A few 2nd/Early 3rd Century AD Church Writers predicted that the Millenium would begin about 500 AD [Strandberg, Todd; James, Terry (June 2003). Are You Rapture Ready. New York City: Dutton.]. I don't think that happened, but I am open to unconventional understandings of how Daniel 2 and 7 relate to Revelation which could include more quasi Preterist/Historicist interpretations of those Chapters.
The basis for Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome and Julius Africanus predicting around 500 AD was that for reasons based on Septuagint chronology they felt the time of Christ was 5500 years from Creation and that the Seventh Millennium would begin about 500 years later. So I’m going to allow a range here. It’s interesting that all three had passed away before 250 AD and so were not making predictions based on a bias for wanting it to happen in their lifetimes.
The earliest possible date for The Birth of Jesus is 25 BC, 500 years from which would be 476 AD, but more popular dates are about 5-4 BC which takes us to the 490s AD. From here on the start date is already AD so just put a 5 in-front of it to get the end date.
I place The Crucifixion, Resurrection and Pentecost in the Spring of 30 AD. Others have proposed dates all over the time Pilate was Governor (26-36 AD). The latest possible date is 37 AD, which year is also when I place the end of the 70 Weeks of Daniel so definitely an important year. But there is also room to argue the history of the First Advent isn’t fully done till we reach the end of the narrative of Acts (62-64 AD), or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD in the midst of the Jewish Revolt that spanned from 66-73 AD.
So what was the End Time scenario predicted by our 500 AD date setters? Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote in depth on Bible Prophecy more then any other Pre-Nicene writers. Their model predicted that the Roman Empire would collapse, than 10 Kingdoms would arise in its place, and then after that would come The Little Horn commonly identified with The Antichrist.
This was a pretty standard view of Bible Prophecy prior to Nicaea. But when Constantine happened things changed, many started thinking Rome’s fall wasn’t something to look forward to anymore, and so Amillennial and Post-Millennial interpretations rose in popularity, and then the Last Roman Emperor tradition developed, which turned the one who would restore Rome after it’s collapse into a Hero rather then a Villain.
So it’s Ironic that even though the Church stopped believing in what those early Eschatology teachers predicted, what they predicted at least partially did happen pretty much exactly when they predicted it would. Basically everything but The Second Coming itself.
476 AD is one of the dates commonly cited as when the Western Empire fell, along with 480 and 488 AD. Chris White talked about how Daniel 2 can be viewed as being fulfilled in the late 400s AD, which I talked about when critiquing his very different view of Daniel 7.
Much of the 500s were dominated by the reign of Justinian, an emperor popular with History YouTubers like Extra Credits. Seventh Day Adventists and other Protestant Historicists have a long history of viewing Daniel 7 as being fulfilled in the time of Justinian, with the 10 Horns being the Barbarian Kingdoms that rose to power in the West as Rome Fell. I’m going to link to a Playlist that is mostly videos an Atheist YouTuber called NumberOneSon made critiquing various SDA teachers on what they get wrong about Justinian’s history.
History Versus Playlist. Note, There is at least one video on the Playlist not about this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL95E6667F8E19F8B0
His critiques are mostly correct. (He does confuse Monophysite and Miasphyte theology by calling Theodora a Monophysite, she was a Miasphyte and so did believe Jesus was both Fully Human and Fully Divine, and it was only Miasyphtes not proper Monophysites Justinian wanted to make peace with, but that confusion is common.) However the details these SDAs get wrong don’t change that, yes, what happened then looks an awful lot like what Daniel 7 predicted as it was interpreted by pre-Nicene Christians.
I'm willing to consider the Prophetic use of the round number 10 a detail that doesn’t need to be fulfilled exactly literally. You can say that’s convenient, but I say it’s just the nature of the number 10. But still there are ways to justify making it exactly 10 kingdoms if you wanted to. And I lean towards viewing the three Kingdoms Justinian uprooted as being the Vandals, Alans and Ostrogoths. I know the Alans and Vandals are technically viewed as being the same kingdom by this point, but I still think it's valid to view them as separate in the context of fulfilling this prophecy.
Also I’m not a Historicist (not properly anyway) so don’t accept any Day=Year arguments and therefore won't turn around and make this about Napoleon and The Roman Question.
But the big difference between what I’m considering possible here and the SDAs is I don’t make the Little Horn into The Pope. Instead I think the Little Horn is basically the Eastern Empire.
Some Prophecy teachers will try to say the Ten Toes need to be 5 on each Leg, thus 5 for the Eastern Empire. The problem is in the context of Daniel 7 the Eastern Empire is the land of the first three Beasts (Mainly the Leopard). Making it the Eastern Empire can make the Little Horn of Daniel 7 the same as the Little Horn of Daniel 8 without rejecting that the Fourth Beast is Rome. I have already argued in an early Seleucid Dynasty post that the Daniel 8 Little Horn can be viewed as the Seleucid Empire as a whole, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom is the horn it grew out of. The legacy of the Seleucid Empire, both genealogically and culturally, was absorbed into the Eastern Roman Empire. If the Eastern Empire had a Capital prior to Constantinople being founded it was Antioch, that’s where Germanicus operated from when he was placed in charge of the East. And it remained important after, with Constantius Gallus operating there when he was the number 2 man in the Empire, and the Bishop of Antioch always being one of the top Bishops in the Imperial Church.
So when the Eastern Empire is uprooting certain Barbarian Kingdoms during the 6th Century AD, that could be the Little Horn uprooting three of the ten. Also in Daniel 7 the "Little Horn" is never directly called a King, that could be relevant here since in Jsuitnian's time the Roman Emperors were still officially claiming they weren't kings.
Chris White argued The Stone from Daniel 2 is The Church being established. Given my argument that Daniel 2 and 7 should be understood in the geographical context of Mesopotamia, the Assyrian Church would fit best as being that Stone. And the Nestorians were the branch of Christianity Justinian was pushing out.
And because I've considered more complicated nuanced views of how Daniel and Revelation relate to each other, the 3 uprooted horns may not be permanently uprooted, or since 10 is a symbolic number they get replaced once the Little Horn's role is over. And so the Barbarian Kingdoms have become the WEU nations or something like that.
The Eight King of Revelation 17 can be viewed as different from the Little Horn, the Little Horn uproots three horns, but the Eight King is someone the Ten Horns more willingly give their power to. Maybe you can still make that the Papacy, but then comes the other problems traditional Historicism has.
Showing posts with label Daniel 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel 8. Show all posts
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
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.]
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Lost Tribes follow up post
This is a follow up to many Lost Tribes relevant posts I've done on this Blog. Starting with The Lost Tribes and Bible Prophecy. To deal with some bad theology linked to the Lost Tribes I recommend my post Ephraim and The Fullness of The Gentiles.
Main thing in that I don't stand by anymore is the speculation on Samaria being Mystery Babylon. My far more recent Mystery Babylon posts including about the Kings of The East all show how Babylon can only be in Mesopotamia. But that the Lost Tribes are Relevant to that is still possible, because The Lost Tribes went East not West.
But I want to revisit my objections to Chuck Missler and Chris White's arguments against the Lost Tribes concept. I largely still view things about the same, but I've also noticed the issue is much more complicated. The question is how many Tribes were actually deported?
Biblically the number Ten is applied to the tribes that make up the Northern Kingdom only when it was founded, never of the deportation itself. 1 Kings 11 tells us Jeroboam was given Ten Tribes, while Solomon's son kept one for David's sake (Judah) and one for Jerusalem's sake (Benjamin).
Which tribes were those ten? It's a bit of a controversy since the traditional assumption is Simeon was one even though Simeon's main allotment was south of Judah. Genesis 49 foretells Simeon and Levi both to be scattered among the other tribes, and this was fulfilled in different ways.
You may think that only leaves nine tribes, but not quite. One factor forgotten is that Manasseh was divided into half tribes on either side of the Jordan river. Because he was the firstborn of Joseph and so had a double portion just as Joseph himself did. In the Song of Deborah, Manasseh is treated as two tribes, Machir and Gilead.
Or maybe the key to solving this riddle is in how the land seemed to be divided under Solomon in 1 Kings 4 7-19.
The deportation was indeed not really of the entire population. The deportation under Tiglath-Pilesser III which is recorded in 1 Chronicles 5:26, and 2 Kings 15-16, was mainly of the three Trans-Jordan tribes and Naphtali. And then 2 Kings 17 is mainly just talking about the capital, Samaria, and surrounding areas, which was in Ephraim but not all of Ephriam.
2 Chronicles 30-31 refers to survivors still in the land in West Manasseh, Ephraim, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun and even Dan.
So returning to my basic theory that besides much of Dan the "lost tribes" went East. Let's talk about Daniel 7 and 8.
Daniel 7 is Aramaic Daniel while 8 is Hebrew Daniel. I've speculated before on the significance of two Empires having different Beasts represent them in different visions, noting the Levitical cleanness of the Daniel 8 beasts. If following the deportation of the Northern Kingdom, there are nations that have both an Israelite and Gentile heritage, maybe that is a reason for the different beasts.
So perhaps in Daniel 7 the gentile focused vision, the four headed Leopard is Javan who had four sons in Genesis 10, and the Bear is Madai and the Lion is Asshur. While in the Hebrew focused Daniel 8 the He-Goat is Dan who Ezekiel 27 tells us became linked to Javan. And the Ram is Naphtali, I will do a post in April to explain why I feel the "Hind" used to describe Naphtali in the KJV of Genesis 49 is really a female Ram, or maybe it's the Ram references that are mistranslated. That would make Daniel 8 about the sons of Bilhah.
The Deutercanonical Apocryphal book of Tobit revolves around a family of the Tribe of Naphtali that become prominent in Assyria and Media after the deportation. A person mentioned briefly there is Akhair who is more prominent in other more obscure apocrypha, and also maybe the same as a character in Judith.
I did a post on The Medes, Kurds and Adiabene that is relevant here. And I've speculated before how Iran and Iranians could come from Eran and the Eranites of Numbers 26:36. And that Pars and Persia could come from the Hebrew name Pharez. The first part of the name of Zarathustra/Zoroaster could also come from the Hebrew name Zerah, I believe the ancient traditional date for Zarathustra placing him around 600 BC.
