Who is the Little Horn of Daniel 8? Can this be linked with the Little Horn in Daniel 7?

[adamjedgar]

35 minutes ago, Diaste said:

First here is 'head or chief, prominent'. Not first in order. Alexander fits this perfectly.

 

yep this is absolutely correct Diaste. Almost all of the world kingdoms spoken of in the bible had many kings...this did not necessarily have anything to do with the time that a particular civilisations first king came on the scene. Its a bit of a silly argument to claim oh it cannot be AG because he was not the first king.

It highlights however, what i have been trying to say all along...the world powers in Daniel 2 are not kings, they are kingdoms! The same goes for the little horn...those seeking fulfilment of this little horn in an individual are being fooled. It has always been an idea and representatives of that idea, not a single individual. If the little horn was an individual, then clearly we have a problem, because with the outrageous theories being randomly plucked out of thin air and tossed around on this thread, that individual must be 2000 years old by now!

 

I think the biggest problem with some of the statements on this thread are from individuals who are completely confused about the way in which dual prophecies work.

Dual prophecies have two time periods in which they are applied. In the case of Daniel, there is the direct correlation with the Jewish exile, but there is also a long distant future application. Thus people get completely muddled up...they forget that and start clutching at all sorts of straws trying to find answers.

When an angel says to Daniel, this is about the end of time...its talking about exactly that...then end of time just prior to the second coming of Christ. The book of Daniel did not end in AD 70...the world did not end in AD 70. Almost all proponents of the Antiochus Epiphanes theory seem to land on that date for the coming of the messiah...it is seems to be the only way to make this doctrine work. Then we end up with the ridiculous "secret rapture" doctrine that the Jehovahs Witnesses made up when they simply could not get AD 70 to work! It ends up being so convoluted, so full or errors, one ends up having to write their own twisted bible translation to fix the conflicts...hence i present to you "The New World Translation" as point and example.

Best to not try to explain away self evident theology in order to support crazy doctrines. It was not specifically AE who Daniel 8 is talking about...its the Seleucid Kingdom, it was a number of their kings who fulfilled that prophecy. AE was but one of them. 

Finally, the Seluecid kingdom is part of the Greek empire...I tire of having to repeat this irrefutable historical fact! It is now as self evident as our need for oxygen. One can attempt to deny this all one likes, the reality is 100% self evident!!!!

"Seleucus the Victorious") was a Macedonian Greek general, a Diadochi of Alexander the Great and ultimately king who fought for control over his empire after his death" (wikipedia)

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Charlie744]

1 hour ago, adamjedgar said:

yep this is absolutely correct Diaste. Almost all of the world kingdoms spoken of in the bible had many kings...this did not necessarily have anything to do with the time that a particular civilisations first king came on the scene. Its a bit of a silly argument to claim oh it cannot be AG because he was not the first king.

It highlights however, what i have been trying to say all along...the world powers in Daniel 2 are not kings, they are kingdoms! The same goes for the little horn...those seeking fulfilment of this little horn in an individual are being fooled. It has always been an idea and representatives of that idea, not a single individual. If the little horn was an individual, then clearly we have a problem, because with the outrageous theories being randomly plucked out of thin air and tossed around on this thread, that individual must be 2000 years old by now!

 

I think the biggest problem with some of the statements on this thread are from individuals who are completely confused about the way in which dual prophecies work.

Dual prophecies have two time periods in which they are applied. In the case of Daniel, there is the direct correlation with the Jewish exile, but there is also a long distant future application. Thus people get completely muddled up...they forget that and start clutching at all sorts of straws trying to find answers.

When an angel says to Daniel, this is about the end of time...its talking about exactly that...then end of time just prior to the second coming of Christ. The book of Daniel did not end in AD 70...the world did not end in AD 70. Almost all proponents of the Antiochus Epiphanes theory seem to land on that date for the coming of the messiah...it is seems to be the only way to make this doctrine work. Then we end up with the ridiculous "secret rapture" doctrine that the Jehovahs Witnesses made up when they simply could not get AD 70 to work! It ends up being so convoluted, so full or errors, one ends up having to write their own twisted bible translation to fix the conflicts...hence i present to you "The New World Translation" as point and example.

Best to not try to explain away self evident theology in order to support crazy doctrines. It was not specifically AE who Daniel 8 is talking about...its the Seleucid Kingdom, it was a number of their kings who fulfilled that prophecy. AE was but one of them. 

