Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Connection Between Millennialism and Conspiracy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Connection Between Millennialism and Conspiracy

    On January 6, Trump fans tried to stop congress from certifying the election. I look at some of the underlying social and religious views that cause people to feel a need to take action. How should Christians understand some of the underlying social issues, such as abortion and LGBTQ rights? What did Jesus and the apostles say about these things? We must place them in a first-century context.

    Why do so many Christians turn to conspiracy theories, and what scriptures support this type of thinking?

    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/why-a...ories/13003550

    Since the attempted overthrow of the election, I have become more interested in conspiracy theories. The book Conspiracy Theory 101 by Ava Fails, covers ideas like chemtrails, fluoride, and vaccines. A claim is that the shadow government wants to limit the population. The author says the Constitution equips the people with the power to overthrow a corrupt government. So the roots for January 6, 2021, have been around for a while.

    The author turns to the Bible and the Constitution to form her opinions. The elites of the world are involved in a Luciferian agenda. The entire world will unite under one government and one leader, the Antichrist.

    The connection between conspiracy theories and Christian end-time beliefs is what interests me. There is a definite connection between the two. Edited by a Moderator

    Moderated By: QuantaFille

    We do not allow plugging your materials in posts without permission. The link in your signature is allowed.

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    Last edited by QuantaFille; 03-11-2021, 02:22 PM.
    The Capitol Insurrection And Religion

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...t_bibl_vppi_i0

  • #2
    Hi eschaton,

    Is it also your view, as well as the author you cited, that "The entire world will unite under one government and one leader, the Antichrist"? This is a very common misunderstanding of the activity that the Antichrist named in II Thess. 2 would actually be able to accomplish. He would only be able to "exalt HIMSELF" above all that is CALLED God or worshipped, (not that what is CALLED God actually IS God). A leader can toot their own horn all day long, exalting THEMSELVES, without the entire world necessarily buying into the hype.

    Paul told the Thessalonians that the time limit for the successful advancement of this "Lawless One" in II Thess. 2 was going to be very brief indeed. Almost in the very moment of his achieving any success in his own cause, the very brightness of the Lawless One's own coming on the scene in history was to be destroyed. It was NOT going to be the event of Christ's coming that destroyed this Antichrist; it was to be the brightness of the Lawless One's OWN "COMING" into power that would be destroyed along with himself . People should read the entire sentence in II Thess. 2:8-10 - not just part of it. There is no way that Christ's coming could be under discussion there, because Christ's coming could NEVER be characterized as being similar to Satan's work, (with lying wonders and deceivableness of unrighteousness).

    According to Daniel 2's image of the power behind the four world empires that were to be destroyed by the Stone cut without hands, we are given absolutely no hint of a restoration afterward of any kind of world empire that would be set up to conflict with the "Stone kingdom". This kingdom would grow and fill the earth over time. Many nations have aspired to the goal, but none have ever succeeded in establishing themselves as a one-world power over all. I don't believe any ever will, because scripture shows us no successor to the power behind the four empires that can ever override the power of the Stone kingdom. The Stone kingdom "shall stand for ever." (Dan. 2:44). Christ's Stone kingdom is a very present reality today, and has been ever since AD 70.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for your input. I enjoy your interpretation.

      2 Thes 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

      John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
      Note that the label son of perdition is only used in two places in scripture. One is describing Judas. Other names that Paul associates with the temple of God are Belial/Beliar.


      2 Thes 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

      2 Cor 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
      16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
      No less than Martin Luther used these facts to accuse the pope of being the Antichrist. He felt the pope or the papacy was the betrayer in the church, the temple of God.
      The Capitol Insurrection And Religion

      https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...t_bibl_vppi_i0

      Comment


      • #4
        Luther also is not infallible, eschaton. With all due respect given for the contributions of that worthy gentleman of great courage. The Pope CANNOT be the Antichrist. Because the definition of any antichrist includes that they deny that Jesus came as the Messiah in the flesh (II John 7). That doesn't fit Catholicism or the Pope at all.

        We are told point blank in I John 2:18-19 that a general assortment of antichrists had ALREADY COME OUT "FROM AMONG US" at that time. The single "THE Antichrist" foretold would be one of that group of antichrists coming out from among the Jews of that generation. Neither the Pope nor the Catholic church qualify as coming out from among those present in John's day. These II Thess. 2 and I John 2 predictions have time markers all over them that disqualify any person other than a first-century individual to fulfill the "Lawless One's" role.