The Persians were not Elamites, though they probably intermingled with them some. That confuses people partly because of Isaiah 13. The Persian king Teispes who lived about 675-640 BC, conquered the Elamite city of Anshan. He had two sons, a Cyrus who was the grandfather of Cyrus The Great, and Ariaramnes who was the great grandfather of Darius I. Teispes was the son of Achaemenes, who ruled from 680-655 BC and was born around 705 BC. Greek writers tended to merge Achaemenes with Perses the mythical son of Perseus and Andormeda, who I talk about in my Tribe of Dan post.
So, I think Achaemenes could be a Naphtalite born in Exile. Perhaps a relative of Tobit and Akhair.
Perhaps it's also a clue that Susa/Shushan the Persian Capital's name is also the Hebrew word for Lily, Strong Number 7799. Hosea 14:5 uses the Lily as a symbol of Ephraim/Israel in a Prophecy of their restoration. If the people saying they went West can use the name Gomer in Hosea to link them to the Cimmerians, then I can use Shushan the same way.
Actually the problem with the Cimmerian part of the Lost Tribes became Europeans argument is that the claimed link between the Cimmerians and the Gauls doesn't hold up. The Gallic connection to that region went in the other direction, Gauls traveled to Asia Minor well after the Old Testament era ended and became the Galatians. This was something I myself was still confused on the last time I mentioned the Cimmerians on this blog. The Cimmerians first show up East of Lake Urmia, from there they migrated. And their alleged connection to Crimea is based on the unreliable Herodotus. I think maybe Crimea is the Gomer of Japheth and Ezekiel 38-39, and the Cimmerians the Gomer of Hosea.
Main thing in that I don't stand by anymore is the speculation on Samaria being Mystery Babylon. My far more recent Mystery Babylon posts including about the Kings of The East all show how Babylon can only be in Mesopotamia. But that the Lost Tribes are Relevant to that is still possible, because The Lost Tribes went East not West.
But I want to revisit my objections to Chuck Missler and Chris White's arguments against the Lost Tribes concept. I largely still view things about the same, but I've also noticed the issue is much more complicated. The question is how many Tribes were actually deported?
Biblically the number Ten is applied to the tribes that make up the Northern Kingdom only when it was founded, never of the deportation itself. 1 Kings 11 tells us Jeroboam was given Ten Tribes, while Solomon's son kept one for David's sake (Judah) and one for Jerusalem's sake (Benjamin).
Which tribes were those ten? It's a bit of a controversy since the traditional assumption is Simeon was one even though Simeon's main allotment was south of Judah. Genesis 49 foretells Simeon and Levi both to be scattered among the other tribes, and this was fulfilled in different ways.
You may think that only leaves nine tribes, but not quite. One factor forgotten is that Manasseh was divided into half tribes on either side of the Jordan river. Because he was the firstborn of Joseph and so had a double portion just as Joseph himself did. In the Song of Deborah, Manasseh is treated as two tribes, Machir and Gilead.
Or maybe the key to solving this riddle is in how the land seemed to be divided under Solomon in 1 Kings 4 7-19.
The deportation was indeed not really of the entire population. The deportation under Tiglath-Pilesser III which is recorded in 1 Chronicles 5:26, and 2 Kings 15-16, was mainly of the three Trans-Jordan tribes and Naphtali. And then 2 Kings 17 is mainly just talking about the capital, Samaria, and surrounding areas, which was in Ephraim but not all of Ephriam.
2 Chronicles 30-31 refers to survivors still in the land in West Manasseh, Ephraim, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun and even Dan.
So returning to my basic theory that besides much of Dan the "lost tribes" went East. Let's talk about Daniel 7 and 8.
Daniel 7 is Aramaic Daniel while 8 is Hebrew Daniel. I've speculated before on the significance of two Empires having different Beasts represent them in different visions, noting the Levitical cleanness of the Daniel 8 beasts. If following the deportation of the Northern Kingdom, there are nations that have both an Israelite and Gentile heritage, maybe that is a reason for the different beasts.
So perhaps in Daniel 7 the gentile focused vision, the four headed Leopard is Javan who had four sons in Genesis 10, and the Bear is Madai and the Lion is Asshur. While in the Hebrew focused Daniel 8 the He-Goat is Dan who Ezekiel 27 tells us became linked to Javan. And the Ram is Naphtali, I will do a post in April to explain why I feel the "Hind" used to describe Naphtali in the KJV of Genesis 49 is really a female Ram, or maybe it's the Ram references that are mistranslated. That would make Daniel 8 about the sons of Bilhah.
The Deutercanonical Apocryphal book of Tobit revolves around a family of the Tribe of Naphtali that become prominent in Assyria and Media after the deportation. A person mentioned briefly there is Akhair who is more prominent in other more obscure apocrypha, and also maybe the same as a character in Judith.
I did a post on The Medes, Kurds and Adiabene that is relevant here. And I've speculated before how Iran and Iranians could come from Eran and the Eranites of Numbers 26:36. And that Pars and Persia could come from the Hebrew name Pharez. The first part of the name of Zarathustra/Zoroaster could also come from the Hebrew name Zerah, I believe the ancient traditional date for Zarathustra placing him around 600 BC.
The Persians were not Elamites, though they probably intermingled with them some. That confuses people partly because of Isaiah 13. The Persian king Teispes who lived about 675-640 BC, conquered the Elamite city of Anshan. He had two sons, a Cyrus who was the grandfather of Cyrus The Great, and Ariaramnes who was the great grandfather of Darius I. Teispes was the son of Achaemenes, who ruled from 680-655 BC and was born around 705 BC. Greek writers tended to merge Achaemenes with Perses the mythical son of Perseus and Andormeda, who I talk about in my Tribe of Dan post.
So, I think Achaemenes could be a Naphtalite born in Exile. Perhaps a relative of Tobit and Akhair.
Perhaps it's also a clue that Susa/Shushan the Persian Capital's name is also the Hebrew word for Lily, Strong Number 7799. Hosea 14:5 uses the Lily as a symbol of Ephraim/Israel in a Prophecy of their restoration. If the people saying they went West can use the name Gomer in Hosea to link them to the Cimmerians, then I can use Shushan the same way.
Actually the problem with the Cimmerian part of the Lost Tribes became Europeans argument is that the claimed link between the Cimmerians and the Gauls doesn't hold up. The Gallic connection to that region went in the other direction, Gauls traveled to Asia Minor well after the Old Testament era ended and became the Galatians. This was something I myself was still confused on the last time I mentioned the Cimmerians on this blog. The Cimmerians first show up East of Lake Urmia, from there they migrated. And their alleged connection to Crimea is based on the unreliable Herodotus. I think maybe Crimea is the Gomer of Japheth and Ezekiel 38-39, and the Cimmerians the Gomer of Hosea.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Hebrew Daniel and Aramaic Daniel
Chapters 1 and 8-12 of The Book of Daniel are written in Hebrew like the rest of The Hebrew Bible. But Chapters 2-7 are in Aramaic. Aramaic is also a Semitic language, it uses many seemingly identical words, but they are still distinct.
A difference in focus and subject matter also exists between these two parts of Daniel. The popular conjecture which I agree with is that Hebrew Daniel is focused on History and Prophecy from a Jewish perspective. While Aramaic Daniel still has Jews as it's protagonists and presumes the Monotheistic Jewish religious worldview to be true, it is much more then most parts of The Hebrew Bible focused on the Gentile World and it's history.
Chris White expresses skepticism of this way of looking at Daniel. He thinks it could be true, but his skepticism of the assumption is mostly just based on observing that Gentile nations are still discussed in Hebrew Daniel.
The point is the more rigidly Jerusalem/Judah POV. 4 or 5 different Kingdoms emerged from the dividing of Alexander's Empire. Why are only two really discussed in most of Daniel 11 (King of the South=Ptolemaic Egypt and the King of The North=Seleucid Syria). Because they're the two that had Jerusalem in the disputed territory between them. So even if Daniel 11's description doesn't always seem to mention Judah's role in those wars in the text, rest assured they always had a direct impact on Judah.
The Hebrew Chapters largely revolve around Jerusalem and The Temple. The Aramaic chapters barely if at all mention Jerusalem's existence, and never The Temple. The Prophetic parts of Hebrew Daniel always involve The Abomination of Desolation, or things linked to it like the offerings being stopped. Aramaic Daniel doesn't bring up that subject at all.
The four world Empires theme comes entirely from Aramaic Daniel. Hebrew Daniel backs up this way of looking at history, but in a way that requires reading between the lines. It is also only Aramaic Daniel that records Daniel's personal relationships with world leaders. In Daniel 1 he only gets to know as high up a the chief Eunuch.
It's interesting to look at the agenda of Bible Skeptics when it comes to Daniel. Any other book they love pointing out reasons to question if the whole Book really had the same Author, like Isaiah. Here however it's a Book written in different languages but they don't want to do that, why?
Because it's Aramaic Daniel that has all the historical references that they claim are errors, and the three random Greek musical instruments they use as scholarly reasons to back up their late dating.
But it's Hebrew Daniel that has the really detailed specific future Prophecies they want to insist must have been written later. So it does not suit them to break this book up, though they could make a much stronger case for it then Isaiah.
And arguing the Aramaic is the older part would go greatly against other narratives they promote. About Hebrew dying out and being supplanted by Aramaic.
Only Hebrew Daniel gives names to Angels. Michael and Gabriel.
Aramaic Daniel used titles for God and The Messiah unique to it in the entire Canonical Hebrew Bible.
Intertestamental Apocrypha like Enoch began merging ideas from the two parts of Daniel. And The New Testament draws on Aramaic Daniel as much as it does I feel precisely because of the theme of Gentile inclusion.
"The Ancient of Days" is one such unique title. I personally feel this title is specific of The First Person of The Trinity, at least somewhat, or used to anyway, I've been rethinking that. It is also only Daniel 7 that has Son of Man as a Messianic Title. In other Prophets it's a term for any human being. In The Gospels this is Jesus favorite title for himself.
Aramaic Daniel does not use the term Messiah, that term was originally specific to the Jewishness of Jesus.
