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 The Little Horn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Little Horn. Show all posts
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Monday, November 27, 2017
More speculation on The Little Horn
This Daniel 7 speculation could be made compatible with the Daniel 7 theory I posted a couple days ago. But it arguably works better in the context of the theory before that. And should definitely be compared with my last post on The Little Horn.
It derives from one of my earliest Lost Tribes posts. Where I suggested that the Fourth Beast proper is Edom but the Horns are Ephraim. That drew on connections between Edom and Ephraim made in Obadiah, and also Amalek being in Mount Ephraim during the Midianite oppression. And in the context of Daniel 2 that sees the Iron as Edom and the Miry Clay as Ephraim.
Now initially the main reason I had for associating the number 10 with Ephraim was that Jeroboam was given 10 Tribes. But I've noticed something else compelling.
In Deuteronomy 33 Moses gives Blessings to the Tribes of Israel, like Jacob did in Genesis 49. Verses 13-17 are the blessing for Joseph, one of the longer ones. This is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine taught in Rabbinic Judaism. Other aspects of this blessing I may talk about in future posts, but here I'm going to focus on a specific part of verse 17.
In the prior Little Horn post, one theory I suggested was seeing the Little Horn as The United States of America. And I have a prior post about America possibly being Manasseh.
But I also talked about seeing it as Modern Greece. On my Revised Chronology blog, I talked about possible links between ancient Greece and Northern Israelites, I may talk about that more in the future. That speculation has included specific figures of Greek mythology who might have been based on Jehu, a king who first arose in Gilead. But also the possibly of the Dorians coming from Dor, a city linked to Manasseh and Asher.
As far as the recent theory about the Fourth Beast being Arabia and Islam. The Little Horn being Jordan fits well, a recently created nation at the same time as modern Israel. It includes the core of ancient Edom and most of the land of the Trans-Jordan Tribes, in fact the capital of modern Jordan is arguably land given to Gilead in-spite of it's modern name making us think of Ammon. And Jordan also originally had the West Bank territories, which included Shechem, Samaria and Tirzah. And all Palestinians technically have Jordanian citizenship.
When it comes to Genesis 48, people talk a lot about Ephraim, but I think we might be overlooking Manasseh.
It derives from one of my earliest Lost Tribes posts. Where I suggested that the Fourth Beast proper is Edom but the Horns are Ephraim. That drew on connections between Edom and Ephraim made in Obadiah, and also Amalek being in Mount Ephraim during the Midianite oppression. And in the context of Daniel 2 that sees the Iron as Edom and the Miry Clay as Ephraim.
Now initially the main reason I had for associating the number 10 with Ephraim was that Jeroboam was given 10 Tribes. But I've noticed something else compelling.
In Deuteronomy 33 Moses gives Blessings to the Tribes of Israel, like Jacob did in Genesis 49. Verses 13-17 are the blessing for Joseph, one of the longer ones. This is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine taught in Rabbinic Judaism. Other aspects of this blessing I may talk about in future posts, but here I'm going to focus on a specific part of verse 17.
"his horns are like the horns of Aurochs: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."Mostly the numbers here are seen as just about how Ephraim has or will have a larger population then Manasseh. Genesis 48 says Ephraim would become a multitude of nations (or the fullness of them) while Manasseh would simply be one great people. But what I notice is this is specifically about the Horns of Joseph. If each Horn is a "thousands", then Ephraim is 10 and Manasseh is 1, making a total of 11.
In the prior Little Horn post, one theory I suggested was seeing the Little Horn as The United States of America. And I have a prior post about America possibly being Manasseh.
But I also talked about seeing it as Modern Greece. On my Revised Chronology blog, I talked about possible links between ancient Greece and Northern Israelites, I may talk about that more in the future. That speculation has included specific figures of Greek mythology who might have been based on Jehu, a king who first arose in Gilead. But also the possibly of the Dorians coming from Dor, a city linked to Manasseh and Asher.
As far as the recent theory about the Fourth Beast being Arabia and Islam. The Little Horn being Jordan fits well, a recently created nation at the same time as modern Israel. It includes the core of ancient Edom and most of the land of the Trans-Jordan Tribes, in fact the capital of modern Jordan is arguably land given to Gilead in-spite of it's modern name making us think of Ammon. And Jordan also originally had the West Bank territories, which included Shechem, Samaria and Tirzah. And all Palestinians technically have Jordanian citizenship.
When it comes to Genesis 48, people talk a lot about Ephraim, but I think we might be overlooking Manasseh.
Friday, September 9, 2016
The Little Horn of Daniel 7
I've explained my basic view of how Daniel 7 relates to Revelation 13&17, and later elaborated on that. Now I want to talk about the issue of The Little Horn, and how I've become unsure it's as directly relevant to The Antichrist issue as we assume.
I've explained that I view the Ten Horns as Ten Nations that emerged from the Western Roman Empire. I've given two theories on how to identify those Ten. The WEU theory, and the Danite theory.
This post also has some tangential relevance to my last Daniel 11 post.
Basically I have been considering that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is an 11th Nation or Government to arise after those, rather then being necessarily the same as the Eight King of Revelation 17 or any other individual. I have three basic theories to suggest on which nation that could be.
First is the United States of America. Since the Little Horn isn't directly described as a King like the Ten are, perhaps that fits America being a Republic, that isn't in Europe but founded on European/Roman cultural pillars.
And perhaps the fact that since the U.S. was created, revolutions in Europe somewhat inspired by the American Revolution have removed some but not all European Monarchies. Could have something to do with the Three Horns being uprooted.
This could overlap with my American Antichrist theories. And perhaps also my America and Egypt observations as well dependent on how much you think the Little Horn of Daniel 8 is connected to the Little Horn of Daniel 7.
Second could be the European Union (or whatever it becomes) itself as a transnational Government. Which could fit better with the WEU theory on the Ten Horns. And perhaps #Brexit is the beginning of Three Horns being uprooted.
Third candidate could be Modern Greece. Officially it gets counted as the 10th Nation to join the EU when it joined in the 80s, which Bible Prophecy enthusiasts made a big deal of. But since the UK can be considered two nations in one (England and Scotland), you could also argue Greece was really the 11th.
That theory works best for making The Little Horn of Daniel 8 still the same Little Horn. And I've discussed Modern Greece's possible relevance to Bible Prophecy before, in the Last Roman Emperor post, and my main Historicism post.
