My personal eclectic view

ewq1938 said:

That's wise. Denominations are full of false doctrines, all of them.



It will be very hard for them to get things right if they adhere to what their denomination teaches. Definitely better to leave and search for truth without denominational bias.

Click to expand...

We still can't forsake the assembling of ourselves together though. That is what some did in the first century because they were not under the Law, so forsook the Sabbath, and even the first day because it wasn't "law" either. I like to get to know people so visit the same churches often depending on which sermons I can physically see the anointing; a gift I received in the last couple years. There are a couple I can make it to on the same Sunday if I can make it to the early service at one, then the later service at the other. I recently stopped going to the Sabbath church because they kicked me out finally. I never tried to discuss their doctrine, but I did share with the Sabbath school the latest miracle I personally witnessed. I guess the last one was more than they could accept because the next Sabbath, two elders stopped me from entering the class and told me to go home and not come back. Oh well. I loved that church and the people in it. I still get to see my favorite people there because they have a food bank I can't be kicked out of. LOL They give me lots of hugs!

I've got appointments with both of those Sunday pastors to discuss my views. But not the Sabbath pastor.

The Light said:

The Jews are the Chosen people.

Click to expand...

These Jews?

Numbers 25
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Matthew 23
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

John 8
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

covenantee said:

These Jews?

Numbers 25
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Matthew 23
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

John 8
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

Click to expand...

Yes, those Jews were chosen......to be sent to hell.

Spiritual Israelite said:

Yes, those Jews were chosen......to be sent to hell.

Click to expand...

Yeah...24,000 chosen corpses, with more to follow.

A mosquito bites; that's its reality. Ethnicity carries no weight when it comes to it's reality.
Unregenerate man, irrespective of ethnicity, will bite, justifying it in his own mind every time....blaming others, exonerating him/ herself.

'Unless ye repent, ye will all die in your sins' Jesus

Randy Kluth said:

I was raised in a Lutheran Protestant household that lacked all of the contemporary interest in future prophecy. Nevertheless, we as a family noticed something significant, prophetically, in 1967 with the 7 Days War. And I began to study biblical prophecy and the book of Revelation.

When I became engaged with the Jesus People and young Christian revival movements in the early 70s, there was a focus on Dispensationalism, and I pursued an interest in Futurist eschatology with a Dispensationalist slant. But it wasn't long before a number of inconsistencies became obvious to me, and I had trouble harmonizing all of the beliefs.

I then turned to a systematic approach to prophetic interpretation, looking for significant markers in biblical history where certain truths became determinative in all that followed. For example, important prophetic markers would be Abraham's Covenant promises and Daniel's Dream. What resides in these events provide an important backdrop for the rest of biblical prophecy.

And instead of following a particular prophetic school I became convinced that even if one school is better than another it was likely that other schools were held together by a few strands of important prophetic truths. I wasn't going to let a flawed school keep me from accepting something they saw and others rejected strictly because their truths came from another, flawed school.

Dispensationalism has carried most of the weight in building assumptions surrounding various interpretations of relevant passages of the Bible. It views the 70th Week of Daniel 9 as future and disconnected from the previous 69 Weeks mentioned there. And it views the "Abomination of Desolation," mentioned in both Dan 9 and Matt 24, as a reference to the Antichrist.

The Book of Revelation was looked at by Dispensationalists as separated into two parts, the present Church Age and the final 7 years of Antichristian rule. The Church would be Raptured just before the rise of Antichrist, coinciding with John's Rapture to Heaven to see his visions. What followed would be 7 years of Antichristian rule prior to the Battle of Armageddon and Christ's 2nd Coming.

Dispensationalists typically view Postribulationists as anachronistic to Futurist belief, even though many of them are Futurists. And they view Preterists as antithetical to Futurism, even though some of their beliefs can be held to by Futurists. For example, the belief by Preterists that much of the Olivet Discourse is about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD can be held to along with Futurist beliefs.

