Kings of the north meeting in Jerusalem

[Shilohsfoal]

17 minutes ago, Revelation Man said:

Real intelligent reply. When you can't reply, just wing it. I quoted actual scriptures. SMH

 

90 percent of what you said was not scripture.Try again

[simplejeff]

13 minutes ago, Shilohsfoal said:

90 percent of what you said was not scripture.Try again

NINETY-FIVE to NINETY-NINE PERCENT of everything posted on forums is NOT SCRIPTURE.  

So you will have to be A LOT MORE SPECIFIC,  like one item at a time, if you hope to accomplish anything worthwhile.

[Shilohsfoal]

1 hour ago, simplejeff said:

NINETY-FIVE to NINETY-NINE PERCENT of everything posted on forums is NOT SCRIPTURE.  

So you will have to be A LOT MORE SPECIFIC,  like one item at a time, if you hope to accomplish anything worthwhile.

Sometimes that doesnt even work.

[Shilohsfoal]

19 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

Daniel 11:1-33 has been fulfilled.....34 and 35 is being fulfilled, the rest of the verses is about the Little Horn/Anti-Christ. 

Ok,since you,as the pharisees believed dan 11:1-33 was fulfilled,

Do you believe the Pharisees were wise?

https://biblehub.com/daniel/12-10.htm

[Revelation Man]

4 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said:

Ok,since you,as the pharisees believed dan 11:1-33 was fulfilled,

Do you believe the Pharisees were wise?

https://biblehub.com/daniel/12-10.htm

I have an old thread that explains every King in Dan. 11..... 

So my understandings are there for all to see. You see the only reason I am "WRONG" is you think a different way. Some think its Antiochus from verse 21 to 45 others think its the coming Anti-Christ from verse 21-45, most of Christendom however sees it like I do, that Antiochus is seen from verse 21-33, then from verse 36-45 we see the Anti-Christ/Little Horn. Now if we will be honest, we will have to admit that the King of the North in verse 40 can't be Antiochus, because he Conquers Egypt in verses 42-43, and we know that Antiochus was met by a Roman Ambassador who came to deliver a message for the Roman Senate, this man who drew a circle around Antiochus and forbade him from invading Egypt. So it did not, nor could it have happened. 

Wars with Egypt 

The guardians of King Ptolemy VI Philometor demanded the return of Coele-Syria in 170 BC, but Antiochus launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, conquering all but Alexandria and capturing King Ptolemy. To avoid alarming Rome, Antiochus allowed Ptolemy VI to continue ruling as a puppet king. Upon Antiochus' withdrawal, the city of Alexandria chose a new king, one of Ptolemy's brothers, also named Ptolemy (VIII Euergetes). The Ptolemy brothers agreed to rule Egypt jointly instead of fighting a civil war.[citation needed]

In 168 BC, Antiochus led a second attack on Egypt and also sent a fleet to capture Cyprus. Before he reached Alexandria, his path was blocked by a single elderly Roman ambassador named Gaius Popillius Laenas who delivered a message from the Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt and Cyprus or consider himself in a state of war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss it with his council, whereupon the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around Antiochus and said: "Before you leave this circle, give me a reply that I can take back to the Roman Senate." This implied Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.[11]

Dan. 11:29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. 30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

{{{ So Antiochus RETURNS to Egypt and is rebuffed by Rome, his return will not be as the FORMER {when he pretty much ran Egypt} or as the LATTER {When the Anti-Christ/Little Horn Conquers Egypt}. So in order to believe that Antiochus is in verses 36-45 we have to believe the bible is wrong and all of history that shows Antiochus only Conquered Egypt ONCE is also wrong !! He was Rebuffed by Rome in 168 BC, he died in 164 BC, it didn't happen, Antiochus is not the King of the North in verse 40, nor is he the King who exalted himself above all in verse 36. He died while fighting the Parthians on the Western front, from a disease. He never conquered Egypt again.....verses 42-43 say that Egypt is Conquered by this man. Just because we buy into something, doesn't mean we shouldn't change when we see the facts. }}}

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. 32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. 33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

 

Antiochus left someone else in control and went to fight on the Western Front after he took the daily away and sacrificed a pig to Zeus, but verse 37 says he will not regard ANY GOD. It's not the same guy, nor can it be. We were shown Antiochus as the Anti-Christs EXACT LIKENESS, a type so to speak. Epiphanes in Greek means God Manifest, so eve though he served other Gods, he saw himself as a god, hes the TYPE of Anti-Christ. 

Jesus told the people to heed the Pharisees, for what they said was true, but to not follow their ways. They did not understand that the LAW was just a tool to get us to Christ, so they missed their marks, but they knew the Law and the Holy Word, they however made the exact same mistakes I see many Christians make, when they got an idea in their head, it was THEIR PRIDE that stopped them from being corrected by God. I spent months on a blog and wrote that that CITY in Rev. 17:18 was Rome, however the Holy Spirit showed me I was wrong and I went online and rewrote my Blog to say it was Babylon, the city John SAW in his vision on her forehead.  I love being REPROVED by God, that way I gain TRUTH from the Truth Giver. Those that can't be wrong can't ever gain God's truths in full, ONLY God is always right, we humans see darkly in this age.

 

[Shilohsfoal]

47 minutes ago, Revelation Man said:

I have an old thread that explains every King in Dan. 11..... 

So my understandings are there for all to see. You see the only reason I am "WRONG" is you think a different way. Some think its Antiochus from verse 21 to 45 others think its the coming Anti-Christ from verse 21-45, most of Christendom however sees it like I do, that Antiochus is seen from verse 21-33, then from verse 36-45 we see the Anti-Christ/Little Horn. Now if we will be honest, we will have to admit that the King of the North in verse 40 can't be Antiochus, because he Conquers Egypt in verses 42-43, and we know that Antiochus was met by a Roman Ambassador who came to deliver a message for the Roman Senate, this man who drew a circle around Antiochus and forbade him from invading Egypt. So it did not, nor could it have happened. 

Wars with Egypt 

The guardians of King Ptolemy VI Philometor demanded the return of Coele-Syria in 170 BC, but Antiochus launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, conquering all but Alexandria and capturing King Ptolemy. To avoid alarming Rome, Antiochus allowed Ptolemy VI to continue ruling as a puppet king. Upon Antiochus' withdrawal, the city of Alexandria chose a new king, one of Ptolemy's brothers, also named Ptolemy (VIII Euergetes). The Ptolemy brothers agreed to rule Egypt jointly instead of fighting a civil war.[citation needed]

In 168 BC, Antiochus led a second attack on Egypt and also sent a fleet to capture Cyprus. Before he reached Alexandria, his path was blocked by a single elderly Roman ambassador named Gaius Popillius Laenas who delivered a message from the Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt and Cyprus or consider himself in a state of war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss it with his council, whereupon the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around Antiochus and said: "Before you leave this circle, give me a reply that I can take back to the Roman Senate." This implied Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.[11]

Dan. 11:29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. 30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

{{{ So Antiochus RETURNS to Egypt and is rebuffed by Rome, his return will not be as the FORMER {when he pretty much ran Egypt} or as the LATTER {When the Anti-Christ/Little Horn Conquers Egypt}. So in order to believe that Antiochus is in verses 36-45 we have to believe the bible is wrong and all of history that shows Antiochus only Conquered Egypt ONCE is also wrong !! He was Rebuffed by Rome in 168 BC, he died in 164 BC, it didn't happen, Antiochus is not the King of the North in verse 40, nor is he the King who exalted himself above all in verse 36. He died while fighting the Parthians on the Western front, from a disease. He never conquered Egypt again.....verses 42-43 say that Egypt is Conquered by this man. Just because we buy into something, doesn't mean we shouldn't change when we see the facts. }}}

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. 32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. 33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

 

Antiochus left someone else in control and went to fight on the Western Front after he took the daily away and sacrificed a pig to Zeus, but verse 37 says he will not regard ANY GOD. It's not the same guy, nor can it be. We were shown Antiochus as the Anti-Christs EXACT LIKENESS, a type so to speak. Epiphanes in Greek means God Manifest, so eve though he served other Gods, he saw himself as a god, hes the TYPE of Anti-Christ. 

Jesus told the people to heed the Pharisees, for what they said was true, but to not follow their ways. They did not understand that the LAW was just a tool to get us to Christ, so they missed their marks, but they knew the Law and the Holy Word, they however made the exact same mistakes I see many Christians make, when they got an idea in their head, it was THEIR PRIDE that stopped them from being corrected by God. I spent months on a blog and wrote that that CITY in Rev. 17:18 was Rome, however the Holy Spirit showed me I was wrong and I went online and rewrote my Blog to say it was Babylon, the city John SAW in his vision on her forehead.  I love being REPROVED by God, that way I gain TRUTH from the Truth Giver. Those that can't be wrong can't ever gain God's truths in full, ONLY God is always right, we humans see darkly in this age.

 

I didnt see where you answerd the question.

Do you believe the Pharisees who interpreted dan 1-33 the same as you are wise men?

https://biblehub.com/daniel/12-10.htm

[Revelation Man]

1 hour ago, Shilohsfoal said:

I didnt see where you answerd the question.

Do you believe the Pharisees who interpreted dan 1-33 the same as you are wise men?

https://biblehub.com/daniel/12-10.htm

I answered in the last paragraph, which means you didn't bother to read, so why reply ? I don't reply to posts I don't read. 

The word speaks for itself. All the dodgy tactics make me SMH to be honest. That is what the Pharisees tried with Jesus remember ? 

 

[Shilohsfoal]

4 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

I answered in the last paragraph, which means you didn't bother to read, so why reply ? I don't reply to posts I don't read. 

The word speaks for itself. All the dodgy tactics make me SMH to be honest. That is what the Pharisees tried with Jesus remember ? 

 

You didnt answer.

Will younot say your teachers are wise?

https://biblehub.com/daniel/12-10.htm

Edited June 7, 2019 by Shilohsfoal

[Revelation Man]

50 minutes ago, Shilohsfoal said:

You didnt answer.

Will younot say your teachers are wise?

https://biblehub.com/daniel/12-10.htm

God is my teacher.....and I did answer. Why don't you answer why Antiochus can't be the person in the last 10 verses of Dan. 11 ? 

[Shilohsfoal]

3 minutes ago, Revelation Man said:

God is my teacher.....and I did answer. Why don't you answer why Antiochus can't be the person in the last 10 verses of Dan. 11 ? 

God did not teach you what you claim.

You are in direct contradiction of what Christ taught in the gospel.

You got your translation of Daniel 11 from the pharisees and you have completely ignored the words of Christ.