I've explained that I view the Ten Horns as Ten Nations that emerged from the Western Roman Empire. I've given two theories on how to identify those Ten. The WEU theory, and the Danite theory.
This post also has some tangential relevance to my last Daniel 11 post.
Basically I have been considering that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is an 11th Nation or Government to arise after those, rather then being necessarily the same as the Eight King of Revelation 17 or any other individual. I have three basic theories to suggest on which nation that could be.
First is the United States of America. Since the Little Horn isn't directly described as a King like the Ten are, perhaps that fits America being a Republic, that isn't in Europe but founded on European/Roman cultural pillars.
And perhaps the fact that since the U.S. was created, revolutions in Europe somewhat inspired by the American Revolution have removed some but not all European Monarchies. Could have something to do with the Three Horns being uprooted.
This could overlap with my American Antichrist theories. And perhaps also my America and Egypt observations as well dependent on how much you think the Little Horn of Daniel 8 is connected to the Little Horn of Daniel 7.
Second could be the European Union (or whatever it becomes) itself as a transnational Government. Which could fit better with the WEU theory on the Ten Horns. And perhaps #Brexit is the beginning of Three Horns being uprooted.
Third candidate could be Modern Greece. Officially it gets counted as the 10th Nation to join the EU when it joined in the 80s, which Bible Prophecy enthusiasts made a big deal of. But since the UK can be considered two nations in one (England and Scotland), you could also argue Greece was really the 11th.
That theory works best for making The Little Horn of Daniel 8 still the same Little Horn. And I've discussed Modern Greece's possible relevance to Bible Prophecy before, in the Last Roman Emperor post, and my main Historicism post.
Monday, May 25, 2015
The Seven Heads and Daniel 7
In the past I've been hostile to viewing the 7 Kings as 7 Kingdoms or Empires rather then a specific succession of individual Kings. Chris White argues they are 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms.
I'll never be convinced of a model that adds two empires or even one before Nebuchadnezzar. But my perspective on this changed when I noticed something about how Daniel 7 and the Beast from the Sea in Revelation are compared.
This thesis here could damage a lot of my earlier theories. But not my over all view of Bible Prophecy.
Seven is also the total number of heads in Daniel 7, 1 Lion, 1 Bear, 4 of the Leopard and the Ten horns are defined as on a head in Daniel 7. The Beast of Revelation 13 is all four of Daniel 7's beasts merged together.
So we have 7 Kingdoms, each also with one specific of their Kings to single out. That is how I now look at it.
The 7 kings do NOT each have to be a type of The Antichrist, that is just a made up rule some people have for studying this. Cyrus is indisputably the Second King in question here, he is never portrayed negatively in Scripture. In fact he is the only Gentile The Hebrew Bible ever declares a Messiah, and it's God himself saying it to Cyrus in Isaiah 44/45. Some of them may be types, but they don't all need to be.
In fact even though I've done and may still do a lot of talking about potential types of The Anitchrist on this Blog. The Biblical endorsement for the concept of types are entirely about Jesus, Paul in Colossians saying everything in the law was a foreshadowing of Jesus that had already been fulfilled, Jesus saying the Volume of The Book is of Him. There is no Biblical basis for calling ANYONE a type of The Antichrist.
This model has to make Rome the 7th rather then 6th Empire. How can Rome possibly be yet Future in John's time? Or be said to have not lasted very long?
The 7 Kings we're are looking for are not rulers or occupiers of Israel/Jerusalem. Revelation 17 is specifically about Babylon, it's about 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms who ruled Babylon, starting with it's native kingdom. Daniel 7 is in the Aramaic part of Daniel, the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians of Daniel's time. And he was in Babylonia when he had this vision. The four beasts are described as World Empires and all four are, but to the point of view of the Babylonians Daniel first made this Prophecy for, no one truly became a world empire till they conquered their world.
Rome did NOT rule Babylon at any point during the New Testament era or before it. John wrote Revelation at the latest during the reign of Domitian. The second Emperor after that, Trajan, was the first Roman to take Mesopotamia and Assyria. and it was at the very end of his reign that he did. Then Hadrian succeeded him, and he pretty much immediately gave them back to Parthia. So Rome only ever ruled Babylon for a very short time, just a few years.
The ruler of Parthia when John wrote was Pacorus II. (Who's mother was a Greek concubine, further showing he can count as a Greek King, and his father's maternal grandmother had Seleucid ancestry). When Pacorus died Trajan was already Emperor of Rome. Later in the 160s AD there was another Roman military incursion into Mesopotamia, but it never reached Babylon, it's focus was on Seleucica.
While it's not a coincidence that the 4 heads of the Leopard are the same number of horns the Notable horn of the Ram breaks into. I think what they represent specifically here could be sort of different. We are dealing with four Hellenistic era Kingdoms that ruled Babylon. The first is Alexander himself, then comes the successors.
I believe Parthia while often thought of as a quasi Persian empire can be looked at as coming out of Alexander's Empire. He had conquered that region, and by the New Testament period the Arascid Royal Family had Seleucid blood intermingled into them.
Babylon was taken from the Seleucid Empire by Parthia in 150 BC. It was still firmly Seleucid during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasomonean revolt.
Antigonus and Seleucus Nicator fought over Babylon early on after it was clear Alexander's own Dynasty would not survive. Eventually Seleucus secured it.
I'm going to consider Ptolemy the true successor to Alexander in this context. He had Alexander's body buried in the city named after him, an act that secured succession in Macedonian custom, and was possibly a half brother or cousin of Alexander.
The 4 Heads of the Leopard could be viewed as Antigonus in Macedon =The West, Antioch=The North, Alexandria=The South and Parthia=The East. Thus fitting the Four Winds of Heaven reference in Daniel 11. Though for that context we could also say the West was the Macedon-Greece homeland which was originally ruled by the Antipards but which the Antigonids took as they lost what was originally allotted to them to Seleucus.
So the 7 King(dom)s of Babylon from Daniel are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander The Great, Antigonus, Seleucid Dynasty, Pacorus of Parthia, and Trajan of Rome.
In the past I firmly argued that I believe The Antichrist's Death and Resurrection must both be in the future. And I was not comfortable with the theories making him some past King being brought back.
But in light of this, I must be consistent with my clear understanding of Revelation 17's terminology. "Was, and is not" means the Eight King is one of the first 5, since it defines the present of this message as the 6th.
