Go do your homework. When Alexander suddenly died without an heir, his generals divided the empire into four primary kingdoms (the "four heads"). Ptolemy took Egypt and nearby lands. Seleucus received Syria, Asia Minor and the conquered eastern nations. Lysimachus ruled Thrace and surrounding territories, and lastly, Cassander controlled Macedonia and Greece. Thrace was later absorbed by the Seleucid Empire, and Macedonia's power was checked by the rising power of Rome and the beginning of the end of Greece's empire. Thus, both prophecies in Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same divided empire, the former showing political and military dominance, as well as prophetic relevance to the Holy Land, and the latter the initial governmental situation after Alexander's death. The belly, a single body part, represents a monolithic government, and the thighs, two body parts, represent the final division of Greece's power before the Roman empire just like the Western and Eastern Roman empire and the rising of the little horn. The Greek Empire, built upon the remains of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great, began with a single leader. But after Alexander's death in 323 BC , his generals carved out kingdoms of their own. From the resultant wars among them, only two remaining major powers emerged: Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs).
The destruction of Antiochus III and capture of Jerusalem by Pompey is the point of the crushing of Greece by the Roman Pompey with respect to Daniel. It was at a later date, apart from the destruction of Jerusalem, that Cleopatra of Egypt and her lover, Mark Antony met their fates, and had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, the concern with respect to the judgment of the Jews. As for the "four" heads of the Greek empire (Daniel 7:6), that is not two heads, or two legs, but four kings. And there were not two Roman legs at the time of Constantine's Roman church, for he had already reunited Eastern and Western Rome at that time. It was only the Seleucid dynasty, one of four dynasties (Daniel 7:6), not two, which destroyed Jerusalem and worshipped their gods with the sacrifice of swine in the Temple, not Egypt. Daniel is about the judgments of the Jews by specific kingdoms, and the final disposition of those kingdoms, not about who is emperor of China or the level of the Nile.
1. The little horn comes out of the 4th beast of (Daniel 7:7-8)
2. The little horn is different from the other horns being more stout and having eyes and a mouth speaking great things (Daniel 7:20; 24)
3. The little horn makes war with the saints (Daniel 7:21)
4. The little horn comes up after the other horns (kings) three kings are uprooted on its rise to power. (Daniel 7:24)
5. The little horn speaks great things against the most high God (religious power) (Daniel 7:25)
6. The little horn speaking great thinks against God thinks to change times and law (Daniel 7:25)
7. The little horn wars and wears out the saints of the most high God (Daniel 7:21-25)
So as can be shown from the scriptures above the little horn is comes up after the other kings and is different from all the kings before it and not the same as the other kings having eyes and a mouth and religious characteristics speaking great things against God, thinking to change times and laws and wearing out the Saints of the most high God. Now you tell me where it says in scripture that the little horn does not have any religious characteristics and is only a civil power? It doesn't and there is no scripture to support your claim.
The "little horn" of Daniel 7:7-8, came out of the 4th head who had crushed the other kingdoms, which was the Republic of Rome, and the "little horn" was Caesar, for he was 5'4" tall, and accordingly he was "slain" (Dan 7:11) by the Roman Senate, and "destroyed and given to the fire" as in him being cremated. "His mortal wound was healed" (Rev 13:3) as the 6th head of the beast, the Augustus Caesars. As the 5th head of the beast, he replaced the power system of the 3 leader Roman Republican system, the Triumvirate. He was followed by the 10 horns, the Augustus Caesars between the destruction of Rome by Pompey and Tirus, and afterwards, "another" (king) will arise after the 10 horns, which would be Constantine the Great, who reunited the Western and Eastern empires, and created the dogmas of the Roman church at his convened Council of Nicaea. It was Constantine who endeavored to change the "time and the laws" in 321 A.D. by changing the day of rest from the 7th day to the Sunday, the day of his sun god, Sol Invictus. He is the "beast with two horns like a lamb" who was to "deceive" "those who dwell on the earth". (Rev 13:11-14) I don't know, but it appears he did a crack up job.
The scriptures do say that.
I have no argument with what scripture says.
The problem I have is with you saying what the scriptures don't say.
Why do you want people to accept what you say, when the scriptures don't say it?
That's a serious question 3rd angel.
Why do you insist that people accept what you say as scripture, when you cannot pull one scripture that supports what you say?
Can you please answer that? It's important. Please...
So as can be shown from the scriptures above the little horn is comes up after the other kings and is different from all the kings before it and not the same as the other kings having eyes and a mouth and religious characteristics speaking great things against God, thinking to change times and laws and wearing out the Saints of the most high God.
Please answer the following... honestly.
Daniel 7:24 ...After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings.
Is the little horn a king... according to scripture? Yes or No?
Does being different mean being religious? Yes or No?
Does the scriptures say the little horn is religious? Yes or No?
Civil. That's not spmething I said. You're not making strawman now, are you?
I can show you where in scripture, every horn explained by an angel belonging to a beast, is a king, or kingdom.
Let me start from the last, and go to the first.
(Revelation 17:12) The ten horns that you saw mean ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings for one hour with the wild beast.
(Daniel 7:24) As for the ten horns, ten kings will rise up out of that kingdom; and still another one will rise up after them, and he will be different from the first ones, and he will humiliate three kings.
This needs no reasoning. The angel was clear that he is talking about kings. He doesn't change his tune and say, "By the way, this other one that rises up won't be a king, but a Pope."
You are the one with that explanation... asking that everyone accept your explanation rather than the angel's.
...As if you are an angel. ...You might call yourself that, but we both know you are not.
(Daniel 8:2-4) .2 I saw the vision, and as I watched I was in Shuʹshan the citadel, which is in the province of Eʹlam; I viewed the vision, and I was next to the watercourse of Uʹlai. 3 As I raised my eyes, look! there was a ram standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns. The two horns were tall, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up later.4 I saw the ram making thrusts to the west and to the north and to the south, and no wild beasts could stand before it, and there was no one who could provide rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and exalted itself.
(Daniel 8:20-22) 20 “The two-horned ram that you saw stands for the kings of Meʹdi·a and Persia.21The hairy male goat stands for the king of Greece; and the great horn that was between its eyes stands for the first king. 22As for the horn that was broken, so that four stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power.
I can also show you that beasts, as explained by angels, in scripture, represents kingdoms.
However, I'll leave that for if you challenge that fact.
However, I would like to offer this loving suggestions.
Please sit down. Say a humble pray to Jehovah - the true God, and carefully... carefully, as if for the first time - without and priori supposition - read Daniel 7:17-28
You should notice this, from the mouth of the angel, who is continuing from verses 13, and 14 which is in harmony with Daniel 2:44.
The angel say this...
These huge beasts, four in number, are four kings who will stand up from the earth.
But the holy ones of the Supreme One will receive the kingdom, and they will possess the kingdom forever, yes, forever and ever.’ Daniel wondered about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others NOTE - The fourth beast is different from all the others. That doesn't make it religious does it? No. The angel says to Daniel... ‘As for the fourth beast, there is a fourth kingdom that will come to be on the earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour all the earth and will trample it down and crush it.' It is different from all the rest, but it is a kingdom - Rome. What makes it different? Religion? No.
