ClubV12 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Check your history books. Tiberus was never honored by the people, he was not at all popular. He took control of the throne through deciet, divorce, remarriage, "peacably", not by force. Of course he was called Ceaser, the title comes with who ever occupies that position. He ruled until AD 37. We also know this was the King of that time because verse 22 is anchored with the death of Jesus, AD 31, the "prince of the covenant". ...but I've already gone over this, you just refuse to see it. Verse 23, He shall act deceitfully, come to power and become strong with a small number of people. Couldn't be Tiberius, his rule ended in 37 AD. So who is the new power? The "Pope" has never had his own army, then or now. He came to power with deceit, a forged document. On the AoD what you miss is when it started. The AoD, the Papacy, has been responsible for a LOT of trouble for centuries! That trouble will continue and increase at the time of the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Check your history books. Tiberus was never honored by the people, he was not at all popular. He took control of the throne through deciet, divorce, remarriage, "peacably", not by force. Of course he was called Ceaser, the title comes with who ever occupies that position. He ruled until AD 37. We also know this was the King of that time because verse 22 is anchored with the death of Jesus, AD 31, the "prince of the covenant". ... Check your Bible. The word translated "honour" is the Hebrew noun "howd" meaning splendour or majesty. Majesty comes with the position of king; kingship is not granted by the people. Tiberius simply cannot fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 ... On the AoD what you miss is when it started. The AoD, the Papacy, has been responsible for a LOT of trouble for centuries! That trouble will continue and increase at the time of the end. What you entirely missed though is what Scriptures say when it is set up. Christ had emphatically said that when the AoD is set up, the great tribulation will start. You believe the great tribulation is yet future but strangely you believe the event that will trigger its fulfillment is already past. And don't ignore the Hebrew "shiqquts" which refers to graven images or idols representing pagan deity, and from which the word "abomination' in Daniel was translated. Is Papacy an idol, a graven image? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm still waiting for your answer on who YOU think the King in verse 21 is. Care to take a guess?? The "people" did not "elect" Tiberius, he got the position from being politically smart and the people didn't like him one bit for the way he came to power. I believe the "time of trouble" at the "time of the end" is yet future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm still waiting for your answer on who YOU think the King in verse 21 is. Care to take a guess?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 The problem with your theory is that the King in verse 21 is NOT the power that continues to the time of the end. THAT power does not come into play until verse 23. I've shown that from the bible, you just don't see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 The problem with your theory is that the King in verse 21 is NOT the power that continues to the time of the end. THAT power does not come into play until verse 23. I've shown that from the bible, you just don't see it. I am more than willing to see if it is really there. You can try again. What verse in vv21-45 led you to conclude that the king in v21 does not continue up to v45? Show what verse or verses. I will wait, as I had waited before. Prove your position is a "Thus saith the Lord", brother. If it is, then I will humbly accept I had the wrong view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysimachus Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Samie, he proved it pretty well. Are you in denial brother? You keep asking him to prove what he has already proven. Why make him repeat? Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Samie, he proved it pretty well. Are you in denial brother? You keep asking him to prove what he has already proven. Why make him repeat? So you want to take over, Lysimachus? Well, then, you may. But please, no place for any ad hominem this time around. So where in vv21-45 did ClubV12 base his conclusion that the king referred to in v21 is not one and the same king referred to until v45? What verse, please? You are claiming he had proven it, so what verse did he give as basis, in what post#? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayfinder Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Originally Posted By: Lysimachus Samie, he proved it pretty well. Are you in denial brother? You keep asking him to prove what he has already proven. Why make him repeat? So you want to take over, Lysimachus? Well, then, you may. But please, no place for any ad hominem this time around. So where in vv21-45 did ClubV12 base his conclusion that the king referred to in v21 is not one and the same king referred to until v45? What verse, please? You are claiming he had proven it, so what verse did he give as basis, in what post#? Samie, For some on this forum, faith and supposition carries more weight then facts and truth. Faith in the "firm foundation" of the SDA organization and their offical prophetess. Faith, "firm foundation" and supposition is the trump card played when there are no facts to support their convictions, or the facts get in the way of their convictions. To try to have an intelligent and unbiased discussion with them is futile. When you back them in a corner they resort to personal attacks on your character. Another tactic is to state that they have provided texts in evidence when they have not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Samie, For some on this forum, faith and supposition carries more weight then facts and truth. Faith in the "firm foundation" of the SDA organization and their offical prophetess. Faith, "firm foundation" and supposition is the trump card played when there are no facts to support their convictions, or the facts get in the way of their convictions. To try to have an intelligent and unbiased discussion with them is futile. When you back them in a corner they resort to personal attacks on your character. Another tactic is to state that they have provided texts in evidence when they have not. Hi wayfinder; I'm saddened by your observation, although I have to admit it really rears up its ugly head at times. But of course, the Holy Spirit has His own unique way of converting souls to the side of truth, even those whom we sometimes consider to be incorrigible. We can only do our part of sharing the truth, and let the Spirit of God do the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Since it seems it is beyond dispute that the king of v21 is one and the same king up to v45, it is apparent that the events described in vv21-45 must necessarily find fulfillment within the lifespan of a man. And since the time frame of fulfillment of these events comes up till the 2nd Coming as evidenced by the first two verses of Dan 12, the setting up of the AoD mentioned in v31 undoubtedly is what was referred to by the words of the Savior Himself when He referred to Daniel regarding the setting up of the AoD triggering a rapid succession of events that will culminate in the 2nd Coming (see Matt 24:15-31; Mk 13:14-27). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysimachus Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Since it seems it is beyond dispute that the king of v21 is one and the same king up to v45, it is apparent that the events described in vv21-45 must necessarily find fulfillment within the lifespan of a man. And since the time frame of fulfillment of these events comes up till the 2nd Coming as evidenced by the first two verses of Dan 12, the setting up of the AoD mentioned in v31 undoubtedly is what was referred to by the words of the Savior Himself when He referred to Daniel regarding the setting up of the AoD triggering a rapid succession of events that will culminate in the 2nd Coming (see Matt 24:15-31; Mk 13:14-27). No Samie, it is not one and the same king. There were several "despicable" men that rose up from the SAME empire. It is a succession of authority of different men. We are not impressed with your Futuristic, Jesuit interpretation of Daniel 11. You are just making up that the king in verse 21 must be the same one up to verse 45. You have no exegetical reason to do this Samie. None whatsoever. The despicable person of verse 21 is more likely to be Julias Caesar. Here is some strong exegesis by Professor Roy Gane: The Un-Manifestation of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 11:1-22 While I realize Professor Gane is refuting the Preterist interpretation, and you place these events in the future, Roy Gane's exegesis also indirectly refutes your arguments. We disagree with your interpretation. You are just pulling reasons out of thin air, but it does not stand the full test of investigation. Also, quit comparing the Abomination of Desolation to this, because, as we have already pointed out before, there are at least a total of 4 Abominations of Desolations that transpire throughout Human History, and I have showed you this a number of times before, and you ignored every bit of it in previous threads. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysimachus Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Here is an article I wrote proving that the expression "he" does not refer to a single Antichrist man exclusively in the future: http://www.scribd.com/propheticlandmarks...-Man#fullscreen Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 No Samie, it is not one and the same king. There were several "despicable" men that rose up from the SAME empire. It is a succession of authority of different men. We are not impressed with your Futuristic, Jesuit interpretation of Daniel 11. You are just making up that the king in verse 21 must be the same one up to verse 45. You have no exegetical reason to do this Samie. None whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Small point of clairification: "Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus", full name, verse 21. Ceaser Agustus can be misleading as there were a couple of guys that name could apply to. Which is why I like "Tiberius". One of the biggest stumbling blocks folks have with the daily and the abomination is that it has been, almost, continual since it started. It will remain in place until Jesus comes. The Papacy set themselves up in 508 and received full power in 538. THIS is the abomination, THEY took away the ministration of Christ and replaced it with Priests to forgive sin. This power, the Pope power was effectively cancelled in 1798 (1260 and 1290 years). But the abomination is once again in force as the wound is healing. As long as they, a man, a church, continue to say they have the power to forgive sin, the abomination will continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Gail Posted February 21, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted February 21, 2012 Here is some strong exegesis by Professor Roy Gane: Oooo- I like Roy Gane!! :) Quote Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysimachus Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Originally Posted By: Lysimachus Here is some strong exegesis by Professor Roy Gane: Oooo- I like Roy Gane!! You bet! And guess what? He agrees with Tim Roosenberg, that the King of the South is Islam. In fact, that link to Roy Gane's paper is right off of Tim Roosenberg's website. Tim emailed me and gave me more details, telling me how Roy Gane was in agreement concerning these positions. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysimachus Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Also, Tim Roosenberg's new website is: www.IslamAndChristianity.org The old one is IslamVsChristianity.org -- it's still running, but no use in using that website unless there is some data they haven't transferred over yet. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Gail Posted February 21, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted February 21, 2012 It's just getting better!! Quote Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysimachus Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 If it wasn't for the Adventist understandings of Bible Prophecy, I would consider Bible prophecy to be very boring. After all, it's all in the future! So the past is always left "unchecked"---nothing of this kind impresses the unbeliever. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Small point of clairification:"Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus", full name, verse 21. Ceaser Agustus can be misleading as there were a couple of guys that name could apply to. Which is why I like "Tiberius". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Originally Posted By: Gail Oooo- I like Roy Gane!! You bet! And guess what? He agrees with Tim Roosenberg, that the King of the South is Islam. In fact, that link to Roy Gane's paper is right off of Tim Roosenberg's website. Tim emailed me and gave me more details, telling me how Roy Gane was in agreement concerning these positions. It is not a matter of what a million or more persons believe in, but rather WHAT the Bible says. So, did Tim and Roy specify what verse from vv21-45 tells any reader of those verses the king of v21 did not continue up till v45? If so, what verse? What is really strange is up to now that specific verse cannot be provided. Which explains why I had earlier posted the fact that 'the king of v21 continued up till v45' is beyond dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClubV12 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Actually I don't have a problem with who ever you might want to interpret as the King in verse 21, I think it was Tiberius. The POINT IS that is NOT the King that continues on past verse 23. Samie, you have yet to propose a candidate for verse 21, so that speaks for itself. It is a REAL "Ceaser", not an organization, not a group, not a nation (like the Vatican). Just as Alexander the Great earlier in Daniel 11 was a real person, a single individual. I PERSONALLY feel Tiberius fits well in this verse, I accept the idea that others think it was some other SINGLE REAL INDIVIDUAL. But it certainly was NOT the Roman power yet to come that we see in verses 40 to 45, which are yet to be fulfilled. Daniel has moved "time forward" by hundreds if not thousands of years between verse 21 and verse 45. Try to keep up.... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samie Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Actually I don't have a problem with who ever you might want to interpret as the King in verse 21, I think it was Tiberius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.