I still believe the Beast Empire is largely a Revived Roman Empire, but the Little Horn shows up among the ten horns in Daniel 7, distinct from Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the 4 horns. He's ruling Rome but not as a Roman himself.
I don't believe it has to be someone who died from a head wound. The doctrine of The Antichrist's Resurrection to me is proven not by the mortal head wound being healed but by his ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and how that theme ties into Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-32, (though fatal sword wound references are there too).
It could be he's already an early example of the second resurrection when he receives the mortal wound, and what amazes people is him surviving something that should have killed him, because he now has a body like a fallen angel.
Alexander The Great is distinct as being in a sense the main King of the Leopard as a whole as well as one of the heads. I see Daniel 7:12 saying both that the Assyrian, Persian and Greek nations will exist during the Millennium. And that their main three Kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great, are saved individuals and will exist in The Millennium too.
That only leaves Antigonus and the Seleucids.
Daniel 11:40-45 seems to have The Antichrist as separate from the King of The North. However, I've explained why I'm no longer certain that even is The Antichrist, and that it might be Augustus. But if that is the End Times and is The 8th King, it's while he's not a ruler of his original kingdom anymore but of the 10 horns to emerge from Rome.
There is nothing to link Antigonus to the Antichrist, but a lot of reasons to link the Seleucids. Daniel 8 as well as Epiphanes doing the first Abomination of Desolation, which Jesus clarifies there will be one yet future.
I argued in the past when discussing Daniel 8 that there The Little Horn is the Seleucid dynasty as a whole, not just 1 or 2 individuals. So unlike others who've argued a thesis similar to what I'm arguing here, I don't necessarily think it's Antiochus Epiphanes himself who is the Seleucid ruler that will ascend out of the Bottomless Pit, but certainly could be.
There are reasons to believe The Antichrist will be someone The Jews accept at first until the Abomination of Desolation happens. If he's Epiphanes and is known to be Epiphanes, that would be unlikely. Epiphanes is up there with Hitler and Haman on the most hated by Jews list.
I do think it must be a Seleucid mentioned in Daniel 11, making him a Biblical figure. Seleucus I might be the candidate to start with, but while important to Seleucid history obviously, what's said of him in Daniel 11 is brief and pales in comparison to some of the others. But it is interesting that a legend existed in the ancient world that his mother Laodice claimed he was fathered by Apollo.
Three times in Daniel 11 a king is described as "doing according to his will". One of these is verse 36 which is clearly past the immediate history of Epiphanes already, after the Hasmonean Kingdom has fallen to Rome. And may or may not be about The Antichrist. It's first used of Alexander The Great at the start of the chapter. Between them it's in verse 16.
Verse 16 is during the time of Antiochus III The Great's wars. And usually he is identified by scholars as the one "doing according to his will" there. But Hippolytus of Rome in his Daniel commentary confusingly says this was an Alexander not known from any other surviving historical sources we have on the period. He might have gotten confused by how that phrase was earlier affiliated with Alexander The Great, or maybe it's a scribal/copyist error.
It was under Antiochus The Great that Israel was taken from the Ptolemies and became part of the Seleucid Empire. He is overall remembered fondly by The Jews as recorded by Josephus. His relationship with them in Daniel 11 seems positive. He continued Alexander and the Ptolemies general policy of not interfering with their Faith or The Temple.
But Josephus seems to be familiar with only 1 Maccabees and not 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees chapter 1 seems to refer to the death of Antiochus III and deems him ungodly. Some see the benefits Antiochus gave The Temple as having been good for the Priestly class but not really for the common people.
Epiphanes is still the key link this dynasty has to The Antichrist. It's highly possible he will lie about who he is, even when he first reveals himself to be a resurrected past individual he may lie about exactly who he is. Maybe he'll try to claim he's Elijah or David or Solomon or someone like that. Or maybe just a simple matter of lying about which Macedonian or Seleucid ruler he is.
Some have agreed that Daniel 11:36-45 can't refer to anything Epiphanes did, yet still feel that the tone of the text wants us to think of him. This could agree with a notion that he was recorded earlier as the 5th King and 36-45 is about him as the 8th King.
On the notion that we're dealing with a ruler of one of the earlier Kingdoms now ruling/reviving Rome. Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome, and Polybus said he liked to rule as if he were a Roman. Maybe he is the ideal person to revive the Roman Empire.
Which would create more options for someone he could claim to be, like Augustus.
But one interesting option is for him to claim to be Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor. Like all later Byzantine Emperors he was firmly Greek, so Antiochus could remain the same ethnicity and native language. Constantine XI supposedly died in battle when Constantinople fell to the Turks, but his death was never solidly confirmed. So a rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a statue and hid him beneath the Gate of Constantinople and would one be awoken to drive to the Turks. His legacy has remained important among the Greeks, drawing on it during their War of Independence in the 19th Century.
And the legend of his return no doubt became interwoven with the Last Roman Emperor tradition. The original seed of which, the late 4th century prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl called him a King of The Greeks named Constans.
One argument against the idea that 36-39 could be about Epiphanes is that he was consistent with the religion of his fathers. However there is also a sense in which Epiphanes did change the religion of the Seleucid Empire, ironically the opposite of the change Augustus later made in Rome. Apollo had been the favored deity of earlier Seleucids, but Epiphanes downplayed him and was more fond of Zeus. But it still would be absurd to label Zeus a god "whom his fathers knew not" for any Greek people.
But if Epiphanes returns in the End Days his religion may be different, especially if he comes back after being resurrected and thinking Satan was responsible for it.
He did deify himself, technically the full name he used was Antíochos D' ho Epiphanḗs (Antiochus God Manifest, or Antiochus Zeus Manifest). I've noticed that while none of the known forms of Epiphanes/Epiphany I've found used in ancient Greek texts have a Greek gemetria value of 666, it isn't difficult to construct a form that does have that value, it seems 1 or 2 letters could make the difference.
Update August 2016: I just argued that the Eight King could be a Ptolemy.
I'll never be convinced of a model that adds two empires or even one before Nebuchadnezzar. But my perspective on this changed when I noticed something about how Daniel 7 and the Beast from the Sea in Revelation are compared.
This thesis here could damage a lot of my earlier theories. But not my over all view of Bible Prophecy.
Seven is also the total number of heads in Daniel 7, 1 Lion, 1 Bear, 4 of the Leopard and the Ten horns are defined as on a head in Daniel 7. The Beast of Revelation 13 is all four of Daniel 7's beasts merged together.