Daniel 7 and 8 are where Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel are most similar to each other. Both envision Gentile Empires as Beasts, and havie a "Little Horn" as the Villain. The two Beasts of Daniel 8 equate to the 2nd and 3rd Beasts of Daniel 7.
But what kinds of Animals are used for the beasts reflects the change from a Gentile to Jewish perspective. In Daniel 8 they're Levitically clean animals (a "Ram" and a Goat), going over Numbers 28-29 shows that both were regularly offered in The Temple on New Moons and Holy Days. While the three identified animals of Daniel 7 are all unclean, and also carnivorous. Outside Daniel they are still animals that can be used symbolically, but when contrasted in how Daniel is divided, they reflect 7 being less Levitical then 8 at the very least.
A difference in focus and subject matter also exists between these two parts of Daniel. The popular conjecture which I agree with is that Hebrew Daniel is focused on History and Prophecy from a Jewish perspective. While Aramaic Daniel still has Jews as it's protagonists and presumes the Monotheistic Jewish religious worldview to be true, it is much more then most parts of The Hebrew Bible focused on the Gentile World and it's history.
Chris White expresses skepticism of this way of looking at Daniel. He thinks it could be true, but his skepticism of the assumption is mostly just based on observing that Gentile nations are still discussed in Hebrew Daniel.
The point is the more rigidly Jerusalem/Judah POV. 4 or 5 different Kingdoms emerged from the dividing of Alexander's Empire. Why are only two really discussed in most of Daniel 11 (King of the South=Ptolemaic Egypt and the King of The North=Seleucid Syria). Because they're the two that had Jerusalem in the disputed territory between them. So even if Daniel 11's description doesn't always seem to mention Judah's role in those wars in the text, rest assured they always had a direct impact on Judah.
The Hebrew Chapters largely revolve around Jerusalem and The Temple. The Aramaic chapters barely if at all mention Jerusalem's existence, and never The Temple. The Prophetic parts of Hebrew Daniel always involve The Abomination of Desolation, or things linked to it like the offerings being stopped. Aramaic Daniel doesn't bring up that subject at all.
The four world Empires theme comes entirely from Aramaic Daniel. Hebrew Daniel backs up this way of looking at history, but in a way that requires reading between the lines. It is also only Aramaic Daniel that records Daniel's personal relationships with world leaders. In Daniel 1 he only gets to know as high up a the chief Eunuch.
It's interesting to look at the agenda of Bible Skeptics when it comes to Daniel. Any other book they love pointing out reasons to question if the whole Book really had the same Author, like Isaiah. Here however it's a Book written in different languages but they don't want to do that, why?
Because it's Aramaic Daniel that has all the historical references that they claim are errors, and the three random Greek musical instruments they use as scholarly reasons to back up their late dating.
But it's Hebrew Daniel that has the really detailed specific future Prophecies they want to insist must have been written later. So it does not suit them to break this book up, though they could make a much stronger case for it then Isaiah.
And arguing the Aramaic is the older part would go greatly against other narratives they promote. About Hebrew dying out and being supplanted by Aramaic.
Only Hebrew Daniel gives names to Angels. Michael and Gabriel.
Aramaic Daniel used titles for God and The Messiah unique to it in the entire Canonical Hebrew Bible.
Intertestamental Apocrypha like Enoch began merging ideas from the two parts of Daniel. And The New Testament draws on Aramaic Daniel as much as it does I feel precisely because of the theme of Gentile inclusion.
"The Ancient of Days" is one such unique title. I personally feel this title is specific of The First Person of The Trinity, at least somewhat, or used to anyway, I've been rethinking that. It is also only Daniel 7 that has Son of Man as a Messianic Title. In other Prophets it's a term for any human being. In The Gospels this is Jesus favorite title for himself.
Aramaic Daniel does not use the term Messiah, that term was originally specific to the Jewishness of Jesus.
Daniel 7 and 8 are where Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel are most similar to each other. Both envision Gentile Empires as Beasts, and havie a "Little Horn" as the Villain. The two Beasts of Daniel 8 equate to the 2nd and 3rd Beasts of Daniel 7.
But what kinds of Animals are used for the beasts reflects the change from a Gentile to Jewish perspective. In Daniel 8 they're Levitically clean animals (a "Ram" and a Goat), going over Numbers 28-29 shows that both were regularly offered in The Temple on New Moons and Holy Days. While the three identified animals of Daniel 7 are all unclean, and also carnivorous. Outside Daniel they are still animals that can be used symbolically, but when contrasted in how Daniel is divided, they reflect 7 being less Levitical then 8 at the very least.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Revived Roman Empire
There are some fellow Futurists who question the traditional
identification of The Beast Empire with being a Restored Roman Empire.
Chris White's commentaries on the subject are what I'm directly
responding to here, but there are others.
First his commentary on Daniel 2.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/daniel-2-31-4...ezzars-dream-2/
The second part.
On the first part briefly. I don't know why Chuck Missler and so many other people keep insisting Nebuchadnezzar was lying when he said he didn't remember the Dream (Daniel 2:5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, "The thing is gone from me"). Have they never had a dream they didn't remember? because I do all the time, the memory usually fades within minutes of waking up.
They're confused I think by what he says latter about him knowing the magicians would be real if they told him the Dream. I think he was pretty sure the memory would come back if it was described to him, which it did. This was a test to show that Daniel was more valid then the other interpreters, but the test came from God. At any rate that's not what this study is about.
Here Chris White agrees completely with the usual view of the four Kingdoms being Assyria-Babylon, Medo-Pesia, Macedon-Greece and Edom-Rome (well he doesn't mention Edom).
I agree with his refutation of how some people want to read the Nephilim issue into this Prophecy. Or at least I agree that's not the main initial intent. I do still think that being also relevant as a second fulfillment is very possible, but it is not something I will be dogmatic on.
Also I think many of our assumption about The Antichrist in other passages are wrong. Including White's desire to define him first and foremost based on Daniel 11.
The biggest issue I have with this commentary is his teaching that the Kingdom represented by the Stone here is The Church, not the Messianic Kingdom. That view lends itself dangerously to Amillennialism as well as a Catholic understanding of what The Church is.. He's not Amillennial or Catholic, but that particular view of this passage is foundational to such arguments. This interpretation can also lend itself to Dominionism.
With Daniel 7, he completely rejects the notion that the Four Beasts there are the same as the Four Empires of Daniel 2.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/daniel-7-how-...alternate-view/
I think in addition to comparing Daniel 7 to Daniel 2, we should also compare it to 8. 7 is Aramaic Daniel and 8 Hebrew Daniel, so for that reason their view points are a little different. But it's also interesting that no where else are two chapters from the different language portions of Daniel so similar, both drawing on beast imagery and also a "Little Horn". I think that's why these two chapters are the transition from Daniel's narratives about The World to Daniel's vision about Israel.
None of the core Nations of those Empires ceased to exist as national identities. They may have been subject to other nations at different times, and their cultures and forms of Government changed over time, but they still exist.
The Malbim, a Rabbinic Jewish source says .
As for Rome, of the three prior Empires, it was only Greece's homeland Ancient Rome ever conquered long term. Yet Greek Culture, and Language and Philosophy and Religion not only still existed under Rome but they thrived. Remember it was in Roman times that The New Testament was written in Greek.
Both Epicurean and Stoic Philosophy thrived, and Neo-Plaotnic and Gnostic philosophy were born deriving from Platonic ideas. Caligula, Nero and Julian the Apostate were Roman Emperors who were Hellenophiles.
In fact it thrived so much that when Rome permanently split between East and West the Eastern part effectively became a Greek Empire.
On the First Beast
I would agree that secular usages of Lion and Eagle imagery is not good to build doctrine on, but it can be interesting to back it up. A Lion with Eagle's Wings was an Assyrian symbol as well as Babylonian.
On the Second beast
On the Third Beast
Regardless, the generals who founded those dynasties were alive during Alexander's conquests, and most, especially Ptolemy, were with Alexander on his campaigns, and were all married to Persian wives at Susa. The same number is used as when clearly talking about Greece in Daniel 8. That's not a coincidence.
Also since the Hebrew word for Greece is Yavan/Javan. It's interesting that Genesis 10 names Javan as having 4 sons.
It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people describe the post Alexander period as diminishing and weak. It's true the Hellenistic empires' borders did not expand by conquest (the wars were between the successors mainly). But the Hellenistic Age was a very prosperous time, a time when for the first time ever God's Word was translated into a foreign language, Greek. To me the Third Century BC is the real Golden Age of antiquity. And the Dark Ages were caused by the rise of Rome, not its fall.
The Fourth Beast
The Fourth Beast I feel like pointing out is even affiliated with the same Metal the fourth Kingdom of Daniel 2 is, with it's Iron Teeth.
Certainly Chris White would not argue there is no basis for describing Rome as a Strong Empire?
Either way, the intent of a new vision is to give us new information. The Little Horn is that new info left out of the prior vision.
He goes on again to his insistence that being the successive Empires of Daniel 2 contradicts them also being contemporaneous. I view all four as existing right now. Rome is Western Europe, Greece is Greece (already joined the E.U.), Turkey (military speaking it's already part of the E.U. no matter how many experts want to insist it'll never join because of their wrong views of Ezekiel 38-39). And then Syria and Egypt. And Assyria-Babylon is Iraq and Medo-Persia is Iran.
See I agree with the premise that Daniel 11:40-45 tells us at least part of the story of how The Fourth Beast conquerors the prior three beasts. It already has most of what was Greece, so the Kings of the South and North being Egypt and Syria fits perfectly. And then the further troubles out of the North and East I think involves Iraq and Iran, and perhaps also Turkey and/or Russia. But I have come to view that Prophecy as initially being not The Antichrist but Augustus Caesar.
In my Genealogy of The Antichrist study I say in the first post why I believe The Little Horn in Daniel 8 refers to the Seleucid Bloodline, not just random individuals within it. So at least part of what's meant by the Little Horn emerging among the Ten Horns (not out of one of them) is set up by how the Seleucid dynasty became intermingled with Roman aristocracy. I further documented all that in the Genealogy study.
This makes The Little Horn distinct from "King of The North" which refers to the Geography of the Seleucid Empire, mainly Syria, but perhaps also Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Iran on a modern map, and parts of Turkey.