As for the ten horns, ten kings will rise up out of that kingdom; and still another one will rise up after them, and he will be different from the first ones, and he will humiliate three kings.
The Court sat, and they took away [the little horn's] rulership, in order to annihilate [the little horn] and to destroy [the little horn] completely. “‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’ “This is the end of the matter..."
Plenty scripture clearly and definitively show that beast and horns represents kings and kingdoms.
To change that, is to introduce human doctrine, which is flawed.
As shown from the scriptures above in Daniel 7:20-25 above the little Horn speaks great things against God, seeks to change times and laws and also makes war with Gods saints.
You've trying to put me in your shoes, but they don't fit. They are much too small.
Unlike what you have been doing, I offered the scriptural support for the horns being political - kings.
Meanwhile as posted above you have been shown scripture where the little Horn is different from all the other horns. Its not the same and has religious characteristics in that it speaks great things against God, seeks to change times and laws and also persecutes Gods people (Danial 7:1-25).
Your not listening. I have made no claim to what you are saying here. Your best to read what is being said to you. I thought I made that clear in the whole post you are responding to here. It is you not being consistent because you are misrepresenting what is being shared with you which is why I responded to you again in the last post to you. It seems you still are trying to say things I am not saying again here.
Once again the ten horns are ten kings that are to arise out of the Roman empire. I have never said to you anywhere that these 10 kings must be Roman powers.
Exactly what I said... which is exactly my point.
Because you have not said that, you are being inconsistent, by saying that the little horn must be a Roman power, because it comes from the beast - Rome.
No. It is fact supported by both scripture and history. The Western and Eastern split of the Roman Empire fits the two legs of iron description of Daniel 2:31-40.
Go google the historical works of the historians I quoted they are very well known and respected. I agree though that factual history can be like a lucky dip however and many have tried to re-write it based on bias, religion and politics.
It's an opinion, by a few historians.
I wanted to know why you favor certain historians opinions.
Do you consider it a fact, that Moses never existed, because historians say so?
Asking questions has never been the problems it is making statements unsupported by and facts that is the problem.
Once again perhaps you should listen. I said to you that the 10 kings come out of the Roman empire. I never said they were all Roman. The little Horn is Roman.
No see above. This has already been explained to you more than once now.
Yes you are indeed a funny one. Then we have scripture that is Gods Words that disagree with your words that are not Gods Word....
Daniel 7:8 (KJV) 8, I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Note the scripture says nothing about the little horn doing the plucking up? You are indeed the funny one.
This is a repeat of what you said, and misrepresents what I actually said.
You seem to be getting mixed up. I am not saying what you claim I am saying, so while you think I am misrepresenting your words, because you can't seem to understand what I repeatedly put in as simple words as possible, you are misrepresenting what I am actually saying.
One more time.
I am not saying that you said the ten horns are Roman powers.
To the contrary, I'm saying you are saying the ten horns are not Roman powers, but Germanic tribes.
I'm saying that you are making the claim that the little horn came out of Rome, therefore the little horn must be Roman.
I'm saying it is inconsistent for you to claim that the little horn must be a Roman power because it came out of Rome, and not with the same breath, say that the ten horns must be Roman powers because they came out of Rome.
Actually yes it is. I thought it was explained well in the post you are quoting from. Greece in Daniel two is represented as the bronze part of the torso and then moves to the two thighs at the end of its reign and time. For me it fits really well. The belly, a single body part, represents a monolithic government, and the thighs, two body parts, represent the final division of Greece's power before the Roman empire just like the Western and Eastern Roman empire and the rising of the little horn. The Greek Empire, built upon the remains of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great, began with a single leader. But after Alexander's death in 323 BC , his generals carved out kingdoms of their own. From the resultant wars among them, only two remaining major powers emerged: Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs). For me that is a good fit but that is academic as we both believe that the third empire here is already Greece right?
This is an interesting explanation.
interesting as it is, I prefer the angel be the one to explain that the parts of this image as like the horns.
I think that's wise, since doing otherwise, can lead to all kinds of speculations... which we see, is already happening.
For example, using your kind of reasoning, one might say that the feet of iron and clay are two, so the 7th world power must be dual, for that reason, and it has ten toes, so it must have ten divisions, etc.
I do believe the seventh world power - the little horn - is a dual world power, but not for that reason... although that's interesting.
Do you think the papacy is dual, or divided into two powers?
I thought you were stating that the three destroyed Germanic tribes stayed as Roman conquers. If that was true they could not have been plucked up or destroyed.
I am simply asking you to explain how they conquered Rome, and yet are kings of the fourth beast - the Roman Empire?
Can you? They are kings out of Rome, aren't they?
I'm trying to find out from you, if you believe the Reformers, or Protestants were saint of the Most high. I'm asking why you believe this, and which ones in particular were saint of the Most high?
The "saints" of Daniel 7:25 were those who kept the Law (the Commandments) (Rev 12:17), and that would be the Jews, who were treaded down by the Roman Church (Inquisition) established by the Roman Emperor, Constantine, who was the 7th head of the beast, the "another" "beast"/king (Rev 13:11) (Daniel 7:24)following the 10 horns, who were the Augustus Caesars, the 6th head, and Julius Caesar being "slain" and then "healed" (Rev 13:3), whose title of Pontifex Maximus, the keeper of the gods, was adopted by following Augustus Caesars, along with Constantine, who passed the title to his Gentile/Roman church, along with the worship of his gods, such as Sol Invictus, and Astarte/Easter. Both the Roman church and the Protestant churches are daughters of Babylon, who ride on the back of the "beast", which included Roman kings, who in the Middle Ages, were anointed by the Popes (Pontifex Maximus).
The scriptures do say that. I have no argument with what scripture says. The problem I have is with you saying what the scriptures don't say.
Why do you want people to accept what you say, when the scriptures don't say it? That's a serious question 3rd angel. Why do you insist that people accept what you say as scripture, when you cannot pull one scripture that supports what you say? Can you please answer that? It's important. Please...
I have already answered you with scripture but you choose not to believe what the scripture says. You were posted verbatim what scripture says. As posted earlier the scripture (not me) says
1. The little horn comes out of the 4th beast of (Daniel 7:7-8)
2. The little horn is differentfrom the other horns being more stout and having eyes and a mouth speaking great things (Daniel 7:20; 24)
3. The little horn makes war with the saints (Daniel 7:21)
4. The little horn comes up after the other horns (kings) three kings are uprooted on its rise to power. (Daniel 7:24)
5. The little horn speaks great things against the most high God (religious power) (Daniel 7:25)
6. The little horn speaking great thinks against God thinks to change times and law (Daniel 7:25)
7. The little horn wars and wears out the saints of the most high God (Daniel 7:21-25)
That is what scripture says. Please do not pretend that the scriptures do not say the above. It is being dishonest. If you have nothing to say that disproves the above it is only because you are choosing not to see the above which is what the scriptures say (not me). So as can be shown from the scriptures above the little horn is comes up after the other kings and is different from all the kings before it and not the same as the other kings having eyes and a mouth and religious characteristics speaking great things against God, thinking to change times and laws and wearing out the Saints of the most high God. Now you tell me where it says in scripture that the little horn does not have any religious characteristics when I have shown you from the scriptures above that it does? Where does it say in the scriptures that the little horn is the same as every other civil power? It doesn't. Like I said earlier you can close your eyes to what the scripture say because they do not agree with you or you can choose to believe what the scriptures say as shown above. It is your choice. I choose to believe what the scriptures say as shown above.