So, this is where I've come out. I believe the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled at the death of Christ. And I believe the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled when the Roman Army defeated Jerusalem in 70 AD. I'm also a Postribulationist who believes in a future 3.5 year Reign of Antichrist with the Church being Raptured at the end of this period. And I believe the Olivet Discourse was focused primarily on the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, with the Roman Army being the Abomination of Desolation, and this event taking place literally in Jesus' generation, followed by a long age of Jewish exile, also called the "Great Tribulation."

I believe though discussion of the various issues sometimes leads to "bad blood," approaching the differences in a friendly way can have a positive effect. After all, we are pursuing Scriptural truth, which God gave to us for our edification. So I invite any and all takers on the issues I've raised?

Click to expand...

A few problems, "the" abomination of desolation isn't found in Dan. 9:27. Christ was quoting Dan. 11:31 and/or 12:11. A healthy percentage of dispensationalists don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. The Jewish exile was never called the great "tribulation", it was the great "diaspora". The Roman army wasn't the abomination of desolation. The book of Maccabbees gives us a "type" to look for in the historically proven story of Antiochus Eppiphane's desecration of the temple. What was called an abomination of desolation in that story was his erecting an image of Zeus in the temple and demanding the Jews worship it, some did. Rev. 13:14-15 shows us what the future AoD will look like. The only parts of the gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse that deals w/ 70ad is the stand-alone prophecy in Lk. 21:20, 22, 24.

Trekson said:

A few problems, "the" abomination of desolation isn't found in Dan. 9:27. Christ was quoting Dan. 11:31 and/or 12:11. A healthy percentage of dispensationalists don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. The Jewish exile was never called the great "tribulation", it was the great "diaspora". The Roman army wasn't the abomination of desolation. The book of Maccabbees gives us a "type" to look for in the historically proven story of Antiochus Eppiphane's desecration of the temple. What was called an abomination of desolation in that story was his erecting an image of Zeus in the temple and demanding the Jews worship it, some did. Rev. 13:14-15 shows us what the future AoD will look like. The only parts of the gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse that deals w/ 70ad is the stand-alone prophecy in Lk. 21:20, 22, 24.

Click to expand...

In my view the, 'abomination of desolation' is not defined by the Christian majority as being the abandonment of the Gospel, ie a faulty view of the character of God. Christianity at large pedals a God who requires appeasing rather than a God who would rather die than kill.

quietthinker said:

In my view the, 'abomination of desolation' is not defined by the Christian majority as being the abandonment of the Gospel, ie a faulty view of the character of God. Christianity at large pedals a God who requires appeasing rather than a God who would rather die than kill.

Click to expand...

You must be going to the wrong churches. I would say it's the minority who are looking for appeasement. There is only "one" view of the AoD as I showed you, Rev. 13:14-15. The AoD and the great falling away are two different things.

Trekson said:

You must be going to the wrong churches. I would say it's the minority who are looking for appeasement. There is only "one" view of the AoD as I showed you, Rev. 13:14-15. The AoD and the great falling away are two different things.

Click to expand...

The AoD and the great falling away are two different things.

Click to expand...

They are inseparable.
You cannot have one without the other.

Also, Christ was cruicified after the 69th week = in the middle of the 70th week.

Dispensationalism(man-made) changes scripture to make it fit their own doctrine(s) which are contrary to Daniel ch9 as well as the Gospel and the Apostles writings.

David in NJ said:

They are inseparable.
You cannot have one without the other.

Also, Christ was cruicified after the 69th week = in the middle of the 70th week.

Dispensationalism(man-made) changes scripture to make it fit their own doctrine(s) which are contrary to Daniel ch9 as well as the Gospel and the Apostles writings.

Click to expand...

Or people interpret prophecies as Messianic ones when they were never intended to be looked at that way and specifically say they aren't like Dan. 9. The GT will begin before the AoD is set up and it will be less than 1260 days in duration.

