Jump to content

Jonathan Dane

Junior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jonathan Dane

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    truth, Bible, prophecy, music

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree with that an "element" remains. Where we disagree is whether Scripture demands that that element must belong to a particular location or bloodline. The time of the vision does belong to the end. But it finds its identity in the shadow (history). Antiochus is the focus of this particular section. I appreciate that disagree.
  2. You are making assumptions dear brother. I make it clear in my book that I had always assumed the AC would come from Greece, which, after studying the topic further, realized that I, like many others, had a misunderstanding of Daniel's typology. I have a chapter in my book called, "Antichrist from Greece?" Fact is, there is nothing in Scripture that demands that the AC must originate from Greece. Those passages in Daniel are referring to Antiochus Epiphanes. The Bible also calls the Antichrist the Prince of Tyre, the Prince of Israel, the King of Babylon, etc. It's typology. In fact, America is a product of all those places. Visit Wash. DC and look around.
  3. Yes, and the very next verse (8:20) mentions the king of Medes/Persians - HISTORY. My point is that Daniel 8 is not cut and dry. It's tricky.
  4. Quickly, your last statement is great and wise. I receive that, thank you. For clarification, I never said that Jesus (or Daniel for that matter) was not referring to an end-time person when describing the A of D. With any type or shadow (is there a difference in those terms?) there are always two, a type as well as its corresponding anti-type. Daniel mentions the A of D in 3 different places. We were discussing one citation in particular in chapter 8. That was the section you were using to support your conclusion of that the AC must come from a certain place or at least have a certain bloodline. My point was that in that particular section, I believe Daniel was primarily focusing on Antiochus. There is not the need to make every detail correspond to the end figure. That's why I said Daniel is a difficult book.
  5. I numbered your points above to better respond. This will be brief. If you want to unpack something, let's focus one issue at a time, please. 1.) check 2.) check -- Has he committed full-on bribery? I don't know. But he has a history of milking the system for personal gain. I would consider his business ethic as "missing." 3.) You interpreted what laws the AC will change. There's only one problem, Daniel doesn't give us a list. Does "T" do things in a nature that thumbs a nose up to laws and tradition? The guy just tweeted Kim Jong-un for a little handshake on North Korean soil. Yes -- of course changing laws and traditions is something he'd do (and does) without batting an eye. The only thing presently holding him back are what's left of the safeguards established in our Constitution. 4.) check 5.) Hasn't yet occurred, but "T's" the perfect specimen. 6.) I would argue that T already deifies himself. 7.) Another thing I believe will fully manifest in the trib. Again, T is a perfect container for this. The guy will not hesitate to besmirch anything and everything sacred. What is holding him back for now is the fact that the faith community is propping him up. But I can't imagine the Bible would say that the beast actually rides on the back of a religious entity, can you? 8.) The AC will be an anti-semite. But not initially. He starts out in support of Israel and only later turns. 9.) The fireworks with the False Prophet obviously have yet to occur. But they will. But it's not like T would ever want to have a fireworks display in his honor. (By the way, will you be checking out T's military parade today?) 10.) Does unrightous deception (is there a righteous form of deception?) characterize "T"?? To a tee. 11.) Any man who boasts that he can grab a woman's genitals while boasting, "When you're this famous (powerful), they let you do it." IS A VIOLENT MAN -- YES YES YES. (How far we have slid.) 12.) Yeah -- big check on this one. Well, not only do I believe T makes my check list, he also does well on yours.
  6. The "problem" is that it becomes difficult to respond when I have a number of guys laying out all their details on how eschatology will unravel. I just don't have the time to answer everyone's particulars. Yet I know the devil's in the details. It just frustrates me that I can't address all of them. If you and I were sitting down talking face to face, it would be easier. Regarding Daniel 8, this is an example of what I am talking about. You indicate that the end-time AC is being directly referenced here; that this particular section must be a direct reference to him; that he must, either by location or bloodline, comform to these particulars (coming out of the 4 generals, etc.) That is what I mean by your "smell test." You are putting demands on this texts that the NT writers, including Christ, never did. The small horn here is Antiochus Epiphanes, NOT the AC (at least not directly). Epiphanes is pictured in that section of Daniel 8. He committed the Abomination of Desolation. It happened over 2000 years ago. This is not direct prophecy in these verses. (Later, yes) It's typology. He's a "type" of antichrist but he is not THE Antichrist. That's why I said that this all comes down to hermeneutics and specifically the need to understand biblical typology, which you said yourself that you put little stock in. Well, Jesus and the apostles demonstrated topological usage over and over again. AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT DEMANDS EVERY DETAIL IN A TYPE BE FOUND IN IT'S ANTI-TYPE. (I'm not yelling.) Will the AC commit the a similar offense in the temple? Yes. Must they he grow up on the same playground as Antiochus? Absolutely not. Because of that, I believe you are throwing up hoops for the AC to jump through that God never intended. This applies whether you argue location or bloodline. Siding with the majority of Bible scholars does not prove me correct. Your moving the goal post. But it does show that my general understanding is in line with the scholars that understand the Bible's limitations when it comes to typology. The limitation of types matter. Being the president of a steam engine club is a type of president. It's not The President. Time will prove me correct. I believe that. I appreciate the discussion. But don't let this become a watershed issue. Look at all the parallels in "T." There are many. Initially, I too thought the AC must come out of Europe/MiddleEast. I went back to Scripture to find I was wrong. By the way - I sent this at 10:33, a split section before we had an earthquake here in So. Cal. So don't mess with me!! LOL