So we have 7 Kingdoms, each also with one specific of their Kings to single out. That is how I now look at it.
The 7 kings do NOT each have to be a type of The Antichrist, that is just a made up rule some people have for studying this. Cyrus is indisputably the Second King in question here, he is never portrayed negatively in Scripture. In fact he is the only Gentile The Hebrew Bible ever declares a Messiah, and it's God himself saying it to Cyrus in Isaiah 44/45. Some of them may be types, but they don't all need to be.
In fact even though I've done and may still do a lot of talking about potential types of The Anitchrist on this Blog. The Biblical endorsement for the concept of types are entirely about Jesus, Paul in Colossians saying everything in the law was a foreshadowing of Jesus that had already been fulfilled, Jesus saying the Volume of The Book is of Him. There is no Biblical basis for calling ANYONE a type of The Antichrist.
This model has to make Rome the 7th rather then 6th Empire. How can Rome possibly be yet Future in John's time? Or be said to have not lasted very long?
The 7 Kings we're are looking for are not rulers or occupiers of Israel/Jerusalem. Revelation 17 is specifically about Babylon, it's about 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms who ruled Babylon, starting with it's native kingdom. Daniel 7 is in the Aramaic part of Daniel, the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians of Daniel's time. And he was in Babylonia when he had this vision. The four beasts are described as World Empires and all four are, but to the point of view of the Babylonians Daniel first made this Prophecy for, no one truly became a world empire till they conquered their world.
Rome did NOT rule Babylon at any point during the New Testament era or before it. John wrote Revelation at the latest during the reign of Domitian. The second Emperor after that, Trajan, was the first Roman to take Mesopotamia and Assyria. and it was at the very end of his reign that he did. Then Hadrian succeeded him, and he pretty much immediately gave them back to Parthia. So Rome only ever ruled Babylon for a very short time, just a few years.
The ruler of Parthia when John wrote was Pacorus II. (Who's mother was a Greek concubine, further showing he can count as a Greek King, and his father's maternal grandmother had Seleucid ancestry). When Pacorus died Trajan was already Emperor of Rome. Later in the 160s AD there was another Roman military incursion into Mesopotamia, but it never reached Babylon, it's focus was on Seleucica.
While it's not a coincidence that the 4 heads of the Leopard are the same number of horns the Notable horn of the Ram breaks into. I think what they represent specifically here could be sort of different. We are dealing with four Hellenistic era Kingdoms that ruled Babylon. The first is Alexander himself, then comes the successors.
I believe Parthia while often thought of as a quasi Persian empire can be looked at as coming out of Alexander's Empire. He had conquered that region, and by the New Testament period the Arascid Royal Family had Seleucid blood intermingled into them.
Babylon was taken from the Seleucid Empire by Parthia in 150 BC. It was still firmly Seleucid during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasomonean revolt.
Antigonus and Seleucus Nicator fought over Babylon early on after it was clear Alexander's own Dynasty would not survive. Eventually Seleucus secured it.
I'm going to consider Ptolemy the true successor to Alexander in this context. He had Alexander's body buried in the city named after him, an act that secured succession in Macedonian custom, and was possibly a half brother or cousin of Alexander.
The 4 Heads of the Leopard could be viewed as Antigonus in Macedon =The West, Antioch=The North, Alexandria=The South and Parthia=The East. Thus fitting the Four Winds of Heaven reference in Daniel 11. Though for that context we could also say the West was the Macedon-Greece homeland which was originally ruled by the Antipards but which the Antigonids took as they lost what was originally allotted to them to Seleucus.
So the 7 King(dom)s of Babylon from Daniel are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander The Great, Antigonus, Seleucid Dynasty, Pacorus of Parthia, and Trajan of Rome.
In the past I firmly argued that I believe The Antichrist's Death and Resurrection must both be in the future. And I was not comfortable with the theories making him some past King being brought back.
But in light of this, I must be consistent with my clear understanding of Revelation 17's terminology. "Was, and is not" means the Eight King is one of the first 5, since it defines the present of this message as the 6th.
I still believe the Beast Empire is largely a Revived Roman Empire, but the Little Horn shows up among the ten horns in Daniel 7, distinct from Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the 4 horns. He's ruling Rome but not as a Roman himself.
I don't believe it has to be someone who died from a head wound. The doctrine of The Antichrist's Resurrection to me is proven not by the mortal head wound being healed but by his ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and how that theme ties into Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-32, (though fatal sword wound references are there too).
It could be he's already an early example of the second resurrection when he receives the mortal wound, and what amazes people is him surviving something that should have killed him, because he now has a body like a fallen angel.
Alexander The Great is distinct as being in a sense the main King of the Leopard as a whole as well as one of the heads. I see Daniel 7:12 saying both that the Assyrian, Persian and Greek nations will exist during the Millennium. And that their main three Kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great, are saved individuals and will exist in The Millennium too.
That only leaves Antigonus and the Seleucids.
Daniel 11:40-45 seems to have The Antichrist as separate from the King of The North. However, I've explained why I'm no longer certain that even is The Antichrist, and that it might be Augustus. But if that is the End Times and is The 8th King, it's while he's not a ruler of his original kingdom anymore but of the 10 horns to emerge from Rome.
There is nothing to link Antigonus to the Antichrist, but a lot of reasons to link the Seleucids. Daniel 8 as well as Epiphanes doing the first Abomination of Desolation, which Jesus clarifies there will be one yet future.
I argued in the past when discussing Daniel 8 that there The Little Horn is the Seleucid dynasty as a whole, not just 1 or 2 individuals. So unlike others who've argued a thesis similar to what I'm arguing here, I don't necessarily think it's Antiochus Epiphanes himself who is the Seleucid ruler that will ascend out of the Bottomless Pit, but certainly could be.
There are reasons to believe The Antichrist will be someone The Jews accept at first until the Abomination of Desolation happens. If he's Epiphanes and is known to be Epiphanes, that would be unlikely. Epiphanes is up there with Hitler and Haman on the most hated by Jews list.
I do think it must be a Seleucid mentioned in Daniel 11, making him a Biblical figure. Seleucus I might be the candidate to start with, but while important to Seleucid history obviously, what's said of him in Daniel 11 is brief and pales in comparison to some of the others. But it is interesting that a legend existed in the ancient world that his mother Laodice claimed he was fathered by Apollo.