Please answer the following... honestly. Daniel 7:24 ...After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. Is the little horn a king... according to scripture? Yes or No? Does being different mean being religious? Yes or No? Does the scriptures say the little horn is religious? Yes or No?
As posted earlier Daniel 7:8 says " 8, I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things." There is no stating here that the little horn would be directly responsible for uprooting three of these horns. As posted earlier in this scripture it only states that on its' rise to power three kings would be uprooted. However, in Daniel 7:24 it says " 24, And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. The scripture is talking about the little horn's rise to power it will subdue three kings.
History (references cited) shows that,
"Seven of the ten Barbarian kingdoms were converted to Christianity and submitted to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. However, three of the kingdoms converted to Christianity but embraced the heretical teachings of Arius. Arius (who was presbyter in Alexandria around the year 320 A.D.) taught that >Christ was created out of nothing as the first and greatest of all creatures" (Loraine Boettner, Bakers Dictionary of Theology, pp. 64-65).
The teachings of Arius were condemned in two great church councils, Nicea (325 A. D.) and Constantinople (381 A. D.). These three Arian kingdoms were a threat to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome [later called the Pope]. To make a long story short, these three kingdoms eventually were uprooted by the imperial power acting under the influence of the Bishop of Rome. The Ostrogoths (originally from Yugoslavia), by order of the emperor, dealt the heretical Heruli a devastating defeat in 493.
The Pope requested the emperor to do something about the unorthodox Heruli. In response, the emperor sent Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths to do battle with Odoacer, king of the Heruli. Odoacer was slain by Theodoric and the Heruli disappeared from history. Then the Vandals were crushed (in 534 A. D.) by Belisarius, general of emperor Justinians armies. But there was one remaining horn which needed to be uprooted, and it was the most formidable of all: the Ostrogoths. After the Ostrogoths conquered the Heruli, they became extremely powerful. They were also Arians, so the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] implored Justinian to uproot the Ostrogoths. Justinian, in turn, implored the Franks to help him in his holy enterprise:
"When Justinian first meditated the conquest of Italy, he sent ambassadors to the kings of the Franks, and adjured them, by the common ties of alliance and religion,
to join in the holy enterprise against the Arians." Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, volume 4 [chapter 41, paragraph 32]
(New York: Harper & Brothers), p. 175.
There were several battles between Belisarius and the Ostrogoths. The decisive battle, however, was in February (remember the month, we will come back to it later) of the year 538. The armies of Justinian, as well as the ravages of disease, decimated the armies of the Ostrogoths, they were expelled from Rome and in short order, disappeared from the historical scene in Europe. The third horn had been uprooted once and for all. So for me all the above fit scripture perfectly.
Nope. Where you not the one trying to argue that the little horn cannot be a religious kingdom despite scriptures stating it had religious characteristics?
Yet you were shown the same Angel that tells us in Daniel 7:8-25 that the little horn is different to all the other kings having religious characteristics speaking great things against the most high God, and makes war with Gods saints and thinks to change times and laws? But you do not believe it.
Let me start from the last, and go to the first. (Revelation 17:12) The ten horns that you saw mean ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings for one hour with the wild beast. (Daniel 7:24) As for the ten horns, ten kings will rise up out of that kingdom; and still another one will rise up after them, and he will be different from the first ones, and he will humiliate three kings. This needs no reasoning. The angel was clear that he is talking about kings. He doesn't change his tune and say, "By the way, this other one that rises up won't be a king, but a Pope." You are the one with that explanation... asking that everyone accept your explanation rather than the angel's. ...As if you are an angel. ...You might call yourself that, but we both know you are not.
Strawman? Where did I ever say to you that a horn does not represent a king or a kingdom? If you look at Daniel 7:17 you will also note a beast also represents a king or kingdom by the Angel. If I I did not say a horn of beast does not represent a king what is your argument here? You have none because we are in agreement. The Roman Catholic Church fits the scripture description perfectly. The little horn is not the same as the other kings and kingdom as it is an apostate religious king (Pope) and has a religious kingdom (church) that speaks great things against God and makes war with Gods saints (Daniel 7:8-25). The fact is that the little horn is different from all the rest of the other horns is shown in the scriptures in that it has religious characteristics. Also, you might want to prayerfully consider a king cannot exist without a kingdom a king and kingdom can also be a religious power. This is also shown in Daniel 7:26-27 where it is written : " 27, And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." So as shown in the scriptures a kingdom can be religious or not religious. As shown through the scriptures that little horn is different from all the other kings before it and has religious characteristics.
Lets look at what the scriptures say.
The little horn of Daniel 7 comes out of the 4th beast (Daniel 7:7-8)
The little horn is different in appearance and not the same as all the other kings and kingdoms (Daniel 7:8; 20)
The little horn on its rise to power plucks up three kingdoms and kings (Daniel 7:8; 25)
The little horn comes up after the other 10 king and kingdoms (Daniel 7:8; 25) .
The little horn speaks great things against God and persecutes Gods people (Daniel 7:25)
Does the Roman Catholic Church come out of the 4th beast (Roman Empire) - Yes; Is the Roman Catholic Church different from all the other kings and kingdoms - Yes it is a religious power. Does the little horn on its rise to power pluck out three of the 10 kings before it? - Yes Vandals, Ostergoths, Heruli. Does the Roman Catholic Church come up after the 10 kings - Yes. Does the Roman Catholic Church persecute Gods saints? Yes (Reformation). The Roman Catholic Church 100% fulfills the description of the little horn of Daniel 7. You might also want to look up the Hebrew word מֶלֶךְ (melek | H4430) translated a "king" it simply means to reign over a kingdom. So your argument of Pope vs literal king as we know it is not relevant in the Hebrew.
Please sit down. Say a humble pray to Jehovah - the true God, and carefully... carefully, as if for the first time - without and priori supposition - read Daniel 7:17-28 You should notice this, from the mouth of the angel, who is continuing from verses 13, and 14 which is in harmony with Daniel 2:44.
The angel say this... These huge beasts, four in number, are four kings who will stand up from the earth.
But the holy ones of the Supreme One will receive the kingdom, and they will possess the kingdom forever, yes, forever and ever.’ Daniel wondered about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others NOTE - The fourth beast is different from all the others. That doesn't make it religious does it? No. The angel says to Daniel... ‘As for the fourth beast, there is a fourth kingdom that will come to be on the earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour all the earth and will trample it down and crush it.' It is different from all the rest, but it is a kingdom - Rome. What makes it different? Religion? No.
Wrong you were shown scripture in Daniel 7:7-25 that says word for word that..
