The 1,335 days prophecy

[Serving]

William,

 

 

Dan. 10:5 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: 6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

 

This passage is generally accepted to be a theophany of Christ which took place 400 years before Antiochus, so to say that Christ was not revealed before his birth is incorrect. He also appeared to Abraham.

 

Firstly, whoever it is accepting that this was Christ really needs to go back to basics .. because this was an angel .. no point saying which angel (you'd probably argue that too) so just read Daniel 10:12 onwards and see for yourself, that is if churches allow that kind of thing (thinking for oneself).

 

Secondly, this was the context I spoke of concerning Christ : To be revealed is to be known.  

 

And one can not know Christ until they know His doctrine.

 

So again, as I stated, Christ was not revealed before His human birth, His doctrine was unknown until His coming into the world .. He was seen, yes, Abraham spoke to Him also, yes, but Abraham spoke to Him when He was but a figure for that present time. (Go learn what this means)

 

Not forgetting that certain holy men of old saw His PROMISE from afar off and were persuaded of them and embraced them .. but they still did not know His doctrine to come.

 

But know this .. those certain holy men certainly saw the results of the promise, but again .. and understand .. they knew nothing of the doctrine concerning that promise .. thus they did not know Him as I said. 

 

And as the Father declared, the doctrine Christ carried was a MYSTERY to ALL men .. be they prophets or angels .. a MYSTERY kept HIDDEN from the foundation of the world .. a mystery hidden from all men with no exceptions .. hidden until His Christ came into the world ..

 

So again, and accurately so,  Christ was not revealed until His coming into the world, He was a figure of things to come, but was not yet that "thing to come" ( "thing" as it were) .. thus and therefore, your rebuttal is not in line with the scriptures.

 

 

>> Another thing .. and very telling too .. this little horn was not Abraham, was not holy, but was wicked .. are you telling me that wicked men knew  the Prince of Princes before Gods saints did?

 

See where this interpretation leads to? it can only get worse too !!

 

Those who made that interpretation certainly missed that one too .. this is why it is commanded to test all men .. be they of a church or not .. makes no difference.

 

Do not practice blind faith in men, it only leads to a downfall.

 

 

 

Secondly, Antiochus took the name Epiphanes, which means "God manifest." That is, he was claiming to be an incarnation of the God Zeus, the chief of the pantheon of gods of his age.

 

 

This holds no relevance to the argument but instead undermines your position when thought about openly and honestly (like the example above), because Zeus is and never was the Prince of the host.

 

 

 

Third, consider this passage in Daniel 8, wherein the angel is explaining the meaning of the vision:

 

Dan. 8:21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 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. 23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

 

Here the angel specifically says that the "king of fierce countenance" who "shall even rise against the prince of princes" (8:25) will arise in the latter time of the 4 kingdoms that derived from Alexander the Great's empire. All of the those 4 kingdoms were extinguished by the Romans and other powers before Christ was born. Thus, only Antiochus fits the bill of an antichrist-like person who came to power before the end of the kingdoms of the Greeks.

 

You are mistaken and need to look deeper.

 

Who is the Prince of Princes .. tell me.

 

When you accept who He is, then you must accept that that particular part has not yet come to pass because the Prince of Princes was not known back then to be risen against as I stated earlier which thing the scriptures likewise support.

 

How can one stand / rise up against something / someone he knows nothing of?

 

Simply, he can not.

 

Therefore alarm bells should ring to the keen observer, alarm bells signalling a hidden mystery within the verse .. this is how God hides His gems .. He very often hides them within fulfilled prophecies just like this one ..this is not uncommon at all.

 

Anyway, I have made my points, I don't need to go on and on, either you see it or you don't .. simple.

 

Thanks William.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sister]

 

 

These passages of Dan. 8 and 9:24-27 were all fulfilled in accurate detail historically. But you choose to ignore history and/or rewrite it to your suiting. You are welcome to do so, but when you do it in open forum, you deceive others with your falsities, which I will then correct, for the sake of anyone who chooses to hear it. And let them then make up their own minds.

 

I am not ignoring history, but do not agree with your interpretation, which you say, the little horn, this same king with a fierce countenance who magnifies himself against the prince of the host (Christ) by casting the truth to the ground in deceiving, and not by his own power, .....but by Satan's power, as clarified in 2Thessalonians, has nothing to do with the Son of Perdition, but is someone else from the past according to your history books....and mind you, the vision is for the time of the end.  This is what I am specifically disputing.  If you want to go to Daniel 9, we can go there too, because it does not prove anything to back your case on this subject and I would like to prove that God can give us understanding without going to outside sources, because it's all here contained in his Word.

 

Without going to outside sources, we would know nothing about when the Persian Empire ruled, when the Greek Empire defeated it, who Alexander the Great was; we would know practically nothing about the history of the period of Christ's era, would not even know the millennium in which he was born, would not know when the 2nd Temple was destroyed, etc. etc. etc. If ignorance is bliss, bliss on.

 

William,

 

Thanks for your time.  I appreciate you giving me your point of view of how you interpret Daniel, but the source you quoted from, which I quickly checked out, presented some things in there that went against the truth.  If I didn't know the truth, I would miss it.  The false prophet, when he comes will do the same, and even deceive the christian world, and only those who have been fed will understand his dark sentences when casting the truth to the ground.

 

I will just leave you with this;

Listen to the voice of the Shepherd.  The shepherd is The Word of God.  Eat his flesh.  The Word of God is in the holy scriptures, and this is the only place we can go to to depend on truth.  The shepherd's words are spirit, and in print for us, and the holy spirit will connect his words for us to give revelation and truth.  Every scripture can be backed up by another scripture.  His word is in harmony and not confusion if we are given understanding.

If we are proud, he will not show us anything.  The spirit of God works for the good for all those that love him, and is for our edification.  His saints are supposed to love each other.  If there is hatred, then we are not qualified to enter the kingdom, especially when discussing his Word that he gave to us when using reasoning. The enemy will always try to get in and hates the truth.

I am not here to cause a war with anyone, so we have to agree to disagree and move on.

 

Have a nice day, and if you strongly believe what you believe then stick to it, but if you present it to the table, then you have to expect that it will be scrutinised and tested against the scriptures.