Trekson said:

A few problems, "the" abomination of desolation isn't found in Dan. 9:27. Christ was quoting Dan. 11:31 and/or 12:11

Click to expand...

Dan. 11:31 is not the end time Abomination, it was the forerunner, it was Antiochus Epiphanes(AE4), being invited into the temple by Jason (real name Yeshua) who bribed AE4 to become the Jewish High Priest, having his pious high priest brother Oniss III killed. Onias was this high priest.

Dan. 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person(Antiochus Epiphanes), to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant(Onias III is overcome by the armies of AE4).

I have done an Exegesis of Dan. 11 & 12. Those who say its the same person from Dan. 11:21-45 are wrong, from Dan. 11:21-33-34 we see AE4, from Dan. 11:36-45 we see the end time Little Horn/AC. We saw the exact likeness of the end time Beast with Antiochus Epiphanes IV. But there wasn't just one Archetype, there was two, the archetype AC/Little Horn and the archetype False Prophet, Jason who was pro Greece, he even took a Greek name (Jason) he then welcomed AE4 into the temple to sacrifice a pig unto Zeus, and mandated that all Jews must become Hellenistic, leading to the Maccabean War.

The end time False Prophet will be a Jewish High Priest who throws in with the AC/Little Horn/Beast, but why would he throw in with an E.U. President/Leader? Because the Dan.9:27 Covenant (Agreement) is simply this, Israel will join the E.U. that is the Agreement, and the Abomination is this Jewish High Priest, not the AC who only conquer Israel 30 days later at the 1260, this happens 1290 days before the 2nd coming ENDS ALL THESE WONDERS. Those three numbers are reversed, the 1335 (Two-witnesses) come first, the 1290 (FP) comes next, and lastly the 1260 (AC) come last.

Trekson said:

A healthy percentage of dispensationalists don't believe in a pre-trib rapture.

Click to expand...

Satan is still deceiving. He's not going to stop, all that matter is truth. The Pharisees didn't belie Jesus was the Messiah, in the end their "belief" meant nothing.

Trekson said:

The Jewish exile was never called the great "tribulation", it was the great "diaspora". The Roman army wasn't the abomination of desolation. The book of Maccabbees gives us a "type" to look for in the historically proven story of Antiochus Eppiphane's desecration of the temple. What was called an abomination of desolation in that story was his erecting an image of Zeus in the temple and demanding the Jews worship it, some did. Rev. 13:14-15 shows us what the future AoD will look like. The only parts of the gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse that deals w/ 70ad is the stand-alone prophecy in Lk. 21:20, 22, 24.

Click to expand...

Overall you get the gist of it, but Dan. 9:27 is future, just like Dan. 12:11, and Dan. 11:31 is past so Jess was quoting Dan. 9:27 and Dan. 12:11, I will go one up, Jesus was the Man in Linen in Dan. 12 so Jesus was actually quoting himself.

Ronald D Milam said:

Dan. 11:31 is not the end time Abomination, it was the forerunner, it was Antiochus Epiphanes(AE4), being invited into the temple by Jason (real name Yeshua) who bribed AE4 to become the Jewish High Priest, having his pious high priest brother Oniss III killed. Onias was this high priest.

Dan. 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person(Antiochus Epiphanes), to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant(Onias III is overcome by the armies of AE4).

I have done an Exegesis of Dan. 11 & 12. Those who say its the same person from Dan. 11:21-45 are wrong, from Dan. 11:21-33-34 we see AE4, from Dan. 11:36-45 we see the end time Little Horn/AC. We saw the exact likeness of the end time Beast with Antiochus Epiphanes IV. But there wasn't just one Archetype, there was two, the archetype AC/Little Horn and the archetype False Prophet, Jason who was pro Greece, he even took a Greek name (Jason) he then welcomed AE4 into the temple to sacrifice a pig unto Zeus, and mandated that all Jews must become Hellenistic, leading to the Maccabean War.