Finally, the Seluecid kingdom is part of the Greek empire...I tire of having to repeat this irrefutable historical fact! It is now as self evident as our need for oxygen. One can attempt to deny this all one likes, the reality is 100% self evident!!!!

"Seleucus the Victorious") was a Macedonian Greek general, a Diadochi of Alexander the Great and ultimately king who fought for control over his empire after his death" (wikipedia)

 

 

 

Hope you do not mind but I got a little lost ...

Please help me understand...

There are two comments causing me this confusion:

1) the ‘end time’ by Gabriel- there are 2 ‘end time’ statements made (without going back to the very last few chapters). But the one I think you are referring to is not (my opinion) the end of days meaning. Instead he is telling Daniel these events you should not concern yourself with because they will take place after you are long gone- they will all be completed / fulfilled at the end of the 490 (70 weeks prophecy) years. The 70 weeks prophecy must come to be fulfilled first and the second ‘end times’ is at His second coming. 

2) Also my opinion of course). I am lost in your comment about AE. Are you saying he is the ‘little horn’? 

AE was not even one of the 4 generals who ruled the 4 territories after AG. His only claim to fame is his terrible mistreatment of the Jews along with anyone else he came across- he was a power hungry thug. Charlie 

[The Light]

6 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

 

When an angel says to Daniel, this is about the end of time...its talking about exactly that...then end of time just prior to the second coming of Christ. The book of Daniel did not end in AD 70...the world did not end in AD 70. Almost all proponents of the Antiochus Epiphanes theory seem to land on that date for the coming of the messiah...it is seems to be the only way to make this doctrine work. Then we end up with the ridiculous "secret rapture" doctrine that the Jehovahs Witnesses made up when they simply could not get AD 70 to work! 

 

 

I don't believe in the Antiochus Epiphanes fulfillment, nor do I believe that the Jehovahs Witnesss made up the "secret rapture", or that John Nelson Darby yada, yada, yada. That said, I can look in Word and look at the feasts of Israel and understand that there will be a pre 70th week rapture. For you to say it is ridiculous only means you have not grasped the truth.

[adamjedgar]

15 hours ago, The Light said:

I don't believe in the Antiochus Epiphanes fulfillment, nor do I believe that the Jehovahs Witnesss made up the "secret rapture", or that John Nelson Darby yada, yada, yada. That said, I can look in Word and look at the feasts of Israel and understand that there will be a pre 70th week rapture. For you to say it is ridiculous only means you have not grasped the truth.

i do believe in a rapture...i think we both agree with that doctrine. To be honest, i think all Christians believe in a rapture...that is part of the Gospel!

What i do not agree is that it is a secret! 

My understanding of the Second Coming of Jesus is that it will be a loud and very public world wide event. "He shall come with a shout", "the blast of trumpets", "Every Eye shall see Him"...there is nothing secret about any of that!

What i find highly unusual about the secret theology...people take the passage "he shall come as a thief in the night" to mean it must be secret, stealthy. I wonder if that could also be a translational issue as there are an overwhelming number of other bible passages that clearly refute that interpretation. Anyway, clearly the "thief in the night" text means something different to how its often interpreted!

I think the real meaning is that we do not know the day in which our house might be robbed by a thief, so we must always be ready! To put this in second coming terms, it simply means, "no one knows the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man shall come in the clouds of heaven, no one but the Father in Heaven", we should "build our house upon the Rock"...not on the sand!

 

Can i just edit what you said about AE...there is no such doctrine as AE is the Little Horn! It was not a man...it never has been a man, it is never even spoken of as a single man. The historical record for the Seleucid Empire does not even support that view...its just plain wrong!

The Little Horn is so much more than an individual...its an idea, a false Gospel. I think that when one studies the prophecies in Daniel, it is very clear that the Little Horn rises out of the Christian Church itself...and what better way to setup and A/C!. This does not mean that men cant be elevated to positions of power of the Little Horn, however, the point is, its a major world influencing power.

The reason a lot of Christian denominations claim it [the little horn] is represented by Catholicism is obvious...the combining of Church and State, and then the abuse of power to persecute Gods people during the Dark Ages, more than adequately fulfils that belief! I am not hear to earbash Catholics though, i have an Aunty who is Catholic, she is a wonderful person who attends prayer meeting and also Mass every week. 