Three times in Daniel 11 a king is described as "doing according to his will". One of these is verse 36 which is clearly past the immediate history of Epiphanes already, after the Hasmonean Kingdom has fallen to Rome. And may or may not be about The Antichrist. It's first used of Alexander The Great at the start of the chapter. Between them it's in verse 16.
Verse 16 is during the time of Antiochus III The Great's wars. And usually he is identified by scholars as the one "doing according to his will" there. But Hippolytus of Rome in his Daniel commentary confusingly says this was an Alexander not known from any other surviving historical sources we have on the period. He might have gotten confused by how that phrase was earlier affiliated with Alexander The Great, or maybe it's a scribal/copyist error.
It was under Antiochus The Great that Israel was taken from the Ptolemies and became part of the Seleucid Empire. He is overall remembered fondly by The Jews as recorded by Josephus. His relationship with them in Daniel 11 seems positive. He continued Alexander and the Ptolemies general policy of not interfering with their Faith or The Temple.
But Josephus seems to be familiar with only 1 Maccabees and not 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees chapter 1 seems to refer to the death of Antiochus III and deems him ungodly. Some see the benefits Antiochus gave The Temple as having been good for the Priestly class but not really for the common people.
Epiphanes is still the key link this dynasty has to The Antichrist. It's highly possible he will lie about who he is, even when he first reveals himself to be a resurrected past individual he may lie about exactly who he is. Maybe he'll try to claim he's Elijah or David or Solomon or someone like that. Or maybe just a simple matter of lying about which Macedonian or Seleucid ruler he is.
Some have agreed that Daniel 11:36-45 can't refer to anything Epiphanes did, yet still feel that the tone of the text wants us to think of him. This could agree with a notion that he was recorded earlier as the 5th King and 36-45 is about him as the 8th King.
On the notion that we're dealing with a ruler of one of the earlier Kingdoms now ruling/reviving Rome. Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome, and Polybus said he liked to rule as if he were a Roman. Maybe he is the ideal person to revive the Roman Empire.
Which would create more options for someone he could claim to be, like Augustus.
But one interesting option is for him to claim to be Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor. Like all later Byzantine Emperors he was firmly Greek, so Antiochus could remain the same ethnicity and native language. Constantine XI supposedly died in battle when Constantinople fell to the Turks, but his death was never solidly confirmed. So a rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a statue and hid him beneath the Gate of Constantinople and would one be awoken to drive to the Turks. His legacy has remained important among the Greeks, drawing on it during their War of Independence in the 19th Century.
And the legend of his return no doubt became interwoven with the Last Roman Emperor tradition. The original seed of which, the late 4th century prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl called him a King of The Greeks named Constans.
One argument against the idea that 36-39 could be about Epiphanes is that he was consistent with the religion of his fathers. However there is also a sense in which Epiphanes did change the religion of the Seleucid Empire, ironically the opposite of the change Augustus later made in Rome. Apollo had been the favored deity of earlier Seleucids, but Epiphanes downplayed him and was more fond of Zeus. But it still would be absurd to label Zeus a god "whom his fathers knew not" for any Greek people.
But if Epiphanes returns in the End Days his religion may be different, especially if he comes back after being resurrected and thinking Satan was responsible for it.
He did deify himself, technically the full name he used was Antíochos D' ho Epiphanḗs (Antiochus God Manifest, or Antiochus Zeus Manifest). I've noticed that while none of the known forms of Epiphanes/Epiphany I've found used in ancient Greek texts have a Greek gemetria value of 666, it isn't difficult to construct a form that does have that value, it seems 1 or 2 letters could make the difference.
Update August 2016: I just argued that the Eight King could be a Ptolemy.
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.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
The Four Empires are Assyira-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece-Macedon and Edom-Rome
I want to address a matter of Interpretation on
the four world Empires of Daniel 2 and 7. It is popular for skeptics of
The Bible (and also certain Preterists) to insist that the four empires were
originally meant by the author to be Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.
Rather then the traditional Futurist view of Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece and
Rome. This is absurd to me.
Daniel 5&6 (still part of the Aramaic Daniel) clearly defined Babylon as being succeeded by a dual Medio-Persian Empire "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Which is also what Daniel 8 depicts, The Prophecy is given while Babylon still rules and depicts The Ram coming next "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." And then after that is the He-Goat which is Greece.
Media alone was an important local kingdom for a century or so, but it never conquered Israel or Egypt or Babylon. Using Scripture to Interpret Scripture only Greece can be the Third empire.
The Symbolism also only makes sense that way, The Leopard has four heads which clearly represent the same thing the four horns represent in Daniel 8. Leopards are also animals known for their speed, the Speed with which Alexander conquered his Empire is part of Daniel 8:5's emphasis as well "and touched not the ground" is an idiom of speed. This Greece as the fourth kingdom interpretation tends to require viewing the ten horns of the fourth beast as a succession of Kings, that completely ignores the interpretation the Angel gives.
The strongest Argument any of them make is "The Little Horn". They insist the little horn can't represent different things in 7 and 8 and therefore the fourth Beast of chapter 7 must be the same as the He-Goat of Chapter 8.
Daniel 2-7 are Aramaic Daniel and are focused on the World, Daniel 1 and 8-12 are Hebrew Daniel and are focused on Israel. The Little Horn is the only specific symbol used in both. Both are ultimately in their far finale ultimate fulfillment about "The Antichrist". But Daniel 8 is about how he relates to Israel, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is a good prototype of The Antichrist.
But Daniel 7 is about how he relates to The World, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is not a good prototype, from a secular historical perspective he's very insignificant, pathetic even. He is thought of as the beginning of the end of the Hellenistic era's greatness. Hebrew Daniel also acknowledges elsewhere in Chapter 11 that Epiphanes while foreshadowing the Antichrist's key Sin is overall not a successful enough leader to be him. 11:36 says of The Antichrist "And the king shall do according to his will;". This "do according to his will" phrase is used earlier of both Alexander The Great in verse 3 and Antiochus III Megas in verse 16. But it's description of Epiphanes in verses 21-32 does not use this phrase. So this phrase helps refute any argument that verse 36 is still talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. As does the fact that this king is NOT the "King of The North" (Syria) but fights a war with him.
