Life After People

[Phoneman777]

We've already discussed, and you seemed to agree, that knowing the gospel alone will be sufficient in identifying any antichrist through his message. I certainly don't plan on worshiping anyone but God, or following someone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah (which is how the scriptures instruct us on how to identify any antichrist, as we've already discussed). I have read the various new testament descriptions of the antichrist and his mark. Are these insufficient descriptions?

I don't "despise" prophecy, friend (especially not in the context it's used in the 1 Thess verse you quoted from), I simply find myself less capable than you of discerning the meaning of this particular prophecy. You seem to be suggesting that interpreting this particular prophecy correctly reveals some particular commands and the nature of "true faith" that aren't discussed elsewhere in scripture? I don't consider God's commands or my faith any less essential that you do, I expect, and you certainly seem passionate about them. I simply utterly fail at seeing what this prophecy has to do with those things.

Roads, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that a seemingly nice person such as yourself despises prophecy by saying that, only that "prophecy" includes spiritual propositions based on God's Word as well as predictions of the future, and that according to Paul we should be ready to listen to what people claim is of God and then test it with His Word.

The Gospel is not the Word of God in it's entirety. Christian character, lifestyle, duty, and knowledge of the devices of Satan are all ideas that are considered the "meat" that follows after the Gospel "milk" which we first receive. What lead Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Jerome, Huss, Zwingle, and the whole of worldwide Protestantism without exception from the earliest times until just about 100 years ago that Rome was the Antichrist was the "meat" of the Word. The Council of Trent was convened with the sole purpose of finding a way to stamp out Protestantism and from that the Jesuits were born. Jesuit Futurism which is so popular among Protestants today has succeeded in accomplishing what that 300 year old idea set out to do in the beginning. It just took a little while for Protestants to become complacent and vulnerable to deception, which is always the case when ease and comfort move in to occupy the place where persecution and uncertainty once did.

 

[Phoneman777]

I suspect that we are simultaneously discussing a far broader range of subjects that I was aware of. If you wish to discuss these matters, I am happy to do so, but I would prefer to do it privately, as I suspect this public forum carries some degree of emotional investment that prevents healthy discussion. If that seems reasonable to you, please try to send me a message privately. I did try to send you a private message, but I get an error message saying that I can't.

At any rate, I expect this thread will be locked soon, as the discussion has begun to circulate, so if you wish to continue speaking about these things, I think that private conversation will be our only option. And I would like to continue discussing it, if you are willing.

Ok, and I wholeheartedly agree with what you say about emotional investment. It's as if some here take criticism of their ideas personally. If we allow our carnal feathers to get ruffled and become antagonistic with each other now, then how in the world do we think we'll have the ability to pray for our murderers in the midst of the coming persecution?

 

[Phoneman777]

So that you would be able to get the answer to YOUR question about comment #29. THAT WAS WHAT YOU WANTED!!!!

As has been pointed out to you over and over........you make accusations toward others but YOU do not address what is given to you. That my dear friend in the long run is going to alienate you and people will not want to communicate with you.

Ok, thanks, and FYI, I am a follower of Protestant Historicism which was the view that dominated the Protestant world for over 300 years before Protestants began drinking the Jesuit Futurism Koolaid which was concocted in order to destroy the Protestant Reformation. Seeing that Protestants are falling all over themselves to join in the Ecumenical Movement (of which the Roman Catholic Church denies she is a part, but claims to be the Mother of all those who have joined it), I'd say the Koolaid has done its job.

 

[Phoneman777]

I fail to understand how "some degree of emotional investment..prevents healthy discussion"? I don't have an emotional response to the discussion. Phoneman asks for so called answers to his arguments and then refuses to address the answers. The videos I posted specifically answers his arguments about Daniel chapters 7 thru 10. If Phoneman had further argument than he should address those. My guess is he doesn't want or accept any answers whether typed or watched that don't agree with his own view. I'm not Catholic and I get my instruction from reading scripture in-context. If I followed catholic doctrine or agreed with it - then I would be Catholic. I'm surprised Major watched the video but what he said is true. A great deal of time is spent in the video delineating arguments for and against certain view points and how scripture is either met or contradicted. Nebuchanezzar's dream includes 4 empires plus the feet. Babylon is the first - falling to the Medo-Persian empire, which in turn falls to the Greeks, and the Greeks fall to Rome (Iron). Chapter 7 is about latter day antichrist. Chapter 8 defines that number 3 IS Greek and a foreshadow of antichrist before Christ is born. The 4th beast is undescribed, probably because Rome didn't exist period in Daniel's time. Iron does identify it. Which leaves the feet which is the time we are in. This is a combo of iron and clay. What is left but the east and west of the Roman empire?

I indeed am interested in typed responses, but you cannot blame a Protestant Historicist for being unwilling to watch a video that promotes Jesuit Futurism any more than a follower of Catholic Jesuit Futurism can be blamed for being unwilling to watch a video that promotes Protestant Historicism.

 

[Phoneman777]

And you have not responded to anything at all when given to you. You wanted an explanation to comment #29 and when given you refused to watch the video.

I am going to do this ONE MORE time for you and then I am done. Now, remove the Ellen G. White dogma from your thinking and follow me in the Scriptures.

#1.....
You asked......
"How can Epimanes be the "little horn" when the Bible says it was to arise during the "latter time" stage of the Greek divisions while Epimanes arose during the early stage?'

Daniel 8:22-23........(ESV)
22 As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with his power. 23 And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise."

Daniel 8:22-23 (NKJV)
"As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.
23 “And in the latter time of their kingdom, When the transgressors have reached their fullness, A king shall arise, Having fierce features,
Who understands sinister schemes."

Now if you can see this then there is nothing I can do for you. "THE LATTER TIME" that you choose to make the time of the end of days is the time of these four kingdoms rising out of the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great. One particular king was to be outstanding for his fierce opposition to God's people...Israel. This KING OF FOERCE COUNTENANCE was Antiochus Epiphanies.

Daniel now gives a preview of what this man will do.......

8:24-25
"24 His power shall be great—but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25 By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand."

That is exactly what Antiochus did!!!! Ancient history proves this to be the case. Then the 23oo DAYS spoken of in 8:14 refers to the primary time of his deceitful and outrageous conduct and actions against the Jews from about 171 BC to 165 BC when he died strangely while on an expedition to Persia.


#2....
Then you ask
"How can Epimanes be the "little horn" when the Bible says it was to be "exceeding great" beyond the mere "very great' first king (Alexander the Great) notable horn, yet history tells us that Epimanes was a two bit chump who was at best "exceeding mediocre"?

Seriously????? You are talking about sematictics not Bible truth. Bible truth is not what YOUR opinion is Phoneman. Please stop using the thoughts of those who post such things on the internet. Look at what it is doing to YOUR understanding.

Antiochus took away the daily sacrifices, he desecrated the Temple, he took control of the activities of the Temple, he offered a pig on the alter and defiled the House of God. YOU may think that he was not much but I can promise you that the Jews of that day thought he was EXCEEDINGLY GREAT.

Thank you for finally responding to my questions. Here's my rebuttal:

Did I ever claim that the "latter time" is a reference to the "end of days"? No. I have maintained all along that this is a reference to the latter reign of the kings of the four divisions of Greece. Specifically, the "latter time" would have to refer to the period of time close to when Rome was to sweep in and conquer the divisions of Greece. It is during this "latter time" period that the Bible says the "little horn" was to arise. Since Antiochus arose much earlier than this (Antiochus was eighth in a succession of around twenty-five kings), he cannot be the "little horn" described in the text.

While I respect your opinion on who the Jews considered "exceeding great", let's examine this. We see clearly from Scripture that the basis for why the Bible ascribes levels of "greatness" to the Ram and the He-goat has to do with expansion of territory through glorious militarism. It has nothing to do with how much they persecuted Jews. Yet, when we come to the case of the "little horn", we are expected to abandon this former basis and choose a new one - the degree to which it persecutes Jews? After their experience with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the not to distant past, to the Israelites Anitochus was a mere hiccup. Also, consider the "exceeding supersonic magnanimous great" persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Roman Empire who completely destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, permanently suspended Temple services, and murdered/enslaved/subjugated every single Israelite. No matter how you slice it, Antiochus still pales in comparison to the truly "exceeding great" Roman Empire.

 

[Silk]

I indeed am interested in typed responses, but you cannot blame a Protestant Historicist for being unwilling to watch a video that promotes Jesuit Futurism any more than a follower of Catholic Jesuit Futurism can be blamed for being unwilling to watch a video that promotes Protestant Historicism.

You are quite in error there. I would watch and take notes. Apparently you skipped my post where I watched one already. But if you post a video - I pay the respect due anyone claiming to be Christian whether link or video to watch/read it. You see I do want to understand someone's view point and why they think it. I compare it to scripture and look for the truth as well as it can be discerned.

 

[Silk]

The he-goat is CLEARLY identified in Daniel 8 AS Greek ----NOT ROMAN.

Edit* Post 59 http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/anybody-else-want-to-study-the-book-of-daniel.39708/page-3

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman.....I see that you keep using the words "JESUIT FUTURISM" as if it is some kind of trash found at the bottom of a garbage can.

Since you continue to do that I am sure that you will not be oppossed to us using the phrase of "EGW PRETERISM DOGMA" when referring to your interpretations?????????

There is something that needs to bepointed out once again to you. The doctrine we are talking about does not stand or fall on who may have first noticed and taught certain elements of doctrine in scripture. The doctrine is valid only if it is supported by scripture.

The Protestant reformation was based on turning to scripture to resolve matters.

2 Timothy 3:16..........
" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

That alone should be enough to put this entire matter to rest, and nothing more need be said. It is obvious that we must agree that something true, such as 2+2=4, remains true, even when such a truth is spoken by a liar, or the most evil man who ever lived.

Bible Truth does not become untrue just because an evil or stupid man speaks it. Therefore, there is simply no basis for the claim that the what we are talking about is an evil deception because futurism was once taught by an evil Jesuit. You keep saying that but the bottom line is that it has no basis for truth.

We all can read the Scriptures on any doctrine and come to the conclusion without any help from a commentator or teacher.

An example would be that some say the Rapture is not valid because so and so was a Jesuit or a liar or that he was ugly. BUT we all can read the Scriptures and come to our own conclusion without accepting anything from anyone in the past. This might well serve you in the future to come to grips with what I am saying to you.

I am a Protestant Historicist. I don't subscribe to Jesuit Futurism (authored by Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera) for the same reason I don't subscribe to Jesuit Preterism (authored by Jesuit priest Luiz Alcazar): they are both extra-Biblical fiction.

 

[Major]

I am a Protestant Historicist. I don't subscribe to Jesuit Futurism (authored by Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera) for the same reason I don't subscribe to Jesuit Preterism (authored by Jesuit priest Luiz Alcazar): they are both extra-Biblical fiction.

You are a follower of Ellen G. White and are rooted in Preterits' agenda which is an extra Biblical agenda.

 

[Major]

The he-goat is CLEARLY identified in Daniel 8 AS Greek ----NOT ROMAN.

Edit* Post 59 http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/anybody-else-want-to-study-the-book-of-daniel.39708/page-3[/QUOTE]

100% correct.

100% correct sister!

 

[Major]

Thank you for finally responding to my questions. Here's my rebuttal:

Did I ever claim that the "latter time" is a reference to the "end of days"? No. I have maintained all along that this is a reference to the latter reign of the kings of the four divisions of Greece. Specifically, the "latter time" would have to refer to the period of time close to when Rome was to sweep in and conquer the divisions of Greece. It is during this "latter time" period that the Bible says the "little horn" was to arise. Since Antiochus arose much earlier than this (Antiochus was eighth in a succession of around twenty-five kings), he cannot be the "little horn" described in the text.

While I respect your opinion on who the Jews considered "exceeding great", let's examine this. We see clearly from Scripture that the basis for why the Bible ascribes levels of "greatness" to the Ram and the He-goat has to do with expansion of territory through glorious militarism. It has nothing to do with how much they persecuted Jews. Yet, when we come to the case of the "little horn", we are expected to abandon this former basis and choose a new one - the degree to which it persecutes Jews? After their experience with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the not to distant past, to the Israelites Anitochus was a mere hiccup. Also, consider the "exceeding supersonic magnanimous great" persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Roman Empire who completely destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, permanently suspended Temple services, and murdered/enslaved/subjugated every single Israelite. No matter how you slice it, Antiochus still pales in comparison to the truly "exceeding great" Roman Empire.

I think we are done. I do not know of anything else to say and I see no profit here for me or you and very soon this thread is going to be closed.

I think if you have any more concerns, re-reading comment #78 should take care of them.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

[Major]

Ok, thanks, and FYI, I am a follower of Protestant Historicism which was the view that dominated the Protestant world for over 300 years before Protestants began drinking the Jesuit Futurism Koolaid which was concocted in order to destroy the Protestant Reformation. Seeing that Protestants are falling all over themselves to join in the Ecumenical Movement (of which the Roman Catholic Church denies she is a part, but claims to be the Mother of all those who have joined it), I'd say the Koolaid has done its job.

“It's an universal law-- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

[Phoneman777]

Chapter 7 is about the coming A/C.

I agree.

 

[Phoneman777]

I think we are done. I do not know of anything else to say and I see no profit here for me or you and very soon this thread is going to be closed.

I think if you have any more concerns, re-reading comment #78 should take care of them.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Thanks, but I prefer the logic of Protestant Reformation Historicism to the compounded confusion of Jesuit "Counter-Reformation" Futurism. And, it's not "ignorant" to reason that Antiochus:

• arose way too early to be the "little horn"
• is disqualified as the "little horn" by grammatical, syntactical, and contextual evidence which says the "little horn" arose out of the four "winds", not the four "horns" of divided Greece
• is an all but forgotten figure in history who championed mediocrity while the "little horn" is said to be "exceeding great" beyond the "very great" renowned world conqueror Alexander the Great
• didn't begin to approach the level of severity that Nebuchadnezzer and the later Caesars persecuted the Jews by way of the complete destruction of their beloved city, the complete destruction of their Temple and services, and complete destruction of their identity as a sovereign nation, while the efforts of Antiochus to persecute the Jews fall to the pits of obscurity, except in the minds of those hopelessly devoted to Jesuit Futurism.

Not ignorance, just common sense, my brother
(BTW, the Abomination of Desolation was not some pig on the altar, it was the Roman standards bearing the image of the SUN GOD that were placed in the midst of what God declared to be holy, consecrated ground [see Ezekiel 8 which describes the greatest abomination of all those preceding it as those who worship the SUN.)

 

[Phoneman777]

You are a follower of Ellen G. White and are rooted in Preterits' agenda which is an extra Biblical agenda.

Wrong, Major, according to the three popular Daniel 8 interpretations of symbolism:

Preterism:

• Little Horn is Antiochus
• 2300 Days are literal
• refers to earthly Temple
• Temple cleansed from past defilement

Futurism:

• Little Horn is Antiochus/symbolic of Future Antichrist
• 2300 Days are literal
• refers to earthly Temple
• Temple cleansed from past/future defilement

Historicism:

• Little Horn is Rome - both Pagan and Papal
• 2300 Days are prophetic years
• refers to Heavenly Temple
• Temple cleansing refers to the Judgment "Day of Atonement" phase of Jesus' High Priestly ministry.

It is easy to see that Jesuit Futurism is more in line with Jesuit Preterism, as should be expected seeing that both emanate from the Papacy. Both are polar opposite to Protestant Historicism. Please get your facts straight before hurling wild accusations.

 

[Major]

Wrong, Major, according to the three popular Daniel 8 interpretations of symbolism:

Preterism:

• Little Horn is Antiochus
• 2300 Days are literal
• refers to earthly Temple
• Temple cleansed from past defilement

Futurism:

• Little Horn is Antiochus/symbolic of Future Antichrist
• 2300 Days are literal
• refers to earthly Temple
• Temple cleansed from past/future defilement

Historicism:

• Little Horn is Rome - both Pagan and Papal
• 2300 Days are prophetic years
• refers to Heavenly Temple
• Temple cleansing refers to the Judgment "Day of Atonement" phase of Jesus' High Priestly ministry.

It is easy to see that Jesuit Futurism is more in line with Jesuit Preterism, as should be expected seeing that both emanate from the Papacy. Both are polar opposite to Protestant Historicism. Please get your facts straight before hurling wild accusations.

“You never really learn much from hearing yourself speak.”
― George Clooney

 

[Phoneman777]

BTW, Antiochus the Chump spent his entire reign subordinate to Rome paying tribute to them. Hardly the mark of an "exceeding great" ruler.

Also, Antiochus was in the line of a succession of kings that made up one of the four horns of the male goat - the Seleucid horn. To claim that he is the "little horn" is actually claiming that Antiochus came out of himself.

 

[Phoneman777]

100% correct sister!

Of course the He-goat is Greek. The four horns are divided Greek kingdoms. And since the succession of Seleucid kings, including Antiochus, represents one of those four horns, Antiochus CANNOT be the "little horn" b/c Antiochus would have to come forth out of himself. The "little horn" cannot come forth form any of the other horns either for the same reason. Therefore, the "little horn" comes forth out of the "winds" and is Rome, just as the pronoun/noun gender agreement demands.

 

[Phoneman777]

To tell you the truth Phoneman.....I do not believe that we can show you anything at all.

You are so bound up and integrated by the SDA dogma that you obviously can not see the trees for the forest.

I believe it is you that cannot see what the Scriptures plainly show.

 

[Phoneman777]

He is following the teachings of Ellen G. White and the SDA church.

She/they have rejected the understood and verified historical account of Antiochus as the "little horn" in Daniel 8:9-14.

Antiochus came up from the FOUR generals of Alexander according to Daniel.

The coming Antichrist of Daniel 7 will come up out of the Revived Roman Empire of the last days.

Daniel 8 is Antiochus and chapter 7 is the yet future A/C.

7:24 says...."And the TEN horns out of this kingdom are ten kings THAT SHALL ARISE"..............
b: and another shall rise after them (The 10 horns) and HE (the A/C) shall be diverse from the first and he shall subdue three kings.

"ANOTHER" is the 11th horn which is also called the "little horn". This will be the son of perdition or the Beast or the Anti-Christ.

Antiochus came up out of FOUR not TEN.

What do the writings of Ellen G. White have to do with my arguments against Jesuit Futurism and your sad devotion to it, Major, which by the way come EXCLUSIVELY from Scripture? Your inability to frame a coherent rebuttal along with your stubborn opposition to historical facts do not contribute to a meaningful discussion as to the identity of Antiochus or the primary focus of this thread, so either please change your approach or change your destination.