, an abomination of desolation in itself.

ebedmelech said:
Only if I'm Jewish under the Old Covenant...and if I accept this which you assert with ZERO evidence. Nothing insist that the priesthood was ever corrupted, you insist on that. This was an event prophesied by Daniel which happened, so HOW does it affect anything??? That is untenable precepts. The facts are the temple was cleansed and the priesthood restored! Everything you assert is what you think as far as I understand because you've produce NOT ONE FACT. When you can...I'm willing to listen or read, as the case may be.

Yet you're claiming it's a fact the Aaronic priesthood was restored, and you have no evidence. My evidence is the creation of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to power contrary to Israel's history of organization, all caused by hellenization, and the historical documented heresies of Maccabean kings being crown king and high priest. If that's not enough evidence to prove the priesthood was corrupted, then I don't know what is?

ebedmelech · Nov 16, 2014

precepts said:
You're trying to avoid the facts. The fact is the documented account of Antiochus IV and Jason's dealings doesn't prove the priesthood wasn't corrupted before them. Man's history is trying to proclaim that but the "robbers" of Israel have a lot to do with that interpretation. The history of the high priest lineages disappears from Nehem-h and appears one generation before Jason, which is suspect. The fact there's no history to prove these documented persons lineage, or the history doesn't go pass Jason's so-called grandfather, proves the culprit isn't Antiochus IV.

Still waiting on "the documented accounts".

precepts said:
How have I not produced anything when I posted an outline of Dan 11 prophecies next to the historical fulfillments, aligning scripture with the order of the kings of the North and South successions and wars? If you had took the time out to compare the verses with the historical facts, you would have seen that it was Antiochus III that fulfilled the little horn role based on the sequence of events and his position in the successions. Instead, you rely on the "robbers" of the people of Israel, the ones who created the hellenistic Pharisee and Sadducee sects contrary to the real Israel's existence, an abomination of desolation in itself.

That doesn't make it correct. That is your view, but the fact is it doesn't align with facts I've researched.

precepts said:
Yet you're claiming it's a fact the Aaronic priesthood was restored, and you have no evidence. My evidence is the creation of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to power contrary to Israel's history of organization, all caused by hellenization, and the historical documented heresies of Maccabean kings being crown king and high priest. If that's not enough evidence to prove the priesthood was corrupted, then I don't know what is?

My evidence is in the scriptures. All I need do is point to the priesthood after the Maccabean Revolt and the cleansing of the temple...it was restored. The Jews celebrate Hanukkah around that historical fact. As we get to the birth of Jesus we find the Aaronic priesthood alive and well. Where's the corruption? Where does the NT ever speak to a corrupted priesthood? All it speaks to is the abomination of desolation.

The Pharisees and Sadducees are opposing sects of Judaism, that doesn't prove your point at all!!!

What did Jesus tell the disciples of them...OR do you forget? Matthew 23:1-3:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Here we have Jesus telling the people that the corruption is in what they do...NOT who they are.

Your allegation is that the Aaronic priesthood was corrupted. How?

precepts · Nov 17, 2014

ebedmelech said:
Originally Posted by precepts:
You're trying to avoid the facts. The fact is the documented account of Antiochus IV and Jason's dealings doesn't prove the priesthood wasn't corrupted before them. Man's history is trying to proclaim that but the "robbers" of Israel have a lot to do with that interpretation. The history of the high priest lineages disappears from Nehem-h and appears one generation before Jason, which is suspect. The fact there's no history to prove these documented persons lineage, or the history doesn't go pass Jason's so-called grandfather, proves the culprit isn't Antiochus IV.

Click to expand...

Still waiting on "the documented accounts".

What documented accounts? Wikipedia has the accounts. Look up Jason, Look up his father, and then see where it leads you. Wikipedia/history is lost when it comes to who his grandfather was. That's one or two generation before Antiochus IV, and the reason why the history is like that is because it's given by the "robbers." If the Maccabees were so righteous, why didn't they detail the high priests lineage like all the books before them. Nehem-h did it.

ebedmelech said:
Originally Posted by precepts:
How have I not produced anything when I posted an outline of Dan 11 prophecies next to the historical fulfillments, aligning scripture with the order of the kings of the North and South successions and wars? If you had took the time out to compare the verses with the historical facts, you would have seen that it was Antiochus III that fulfilled the little horn role based on the sequence of events and his position in the successions. Instead, you rely on the "robbers" of the people of Israel, the ones who created the hellenistic Pharisee and Sadducee sects contrary to the real Israel's existence, an abomination of desolation in itself.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make it correct. That is your view, but the fact is it doesn't align with facts I've researched.

