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

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seanD View Post

    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 absolutely believe that the Book of Daniel was written during his life, or maybe immediately after, and that these predictions are direct revelations from God.

    And yes, I believe the Son of Man in chapter 7 is definitely Jesus. One other possible reference, and this may be controversial, is that the reference to Michael (He who is like God) in chapter 12, following the prophecies about Rome and immediately before the "time of distress", refers symbolically to Jesus. I know this is a view of some cult, maybe JW, but some Christians have suggested it also. Unlike angels, Jesus was not a created being. He was from everlasting. But that doesn't stop many Christian scholars from referring Old Testament appearances of the Angel of the Lord as being Jesus in human form. But I won't be dogmatic about that.


    • #17
      Evening again Faber,

      That IS humorous that among 21 critics, there are 23 different opinions. So true. Made me laugh. Some years back I plunged into a book by John Evans called "The Four Kingdoms of Daniel", where, among other issues, he tried to dig into all the various interpretations dating the 70 week prophecy. It really is a critical dated prophecy to get correct, since Christ's ability to manifest Himself to His people as "Messiah the Prince" was going to take place on a very, very specific year. If Jesus had not fulfilled that prophesied year and the terms of the 70th week to the letter, then He was a false Messiah and a consummate liar, and we need not believe a word He said. You remember, of course, that even a single wrong prediction made by an Old Testament prophet consigned them to the "False Prophet" category.

      Even the Samaritan woman at the well knew enough about the Daniel 9:25 prophecy to say, "I know that Messias cometh, who is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things." And both Andrew and later on Philip testified, "We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ." And "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Even the delegation sent in John 1 from the Pharisees that year to ask John about his identity were well aware that the year of revealing the Messiah to Israel was then at hand. As well as the people of that time who were "in expectation", and musing in their hearts if John was that prophesied Christ or not (Luke 3:15). All these examples show us that the Jews of that period had paid strict attention to the Daniel 9 prophecy dates, and knew when that 490 years had actually started.

      Evans' book never really nailed the year down, but Bishop Ussher's "Annals of the World" did get those tricky dates figured out exactly - many years ago. He did not rely on the usual Ptolomy's canon resource to arrive at the correct terminus a quo. Instead, he proved that the 20th year (Nehemiah 2:1) of Artaxerxes I's reign (when the decree was given to restore and to build Jerusalem and its wall, including the street in front of the temple) actually should have included Artaxerxes I's earlier 9-YEAR CO-REGENCY with his father Xerxes starting back in 474 BC. Archeological proof has since surfaced that confirms Ussher's deductions were correct about Artaxerxes' true regnal dates. This means that the year starting the 70-week prophecy should begin 20 years later when the 4th decree was given in 454 BC, with AD 30 consequently being the start of the last, 70th week. As Christ proved in AD 30 (after John's imprisonment) when he stated in Mark 1:15 that "...THE TIME IS FULFILLED..."

      We can use scripture to cross-check that AD 30 date by the statement the Jews made at Christ's first Passover of His public ministry (which was in AD 30). They told Jesus "Forty-six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" Since Herod's Temple renovations had begun in AD 17, this confirms the beginning year of Jesus' public ministry in AD 30. Which was the beginning of the 70th "week" of 7 years confirming the (new) covenant with the "lost sheep of the house of Israel. These were the ones Jesus told the Canaanite woman He was sent to find. And the close of the 490 years ended in AD 37 with the Apostle Paul's commission by God in a vision in Jerusalem's temple to "Get thee quickly out of Jerusalem...Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles." (Acts 22:18-21).

      Faber, I believe you can sense yourself that one of those six predictions foretold in Daniel 9:24 - the one of "bringing in everlasting righteousness" - is NOT something that can be done by any mortal man. Zecharias prophesied that his son John, the "prophet of the Highest" would go before the Lord, who would grant "remission of sins" to His people. That is truly "making an end of sins". This is also not something that any ordinary mortal can perform, since the Jews themselves asked, "who can forgive sins but God?"

      To "anoint the MOST HOLY" in Daniel 9:24 - this can either be the heavenly mercy seat where Christ applied His own blood on the very day He was resurrected and ascended to the Father, or it can refer to Christ being "anointed" and "ordained" by God as our high priest in heaven on that same morning after His resurrection. After all, Revelation 15:4 says "...For thou ONLY art holy..." True holiness is embodied in Christ alone. He is the epitome and the final realization of the "Most Holy" title.