The end time False Prophet will be a Jewish High Priest who throws in with the AC/Little Horn/Beast, but why would he throw in with an E.U. President/Leader? Because the Dan.9:27 Covenant (Agreement) is simply this, Israel will join the E.U. that is the Agreement, and the Abomination is this Jewish High Priest, not the AC who only conquer Israel 30 days later at the 1260, this happens 1290 days before the 2nd coming ENDS ALL THESE WONDERS. Those three numbers are reversed, the 1335 (Two-witnesses) come first, the 1290 (FP) comes next, and lastly the 1260 (AC) come last.

Satan is still deceiving. He's not going to stop, all that matter is truth. The Pharisees didn't belie Jesus was the Messiah, in the end their "belief" meant nothing.

Overall you get the gist of it, but Dan. 9:27 is future, just like Dan. 12:11, and Dan. 11:31 is past so Jess was quoting Dan. 9:27 and Dan. 12:11, I will go one up, Jesus was the Man in Linen in Dan. 12 so Jesus was actually quoting himself.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, disagree. AE was a type of what is to come, not the real thing, as most of Daniel's end time prophecies are about the last and final kingdom that will severely effect Israel so are most of the latter chapters as well. Imo, AE's mention in Daniel is quite small. Dan. 11:17-20. The rest of the chapter is about the a/c. The "prince of the covenant" of vss. 22-23 is the same prince of Dan. 9:27, which we know is speaking of the AC as well. I don't disagree those events happened but they just weren't the actual fulfillments. There is a reason Maccabbees didn't make the final cut.

Randy Kluth said:

I disagree.
Dan 9.27 And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.

I believe there is more than a single "abomination of desolation." They together form a pattern in which holy things have become common and improperly used, followed by divine judgment through the use of abominable pagans. God used the pagan Assyrians and the idolatrous Babylonians to judge Israel, who had allowed the pure religion to become contaminated by pagan influences.

I think you're confusing one kind of dispensationalism with another kind of dispensationalism.

I disagree.
Dan 12.1 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then.
Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people."

Daniel 12 speaks of the time directly following the reign of Antiochus 4, which was the age of the Roman Empire. It was Rome that came upon Jerusalem in 70 AD and destroyed the Temple. The Roman Army was, I believe, the "abomination of desolation."

Yes, Antiochus 4 set up an image in the Temple area to counteract Jewish worship with Hellenism. So he and his army were pagan abominations.

Rome likewise entered into the area around Jerusalem with an army who had pagan eagle symbols on their standards. Whereas Antiochus merely defiled the Temple, the Romans destroyed it. Both were acts of desecration, and both acts were committed by abominable, idolatrous heathen.

Click to expand...

First, let me say that for the best understanding of the prophetic narrative I have found that the KJ has the most consistency then the other translations. Many modern translations have changed the words to make the bible fit "their" narrative, not God's. In the KJ, 9:27 doesn't read like that. In Dan. 12:1, the word "trouble" is used and yes this will be similar to the GT but it's talking about the culmination of the ToJT that began in 70ad. The word "distress" in Luke is also used in the KJ but it's not the same word used for tribulation, they are of varying degrees w/ tribulation sounding worse than distress and yes these little details are extremely important. What the armies did in either case simply wasn't the AoD spoken of by Christ. The AoD is one specific thing. In AE's time it was the image of Zeus set up in the temple, that's it. In the future fulfillment it will be the image of the A/C set up in the temple, which is Rev. 13:14-15 connected w/ 2 Thess. 2:4, that's it. What you believe were Greek and Roman fulfillments, were just mere shadows of the future fulfillment Christ speaks of in the Olivet Discourse followed by Revelation.

Trekson said:

Respectfully, disagree. AE was a type of what is to come, not the real thing, as most of Daniel's end time prophecies are about the last and final kingdom that will severely effect Israel so are most of the latter chapters as well.

Click to expand...