        I know exactly who the "Lawless One" was. Christ was actually prophesied to die along with the "Lawless" - which He did. He was crucified between two Zealot thieves who had committed insurrection against Rome. The "Lawless One" was called the "Son of Destruction" (which is what perdition means) because he was a descendent of "Judas of Galilee" who raised insurrection against Rome in protest over the days of the taxing. Galilee was ever a hotbed that bred Zealot activity such as thievery and murder. Even one of Christ's disciples had been a Zealot (Simon Zelotes). Some have said Judas the disciple who betrayed Christ was a Zealot also, because he was called a thief, and one who cared more for money than Christ.

        Judas the Galilean Zealot along with his followers died (Acts 5:37), but not before handing down his own Zealot loyalties to his sons and grandsons. A couple of whom were crucified by the Romans for their Zealot activities. And you will have heard about Eleazar who convinced his followers to commit mass suicide at Masada (also a relative of Judas the Galilean). "Destruction" or "perdition" always followed in the wake of the Zealot cause.

        Menahem was either a son or a grandson of Judas the Galilean. Following in his family's destructive footsteps, he was the very first Zealot contender for the Messianic role to actually get into the Jerusalem temple in AD 66, dressed in Herod's royal regalia stolen from Masada, and present himself "in a pompous manner" in the temple, according to Josephus (Wars 2.17.8). .

        Anyone at that point who claimed to be "King of the Jews" as Menahem was doing by dressing in Herod's royal garments and presenting himself in the Jerusalem temple, was appropriating a title that was reserved for Jesus Christ the Messiah alone. In other words, Menahem was claiming to be God. Menahem was only trying to "exalt himself" as the fulfillment of Daniel 9's prophecy about the coming "Messiah the Prince". All Israel who had read Daniel knew what year that Messiah the Prince was to appear (in AD 30, at the beginning of the 70th "week" of Daniel's prophecy). Christ came on the scene fulfilling that year exactly at the beginning of His 3-1/2-year ministry. But, "His own received Him not", and went looking quickly for a substitute - any "false Messiah" substitute - who would lead a battle with Rome and take the Roman yoke off their neck. Because the Daniel 9 prophecy for "Messiah the Prince" had a particular year attached to it, they could fudge the year's date a trifle and get away with it, but they couldn't wait very long after AD 30, or their "false Messiah" contenders would not fool anybody who knew their 70-week Daniel prophecy timeline.

        Menahem was only the first to get into the temple, manifesting himself as being the fulfillment of that "Messiah the Prince" prophecy. In order to fulfill his claim to the Messiah role, Menahem murdered the former high priest who had been one of a group of former high priests "restraining" the Zealot cause in Jerusalem to try to keep the temple system intact. This murder only earned Menahem the revenge of that high priest's son. Eleazar the son of Ananias, (that former high priest who had Paul struck while on trial) took family vengeance by torturing and murdering Menahem and his soldiers in turn. The "brightness" of Menahem's coming into power in the temple with his followers was snuffed out almost as soon as it began - within a couple weeks. This single "Antichrist" (who denied that Jesus had already fulfilled Daniel 9's Messiah role by coming in the flesh) died in AD 66. That means this "Antichrist" prophecy is no longer a threat hanging over our heads today. It was a phenomenon of the first century.

        And Luther was mistaken. Thankfully, he knows better now.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
          This single "Antichrist" ... died in AD 66. That means this "Antichrist" prophecy is no longer a threat hanging over our heads today. It was a phenomenon of the first century.
          Excellent research. The only thing I could take issue with, especially among futurists, is the use of the term "Antichrist" to refer to a single individual in the future. The word appears only in the letters of John the Apostle, with reference to those who once professed to be Christian (1 John 2:19), but deserted the faith and deny that Jesus had come in the flesh, that is, in physical form (2 John 1:7). There were in fact many antichrists, and they were already present at the time John wrote his letters (1 John 2:18). I tend to think of them as Docetists, a precursor of Gnosticism, who denied that Jesus had a physical body.

          Comment


          • #6
            Evening Faber,

            For me, by reading what I John 2:22 said about the definition of "antichrist" and what II John 7 also said about the identifying mark of an antichrist...these two verses when compared with each other lead me to understand that a warning against the Gnostic view isn't really the idea being presented. I have recently carried on a debate on another forum with those that vehemently deny that Christ currently has a physical, glorified human body. But I don't believe that's the theme of these "antichrist" passages. I don't think they are covering the subject of whether or not Jesus had a human, corporeal form.