I've also considered the possibility, that when looking at the Little Horn's role in Daniel 7, that it could also refer to an 11th Kingdom/Nation, not just the individual who is The Willful King. Back when I learned toward the Mahdi theory I considered the possibility of that being Jordan and/or a Palestinian state.
Another possibility I now consider more likely then I used to is The United States of America. The Founding Fathers very much drew on Roman ideas of Government. Obama I still think is unlikely even if The Antichrist does turn out to be an American President.
Chris White now fixates on the view that The Antichrist is a Jewish Messiah claimant, who Israel will actually accept as such, even after the Abomination of Desolation. I think his theory could be part right, mainly in terms of how he views the First Half of the 70th Week.
The connection to Rome need not contradict a possible Islamic origin for The Antichrist, (though I'm no longer as sold on that as I once was). Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and very briefly Iraq in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian were all under Ancient Roman control.
Chris White agrees that the Beast out of The Sea from Revelation 13 is the same as the Fourth beast of Daniel 7 (after conquering and/or absorbing the prior three). That makes it even more indisputably Rome.
Every lie has some truth to it, and the main truth that gives credibility to how Preterists and Bible Skeptics interpret Revelation is that Revelation clearly uses imagery that would indisputably point readers of the time to identify The Beast as Rome.
In his Mystery Babylon study Chris White also talks about translation issues with Revelation 17:9-10. That it should read (and he's still using the Textus Recpetus with this) that the Seven Heads are the Seven Mountains and the Seven mountains are the Seven Kings. This way of looking at is just fine, except his objective is to insist that the Mountains then tell us nothing about the Geography of the City. Problem is he doesn't explain what the point of adding these mountains to the symbolic imagery is then, why not just cut them out all together?
I believe Rome was where Mystery Babylon was in John's Time, but I do think she returns to Shinar in the end via Zechariah 5. I elaborate on my Mystery Babylon views elsewhere. If the Seven Mountains can in some way be descriptive of her end times location too, that would be great. But to readers in John's day, that this detail, however it's worded, pointed to Rome was blatantly obvious. Indeed so obvious that I reject the skeptics claim that it's supposed to be coded in way people unfamiliar with Old Testament imagery wouldn't recognize. The significance of the Seven Hills and Seven Kings are identifying details of Rome from their own History/Mythology no where found in Hebrew Scriptures.
First his commentary on Daniel 2.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/daniel-2-31-4...ezzars-dream-2/
The second part.
On the first part briefly. I don't know why Chuck Missler and so many other people keep insisting Nebuchadnezzar was lying when he said he didn't remember the Dream (Daniel 2:5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, "The thing is gone from me"). Have they never had a dream they didn't remember? because I do all the time, the memory usually fades within minutes of waking up.
They're confused I think by what he says latter about him knowing the magicians would be real if they told him the Dream. I think he was pretty sure the memory would come back if it was described to him, which it did. This was a test to show that Daniel was more valid then the other interpreters, but the test came from God. At any rate that's not what this study is about.
Here Chris White agrees completely with the usual view of the four Kingdoms being Assyria-Babylon, Medo-Pesia, Macedon-Greece and Edom-Rome (well he doesn't mention Edom).
I agree with his refutation of how some people want to read the Nephilim issue into this Prophecy. Or at least I agree that's not the main initial intent. I do still think that being also relevant as a second fulfillment is very possible, but it is not something I will be dogmatic on.
"The first [problem] is that you have an unambiguous fulfillment of this passage in the history of the fall of Rome. We know that Rome was divided into several parts, eventually settling into just two parts, that is the east and west empires. We will see that the other elements of the feet and toes prophecy fit like a glove to the events of that period as well."I agree with his view that the events surrounding the Western Empire's fall around 470-490 A.D. Are foretold here. But that's only the beginning of this divided and weak state Rome is in, and they were trying to regain their former glory by conquest and political marriages. This continues repeatedly over the following centuries, with Clovis, and Justinian and Charlemagne, and the Byzantine Empire, and the Crusades and Venice, and the Holy Roman Empire, and Napoleon, and Mazzini, and Louise-Napoleon, and Mussolini/Hitler, and now the European Union and modern Globalism.
"And the second major problem here for the RRE view is that forcing this prophecy to the end times means that you have to hold the view that the Antichrist has a divided weak kingdom in the end times. "I believe he will be the last attempt to restore unity and strength to this divided and weak empire. The Antichrist as an individual is not in Daniel 2, that is indeed true, I believe Daniel 7 provides new information which we'll discus latter.
Also I think many of our assumption about The Antichrist in other passages are wrong. Including White's desire to define him first and foremost based on Daniel 11.
The biggest issue I have with this commentary is his teaching that the Kingdom represented by the Stone here is The Church, not the Messianic Kingdom. That view lends itself dangerously to Amillennialism as well as a Catholic understanding of what The Church is.. He's not Amillennial or Catholic, but that particular view of this passage is foundational to such arguments. This interpretation can also lend itself to Dominionism.
With Daniel 7, he completely rejects the notion that the Four Beasts there are the same as the Four Empires of Daniel 2.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/daniel-7-how-...alternate-view/
I think in addition to comparing Daniel 7 to Daniel 2, we should also compare it to 8. 7 is Aramaic Daniel and 8 Hebrew Daniel, so for that reason their view points are a little different. But it's also interesting that no where else are two chapters from the different language portions of Daniel so similar, both drawing on beast imagery and also a "Little Horn". I think that's why these two chapters are the transition from Daniel's narratives about The World to Daniel's vision about Israel.
"In what sense can Neo-Babylonia or Medo-Persia be spoken of as living on after the anti-christ is destroyed. Traditional scholars give no compelling explanations for their presence and prolonging of their life at this point."Nebuchadnezzar's Empire which scholarly types today call the "Neo-Babylonian Empire" was defined by Ancient authors like Herodotus and Xenophon as only another phase of the Assyrian Empire. Assyria is mentioned in many Messianic Age passages like Isaiah 19 (after verse 18). Chis White also argues for the Post-Millennial view of Gog and Magog, and is in fact the one mainly responsible for convincing me of that view. So we both agree that Persia is in the Millennium also. Javan (Greece) is in at least one Messianic Era prophesy as well, Isaiah 66:19.
None of the core Nations of those Empires ceased to exist as national identities. They may have been subject to other nations at different times, and their cultures and forms of Government changed over time, but they still exist.
The Malbim, a Rabbinic Jewish source says .
Malbim: Daniel 7;2: <<The Four Kingdoms always exist only that at a specific moment one of the Kingdoms (dominating one of the four major directions of the world) gains supremacy over the other kingdoms and quarters of the world and encompasses them. The world is seen through the image of a great ocean since the storming winds are more recognizable at sea and the beasts of the sea are greater than those of the land>>.
Cyrus and the latter Persian Kings, as well as Alexander and his Successors made a point NOT to destroy the cultures and institutions of the nations they conquered, but to rule them as they were used to being ruled. "It must not be said of Alexander "He left only chared ruins in his wake."" From the Richard Burton film Alexander The Great.As for Rome, of the three prior Empires, it was only Greece's homeland Ancient Rome ever conquered long term. Yet Greek Culture, and Language and Philosophy and Religion not only still existed under Rome but they thrived. Remember it was in Roman times that The New Testament was written in Greek.
Both Epicurean and Stoic Philosophy thrived, and Neo-Plaotnic and Gnostic philosophy were born deriving from Platonic ideas. Caligula, Nero and Julian the Apostate were Roman Emperors who were Hellenophiles.
In fact it thrived so much that when Rome permanently split between East and West the Eastern part effectively became a Greek Empire.
On the First Beast
"The traditional view has this beast being Babylon, and specifically, Nebuchadnezzar. For example they say that wings being plucked off, and its being made to stand on two feet, and given a heart of a man is referring to the humbling experience that God gave to Nebuchadnezzar in Chapter 4 where Nebuchadnezzar was forced to act like an OX for several years until he recognized the sovrenty of God and then was restored to his right mind."A symbolic prophetic vision can still include a few past events at it's beginning, as long as it's scope is Future. We see this in the traditional view of Revelation 12, where the Birth and Ascension of Jesus Christ are both included in that Prophetic Vision given to John over a generation after they happened. Or Revelation 17 including 5 past Kings in it's vision.
"This part of the interpretation has many problems, the first being that Nebuchadnezzar was dead at the time of this vision based on verse 1, and it seems strange therefore, that Daniel would see Nebuchadnezzar coming out of the sea, and providing more details about his life or kingdom."
"The picture the traditional view paints is that the lion represents Nebuchanezzar when he was forced to act like a beast and then the plucking of the lions wings, making it stand on two feet, and giving it a man’s heart is symbolic of God restoring Nebuchadnezzar to his right mind at the end of Daniel 4. This would suggest that the reason for these four beings being described as “beasts” is because of similar situations like that of Nebuchadnezzars. Are we to understand then that the king of Medo-Persia or Greece or Rome are also described as beasts because they too were forced to act like beasts by God?"No, the plucking out of the Wings I view as representing the humbling of Nebuchadnezzar. Being given a New Heart is an idiom of Salvation also used of Saul, as well as in Ezekiel 36.
"The lion was not restored to its natural state by the plucking of its wings and making it stand on two feet. It was permanently transformed"Which IS the same as Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar became Saved, he was NOT restored to the same as he was before.
I would agree that secular usages of Lion and Eagle imagery is not good to build doctrine on, but it can be interesting to back it up. A Lion with Eagle's Wings was an Assyrian symbol as well as Babylonian.
"People trying to make this winged lion in verse 4 be Babylon are often thinking of the so called Lamassu . A Lamassu is a representation of a protective deity, not from Babylon but rather thousands of years before this in the Akkadian and then Assyrian kingdoms."My view of the First Empire is that Nebuchadnezzar was the culmination, and that it includes all Mesopotamian civilizations going back to Nimrod and Babel. So distinguishing between Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Chaldean and any others is completely missing the point as far as the Biblical view is concerned. Chris White is very correct to point out how Ancient Aliens plays fast and lose with such terms, cause what their claiming isn't mystical in nature. But Bible Prophecy on the subject of Shinar and Babylon is a different thing, God views all those civilizations as the same Beast. There were also originally many distinct nations in the home regions of Greece, Persia and Rome/Italy too.
"There is a similar problem with the next point which is brought up by proponents of the traditional view. Which is that Nebuchadnezzar is called both a lion and an eagle in scripture, this is the best of the point that the traditional view has to offer in favor of their view for any of the four beasts, but even so it should be considered that scripture also calls Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, a lion and an eagle too in Hosea 8:1 and Jeremiah 50:17."This only backs up my point that the Neo-Babylonian is still the Assyrian Empire.
On the Second beast
"The three ribs in its mouth according to the traditional view represent three notable conquests of the Medo-Persian Empire. But because there are more than three notable conquests of the Medo-Persian empire there is much argument among those holding to this view as to which three should be considered the most important."Let's use Scripture to interpret scripture here and look at how Daniel 8:4 describes Persia's conquests. "I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him". So that's three basic directions, which I think fits the point. If I wanted to choose three specific conquests I'd look chiefly to Babylon, Lydia and Egypt.
And they said thus to it: ‘Arise, devour much flesh!’I think that verse refers to the three invasions of Greece, under Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes. The invasions failed and so did not add new ribs to the bear's mouth. But they were still very violent and bloody wars in which much flesh was devoured.
"I think that this phrase is very important as it helps to weaken the case that this beast represents Medo-Persia, because after the conquests of Cyrus the great and his son Cambyses II, which occurred relatively quickly and very early in the medio Persian history, there would be 200 years of no conquering at all until the empire was defeated by Alexander the Great."
On the Third Beast
"I would agree with them however that the four wings on the leopard probably represent a very fast moving empire."This is NOT the way symbolic visions ought to be interpreted. The four heads merely represent that it is the Kingdom's destiny to be divided in four, it does not contradict that it was the first individual King who conquered everything. Alexander does not need to be a head, the Beast itself refers to both the individual most significant King as well as the Nation as whole, just as with the prior two.
"One of the biggest problems with this view is the four heads of this beast, the traditional proponents say that these heads represent the four generals who Alexander the Great gave his Empire to after he died."
"Even a casual student of history knows that the Greek Empire did nothing but diminish and diminish greatly after Alexander the Great died."
Regardless, the generals who founded those dynasties were alive during Alexander's conquests, and most, especially Ptolemy, were with Alexander on his campaigns, and were all married to Persian wives at Susa. The same number is used as when clearly talking about Greece in Daniel 8. That's not a coincidence.
Also since the Hebrew word for Greece is Yavan/Javan. It's interesting that Genesis 10 names Javan as having 4 sons.
It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people describe the post Alexander period as diminishing and weak. It's true the Hellenistic empires' borders did not expand by conquest (the wars were between the successors mainly). But the Hellenistic Age was a very prosperous time, a time when for the first time ever God's Word was translated into a foreign language, Greek. To me the Third Century BC is the real Golden Age of antiquity. And the Dark Ages were caused by the rise of Rome, not its fall.
The Fourth Beast
The Fourth Beast I feel like pointing out is even affiliated with the same Metal the fourth Kingdom of Daniel 2 is, with it's Iron Teeth.
"There are major differences in the fourth empire described here and the last empire described in the statue vision back in Daniel 2, For instance in this verse the strength of the empire is clearly the main focus, not a hint of weakness is detected, contrast that with the last empire of Daniel 2 in which the bible spends verse after verse describing the divided nature and inherent weakness of that kingdom. I would call that a very big difference, the one in Daniel 2 is divided and weak and the one in Daniel 7 is described as invincible."Different standards or definitions of weakness and strength could well be in mind here. Remember, even though both visions are from God, one was given to Nebuchadnezzar and the other to Daniel. And visions given as Dreams are definitely influenced by the thought processes and world view of the dreamer. To begin with this is why one is a beautiful Statue made of precious metals and the other ravenous beasts. Nebuchadnezzar wanted to view himself as superior and the following ones each getting worse.
Certainly Chris White would not argue there is no basis for describing Rome as a Strong Empire?
Either way, the intent of a new vision is to give us new information. The Little Horn is that new info left out of the prior vision.
"The main thing that people see as the clincher here in the reference to the 10 horns which they say corresponds to the ten toes in Daniel 2. But I beg the reader to realize that there is no mention of 10 toes in Daniel 2. That idea has been read back into the text by people who assume these two chapters are the same."Or it's something God expected us to know because everyone knows how many Toes a person normally has. But I feel the Iron Teeth is equally as much of a clincher.
"That being said I do have some agreement with the traditional view at this point, in that I think that the kingdom that the Antichrist comes from will have 10 kings because of this passage in Daniel 7, and because of its interpretation by the angel which we will get to later."The European Union defines itself as a Revived Roman Empire. They don't always advertise that fact, but that is why the European Constitution was supposed to be ratified in Rome.
"Perhaps it might even like representatives of the European Union or a similar organization, and he will subdue three of them before ultimately talking over the whole organization, I think that this organization will be associated with the west in some way as does Charles Cooper, but it is not required to be the Revived Roman Empire. And I hope that if someone has the time they will see my study on Daniel 2 to find out why I say that."
He goes on again to his insistence that being the successive Empires of Daniel 2 contradicts them also being contemporaneous. I view all four as existing right now. Rome is Western Europe, Greece is Greece (already joined the E.U.), Turkey (military speaking it's already part of the E.U. no matter how many experts want to insist it'll never join because of their wrong views of Ezekiel 38-39). And then Syria and Egypt. And Assyria-Babylon is Iraq and Medo-Persia is Iran.
See I agree with the premise that Daniel 11:40-45 tells us at least part of the story of how The Fourth Beast conquerors the prior three beasts. It already has most of what was Greece, so the Kings of the South and North being Egypt and Syria fits perfectly. And then the further troubles out of the North and East I think involves Iraq and Iran, and perhaps also Turkey and/or Russia. But I have come to view that Prophecy as initially being not The Antichrist but Augustus Caesar.
In my Genealogy of The Antichrist study I say in the first post why I believe The Little Horn in Daniel 8 refers to the Seleucid Bloodline, not just random individuals within it. So at least part of what's meant by the Little Horn emerging among the Ten Horns (not out of one of them) is set up by how the Seleucid dynasty became intermingled with Roman aristocracy. I further documented all that in the Genealogy study.
This makes The Little Horn distinct from "King of The North" which refers to the Geography of the Seleucid Empire, mainly Syria, but perhaps also Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Iran on a modern map, and parts of Turkey.
I've also considered the possibility, that when looking at the Little Horn's role in Daniel 7, that it could also refer to an 11th Kingdom/Nation, not just the individual who is The Willful King. Back when I learned toward the Mahdi theory I considered the possibility of that being Jordan and/or a Palestinian state.
Another possibility I now consider more likely then I used to is The United States of America. The Founding Fathers very much drew on Roman ideas of Government. Obama I still think is unlikely even if The Antichrist does turn out to be an American President.
Chris White now fixates on the view that The Antichrist is a Jewish Messiah claimant, who Israel will actually accept as such, even after the Abomination of Desolation. I think his theory could be part right, mainly in terms of how he views the First Half of the 70th Week.
The connection to Rome need not contradict a possible Islamic origin for The Antichrist, (though I'm no longer as sold on that as I once was). Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and very briefly Iraq in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian were all under Ancient Roman control.
Chris White agrees that the Beast out of The Sea from Revelation 13 is the same as the Fourth beast of Daniel 7 (after conquering and/or absorbing the prior three). That makes it even more indisputably Rome.
Every lie has some truth to it, and the main truth that gives credibility to how Preterists and Bible Skeptics interpret Revelation is that Revelation clearly uses imagery that would indisputably point readers of the time to identify The Beast as Rome.
In his Mystery Babylon study Chris White also talks about translation issues with Revelation 17:9-10. That it should read (and he's still using the Textus Recpetus with this) that the Seven Heads are the Seven Mountains and the Seven mountains are the Seven Kings. This way of looking at is just fine, except his objective is to insist that the Mountains then tell us nothing about the Geography of the City. Problem is he doesn't explain what the point of adding these mountains to the symbolic imagery is then, why not just cut them out all together?
I believe Rome was where Mystery Babylon was in John's Time, but I do think she returns to Shinar in the end via Zechariah 5. I elaborate on my Mystery Babylon views elsewhere. If the Seven Mountains can in some way be descriptive of her end times location too, that would be great. But to readers in John's day, that this detail, however it's worded, pointed to Rome was blatantly obvious. Indeed so obvious that I reject the skeptics claim that it's supposed to be coded in way people unfamiliar with Old Testament imagery wouldn't recognize. The significance of the Seven Hills and Seven Kings are identifying details of Rome from their own History/Mythology no where found in Hebrew Scriptures.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Does Daniel 8 limit The Antichrist's origin to lands ruled by Alexander?
Christ White assumes it does, and that's the only real reason he feels there is to rule out America as The Antichrist's nation of origin.
First off Daniel 8 does not link The Antichrist to vaguely any of the 4/5 nations to form out of the division of Alexander's Empire, but specifically to The Seleucid Empire. Yet Daniel 11, where The Seleucid Empire is refereed to in purely geographical terms as the King of The North, once it reaches the career of The Antichrist during the End Times in verses 36-45, verse 40 clearly has him at war with the King of The North.
In my Genealogy of The Antichrist study I lay out why I feel Daniel 8's connection of him to the Seleucid Dynasty is genealogical not geographical.
At any rate he does conquer the region the ancient Seleucid Empire ruled. It does not need to be his place of origin.
As I've said elsewhere, I definitely still think the Ten Horns are the European Union/WEU. And maybe it's possible The Little Horn is the United States. If The Antichrist is at first an ally of Israel coming to their aid as Chris White thinks, America fits that the best.
First off Daniel 8 does not link The Antichrist to vaguely any of the 4/5 nations to form out of the division of Alexander's Empire, but specifically to The Seleucid Empire. Yet Daniel 11, where The Seleucid Empire is refereed to in purely geographical terms as the King of The North, once it reaches the career of The Antichrist during the End Times in verses 36-45, verse 40 clearly has him at war with the King of The North.
In my Genealogy of The Antichrist study I lay out why I feel Daniel 8's connection of him to the Seleucid Dynasty is genealogical not geographical.
At any rate he does conquer the region the ancient Seleucid Empire ruled. It does not need to be his place of origin.
As I've said elsewhere, I definitely still think the Ten Horns are the European Union/WEU. And maybe it's possible The Little Horn is the United States. If The Antichrist is at first an ally of Israel coming to their aid as Chris White thinks, America fits that the best.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Genealogy of The Antichrist: Antiochus to Charlemagne
St. Arnulf of Metz is a 33–generation descendant of Antio-
chos II
Theos
Numbers in each generation follow
Ahnentafel
coding.
Generation 1
1. St. Arnulf of Metz,
maiordomus
in the kingdom of Austrasia
(c.582–16.8.640). He married Dode (–?–), daughter of Arnold of Schelde,
after 611.
Generation 2
2. Bodogisel, ambassador to Byzantium in 589.
Generation 3
4. Mummolin,
maiordomus
in 566 in Neustria.
Generation 4
9. NN. married to Munderic.
Generation 5
19. Artemie, married in 513to Florentinus, bishop of Geneve.
Generation 6
38. Rustique, bishop of Lyon between 494 and 501
Generation 7
76. Rurice de Limoges, bishop of Limoges c. 485-507
Generation 8
152. NN.
Generation 9
304. Adelphius.
Generation 10
609. Anicia, married to Pontius.
Generation 11
1219. Turrenia Anicia Iuliana, married to Quintus Clodius
Hermogenianus Olybrius, consul in 379.
Generation 12
2438. Anicius Auchenius Bassus, prefect in 382 in Rome, mar-
ried to Turrenia Honorata.
Generation 13
4876. Amnius Manius Cæsonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus
Honorius, consul in 334.
Generation 14
9752. Amnius Anicius Iulianus, consul in 322.
Generation 15
19504. Sextus Anicius Faustus, consul in 298.
Generation 16
39009. Asinia Iuliana Nichomacha, married to Quintus Ani-
cius Faustus.
Generation 17
78018. Caius Asinius Nicomachus Iulianus, proconsul in Asia
circa 250.
Generation 18
156036. Caius Asinius Quadratus Protimus, proconsul in A-
khaia circa 220.
Generation 19
312072. Caius Asinius Quadratus, historian, c. 200.
Generation 20
624144. Caius Iulius Asinius Quadratus.
Generation 21
1248288. Caius Iulius Quadratus Bassus, consul in 105, mar-
ried to Asinia Marcella.
Generation 22
2496576. Caius Iulius Bassus, proconsul in Bithynia, 98.
Generation 23
4993152. Caius Iulius Severus, nobleman from Akmoneia in
Galatia.
Generation 24
9986304. Artemidoros, nobleman in Galatia.
Generation 25
19972608. Amyntas, tetrarcus of Trocmes.
Generation 26
39945217. NN., married to Brogitarix, king of Galatia c. 63–50
b.C.
Generation 27
79890435. Berenike, married to Deiotarix I, king of Galatia,
63–41 b.C.
Generation 28
159780871. NN. (daughter).
Generation 29
319561742. Attalos Philometor III, king of Pergamon, 138–133
b.C.
Generation 30
639123485. Stratonike of Kappadokia, married to Eumenes,
king of Pergamon, 197–159 b.C.
Generation 31
1278246970. Ariarathes IV Eusebes Philopator, king of Cap-
padokia, 220–163b.C.
Generation 32
2556493941. Stratonike, married to Ariarathes III.
Generation 33
5112987882. Antiochos II Theos I, king of Syria, 261–246 b.C.,
b. 290 b.C.
I copied the above line of descent from another source, but because other things in that source are bad info I don't want link to it. But this line of decent I have studied generation by generation and it's valid, though a few mistakes might have been made in exactly how it was expressed. At a certain point it overlaps with my Genealogy of Commanege, Julia the wife of Gaius Julius Quadratus was the daughter of Gaius Julius Alexander and Iotapa daughter of Anitochus IV of Commagene. From them came the Historian of 200 AD.
Arnulf of Metz's son Ansegisel married Saint Begga, the daughter of Pepin of Landen. They had Pepin of Herstal the father of Charles Martel, the father of Pepin the Short, the father of Charlemagne.
Ansegisel and Begga also had a daughter Clotilda of Heristal who was married to the Merovingian king Theoderic III of of Neustria and Austrasia. Bertrada of Prum was very likely their daughter, she was the mother of Caribert of Laon. His daughter daughter Bertrada of Laon was the wife of Pepin the Short mentioned above and mother of Charlemagne.
Another note on the above line of descent. Munderic claimed to be a son of Chlodoric the Parricide, who's called that because he murdered his own father, Sigobert the Lame, in order to take his kingdom. Chlodoric acted upon the instigation of Clovis I a rival king of the Salian Franks. After Sigobert's death Clovis then accused Chlodoric of the murder and had him killed in his turn for the crime. In this way Clovis became king of Sigobert's and Chlodoric's lands. Sigobert the lame could be a descendant of Merovee by a line independent of Clovis I.
It is well known that pretty much all modern European Royalty can claim descent from Charlemagne. And other prominent families too. It's been claimed in Conspiracy theory circles that almost all Presidents of The United States are descendants of Charlemagne. I'm not sure how verifiable that claim is.
Charlemagne also as can be shown above had Merovingian ancestry. So that can tie into theories about how DaVinci Code type claims might be used. But other means exist to try and give this same European Royalty Davidic Ancestry.
http://www.britam.org/Tribesman/GeneaologyDavid.html
The theories being drawn on here have been discredited by many skeptics.
But it's interesting, between that and the Armenian/Georgian royalty. We have a lot of people with Seleucid descent and also claims to Davidic descent.
chos II
Theos
Numbers in each generation follow
Ahnentafel
coding.
Generation 1
1. St. Arnulf of Metz,
maiordomus
in the kingdom of Austrasia
(c.582–16.8.640). He married Dode (–?–), daughter of Arnold of Schelde,
after 611.
Generation 2
2. Bodogisel, ambassador to Byzantium in 589.
Generation 3
4. Mummolin,
maiordomus
in 566 in Neustria.
Generation 4
9. NN. married to Munderic.
Generation 5
19. Artemie, married in 513to Florentinus, bishop of Geneve.
Generation 6
38. Rustique, bishop of Lyon between 494 and 501
Generation 7
76. Rurice de Limoges, bishop of Limoges c. 485-507
Generation 8
152. NN.
Generation 9
304. Adelphius.
Generation 10
609. Anicia, married to Pontius.
Generation 11
1219. Turrenia Anicia Iuliana, married to Quintus Clodius
Hermogenianus Olybrius, consul in 379.
Generation 12
2438. Anicius Auchenius Bassus, prefect in 382 in Rome, mar-
ried to Turrenia Honorata.
Generation 13
4876. Amnius Manius Cæsonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus
Honorius, consul in 334.
Generation 14
9752. Amnius Anicius Iulianus, consul in 322.
Generation 15
19504. Sextus Anicius Faustus, consul in 298.
Generation 16
39009. Asinia Iuliana Nichomacha, married to Quintus Ani-
cius Faustus.
Generation 17
78018. Caius Asinius Nicomachus Iulianus, proconsul in Asia
circa 250.
Generation 18
156036. Caius Asinius Quadratus Protimus, proconsul in A-
khaia circa 220.
Generation 19
312072. Caius Asinius Quadratus, historian, c. 200.
Generation 20
624144. Caius Iulius Asinius Quadratus.
Generation 21
1248288. Caius Iulius Quadratus Bassus, consul in 105, mar-
ried to Asinia Marcella.
Generation 22
2496576. Caius Iulius Bassus, proconsul in Bithynia, 98.
Generation 23
4993152. Caius Iulius Severus, nobleman from Akmoneia in
Galatia.
Generation 24
9986304. Artemidoros, nobleman in Galatia.
Generation 25
19972608. Amyntas, tetrarcus of Trocmes.
Generation 26
39945217. NN., married to Brogitarix, king of Galatia c. 63–50
b.C.
Generation 27
79890435. Berenike, married to Deiotarix I, king of Galatia,
63–41 b.C.
Generation 28
159780871. NN. (daughter).
Generation 29
319561742. Attalos Philometor III, king of Pergamon, 138–133
b.C.
Generation 30
639123485. Stratonike of Kappadokia, married to Eumenes,
king of Pergamon, 197–159 b.C.
Generation 31
1278246970. Ariarathes IV Eusebes Philopator, king of Cap-
padokia, 220–163b.C.
Generation 32
2556493941. Stratonike, married to Ariarathes III.
Generation 33
5112987882. Antiochos II Theos I, king of Syria, 261–246 b.C.,
b. 290 b.C.
I copied the above line of descent from another source, but because other things in that source are bad info I don't want link to it. But this line of decent I have studied generation by generation and it's valid, though a few mistakes might have been made in exactly how it was expressed. At a certain point it overlaps with my Genealogy of Commanege, Julia the wife of Gaius Julius Quadratus was the daughter of Gaius Julius Alexander and Iotapa daughter of Anitochus IV of Commagene. From them came the Historian of 200 AD.
Arnulf of Metz's son Ansegisel married Saint Begga, the daughter of Pepin of Landen. They had Pepin of Herstal the father of Charles Martel, the father of Pepin the Short, the father of Charlemagne.
Ansegisel and Begga also had a daughter Clotilda of Heristal who was married to the Merovingian king Theoderic III of of Neustria and Austrasia. Bertrada of Prum was very likely their daughter, she was the mother of Caribert of Laon. His daughter daughter Bertrada of Laon was the wife of Pepin the Short mentioned above and mother of Charlemagne.
Another note on the above line of descent. Munderic claimed to be a son of Chlodoric the Parricide, who's called that because he murdered his own father, Sigobert the Lame, in order to take his kingdom. Chlodoric acted upon the instigation of Clovis I a rival king of the Salian Franks. After Sigobert's death Clovis then accused Chlodoric of the murder and had him killed in his turn for the crime. In this way Clovis became king of Sigobert's and Chlodoric's lands. Sigobert the lame could be a descendant of Merovee by a line independent of Clovis I.
It is well known that pretty much all modern European Royalty can claim descent from Charlemagne. And other prominent families too. It's been claimed in Conspiracy theory circles that almost all Presidents of The United States are descendants of Charlemagne. I'm not sure how verifiable that claim is.
Charlemagne also as can be shown above had Merovingian ancestry. So that can tie into theories about how DaVinci Code type claims might be used. But other means exist to try and give this same European Royalty Davidic Ancestry.
http://www.britam.org/Tribesman/GeneaologyDavid.html
The theories being drawn on here have been discredited by many skeptics.
But it's interesting, between that and the Armenian/Georgian royalty. We have a lot of people with Seleucid descent and also claims to Davidic descent.
Genealogy of The Antichrist: Descent from Antiquity
This is a family tree I made myself of the royal family of Commagene and placed on my Flickr account
I need to update it. What I know now that I didn't know then was that Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus, listed there as a maternal grandson of Antiochus IV of Commegene and paternal grandson of Tigranes VI of Armenia, had married a woman named Cassia Lepida. Her mother is unknown but her father was Cassius Lepidus, the son of Junia Lepida and Gaius Cassius Longinus, who was Consul suffectus in 30 A.D. (The year I date the Crucifixion) and a direct descendant of the Gaius Cassius Longinus who was one of the assassins of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March 44 B.C. Junia Lepida was a descendant of Augustus's granddaughter Julia the Younger.
Berenicianus and Cassia Lepida had a daughter named Julia Cassia Alexandria who married Gaius Avidius Heliodorus. Their son was Gaius Avidius Cassius who was a brief Roman Usurper of the 2nd Century A.D. He had three children, Avidius Heliodorus, Avidius Maecianus, and Avidia Alexandra.
Tigranes VI of Armenia was of direct pater-lineal descent from Herod The Great and the Hasmoneans as shown in these family trees I made.
Herodian Dynasty
Hasmonean Dynasty
The next two family trees aren't my own, but taken from tyndalehouse, a very good site on the Ptolemaic Dynasty (Which intermarried with the Seleucids) though I disagree with them on some things.
Seleucid Family Tree
Continuation of Seleucid and Ptolemaic Lines
Now there is a new Seleucid-Genealogy website. They disagree with the Tyndale site on some things. Their different take on the Acheaus line intrigues me.[Now we have to use the Wayback Machine for it.]
Ruben I who founded the Roupenian Dynasty of Armenian Cilicia in the Eleventh Century is generally agreed to have been a Bagratid relative and probably also descended from Smbat. Later Gabriel of Melitene is believed to be connected either by his wife or mother to Ruben I. Gabriel's daughter was Morphia of Melitene.
Tiridates III of Armenia was of direct Pater-lineal descent from Khosrov I of Armenia. Khosrov I was one of the sons born to King Vologases II of Armenia (Vagharsh II) who is also known as Vologases V of Parthia by an unnamed mother. Vologases was of direct pater-lineal descent from Vonones II of Parthia (Who is numbered Vonones I on the Tyndale site's genealogy). He and his brother were the sons of Darius son of Artavasdes of Media by a daughter of Antiochus I Theos of Commanege (another correction I need to make to my genealogy is that daughter was named Athenais not Iotapa). The wife of Darius is an unnamed Arascid princess, who may herself already be descended from earlier intermarriages between the Arascid and Seleucid dynasties.
The Bagratid dynasties have also claimed Davidic Descent.
Maria Taronitissa was probably of Bagratid descent via the Roupenians, she married John Doukas Komnenos a Duke of Cyprus who had descent from Byzantine Emperors. Their daughter Maria Komnene married Amalric I Crusader King of Jerusalem. All modern claimants to the Crusader King of Jerusalem title are descendants of that marriage.
Amalric's mother Mellisende of Jerusalem had ruled as Queen of Jerusalem. Her parents were Baldwin II of Jerusalem and his wife Morphia of Melitene who also descended from Armenian nobility. Another daughter of theirs was Alice of Antioch who married Bohemond II of Antioch and had a daughter, Constance of Antioch. Constance had a number of children from whom the Princes of Antioch descend, and a daughter, Agnes of Antioch. Agnes had 6 children, and from them descended all later kings of Hungry, and her daughter Constance of Hungry was the mother of Wenceslaus I of Bohemia.
Mary of Lusignan was the daughter of Hugh I of Cyprus and Alice of Champagne, daughter of Queen Isabella I of Jerusalem, daughter of Aalmric and Maria Komnene. She is an ancestor of modern British Royalty.
Returning to the subject of the Western branch. Avidius Heliodorus and other descendants of Antiochus IV of Commanege where based in Syria. At least two Syrian based Usurpers during the Crisis of the Third Century are also probably descended form them, Joptainians and one named Seleucus. The entire Aristocracy of Roman Syria (and surrounding regions) from the Second Century onward was Seleucid.
Eutropia was a woman of Syrian origin living in the late Third and early Fourth centuries AD. By her first husband she had Flavia Maximiana Theodora, who married Constantius I Chlorus, and was the mother of all his children except Constantine I. However her much younger daughter by her second husband Fausta married Constantine I. By the mid Fourth Century the entire Constantinian dynasty was descended from Eutropia. I suspect it's through the Constantinians that the Merovingian dynasty (as well as other early Western European dynasties) can be traced back to the Seleucids, but I can't prove it yet.
Update October 2019: The Heraclied Dynasty who ruled the Byzantine Empire for most of the Seventh Century are also speculated to have had Arascid Armenian Descent.
I need to update it. What I know now that I didn't know then was that Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus, listed there as a maternal grandson of Antiochus IV of Commegene and paternal grandson of Tigranes VI of Armenia, had married a woman named Cassia Lepida. Her mother is unknown but her father was Cassius Lepidus, the son of Junia Lepida and Gaius Cassius Longinus, who was Consul suffectus in 30 A.D. (The year I date the Crucifixion) and a direct descendant of the Gaius Cassius Longinus who was one of the assassins of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March 44 B.C. Junia Lepida was a descendant of Augustus's granddaughter Julia the Younger.
Berenicianus and Cassia Lepida had a daughter named Julia Cassia Alexandria who married Gaius Avidius Heliodorus. Their son was Gaius Avidius Cassius who was a brief Roman Usurper of the 2nd Century A.D. He had three children, Avidius Heliodorus, Avidius Maecianus, and Avidia Alexandra.
Tigranes VI of Armenia was of direct pater-lineal descent from Herod The Great and the Hasmoneans as shown in these family trees I made.
Herodian Dynasty
Hasmonean Dynasty
The next two family trees aren't my own, but taken from tyndalehouse, a very good site on the Ptolemaic Dynasty (Which intermarried with the Seleucids) though I disagree with them on some things.
Seleucid Family Tree
Continuation of Seleucid and Ptolemaic Lines
Now there is a new Seleucid-Genealogy website. They disagree with the Tyndale site on some things. Their different take on the Acheaus line intrigues me.[Now we have to use the Wayback Machine for it.]
"The most complete proposal for a DFA is the Bagratid one. The route starts with Arsaces, the first of the Arsacids, flourishing ca. 250 BC. One of his descendants, king Tiridates III of Armenia, who reigned early in the 4th century, is known to have been ancestor of Nerses the Great. The latter's son Sahak I was the father-in-law of Hamazasp I, an Armenian ruler from the Mamikonian dynasty. Then the line can be traced, though not with certainty, to a much later Mamikonian, Samuel II of Armenia, whose son-in-law was Smbat VIII Bagratuni, Constable of Armenia and forefather of all the living Bagratids. The advantage of this route is that its crucial links (from Arsacids to Gregorids, from Gregorids to Mamikonids, and from Mamikonids to Bagratids) may be corroborated by near-contemporary sources, dating to within a century after the key marriages took place."The Above used to be on Wikipedia's Descent from Antiquity page. Wikipedia currently doesn't number any Smbat as VIII, but it's not uncommon for these numberings to be different in different sources. The Son in Law of Samuel II of Armenia is currently numbered as Smbat VII. Also the person called Sahak I above is more commonly known as Isaac of Armenia.
Ruben I who founded the Roupenian Dynasty of Armenian Cilicia in the Eleventh Century is generally agreed to have been a Bagratid relative and probably also descended from Smbat. Later Gabriel of Melitene is believed to be connected either by his wife or mother to Ruben I. Gabriel's daughter was Morphia of Melitene.
Tiridates III of Armenia was of direct Pater-lineal descent from Khosrov I of Armenia. Khosrov I was one of the sons born to King Vologases II of Armenia (Vagharsh II) who is also known as Vologases V of Parthia by an unnamed mother. Vologases was of direct pater-lineal descent from Vonones II of Parthia (Who is numbered Vonones I on the Tyndale site's genealogy). He and his brother were the sons of Darius son of Artavasdes of Media by a daughter of Antiochus I Theos of Commanege (another correction I need to make to my genealogy is that daughter was named Athenais not Iotapa). The wife of Darius is an unnamed Arascid princess, who may herself already be descended from earlier intermarriages between the Arascid and Seleucid dynasties.
The Bagratid dynasties have also claimed Davidic Descent.
Maria Taronitissa was probably of Bagratid descent via the Roupenians, she married John Doukas Komnenos a Duke of Cyprus who had descent from Byzantine Emperors. Their daughter Maria Komnene married Amalric I Crusader King of Jerusalem. All modern claimants to the Crusader King of Jerusalem title are descendants of that marriage.
Amalric's mother Mellisende of Jerusalem had ruled as Queen of Jerusalem. Her parents were Baldwin II of Jerusalem and his wife Morphia of Melitene who also descended from Armenian nobility. Another daughter of theirs was Alice of Antioch who married Bohemond II of Antioch and had a daughter, Constance of Antioch. Constance had a number of children from whom the Princes of Antioch descend, and a daughter, Agnes of Antioch. Agnes had 6 children, and from them descended all later kings of Hungry, and her daughter Constance of Hungry was the mother of Wenceslaus I of Bohemia.
Mary of Lusignan was the daughter of Hugh I of Cyprus and Alice of Champagne, daughter of Queen Isabella I of Jerusalem, daughter of Aalmric and Maria Komnene. She is an ancestor of modern British Royalty.