  7. This is the problem with this format. Dear brother, I know you have a very elaborate and detailed study of how you believe this geopolitical stuff will work out. I think that's marvelous. Because you and others like you have this so tightly wired and settled, is it possible that you may be putting the cuffs on God to insure the AC pass your schematic smell test? I'm just throwing question out there. I suspect this may be happening. There is no way I can go tit-for-tat with you on each of your peculiar ideas of how this will all turn out. My thing is much more simple. I see an eerily familiar man in power. This analogy has its limitations but will hopefully get my point across. Imagine you're a cop and an APB goes out to look for a particular suspect. It's detailed. They have him on camera. His clothing, height, weight, nationality, tattoo, and a weird limp are given. Then you see a guy matching all those things. You take him in and run an investigation. More and more incriminating evidence piles up. Eventually, there are an abundance of ties that convince his accusers of his guilt. They have their guy-- they are certain of it. That's all I'm doing. Bottom line: There's too much stuff. It is not statistically possible the AC could be anyone else. It cannot "not" be him. Does he fit your scheme? He didn't fit mine either. Even so, I can say that my basic understanding of Daniel and Revelation is still in line with the majority of evangelical scholars who subscribe to a futurists understanding of Revelation. My views regarding the AC and the 4th beast are in line with a large percentage of conservative biblical scholarship. Does that make my understanding correct? No. But neither does it make it out of the mainstream - the norm. Where I part with the mainstream is the idea of a presently known American Antichrist. Those who believe that are still few in number, but it's growing every day. It's safe to say that there are thousands of us. If I had to guess, that number increases another 3-5% every month. But my point is this: My basic understanding of eschatology is in line with the evangelical mainstream. Why do bring this up? Because I don't have to defend my understanding of a Roman 4th beast. That has been hashed over for decades. If those previous scholars don't convince you, neither will I. Fact is, I have no desire to get into the eschatological weeds. A MAN -- A PROFILE. That's my focus.
  8. I'm taking my cues contextually from the passage in question (Daniel 11), not Israel's modern-day political structure; a biblical context that points to the Temple - not government. We gotta be careful not to get the cart before the horse by reading backwards.
  9. Your statements and their implications: "The doctrine might not be any problem for those who love God, who are called according to His Purpose." Implication: I do not belong to said group. "You thus must have used other false ideas, false interpretations, and false premises to speak that error." Implication: I am a man of falsehood. (You gave no evidence of error but simply presumed it as fact -- I "must have used" etc. Fact is, you know nothing of what I did and didn't use.) "If you had read the truth the last 40 years and comprehended it´╗┐, you never would have published such a crime, because you would have known the truth, and the truth would have set you free from the errors of your book." Implication: 1.) I have neither read nor comprehend truth. 2.) I am a criminal. (Those are typically the ones who commit crimes.) "Well, some people go ahead and publish anyway, usually for money, even when they know it is error." Implication: I did not write my book because of a desire for truth but to deceive because of my love of filthy lucre. I would never say a Christian should not judge. Yet Christ warns us not to judge presumptively or hypocritically, but rather, wisely, prayerfully, and selflessly. I stand with Paul to say that your judgement of me is a small thing, to be sure. By the way, I'm posting entire chapters of my book on my Facebook page (for free). You should check it out sometime. It's always a good idea to be informed on person's criminal activities "before" you throw down the gavel. https://www.facebook.com/RiseOfTheLittleHorn/
  10. Brother, I respect that you disagree. And I understand. If the tables were switched, I cannot say I would respond any differently. The worst criminals in society are given the opportunity to FULLY state their case before any verdict is given. You haven't graced me with that much. If you want to cast judgement onto me (apparently including assigning the motives of my heart), without reading my book, that is your right. Just be mindful that just because you have the "right" to do something, doesn't make it right. And yes -- I am aware that this also applies to me. I repeat, I'd be willing to bet that my judgement of "T" was made less presumptuously than your judgement of me. I talk much of the meaning of "T's" name in my book. My last name is Dane. It means - "as God is my judge." I leave it there. "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you..." (1 Cor. 4:3)
  11. Yes. Although I would not describe it as a suspicion.
  12. What are my thoughts. The first one that comes to mind is that we will just have to wait and see. There are a lot of smart people on here who are keeping a close eye on the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. You and others bring up some interesting observations. As far as events that will happen during the tribulation, my focus is much more immediate. Again, we'll have to wait and see.
  13. I can't respond to a bald assertion other than to say that you are incorrect. I would be willing to bet that my observation (or judgement, if you will) of "T" was done with more caution, prayer, introspection and fear of the Lord than was your judgement of me. Have a nice day.
  14. Fact is, there is not a single word in the Greek New Testament that is capitalized. That is because there are no capital letters in the Greek language. Even so, many translations do indeed capitalize the word Antichrist in that passage. And rightly so.
  • Create New...