Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Daniel's 7th week and ministry of Jesus

31 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Shabbat shalom, firestormx.

Shalom, firestormx.

Firestormx

A point of information, as Roy will also point out; Dan 11:21-35 is referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Syrian king. He is a proptotype of the Antichrist who is in our future. But verses 36-45 do refer to another king yet in our future. For the kings of the north and south engage him; then reports from the east (200,000,000 man calvary) and north (futher north-Russia) will alarm him.

But I agree with you, the "he" in Dan 9:27 is not referring to Jesus.

In Christ

Montana Marv

I disagree with you. I think to say that it is not talking about the end is a serious misreading of scripture. Verse 35 talks about the end. Verse 31 talks about the abomination that causes desolation and verse 22 calls this person the prince of the covenant, which is the anti-christ. There is no seperation in who the person is from verse 35 to verse 36. I disagree

Ever hear the statement, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? Well, there's an axiom to this postulate: "When it comes to understanding prophecy, those who don't learn from history are doomed to THINK that we must repeat it." I would encourage you to read the actual history of Antiochus IV Epiphanes from secular history, Josephus' Antiquities, and some of the Apocryphal books, like Second Esdras and First Maccabees, particularly 1 Mac. 1:54. These works may not be canonical, but one CAN learn about history before making such blunders.

I encourage you to investigate history before thinking that the prophecies of Dani'el 11 aren't already fulfilled. Visit sites like http://www.letgodbet...cy/daniel11.php. Please note that this is NOT my website, nor am I in any way endorsing all that you will find there; however, they have an excellent, very detailed review on how history has already fulfilled the prophecies of Dani'el 11.

And for those who think that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was an "antetype" of the "Antichrist," what good is a prophecy that could have more than one fulfillment?! How does one know if THIS "fulfillment" is THE "fulfillment" for which the prophecy was written?! NO! Any prophecy of Scripture MUST have EXACTLY ONE fulfillment, or the prophecy is no better than those of Jeanne Dixon or Nostradamus! The ONLY exception (which is not truly an exception) is in the case of "double reference"; i.e., a prophecy in which PART of the prophecy is fulfilled EXACTLY ONCE at one point in history while the rest of the prophecy is fulfilled EXACTLY ONCE at some other time in history.

In the book, Bible Prophecy for Blockheads, Douglas Connelly says on page 33, ...

"Techno-Speak: Double Reference

The term double reference is used to describe a Scripture passage in which part of the passage is fulfilled at one time while another part is fulfilled at a later time. Zechariah 9:9-10 is a clear example. Verse 9 was fulfilled during Jesus' earthly ministry; verse 10 will be fulfilled at Jesus' second coming."

That's not the same as saying that the verses about the "abomination" in Dani'el 11:31 can be fulfilled by both Antiochus IV Epiphanes and a future Antichrist! Sorry, it's one or the other, and Antiochus DID already fulfill this passage!

Below is a quote from a site that I think puts it better than I can. the site is http://the.mysteryof...011/02/28/2045/

One thing’s for sure: Whoever stands up in the estate of the king of the north (if antiquity, this is Antiochus lll), whether Antiochus lV Epiphanes, or a final Antichrist, that one continues to the end, i.e., the resurrection of the dead and the deliverance of Israel (Dan 12:1-2). No gap is apparent and clear anywhere in Dan 11, but the conservative believer must find it somewhere. So why not somewhere between Dan 11:21-45? Some futurists propose the gap between verses 35 and 36. I believe I can show how untenable this is from a strictly exegetical standpoint. In my view, it gives away the farm.

Certainly there is overlap of type and anti-type, but it will not do to say that Antiochus fulfills the prophecy down to a certain verse, and then breaks off, leaving a gap in the narrative (who knows where?) to be picked up and carried through to the end. In my view, the type fades ‘mysteriously’ into anti-type, but the future fulfillment doesn’t merely take up where the type left off. Rather, it takes up, not where the type left off, but where the type began. Only this time, the prophecy follows all the way through to the end with utmost continuity of literal detail. That’s my view. I’ve just got to prove it.

Jesus well knew that the book of Maccabees regarded Antiochus to be the one who placed the abomination, but He disregarded this popular view in deference to an infallibly inspired scripture that requires full attention to every jot and tittle of literal detail. So it was clear to our Lord, even from the standpoint of His perfect humanity, that the end did not follow 1290 “days” (nor years) after Antiochus’ desecration of the holy place. I’m jealous for this, not only for sound exegesis, or an apologetics interest in discussing this with Jews, but for a very practical purpose that is eminently spiritual in its result.

Also, how can you say that daniel 9, is future and daniel 11 is history? They both speak of the abomination which causes desolation, and both speak of the end of days. Daniel 9 uses the term 70 weeks, and daniel 11 you must follow into daniel 12. Because daniel 12 starts with the word And. It is a continuation of chapter 11 and it's event's. You can't say one is future and one is history. Jesus also makes a point in Matt. 24 of pointing out the abomination of desoltation was in the future. that it had not happened yet but would at the end. I think they are prophecy and at most Antiochus was a foreshadowing of things to come, which God and the bible do often in the old testament.