            "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (I John 2:22). This verse says quite plainly that those were called "antichrist" who denied that Jesus was the fulfillment of Christ the Messiah that should come (Messiah by interpretation meaning "the Christ" - John 1:41). This points directly to the Daniel 9:25 prophecy about "Messiah the Prince" who would be Christ - The Anointed One. Jesus once said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father. But those who denied Jesus' identity as being Daniel 9's promised Messiah the Prince were denying the Father also. That made them antichrist.

            So when I read II John 7, all that indicates to me is that those back then "who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" were really denying that Christ the promised Messiah of Daniel 9 had already come in the flesh by being incarnated and manifested to His own people Israel. A subtle difference of interpretation, but more fitted to the Messianic expectations of that specific generation. Remember, Luke 3:15 said that "the people were IN EXPECTATION, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not." They understood the timing for their 70th week of Daniel 9's prophecy better than we understand it today.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
              They understood the timing for their 70th week of Daniel 9's prophecy better than we understand it today.
              I know that probably everybody, or at least nearly everybody, would disagree with me on this, but I don't see the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 as referring to Jesus. Rather, it's the interval from 654 BC to 164BC. The anointed one being cut off would be the high priest Onias III. The covenant referred to is the agreement between Antiochus and Menelaus and his supporters made in 171 BC, establishing Menelaus as high priest, a position which gave him the authority to enforce Hellenistic culture upon the Jews. This covenant is described in 1 Maccabees 1:11-15. The prince who is to come would be Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

              I certainly see serious problems in the forced calculations and misconceptions presented by Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, in trying to establish the seventy weeks as ending supposedly on the exact day Jesus entered the City of Jerusalem on the back of a donkey.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Faber View Post

                I know that probably everybody, or at least nearly everybody, would disagree with me on this, but I don't see the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 as referring to Jesus. Rather, it's the interval from 654 BC to 164BC. The anointed one being cut off would be the high priest Onias III. The covenant referred to is the agreement between Antiochus and Menelaus and his supporters made in 171 BC, establishing Menelaus as high priest, a position which gave him the authority to enforce Hellenistic culture upon the Jews. This covenant is described in 1 Maccabees 1:11-15. The prince who is to come would be Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

                I certainly see serious problems in the forced calculations and misconceptions presented by Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, in trying to establish the seventy weeks as ending supposedly on the exact day Jesus entered the City of Jerusalem on the back of a donkey.
                I get a little nervous when somebody starts doing "Bible Math" to arrive at a prophetic fulfillment.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #9
                  1 John 4:3
                  And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
                  Who is the spirit of the antichrist? Antichrist is an individual who has the antichrist spirit or an entire group who has that spirit. They are of the world.

                  1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
                  Whoever denies that Jesus dwells in our flesh has the spirit of antichrist. Some set their mind on earthly things and some on spiritual reality.

                  4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
                  5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
                  The Capitol Insurrection And Religion

                  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...t_bibl_vppi_i0

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Faber View Post

                    I know that probably everybody, or at least nearly everybody, would disagree with me on this, but I don't see the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 as referring to Jesus. Rather, it's the interval from 654 BC to 164BC. The anointed one being cut off would be the high priest Onias III. The covenant referred to is the agreement between Antiochus and Menelaus and his supporters made in 171 BC, establishing Menelaus as high priest, a position which gave him the authority to enforce Hellenistic culture upon the Jews. This covenant is described in 1 Maccabees 1:11-15. The prince who is to come would be Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

                    I certainly see serious problems in the forced calculations and misconceptions presented by Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, in trying to establish the seventy weeks as ending supposedly on the exact day Jesus entered the City of Jerusalem on the back of a donkey.
                    Man, that's really unorthodox even for preterism. Just out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of "abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel" Jesus cited in the OD?
                    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post

                      Man, that's really unorthodox even for preterism. Just out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of "abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel" Jesus cited in the OD?
                      Daniel 11:31 reads, "Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation." The context in this case is clearly during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It follows the actions by Rome (Ships of Kittim) and before the uprising of the Maccabees (the prople who know their God). 1 Maccabees connects the abomination with the erection of the statue of Zeus in the sanctuary of the temple in Jerusalem in 167 BC,
                      Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering. (1 Maccabees 1:54, RSV)
                      I hold the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9:27 to be the same. It took place in the middle of the seven year period. The covenant referred to is the agreement between Antiochus and Menelaus and his supporters made in 171 BC, establishing Menelaus as high priest, a position which gave him the authority to enforce Hellenistic culture upon the Jews. This covenant is described in 1 Maccabees 1:11-15:

                      In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, "Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us." This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.
                      167 BC, the midpoint of the seventieth week, was a very eventful year. Apollonius, the captain of the Mysians and his 22,000 mercenaries besieged the city on a Sabbath day, tore down its walls of defense, and constructed the Akra, a fortress to hold the Syrian army. Shortly after that Antiochus made the decree forbidding any worship of the God of Israel and demanded that the people take part in the worship of Zeus. Then came the abomination of desolation, a statue of Zeus bearing the likeness of Antiochus, placed in the temple of God. A few days later was the sacrifice of a pig in the sanctuary and the sprinkling of pig blood upon the altar and upon the utensils of the temple of God.

                      Antiochus sent Apollonius, the captain of the Mysians, with an army of twenty-two thousand, and commanded him to slay all the grown men and to sell the women and boys as slaves. When this man arrived in Jerusalem, he pretended to be peaceably disposed and waited until the holy sabbath day; then, finding the Jews not at work, he ordered his men to parade under arms. He put to the sword all those who came out to see them, then rushed into the city with his armed men and killed great numbers of people. (2 Maccabees 5:24-26)
                      I am of the opinion that Daniel 12:11 is the same event.

                      However, the Abomination that Jesus talks about in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 is clearly referring to the incident when Cestius Gallus, leading the twelfth legion of the Romans, attempted to undermine the northern walls of the temple court. The Zealots, seeing the wall about to collapse, fled the temple courts into the Lower City. This took place around November 11, AD 66.

                      A terrible panic now seized the insurgents, many of whom were already slinking out of the city in the belief that it was on the verge of capture. The people thereupon took heart again, and the more the miscreants gave ground, the nearer did these advance to the gates, to open them and welcome Cestius as a benefactor. Had he but persisted for a while with the siege, he would have forthwith taken the city; but God, I suppose, because of those miscreants, had already turned away even from His sanctuary and ordained that that day should not see the end of the war. (Josephus; War, (Niese 2:538-539, Whiston ii.19.6)).
                      Cestius Gallus was actually welcomed into the temple courts. But without explanation, early the next morning Gallus withdrew his army and returned to the camp near Beth Horon. Possibly he felt that with the coming of the autumn rains and winter frost, his army would not have enough provisions for a lengthy conflict. But the Jews quickly overtook the cumbersome Roman army, which found it necessary to abandon their heavy baggage. They were ambushed as they fled through the narrow passages on the way to Beth Horon. Nearly 6,000 Roman soldiers were killed in their retreat. Had not the Romans escaped from the Jews later that night, the entire army could have been killed.

                      After the catastrophe of Cestius many distinguished Jews abandoned the city as swimmers desert a sinking ship. Thus the brothers Costobar and Saul with Philip, son of Jacimus, prefect of king Agrippa’s army, fled from Jerusalem and joined Cestius. (Josephus; War, (Niese 2:556, Whiston ii.20.1))
                      Luke doesn't use the term "Abomination of Desolation", but he speaks about the same event in Luke 21:20-24, in which Jesus Himself gave an advance warning forty years earlier. Epiphanius of Salamis writes:

                      For when the city was about to be taken and destroyed by the Romans, it was revealed in advance to all the disciples by an angel of God that they should remove from the city, as it was going to be completely destroyed.
                      Epiphanius repeats this tradition in De Mensuris et Ponderibus (On Weights and Measures) xv.3. The Christians in Jerusalem, of which there were several thousand, were told in a revelation to flee to Pella.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi again Faber,

                        You have said that you believe the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9:27 and the abomination that makes desolate in Daniel 11:31 are the very same. This is where we differ. I believe scripture presents them as different events, but involving the same TYPE of abomination - invading armies. The term "abomination of desolation" in the gospels is clearly interpreted by Luke 21:20 to be "Jerusalem compassed with armies". This occurred, just as you have already noted above, both in the earlier case of Antiochus Epiphanes as well as later with Cestius Gallus in AD 66. Both times, invading armies in Jerusalem were involved and caused desolation - just with different empires and commanders who were doing the invading and desolating. So I am at a loss to see how you are calling the Daniel 9:27 the Antiochus Epiphanes invasion.