Well then, you misread my post, because I know ad say AE4 is an Archetype Anti-Christ, and Jason, the high priest he named, who bribed him to get the job, was the Archetype False Prophet.

So start out b y saying Dan. 11:31 was Antiochus, and not the end time AC, but he was a forerunner or archetype, so the only confusion has to be you do not understand there are 2 people shown in Dan. 11:21-45 not one, Antiochus is in verses 21-33 maybe even 34 and the Anti-Christ/Little Horn is only seen in verses 36-45, so are you one of those who think the Anti-Christ is seen from verse 21-45? Because of not, I do not understand why you fail to see I called him a FORERUNNER (Archetype in the very first sentence).

Trekson said:

AE's mention in Daniel is quite small. Dan. 11:17-20. The rest of the chapter is about the a/c. The "prince of the covenant" of vss. 22-23 is the same prince of Dan. 9:27

Click to expand...

I see, well I did an Exegesis of Dan. 11:17-20, is not about AE4, and verses 21-33 is not about the AC, its about AE4. So, the question above is answered, I now understand why you were confused. I will put portions of my Exegesis in to enlighten people on this, because it confuses many, it seems.

(Daniel 11:17)17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

Antiochus III gave his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy V for a wife, but she ended up siding with Ptolemy V over her father. Blood is not always thicker than water it seems !!

18 After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. 19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

Antiochus III ventured to take more lands, against the will of the Romans. He angered his former ally Macedonian king Philip V also, and was eventually killed in his homeland while plundering a pagan temple.

20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

Antiochus III's son Seleucus IV became king and had to raise taxes because Rome was forcing him to have to pay for all his fathers wars, he was soon poisoned to death it seems.

21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

Antiochus IV then became king, he is called a vile person. He became king via a series of maneuvers which included flattering the king of Pergamum to gain his allegiance and by the death of the young heir to the throne.

22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

The High Priest, Onias III (prince of the covenant) was replaced via a conspiracy involving the high priests brother Jason and Antiochus Epiphanes but his brother was also double crossed when another priest bribed Antiochus Epiphanes with even more money, it seems he was for sale at all times for a price, Jason's real name was Yeshua, he favored the Hellenization of Jerusalem/Israel, whereas his brother Onias III was a pious man of God who was put to death. (Jason welcomed Antiochus into the temple to sacrifice a pig unto Zeus, then mandated al Jews become Hellenized, eventually leading to the Maccabean Wars, but that happens in like verses 31-33).

23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

Antiochus Epiphanes wanted to conquer Egypt in a bad way. He took a "small army" down to Egypt feigning to be the protector of Ptolemy VI who was his nephew. He was of course trying to deceive them whereas he could eventually conquer them via craftiness. This was seemingly his master-plan.

24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

Antiochus Epiphanes gained Egypt's trust and loyalty via spreading his bounty from his wars amongst the public. He visited Egyptian strongholds to get a better understanding on how to conquer them, he was quite cunning, just like the coming Anti-Christ will be.

25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him. 26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.

This is the Sixth Syrian War, (the last of the lot, the 7th is the Anti-Christ/KOTN). This was Antiochus Epiphanes against Ptolemy VI. Antiochus Epiphanes attacked Egypt and prevailed over them and many of the Egyptians stood by him and betrayed Ptolemy VI. He was a corrupter of people no doubt, he knew how to divide and conquer.

CONTINUED...

continued....

27 And both of these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

Watching Antiochus Epiphanes operate must have been enthralling back in the day. He pretended to support Ptolemy VI his blood kin, and he pretended to have his best interest in mind, but the truth is he was pitting him against his own brother Ptolemy VII the whole time. Ptolemy VII was of course eventually made king of Egypt by the Alexandrian's who did not trust Ptolemy VI any longer.

28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

Antiochus Epiphanes returned north it seems because of a rumor that he had died. That rumor seemingly caused a war to breakout in Jerusalem. Antiochus Epiphanes plundered the temple of God, killed many people, then journeyed north to Antioch. (his homeland)

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.