      Daniel's 1,335th day which predicted his own resurrection by his "resting" (in the grave) and then "standing in his lot" (by being resurrected) at the end of those 1,335 days...this 1,335 days is another very peculiar number that John Evans tried his best to nail down - without success. There are calendar discrepancies in just when Cestius Gallus's army actually got to the Jerusalem temple gates and attempted to undermine them. Ussher gives both dates (Niese and Capellus) of October 17 and October 4 respectively, for when Cestius first broke into the lower city in Jerusalem. Shortly thereafter, he then proceeded to attack the temple and the upper city, with his soldiers actually resting their shields in testudo-fashion against the Temple walls to protect themselves while they tried to dig under the wall . Ussher favored the Capellus dates in his studies, and I agree with him. So a probable date of October 6 when the "abominable armies" of Cestius Gallus actually made physical contact with the Temple complex is for me the beginning of those 1,335 days until the AD 70 resurrection on that year's Pentecost Day (with Daniel's 1290th day being the day Titus first positioned his armies around Jerusalem, just after Passover week had started).

      And no, Faber, you have not missed out on the bodily resurrection for yourself and all believers who have died and will die after that AD 70 bodily resurrection. That's because God scheduled no less and no more than THREE bodily resurrection events to take place over the total span of human history. These three resurrection events were designed to match the symbolism of the three required harvest feasts in the OT of #1, Passover in AD 33 (the Matthew 27 saints raised with Christ in the "First resurrection" of the "First-fruits") , #2, Pentecost Day in AD 70 at the end of that 1,335th day that Daniel 12:11-13 mentions, and #3, the Feast of Tabernacles time of year in our future. Two of these three resurrection "harvest" events have already occurred. We await the third bodily resurrection to come. Which should explain my choice of a screen name, yes?


      • #18

        If cherry-picking history is such an accurate way of interpreting scripture, why do so many people who interpret in that way disagree on what the scriptures mean and what events are referred to? Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) is the father of historical-critical interpretation used in academia. He was kicked out of Judaism and called heretical by Christianity of his day. He was a pantheist.

        It is important not to rely on our private interpretation of prophecy. (2 Pet 1:20) Those in the second century who followed the apostles, such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, said the Old Testament was symbolic and allegorical. The apostle Paul said that the invisible things are understood by those things made in the creation. (Rom 1:20) That’s why there are verses like Psalms 8:3, 19:1. The heavens declare the glory of God. That’s why Jesus taught parables from nature (Mat 13). 2 Cor 3:6 is not about a letter someone sent killing somebody. It is about spiritual death and understanding the Old Testament (2 Cor 3:14-15). It has to be read in context. Here are a couple of other English translations.

        He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not based on what is written but on the Spirit, because what is written kills, but the Spirit gives life.

        He has even made us competent to be workers serving a New Covenant, the essence of which is not a written text but the Spirit. For the written text brings death, but the Spirit gives life.

        The spirit writes on the heart.

        John 3 - Jesus said you must be born again. Nicodemus asked if must re-enter his mother’s womb. Jesus said you must be born of the spirit. Nicodemus was trying to understand Jesus literally. That’s why literal interpretation can kill the spirit. Jesus taught in parables and said, “it is written.” He didn’t say thou must take the scripture literally.
        The Capitol Insurrection And Religion


        • #19
          Hi eschaton,

          The "heretic" label is thrown around by many a bit too freely, I'm thinking. It doesn't necessarily apply every time it's used. My own husband considers me to be one. Which is his privilege, although I don't accuse him of being one. I just consider him to be mistaken on quite a few points. A certificate of ordination and an Mdiv. doesn't necessarily endow him with infallibility either.

          I'm not informed on Spinoza one way or the other, so I can't speak to his position either way. Academia doesn't really impress me. I believe Christ said that God was pleased to "hide things from the wise and prudent, and reveal them unto babes". That's me. I'm a babe. That means paradoxically that the bread is promised to be buttered on my side.