Elizabeth of York was the mother of Henry VIII, and his Sister who was an ancestor of both parents of King James Stuart VI of Scotland and I of England.Marie de Lusignan (1215-1251/3)Hugh, Count of Brienne (1240-1296)Walter V of Brienne (1278-1311)Isabella of Brienne (1306-1360), claimant to the Kingdom of JerusalemLouis of Enghien (d. 1394)Marguerite of Enghien (b. 1365) m. John of Luxembourg, Lord of BeauvoirPeter of Luxembourg, Count of Saint Pol (1390-1433)Jacquetta of Luxembourg, married Earl RiversElizabeth, Queen of England m. Edward IVElizabeth of York m. Henry VII
Returning to the subject of the Western branch. Avidius Heliodorus and other descendants of Antiochus IV of Commanege where based in Syria. At least two Syrian based Usurpers during the Crisis of the Third Century are also probably descended form them, Joptainians and one named Seleucus. The entire Aristocracy of Roman Syria (and surrounding regions) from the Second Century onward was Seleucid.
Eutropia was a woman of Syrian origin living in the late Third and early Fourth centuries AD. By her first husband she had Flavia Maximiana Theodora, who married Constantius I Chlorus, and was the mother of all his children except Constantine I. However her much younger daughter by her second husband Fausta married Constantine I. By the mid Fourth Century the entire Constantinian dynasty was descended from Eutropia. I suspect it's through the Constantinians that the Merovingian dynasty (as well as other early Western European dynasties) can be traced back to the Seleucids, but I can't prove it yet.
Update October 2019: The Heraclied Dynasty who ruled the Byzantine Empire for most of the Seventh Century are also speculated to have had Arascid Armenian Descent.
Genealogy of The Antichrist: Seleucid Dynasty
Of the verses that have been taken as hinting at the Genealogy of The Antichrist. The connection to the Seleucid Dynasty I
view as the most Important. Yet there is good reason to argue even
that is only geographical. Until you notice in Daniel 11:36-45 the King
of the North (which earlier was the clear geographical identify of the Seleucid Empire) is an enemy of the Willful King. So the Seleucid
connection ought not be overlooked.
I see Daniel 8 as a sort of Evil Counterpart to Nathan's Prophecy in 2 Samuel 7. Nathan foretells a Son of David who will build The Temple and reign over a prosperous time of peace. It's near fulfillment was in Solomon, but it's ultimate fulfillment is the Reign of The Messiah. Daniel 8 foretells a Little Horn of the Hellenistic Kingdoms who will violate the Temple and "by peace shall destroy many". It's near fulfillment was Antiochus Epiphanes, but it's finale ultimate fulfillment will be in the Man of Sin spoken of by Paul in Second Thessalonians.
In Christ White's study of Daniel 8, he mentioned something valid that I never noticed before. The first thing said about The Little Horn seems to apply to Seleucus I who founded the dynasty, and doesn't fit Epiphanes well at all. In verse 9
I've often struggled with the fact that there were ultimately really Five not Fours kingdoms to emerge from Alexander's divided Empire. Antipater-Cassander, Lysimachus, Antigonos-Demetrius, Ptolmey, and Seleucus. I don't like allegorizing The Bible's usage of numbers. Thanks to Chris White's insight I now have a solution.
I see Daniel 8 as a sort of Evil Counterpart to Nathan's Prophecy in 2 Samuel 7. Nathan foretells a Son of David who will build The Temple and reign over a prosperous time of peace. It's near fulfillment was in Solomon, but it's ultimate fulfillment is the Reign of The Messiah. Daniel 8 foretells a Little Horn of the Hellenistic Kingdoms who will violate the Temple and "by peace shall destroy many". It's near fulfillment was Antiochus Epiphanes, but it's finale ultimate fulfillment will be in the Man of Sin spoken of by Paul in Second Thessalonians.
In Christ White's study of Daniel 8, he mentioned something valid that I never noticed before. The first thing said about The Little Horn seems to apply to Seleucus I who founded the dynasty, and doesn't fit Epiphanes well at all. In verse 9
"And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land."The "one of them" is one of the Four Horns. Epiphanes did have campaigns that tried to emulate this, but his were all ultimately failures. This fits well however the original Seleucus's campaigns during the Wars of the Diadochi.
I've often struggled with the fact that there were ultimately really Five not Fours kingdoms to emerge from Alexander's divided Empire. Antipater-Cassander, Lysimachus, Antigonos-Demetrius, Ptolmey, and Seleucus. I don't like allegorizing The Bible's usage of numbers. Thanks to Chris White's insight I now have a solution.
The Little Horn is the Seleucid Dynasty itself, not
simply two random individuals who descended from it. And the one of the
first four that it emerged out of is Ptolemy. Daniel 11:5 described the
first "King of The North" as "one of his princes" in reference to the
"King of The South". Also the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties
intermarried a number of times, as I will address in the future.
I want to address how people take from the "King of the South" and "King of the North" terminology in Daniel 11 that the other two (cause their still forcing themselves to see things in terms of four total) must be Kings of the East and West. This is reading something into the text that isn't there however. Yes at the beginning of this period Daniel 11 refers to "shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven" but this is simply an expression, and as such a rare case where I do consider it valid not to dogmatically take the number used there literally.
The Seleucid Empire, which is for many reasons indisputably the one defined as the "King of The North", is called that because it's immediately to the north of Israel. It was NOT the northernmost of the Kingdoms, indeed, during the time period in which these wars took place all of the remaining Hellenistic kingdoms were both further north and further west then the Seleucid lands were. Likewise Seleucus is the ONLY one that could be described as The East. The reason I think The Bible preferred to define it on it's Northerness rather then Easterness in relation to Israel is because it's Capitol, Antioch, was directly north of Jerusalem.
The Seleucid Dynasty came from the Macedonian aristocracy, the royal and other elite families of Macedon claimed, like the Spartan rulers, descent from Herakles. Herakles was a descendant of Perseus and Andromeda, Perseus was a descendant of the Danoi and Andromeda came from Joppa, a port city of Dan. Seleucus was one of the very few of Alexander's generals to keep the wife Alexander made him marry at Susa. Her name was Apama and her ancestry can be traced back to the earliest Persian rulers and trough them to Median rules and trough them to Assyrian rulers. She was the mother of his successor as well as other children.
Two important lesser royal houses become genealogically linked to the Seleucids, the rulers of Pontus and Commagene. Gaius Julius Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene assisted the Romans at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And his children and grandchildren would intermarry with descendants of the Herodian and Hamonean dynasties, as well as Roman Patricians descended from Augustus though his Granddaughter Julia The Younger, and also Gaius Cassius Longinus. Interesting how the "Spear of Longinus" becomes linked to The Holy Grail in Arthurian romances. I suspect this Bloodline can be linked to the Merovingian Bloodline, and thus to all Modern European Royalty and Aristocracy.
However, the children of Antiochus I of Commagene also intermarried with Parthrian royalty, and through them became ancestral to all Persian and Armenian rulers by the Second Century A.D. It is actually this Eastern descent from the Seleucid dynasty that is far easier to reliably trace to modern times.
Now I go back to my suggestion that the Seleucid Dynasty is Satan's counterpart to the Davidic Dynasty. Jesus comes from two distinct lines of descent from two different sons of David, as Matthew and Luke demonstrate (though only Luke's through Mary is biological). What if The Antichrist likewise reunites these two separate Eastern and Western lines of descent from the Seleucids?
This analysis in continued in Part II and Part III.
I want to address how people take from the "King of the South" and "King of the North" terminology in Daniel 11 that the other two (cause their still forcing themselves to see things in terms of four total) must be Kings of the East and West. This is reading something into the text that isn't there however. Yes at the beginning of this period Daniel 11 refers to "shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven" but this is simply an expression, and as such a rare case where I do consider it valid not to dogmatically take the number used there literally.
The Seleucid Empire, which is for many reasons indisputably the one defined as the "King of The North", is called that because it's immediately to the north of Israel. It was NOT the northernmost of the Kingdoms, indeed, during the time period in which these wars took place all of the remaining Hellenistic kingdoms were both further north and further west then the Seleucid lands were. Likewise Seleucus is the ONLY one that could be described as The East. The reason I think The Bible preferred to define it on it's Northerness rather then Easterness in relation to Israel is because it's Capitol, Antioch, was directly north of Jerusalem.
The Seleucid Dynasty came from the Macedonian aristocracy, the royal and other elite families of Macedon claimed, like the Spartan rulers, descent from Herakles. Herakles was a descendant of Perseus and Andromeda, Perseus was a descendant of the Danoi and Andromeda came from Joppa, a port city of Dan. Seleucus was one of the very few of Alexander's generals to keep the wife Alexander made him marry at Susa. Her name was Apama and her ancestry can be traced back to the earliest Persian rulers and trough them to Median rules and trough them to Assyrian rulers. She was the mother of his successor as well as other children.
Two important lesser royal houses become genealogically linked to the Seleucids, the rulers of Pontus and Commagene. Gaius Julius Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene assisted the Romans at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And his children and grandchildren would intermarry with descendants of the Herodian and Hamonean dynasties, as well as Roman Patricians descended from Augustus though his Granddaughter Julia The Younger, and also Gaius Cassius Longinus. Interesting how the "Spear of Longinus" becomes linked to The Holy Grail in Arthurian romances. I suspect this Bloodline can be linked to the Merovingian Bloodline, and thus to all Modern European Royalty and Aristocracy.
However, the children of Antiochus I of Commagene also intermarried with Parthrian royalty, and through them became ancestral to all Persian and Armenian rulers by the Second Century A.D. It is actually this Eastern descent from the Seleucid dynasty that is far easier to reliably trace to modern times.
Now I go back to my suggestion that the Seleucid Dynasty is Satan's counterpart to the Davidic Dynasty. Jesus comes from two distinct lines of descent from two different sons of David, as Matthew and Luke demonstrate (though only Luke's through Mary is biological). What if The Antichrist likewise reunites these two separate Eastern and Western lines of descent from the Seleucids?
This analysis in continued in Part II and Part III.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)