- Topic
In another thread, fromtheotherside, speaking of the materials presented againt the wmscog, said "none of your evidences speak for itself. if you have such evidence present it without your explanation."
I presented several 'evidences without explanation' there, but I think it would be a good idea to take each one separately into its own thread. Here's the first one:
Regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church being the Antichrist: the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538, the '10 kingdoms' from the Roman empire were not as the WMSCOG presents, 5 were destroyed not 3, and the destruction or survival of these 'kingdoms' did not depend on their following the Catholic Church. These are historical, textbook facts.
I originally did not link to my research about it, because fromtheotherside did not want explanation, but if you'd like to see the research, I've collected it here:
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-3.html
fromtheotherside tried to answer this point but so far was unsuccessful. I'll copy those pieces of the conversation here from the other thread, just to keep everything together.
fromtheotherside wrote:
He wasn't a "rogue" at the time he was a legit Biship authorized by the Church. The Vatican could have realized the wrong and meant to cover up the whole thing.
That's right. Speculate.
So can we get back on track? Remember Dan 7? Remember the 10 kingdoms?
Yea I am speculating that's why I said "could have" and also when I brought up the whole thing I put it in the form of a question, not a statement.. Then how about the whole inquisition thing is that all wrong about the catholic's torturing people and killing people?
The thread is about the interpretation of those 3 scriptures. I have shown how the interpretation falls flat for Dan 7. Genny has shown how the 10 kingdoms part is all wrong. Do you accept the fallacy of the interpretation?
@Genny – It is remarkable that you should have bumped up this thread today. In the Catholic church at M a s s these days, the first reading is from the book of Maccabees, which is included in Catholic bibles but not in the Protestant ones. The book presents a lot of history during the second centruy BC, the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. A reading of that history indicates that the prophecy of Daniel refered to this king. Many scholars have concluded this to be the case.The account of the reign of this evil king is remarkably similar to what Daniel has prophesied. Here are a couple of links I found that might help to understand.
Something I read elsewhere:
Just some reading on Daniel:
The book of Daniel never identifies him as a prophet. He was given visions of events that took place about 300 years after he died. Those visions were sealed to be unveiled after the events they describe had come to pass. Therefore, that they have been unveiled suggests that they come to pass. The words and writings of Yeshayahu were available in his own time to the elites and the general population. Also noticeably absent is the phrase "the word of YHVH came unto blank son of blank." This phrase identifies every prophet in the Neviim.
Chapter 1 of Daniel tells us that he was a man young in the last years of the Kingdom of Yehudah, that he was taken to Babylon (that is, he was from a prominent family), that he and three other Yehudim advised Nebuchadnezzar. It concludes that he lived until the first year of the reign of Cyrus the Mede. All of these four young men were blessed with visions and skills of dream interpretation. If he was a youth when Yehudah was destroyed circa 587 BCE, but old enough to have wisdom and expertise, we can assume he was no younger than 10 and probably no older than 20 at the time. Probably a young teen. Is he lived to the first year of Cyrus the Mede, 559 BCE, that would make him between 38 and 48 approximately at that time. Either way, if this was the end of his life then he had a good and healthy life in that time.
Chapters 2-7 are written in Aramaic. Here Nebuchadnezzar speaks in the first person. The writing and style date to the period during the geopolitical struggles between the Ptolemy (Egypt) and Seleucid (Syria) perhaps right up to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanies. These chapters are disjoined and out of historical context. In Chapter 4 Nebuchadnezzar speaks in the first person (a letter from Hitler to the Jews the stuff of canon? You decide). In Chapter 5 Daniel speaks of Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar then in chapter 6 the book begins with Darius. No reference at all to Cyrus or his successors. Darius began his reign in 522 some 37 years after Cyrus' reign began which puts Daniel approximately between the ages of 75 and 85. Now Darius appoints him among the administrators of the kingdom? Eventually, he purportedly becomes the vizier over all of Persia. This is unlikely. There is then a rather silly story about his being placed in a lions den. The end of the chapter says he had prospered in the reigns of Darius and Cyrus. Cyrus ruled nearly 40 years BEFORE Darius. Thus we have a rare historical inaccuracy. In Chapter 7 the Daniel records a vision, during the reign of Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar.
