You have some good information here. I'll have to go through all the passages and see if you have any I missed; Although right now, I'm not seeing any that don't look familiar to me.
Although you do have some observations of details that I hadn't caught: I.E. the 2300 "evening morning" to "clean the sanctuary".
Now do you have a verse that specifically says that 360 days is a "prophetic year"?
When I looked at the "time, times and 1/2 time" I found some "interesting coincidences historically.
If 1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years:
Time = 1000 years?
Times = 2000 years?
1/2 Time = 500 years?
Humanity has had written Scripture 3500 years now.
"Times of the gentiles" = 2000 years?
There's a couple of references in Daniel to kings (or kingdoms) reigning "for a time". The Samaritans lasted a literal 1000 years. (From the exit of the Babylonian captivity till the Byzantines destroyed them in 500 AD) They were the last of the 1/2 (assumed 10 northern tribes) and Assyrian / Greek heritage.
The rebellious of Judah and Benjamin were destroyed by the Romans by the end of the 1st century; vey beginning of the 2nd century.
There's "times" from Abraham to Jesus = 2000 years.
"Times" from the crucifixion / Pentecost would bring us to 2033 AD.
There's a bunch of other reference to "a time", and "times" I just found in Daniel that I'll have to go look at. If the "millennial reign" was actually to be "a (literal) time" (1000 years) but the beast and false prophet are given "the time" (of the end). Is this why we're still in that 2000 year span? I'm not sure the answer to that; but it does raise some interesting questions / observations.
Now I don't know if these historical details have any "prophetic relevance" but they are certainly interesting in relation to "time tables" as history itself has unfolded.
Another one: I came to a certain realization a while back that there's 2300 days from when the angel appears to John's father to when Jesus returns from Egypt. I'm hypothesizing here that they returned about 2 to 3 BC. Jesus would have been about 4 years old. Herod the Great died in February of 4 BC. I think he's the one in Daniel "broken without hands". (Daniel 8:25) He "stands up against the Prince of princes." (He tried to kill Jesus when Jesus was 2 years old.)
The sanctuary "cleansed" also means "vindicated". Jesus (the "sanctuary") was "vindicated" at the point Herod the Great died; having been struck down by God "without hands". Same thing happens to Agrippa 1 in the book of Acts. Although the text there literally says God struck him down. The "little horn" I believe is Agrippa I.
Was having a conversation with someone on another thread about Antiochus IV being the "little horn" But there's some issues with that. (Some of this is just "copy past" info I'd posted to the other thread while digging around at historical records.)
I dug a little further into the Herods:
You
(the other person in that thread) agree that "the Prince of the host" is Christ; correct? Well that narrows down who could possibly be "the little horn" in Daniel. It could not be Antiochus IV because that was 200 years before Christ.
So, it would have to be one of the Herods.
What more could Herod the Great do against the Prince of the host than to try and kill him? You are aware that Herod the Great tried to kill Jesus by killing all the babies in Bethlehem and the surrounding area under two years old. (
Matthew 2:16) I'm sure you must know that story! Matthew says that was a fulfillment of a prophecy in Jeremiah. I looked it up in Jeremiah. But it doesn't say anything about the king.
In
Matthew 2:12 though; God Himself warns the magi to depart to their own countries in different directions than which they came.
Also in
Matthew 2:22 God Himself warns Joseph not to return to Bethlehem.
Then you have the Herod who was part of Jesus's trial. The same Herod who put John the Baptist to death. A group of pharisees came to Jesus on the Monday before the crucifixion and told Jesus that Herod sought to kill him. (
Luke 13:31)
Acts 12:19-23 This is Herod the Great's grandson in this story. (Agrippa 1) Right in the text; he did not deny the people when they claimed he was God. (This is the stated reason why God struck him down.) I believe Herod Agrippa 1 was the "little horn" in Daniel. Herod the Great was the proverbial "big horn" (although the Scripture never uses that term).
Daniel 7:8 Three of the 4 horns (3 of which had fallen) before Agrippa 1 came along. Two of those three had ruled the same area.
1. Herod the Great - died in 4BC
2. Herod Archelaus - died in 18 AD But had been exiled to Gaul in 6 AD.
3. Herod Antipas - died 34 to 39 AD (some records say 34 while others say 39. I believe he was also deposed by Rome for failure to keep the peace. History does not record what happened to him after being deposed.
4. Herod Agrippa 1 - 44 AD - This is the Herod in Acts
5. Herod Philip - 34 AD (ruled territory on the other side of the Dead Sea.)
6. Herod Chalcis - 48 AD
7. Herod Agrippa 2 - about 90 AD.
Daniel 8:9 says that the little horn comes out of one of the 4 horns that came forth from the original horn that was broken. Herod the Great's kingdom was divided among his 4 sons.