Daniel 7 is about The Antichrist's destiny to reunite the Roman Empire, and a near fulfillment for that could be Julius or Augustus Caesar who ended civil wars, or Vespasian-Titus who restored unity after the chaotic year of the Four Emperors, or Constantine who was reuniting Rome when he adopted Christianity, or Jusitnian who tried to reconquer the Western regions. Or latter attempts to create a sort of Revived Empire, like Charlemagne, the various Holy Roman Emperors, Napoleon (and maybe also Louise-Napoleon) or Mussolini.
But also in Daniel 7 the Little Horn arises among the ten, unlike in Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the four. I believe that at least one layer of symbolism behind The Little Horn is it being the Seleucid Dynasty, but I view this connection as genealogical not geographical.
The annoying thing is that these Atheists and Preterists don't even need to do this to argue Daniel's prophecies were all done by the Hasomnean Revolt (That argument falls apart for many other reasons). During the Maccabees period it was already pretty clear Rome was the fourth Beast. Rome was an Empire long before it ceased to be a Republic, just like America is. Rome in the second century B.C. was very comparable to America in the 20th century A.D. including being Israel's top ally as documented in the books of Maccabees and Josephus.
Polybius who died in 118 B.C. wrote a book called The Rise of The Roman Empire. His starting premise was to document how in only 53 years, from 220 B.C.(around when the Second Punic War began) to 167 B.C. when Rome defeated Macedon's king Perseus, Rome became the master of the known world. Fulfilling a quasi Prophecy by Demetrius of Phalerum that the Macedonian Empire will someday be conquered just as quickly as it rose. That period ends earlier in the same year as Epiphanes' Abomination of Desolation.
Antiochus Epiphanes had also been a hostage in Rome, after Rome defeated his father. And according to the Secular histories about him, early in his reign he was a very Romanized leader.
Daniel 5&6 (still part of the Aramaic Daniel) clearly defined Babylon as being succeeded by a dual Medio-Persian Empire "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Which is also what Daniel 8 depicts, The Prophecy is given while Babylon still rules and depicts The Ram coming next "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." And then after that is the He-Goat which is Greece.
Media alone was an important local kingdom for a century or so, but it never conquered Israel or Egypt or Babylon. Using Scripture to Interpret Scripture only Greece can be the Third empire.
The Symbolism also only makes sense that way, The Leopard has four heads which clearly represent the same thing the four horns represent in Daniel 8. Leopards are also animals known for their speed, the Speed with which Alexander conquered his Empire is part of Daniel 8:5's emphasis as well "and touched not the ground" is an idiom of speed. This Greece as the fourth kingdom interpretation tends to require viewing the ten horns of the fourth beast as a succession of Kings, that completely ignores the interpretation the Angel gives.
The strongest Argument any of them make is "The Little Horn". They insist the little horn can't represent different things in 7 and 8 and therefore the fourth Beast of chapter 7 must be the same as the He-Goat of Chapter 8.
Daniel 2-7 are Aramaic Daniel and are focused on the World, Daniel 1 and 8-12 are Hebrew Daniel and are focused on Israel. The Little Horn is the only specific symbol used in both. Both are ultimately in their far finale ultimate fulfillment about "The Antichrist". But Daniel 8 is about how he relates to Israel, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is a good prototype of The Antichrist.
But Daniel 7 is about how he relates to The World, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is not a good prototype, from a secular historical perspective he's very insignificant, pathetic even. He is thought of as the beginning of the end of the Hellenistic era's greatness. Hebrew Daniel also acknowledges elsewhere in Chapter 11 that Epiphanes while foreshadowing the Antichrist's key Sin is overall not a successful enough leader to be him. 11:36 says of The Antichrist "And the king shall do according to his will;". This "do according to his will" phrase is used earlier of both Alexander The Great in verse 3 and Antiochus III Megas in verse 16. But it's description of Epiphanes in verses 21-32 does not use this phrase. So this phrase helps refute any argument that verse 36 is still talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. As does the fact that this king is NOT the "King of The North" (Syria) but fights a war with him.
Daniel 7 is about The Antichrist's destiny to reunite the Roman Empire, and a near fulfillment for that could be Julius or Augustus Caesar who ended civil wars, or Vespasian-Titus who restored unity after the chaotic year of the Four Emperors, or Constantine who was reuniting Rome when he adopted Christianity, or Jusitnian who tried to reconquer the Western regions. Or latter attempts to create a sort of Revived Empire, like Charlemagne, the various Holy Roman Emperors, Napoleon (and maybe also Louise-Napoleon) or Mussolini.
But also in Daniel 7 the Little Horn arises among the ten, unlike in Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the four. I believe that at least one layer of symbolism behind The Little Horn is it being the Seleucid Dynasty, but I view this connection as genealogical not geographical.
The annoying thing is that these Atheists and Preterists don't even need to do this to argue Daniel's prophecies were all done by the Hasomnean Revolt (That argument falls apart for many other reasons). During the Maccabees period it was already pretty clear Rome was the fourth Beast. Rome was an Empire long before it ceased to be a Republic, just like America is. Rome in the second century B.C. was very comparable to America in the 20th century A.D. including being Israel's top ally as documented in the books of Maccabees and Josephus.
Polybius who died in 118 B.C. wrote a book called The Rise of The Roman Empire. His starting premise was to document how in only 53 years, from 220 B.C.(around when the Second Punic War began) to 167 B.C. when Rome defeated Macedon's king Perseus, Rome became the master of the known world. Fulfilling a quasi Prophecy by Demetrius of Phalerum that the Macedonian Empire will someday be conquered just as quickly as it rose. That period ends earlier in the same year as Epiphanes' Abomination of Desolation.
Antiochus Epiphanes had also been a hostage in Rome, after Rome defeated his father. And according to the Secular histories about him, early in his reign he was a very Romanized leader.
| He
would frequently put off his royal robes, and, assuming a white toga,
go round the market-place like a candidate, and, taking some by the hand
and embracing others, would beg them to give him their vote, sometimes
for the office of aedile and sometimes for that of tribune. Upon being
elected, he would sit upon the ivory curule chair, as the Roman custom
is, listening to the lawsuits tried there, and pronouncing judgement
with great pains and display of interest. In consequence all respectable
men were entirely puzzled about him, some looking upon him as a plain
simple man and others as a madman. His conduct too was very similar as
regards the presents he made. Polybius 5-7l |
Daniel 11's history of the Hellenistic Kingdoms also alludes to it's inevitable conquest by a fourth empire. First in verse 4 after describing the division of Alexander's empire among his successors it goes on to say the Kingdom "shall be plucked up, even for others beside those." That is the summery, more details follow.