I guess it doesn't matter, since we clearly will never change each others mind about this. I'm not too proud to say I'm at the end of my vocabulary in trying to explain my view on this. Maybe someone else will be able to pick up this conversation where ever your answers leave it. I just don't have the words, if this doesn't suffice. Thank you for the responses and may God bless you

I can say that both were to be fulfilled by the time of the Messiah's appearance on the stage of human events. Indeed, most of the individual parts of both WERE fulfilled by the time of the Messiah's arrival; however, because of the overspreading of the abominations of the leaders of the tribe of Y'hudah (Judah) in rejecting their King, GOD'S MESSIAH - GOD'S CHOICE for their King - and the reaction of the Messiah in declaring them desolate - leaving them desolate - until a future generation can welcome Him as they should have done, part of the prophecies of Dani'el 9 have been DELAYED into our future! That's why the events of Dani'el 11 (into Dani'el 12) were fulfilled in the past, but the wider scope of Dani'el 9 was mostly fulfilled in the past but still extends into our future as well because the Messiah Yeshua` put the gap in the middle of the last Seven!

The thing to remember is that these are not just words that make up a "label" in a particular event! They are words that MEAN SOMETHING! Just because both the prophecy of Dani'el 9 and that of Dani'el 11 (through 12) use the words "abomination(s)" and "desolate/desolation," doesn't mean that they are necessarily talking about the same thing! This is why I think it might be better to use synonyms that don't carry the stigma of the "label" syndrome. Notice carefully HOW the words are used in each context! First, they are NOT talking about the same thing, and second, one event has already occurred (the sacrificing of the pig on the altar of the Temple during Antiochus' reign) while the other (the rejection and murder of the Messiah) was still in the future.

Don't just follow some theology - some eschatology - blindly; THINK!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Don't just follow some theology - some eschatology - blindly; THINK!

First, I'm not following any theology, but what I've been shown by God through the Holy Spirit. 2nd I'll say this one time, the event's in daniel 11:21- 45 I believe to be an account of the anti-christ during the 70th week.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shalom, firestormx.

Don't just follow some theology - some eschatology - blindly; THINK!

First, I'm not following any theology, but what I've been shown by God through the Holy Spirit. 2nd I'll say this one time, the event's in daniel 11:21- 45 I believe to be an account of the anti-christ during the 70th week.

First, don't resort to the "shown by God through the Holy Spirit" cop out. In doing so, it's a not-so-well-hidden veiled attempt to take the discussion out of the normal debate between two human beings and put it in the "it's spiritual; so it's out of your hands" realm. It's the same kind of cowardice that preachers who "hide behind the cross" claim while saying untenable things from the pulpit.

Second, believe what you want to believe; it's your choice; HOWEVER, you'd better have STRONG evidence that you are correct, because I've shown you history that verifies that Dani'el 11 is NOT about the antiChrist, but, hey, believe what you wish.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

First, don't resort to the "shown by God through the Holy Spirit" cop out. In doing so, it's a not-so-well-hidden veiled attempt to take the discussion out of the normal debate between two human beings and put it in the "it's spiritual; so it's out of your hands" realm. It's the same kind of cowardice that preachers who "hide behind the cross" claim while saying untenable things from the pulpit.

Second, believe what you want to believe; it's your choice; HOWEVER, you'd better have STRONG evidence that you are correct, because I've shown you history that verifies that Dani'el 11 is NOT about the antiChrist, but, hey, believe what you wish.

First, no it's not a cop-out, when you accuse me of just having theology, which means I have no releationship with God. Your the one that made this about me, instead of the subject. You stated I'm just blindly following, when you don't know the first thing about me. 2nd It's not a cop-out to lean on God through the Holy Spirit revealing his truth through the word of God. It's what we are suppose to do. I will not lean to my own understanding. 3rd. you have not given strong evidance. If it was fullfilled, then every letter, every comma would be fullfilled, and it's not. Christ himself, stated that the abomination of desolation as spoken by daniel was yet to come. So in the end, it's Christ and the word you disagree with, not me. God bless you I'm done with this conversation.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The point Roy is making, and I also make;

A specific pasage of Scripture is being looked at by 10 different people, "theologians", students of the Bible, pastors and teachers - It does not really matter. All say that they have been guided by the Holy Spirit "in this passage", yet all 10 come up with 10 differend meanings or interpretations for the Scriptue or Passage. Who do we believe??? 10 people of renown, all guided by the Holy Spirit, all coming up with different interpretations. When someone uses the term "I have been led/guided by the Holy Spirit" in reference to Scripture, to us this is a red flag and does not hold a lot of water.

In Christ

Montana Marv

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

At the request of the author of the OP this thread is closed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0