Whereas Alexander the Great's kingdom was split up into like 9 different kingdoms; not four. 3 of Alexander's generals took 3 different empires and the "Macedonian empire" had been split up into like 6 or 7 different independent "city states"; so it wasn't actually "one" "empire". Alexander's generals were not related to him. Antiochus was not related to Alexander the Great. They were not a successive dynasty and there were more than 7 of them.
This passage in Daniel also says that 3 (of the 4 horns that came from the "big horn") came before the "little horn" and the "little horn" came from one of the four that proceeded him.
3 of the other ruling Herod's died before Agrippa 1 did. (Archelaus, Antipas and Philip)
Now allegedly, Agrippa 1's father was not Archelaus, Antipas, Philip, or Chalicis. Herod the Great though had Agrippa 1's grandmother executed for adultery. (Herod the Great's 2nd wife; Mariamne was a Hasmonean princess.) Their son Aristobulus IV was allegedly Agrippa 1's father. His mother (Bernice) was Herod the Great's sister. Yet according to
Daniel 8:9 Agrippa 1's father was one of the other four Herods. Which one; I'm not sure, but I'm guessing Archelaus because Antipas never produced an heir.
There's an interesting "verbal conflict" between Antipas and Jesus about who is the legitimate "King of the Jews". (I'll get to that in a minute.)
Herod the Great wanted to claim the title Messiah. When he rebuilt the temple; (9 BC) he'd destroyed all the genealogical records, so no one could prove that he wasn't from the line of David. Herod the Great's ancestors were half Greek. He was (allegedly) half Jewish (if he was actually Judean at all). Josephus insists that Herod the Great was an "edomite". The Edomites traditionally were descendants of Esau.
So the "verbal conflict" between Antipas and Jesus centered around Herod's apparent impotence. He never produced an heir and his reputation as a flaming homosexual proceeded him. Jesus makes some interesting statements about Herod being a "f*g" "soft raiment for those who live in king's houses". That's a reference to transvestism. Herod was stated to have dressed in women's clothes. (This is in the historical Roman records.)
Jesus makes a statement to Herod about Jesus being "perfected" on the 3rd day. "Perfected" is a Greek idiom for the point where a male produces conception. The metaphoric reference has to do with Pentecost; which in Daniel is called "the consummation". It's an interesting conflict between the two of them.
This conflict appears to have "originate" about 10 AD. (Jesus would have been about 17 years old; which culturally would have been the appropriate time to start looking for a wife.) when Antipas became "king of the Jews". (All the Herods wanted to claim that title.) So thus the "verbal jousting" seemed to be around the rightful King is not impotent. Which gets into the cultural thing about the "seed of Abraham" being "the chosen people". Interesting slant on history at least; as well as an obvious (though somewhat crude Greek idiom) that Jesus knew what happened to men in the process of conception. The Greek idiom literally means "to come to full extension"
So there's this long standing conflict between the Herods and Jesus.
Herod the Great tries to kill Jesus when he was a baby.
Herod Antipas is the Herod at Jesus's trial, who'd had John the Baptist beheaded.
Herod Agrippa 1 kills James and arrests Peter. Then he's eaten by worms for failure to acknowledge that he's not God.
Shortly after Agrippa 1's alleged father (Aristobulus IV) dies; Agrippa is sent to Rome to be educated. He's a "good friend" of Caligula and knew Nero. Nero was Caligula's nephew and Nero was sexually abused by Caligula. (Also possibly / probably by Agrippa 1; although there is no historical record about Agrippa 1 abusing Nero. There's lots of historical records of Caligula's sexual perversions though.)
Now the historical record doesn't plainly state (that I'm aware of) that Agrippa 1 was homosexual. His son though is Agrippa II (who meets Paul). Agrippa II is the 7th and last Herod in the line. (7 heads on the beast in Revelation 13)
Now was Judas related to any of the Herods? That I don't know. (Doesn't seem like he was.) We do know Judas was a scribe of sorts and that is father is named in Scripture.
Scripture does state that the generation that (was standing there in Jesus' physical presence) would be the generation that would see the end of the "eon". (The end of the age.) Note "age" (singular) not end of the ages. The "age" Jesus was talking about was Judaism. What the OT had prophesied of (the coming Messiah) had been fulfilled.
Ephesians 2 talks about the "middle wall of partition" between jew and gentile having been "torn down" because Christ had made the two "one man" having reconciled the two by the cross. Now obviously God is not going to go back and resurrect that wall. There's no reason to. When "the fullness of the gentiles comes in; all Israel is saved." "All Israel" are all those bought by the blood of Christ. He is the "seed of Abraham". (
Galatians 3:16)
Paul talks about the "dispensation" of the grace of God that has been given to him. Well despite common beliefs; the term "dispensation" actually doesn't have anything to do with time. The word literally means "female servant who runs the household". Paul talks about in Ephesians 1 how this stewardship (to make the two one) had been handed to him.
So why would God; Who'd enjoined groups of people together as one body; turn around and divide them again? There's not a "future golden age of redemption" for Israel. Anyone who's coming into the Kingdom is only coming trough the blood!