In Chapter 7 Daniel has a vision that a little horn (Alexander) arises and plucks out other horns. He had thousands of ministers and hundreds of thousands went before him. Fire and destruction also went before him. The chapter goes on to describe the rise of the Seleucids and of Antiochus IV Epiphanies. Note in verse 18 we see that despite all of this the holy people will ultimately prevail rule purportedly forever (for a great time) a reference to the Maccabees.
Chapter 8 returns to Hebrew but it is the Hebrew of a style traced to the Maccabean Era. Again the story of Alexander's conquest of Persia is told. The ram with two great horns (the Medes and the Persians) is broken by a fast moving Ram (Alexander). Four horns arise from there, the four kingdoms that succeed Alexander. Again the little horn waxes great (Antiochus). In verses 20 and 21 a man named Gavriel explains that this refers to the Persians and the Greek. By chapter 9 Daniel is living in the time of Darius, the son of Ahazerus (Darius II?). Darius II reigned from 423 BCE, at which point Daniel would be between 162-172 years old. Unless we are mistaken about which Darius. This could refer to Darius I which is more plausible. On face value it is not, no man can live so long. If he had he would have been a legend with a whole religion built around him.
Chapter 9 covers the wickedness of the Yehudim and why they need to be punished. On a side note verse 15 features prominently in a Karaite Shabbat prayer of apology to Hashem for our misdeeds. Chapter 10 is back in the reign of Cyrus of Persia. Again the prince of Greece is the subject (Alexander). Chapter 11 is back in the time if Darius, saying that the fourth king from Darius will wax great and make war on the Greek (Xerxes). Then the kingdom will be destroyed and broken into four (Alexander and his successors). Chapter 11 goes on with the struggles between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies (north and south). It concludes by talking about Antiochus' exploits including the desecration of the Temple (holy mountain).
Chapter 12 brings Micha'el (who is like El [the divine]) a title more likely than a name. This Micha'el features in earlier chapters as well. Chapter 12 contains a lot of hyperbole and metaphor about the sleeping rising and the righteous shining and such. Verse 4 requires the vision to be sealed until the after the events have taken place less people should be in panic in Daniel's own time. The time ascribed in a time, time and a half. The word Moed used there means a date or a period so these are specific periods of time. Indeed, the Maccabee Revolt took place circa 167 BCE, about 350 years after the first year of the reign of Darius.
Finally, in verse 11 the coup d'grace, a firm period of time. It states clearly that from the day that the offerings cease until the day this ends shall be 1290 days. Verse 12 states that those who wait until the 1335 days will be happy (the offerings resumed). The Maccabee Revolt ran almost four years approximately 1300 days. For comparison it has been over 700,000 days since the Temple of Herod (the third or fourth incarnation of the Temple of Jerusalem) was destroyed. Some have argued that these are supposed to be years, but then nothing of consequence happened in the Ninth Century CE.
As a side note, the First Book of Maccabees reads very much like the end of Daniel and has a lot of great info. thanks to the Catholic Church, a translation is readily available:
http://www.catholic.org/bible/<wbr>book.php?id=20</wbr>
When you read it you will undoubtedly, as I did, immediately think of the Book of Daniel. They use a lot of the same language, even when reading them in translation.
The nature of these writings leads to one of two conclusions. If the narrative of Daniel is correct then his visions were recorded and sealed. Then opened after the Maccabee Revolt and for some reason were transcribed into the Hebrew of that time with overtones of Greek learning and scholarship. A second conclusions is that the scribes of the Maccabean Era wrote these visions (having lost track of sound histories and chronologies of Persian history) and ascribed them to Daniel a famous man who had lived late in the time of inspiration. By the time of the Maccabees the canon had been closed and the age of inspiration was known to be at an end. If they did they certainly did not intend this as a fraud. When Alexander came to Judea the priests presented him with a vision that he was to conquer Persia. He saluted the Jews and allowed Jews to live by the law unfettered. This forgery was thus an act of self-preservation, a clever attempt to entice Alexander to a pro-Jewish position. His mother was a famous Dionysian and he believed in signs and wonders. He must have been impressed by "Daniel's vision."
Either way, Daniel is not a prophet and the book does not meet the standard for making the canon. Efforts were made by both Jews and Christians to keep the book out of the canon. By the Roman Era many had forgotten the meaning of these visions (those ignorant of history) and had begun to ascribe them to some future time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.