                        My question would be: How would it have been possible for Antiochus Epiphanes to "bring in *everlasting* righteousness", and "to *make reconciliation* for iniquity", and "to seal up vision and prophecy" if he were "Messiah the Prince" that would come? Because Daniel 9:24 said that these things were supposed to be accomplished among the list of six things which would take place before that 70 weeks of a no-gap, 490 years timespan had expired. These glorious accomplishments were credited in scripture to Christ Jesus - not as a result of Antiochus' invasion of Jerusalem.

                        The Daniel 12:11 "abomination of desolation" actually IS the AD 66 Cestius Gallus invasion under discussion; the same "abomination of desolation" that Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe in the gospels. The dates for those Cestius Gallus events which Josephus provided for us match perfectly with Daniel 12's 1,335 days, from the time Cestius Gallus set up his abominable armies against Jerusalem's temple gates, up until the bodily resurrection in which Daniel was promised to participate at the close of that 1,335th day. This was exactly on Pentecost Day in the AD 70 year to be precise. And it was more than just "several thousand" Christians who fled for the mountains to escape the Zealot and Roman armies in AD 66. By comparing the casualty lists of that AD 66-70 period with the AD 66 Jerusalem census, it was more like 1-1/4 million who probably obeyed Christ's warning to flee when they saw those Roman and Zealot armies squaring off against each other in AD 66. The Christians had a very brief interlude of a couple days at most before the triumphant Zealot armies returned to Jerusalem after defeating Cestius Gallus' army. And it was just before winter, just as Christ had told them to pray for this merciful opportunity to flee Jerusalem for the mountains.

                        I do not agree with Anderson that this 70th "week" of Daniel 9's prophecy began the very day Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey. No. Christ told us Himself when Daniel's 70th prophetic week of years had started. In Mark 1:14-15, after John had been imprisoned (in AD 30), Jesus came into Galilee saying, "THE TIME (KAIROS) IS FULFILLED, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel." That specific, fulfilled "TIME" Jesus spoke about there I believe referred to the particular "season" God set up that was to begin Daniel's 70th week. As the "Messenger of the Covenant", Christ's one week of 7 years when He "confirmed the (new) covenant with many" of the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" did NOT start at His baptism in AD 27. Neither did it start when He entered Jerusalem on a donkey just before His crucifixion. His public ministry started 3 years after His AD 27 baptism, when Jesus performed His first miracle at Cana. "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His glory; and His disciples believed on Him." (John 2:11).



                        For Cow Poke, if crunching the numbers in scripture makes you nervous, I can fully understand. Numbers have often been misapplied, misunderstood, and mistaken. And calendar irregularities can easily lead one off in wrong directions. But scripture gives us a kind of "checks and balances" way of confirming the critical dates for events by comparing scripture with scripture. You just need to know where to look. And those dates ARE critical. The very divinity of Christ Jesus is at stake with many of them.
                        Last edited by 3 Resurrections; 03-12-2021, 02:09 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Faber View Post

                          Daniel 11:31 reads, "Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation." The context in this case is clearly during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It follows the actions by Rome (Ships of Kittim) and before the uprising of the Maccabees (the prople who know their God). 1 Maccabees connects the abomination with the erection of the statue of Zeus in the sanctuary of the temple in Jerusalem in 167 BC,


                          I hold the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9:27 to be the same. It took place in the middle of the seven year period. The covenant referred to is the agreement between Antiochus and Menelaus and his supporters made in 171 BC, establishing Menelaus as high priest, a position which gave him the authority to enforce Hellenistic culture upon the Jews. This covenant is described in 1 Maccabees 1:11-15:



                          167 BC, the midpoint of the seventieth week, was a very eventful year. Apollonius, the captain of the Mysians and his 22,000 mercenaries besieged the city on a Sabbath day, tore down its walls of defense, and constructed the Akra, a fortress to hold the Syrian army. Shortly after that Antiochus made the decree forbidding any worship of the God of Israel and demanded that the people take part in the worship of Zeus. Then came the abomination of desolation, a statue of Zeus bearing the likeness of Antiochus, placed in the temple of God. A few days later was the sacrifice of a pig in the sanctuary and the sprinkling of pig blood upon the altar and upon the utensils of the temple of God.



                          I am of the opinion that Daniel 12:11 is the same event.

                          However, the Abomination that Jesus talks about in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 is clearly referring to the incident when Cestius Gallus, leading the twelfth legion of the Romans, attempted to undermine the northern walls of the temple court. The Zealots, seeing the wall about to collapse, fled the temple courts into the Lower City. This took place around November 11, AD 66.