1. The little horn comes out of the 4th beast of (Daniel 7:7-8)
2. The little horn is differentfrom the other horns being more stout and having eyes and a mouth speaking great things (Daniel 7:20; 24)
3. The little horn makes war with the saints (Daniel 7:21)
4. The little horn comes up after the other horns (kings) three kings are uprooted on its rise to power. (Daniel 7:24)
5. The little horn speaks great things against the most high God (religious power) (Daniel 7:25)
6. The little horn speaking great thinks against God thinks to change times and law (Daniel 7:25)
7. The little horn wars and wears out the saints of the most high God (Daniel 7:21-25)
That is what scripture says. Please do not pretend that the scriptures do not say the above. It is being dishonest. If you have nothing to say that disproves the above it is only because you are choosing not to see the above which is what the scriptures say (not me). So as can be shown from the scriptures above the little horn is comes up after the other kings and is different from all the kings before it and not the same as the other kings having eyes and a mouth and religious characteristics speaking great things against God, thinking to change times and laws and wearing out the Saints of the most high God. Now you tell me where it says in scripture that the little horn does not have any religious characteristics when I have shown you from the scriptures above that it does? Where does it say in the scriptures that the little horn is the same as every other civil power? It doesn't. Like I said earlier you can close your eyes to what the scripture say because they do not agree with you or you can choose to believe what the scriptures say as shown above. It is your choice. I choose to believe what the scriptures say as shown above.
As for the ten horns, ten kings will rise up out of that kingdom; and still another one will rise up after them, and he will be different from the first ones, and he will humiliate three kings.
The Court sat, and they took away [the little horn's] rulership, in order to annihilate [the little horn] and to destroy [the little horn] completely. “‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’ “This is the end of the matter..."
This is the end of the matter, 3rdAngel.
Plenty scripture clearly and definitively show that beast and horns represents kings and kingdoms. To change that, is to introduce human doctrine, which is flawed.
Alright so where did I ever say to you that a beast or horn does not represent a king or a kingdom? - I didn't (strawman)? If I never started such things why pretend that I am.
What? Prove that it is not religious as well as civil and political.??? Ha Ha Isn't this a strawman. I did say it's political. ...more than once. ...to you. It's not consistent to identify the first six powers as all political or governmental entities, and then change the last of the two, to something completely different. It's all one beast. The parts are the same element...
So that is a no then? You cannot prove that the little horn in not a civil and religious power can you. Yet the scripture characteristics state that the little horn speaks great words against God and persecutes the saints of God and is different from all the kingdoms before it?
There are a few problems with that. We cannot change the political beast into a religious entity. The beast is totally political, and the horns are totally political rulers - kings. So is this some kind of trick question, or trip up question... or attempted strawman? You've trying to put me in your shoes, but they don't fit. They are much too small. Unlike what you have been doing, I offered the scriptural support for the horns being political - kings.
Think your argument through please. The only problem is in what you are trying to argue here. Are you really going to try to argue that a king or kingdom cannot be a religious one? Have you heard of the Holy Roman Empire? What about Daniel 7:27 when God gives the kingdom to Gods people. Are they not religious? I hope you can see the contradictions in your argument here. Of course a king and kingdom can be a religious one. This is stated in the characteristics of the little horn that speaks great things against God and persecutes Gods saints. Lets be honest. You do not have any scripture to state that the little horn king/kingdom is not a religious one. Mean while you have already been provided scripture characteristics proving it is.
Yes it seems you are not. It was your misunderstanding of what was being shared with you that was the problem which was clarified for you. The little Horn does come out of the Roman Empire but all the horns do not have to be Roman.
The destruction of Antiochus III and capture of Jerusalem by Pompey is the point of the crushing of Greece by the Roman Pompey with respect to Daniel. It was at a later date, apart from the destruction of Jerusalem, that Cleopatra of Egypt and her lover, Mark Antony met their fates, and had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, the concern with respect to the judgment of the Jews. As for the "four" heads of the Greek empire (Daniel 7:6), that is not two heads, or two legs, but four kings. And there were not two Roman legs at the time of Constantine's Roman church, for he had already reunited Eastern and Western Rome at that time. It was only the Seleucid dynasty, one of four dynasties (Daniel 7:6), not two, which destroyed Jerusalem and worshipped their gods with the sacrifice of swine in the Temple, not Egypt. Daniel is about the judgments of the Jews by specific kingdoms, and the final disposition of those kingdoms, not about who is emperor of China or the level of the Nile. The "little horn" of Daniel 7:7-8, came out of the 4th head who had crushed the other kingdoms, which was the Republic of Rome, and the "little horn" was Caesar, for he was 5'4" tall, and accordingly he was "slain" (Dan 7:11) by the Roman Senate, and "destroyed and given to the fire" as in him being cremated. "His mortal wound was healed" (Rev 13:3) as the 6th head of the beast, the Augustus Caesars. As the 5th head of the beast, he replaced the power system of the 3 leader Roman Republican system, the Triumvirate. He was followed by the 10 horns, the Augustus Caesars between the destruction of Rome by Pompey and Tirus, and afterwards, "another" (king) will arise after the 10 horns, which would be Constantine the Great, who reunited the Western and Eastern empires, and created the dogmas of the Roman church at his convened Council of Nicaea. It was Constantine who endeavored to change the "time and the laws" in 321 A.D. by changing the day of rest from the 7th day to the Sunday, the day of his sun god, Sol Invictus. He is the "beast with two horns like a lamb" who was to "deceive" "those who dwell on the earth". (Rev 13:11-14) I don't know, but it appears he did a crack up job.
What has this have to do with Daniel 2:31-33; Daniel 2 and what you are quoting from in regards to Greece representing the third kingdom (brass torso and thigh) and the historical references shared with you? -Nothing. Daniel 7's outline is different to Daniel 2. Also the four heads were also addressed in the post you were quoting from but it is the final two remaining kingdoms Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs) that were present just prior to the emergence of the 4th kingdom (Roman Empire). As posted earlier go do your homework. When Alexander suddenly died without an heir, his generals divided the empire into four primary kingdoms (the "four heads"). Ptolemy took Egypt and nearby lands. Seleucus received Syria, Asia Minor and the conquered eastern nations. Lysimachus ruled Thrace and surrounding territories, and lastly, Cassander controlled Macedonia and Greece. Thrace was later absorbed by the Seleucid Empire, and Macedonia's power was checked by the rising power of Rome and the beginning of the end of Greece's empire. Thus, both prophecies in Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same divided empire, the former showing political and military dominance, as well as prophetic relevance to the Holy Land, and the latter the initial governmental situation after Alexander's death. The belly, a single body part, represents a monolithic government, and the thighs, two body parts, represent the final division of Greece's power before the Roman empire just like the Western and Eastern Roman empire and the rising of the little horn. The Greek Empire, built upon the remains of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great, began with a single leader. But after Alexander's death in 323 BC , his generals carved out kingdoms of their own. From the resultant wars among them, only two remaining major powers emerged: Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs). Also, you are getting your scriptures mixed up. The little horn does not come out of a 4th head. It comes out of the 4th beast of Daniel 7:7-8; Daniel 7:19-25. It is the third beast that has four heads (see Daniel 7:6).