Your research is not fact. It's the "robbers" account, not fact. My outline is 100% on the point. It's the historical facts, not man's account/story, but history's.

ebedmelech said:
My evidence is in the scriptures. All I need do is point to the priesthood after the Maccabean Revolt and the cleansing of the temple...it was restored.

It was restored but still we have the creation of the Pharisees and Sadducees, not to mention the Maccabean king and high priest. It's not that I haven't provided the facts, but that you can't accept them.

ebedmelech said:
The Jews celebrate Hanukkah around that historical fact. As we get to the birth of Jesus we find the Aaronic priesthood alive and well. Where's the corruption? Where does the NT ever speak to a corrupted priesthood? All it speaks to is the abomination of desolation.

Obviously you're trying to ignore the facts I provided. As for Hanukkah, that's one of the biggest forsaking of the covenant to date.

In celebrating Hanukkah, they changed the candlesticks numbers from seven to nine, not knowing the true meaning of the candlesticks, and you as a Christian should know it's seven candlesticks representing the seven churches in Revelation. So that in itself is also an abomination, a forsaking of the covenant. Facts!

ebedmelech said:
The Pharisees and Sadducees are opposing sects of Judaism, that doesn't prove your point at all!!!

It proves the point the original organization of Israel was changed. The Pharisees and Sadducees didn't exist before the Maccabees. History dictates they came about because of Hellenization, and you know this!

ebedmelech said:
What did Jesus tell the disciples of them...OR do you forget? Matthew 23:1-3:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Here we have Jesus telling the people that the corruption is in what they do...NOT who they are.

I see nothing saying such. All it says is that they sat in the seat of Moses, which is what they did when they robbed Israel and made themselves rulers and priests. They are the ones that forsook the covenant to create their own type of government.

ebedmelech said:
Your allegation is that the Aaronic priesthood was corrupted. How?

Why are you asking me to repeat what I have already posted. It's as if you're not reading what I posted or you're not comprehending. Was there not a Maccabean king crowned king and high priest? And if there was a Maccabean king and high priest, doesn't that constitute a corruption of the priesthood? The Maccabees weren't even a ruling family that was ruling Israel. The whole system/government was corrupted and changed; the covenant was forsaken. Why you can't see that or accept the fact is beyond me. :pray:

ebedmelech · Nov 17, 2014

precepts said:
What documented accounts? Wikipedia has the accounts. Look up Jason, Look up his father, and then see where it leads you. Wikipedia/history is lost when it comes to who his grandfather was. That's one or two generation before Antiochus IV, and the reason why the history is like that is because it's given by the "robbers." If the Maccabees were so righteous, why didn't they detail the high priests lineage like all the books before them. Nehem-h did it.

Wikipedia is one resource precepts, and it provides other resources that also have to be checked. One of those resources is the Jewish Encyclopedia, which you immediately dismissed as wrong.

Also, what Nehemiah did was reject those who could not prove their descendancy. It's right there in Nehemiah 7.

precepts said:
Your research is not fact. It's the "robbers" account, not fact. My outline is 100% on the point. It's the historical facts, not man's account/story, but history's.

We can do this forever precepts. As I've said, you believe you have the facts, and that's ok with me. I disagree with what you call your facts.

precepts said:
It was restored but still we have the creation of the Pharisees and Sadducees, not to mention the Maccabean king and high priest. It's not that I haven't provided the facts, but that you can't accept them.

This is NOT the point precepts. Nor does it prove your point. What you're doing is assuming because the Pharisees and Sadducees exist proves corruption. In fact, how about you define what you mean by "corruption"? Perhaps I'll understand what you mean when you say that.

precepts said:
Obviously you're trying to ignore the facts I provided. As for Hanukkah, that's one of the biggest forsaking of the covenant to date.

