Ronald D Milam
Active Member
So, you do not understand what a "JUXTAPOSITION" is? I think you do, but you just wanted to dodge the point that has you defeated so you use these evasion tactics. But, in any debate when you dodge the facts, you automatically lose the debate. The POINT was you can't take just ONE WORD and limit God's ability to use that word on only one person or thing, and psstt, you already know that don't you? So, not only did you lose the debate, but you also proved "the facts" are not that important to you in full, as long as you can evade the defeat, but alas, you lose the debate when you try to evade.
As per the Rapture, as I have stated, anyone who can't understand the timing of the Rapture I trust nothing they have to say about Eschatology. Its too easy to understand.
P.S. (here) The Anti-Christ also takes Jerusalem with an Army, see Dan. 11:40-43, see Dan. 8:9, see Zechariah 14:1-2, see the 2nd Seal he TAKES AWAY PEACE means he brings War after peace, you can't just stop the peace and say move out of my way I'm taking over (SMILE) that is nonsensical.
This also is not hard to understand, the similarities are major, but there are enough differences between the two that they can be pointed out easily. So, we get a rundown of every king in Greece all the way from Alexander the Great to Antiochus his archetype and then the Anti-Christ and you think that God skipped Antiochus? The whole purpose was to show us who the Anti-Christ will be like unto. I can prove that verses 21-34 is not Antiochus. Let's start one verse before Antiochus Epiphanes comes to power to prove who verse 21 is about. Did you really study this as I did via hours of relentless studies, or did you just cling to someone else's ideas? We must try the spirits brother. We can't except men's theories. History doesn't lie, and neither does the spirit, its a lethal combo when studying prophecy. I do not think there is anyway that anyone can dig into history and not understand Dan. 11:21-34 is not about Antiochus Epiphanes.
Dan. 11:20 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.
{my original Exegesis} 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.
McClintock and Strong Biblical Cylopedia {Below}
Seleucus IV
Surnamed Philopator (or Soter, in Josephus, Ant. 12, 4, 10), styled "king of Asia" (2 Macc. 3, 3), that is, of the provinces included in the Syrian monarchy, according to the title claimed by the Seleucidae, even when they had lost their footing in Asia Minor (comp. 1 Macc. 8:6; 11:13, 12:39, 13:32), was the son and successor of Antiochus the Great (see Appian, Syria, 3, 45). He took part in the disastrous battle of Magnesia (B.C. 190), and three years afterwards, on the death of his father, ascended the throne.He seems to have devoted himself to strengthening the Syrian power, which had been broken down at Magnesia, seeking to keep on good terms with Rome and Egypt till he could find a favorable opportunity for war. He was, however, (1)murdered, after a reign of twelve years (B.C. 175), by Heliodorus (q.v.), one of his own courtiers, "neither in [sudden] anger nor in battle" (Da 11:20; see Jerome, ad loc.), but by ambitious treachery, without having effected anything of importance. His son Demetrius I Soter, SEE Demetrius, whom he had sent, while still a boy, as hostage to Rome, after a series of romantic adventures gained the crown in B.C. 162 (1 Macc. 7:1; 2 Macc. 11:1).
The general policy of Seleucus towards the Jews, like that of his father (3, 2, 3, καὶ Σέλευκον), was conciliatory, as the possession of Palestine was of the highest importance in the prospect of an Egyptian war; and he undertook a large share of the expenses of the Temple service (ver. 3, 6). On one occasion, by the false representations of Simon (q.v.), a Jewish officer, he was induced to make an attempt to carry away the treasures deposited in the Temple by means of the same Heliodorus who murdered him. The attempt signally failed, but it does not appear that he afterwards showed any resentment against the Jews (4, 5, 6,); though his want of money to pay the enormous tribute due to the Romans may have compelled him to raise extraordinary revenues, for which cause he is described in Daniel as a "raiser of taxes" (11, 20; comp. Livy, 41, 19). See Manzini's monograph (in Italian) on this prince (Mailand, 1634).
Antiochus Epiphanes follows Selecus IV as shown above, and below in bold, not the Anti-Christ.
Seleukos IV Philopator 187–175 B.C. Antiochos IV Epiphanes 175–164 B.C.
Dan. 11:21 And in his estate(Selecus IV) shall stand up a vile person, to whom (1)they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he (2)shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
{my original Exegesis} Antiochus IV then became king, he is called a vile person, he killed 90,000 Jews. He became king via a series of maneuvers which included (2)flattering the king of Pergamum in order to gain his allegiance and by the death of the young heir to the throne. (I have since learned, in the last 7 years, he was a hostage in Rome when Antiochus ascended to the throne, but was latter killed).
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (/ænˈtaɪ.əkəs ɛˈpɪfəniːz, ˌæntiˈɒkəs/; Ancient Greek: Ἀντίοχος ὁ Ἐπιφανής, Antíochos ho Epiphanḗs, "God Manifest"; c. 215 BC – November/December 164 BC)[1] was a Greek Hellenistic king who ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC. He was a son of King Antiochus III the Great. Originally named Mithradates (alternative form Mithridates), he assumed the name Antiochus after he ascended the throne.[2] Notable events during Antiochus's reign include his near-conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt, his persecution of the Jews of Judea and Samaria, and the rebellion of the Jewish Maccabees.
Antiochus's accession to the throne was controversial, and he was seen as a usurper by some. After the death of his brother Seleucus IV Philopator in 175 BC, the "true" heir should have been Seleucus's son Demetrius I.
(1) The 10 (E.U.) freely give their power unto the Beast in Rev. 17:12.
#3794 כִּתִּי Kittiy {kit-tee'}
or כִּתִּייִ Kittiyiy {kit-tee-ee'}
patrial from an unused name denoting Cyprus (only in the pl.); TWOT - n/a; adj
—Hebrew Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)
Patrial from an unused name denoting Cyprus (only in the plural); a Kittite or Cypriote; hence an islander in general, that is, the Greeks or Romans on the shores opposite Palestine:—Chittim, Kittim.
—Strong's (Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament)
Since Antiochus was the Greek king he could not be opposing him self, this is a well known event, it was the Roman's who put Antiochus in his place, drew a circle around him in the sand and dared him to leave without agreeing he would not invade Egypt again.
Gaius Popillius Laenas (Remember him? He is the Roman Senator who history tells us forbade Antiochus from invading Egypt "again".
He was sent as an envoy to prevent a war between Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt. On being confronted with the Roman demands that he abort his attack on Alexandria, Antiochus played for time; Popillius Laenas is supposed to have drawn a circle around the king in the sand with his cane, and ordered him not to move out of it until a firm answer had been given. The Syrians withdrew. According to Livy:
Now go read all of the commentaries, you know it means Rome, I left off the Bruiser part because since you pasted that you saw the other meaning. So, it was Roman Bruiser's right? (SMILE). It was a Roman senator, its well known in history, that is why it took you so long to reply, you realized I was correct. Now your pride will not let you admit it. Its OK to be wrong brother, it means we learn. Learning is good.
Last edited:
