Ancestry of Charlemagne

= means Siblings who had children together

& means are Siblings but didn't have children together (at least relevent to the line being covered)

+ means had children together but aren't siblings (sometimes are cousins though)

| means are same generation on genealogy but not directly connected

Charlemagne's Descent from Seleucid Dynasty (is different from the line this old post was about).

Seleucus I Nicator + Apama

Antiochus I Soter & Achaeus

Antiochus II Theos = Laodice I

Seleucus II Callinicus & Laodice wife of Mithridates II of Pontus

Antiochus III the Great + Laodice III

Seleucus IV Philopator = Laodice IV

Demetrius I Soter

Demetrius II Nicator + Cleopatra Thea

Antiochus VIII Grypus + Tryphaena

Laodice VII Thea, wife of Mithridates I Callinicus

Antiochus I Theos of Commagene

Mithridates II of Commagene & Athenais of Media Atropatene

Mithridates III of Commagene + Iotapa

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Julia Iotapa (Cilician princess)

Julia Quadratilla, wife of Gaius Julius Lupus Titus Vibius Varus Laevillus

Aulus Julius Claudius Charax

Julia, wife of Gaius Asinius Rufus

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus

Gaius Asinius Protimus Quadratus, Proconcul of Achaea

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus Julianus, Proconsul of Asia

Asinia Juliana Nicomacha, wife of Quintus Anicius Faustus

Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Descent through Antiochus Epiphanes himself

Antiochus IV Epiphanes = Laodice IV

Laodice, wife of Mithridates V of Pontus

Mithridates VI of Pontus

Cleopatra of Pontus, wife of Tigranes The Great

[Name Unkown], wife of Mithridates of Media Atropatene

Ariobarzanes I of Media Atropatene

Artavasdes I of Media Atropatene

Mithridates III of Commagene + Iotapa

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Julia Iotapa (Cilician princess)

Julia Quadratilla, wife of Gaius Julius Lupus Titus Vibius Varus Laevillus

Aulus Julius Claudius Charax

Julia, wife of Gaius Asinius Rufus

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus

Gaius Asinius Protimus Quadratus, Proconcul of Achaea

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus Julianus, Proconsul of Asia

Asinia Juliana Nicomacha, wife of Quintus Anicius Faustus

Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Herodian Dynasty

Antipater the Idumaean

Herod the Great

Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander

Tigranes VI of Armenia

Gaius Julius Alexander, Ruler of Cetis in Cilicia

Julia Iotapa (Cilician princess)

Julia Quadratilla, wife of Gaius Julius Lupus Titus Vibius Varus Laevillus

Aulus Julius Claudius Charax

Julia, wife of Gaius Asinius Rufus

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus

Gaius Asinius Protimus Quadratus, Proconcul of Achaea

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus Julianus, Proconsul of Asia

Asinia Juliana Nicomacha, wife of Quintus Anicius Faustus

Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Hasmoneans

The Priestly Order of Joarib

Asamoneus

Simeon

John

Mattathias

Simon Thassi

John Hyrcanus

Alexander Jannaeus + Salome Alexandra

Aristobulus II     & Hyrcanus II

Alexander          + Alexandra

Mariamne the Hasmonean, wife of Herod The Great

Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander

Tigranes VI of Armenia

Gaius Julius Alexander, Ruler of Cetis in Cilicia

Julia Iotapa (Cilician princess)

Julia Quadratilla, wife of Gaius Julius Lupus Titus Vibius Varus Laevillus

Aulus Julius Claudius Charax

Julia, wife of Gaius Asinius Rufus

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus

Gaius Asinius Protimus Quadratus, Proconcul of Achaea

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus Julianus, Proconsul of Asia

Asinia Juliana Nicomacha, wife of Quintus Anicius Faustus

Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Late Roman Aristocracy of Gaul

Ferreolus, a Roman Senator

Tonantius Ferreolus (prefect)

Tonantius Ferreolus II

Tonantius Ferreolus III

Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Merovingians

Childeric I

Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Blithilde, wife of Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Bishops of Lyon

Eucherius Bishop of Lyon + Galla

Tullia

Aquilinus

Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Maternal Ancestry of Charlemagne's mother's father

Irmina of Oeren

Bertrada of Prüm

Charibert of Laon

Bertrada of Laon

Charlemagne

I may update this post in the future to add more lines. 

One theory I have that I can't prove, but if true would strengthen the lines I've already looked into is that Erato of Armenia was the mother of Tigranes VI of Armenia.  I think she did marry Tigranes V during his brief reign in Armenia, then after he died did a Levirate marriage with his brother thus becoming the mother of Tigranes VI.

I've also been speculating on the possibility of a connection to the Constantinian Dynasty, cheifly I have a hunch Galla wife of Eucherius of Lyon can be connected to Constantius Gallus through his daughter Anastasia who's mother was Constantina eldest daughter of Constantine The Great.

Now the Cosntantinian Dynasty I speculate may themselves by connected to the Seleucids though Eutropia.  But also if Charlemagne was a potential heir of Constantine that adds legitimacy to his being crowned Western Roman Emperor.

Update:

Charlemagne's descent from the Sceaf

Sceaf

Bedwig

Hwala

Hrathra

itermon

Heremod

Scealdwa

Beaw

Teatwa

Geat

Godwulf

Fin

Firthuwulf

Freawine

Frealaf

Firthuwald

Odin

Sigi

Rerir

Volsung

Sigmund

Sigurd

Gunther

Gondioc

Chilperic II of Burgundy

Clotilda. wife of Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Blithilde, wife of Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Another Update 

Even more Solid Merovingian descent of Charlemagne.

Childeric I

Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Charibert of Hesbaye husband of Wulfgurd

Robert I Bishop of Tours

Lambert I of Hesbaye

Robert II Lord Chanceler of France

Lambert II of Hesbaye

Rotrude of Hesbaye wife of Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Update September 22nd 2023:

More solid Descent from Seleucids, and improves other earlier claims of this post as well.

Seleucus I Nicator + Apama

Antiochus I Soter & Achaeus

Antiochus II Theos = Laodice I

Seleucus II Callinicus & Laodice wife of Mithridates II of Pontus

Antiochus III the Great + Laodice III

Seleucus IV Philopator = Laodice IV

Demetrius I Soter

Demetrius II Nicator + Cleopatra Thea

Antiochus VIII Grypus + Tryphaena

Laodice VII Thea, wife of Mithridates I Callinicus

Antiochus I Theos of Commagene

Mithridates II of Commagene & Athenais of Media Atropatene

Mithridates III of Commagene + Iotapa

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlamagne's descent from Caesar Augustus

Octavius Caesar Augustus

Julia The Elder

Julia The Younger

Aemilia Lepida

Junia Lepida

Cassius Lepidus

Cassia Lepida

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus, Ides of March

Gaius Cassius Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus, Consul Suffectus Consul in 30 AD

Cassius Lepidus

Cassia Lepida

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Did Antiochus Epiphanes take The Ark of The Covenant to Antioch?

So I have new thoughts about what happened to The Ark.  Many theories say that around the time of the First Temple's Destruction the Ark was hidden in a secret hiding place under or near The Temple.

1 Maccabees 1:21-24 says Antiochus Epiphanes took from The Temple the Menorah, Altar of Incense, Table of Showbread and many other gold and silver vessels.  And in verse 23 "also he took the hidden treasures which he found".  None of this was ever returned or retrieved, Judas Maccabeus had new sacred vessels made in 1 Maccabees 4:47-49.

This isn't like accounts in The Canonical Bible where it's easy to say they would have specified the Ark if it was taken then.  The books of Maccabees are not Scripture but official propaganda of the Hasmoneans, they may have wanted to hide The Ark also being taken, yet none the less included this cryptic statement about him taking "hidden treasures", what other "hidden treasures" could there be since all the other major sacred relics of The Temple were singled out in the prior verse?

Hidden Treasures is in plural, I talked in a prior post about the Rod of Aaron, Jar of Manna and Torah Scroll that were placed in the Ark by Moses but seemingly not there anymore when Solomon placed it in his Temple.  Perhaps Solomon removed them to place them in a hidden chamber that would later wind up also hiding The Ark itself?

Antiochus most likely took them to Antioch, perhaps kept them in the royal palace on the island, or maybe put them somewhere in the Fourth Quarter which was his expansion of the city.  The royal palace was later built over by a Church Constantine built, which itself was destroyed by several earthquakes and wars over the city's history.

Some Islamic Prophecies foretell that The Mahdi will discover the Ark of The Covenant and other Biblical treasures buried at Antioch.  Back when I first read about that researching for my prior Mahdi posts I had no idea what theoretically could have brought them there because I had overlooked this detail of I Maccabees.

"The reason he is called the Mahdi (a.s.) is that he guides the way to a hidden thing. He will bring forth the  Ark of the Covenant  from a place known as Antioch."  (Jalal-uddine AsSuyuti's  Al-Urf Al-Wardi fi Akhbar Al-Mahdi, a part of Al-Hawi li Al-Fatawa)

"He is called the Mahdi (a.s.) because he is the key to something nobody knows. He will bring forth the Ark of the Covenant from the Cave of Antioch." (Nuaim bin Hammad's book Kitab Al-Fitan) and (Ibn Hajar Haithami Al-Makki's book Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi Alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar)

Tamin Ad-Dari said " I said, 'O Messenger of Allah  صلى الله عليه وسلم , I have never seen a Roman city like the city of Antioch ( in Turkey, but historically, is part of Syria) and I have never seen more rain than it has.' Whereupon the Messenger of Allah,  صلى الله عليه وسلم , said: 'Yes, that is because the Torah, Rod of Moses, Tablets (of the Ten Commandments), and the Table of Solomon, the son of David, (made of gold and ornamented with precious jewels, emeralds, pearls and rubies) are in its caves. There is not a single cloud that comes from any direction to it that does not pour its blessing in that valley. And the days and night will not pass until a man from my musked children live in it. His name is like my name and his father's name is like my father's name; his manners are like my manners. He will fill the world with fairness and justice just as it had been filled by harm and transgressions'." (Ibn Hibban's book Ad-Dua'fa and Shaykh Abdullah bin Sadek, Grand Muhaddith of Morocco, 's book Al-Mahdi, Jesus and Dajjal)

Ka'b said: "The Mahdi ... excavates Tabout Al-Sakina (Ark of Covenant) from a cave in Antioch (in it, will be the Torah that Allah (t) revealed to Moses and the Gospel that Allah (t) revealed to Jesus..." (Nuaim bin Hammad's Kitab Al-Fitan)

Now I'm not one of those Islamic Antichrist theorists saying we should actually believe these Islamic Prophecies will come true (maybe the "antichrist" will be a Muslim claiming to be the Mahdi I'm undecided on those issues).  Instead these Hadiths may have just recorded some Prophecies given after the fact.  Perhaps referring to discoveries made by Caliph Umar who first captured Antioch for the Arab Empire, or later by Al-Mahdi (775-785).  Or maybe they just come from Ancients who knew things now forgotten related to what I've theorized above.  Maybe they descend from local beliefs the Christians of Antioch had in antiquity before Islam even emerged.

I think the Rod of Moses in this Hadiths may actually refer to the Rod of Aaron.  And remember The Ark also had an early Torah Scroll in it

Being in a Cave perhaps fits the Fourth Quarter, which from the map I looked at seems to include some hills and mountains which could possibly have caves.

This post's title is kind of semi click-bait.  While I do think it's possible the Ark was among what Antiochus Epiphanes took, just the fact that he definitely did take the Menorah, Altar and Table of Showbread built by Solomon (the Mosaic ones were never in The Temple) is itself really significant.  I suspect what one of those Hadiths refereed to as the Table of Solomon was really originally Solomon's Table of Showbread.

Antioch is where Believers were first called Christians in Acts, treasures of Solomon's Temple being there during the New Testament era when the city became a major Capital of the True Temple of God is very interesting.

If an early text of one of The Gospels wound up with these treasures, my first hunch is it's Mark's.  Acts 13 implies John Mark was also in Antioch when Paul and Barnabas left on their first journey from there, Chuck Missler argued Mark's Gospel was already written by that time based on what the Greek text calls Mark.  And we know Peter spent time in Antioch as well from Galatians, Mark's Gospel was according to tradition him writing down what Peter had preached.  Still the association of the Nazarenes with this region makes it not impossible a copy of Hebrew Matthew wound up in Antioch, and Hebrew Matthew being what early Muslim sources meant by the original Injil fits some theories I've had about the origins of Islam.  However I can't entirely rule out any of them.

Another note, the person Muslim Tradition remembers as Habib'i Neccar/Habib Al-Najjar is probably Simeon called Niger of Acts 13 in my opinion.

A Muslim scholar named Ibn Hazm of Cordoba (994-1064) claimed that Mark wrote "His Gospel in Greek at Antioch".  Ephrem the Syrian seems to have claimed John's Gospel was written at Antioch in his commentary on the Diatessaron, but remember Mark was also named John so there could be confusion there.

However if these prophecies are going to be taken advantage of by a Muslim Anticrhist's End Times deception, then what they may produce claiming to be the original Gospel might actually be an Ebionite version of Matthew, since the Ebionite view of Jesus is very similar to the Islamic view.

Could The Beast of Revelation 17 possibly be a different Beast?

I've suggested one bold new theory on how Revelation 17 ties into the rest of the book already [And followed up on it in Who Is The Bride of Christ].  Now I have another one.

The parallel imagery of Seven Heads and Ten Horns leads to an assumption that the Beast of Chapter 17 is the same one we saw in Chapter 13.  And references to The Beast made in chapters 14-16 are clearly the Beast out of the Sea.

But The Dragon also had Seven Heads and Ten Horns and that is indisputably a different entity.  The Beast of Chapter 17 also has in common with the Beast out of The Sea over The Dragon being called a Beast.  And also terminology that seems to imply one of the Seven Heads is an individual who has died and been resurrected, but how that idea is communicated is different.  However it is called a Scarlet Beast, which is a variation of the Color Red, so the Revelation 17 Beast is affiliated with the same Color as The Dragon.

References to The Beast of Chapter 13 in other chapters usually mention The False Prophet, or The Mark, or the Image.  But in Chapter 17 it seems to be The Woman, Mystery Babylon, who is serving The False Prophet's function, as a simultaneously religious and economic system.

However Revelation 11's Beast is described with terminology elsewhere used only in Chapter 17, the Beast that Ascends out of the Bottomless Pit/Abyss, and goes into Perdition. 

I've also noted recently that it is strictly speaking the Ten Horns not the Eight King himself who hates and attacks The Harlot.

I've talked a lot on this Blog about the possibility of a Decoy Antichrist, possibly to be identified with The Terrible of The Nations of Ezekiel.  And while I've connected that figure to themes of Revelation like the Kings of The East, I had lacked a clearly specific place for him.  Until within the last month when I thought of this possibility.

However, it then occurred to me, what if they are the same Beast and yet different in terms of which of the Seven Heads is the main Head in mind?

I have laid out already my main view on the Seven Kings.  In identifying them with modern Geopolitical entities, The Lion is Iraq and/or ISIS, the Bear is Iran and perhaps parts of Iraq currently controlled by Iran via the Mahdi Army (the Medes being The Kurds and the Persians being the Shiites).  The four heads of the Leopard are Greece, Macedonia, Turkey and Egypt, and the Fourth Beast/Seventh Head (the one with the Ten Horns) is the European Union.

When we separate the Death and Resurrection imagery of 13 and 17.  Only 13 requires a Mortal Wound, sometimes assumed to specifically be a head wound but that forgets that the use of the word Head is itself symbolic in these chapters.  Meanwhile my argument that the Eight King must be one of the first Five applies solely to Chapter 17.

I feel the one in 13 make most sense if the Resurrection/healing of the Wound itself happens in the End Times, before the eyes of the World.  While the one in 17 I think could maybe have been Resurrected in the past, perhaps in 30 AD (Matthew 27:52-53) as part of fulfilling Daniel 12, but then was sealed in the Abyss.

If The Terrible of The Nations is someone who lived in the Past resurrected in the End Times.  Based on Ezekiel 29&30 the first obvious candidate is Nebuchadrezzar, as I alluded to in my last post.

There are people arguing Nebuchadrezzar is the Antichrist, including a Google Group.  Much of the argument for that is the Terrible of the Nations passages, because they overlook the last part of Ezekiel 30 which identifies the Terrible of The Nations with the one who gives not who receives the Mortal Wound.  And the Prophecy against the Prince (not King) of Tyre in chapter 28 could also back that up.

However, the fact that Daniel 4 depicts Nebuchadrezzar as being Saved I view as a problem with the whole "Goeth into Perdition" detail.  Though perhaps that is less definitive since I'm now pretty much a Universalist, and Nebuchadrezzar wasn't a Church Age believer.  But it still seems odd to me, and I've yet to see a Nebuchadrezzar is the Antichrist argument address Daniel 4.

Nebuchadrezzar was the first of the Seven Kings in my view.  The remaining four of the first five would be Cyrus, Alexander The Great (or maybe a Ptolemy), Antigonus or Demetrius, and a Seleucid King.

Of those I feel inclined to rule out the Ptolemies and maybe also Alexander on the grounds that if a Beast of Revelation is a Pharaoh of Egypt, that is definitely the Revelation 13 Beast.  Also both Cyrus and Alexander I view as like Nebuchadrezzar confirmed to most likely be among the saved, so if that rules him out it maybe rules them out too.

There is not much to Biblically make Antigonos or Demetrius significant.  But if you think The Antichrist is also the Little Horn of Daniel 8, then that makes the Seleucids, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, a pretty strong candidate.  And if the Beast out of the Sea is a Ptolemy, then one of his adversaries being a Seleucid would fit well.

Maybe Daniel 11 isn’t about Antiochus Epiphanes at all

[Update March 2022: I've mostly abandoned this theory for now, but I'm still open to returning to it.]

UFO Activity and Israel

In 2 Kings 6:17 Elisha prayed to God and He briefly allowed his servant to see beyond our normal 3 dimensional perception and glimpse the Heavenly armies that were there to fight for Israel.  Note that Israel was not in obedience at this time, this was the Northern Kingdom.

Daniel 10 likewise shows us that political upheavals in the Terrestrial realm seem to have corresponding conflicts in the Heavenly realm.  And tells us Michael fights to defend Israel.  See also Ephesians 6.

In the Apocryphal Second Maccabees Chapter 5 we are told that before Antiochus Epiphanes attacked Jerusalem, chariots were seen for 40 days fighting in the heavens above the City. Daniel 8 does seem to also imply heavenly warfare going on at this time.  But 2 Maccabees is less reliable then 1 Maccabees, for example I don't know if this was before his first or second sacking of Jerusalem since 2 Maccabees seems to merge the two together.  The second one is what resulted in the Abomination of Desolation in Kislev 167 BC.  1 Maccabees 1 and Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 15 Chapter 5 makes clear there were two attacks but the first was over 2 years earlier and was relevantly bloodless.

In Wars of The Jews Book 6 Chapter 5 Section 3, Josephus informs us of similar visions seen in the heavens before the War started in 66 AD.

Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. 

Thing is the events he describes both before and after this I have reasons for suspecting actually happened in 30 AD the year of the Crucifixion/Resurrection and Birth of The Church.  Either way important dates in Israel's History. 

If you look at a Time-Line of Early modern UFO Sightings, and a Time-Line of the development of modern Israel, you'll see a lot of correlations between key milestone events.  A third Timeline to consider is the biography of Aleister Crowley.

The decade of the first Zionist Congress was the 1890s, same decade when people were seeing Jules Verne style Airships.  1909 in which Airship sightings occurred in New Zealand was the same year Tel-Aviv, the secular Capital of modern Israel was founded.

1917 was the year the Sun Miracle was performed in Fatima, and of the Balfur Declaration.  In occult History that is the year Aleister Crowley performed the Alamantra Working.  And in the following year he conjured Lam, the entity that resembled the Greys.

Crowley also performed some key rituals in 1923, same year as the British Mandate for Palestine.

1933 was the year of the Transfer Agreement, and the year of some key UFO sightings also.  There were also a lot of interesting UFO occurrences during WWII.

1947 was the year of the Babalon Working, and right after that was Roswell and the other events that are considered the full beginning of the modern UFO craze.  1947-49 also marks the birth of modern Israel.

"Those UFOs weren't seen in Israel" you might object.  We're dealing with a conflict that is actually going on beyond our 4 Dimensional perception, but spilling over into it.  At any-rate there have been UFO sightings in Israel, I remember just last year or the year before there was a big buzz about one sighted just over the Temple Mount.

Prophecy in The News had done an episode years ago on correlations between UFO Flaps and Israel's Wars.  They didn't cover much of what I laid out above, but did cover stuff about later wars I don't feel like getting into myself.

Hopefully those stay up on Youtube.  It was called Israel's Wars and UFO Flaps.

Nothing anyone predicted happened during the September 2015 Blood Moon.  But my brother did catch a UFO taking pictures of it.  And moves were made towards dividing Israel during September's UN Meetings.

In the study I did on This Generation Shall Not Pass, I mentioned 120 years as a potential number to use, with one Biblical reason for it being Genesis 6.  Now one may object "the context of this is about the Nephilim Activity and The Flood".  Well Jesus said "as the days of Noah were" so shall His return be.  And many have seen that as among their reasons for connecting the modern UFO Phenomenon with Fallen Angels.

Right now I'm leaning towards, though am by no means predicting, a 2030-2037 End Times model, with a 2033 Rapture.  2037 is 120 years from 1917, and 70 years from the Six Days War.  And 2030 would be Two Thousand Years from The Crucifixion.

But remember the Generation is a maximum time limit, not an exact calculation.

I have two conflicting Antichrist views I'm leaning towards now

I still like the one that had been a central developing theme of this blog for most of it's history.  That I lay out in posts like this.  About a western leader who'll claim to be or be claimed to be Messiah Ben-Joseph, I've even argued that he could be American.  That it'll be us conservative Judeo-Christians he's chiefly trying to seduce, not The World.  But the main thing not compatible with the other view is that his Mortal Wounding/death will be at the start of the 70th week, in Nisan.

But I've developed more recently from my Daniel 7 study, a view that he could be a Seleucid Ruler, probably Epiphanes himself, who will ascend from the Bottomless Pit.  I even speculated at the end of my recent Daniel 11 study that he might have been sent there in 30 AD.  For fairly obvious reasons however that view can't have The Antichrist present at all when the 70th Week begins, the Fifth Trumpet is the soonest he can show up if he's anyone who's death already happened.

Aspects of both views can still certainly overlap.  If the first view is true I'm certain he'll have Seleucid descent through Charlemagne and that that'll be relevant.  I'm growing more and more interested in what I suggested in the American Anitchrist post about the Royal Family of modern Greece.  They are also Danish royalty and descend from the same clan of German Royal families as the Windsors and the rulers of the Netherlands, who had ties to 18th Century Freemasonry and The Illuminati.

The second theory could still have him going for the ideological viewpoint I suggested.  But what I would need to explain since I am firmly convinced of the 70th Week having a dual fulfillment now (and possibly all 70 Weeks, leading to a theory of when it could be) is who the Prince that will come and be cut off in the Nisan that starts the week could be if he's not the Antichrist.  Maybe still an Antichrist, my belief in there being Decoy Antichrists remains intact either way.

The Fifth Trumpet, The Flood and Hanukkah

Some in the past have argued for seeing some kind of thematic connection between The Fifth Trumpet in Revelation 9 and The Flood account in Genesis 7 and 8 based on parallel time periods.  First 40 days and then five months.  I'd noticed this months ago and mentioned it on this blog.

More recently (it came up while I was engaging with Flat Earthers) I've realized that the Abyss/Bottomless Pit could possibly be the same place as The Great Deep where much of the Flood waters were before The Flood.  Abyss has sometimes been translated as Deep.  There is no water there now, it's all on The Earth's surface, but it's interesting.

That makes the possibility of a connection here even stronger.  A period of 40 days of something coming out of the Deep to punish mankind for five months.  Very different but an interesting connection.

In the very first post on this blog I argued that the opening of The Abyss in Revelation 9 is the removal of Restraint mentioned in II Thessalonians 2.  And I've discussed how the Antichrist's Resurrection is defined as him ascending out of The Bottomless Pit.  I do not consider those arguments dependent on identifying The Antichrist or False Prophet with anyone specific in Revelation 9, we can debate Apollyon all day. The point is nothing can ascend out of The Abyss before Revelation 9 happens.  I'll return to this later.

Could this connection mean the 40 days of Revelation 9 happen on the Hebrew calendar about the same time as the 40 days of rain from The Flood account?

The Rain began on the 17th day of what was the Second month but is now the Eight.  I believe back in Pre-Flood times all months had 30 days because the Lunar and solar cycles were in sync putting the end of the rain on the 26th of Kislev.  But a repeat of that today would put 40 days that began on the 17th of the Eight month as ending on the 27th of Kislev.

Both of those days have in common that they are part of the the Eight Days of Hanukkah.

In my discussion of Winter Pagan holidays I pointed out that the claims of Anitochus Epiphanes being born on the 25th of Kislev or December are spurious, but that he did die seemingly during or near the first Hanukkah according to the accounts in both books of Maccabees.

I had also pointed out in that post that the Solstices were when pagans placed deaths and resurrections/conceptions, not births.  And I have also argued that IF The Antichrist is someone from the past who already lived coming back, it would most likely be be Antiochus Epiphanes, and certainly could only be a Seleucid ruler.

If this theory is true, I believe it would be the Hanukkah that occurs 9 months before the Yom Teruah that marks the Midway Point of the Week, when the Seventh Trumpet will be sounded and The Rapture will happen.

The first of Tishri is when Noah removed the Cover of the Ark in Genesis 8:13.  That fits being connected to the 7th Trumpet.  Perhaps the 6th Trumpet will then be linked to the first day of Tammuz (Genesis 8:5).

Further Update:  Reading Maccabees more carefully it seems less likely Epiphanies died that close to Hanukkah.  The First Hanukkah celebration being at the end of Chapter 4 in First Maccabees, with the account of Epiphanies demise being Chapter 6.

However Second Maccabees tells the story of Epiphanies Demise in Chapter 9 and then the first Hanukkah celebration at the beginning of Chapter 10 right after.  I generally consider Second Maccabees less reliable however.

Which wrong view on The Rapture is the most dangerous?

The popular answer is the Pre-Trib view, the one thing all non Pre-Tribbers seem to agree on.

I really don't understand how the people who are now not believers or believers who are uninterested in Prophecy talk about being raised on the Pre-Tirb Rapture and being constantly terrified by it.  They clearly did not truly understand what The Rapture is if they found it frightening.

But what I'm going to discus here is how most of my fellow non Pre-Trib Futurists seem to think, simply by virtue of it being currently the mainstream view, that Pre-Trib is the most dangerous view.  That once we're clearly in the 70th Week and no Rapture happens countless formally faithful Pre-Tribbers will lose their faith and fall away.

Post-Tribbers particularly then see the dangers of Pre-Trib as innate in any more obscure view that has the Rapture as distinct from Revelation 19, even though I am adamant Christians will face Great Tribulation.  They are unwilling to listen to anything I have to say on Prophecy so long as I'm not Post-Trib like them.

I don't think so low of Pre-Tribbers, or anyone else who disagrees with me.  But especially Pre-Tribbers because I've grown a lot in the Spirit listening to other issues talked about by Pre-Tirbbers like Chuck Missler.  Pre-Tribbers are often the most likely to agree with me on Eternal Security, it seems the Pre-Wrath camp has a lot of Calvinism in it.

I've listened to a lot of Pre-Tribbers, many do believe American Christians will face persecution first.  I'm confident they will simply get over it and rework their understanding once Pre-Trib is proven wrong.

I don't think there is any risk of truly Saved people being "deceived" by the II Thessalonians 2 event.  I certainly don't think it's possible for a saved person to take the Mark, if you think that 100% of people who take The Mark are damned, but also believe in Eternal Security, then you have to believe no Saved person could take the Mark.  I think the Mark is instituted after The Rapture has just happened, and the awakening Israelites are fleeing to the wilderness.  So no one already saved will be presented with that dilemma.

Rob Skiba likes to say that the warning to Believers to not be deceived clearly means it's possible for us to be deceived.  That is true but it's not about the II Thessalonians 2 event, that event isn't a deception at all, that's when the Deception ends and the enemy just comes right out and says what he means, he will not claim to be Jesus or The God of The Bible he will claim to be better then The God of The Bible.

Before that, during the first half of the Week it might, MIGHT, be possible for Believers to wind up being tricked into helping/supporting the Man of Sin.

Pre-Trib will be proven wrong pretty much as soon as the 70th Week starts.  I believe The Temple will be standing before we enter it, and all of the first Six Seals will be opened before the Nisan that starts it is over.

So I'm more concerned that the default position among people is that IF Pre-Trib is wrong Post-Trib must be the only other option.  Then after that is the trendy Pre-Wrath view.  And also that movie from the Pastor I do not like to name that is presenting a model technically Mid-Trib in form but is really a hybridization of Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath ideas.  Pre-Wrathers especially love to brag about Mid-Trib being a "defunct view".  Well they should remember that it'd suit Satan well if the correct view is the least popular.

All three of those models place the Seventh Trumpet at the end of the 70th Week rather then The Mid-Way point as a plain reading of Revelation clearly shows.  Post-Trib sometimes sees the sixth or seventh Seal as the same event but not always.  Pre-Wrath places the Sixth Seal some indeterminate amount of time after the Mid-Way point.

Meanwhile there are also people arguing that there is no 70th Week, that the entire period is only 3.5 years and so every 3.5 year period referenced is the same.  And most who do believe in a 70th Week have this wrong idea that those years will begin and end on Yom Teruah, when Yom Teruah should Biblically mark the midway point.

I've talked to Pre-Wrathers who think it's possible we're already in the 70th Week now and aren't aware of it.  I firmly believe it can't start till The Temple (it could be just a Tabernacle) is standing in Jerusalem.  Pre-Wrathers also tend to think the Persecution only starts at the Abomination of Desolation.

Basically what I'm saying is I fear once Pre-Trib is firmly debunked people may be deceived into thinking we're already at or past the Mid-Way point when the 70th Week has really only just started.

The only issue there is how can people be tricked into thinking The Abomination of Desolation has happened already when it really hasn't?  Paul certainly makes what it is unmistakable in II Thessalonians 2.  But lots of people are already trying to alegorize or twist that.

I think there will be plenty of Christians who won't fall for this deception, even if their current views make them vulnerable to aspects of it.  But we need to be aware of how that deception could work.

1. Thanks to how the 1290 days reference from Daniel 12 is commonly misunderstood, most people assume the Sacrifice and Oblation is made to cease at the same time as the Abomination of Desolation when it's really 1290 days before it.

2. The Anti-Semites of the world may well think the Temple being rebuilt itself is the Abomination of Desolation.  That's what some of Texe Marrs logic seems to imply.  And since many other Dispensationalist and Zionsit Christians think it's possible The Temple won't be rebuilt till very soon before it happens, they are not prepared to refute that argument timing wise.

3. Then there are the people who allegorize what The Temple means in II Thessalonians to being The Church.  Don't assume that view will lose credibility once a Third Temple is standing, many of them are clarifying they do think The Jews might get their Temple rebuilt, but that Christians should not be tricked into thinking that is prophetically relevant.

4. Rob Skiba has gone and wrongly defined what The Abomination of Desolation of Antiochus Epiphanes was, saying it refers to when he offered the Pig on the Altar (a legend that is apocryphal to begin with) not the Idol.  So imagine if it's Nisan, perhaps on Passover, someone invades Jerusalem, enters the Temple and kills a Pig on the Brazen Altar.  Rob Skiba is set up to be deceived, especially if that same Decoy Antichrist claims to be Nimrod.

5. I've also seen someone argue (with the intent of supporting a Prestist view however) that when Jesus said "The Holy Place" really means "A Holy Place" and that the Abomination need not happen in specifically the Inner Sanctuary at all.  This is especially tempting to fall for once you notice Antiochus Epiphanes lesser Abomination Idol wasn't in the Holy Place but on the Brazen Altar.  That's probably why Rob Skiba got confused.  But II Thessalonians 2:4 says he sits in The Temple, the only sitting Place in The Temple was the Ark itself which lid was the mercy Seat, this Temple I don't think will have the real Ark.

6. I also think some might get confused by a person deifying himself or giving Messianic status to himself and forget that The Beast will also speak AGAINST the True God.

All of these could be relevant, since Satan will probably try to have multiple deceptions going on with multiple Decoy Antichrists.  Maybe even relevant in ways that sometimes overlap.

Could Antiochus Epiphanes claim descent from the Lost Tribes?

I've already talked a lot about the possible familial connections of the Seleucid Dynasty in my three part Genealogy of The Antichrist study.

In light of my recent speculation that the Eight King could be Antiochus Epiphanies himself.  As well as my other speculation that The White Horseman could claim, validly or not, Ephraimite descent and try to claim he's Messiah Ben-Joseph.  This is an interesting speculation.

As I said before, I don't think he'll admit to being the hated Epiphanes, I think it's possible if he is open about being someone from the past, he might claim to be his more fondly remembered father.

I do not necessarily endorse Lost Tribes became Western Europeans theories in general.  But the nature of tribal migrations is complicated.  And Dan certainly had an interesting history.  Also my theory is more about him claiming such a lineage then if it's actually true.

Antiochus Epiphanes is not usually someone advocates of such theories seek to claim.  But I have a different perspective.

The Macedonian Royal family claimed descent, like the Spartans, from the sons of Herakles and through him to Perseus and Andromeda of Joppa and the Danoi.  All allowing possible connections to Dan or Edom.  But the Seleucids have no provable direct connection to the Agrid line however.

The sons of Herakles whom the Spartan and Macedonian royal families claim descent from supposedly intermarried with the leading family of the Dorian tribes.  Some engaged in Lost Tribes related theories have speculated that the Dorians could have a connection to Dor, a port city of Manasseh, one governor of Dor had married a daughter of Solomon.  Dor is also associated with the Tjekker of the Sea Peoples.

The Macedonians were distinct from the other Dorian derived classical Greek nations in also having some Celtic stock to them.   So Oliver Stone was not being completely random casting Irish and Scottish actors as Macedonians in his Alexander The Great film.  The relationship between the Celtic and Cimmerian peoples is complex.

Apama the wife of Seleucus I was the daughter of Spitamenes, a Perisan Satrap.  He had in his ancestry Persian and Median rulers and through them Assyrian ones too.  The mother of Esarhaddon was possibly an Israelite.  Further back there were Assyrian Kings named Asshur-Dan about whom we know little, making me wonder if connections between Assyrian Royalty and the Denyen might have taken place.

The City of Antioch itself is pretty much in the heart of the Danuna/Laish Dan area.

The Crimmerians are at the center of the main Lost Tribes became Europeans theories.  Most critics of the view just point to the obvious connection between the Cimmerians and Gomer son of Japheth, that Bill Cooper documents well in After The Flood.  He covers it in both the Where to Begin chapter and Appendix 3.

Thing is, the name Gomer also appears in Hosea as the name of the prostitute God has Hosea marry who becomes a symbolic type of Ephraim/Israel.  So advocates of the theory suggest using that name could also be a prophecy about a future intermingling of the descendants of Gomer and the Northern Kingdom.

Khumri is how the Assyrians rendered the name of Omri, which they used to refer to the Northern Kingdom in general even well after the House of Omri fell. The basis for connecting the northern Kingdom exiles to the name of the Cimmerians has often been just based on arguing that Khumri could've become Ghumri and Gimri and so on.  That I think is largely what makes it look silly to people.  Though more implausible things have happened in etymology.

Our pre-history of the Cimmerians is pretty speculative, drawing mainly form Herodotus and other heavily contrived Greek accounts.  But a connection between their name and Crimea I do consider likely.

The first appearance of the Cimmerians in Assyrian records is during the reign of Sargon II, dated to about 714 BC.  After the first two main deportations of the Israelites.  At this time they seem to be "In the midst Mannae" a buffer state between Assyrian and Uratu, rather then where they usually were later.  They assisted Sargon in his war with Uratu.  Mannae is mentioned in The Bible as Minni in Jeremiah 51:27.  Their kingdom was located south and east of Lake Urmia.  Firmly within Median territory where many exiles had been taken according to II Kings 17:6.

Later the Cimmerians during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal would become enemies of Assyria, and ally with other traditional enemies of Assyria.  It's not implausible that descendants of exiled Israelites would have been attracted to joining up with the Cimmerians.

The Cimmerian nation at it's greatest extent expanded into many other regions of Turkey, like Pontus and Cappadocia.  In Hellenistic times the Cimmerians who remained in the region were known as the Galatians.  The Hellenistic kingdoms of Galatias, Cappadocia and Pontus royal families intermarried a lot with the Seleucid Dynasdty, as well as Pergamon and Commagene.  The mother of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus.

The Seven Heads and Daniel 7

In the past I've been hostile to viewing the 7 Kings as 7 Kingdoms or Empires rather then a specific succession of individual Kings.  Chris White argues they are 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms.

I'll never be convinced of a model that adds two empires or even one before Nebuchadnezzar.  But my perspective on this changed when I noticed something about how Daniel 7 and the Beast from the Sea in Revelation are compared.

This thesis here could damage a lot of my earlier theories.  But not my over all view of Bible Prophecy.

Seven is also the total number of heads in Daniel 7, 1 Lion, 1 Bear, 4 of the Leopard and the Ten horns are defined as on a head in Daniel 7.  The Beast of Revelation 13 is all four of Daniel 7's beasts merged together.

So we have 7 Kingdoms, each also with one specific of their Kings to single out.  That is how I now look at it.

The 7 kings do NOT each have to be a type of The Antichrist, that is just a made up rule some people have for studying this.  Cyrus is indisputably the Second King in question here, he is never portrayed negatively in Scripture.  In fact he is the only Gentile The Hebrew Bible ever declares a Messiah, and it's God himself saying it to Cyrus in Isaiah 44/45.  Some of them may be types, but they don't all need to be.

In fact even though I've done and may still do a lot of talking about potential types of The Anitchrist on this Blog.  The Biblical endorsement for the concept of types are entirely about Jesus, Paul in Colossians saying everything in the law was a foreshadowing of Jesus that had already been fulfilled, Jesus saying the Volume of The Book is of Him.  There is no Biblical basis for calling ANYONE a type of The Antichrist.

This model has to make Rome the 7th rather then 6th Empire.  How can Rome possibly be yet Future in John's time?  Or be said to have not lasted very long?

The 7 Kings we're are looking for are not rulers or occupiers of Israel/Jerusalem.  Revelation 17 is specifically about Babylon, it's about 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms who ruled Babylon, starting with it's native kingdom.  Daniel 7 is in the Aramaic part of Daniel, the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians of Daniel's time.  And he was in Babylonia when he had this vision.  The four beasts are described as World Empires and all four are, but to the point of view of the Babylonians Daniel first made this Prophecy for, no one truly became a world empire till they conquered their world.

Rome did NOT rule Babylon at any point during the New Testament era or before it. John wrote Revelation at the latest during the reign of Domitian.  The second Emperor after that, Trajan, was the first Roman to take Mesopotamia and Assyria. and it was at the very end of his reign that he did.  Then Hadrian succeeded him, and he pretty much immediately gave them back to Parthia.  So Rome only ever ruled Babylon for a very short time, just a few years.

The ruler of Parthia when John wrote was Pacorus II. (Who's mother was a Greek concubine, further showing he can count as a Greek King, and his father's maternal grandmother had Seleucid ancestry).  When Pacorus died Trajan was already Emperor of Rome.  Later in the 160s AD there was another Roman military incursion into Mesopotamia, but it never reached Babylon, it's focus was on Seleucica.

While it's not a coincidence that the 4 heads of the Leopard are the same number of horns the Notable horn of the Ram breaks into.  I think what they represent specifically here could be sort of different.  We are dealing with four Hellenistic era Kingdoms that ruled Babylon.  The first is Alexander himself, then comes the successors.

I believe Parthia while often thought of as a quasi Persian empire can be looked at as coming out of Alexander's Empire.  He had conquered that region, and by the New Testament period the Arascid Royal Family had Seleucid blood intermingled into them.

Babylon was taken from the Seleucid Empire by Parthia in 150 BC.  It was still firmly Seleucid during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasomonean revolt.

Antigonus and Seleucus Nicator fought over Babylon early on after it was clear Alexander's own Dynasty would not survive.  Eventually Seleucus secured it.

I'm going to consider Ptolemy the true successor to Alexander in this context.  He had Alexander's body buried in the city named after him, an act that secured succession in Macedonian custom, and was possibly a half brother or cousin of Alexander.

The 4 Heads of the Leopard could be viewed as Antigonus in Macedon =The West, Antioch=The North, Alexandria=The South and Parthia=The East.  Thus fitting the Four Winds of Heaven reference in Daniel 11.  Though for that context we could also say the West was the Macedon-Greece homeland which was originally ruled by the Antipards but which the Antigonids took as they lost what was originally allotted to them to Seleucus.

So the 7 King(dom)s of Babylon from Daniel are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander The Great, Antigonus, Seleucid Dynasty, Pacorus of Parthia, and Trajan of Rome.

In the past I firmly argued that I believe The Antichrist's Death and Resurrection must both be in the future.  And I was not comfortable with the theories making him some past King being brought back.

But in light of this, I must be consistent with my clear understanding of Revelation 17's terminology.  "Was, and is not" means the Eight King is one of the first 5, since it defines the present of this message as the 6th.

I still believe the Beast Empire is largely a Revived Roman Empire, but the Little Horn shows up among the ten horns in Daniel 7, distinct from Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the 4 horns.  He's ruling Rome but not as a Roman himself.

I don't believe it has to be someone who died from a head wound.  The doctrine of The Antichrist's Resurrection to me is proven not by the mortal head wound being healed but by his ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and how that theme ties into Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-32, (though fatal sword wound references are there too).

It could be he's already an early example of the second resurrection when he receives the mortal wound, and what amazes people is him surviving something that should have killed him, because he now has a body like a fallen angel.

Alexander The Great is distinct as being in a sense the main King of the Leopard as a whole as well as one of the heads.  I see Daniel 7:12 saying both that the Assyrian, Persian and Greek nations will exist during the Millennium.  And that their main three Kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great, are saved individuals and will exist in The Millennium too.

That only leaves Antigonus and the Seleucids.

Daniel 11:40-45 seems to have The Antichrist as separate from the King of The North.  However, I've explained why I'm no longer certain that even is The Antichrist, and that it might be Augustus.  But if that is the End Times and is The 8th King, it's while he's not a ruler of his original kingdom anymore but of the 10 horns to emerge from Rome.

There is nothing to link Antigonus to the Antichrist, but a lot of reasons to link the Seleucids.  Daniel 8 as well as Epiphanes doing the first Abomination of Desolation, which Jesus clarifies there will be one yet future.

I argued in the past when discussing Daniel 8 that there The Little Horn is the Seleucid dynasty as a whole, not just 1 or 2 individuals.  So unlike others who've argued a thesis similar to what I'm arguing here, I don't necessarily think it's Antiochus Epiphanes himself who is the Seleucid ruler that will ascend out of the Bottomless Pit, but certainly could be.

There are reasons to believe The Antichrist will be someone The Jews accept at first until the Abomination of Desolation happens.  If he's Epiphanes and is known to be Epiphanes, that would be unlikely.  Epiphanes is up there with Hitler and Haman on the most hated by Jews list.

I do think it must be a Seleucid mentioned in Daniel 11, making him a Biblical figure.  Seleucus I might be the candidate to start with, but while important to Seleucid history obviously, what's said of him in Daniel 11 is brief and pales in comparison to some of the others.  But it is interesting that a legend existed in the ancient world that his mother Laodice claimed he was fathered by Apollo.

Three times in Daniel 11 a king is described as "doing according to his will".  One of these is verse 36 which is clearly past the immediate history of Epiphanes already, after the Hasmonean Kingdom has fallen to Rome.  And may or may not be about The Antichrist.  It's first used of Alexander The Great at the start of the chapter.  Between them it's in verse 16.

Verse 16 is during the time of Antiochus III The Great's wars. And usually he is identified by scholars as the one "doing according to his will" there.  But Hippolytus of Rome in his Daniel commentary confusingly says this was an Alexander not known from any other surviving historical sources we have on the period.  He might have gotten confused by how that phrase was earlier affiliated with Alexander The Great, or maybe it's a scribal/copyist error.

It was under Antiochus The Great that Israel was taken from the Ptolemies and became part of the Seleucid Empire.  He is overall remembered fondly by The Jews as recorded by Josephus.  His relationship with them in Daniel 11 seems positive.  He continued Alexander and the Ptolemies general policy of not interfering with their Faith or The Temple.

But Josephus seems to be familiar with only 1 Maccabees and not 2 Maccabees.  2 Maccabees chapter 1 seems to refer to the death of Antiochus III and deems him ungodly.  Some see the benefits Antiochus gave The Temple as having been good for the Priestly class but not really for the common people.

Epiphanes is still the key link this dynasty has to The Antichrist.  It's highly possible he will lie about who he is, even when he first reveals himself to be a resurrected past individual he may lie about exactly who he is. Maybe he'll try to claim he's Elijah or David or Solomon or someone like that.  Or maybe just a simple matter of lying about which Macedonian or Seleucid ruler he is.

Some have agreed that Daniel 11:36-45 can't refer to anything Epiphanes did, yet still feel that the tone of the text wants us to think of him.  This could agree with a notion that he was recorded earlier as the 5th King and 36-45 is about him as the 8th King.

On the notion that we're dealing with a ruler of one of the earlier Kingdoms now ruling/reviving Rome.  Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome, and Polybus said he liked to rule as if he were a Roman.  Maybe he is the ideal person to revive the Roman Empire.

Which would create more options for someone he could claim to be, like Augustus.

But one interesting option is for him to claim to be Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor.  Like all later Byzantine Emperors he was firmly Greek, so Antiochus could remain the same ethnicity and native language.  Constantine XI supposedly died in battle when Constantinople fell to the Turks, but his death was never solidly confirmed.  So a rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a statue and hid him beneath the Gate of Constantinople and would one be awoken to drive to the Turks.  His legacy has remained important among the Greeks, drawing on it during their War of Independence in the 19th Century.

And the legend of his return no doubt became interwoven with the Last Roman Emperor tradition.  The original seed of which, the late 4th century prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl called him a King of The Greeks named Constans.

One argument against the idea that 36-39 could be about Epiphanes is that he was consistent with the religion of his fathers.  However there is also a sense in which Epiphanes did change the religion of the Seleucid Empire, ironically the opposite of the change Augustus later made in Rome.  Apollo had been the favored deity of earlier Seleucids, but Epiphanes downplayed him and was more fond of Zeus.  But it still would be absurd to label Zeus a god "whom his fathers knew not" for any Greek people.

But if Epiphanes returns in the End Days his religion may be different, especially if he comes back after being resurrected and thinking Satan was responsible for it.

He did deify himself, technically the full name he used was Antíochos D' ho Epiphanḗs (Antiochus God Manifest, or Antiochus Zeus Manifest).  I've noticed that while none of the known forms of Epiphanes/Epiphany I've found used in ancient Greek texts have a Greek gemetria value of 666, it isn't difficult to construct a form that does have that value, it seems 1 or 2 letters could make the difference.

Update August 2016: I just argued that the Eight King could be a Ptolemy.

Hanukkah is a Biblical Holy Day

I've seen one random online forum filled with Christians really offended by the notion that Jesus was observing Hanukkah in John 10:22-23.  "And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.  And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch."

They insist Jesus could not have been observing a Holy Day never actually ordained in The Hebrew Bible.  That Daniel foretells the history that produced Hanukkah isn't enough for them.

They insist this "dedication" refers either to the second of Adar when the Second Temple was first dedicated.  Or to how Solomon originally Dedicated the Temple with an expansion of Tabernacles to 14 days, and feel that's backed up by this following John 7-9.

The latter requires expanding the definition of Winter, (maybe so does the former, but sometimes Adar can fall during a pretty cold period).  But the point is it doesn't say the anniversary of the dedication, it said the Feast of Dedication was being observed.  The 25th of Kislev is the only Feast the Jews ever celebrated by that name.

Also I firmly believe the Expansion of the Festival Solomon did was the prior week not the following Week, since it clearly defines the 22nd as the day the Festival ended, and the 23rd as the day everyone went home.  Also 2 Chronicles 7:9 says "And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days." Which clearly defines the extra 7 days as coming first.

The only objection offered to it being the prior week is the assumption of Yom Kippr being a Fast Day.  The Bible never links the word Fast to Yom Kippur, in fact God expressed disapproval of annual Fast Days in Zachariah.  The basis for making Yom Kippur a fast day is that the people were to "afflict your souls", fasting is a way to do that but not the only way (Jesus was afflicting His soul without fasting in Gethsemane).  Either way it would be merely the 2nd or 3rd day of a two week festival being toned down by people doing whatever they feel is best to keep that command.  Besides with what is supposed to go on in The Temple that day I could easily see it being treated as part of the Festival.

As far as the lack of Old Testament precedent they complain about, leaving Daniel aside for a moment.

Haggai 2:10-23 is a revelation God gave to Haggai on the 24th of Kislev, and it foretells that very day being a time to rededicate the Temple.  Reading 1 Maccabees chapter 4 (it's at the end pretty much) it would seem the 24th was the day they were actually done rebuilding and cleansing everything, the 25th was the day the new Sacrifices were made.

The whole "Menorah burning for 8 days on 1 day's worth of oil" is a made up fairy tale from much later tradition.  2 Maccabees 10:1-8 tells us it was an 8 day festival because it was done in the manner of the Feast of Tabernacles.  Some have conjectured the original logic was a counterpart for Tabernacles of the Second Passover law from Numbers 9.  One reason to make it two months later rather then one would be the Eight Month's affiliation with The Feast of Jeroboam.  But if that was the only factor it'd have been on the 15th not the 25th.  Haggai's prophecy I'm convinced is why this was when it was whether they knew it or not.  Actually the text of Haggai in question discuses the same issues that make Second Passover necessary in Numbers 9, and since Haggai's previous vision was during Tabernacles, it seems valid to interpret him as validating a Second Tabernacles Law.

The Hebrew word Hanukkah (Dedication) first appears in The Bible in Number 7:84&88 ("Dedicating" was used twice much earlier in the same chapter) this Chapter is about the original Dedication of the Tabernacle and may be one likely drawn on at the first Hanukkah.  That right after this Aaron is instructed to light The Menorah could be the original reason The Menorah became important to Hanukkah.

Also if you do the math in Genesis, the 26th or 27th of Kislev is when the 40 days of rain that caused the Flood stopped.  And it's been popular to see the Nine Candle Menorah of Hanukkah foreshadowed by Zechariah 4.

Back to Daniel, some people, especially those who want to late date Daniel but knowing they can't make it too late due to DSS manuscripts.  Will insist it discuses Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution, but not the Maccabees actual victory.

Daniel 11:32 "And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits."  One Bible I have in it's marginal footnotes suggests "Take Action" as an alternate translation of "do exploits".

But more directly relevant to the idea of The Re-dedication being Biblical is Daniel 8:13-14.

"Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?  And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred mornings and evenings; then shall the  sanctuary be cleansed."

The Number 2300 mornings and evenings (1150 days) is the main reason this verse in it's details I feel applies more to Antiochus then The Antichrist, I like Chris White's explanation of it, It does fit to say the time from Antiochus' Abomination first being set up until the Maccabees rededicated The Temple.  But it's pretty hard to make it line up perfectly with Revelation where it's always 1260 days or 42 months being mentioned.

The point is, that the Cleansing of The Temple in 164 BC was part of Bible Prophecy.

Josephus talks about the origin of Hanukkah in Antiquities of The Jews, Book 12, Chapter 7 in section 6 and 7, the last part of the chapter.  He there directly links it to Daniel's Prophecy, which I will admit the Books of Maccabees failed to do.

An argument might also be made that John 10 doesn't tell us Jesus was celebrating or observing Hanukkah, He just happened to be there at that time.

During His ministry I find it interesting that Jesus was in Jerusalem only on Holy Days, with John in particular linking Holy Days to anytime He was even in Judea.  In fact in the entire Gospel account of his life the only time we are told He was in Jerusalem when it wasn't specifically a Holy Day was to fulfill the Torah's law about being presented in The Temple 40 days after His Birth.

I'm convinced every detail of Scripture is there for a reason, and The Holy Spirit wanted us to take note of the fact that Jesus was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah.

I rant more against anti-Hanukkah Christians here.

Update 1/11/2016:  I've found a site online called "Why Yahshuah Refused to Celebrate Hanukkah".

First of all "Yahshuah" is an interpretation of how to properly render Yeshua affiliated with a peculiar brand of the Sacred Name movement.  So be warned.

First this site claims John 7 is about Hanukkah, (it talks about the connection between Tabernacles and Hanukkah that I talk about above), then says the John 10 reference is just continuing the same narrative.  However an unqualified reference to Tabernacles always means the Tishri celebration just as an unqualified reference to a Feast of Dedication means the Kislev one.  And John 10:22-23 stylistically is clearly the start of a new incident that clearly dates itself to a different time then what came just before.

This site actually claims The Jews of this period stopped observing Tishri Tabernacles all together and just replaced it with Hanukkah.  There is no evidence of that, 2 Maccabees 10:6-7 says it was observed in the manner of Tabernacles but in no way says it replaced that feast.

Josephus has I'm pretty sure made clear references to Tabernacles still being observed in Tishri at this time.   When Josephus describes the origin of Hanukkah which I mentioned above he doesn't mention the link to Tabernacles that only 2 Maccabees directly makes (Josephus seemed to only know 1 Maccabees) and only called it the Festival of Lights.  So it's highly unlikely Josephus ever meant that any time he refereed to Tabernacles.

After making that argument they make a thing out of Jesus refusing to go up to the Feast when it started.  Then says when He did show up He condemned them for not following The Law.

Read John 7 more carefully, He did go up at the same time his brothers did more or less, but was simply in secret till the midst of the Feast.  And what Jesus talks about at this time the site misrepresents completely.  He was observing that Feast as much as He was Passover during the Passion Week, where he also argued with the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Christmas and Pagan festivals linked to the Winter Solstice

The modern secular commercialized Christmas Holiday is Pagan, an amalgamation of various winter pagan traditions. The ones we in modern America are familiar with mostly come from Celtic and Norse/Germanic traditions more so then the Greeco-Roman/Egyptian/Levant/Mesopotamian religions The Bible's human authors directly interacted with..

Jeremiah 10 is about cutting down a tree to carve it into an idol, that's clear when you read the entire chapter.  Isaiah 60:13 refers to pine trees as decorations in a positive context.  The Christmas tree does have a relationship to some Germanic rituals involving trees, but the desire to connect it to that Jeremiah passage is a torturing of the text.  I Laugh at any pastor who calls a Pine Tree an Idol but has an American Flag in their Church.

There are pagan holidays all year round, the Wiccans and related Neo-Pagans alone have 8 evenly scattered throughout the year, all of which are based on ancient ones.  And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

No matter when Jesus was born, some Pagan holy day is near by if not exactly on it.   It's popular now to say he was born on one of the Tishi Jewish Holy Days, any one of those could fall on the Autumnal Equinox, and Tabernacles sometimes can fall late enough to put Halloween on one of it's 8 days.  Also the Full Moon of Tabernacles is always either the Harvest Moon or Hunter's Moon.  As for those who think Jesus was born in the Spring, spring holidays will come up later.

The Church should do Spiritual warfare on Pagan holy days against the demonic forces whether or not there is a Biblical Holy Day to celebrate.  That includes reading The Bible, praying in unison, singing godly hymns ect.  So the way I see it whether the date is correct or not reading the Gospel Nativity narratives and singing the strictly Jesus centric Christmas hymns in December can never be a bad thing.

Rob Skiba even condemns the act of gift giving "why are giving gifts to other people if it's supposedly Jesus Birthday?" he says.  Because Jesus said "it is better to give to receive" and we are the Body of Christ so any gift given to a brother or sister in Christ is a gift to Jesus in my book.  I've always felt the healthy attitude is to delight in giving gifts but not feel entitled to receive any.

Christians should certainly never deceive their children into believing in Santa Claus (Odin), or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy or any other such modern folk deities.  Satan has repeatedly used that as a means to make people doubt the existence of God.  One notorious example is Gene Roddenberry.

The other Pagan aspects like Christmas Trees and Yule Logs and Mistletoe may be harmless as long as you don't do them with false god worshiping intent.  But people think the same about Quij boards and many demonic possessions started from dabbling with that.  It's ultimately between you and the Holy Spirit.

What I'm seeking to refute here is the notion that December 25th specifically has it's origin in Paganism, and Christians only adopted it to co-opt the Pagan holiday.  This is based on the poor research of Hislop just like the Semiramis was married to Nimrod myth.

Now it's cited by countless both skeptics of Christianity and Christians as an absolute fact that every major Demigod or Avatar was born on December 25th.  But in fact that claim is no more credible then them being born of Virgins or Crucified or any other alleged parallel to Jesus claimed by Christ Mythers.  But it's the only popular Christ Myther claim used in films like Zeigueist that Christian apologists don't object to, instead the concede by saying December 25th isn't Biblical.

The Winter Solstice is actually the 21st or 22nd of December.  Saturnalia was many days that ended on December 23rd.

The only remote basis for claiming Mithra a connection to December 25th is the connection Mithra worship developed over time to Sol Invictus.  Mithra is a deity that always existed in Persia, but during the Hellenistic era he became popular in synchronizing Hellenic religion with Middle Eastern religion.  However everything we know about the Mithridic Cult of Roman Times goes back to the second Century at the earliest.  And none of it mentions December 25th.

It is the Roman Sol Invictus cult the date is accused of directly coming from.  And that is indeed the cult that Constantine and other Romanizeing Christians were trying to merge Christianity with.  But it seems the superficial things like names and dates are what were taken from Christianity, while the Substance came from Paganism.

The Sol Cult was created in the early Third Century. but it was not the official Imperial Cult until Aurelian made it so in 274.  Aurelian held games to Sol Invictus in October not December.  All Pre Constantine references to the Sol cult refers to festivals in December no later then the 22nd.  But the August festivals were considered far more important.

All of this after December 25th for Jesus Birth had been refereed to by Hippolytus as I documented in my previous post.

The Earliest reference to a Sol Invictus holiday on December 25th is the Chronography of 354.  The exact same source refers to Jesus being born on December 25th as well.  So Jesus was on December 25th first, it was Sol who was moved.

Dionysus is another deity who comes up.  Dionysus aka Bacchus aka Bromius had many festivals all over the year, pretty much every month there was a Bacchus festival somewhere in Greece.  The Greeks however even after they adopted a Solar calendar for Civil purposes still used the Lunar Attic Calendar for religious ceremonies.  So none were linked to December 25th consistently.  The Roman Bacchanilias were the only ones linked to a Solar calendar, they were in Spring.

Bacchus had many Births in Greek Mythology, but the Festivals linked to his Birth were always in Spring.

Before Christianity came along, rarely were winter holidays about births.  Pagans, especially if they were worshiping a Solar deity (Sol, Mithras, Apollo as he latter became), or Vegetation deities (Bacchus, Attis, Tammuz) would have considered the Winter Solstice the WORST time to affiliate with their god's birth.

That is when the days are shortest and the Sun is seemingly less powerful then usual, and plant-life is seemingly dead.  The Winter Solstice is in fact defined as when the Sun dies and then rises again.

To the Pagans, Christmas and Easter should be switched.  The Winter Solstice is when Solar and Vegetation Gods die and rise again (none of that being the same as Biblical Resurrection which is about defeating Death not carrying out an endless cycle) and Spring is the time for Birth and Youth and Vitality.  A child born on the Spring Equinox would be conceived around the Summer Solstice (June 21st) when the Sun is at it's most powerful.

Egypt was perhaps an exception, their unique dependence on the Nile inverted a lot of things.  Including making Summer rather then Winter the time they affiliated with death due to the Nile drying up.  But our documentation of dates related to Horus and Osiris are shaky and largely dependent on sources no older then Plutarch.  With even how to interpret/translate what Plutarch said being disagreed on.

Some sources say he was born on the 5th of the Epagomenal Days, which would be in August on our calendar.  An October/November (Khoiak) birth for Horus has also been cited.  It's important to remember according to the Egyptian kings-list there were two Horuses, the latter the son of the first and Hathor. 

This changed because of trying to merge Christianity and Paganism, so modern Neo-Pagans may or may not find reason to justify Births at the Winter Solstice and Death at the Spring Equinox (and claim ancients saw them the same way).  Just as they'll seek to justify seeing a Virgin Birth as Pagan even though the ancients considered the idea of a goddess being both a mother and a virgin at the same time unthinkable.

You know what, Switching those two things around is exactly in God's character.  The Pagan Caananites built their temples facing East, so God told Israel their Tabernacle should face West.

Now you may think "don't pagans talk about death and rebirth"  Pagans affiliated conception and the sexual act with both death and rebirth.  One layer of meaning to it is seeing the... I'm going to get a little crude here... Erect Penis becoming flaccid after it ejaculates as a type of death.  Then when it in time becomes hard again later as a rebirth.  So when Isis temporarily reanimated Orisis to conceive Horus in part represents her getting Osiris hard one last time before he becomes permanently impotent.

Judeao-Christians thought also (for different reasons) liked to see symmetry in seeing Conception and death happening on the same day of the year.  In the post this is a follow up to I talk about why it can make sense to see Jesus as conceived around Passover or First Fruits.

Seeing Jesus as being born in September as is popular with people like Rob Skiba who puts His conception in December.  The irony is Skiba has been tricked into rejecting December 25th as the birthday of the gods he wrongly thinks are Nimrod.  But in turn has placed Jesus conception where sun gods are killed and conceived.

Apollo specifically was believed to have spent the winter months in hyperborrea, a mythical northern land.  Why would the Greeks affiliate Apollo's birth with the time they believed he was gone?  Ten festivals on the Greek calendar were affiliated with Apollo, some are harder to find info on then others.  Boedromia was in the Summer, Carnea was in August.  When Daphnephoria happened in the year seems unknown, but it wasn't annual, it was every nine years.  Hyacithia was in Summer.

The only ones not in Summer are Pyanopsia being in October, and Thrgelia which is the only one identified as being affiliated with birth.  Apollo and Artemis were it seems born on May 6th and May 7th respectively.  Later in Roman times Augustus Caesar made his birthday (September 23rd) the national holiday of Apollo, because he was seeking to be seen as an incarnation of Apollo, hence Virgil's fourth Ecalouge and it's made up prophecy from the Sybil.  And the Coptic Calander shows that Egyptians placed the Birth of the Sun in September at the end of the Month of Mesori.

I think it's interesting that John The Baptist was both conceived and born exactly 6 months before Jesus.

All the pagan birthdates I can find (besides contradictory info on Horus birth) seem to fall in spring, not winter.

That fact about Augustus is very interesting because that's contemporary with the Birth of Christ.  This man who could be viewed as a type of The Antichrist, was being deified as an incarnation of one of the gods Rob Skiba thinks is his imaginary version of Nimrod.  His birth and Apollo were being celebrated at about the Autum Equinox during the time the Nativity narrative happened.  But we're today being told your celebrating the birth of Apollyon if you celebrate Christmas in December rather then September.

The death of Tammuz (and the women weeping for Tammuz) happened at the summer Solstice (usually in the Hebrew month that became named after Tammuz).  The Greek Adonia for Adonis was the same time.  Tammuz died about the Summer Solstice and was risen about the Winter Solstice, Ishtar took his place dying about the Winter Solstice and rising about the Summer Solstice.

I've seen some Christians spreading Christmas paranoia (like Michael Rood) add to and confuse this trying to bring Spring holidays into it and saying Tammuz or someone was born on December 25th.  But that is all nonsense.  Winter was his resurrection not his birth.

Again, modern Neo-Pagans often like all this comparative mythology stuff so you may see material from them supporting births at the winter solstice.  But nothing backs that up in actual ancient sources.

Even if an ancient pre 354 AD example of a pagan deity born on the Winter Solstice can be found, so what.  Genesis 1 tells us the Sun, Moon and Stars were all given for times and for seasons.  At the Exodus God codified a Lunar Calendar for Israel, but the Moon is never a symbol for Jesus himself, Malachi calls Jesus the Sun of Righteousness.  So when the days begin growing longer makes sense as a time for him to be born.  That pagans also found significance in that is just a reminder that Satan can only copy and corrupt the things of God.

Maybe The Antichrist will claim the same Birthday, so what, I have reasons to suspect Satan will arrange for him to be killed on Passover too.

Dionysus is interesting to study in relation to Hannukah.

First Maccabees chapter 1 verse 54 to the end says Antiochus Epiphanes placed his Idol in the Holy of Holies on the 15th of Kislev, and on the 25th sacrifices were made to the Idol.  The same day it was cleansed 3 years later.

The 15th would be after a Full Moon, and since as I said the Greeks also used a Lunar calendar for their religion this could have been significant.  This time of year among other things is when the Athenian Rural Dionysia would happen.

Second Maccabees informs us that the feast of Bacchus was kept in The Temple.  That could be significant, but we're not told which feast, or if this is really supposed to be an elaboration on the ritual that first desecrated The Temple.

People will use this same material from Second Maccabees 6 to say Antiochus Epiphanes birthday was celebrated in The Temple.  And overlap that with the 25th of Ksilev reference to say Antiochus was born on December 25th.  But Second Maccabees 6 was referring to the day of the Kings' birth every MONTH not a yearly anniversary, and again there is no evidence that it is connected to the Kislev 25th sacrifices.

The Books of Maccabees do place Antiochus Epiphanes death about the same time The Temple was cleansed, three years after he first desecrated it.

Again the Rural Dionysia was not about Dionysus' birth.  It was a festival that like many other Dionysian festivals was affiliated with the Theater, a time for Plays to be performed and competitions between play writers to be held.  So the Rural Dionysia's main contribution to modern Christmas is the Christmas season being a time when Hollywood releases (besides Summer) the most of it's big event movies.

I'm absolutely NOT one of those Baptists saying it's bad to enjoy a good time at the movies, or to enjoy any secular media.  I love going to the Cinema, there is a 50/50 chance I'll see The Force Awakens this Christmas.  Just be aware of the possible secret reasons behind when they release them.

Returning to my earlier themes though.  If the Antichrist's abomination of Desolation is on his birthday which could be something he'd want to do.  We know that Abomination is at the Midway Point of the seven year period, which I'm convinced will occur in Tishei (September-October).  Meaning it'd be evidence for the Antichrist's birthday in Fall not Winter.  And I think it's possible the opening of the Abyss is 9 months before that.