          And I happen to agree fully with the statement that the Old Testament was symbolic and allegorical. My eschatological paradigm of THREE bodily resurrection events over the span of fallen man's history on this planet is built solidly upon the symbolic significance of the THREE required harvest feast celebrations under the Old Testament Mosaic law. All the nit-picking details and rituals performed in the tabernacle were meant to provide an enduring picture of what Christ's redemptive actions for His people would include. That's everything from the temple gates and pillars down to the last bit of sprinkling and even the materials which were required for the tabernacle and temple furniture. ALL were symbolic either of Christ's identity, or they pictured His redemptive acts on our behalf.


          • #20
            Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
            Instead, he proved that the 20th year (Nehemiah 2:1) of Artaxerxes I's reign (when the decree was given to restore and to build Jerusalem and its wall, including the street in front of the temple) actually should have included Artaxerxes I's earlier 9-YEAR CO-REGENCY with his father Xerxes starting back in 474 BC.
            The problem I have with that is that Artaxerxes never issued a decree to rebuild the City of Jerusalem. Nehemiah had requested permission to leave and rebuild the gates and walls of the city, and Artaxerxes gave him permission to, and even financially supported his efforts.

            If Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks of years terminated with the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 BC, the the terminus a quo would have been in 654 BC or thereabouts. That was about 80 years before Ezra entered the city. So what was this declaration that the city would be rebuilt?

            We read in Isaiah 44:28, “It is I who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd, And he will carry out all My desire.’ And he says of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built,’ And of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’" If that was written in or around 654 BC, Isaiah would have been very old. Or maybe his wife wrote the words. She was also a prophet.

            If that was the decree that Daniel 9:25 is talking about, I don't know. But it's definitely not what Artaxerxes decreed.

            As for the resurrection of the dead, there are several instances in the Old and New Testaments of people being raised from the dead, but not yet into an immortal eternal state. They eventually died a second time. Except for Jesus. I'm still waiting for the First Resurrection, the one spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 4, when the Lord Himself will descend with a shout, the dead in Christ rise first, and then we who are alive and remain will be caught up to be with them forever.


            • #21
              Hi Faber,

              The rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls and gates under the Artaxerxes I decree given in Nehemiah WAS the equivalent of "rebuilding the city" of Jerusalem. A Jerusalem having no intact defensive walls and gates was described at that time by Nehemiah as "lying waste" and as "a reproach". Remember Isaiah 60:18 speaking of the spiritual Jerusalem whose "WALLS are Salvation, and her GATES Praise"? Even the spiritual city called New Jerusalem is not completely built up until the "walls" of "Salvation" are entirely finished with the last saint having been added to the "living stones" laid upon Christ the foundation stone.

              Walls and gates. Very important. Daniel 9:25 mentions the particular conditions of the 70-weeks' decree regarding the "wall" and the "street" in front of the temple that would be built, specifically during "troubled times". There is only one period of rebuilding Jerusalem's wall and street that was "troubled" in the post-exilic return, and it was recorded by Nehemiah. Under the threat of attack by their enemies, every man was bearing a weapon in one hand and building the wall with the other hand. They didn't even take time to change clothes except for when they needed to wash them (Nehemiah 4:23). The opposition against their building program was extremely dangerous at that point (from Sanballat and Tobiah, the Arabians, the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites). Nehemiah spent two chapters (Neh. 3 & 4) listing every single family who courageously worked on those walls and gates until they were finished in 52 days (Neh. 6:15). My absolute favorite is the mention of "the daughters of Shallum", who helped their father build his part of the wall. Gutsy ladies! Very encouraging to me, since I've got to somehow build a backyard deck by myself, and frame our house addition's floor before this summer is over.

              But perhaps it isn't even necessary to separate and distinguish those four Persian kings' decrees from each other. After all, once Cyrus had made the first decree, that initial decree was never rescinded, "according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not" (Dan. 6:8). Even after Cyrus's death, the decrees following that first one given by Cyrus only served to repeat and confirm his original one. So, the Artaxerxes I decree was really just revisiting the same Cyrus decree, only with a few added directives that completed Jerusalem's rebuilt infrastructure by finishing its defensive walls and gates.

              Again, I see no way possible that any period of time surrounding Antiochus Epiphanes could have "brought in EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS" as an accomplished reality included within the 70 weeks of years. The only one who could have accomplished that was Christ with His finished cross work and His resurrection and ascension to the Father that day.