Antiochus Epiphanes soon returned to Egypt with the intention of conquering Alexandria. The Egyptians however sent a message to Rome asking for help. Three Roman senators were sent by ship to inform Antiochus Epiphanes that he was not to invade Egypt and to demand that he retreat immediately. This of course made him angry and Antiochus seems to have taken it out on the Jewish believers. He killed many of them but allowed the Hellenistic Jews to live as long as they forsook the Holy Covenant !! He was indeed a vile man, seemingly a forerunner to the coming Anti-Christ/Beast in many of his mannerisms. Jason also seems to be a forerunner of the False Prophet.

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.

Antiochus Epiphanes defiled the temple of God, stopped the daily sacrifices and even built a pagan alter unto Zeus and sacrificed pigs on it. This was an Abomination unto God, but its not the Abomination that Jesus and Daniel is speaking about of course. This desecrated the temple while it was there, but as we can see, Antiochus Epiphanes served Zeus, thus he can not be the Willful King of verse 36 as many think, because he served no gods. This of course created a schism so to speak amongst the Jewish peoples, which is what Antiochus was good at, divide and conquer tactics. In the end many Jews forsook their God and many refused to do so, but alas, they paid the price with their lives. This of course is a likeness unto the coming end time events in many ways.

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. 34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. 35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

TRANSITION PERIOD

I think this three verse passage covers a 2000 some odd year stretch of time. It reaches from the Maccabean Revolt all the way unto the end times via verse 35 where it states even to the time of the end, which is a yet to be appointed time !! We see in verse 33 that many will understand but fall by the sword, flame, captivity, many days, this sounds like the early church Saints also, they understood, and thus Rome killed them in many violent ways, and when they fall they will be helped with a little help (Holy Spirit), but many will believe Satan's lies (flatteries). Verse 35 keeps up the 2000 year journey unto the end times, many will fall, be purged, made white (Jesus' blood) EVEN TO THE END TIMES !! Which is yet for a future time to be APPOINTED !! Then we see the Anti-Christ starting in verse 36. I think verse 33 is the Maccabean Revolt, and maybe the early Christian Church, then verses 34 and 35 transition via the whole 2000 year Church Age unto the end time !! The transition is a little convoluting and confuses many, some think Antiochus Epiphanes is the character that runs from Daniel 11:21 all the way to verse 45, some think its the Anti-Christ character that runs from verse 21 all the way to verse 45. Both sides seemingly can't see the transition that I see in verses 33-35. Its there, we just have to look a little deeper, it thus is the transition period between the two characters.

SEGMENTED HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

It seems we need to look at this prophecy here in segments. A historical segment that has already been fulfilled (Dan. 11:1-35) and an eschatological segment where the prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. Of course when Daniel received this prophetic uttering none of it had basically come to pass, now all of it has come to pass except for Dan. 11:36-45 and Dan. 12:1-12. So, it seems after verse 35 we can say that we fast forward so to speak into eschatology. Although you might say we are at the utter end of verse 35, for the most part when the Rapture hits we will be at verse 36 via the Tribulation period.

We get the historical lessons via the prophecy of all the Grecian Kingdoms and the Syrian Wars which are detailed unto the nth degree, then Rome became the Fourth Beast and Greece seems to have faded into the background so to speak until the last King/Little Horn arrives, which comes from their lineage, we know this via Daniel chapter 8. We are told of this end time king starting in verse 36 and running unto the end of Daniel chapter 12. Notice in verse 34 and 35 above, it speaks of the time of the end as a yet to be appointed time and states that basically from Antiochus Epiphanes on, there will continue to be persecution and troubles and many who fall will be helped but others will heed the lies of the wicked one or his (flatteries). Some who understand will fall OR BE TRIED and PURGED !! Think of Paul, Peter and the Saints of the Church Age....to make them WHITE (pure), even to the END OF TIME !! Very, very exciting stuff !!