Exactly what I said... which is exactly my point. Because you have not said that, you are being inconsistent, by saying that the little horn must be a Roman power, because it comes from the beast - Rome.
Perhaps it is you that is the one having problems understanding. You were already given clarification here from your earlier misunderstanding. I stated that the little horn (Roman Catholic Church) comes out of Rome. I never said all the kings and kingdoms needed to come out of Rome.
It's an opinion, by a few historians. I wanted to know why you favor certain historians opinions. Do you consider it a fact, that Moses never existed, because historians say so?
This is a repeat of what you said, and misrepresents what I actually said. You seem to be getting mixed up. I am not saying what you claim I am saying, so while you think I am misrepresenting your words, because you can't seem to understand what I repeatedly put in as simple words as possible, you are misrepresenting what I am actually saying. One more time. I am not saying that you said the ten horns are Roman powers. To the contrary, I'm saying you are saying the ten horns are not Roman powers, but Germanic tribes. I'm saying that you are making the claim that the little horn came out of Rome, therefore the little horn must be Roman. I'm saying it is inconsistent for you to claim that the little horn must be a Roman power because it came out of Rome, and not with the same breath, say that the ten horns must be Roman powers because they came out of Rome.
I disagree as the little Horn's identification of the Roman Catholic Church is Roman. I agree perhaps I could of rephrased it better. It seems to be a stumbling block for you even after giving you clarification many times now to what I was referring to.
3rdAngel said: Actually yes it is. I thought it was explained well in the post you are quoting from. Greece in Daniel two is represented as the bronze part of the torso and then moves to the two thighs at the end of its reign and time. For me it fits really well. The belly, a single body part, represents a monolithic government, and the thighs, two body parts, represent the final division of Greece's power before the Roman empire just like the Western and Eastern Roman empire and the rising of the little horn. The Greek Empire, built upon the remains of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great, began with a single leader. But after Alexander's death in 323 BC , his generals carved out kingdoms of their own. From the resultant wars among them, only two remaining major powers emerged: Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs). For me that is a good fit but that is academic as we both believe that the third empire here is already Greece right?
This is an interesting explanation. interesting as it is, I prefer the angel be the one to explain that the parts of this image as like the horns. I think that's wise, since doing otherwise, can lead to all kinds of speculations... which we see, is already happening. For example, using your kind of reasoning, one might say that the feet of iron and clay are two, so the 7th world power must be dual, for that reason, and it has ten toes, so it must have ten divisions, etc. I do believe the seventh world power - the little horn - is a dual world power, but not for that reason... although that's interesting. Do you think the papacy is dual, or divided into two powers?
As interesting as it is, not every detail is explained through the scriptures. Sometimes though a historical lens as posted earlier can fill in the gaps like the third kingdom Greece example near the end of its reign splitting into two representing the two thighs of Daniel 2 just before the 4th kingdom. At the end of the day though it is what is said in the scripture and what is supported by the historical records that help prove prophecy interpretation once it has come to pass in my view.
I am simply asking you to explain how they conquered Rome, and yet are kings of the fourth beast - the Roman Empire? Can you? They are kings out of Rome, aren't they?
Yes I can as it is also shown in the Historical records. Do I have time. I am not sure for now. Perhaps I will revisit it at a latter time when I have more free time.
Earlier, you said...The papacy fulfilled the prediction of persecuting “the saints of the Most High” (Dan. 7:25, NKJV) and casting down “some of the host” (Dan 8:10, NKJV) during the Counter-Reformation when Protestants were slaughtered. I'm trying to find out from you, if you believe the Reformers, or Protestants were saint of the Most high. I'm asking why you believe this, and which ones in particular were saint of the Most high?
My understanding is that they are included but more is to come just prior to the second coming of Jesus once we start looking into the book of Revelation.
I have already answered you with scripture but you choose not to believe what the scripture says. You were posted verbatim what scripture says. As posted earlier the scripture (not me) says
1. The little horn comes out of the 4th beast of (Daniel 7:7-8)
2. The little horn is differentfrom the other horns being more stout and having eyes and a mouth speaking great things (Daniel 7:20; 24)
3. The little horn makes war with the saints (Daniel 7:21)
4. The little horn comes up after the other horns (kings) three kings are uprooted on its rise to power. (Daniel 7:24)
5. The little horn speaks great things against the most high God (religious power) (Daniel 7:25)
6. The little horn speaking great thinks against God thinks to change times and law (Daniel 7:25)
7. The little horn wars and wears out the saints of the most high God (Daniel 7:21-25)
That is what scripture says. Please do not pretend that the scriptures do not say the above. It is being dishonest. If you have nothing to say that disproves the above it is only because you are choosing not to see the above which is what the scriptures say (not me). So as can be shown from the scriptures above the little horn is comes up after the other kings and is different from all the kings before it and not the same as the other kings having eyes and a mouth and religious characteristics speaking great things against God, thinking to change times and laws and wearing out the Saints of the most high God. Now you tell me where it says in scripture that the little horn does not have any religious characteristics when I have shown you from the scriptures above that it does? Where does it say in the scriptures that the little horn is the same as every other civil power? It doesn't. Like I said earlier you can close your eyes to what the scripture say because they do not agree with you or you can choose to believe what the scriptures say as shown above. It is your choice. I choose to believe what the scriptures say as shown above.
Why do you repeat yourself over and over, and over again? Do you listen to yourself only?
Listen to me, and respond to me. Not yourself.
The scriptures do say that. I have no argument with what scripture says..
Did you hear that? Well, that's what I said.
So nothing you said here is a response to me. It's a response to you. Does not apply to anything I said.
Moreover, its dishonest to claim that I am pretending that the scriptures do not say what I read there.
The next thing I said, is... You listening? The problem I have is with you saying what the scriptures don't say.
Did you hear that? Good.
None of those scriptures say the horn is religious. Not one. Zero.
They do not even contain the word religion, religious, papal, pope....
They simply say what the king would do. They are no religious characteristics, like praying, preaching, etc.
Any secular king can
be different from the others, as shown by the angel who said Rome was different to those that were before it.... which by the way, you chose to ignore.
be the symbolic horn having eyes and a mouth.
speak great things against God.
attempt to change times and laws.
wear out the Saints of the most high God.
None of those are "religious characteristics". You dreamed that one up.
Below, you refused to answer three simple questions, yes or no. Is the little horn a king... according to scripture? Yes or No?
Does being different mean being religious? Yes or No?
Does the scriptures say the little horn is religious? Yes or No?
Instead, you give us a whole long speech on something you were not asked.
Stop listening to yourself 3rdAngel. Listen to the person who is responding to you, and give a coherent response.
Can you do that?
Your posts are just you repeating yourself, and addressing nothing I said.
So, I can only at this point wait and see if you are willing to answer those three simple questions.
Is the little horn a king... according to scripture? Yes or No?
Does being different mean being religious? Yes or No?
Does the scriptures say the little horn is religious? Yes or No?
You appear to have attempted to answer the first, by making the claim that the pope is a king.
So, is that a yes?
Why do you repeat yourself over and over, and over again? Do you listen to yourself only?
Listen to me, and respond to me. Not yourself.