I am actually looking forward to Charlie77 taking this one on and proving that the Little Horn and the A/C are not come out of the Catholic Church. I would love to see a different take on this to the traditional one...I honestly wonder if there is any credibility in the idea that the A/C may not even be denominational!

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Charlie744]

2 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

i do believe in a rapture...i think we both agree with that doctrine. To be honest, i think all Christians believe in a rapture...that is part of the Gospel!

What i do not agree is that it is a secret! 

My understanding of the Second Coming of Jesus is that it will be a loud and very public world wide event. "He shall come with a shout", "the blast of trumpets", "Every Eye shall see Him"...there is nothing secret about any of that!

What i find highly unusual about the secret theology...people take the passage "he shall come as a thief in the night" to mean it must be secret, stealthy. I wonder if that could also be a translational issue as there are an overwhelming number of other bible passages that clearly refute that interpretation. Anyway, clearly the "thief in the night" text means something different to how its often interpreted!

I think the real meaning is that we do not know the day in which our house might be robbed by a thief, so we must always be ready! To put this in second coming terms, it simply means, "no one knows the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man shall come in the clouds of heaven, no one but the Father in Heaven", we should "build our house upon the Rock"...not on the sand!

 

Can i just edit what you said about AE...there is no such doctrine as AE is the Little Horn! It was not a man...it never has been a man, it is never even spoken of as a single man. The historical record for the Seleucid Empire does not even support that view...its just plain wrong!

The Little Horn is so much more than an individual...its an idea, a false Gospel. I think that when one studies the prophecies in Daniel, it is very clear that the Little Horn rises out of the Christian Church itself...and what better way to setup and A/C!. This does not mean that men cant be elevated to positions of power of the Little Horn, however, the point is, its a major world influencing power.

The reason a lot of Christian denominations claim it [the little horn] is represented by Catholicism is obvious...the combining of Church and State, and then the abuse of power to persecute Gods people during the Dark Ages, more than adequately fulfils that belief! I am not hear to earbash Catholics though, i have an Aunty who is Catholic, she is a wonderful person who attends prayer meeting and also Mass every week. 

I am actually looking forward to Charlie77 taking this one on and proving that the Little Horn and the A/C are not come out of the Catholic Church. I would love to see a different take on this to the traditional one...I honestly wonder if there is any credibility in the idea that the A/C may not even be denominational!

 

I have absolutely no idea who the AC is!!!! I do understand he is only mentioned a few time in the NT but there is no mention of him in the OT. 

Regarding the little horn... there is absolutely no doubt in my mind he is the papacy/pope. The little horn must be a man AND he must continue until the end of times. He will THINK to change times and laws and speak against the Most High. There are many other characteristics this little one has and the papacy fits them ALL. 

It is a man yet his POSITION, POWER, and TITLE, etc., transfers seamlessly from pope to pope. 

He came OUT of the beast. When did the beast occur? Why is he titled ‘the little horn’? He came out of the beast AFTER the 10 horns arose from OUT of the beast. Once the little horn came to power he pulled out 3 of the 10 horns leaving 7 remaining? When did this happen? 

Now, I have not been able to study Revelation at all but I do know Daniel MUST be interpreted BEFORE Revelation is attempted. Otherwise the misinterpretations in Daniel (example: 9:27), will translate to terrible misinterpretations in Revelation. 

If you can find AE or the Ptolemy’s or the Seleucid folks in chapter 2 then they belong in the later chapters of Daniel. The only reference for the post AG Empire is the distribution to the 4 generals- they are represented by the 4 heads. They do not become, or migrate, or begin the 4th kingdom. They stay within the boundaries God has set for them in the 3rd kingdom. Verses 11:1 to 4 are no more than a summary or recap of the first 3 kingdoms. They are done with... Verse 11:5 to the end begin with pagan Rome and ends with His second coming. 

Once again, commentators have attempted to match the actors and events in chapter 11 to OUR historical records. God is not writing about them... He is finishing His Plan of Salvation (the most important part) which all occurs in the 4th kingdom- 11 and 12! 

There is absolutely nothing meaningful or of prophetic value associated with the post AG 4 generals OR the folks wanting and fighting for power in the ‘inter testimonial period’. Go back to chapter 2- everything of major importance takes place in the 4th kingdom- the Messiah arrives and is crucified... Not a Seleucid kingdom. 