                          Cestius Gallus was actually welcomed into the temple courts. But without explanation, early the next morning Gallus withdrew his army and returned to the camp near Beth Horon. Possibly he felt that with the coming of the autumn rains and winter frost, his army would not have enough provisions for a lengthy conflict. But the Jews quickly overtook the cumbersome Roman army, which found it necessary to abandon their heavy baggage. They were ambushed as they fled through the narrow passages on the way to Beth Horon. Nearly 6,000 Roman soldiers were killed in their retreat. Had not the Romans escaped from the Jews later that night, the entire army could have been killed.



                          Luke doesn't use the term "Abomination of Desolation", but he speaks about the same event in Luke 21:20-24, in which Jesus Himself gave an advance warning forty years earlier. Epiphanius of Salamis writes:



                          Epiphanius repeats this tradition in De Mensuris et Ponderibus (On Weights and Measures) xv.3. The Christians in Jerusalem, of which there were several thousand, were told in a revelation to flee to Pella.

                          I'm not arguing one way or the other, but you realize your explanation of Dan's 7 years is the explanation counter-missionary Jews use to discount the attribution to Christ?
                          "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No matter what interpretation is held, there is not going to be anything close to a perfect fit. The opinions of early Jews, early and contemporary Christians and of unbelieving critics are far too numerous to list in any detail. Even the view which I hold has issues.

                            The problem is that people tend to be agenda driven. Where there is uncertainty and the possibility of multiple interpretations, people tend to lean toward whichever interpretation best fits their philosophy. Unbelievers, who reject the possibility of a God who knows the future, controls the future, and tell His prophets of future events, must conclude that those prophecies were written after the fact, using the pseudonym of a historical person. Yet many Christians, in their zeal to uphold the Divine authority of Scripture, would rather run to their prophecy charts. I place Chuck Missler, John Nelson Darby, Robert Eisler and David Daube in that category.

                            Dr. E.B. Pusey, in Lecture IV of Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures in 1864, refutes the remarks of unbelieving commentators that they are unified in their critical opinions whereas Christian commentators are in such disarray of thought. He presents a table of twenty one critics holding twenty three opinions, all differing on when the seventy weeks begin, when the sixty-two weeks begin, who the messiah of verse 25 is, who the messiah of verse 26 is, when the last week begins and when it ends.

                            Dr. John Peter Lange, writing his commentary on Daniel five years after Dr. Pusey, gives an exhaustive review of opinions far too numerous to account for. He divides them into several non-Christian and Christian categories of interpretations: (1.) Jewish pre-Christian tradition (such as in the Books of the Maccabees), which finds support from unbelieving scholars, that the seventy weeks culminate with the death of the High Priest Onias III, the desolation of the sacred altar by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the restoration of the temple by the Maccabees; (2.) That of Flavius Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud and rabbinical traditions, which interpret the culmination of the seventy weeks and the abomination of desolation as the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army in AD 70 after a war that lasted 42 months. (5.) critical-rationalistic interpretations of unbelievers, expanding beyond the twenty-one listed by Pusey.

                            Among the uncertainties encountered by interpreters are the following: (1) What is the beginning date of the seventy weeks? (2) Who is the “Messiah the Prince” who was cut off? (3) When did the seventieth week occur, the midpoint of which was the abomination of desolation? (4) How do we define a “week"? (5) Even the six goals mentioned above are subject to differences of opinions. An end to what transgression? What sin? What kind of atonement, and for which iniquity? Anointing which holy of holies?

                            I realize that my own view is that of the unbelievers and scoffers. But with one major difference: They believe that the Book of Daniel is a fiction written around 165 BC, declaring historic events as if they were prophetic utterances. I firmly believe in the inspiration and accuracy of Scripture, and believe the prophecies to be Divine revelations given to an actual person who lived at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

                            As for the six goals of Daniel 9:24, I admit there is some difficulty.

                            • "To bring an end to the transgression." Referring to the sacrificing of pigs, compelling the Jews to worship idols and build temples in every city and forbidding them to circumcise male children and destroying the Scriptures, yes, it did just that.

                            • "To seal up sins", that is, to remove it out of the way. When Judas and his army captured the temple, they tore down the abomination of desolation. They tore down the altars which had been built in the public square. Whereas the first goal dealt with the rebellious acts of the Tobiads, this second goal deals with the sins of those who submitted to their Hellenization.