The scriptures do say that. I have no argument with what scripture says..
Did you hear that? Well, that's what I said.
So nothing you said here is a response to me. It's a response to you. Does not apply to anything I said.
Moreover, its dishonest to claim that I am pretending that the scriptures do not say what I read there.
The next thing I said, is... You listening?
The problem I have is with you saying what the scriptures don't say.
Did you hear that? Good.
None of those scriptures say the horn is religious. Not one. Zero.
They do not even contain the word religion, religious, papal, pope....
They simply say what the king would do. They are no religious characteristics, like praying, preaching, etc.
Any secular king can
be different from the others, as shown by the angel who said Rome was different to those that were before it.... which by the way, you chose to ignore.
be the symbolic horn having eyes and a mouth.
speak great things against God.
attempt to change times and laws.
wear out the Saints of the most high God.
None of those are "religious characteristics". You dreamed that one up.
Below, you refused to answer three simple questions, yes or no.
Is the little horn a king... according to scripture? Yes or No?
Does being different mean being religious? Yes or No?
Does the scriptures say the little horn is religious? Yes or No?
Instead, you give us a whole long speech on something you were not asked.
Stop listening to yourself 3rdAngel. Listen to the person who is responding to you, and give a coherent response.
Can you do that?
Your posts are just you repeating yourself, and addressing nothing I said.
So, I can only at this point wait and see if you are willing to answer those three simple questions.
Is the little horn a king... according to scripture? Yes or No?
Does being different mean being religious? Yes or No?
Does the scriptures say the little horn is religious? Yes or No?
You appear to have attempted to answer the first, by making the claim that the pope is a king.
So, is that a yes?
We are best to read and believe what the scriptures teach and say and I do not see you doing this if I am being honest with you. You should consider taking your own advice in the post you just made but let me be honest with you and tell you why. If you have no scripture to support your view that the little horn of Daniel 7 cannot be a religious king or kingdom just say so and lets move on but do not pretend the scriptures do not exist when Daniel 7:7-25 shows that the little horn has religious characteristics.
I repeat my self because you make claims of no scripture, and that the little horn cannot be a religious king or kingdom then when you are provided scripture showing that the little horn is different from all other kings and kingdoms before it and this is stated by the angel more than once stating it is different from all the other horns in appearance from everything before it. The angel also stating that the little horn has religious characteristics as listed in the post you are quoting from that you choose to pretend do not exist. Anyhow, it is there for all to see even if you choose not to in Daniel 7:7-25. Also, don't ignore my posts to you and read the whole post. Take your time understand what is being shared with you. Look up the Hebrew word used for king which simply means ruler of a kingdom. You also ignored the fact of Daniel 7:27 shows a king or kingdom can be a religious one. You were also provided examples of how worldly kingdoms can be religious kingdoms. Examples were also provided to you in the Holy Roman Empire.
Lets be honest dear friend. You have no scripture for your view that a king or a kingdom cannot be a religious one. The scriptures listed showing the religious characteristics of the little horn are in disagreement with you. Also, you may want to also consider the angel says that not only is the little horn different it also went on to say that it did not look anything at all like the other horns (not the same) before it. All the horns before the little Horn were different kings and kingdoms from each other right? If your argument here was credible then there is no need for the angel to point this out in the scripture not once but many times emphasizing the fact that the little horn looked nothing like all the other horns if according to you all the Horns were different. If you have no scripture to support your opinion that the little horn cannot be a religious king or kingdom just be honest and say so.
Your response here simply ignored everything posted to you but that is fine. You can believe whatever you like as that is between you and God to work through. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong and Jesus says in His own words there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed. No need to get upset dear friend we are all friends here.
Time will tell who is right and who is wrong and Jesus says in His own words there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed. No need to get upset dear friend we are all friends here.
The "saints" of Daniel 7:25 were those who kept the Law (the Commandments) (Rev 12:17), and that would be the Jews, who were treaded down by the Roman Church (Inquisition) established by the Roman Emperor, Constantine, who was the 7th head of the beast, the "another" "beast"/king (Rev 13:11) (Daniel 7:24)following the 10 horns, who were the Augustus Caesars, the 6th head, and Julius Caesar being "slain" and then "healed" (Rev 13:3), whose title of Pontifex Maximus, the keeper of the gods, was adopted by following Augustus Caesars, along with Constantine, who passed the title to his Gentile/Roman church, along with the worship of his gods, such as Sol Invictus, and Astarte/Easter. Both the Roman church and the Protestant churches are daughters of Babylon, who ride on the back of the "beast", which included Roman kings, who in the Middle Ages, were anointed by the Popes (Pontifex Maximus).
I understand your view.
I can follow your reasoning.
The little horn emerges from the Roman Empire, and assaults three of the ten king, so saying that this is a Caesar, is reasonable.
Also, your explanation on how he acted according to the angel's words, is reasonable.
Your view that the Roman church and the Protestant churches are daughters of Babylon, is also reasonable.
However, the angel says it's Babylon the Great, on the back of these powers. Not her daughters.
So who or what is Babylon the Great herself? Sorry if you did say, before. I forgot.
So you believe the last world power came into existence around the time of the forth century, right?
That's quite a long time to be in the end times - nearly 2000 years.
What are your thoughts on that?
What has this have to do with Daniel 2:31-33; Daniel 2 and what you are quoting from in regards to Greece representing the third kingdom (brass torso and thigh) and the historical references shared with you? -Nothing. Daniel 7's outline is different to Daniel 2. Also the four heads were also addressed in the post you were quoting from but it is the final two remaining kingdoms Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs) that were present just prior to the emergence of the 4th kingdom (Roman Empire). As posted earlier go do your homework. When Alexander suddenly died without an heir, his generals divided the empire into four primary kingdoms (the "four heads"). Ptolemy took Egypt and nearby lands. Seleucus received Syria, Asia Minor and the conquered eastern nations. Lysimachus ruled Thrace and surrounding territories, and lastly, Cassander controlled Macedonia and Greece. Thrace was later absorbed by the Seleucid Empire, and Macedonia's power was checked by the rising power of Rome and the beginning of the end of Greece's empire. Thus, both prophecies in Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same divided empire, the former showing political and military dominance, as well as prophetic relevance to the Holy Land, and the latter the initial governmental situation after Alexander's death. The belly, a single body part, represents a monolithic government, and the thighs, two body parts, represent the final division of Greece's power before the Roman empire just like the Western and Eastern Roman empire and the rising of the little horn. The Greek Empire, built upon the remains of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great, began with a single leader. But after Alexander's death in 323 BC , his generals carved out kingdoms of their own. From the resultant wars among them, only two remaining major powers emerged: Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs). Also, you are getting your scriptures mixed up. The little horn does not come out of a 4th head. It comes out of the 4th beast of Daniel 7:7-8; Daniel 7:19-25. It is the third beast that has four heads (see Daniel 7:6).