I didn't ignore anything. I disagree with your facts. Hanukkah did not forsake the covenant. Just because the Jews created a memorial for the cleansing and restoration of the temple doesn't mean it violates the covenant.

precepts said:
In celebrating Hanukkah, they changed the candlesticks numbers from seven to nine, not knowing the true meaning of the candlesticks, and you as a Christian should know it's seven candlesticks representing the seven churches in Revelation. So that in itself is also an abomination, a forsaking of the covenant. Facts!

This again is not fact...but distortion of the fact. The Hanukkah candlestick is unique. It did NOT replace the candlestick of seven that God commanded be in the sanctuary!

precepts said:
It proves the point the original organization of Israel was changed. The Pharisees and Sadducees didn't exist before the Maccabees. History dictates they came about because of Hellenization, and you know this!

History doesn't dictate that, you dictate that. The question is did it prove the Aaronic priesthood was corrupted? Can you show the bible saying such a thing?

precepts said:
I see nothing saying such. All it says is that they sat in the seat of Moses, which is what they did when they robbed Israel and made themselves rulers and priests. They are the ones that forsook the covenant to create their own type of government.

So why did Jesus tell the people "all that they tell you, do and observe"?

precepts said:
Why are you asking me to repeat what I have already posted. It's as if you're not reading what I posted or you're not comprehending. Was there not a Maccabean king crowned king and high priest? And if there was a Maccabean king and high priest, doesn't that constitute a corruption of the priesthood? The Maccabees weren't even a ruling family that was ruling Israel. The whole system/government was corrupted and changed; the covenant was forsaken. Why you can't see that or accept the fact is beyond me.

No it doesn't.
What it proves is that Daniel's prophecy was true precepts! There's a difference! These things led to the abomination of desolation which happened, and were the reason for the Maccabean revolt which Judas Maccabeus led. However you want to discount the historical books of Maccabees for some reason. They are not scripture but they do have historical value and have NOT been discredited!

Lastly, this is getting away from this thread which is Daniel 11. If you wish to debate this, there is a debate forum.

precepts · Nov 17, 2014

ebedmelech said:
Originally posted by precepts:
What documented accounts? Wikipedia has the accounts. Look up Jason, Look up his father, and then see where it leads you. Wikipedia/history is lost when it comes to who his grandfather was. That's one or two generation before Antiochus IV, and the reason why the history is like that is because it's given by the "robbers." If the Maccabees were so righteous, why didn't they detail the high priests lineage like all the books before them. Nehem-h did it.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia is one resource precepts, and it provides other resources that also have to be checked. One of those resources is the Jewish Encyclopedia, which you immediately dismissed as wrong.

What does your reply have to do with what I said? What does Wikipedia providing other sources have to do with the fact there's no history of these high priest past "Jason" grandfather? Can you provide sources proving their lineage past that 3rd generation?

That's the question and the point. Try sticking to it.

ebedmelech said:
Also, what Nehemiah did was reject those who could not prove their descendancy. It's right there in Nehemiah 7.

Once again, you're not that naive. I said Nehem-h documented the high priests lineage. Why didn't the Maccabees? You're avoiding the facts.

What does Nehem-h rejecting those who couldn't prove their ancestry have to do with the priests' lineage? Again with the distractions.

ebedmelech said:
Originally posted by precepts:
Your research is not fact. It's the "robbers" account, not fact. My outline is 100% on the point. It's the historical facts, not man's account/story, but history's.

Click to expand...

We can do this forever precepts. As I've said, you believe you have the facts, and that's ok with me. I disagree with what you call your facts.

You can't believe you have facts, facts are facts whether you believe them or not. The Maccabee's writings are from their point of view, not because they wrote a history that the world uses as a reference means everything they say and did is fact. They have to be compared to other sources for viability.

ebedmelech said:
Originally posted by precepts:
It was restored but still we have the creation of the Pharisees and Sadducees, not to mention the Maccabean king and high priest. It's not that I haven't provided the facts, but that you can't accept them.

Click to expand...