Anyway, this is why Daniel is such a tremendous book to study and unpack- simply amazing! 

Just my opinion, Charlie 

 

[The Light]

6 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

i do believe in a rapture...i think we both agree with that doctrine. To be honest, i think all Christians believe in a rapture...that is part of the Gospel!

What most don't understand is there are two raptures.

John 10

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

6 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

What i do not agree is that it is a secret! 

My understanding of the Second Coming of Jesus is that it will be a loud and very public world wide event. "He shall come with a shout", "the blast of trumpets", "Every Eye shall see Him"...there is nothing secret about any of that!

There are two raptures. One will be in secret and in one every eye will see the coming of the Lord.

One rapture will be like the days of Noah where Noah is in the ark 7 days before the flood. Likewise also, one rapture will be like the days of Lot where the very day Lot left Sodom, destruction comes.

The rapture where all eyes see the coming of the Lord takes place at the 6th seal, just prior to the wrath of God.

The secret rapture of the Church will occur before the seals are opened. Here it is in the Old Testament.

Song of Solomon 2

8 The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills.

9 My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice.

10 My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.

11 For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone;

12 The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

13 The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.

14 O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.

[The Light]

2 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

I have absolutely no idea who the AC is!!!!

 

Well, you should. I told EXACTLY where to find who the antichrist is. 

[The Light]

6 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

iCan i just edit what you said about AE...there is no such doctrine as AE is the Little Horn! It was not a man...it never has been a man, it is never even spoken of as a single man. The historical record for the Seleucid Empire does not even support that view...its just plain wrong!

The Little Horn is so much more than an individual...its an idea, a false Gospel. I think that when one studies the prophecies in Daniel, it is very clear that the Little Horn rises out of the Christian Church itself...and what better way to setup and A/C!. This does not mean that men cant be elevated to positions of power of the Little Horn, however, the point is, its a major world influencing power.

The reason a lot of Christian denominations claim it [the little horn] is represented by Catholicism is obvious...the combining of Church and State, and then the abuse of power to persecute Gods people during the Dark Ages, more than adequately fulfils that belief! I am not hear to earbash Catholics though, i have an Aunty who is Catholic, she is a wonderful person who attends prayer meeting and also Mass every week. 

I am actually looking forward to Charlie77 taking this one on and proving that the Little Horn and the A/C are not come out of the Catholic Church. I would love to see a different take on this to the traditional one...I honestly wonder if there is any credibility in the idea that the A/C may not even be denominational!

 

The Antichrist is a man.

Isaiah 14

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

[Charlie744]

1 hour ago, The Light said:

Well, you should. I told EXACTLY where to find who the antichrist is. 

Oh, that is right! I went back maybe 8pages and re-read your post... 

So you are saying the beast, the little horn and the AC are all the same person? 

Please stay with me here and if you will, do not leave Daniel (consider you are sitting next to Paul during one of his teachings). Revelation is still some time later -not written. 

Who is the beast in Daniel 7?

Who is the little horn in Daniel 7 & 8? (this guy comes OUT of the beast).

Remember, no mention of the AC in the OT...

Thanks, Charlie 

[JoeCanada]

1 hour ago, The Light said:

The Antichrist is a man.

Isaiah 14

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Hi Light,

Yes, I do agree. The Antichrist is a man, ie: human.

I think you have already stated that the Beast, the Little Horn and the Antichrist are all the same person. I also agree. 

The Antichrist is a man, but he is also a DEMON:

"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come out of the abyss and go to destruction"...Rev 17:8

Here we see that the beast comes up out of the abyss..... which is a holding area for demons. 

From the same passage, we see that the beast is also an earthly king:

" I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having 7 heads and 10 horns....the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are 7 kings"...Rev 17:3, 9-10

This proves the multi-plex nature of the beast; its heads are 2 things at once: "the 7 heads are 7 mountains and 7 kings"

I know... someone is going to say..." Why does the beast exhibit the same exact 7 heads as Satan if the beast itself is only one of the heads? Simple: The beast incorporates all of Satan's previous kingdoms (heads) into one.

So....the beast is a human ruler: the antichrist

And a political empire.... a king with a kingdom

And a spiritual demonic being...an Archon

It would take quite a few pages to unpack this, but I think if you look at Dan and Rev... you will see this 3-part nature.