Verse 18 alludes to Antiochus III's failed war with Rome. Verse 30 refers to when Antiochus IV Epiphanes was thwarted by Rome on Cyprus. After verse 32 alludes to the Hasmonean revolt, verse 33 says they will inevitably be conquered and taken captive by some other Empire. One could argue the Willful King in verses 36-45 is a Roman conqueror.
Update: As of June 2015 I no longer view the Willful King as The Antichrist but as Augustus Caesar.
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.
The Ten Horns and The European Union
So Chris White has been saying that he no longer buys the idea of the European Union as the Ten Nation confederacy of Daniel 7/Revelation 13/17 because the European Union has more then just Ten Nations now.
The thing is the E.U is more complicated then that. It overlaps with other European international organizations. It's Military wing is in fact inseparable from the WEU (Western European Union) which itself also has strong ties to NATO. The WEU has only Ten full member nations.
So I'm still convinced the Ten Horns/Toes probably refers to a European Confederacy. I also think however it may be possible the 11th Little Horn is the United States of America. But that's all speculative. If The Antichrist is at first an ally of Israel coming to their aid as Chris White thinks, America fits that the best.
That's one theory, I have another one I shall elaborate on.
The thing is the E.U is more complicated then that. It overlaps with other European international organizations. It's Military wing is in fact inseparable from the WEU (Western European Union) which itself also has strong ties to NATO. The WEU has only Ten full member nations.
That's one theory, I have another one I shall elaborate on.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Chris White's Jewish Messiah claimant theory
False Christ: Will The Antichrist claim to be the Jewish Messiah
I left a Review on Amazon of the Book. I like Chris White's style. I've actually changed my mind on some things since I left that review.
I cannot accept White's Mystery Babylon theory. Or much of how he views the second half of the 70th week since he's Pre-Wrath and I'm not.
How Chris White envisions the first half of the 70th Week I've come to think may be more or less exactly right. He talks in one of his Podcasts, I think it was this one.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/ntr-bpt-israelpalestinian-conflict-and-striving-toward-holiness/
And talks more about it here.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/bpt-isis-russia-and-iran-and-creation-questions/
About why he believes The Antichrist won't be trying to appeal to The World like we generally assume. Satan already has The World. It'll be us Bible Believing Judeo-Christians he's trying to trick. I'd already considered to some degree that he might use the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept.
But this ability to deceive true believers will end once The Abomination of Desolation happens. From then on it's purely by Force he enforces his Will.
I've become more open then I used to be to the idea of The Antichrist being American. After all Chris White's think he'll be an ally coming to Israel's aid, America is the only one they really have. And I think now if he's American he'll come from The Right, not the Left. Either claiming to be one of us Evangelical Pro-Israel Christians. Or one of those "Conservative" that the "Moral Majority" are so easily duped into supporting, meaning a Republican/Neo-Con. But I also wouldn't rule out him appearing to be exactly the same kind of Paleo-Conservative or Libertarian that I prefer to vote for. But he would obviously be betraying such Small Government, Free Market, Individual Liberty principles once he imposes the Mark.
I'm also reminded of how annoyed at I am at many Evangelicals to be wiling to get in Bed politically with The LDS Church. They all got behind Romney because they felt anything is better then Obama. Those of use trying to warn them that both parties are equally corrupt are constantly ignored.
Being Mid-Trib rather then Pre-Wrath does give me one big difference in how I view the first half of the 70th week. I believe The Church will face a Worldwide persecution before The Abomination of Desolation. The persecution after is of Jews which is why I can't accept the idea of them still following him as their Messiah during the second Half when their in hiding.
I've said I don't think the persecution The Church faces will necessarily be from The Antichrist. And in-light of other things we've discussed here, I'm thinking maybe he'll be the one political leader opposing the persecution.
Chris White's discussion of Messiah Ben-Joseph ignores one key aspect of it. That's he's also supposed to be of the "Lost Tribes" reuniting Judah and Joseph. But it's something he should consider since he does take over a Ten Kingdom confederacy, that's probably from The West.
Likewise his discussion of how the incorrect Psalm 83 theory of Bill Saulus could serve The Antichrist leaves how how many people teaching on that theory think a sort of "New Gideon" will be involved, since it alludes to the Gideon Narrative in that Psalm.
British-Israelism and French Israelism and other related theories try to claim that the Celtic, Germanic and Norse tribes of Northern and Western Europe are the Lost Tribes. And also that European Royalty has descent from King David. These ideas are often lumped in with Anti-Semies believing in some form of replacement theology and/or the Kazzar conspiracy theory, which Chris White does a good Job debunking on YouTube.
But Britam is a community of Orthodox Jews who accept such theories. And as think Think messiah Ben-Joseph will be a western Political Leader.
http://britam.org/Proof/Joseph/joCyrus.html
And while the reject the normal Tea-Telphi myth. They do have their own means of claiming David Descent for European Royalty.
http://www.britam.org/Tribesman/GeneaologyDavid.html
Even though the foundational passage of the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept is a verse from Zachariah 12 that we Christian know refers to Jesus and his Wounds from The Cross. There are some Christians who have accepted the Messiah Ben-Joseph idea.
http://messiahbenjoseph.com/
That website is only one example. Certain Rabbinic teaches about Messiah Ben-Joseph's body lying in the Streets of Jerusalem till he's Resurrected have been taken advantage of by Christians to see him in The Two Witnesses.
Which reminds me of why I'm so bothered by Perry Stone's decision to see Elijah/The Two Witness as political figure,s who's retake control of The Temple Mount from the Muslims. None of that is in Revelation 11.
This takes me to one more aspect of Chris White's theory I want to talk about. His view that The False Prophet/Second Beast is posing as Elijah.
That view could be correct entirely, it works fine with how I generally view things. But his claim that ONLY people trying to write in the Mahdi/Islamic Antichrist idea see The False Prophet as a posing as Jesus is a straw-man. I've seen online articles tying that into a Papal Antichrist viewpoint. And one saying he resembles 'The Gentle Jesus of Liberal Denominations", which is virtually the opposite.
I'll be a post latter on why I think he will be posing as Jesus Biblical. Here I'd like to say that if The Antichrist poses as Messiah Ben-Joseph, a fake Jesus could also play the Messiah Ben-David role. That's who is expected to resurrect Messiah Ben-Joseph.