                            • "To make an atonement", or covering for iniquity. On the 25th day of Chislev, the Maccabees offered sacrifices on the altar. Although the Day of Atonement was an annual sacrifice, (Exodus 30, Leviticus 16) the sin offering, (Leviticus 4:20-35) the guilt offering, (Leviticus 5:1-6:7) and the offering for a cleansed leper (Leviticus 14) were likewise sacrifices for atonement.

                            • "To bring in everlasting righteousness". This would be the most uncertain part of my view. Actually, eternal righteousness dates back to God's eternal covenant with Abraham. The just shall live by his faith. (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38) Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23) Clearly, this was the intent of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers as they selected blameless priests devoted to the Law in order to cleanse the sanctuary and offer the sacrifice on the new altar which they had built out of unhewn stone, as Moses had directed.

                            • "To seal up vision and prophecy". Attestation, or bring to completion. Referring to the fulfillment of that particular prophecy; not referring to all prophecy in general.

                            • "To anoint the holy of holies". Although not specifically stated in either Josephus or the Books of the Maccabees, it would be necessary to anoint the temple, the laver, the altar, the tools before any sacrifice could be offered (Exodus 30:25-26; Leviticus 8:10-11)

                            According to Josephus, Wars, ii.528, the incident where Cestius Gallus entered Jerusalem was the thirteenth day of the month Hyperberetaeus. in the midst of the Feast of Tabernacles. Probably Wednesday, November 12, AD 66 (Julian Calendar), neither winter nor a Sabbath. You mentioned "...the bodily resurrection in which Daniel was promised to participate at the close of that 1,335th day." That calculates to on or about July 9, AD 70. Are you telling me that that was the date of the resurrection? Did I miss out? Was I taking communion all these years for nothing?

                            The AD 66 census to which you refer, was that taken by Cestius Gallus during the Passover of AD 66, several months before the above incident. Not permitted to count people, they counted the number of people, they counted the number of sacrificed Passover lambs and mltiplied by ten, calculating about 2.7 million people taking part in the Passover feast at Jerusalem. (Josephus, War, Book 6 (Niese, 6:422-26; Whiston, vi.9.3)) That was not a census of the city itself, but an estimate of how many people, local and visitors from outlying regions, took part in the feast. But Tacitus, four years later, gave an estimate of the number in attendance during the siege in AD 70: "We have heard that the total number of the besieged of every age and both sexes was six hundred thousand. (Tacitus, Historiae (Histories), v.13) I wouldn't use that to calculate that as "more like 1-1/4 million who probably obeyed Christ's warning to flee". I would go by the words of James, the brother of Jesus, "And when they heard it they [began] glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law." (Acts 21:20)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Faber View Post
                              No matter what interpretation is held, there is not going to be anything close to a perfect fit. The opinions of early Jews, early and contemporary Christians and of unbelieving critics are far too numerous to list in any detail. Even the view which I hold has issues.

                              The problem is that people tend to be agenda driven. Where there is uncertainty and the possibility of multiple interpretations, people tend to lean toward whichever interpretation best fits their philosophy. Unbelievers, who reject the possibility of a God who knows the future, controls the future, and tell His prophets of future events, must conclude that those prophecies were written after the fact, using the pseudonym of a historical person. Yet many Christians, in their zeal to uphold the Divine authority of Scripture, would rather run to their prophecy charts. I place Chuck Missler, John Nelson Darby, Robert Eisler and David Daube in that category.

                              Dr. E.B. Pusey, in Lecture IV of Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures in 1864, refutes the remarks of unbelieving commentators that they are unified in their critical opinions whereas Christian commentators are in such disarray of thought. He presents a table of twenty one critics holding twenty three opinions, all differing on when the seventy weeks begin, when the sixty-two weeks begin, who the messiah of verse 25 is, who the messiah of verse 26 is, when the last week begins and when it ends.

                              Dr. John Peter Lange, writing his commentary on Daniel five years after Dr. Pusey, gives an exhaustive review of opinions far too numerous to account for. He divides them into several non-Christian and Christian categories of interpretations: (1.) Jewish pre-Christian tradition (such as in the Books of the Maccabees), which finds support from unbelieving scholars, that the seventy weeks culminate with the death of the High Priest Onias III, the desolation of the sacred altar by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the restoration of the temple by the Maccabees; (2.) That of Flavius Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud and rabbinical traditions, which interpret the culmination of the seventy weeks and the abomination of desolation as the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army in AD 70 after a war that lasted 42 months. (5.) critical-rationalistic interpretations of unbelievers, expanding beyond the twenty-one listed by Pusey.