You are correct, Daniel 7:6 refers to 4 heads and not two thighs, which represent Alexander's Generals and the division of Alexander's kingdom. Daniel 2 and 7 represent the same kingdoms with two different points of view, which expand on the description of Rome (iron) who will be among the final kingdom crushed, and will crush the beast with 4 heads and 4 wings (4 winged phalanx). Egypt and Syria were not part of Daniel's description nor of Revelation 17, which predicted two kingdoms following the rule of the Augustus Caesars, the 6th head (kingdom), who ruled during the period of the writing of the book of Revelation. The "beast with two heads like a lamb (Christlike leaders)" (Rev 13:11) was to be "another beast" following the "healed" beast of Rev 13:3, who was healed as the 6th head of the beast, the Augustus Caesars, and the "another beast" would be Roman emperor Constantine, who set up your Roman Gentile church, which is just another daughter of Babylon, who worships all the gods of Babylon by way of Rome. Julius Caesar worshipped the Persian sun god Mithra, and Constantine worshipped the sun god Sol. Invictus. The same god/"dragon", who gave its authority to the beasts (Rev 13:4). The pope's church simply sets upon the shoulders of the beast (Rome), and anoints the kings/beast in their rule, as was done last week with the Protestant church leader anointing the king of England, but the church is but an arm of the kingdom of England, and the king being the "defender of the faith", now wanting to be the "defender of faith" as his faith branches off from the faith of his mother, but in affect he is still the head of the church of England, as were both Constantine and Julius Caesar, as both were Pontifex Maximus, being keeper of the gods and the calendar, and head of the pagan church. Charles faith would be the faith of the "woke" Progressives, and the green movement. I don't think that will work out very well. But then again, it is probably meant to set up the nations coming against Jerusalem (Zech 14) and therefore Har-Magedon, the "great tribulation". We are now past the rule of the 7th head of the beast, and are in the era of the 8th head of the beast (Rev 17:11), with only Constantine's Roman church in existence and on the rode to "destruction" (falling). (Mt 7:13 & 24)
I understand your view.
I can follow your reasoning.
The little horn emerges from the Roman Empire, and assaults three of the ten king, so saying that this is a Caesar, is reasonable.
Also, your explanation on how he acted according to the angel's words, is reasonable.
Your view that the Roman church and the Protestant churches are daughters of Babylon, is also reasonable.
However, the angel says it's Babylon the Great, on the back of these powers. Not her daughters.
So who or what is Babylon the Great herself? Sorry if you did say, before. I forgot.
So you believe the last world power came into existence around the time of the forth century, right?
That's quite a long time to be in the end times - nearly 2000 years.
What are your thoughts on that?
"Babylon the Great" represents the mystery church, which is exemplified by all of her daughters, whether that being the Roman church or the Protestant churches. They all worship the gods of Babel, whether that sun god is called Bel, Mithra, Sol Invictus, or the goddess of Astarte/Easter. The 4th kingdom was the republic of Rome who morphed into the dictatorship of Rome per Julius Caesar, and the relationship between the kings and the church is still in place. King Charles, the head of the church of England, the supposed "keeper of the faith" was anointed by the church. The dictatorial kings/emperors of Rome, as such, remain until this period as the Czar (Caesar) of Russia, or the Kaiser (Caesar) of Germany. Now we have the dictator of Persia (Iran), with his own false prophets, collaborating with nations of Russia, China, and North Korea, all who will apparently come against Judah/Jerusalem per Zech 14, and who will all be crushed at the same time (Daniel 2:35) and move as dead men walking (Zech 14:12). The period per Daniel 7:25 is time, times, and half a time until all are crushed, which is with respect corollarially to the Roman church and said attached kingdoms, which was founded on Constantine's convened Council of Nicaea. That period is about to end. The 2000 years is the 2 days of Hosea 3:2, and the healing of Judah and Ephraim will be on the 3rd day.
Hosea 6:1 Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us to pieces, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bind up our wounds. 2After two daysHe will revive us;on the thirddayHe will raise us up,that we may livein His presence.
You are correct, Daniel 7:6 refers to 4 heads and not two thighs, which represent Alexander's Generals and the division of Alexander's kingdom. Daniel 2 and 7 represent the same kingdoms with two different points of view, which expand on the description of Rome (iron) who will be among the final kingdom crushed, and will crush the beast with 4 heads and 4 wings (4 winged phalanx). Egypt and Syria were not part of Daniel's description nor of Revelation 17, which predicted two kingdoms following the rule of the Augustus Caesars, the 6th head (kingdom), who ruled during the period of the writing of the book of Revelation. The "beast with two heads like a lamb (Christlike leaders)" (Rev 13:11) was to be "another beast" following the "healed" beast of Rev 13:3, who was healed as the 6th head of the beast, the Augustus Caesars, and the "another beast" would be Roman emperor Constantine, who set up your Roman Gentile church, which is just another daughter of Babylon, who worships all the gods of Babylon by way of Rome. Julius Caesar worshipped the Persian sun god Mithra, and Constantine worshipped the sun god Sol. Invictus. The same god/"dragon", who gave its authority to the beasts (Rev 13:4). The pope's church simply sets upon the shoulders of the beast (Rome), and anoints the kings/beast in their rule, as was done last week with the Protestant church leader anointing the king of England, but the church is but an arm of the kingdom of England, and the king being the "defender of the faith", now wanting to be the "defender of faith" as his faith branches off from the faith of his mother, but in affect he is still the head of the church of England, as were both Constantine and Julius Caesar, as both were Pontifex Maximus, being keeper of the gods and the calendar, and head of the pagan church. Charles faith would be the faith of the "woke" Progressives, and the green movement. I don't think that will work out very well. But then again, it is probably meant to set up the nations coming against Jerusalem (Zech 14) and therefore Har-Magedon, the "great tribulation". We are now past the rule of the 7th head of the beast, and are in the era of the 8th head of the beast (Rev 17:11), with only Constantine's Roman church in existence and on the rode to "destruction" (falling). (Mt 7:13 & 24)
Your conflating two different visions of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 in regards to the third beast (Greece). Daniel 2 (vision of mankind), belly and two thigh representing Greece the third kingdom while the third leopard like beast with four heads and two wings as shared with you earlier in Daniel 7 are the same third ruling kingdom (Greece). Historically (references previously quoted) show that after Alexander the Great (belly) suddenly died without an heir, his generals divided the empire into four primary kingdoms (the "four heads"). Ptolemy took Egypt and nearby lands. Seleucus received Syria, Asia Minor and the conquered eastern nations. Lysimachus ruled Thrace and surrounding territories, and lastly, Cassander controlled Macedonia and Greece. Thrace was later absorbed by the Seleucid Empire, and Macedonia's power was checked by the rising power of Rome and the beginning of the end of Greece's empire. Thus, both prophecies in Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same divided empire, the former showing political and military dominance, as well as prophetic relevance to the Holy Land, and the latter the initial governmental situation after Alexander's death. The belly, a single body part, represents a monolithic government, and the thighs, two body parts, represent the final division of Greece's power before the rise of the Roman empire. Near the end of the reign of the empire of Greece and wars between the four generals resulted in only two powers remaining in Greece; Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs). Time for me to put the pearls away.