A fake Elijah is needed if it's Jewish eschatology expectation he's mainly trying to deceive.
I think it's possible the two Lamb-Like horns of the Second beast are like the Horns of the first beast, separate individuals linked to him. And thus possibly two Proto-False Prophets posing as The Two Witnesses.
But also, I have that other post where I suggest it'll look like The Antichrist is performing the Signs and Wonders that The False Prophet is performing.
I've actually exchanged the emails with Yair Davidy of Britam. Because while I don't believe that Theory, they do have interesting information. In response to one Email I sent he said many Jews are willing to consider that Messiah Ben-Joseph and the returned Elijah are the same. Since Elijah is a Northern Kingdom figure, from The House of Joseph. That obviously overlaps well with the potential Two Witnesses confusion.
I left a Review on Amazon of the Book. I like Chris White's style. I've actually changed my mind on some things since I left that review.
I cannot accept White's Mystery Babylon theory. Or much of how he views the second half of the 70th week since he's Pre-Wrath and I'm not.
How Chris White envisions the first half of the 70th Week I've come to think may be more or less exactly right. He talks in one of his Podcasts, I think it was this one.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/ntr-bpt-israelpalestinian-conflict-and-striving-toward-holiness/
And talks more about it here.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/bpt-isis-russia-and-iran-and-creation-questions/
About why he believes The Antichrist won't be trying to appeal to The World like we generally assume. Satan already has The World. It'll be us Bible Believing Judeo-Christians he's trying to trick. I'd already considered to some degree that he might use the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept.
But this ability to deceive true believers will end once The Abomination of Desolation happens. From then on it's purely by Force he enforces his Will.
I've become more open then I used to be to the idea of The Antichrist being American. After all Chris White's think he'll be an ally coming to Israel's aid, America is the only one they really have. And I think now if he's American he'll come from The Right, not the Left. Either claiming to be one of us Evangelical Pro-Israel Christians. Or one of those "Conservative" that the "Moral Majority" are so easily duped into supporting, meaning a Republican/Neo-Con. But I also wouldn't rule out him appearing to be exactly the same kind of Paleo-Conservative or Libertarian that I prefer to vote for. But he would obviously be betraying such Small Government, Free Market, Individual Liberty principles once he imposes the Mark.
I'm also reminded of how annoyed at I am at many Evangelicals to be wiling to get in Bed politically with The LDS Church. They all got behind Romney because they felt anything is better then Obama. Those of use trying to warn them that both parties are equally corrupt are constantly ignored.
Being Mid-Trib rather then Pre-Wrath does give me one big difference in how I view the first half of the 70th week. I believe The Church will face a Worldwide persecution before The Abomination of Desolation. The persecution after is of Jews which is why I can't accept the idea of them still following him as their Messiah during the second Half when their in hiding.
I've said I don't think the persecution The Church faces will necessarily be from The Antichrist. And in-light of other things we've discussed here, I'm thinking maybe he'll be the one political leader opposing the persecution.
Chris White's discussion of Messiah Ben-Joseph ignores one key aspect of it. That's he's also supposed to be of the "Lost Tribes" reuniting Judah and Joseph. But it's something he should consider since he does take over a Ten Kingdom confederacy, that's probably from The West.
Likewise his discussion of how the incorrect Psalm 83 theory of Bill Saulus could serve The Antichrist leaves how how many people teaching on that theory think a sort of "New Gideon" will be involved, since it alludes to the Gideon Narrative in that Psalm.
British-Israelism and French Israelism and other related theories try to claim that the Celtic, Germanic and Norse tribes of Northern and Western Europe are the Lost Tribes. And also that European Royalty has descent from King David. These ideas are often lumped in with Anti-Semies believing in some form of replacement theology and/or the Kazzar conspiracy theory, which Chris White does a good Job debunking on YouTube.
But Britam is a community of Orthodox Jews who accept such theories. And as think Think messiah Ben-Joseph will be a western Political Leader.
http://britam.org/Proof/Joseph/joCyrus.html
And while the reject the normal Tea-Telphi myth. They do have their own means of claiming David Descent for European Royalty.
http://www.britam.org/Tribesman/GeneaologyDavid.html
Even though the foundational passage of the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept is a verse from Zachariah 12 that we Christian know refers to Jesus and his Wounds from The Cross. There are some Christians who have accepted the Messiah Ben-Joseph idea.
http://messiahbenjoseph.com/
That website is only one example. Certain Rabbinic teaches about Messiah Ben-Joseph's body lying in the Streets of Jerusalem till he's Resurrected have been taken advantage of by Christians to see him in The Two Witnesses.
Which reminds me of why I'm so bothered by Perry Stone's decision to see Elijah/The Two Witness as political figure,s who's retake control of The Temple Mount from the Muslims. None of that is in Revelation 11.
This takes me to one more aspect of Chris White's theory I want to talk about. His view that The False Prophet/Second Beast is posing as Elijah.
That view could be correct entirely, it works fine with how I generally view things. But his claim that ONLY people trying to write in the Mahdi/Islamic Antichrist idea see The False Prophet as a posing as Jesus is a straw-man. I've seen online articles tying that into a Papal Antichrist viewpoint. And one saying he resembles 'The Gentle Jesus of Liberal Denominations", which is virtually the opposite.
I'll be a post latter on why I think he will be posing as Jesus Biblical. Here I'd like to say that if The Antichrist poses as Messiah Ben-Joseph, a fake Jesus could also play the Messiah Ben-David role. That's who is expected to resurrect Messiah Ben-Joseph.
A fake Elijah is needed if it's Jewish eschatology expectation he's mainly trying to deceive.
I think it's possible the two Lamb-Like horns of the Second beast are like the Horns of the first beast, separate individuals linked to him. And thus possibly two Proto-False Prophets posing as The Two Witnesses.
But also, I have that other post where I suggest it'll look like The Antichrist is performing the Signs and Wonders that The False Prophet is performing.
I've actually exchanged the emails with Yair Davidy of Britam. Because while I don't believe that Theory, they do have interesting information. In response to one Email I sent he said many Jews are willing to consider that Messiah Ben-Joseph and the returned Elijah are the same. Since Elijah is a Northern Kingdom figure, from The House of Joseph. That obviously overlaps well with the potential Two Witnesses confusion.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
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:
Posts (Atom)