                              Among the uncertainties encountered by interpreters are the following: (1) What is the beginning date of the seventy weeks? (2) Who is the “Messiah the Prince” who was cut off? (3) When did the seventieth week occur, the midpoint of which was the abomination of desolation? (4) How do we define a “week"? (5) Even the six goals mentioned above are subject to differences of opinions. An end to what transgression? What sin? What kind of atonement, and for which iniquity? Anointing which holy of holies?

                              I realize that my own view is that of the unbelievers and scoffers. But with one major difference: They believe that the Book of Daniel is a fiction written around 165 BC, declaring historic events as if they were prophetic utterances. I firmly believe in the inspiration and accuracy of Scripture, and believe the prophecies to be Divine revelations given to an actual person who lived at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

                              As for the six goals of Daniel 9:24, I admit there is some difficulty.

                              • "To bring an end to the transgression." Referring to the sacrificing of pigs, compelling the Jews to worship idols and build temples in every city and forbidding them to circumcise male children and destroying the Scriptures, yes, it did just that.

                              • "To seal up sins", that is, to remove it out of the way. When Judas and his army captured the temple, they tore down the abomination of desolation. They tore down the altars which had been built in the public square. Whereas the first goal dealt with the rebellious acts of the Tobiads, this second goal deals with the sins of those who submitted to their Hellenization.

                              • "To make an atonement", or covering for iniquity. On the 25th day of Chislev, the Maccabees offered sacrifices on the altar. Although the Day of Atonement was an annual sacrifice, (Exodus 30, Leviticus 16) the sin offering, (Leviticus 4:20-35) the guilt offering, (Leviticus 5:1-6:7) and the offering for a cleansed leper (Leviticus 14) were likewise sacrifices for atonement.

                              • "To bring in everlasting righteousness". This would be the most uncertain part of my view. Actually, eternal righteousness dates back to God's eternal covenant with Abraham. The just shall live by his faith. (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38) Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23) Clearly, this was the intent of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers as they selected blameless priests devoted to the Law in order to cleanse the sanctuary and offer the sacrifice on the new altar which they had built out of unhewn stone, as Moses had directed.

                              • "To seal up vision and prophecy". Attestation, or bring to completion. Referring to the fulfillment of that particular prophecy; not referring to all prophecy in general.

                              • "To anoint the holy of holies". Although not specifically stated in either Josephus or the Books of the Maccabees, it would be necessary to anoint the temple, the laver, the altar, the tools before any sacrifice could be offered (Exodus 30:25-26; Leviticus 8:10-11)

                              According to Josephus, Wars, ii.528, the incident where Cestius Gallus entered Jerusalem was the thirteenth day of the month Hyperberetaeus. in the midst of the Feast of Tabernacles. Probably Wednesday, November 12, AD 66 (Julian Calendar), neither winter nor a Sabbath. You mentioned "...the bodily resurrection in which Daniel was promised to participate at the close of that 1,335th day." That calculates to on or about July 9, AD 70. Are you telling me that that was the date of the resurrection? Did I miss out? Was I taking communion all these years for nothing?

                              The AD 66 census to which you refer, was that taken by Cestius Gallus during the Passover of AD 66, several months before the above incident. Not permitted to count people, they counted the number of people, they counted the number of sacrificed Passover lambs and mltiplied by ten, calculating about 2.7 million people taking part in the Passover feast at Jerusalem. (Josephus, War, Book 6 (Niese, 6:422-26; Whiston, vi.9.3)) That was not a census of the city itself, but an estimate of how many people, local and visitors from outlying regions, took part in the feast. But Tacitus, four years later, gave an estimate of the number in attendance during the siege in AD 70: "We have heard that the total number of the besieged of every age and both sexes was six hundred thousand. (Tacitus, Historiae (Histories), v.13) I wouldn't use that to calculate that as "more like 1-1/4 million who probably obeyed Christ's warning to flee". I would go by the words of James, the brother of Jesus, "And when they heard it they [began] glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law." (Acts 21:20)
                              Two more questions then I'm probably done.

                              Do you believe that Daniel wrote the book after the fact (or that it was revised that way) and made it seem like he was making a prediction (this is what the skeptics and majority of secular biblical scholars that hold your view about Antiochus believe)?

                              Do you believe the Son of Man approaching The Ancient of days in Daniel is Jesus? And if you do, why would not believe Daniel would reference him more than once?
                              "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Darfius, 04-24-2021, 09:48 AM
                              19 responses
                              151 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X