This is NOT the point precepts. Nor does it prove your point. What you're doing is assuming because the Pharisees and Sadducees exist proves corruption. In fact, how about you define what you mean by "corruption"? Perhaps I'll understand what you mean when you say that.

You're not that naive. We have been discussing the Aaronic high priests' lineages for a while now. How is it you don't know what we're talking about in reference to the high priests and the Maccabees? Plus, to show your disregard for the truth, you totally ignored the fact a Maccabean king was crowned king and high priest, a known historical fact. You have yet to mention it, and like I said before, you don't want to or you can't accept the fact.

ebedmelech said:
Originally posted by precepts:
Obviously you're trying to ignore the facts I provided. As for Hanukkah, that's one of the biggest forsaking of the covenant to date.

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore anything. I disagree with your facts. Hanukkah did not forsake the covenant. Just because the Jews created a memorial for the cleansing and restoration of the temple doesn't mean it violates the covenant.

It does when you add or take away from it, and they added to it two extra candlesticks.

ebedmelech said:
Originally posted by precepts:
In celebrating Hanukkah they changed the candlesticks numbers from seven to nine, not knowing the true meaning of the candlesticks, and you as a Christian should know it's seven candlesticks representing the seven churches in Revelation. So, that in itself is also an abomination, a forsaking of the covenant. Facts!

Click to expand...

This again is not fact...but distortion of the fact. The Hanukkah candlestick is unique. It did NOT replace the candlestick of seven that God commanded be in the sanctuary!

Then what happen to it? Does God now have nine candlesticks/lamps burning in front of the heavenly throne? Will there be two candlesticks in the new temple, one with 7 and the other with 9?

ebedmelech said:
Originally posted by precepts:
It proves the point the original organization of Israel was changed. The Pharisees and Sadducees didn't exist before the Maccabees. History dictates they came about because of Hellenization, and you know this!

Click to expand...

History doesn't dictate that, you dictate that. The question is did it prove the Aaronic priesthood was corrupted? Can you show the bible saying such a thing?

The scriptures doesn't say Rome's the 4th beast either, but Rome is the 4th beast.

Anyone with eyes to see can see Israel was corrupted by hellenism because history recorded it, but you don't have to accept it.

ebedmelech said:
Originally posted by precepts:
I see nothing saying such. All it says is that they sat in the seat of Moses, which is what they did when they robbed Israel and made themselves rulers and priests. They are the ones that forsook the covenant to create their own type of government.

Click to expand...

So why did Jesus tell the people "all that they tell you, do and observe"?

Because the new covenant wasn't available yet. Would it have been better for them to forsake the law altogether and not sacrifice? Nope.

ebedmelech said:
Originally posted by precepts:
Why are you asking me to repeat what I have already posted. It's as if you're not reading what I posted or you're not comprehending. Was there not a Maccabean king crowned king and high priest? And if there was a Maccabean king and high priest, doesn't that constitute a corruption of the priesthood? The Maccabees weren't even a ruling family that was ruling Israel. The whole system/government was corrupted and changed; the covenant was forsaken. Why you can't see that or accept the fact is beyond me.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.
What it proves is that Daniel's prophecy was true precepts! There's a difference! These things led to the abomination of desolation which happened, and were the reason for the Maccabean revolt which Judas Maccabeus led.

That is your story, what you want to believe. Regardless of the fact the Maccabees weren't God's government. That's rebellion in the same sense the Maccabees took to themselves to rule and reign as kings and priests contrary to the covenant, contrary to the covenant.

ebedmelech said:
However you want to discount the historical books of Maccabees for some reason. They are not scripture but they do have historical value and have NOT been discredited!

Who is going to discredit them other than scriptural facts? Not history?!

ebedmelech said:
Lastly, this is getting away from this thread which is Daniel 11. If you wish to debate this, there is a debate forum.

Hey! I have drawn my conclusions and presented the facts. The balls in your court. :liturgy:

Daniel Chapter 11: Important!

1 COR. 10:11; HEB. 1:2; HEB. 9:26,28; 1 PET. 1:20

Contributor

Forgiven

1 COR. 10:11; HEB. 1:2; HEB. 9:26,28; 1 PET. 1:20

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

Similar threads