36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

The king here has to be the end time Anti-Christ/Beast of Daniel 7:11. He is of course not called the king of the north or south here for a specific reason, the Sixth Syrian War ended the Syrian Wars. Rome came between Greece and Egypt putting a halt to Antiochus Epiphanes plans for good. Rome of course eventually conquered both Egypt and Greece thus becoming the Fourth Beast of the region over Israel.

Ronald D Milam said:

Well then, you misread my post, because I know ad say AE4 is an Archetype Anti-Christ, and Jason, the high priest he named, who bribed him to get the job, was the Archetype False Prophet.

So start out b y saying Dan. 11:31 was Antiochus, and not the end time AC, but he was a forerunner or archetype, so the only confusion has to be you do not understand there are 2 people shown in Dan. 11:21-45 not one, Antiochus is in verses 21-33 maybe even 34 and the Anti-Christ/Little Horn is only seen in verses 36-45, so are you one of those who think the Anti-Christ is seen from verse 21-45? Because of not, I do not understand why you fail to see I called him a FORERUNNER (Archetype in the very first sentence).


I see, well I did an Exegesis of Dan. 11:17-20, is not about AE4, and verses 21-33 is not about the AC, its about AE4. So, the question above is answered, I now understand why you were confused. I will put portions of my Exegesis in to enlighten people on this, because it confuses many, it seems.

(Daniel 11:17)17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

Antiochus III gave his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy V for a wife, but she ended up siding with Ptolemy V over her father. Blood is not always thicker than water it seems !!

18 After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. 19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

Antiochus III ventured to take more lands, against the will of the Romans. He angered his former ally Macedonian king Philip V also, and was eventually killed in his homeland while plundering a pagan temple.

20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

Antiochus III's son Seleucus IV became king and had to raise taxes because Rome was forcing him to have to pay for all his fathers wars, he was soon poisoned to death it seems.

21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

Antiochus IV then became king, he is called a vile person. He became king via a series of maneuvers which included flattering the king of Pergamum to gain his allegiance and by the death of the young heir to the throne.

22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

The High Priest, Onias III (prince of the covenant) was replaced via a conspiracy involving the high priests brother Jason and Antiochus Epiphanes but his brother was also double crossed when another priest bribed Antiochus Epiphanes with even more money, it seems he was for sale at all times for a price, Jason's real name was Yeshua, he favored the Hellenization of Jerusalem/Israel, whereas his brother Onias III was a pious man of God who was put to death. (Jason welcomed Antiochus into the temple to sacrifice a pig unto Zeus, then mandated al Jews become Hellenized, eventually leading to the Maccabean Wars, but that happens in like verses 31-33).

23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

Antiochus Epiphanes wanted to conquer Egypt in a bad way. He took a "small army" down to Egypt feigning to be the protector of Ptolemy VI who was his nephew. He was of course trying to deceive them whereas he could eventually conquer them via craftiness. This was seemingly his master-plan.

24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

Antiochus Epiphanes gained Egypt's trust and loyalty via spreading his bounty from his wars amongst the public. He visited Egyptian strongholds to get a better understanding on how to conquer them, he was quite cunning, just like the coming Anti-Christ will be.

25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him. 26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.

This is the Sixth Syrian War, (the last of the lot, the 7th is the Anti-Christ/KOTN). This was Antiochus Epiphanes against Ptolemy VI. Antiochus Epiphanes attacked Egypt and prevailed over them and many of the Egyptians stood by him and betrayed Ptolemy VI. He was a corrupter of people no doubt, he knew how to divide and conquer.

CONTINUED...

Click to expand...

In Dan. 11:21-45 show me where it changes. I just disagree, what you want to claim as AE, is instead the future a/c although there could be some resemblance between the two. The only prince of the covenant spoken of is the one in Dan. 9:27, who is the a/c, there are not two. In the linear reading of Dan. 9:24-27, vs. 27 is an unknown amount of time 'after" 70ad.