              Ummm, as for the resurrection of the dead, (even for those examples in the OT and NT), to be brought back to life after dying IS to be brought to an "immortal eternal state". NOBODY EVER DIES TWICE. Because we are told in Hebrews 9:27 that "it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE, but after this the judgment." NO double jeopardy. Your statement about those OT and NT examples of resurrection that "they eventually died a second time" is TOTALLY without any scripture proof. It contradicts the crystal clear terms in Heb. 9:27 that physical death of the body is a ONE-TIME event. The misunderstood "SECOND death" (which is the Lake of Fire) was the second death of the CITY OF JERUSALEM AND THE NATION, ever since its first death under the Babylonian invasion. That "second death" / Lake of Fire reference in Revelation 20:14 is NOT to be understood as a contradiction of Hebrews 9:27.

              What confirms the identity of the "FIRST resurrection" for me are the many similar terms used to describe Christ's own resurrection in AD 33. He is called "the FIRST-fruits", and the "FIRST-begotten", and the "FIRST-born from among the dead". Lots of "FIRSTS", so that we don't mistake the value of Christ's "FIRST resurrection" when as the "FIRST-born, "He "opened up the matrix" for the rest of His brethren to follow later. They all would likewise eventually be brought before the Ancient of Days, and stand before Him in a glorified, resurrected body form like their elder brother Christ Jesus. Christ was the absolute FIRST one ever to ascend to the Father and stand before Him in a glorified, resurrected human body.

              Not even Enoch could say that.
              Last edited by 3 Resurrections; 03-15-2021, 05:16 PM.


              • #22
                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.
                What is the significance of 654 BC though - apart from coming “seventy weeks of years” before 164 BC ? IIRC, 654 BC would be during the reign of Manasseh of Judah, who (at least in 2 Kings) was not fondly remembered. Even if 2 Chronicles is correct in saying he repented & was restored, and put down idolatry in Judah, that does not help answer the question.

                I’m open to any interpretation of Daniel 9 that can make good sense of it, regardless of any effects that may have on the unity, dating, and human authorship of the book. I believe the identification as Onias III is not uncommon.

                Doesn’t making Antiochus IV the “coming prince” identify him, at least verbally, with a/the Messiah ? Given his appearances in Maccabees, that seems unlikely. Even Cyrus is called “anointed”- and nothing beyond that.
                Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 06-08-2021, 06:58 PM.


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post

                  What is the significance of 654 BC though - apart from coming “seventy weeks of years” before 164 BC ? IIRC, 654 BC would be during the reign of Manasseh of Judah, who (at least in 2 Kings) was not fondly remembered. Even if 2 Chronicles is correct in saying he repented & was restored, and put down idolatry in Judah, that does not help answer the question.

                  I’m open to any interpretation of Daniel 9 that can make good sense of it, regardless of any effects that may have on the unity, dating, and human authorship of the book. I believe the identification as Onias III is not uncommon.

                  Doesn’t making Antiochus IV the “coming prince” identify him, at least verbally, with a/the Messiah ? Given his appearances in Maccabees, that seems unlikely. Even Cyrus is called “anointed”- and nothing beyond that.
                  I had stated somewhere, I don't remember where, that every interpretation has its shortcomings, and the one that I lean toward is no different. If the word (dabar) that the city was to be rebuilt was 490 years before 164 BC, that would place it in 654 BC. What took place that year? Is that when Isaiah 44:28 was written? Isaiah would have been pretty old at that year, if Manasseh the king hadn't already executed him. Or maybe Isaiah's wife wrote it. She was also a prophet.

                  And I would distinguish between Antiochus IV, the Prince who is to come, from the Anointed Prince of verse 25 and the Prince who was to be cut off, namely Onias III.


                  Related Threads


                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by eschaton, 03-11-2021, 10:51 AM
                  22 responses
                  Last Post Faber
                  by Faber
                  Started by Darfius, 03-30-2020, 03:34 PM
                  136 responses
                  Last Post Rushing Jaws  
                  Started by seanD, 03-26-2020, 11:05 AM
                  75 responses
                  1 like
                  Last Post seanD
                  by seanD
                  Started by seanD, 05-29-2019, 06:07 AM
                  201 responses
                  Last Post seanD
                  by seanD