Sorry dear friend but we will agree to disagree and I will leave it between you and God to work through and we might stop here. Even though I do not believe you understand the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, keep in mind though, it is practicing known unrepentant sin that will keep any of us out of Gods kingdom not having a misunderstanding of the prophecy. In times of ignorance God winks at until he gives us a knowledge of the truth of His Word and we choose to reject it (Acts 17:30-31; Hebrews 10:26-31; Matthew 7:31-23). Lets pray that God helps us to understand what sin is according to His Word and sin is not what is controlling our lives before Jesus returns.
Your conflating two different visions of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 in regards to the third beast (Greece). Daniel 2 (vision of mankind), belly and two thigh representing Greece the third kingdom while the third leopard like beast with four heads and two wings as shared with you earlier in Daniel 7 are the same third ruling kingdom (Greece). Historically (references previously quoted) show that after Alexander the Great (belly) suddenly died without an heir, his generals divided the empire into four primary kingdoms (the "four heads"). Ptolemy took Egypt and nearby lands. Seleucus received Syria, Asia Minor and the conquered eastern nations. Lysimachus ruled Thrace and surrounding territories, and lastly, Cassander controlled Macedonia and Greece. Thrace was later absorbed by the Seleucid Empire, and Macedonia's power was checked by the rising power of Rome and the beginning of the end of Greece's empire. Thus, both prophecies in Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same divided empire, the former showing political and military dominance, as well as prophetic relevance to the Holy Land, and the latter the initial governmental situation after Alexander's death. The belly, a single body part, represents a monolithic government, and the thighs, two body parts, represent the final division of Greece's power before the rise of the Roman empire. Near the end of the reign of the empire of Greece and wars between the four generals resulted in only two powers remaining in Greece; Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs). Time for me to put the pearls away.
You have never had pearls, elements of the power and the spirit of God, and if you had actual pearls, Yeshua said you should have sold them and bought understanding of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 13:45-46, which is done by selling and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mt 19:21), which you have failed to do. And all the segments of Greece were "checked by the rising power of Rome" at different points, such as "crushed" by the "fourth beast" (Daniel 7:7). At the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, there was only one being crushed, that being the Seleucid element under Antiochus. The Ptolemaic power in Egypt remained in power until being crushed by Octavian, at a much later date, and not with respect to Jerusalem.
Mt 13:45“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, 46and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.
You have never had pearls, elements of the power and the spirit of God, and if you had actual pearls, Yeshua said you should have sold them and bought understanding of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 13:45-46, which is done by selling and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mt 19:21), which you have failed to do. And all the segments of Greece were "checked by the rising power of Rome" at different points, such as "crushed" by the "fourth beast" (Daniel 7:7). At the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, there was only one being crushed, that being the Seleucid element under Antiochus. The Ptolemaic power in Egypt remained in power until being crushed by Octavian, at a much later date, and not with respect to Jerusalem.
Mt 13:45“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, 46and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.
You do know that what you stated in regards to history is simply agreeing what I have already posted to you earlier right in regards to the last remaining two powers of Greece? So you are agreeing with what I have already said to you. As for the rest of your post, please forgive me but I do not believe you. You do not know what you do not know and how can you see when you close your eyes, or how can you hear when you put your fingers in your ears (Isaiah 6:9-10)? The pearls have been put away (it seems you do not know what that means) and the dust been shaken (see Matthew 7:6; Luke 9:6; Titus 3:10).
You do know that what you stated in regards to history is simply agreeing what I have already posted to you earlier right in regards to the last remaining two powers of Greece? So you are agreeing with what I have already said to you. As for the rest of your post, please forgive me but I do not believe you. You do not know what you do not know and how can you see when you close your eyes, or how can you hear when you put your fingers in your ears (Isaiah 6:9-10)? The pearls have been put away (it seems you do not know what that means) and the dust been shaken (see Matthew 7:6; Luke 9:6; Titus 3:10).
The Romans "crushed" Greece and its 4 elements all at different times, and not all at once, and two at one time. As for Mt 7:6, that is with regards to what is "holy", which in your case, I doubt that you possess any such an element, and you don't appear to portray any understanding of the "kingdom of heaven" or of anything which would be considered "holy". As for Isaiah 6:9-10, which Yeshua quotes, it is with respect to him explaining the "kingdom of heaven" in parables (Mt 13:11-15), and he then goes on to give the parables, of which one states that you should sell your actual pearls and buy some understanding of the "kingdom of heaven". You might want to actually read Mt 13:25-50 to figure out what part of Yeshua's message you fail to "understand", and read Daniel 12:10, to find out why you don't understand the parables. As far as Luke 9:6, written by a supposed ally of the false prophet Paul, taken from unnamed sources, you have yet to heal anyone anywhere. As for the false prophet Paul's term "factious", per Titus 3: 10, well, you seem to support Paul's message and I support the "message" of Yeshua. As one is the "message" of the "enemy" (Mt 13:25) and one is the "message" of the "son of man" (Mt 13:37), you have to expect a little difference of opinion, when they are antithetical to each other.
Matthew 13:11Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12“For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13“Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14“In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
15FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’
The Romans "crushed" Greece and its 4 elements all at different times, and not all at once. As for Mt 7:6, that is with regards to what is "holy", which in your case, I doubt that you possess any such an element, and you don't appear to portray any understanding of the "kingdom of heaven" or of anything which would be considered "holy". As for Isaiah 6:9-10, which Yeshua quotes, it is with respect to him explaining the "kingdom of heaven" in parables (Mt 13:13-15), and he then goes on to give the parables, of which one states that you should sell your actual pearls and buy some understanding of the "kingdom of heaven". You might want to actually read Mt 13:25-50 to figure out what part of Yeshua's message you fail to "understand", and read Daniel 12:10, to find out why you don't understand the parables. As far as Luke 9:6, written by a supposed ally of the false prophet Paul, taken from unnamed sources, you have yet to heal anyone anywhere. As for the false prophet Paul's term "factious", per Titus 3: 10, well, you seem to support Paul's message and I support the "message" of Yeshua. As one is the "message" of the "enemy" (Mt 13:25) and one is the "message" of the "son of man" (Mt 13:37), you have to expect a little difference of opinion, when they are antithetical to each other.
Like I posted earlier you do not know what you do not know and how can you know when you choose to close your eyes and ears to hearing and seeing Gods Word in fulfillment of Isaiah 6:9-10? You did not even know what scriptures I was referring to when I said it was time for me to put away the pearls and shake off the dust (Matthew 7:6; Luke 9:6). The meaning of Isaiah 6:9-10 is about those who refuse to hear and see Gods Word and choose rather to reject it. Kind of like what you do with the Apostle Paul's writings in the new testament right?
Rome did not conqueror all the four heads of Greece but of course did contribute to the final overthrow. Ptolemy took Egypt and nearby lands. Seleucus received Syria, Asia Minor and the conquered eastern nations. Lysimachus ruled Thrace and surrounding territories, and lastly, Cassander controlled Macedonia and Greece. Thrace was later absorbed by the Seleucid Empire, and Macedonia's power was checked by the rising power of Rome and the beginning of the end of Greece's empire. Near the end of the reign of the empire of Greece and wars between the four generals resulted in only two powers remaining in Greece; Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria (two thighs).
Perhaps you need to consider how Isaiah 6:9-10 and Matthew 13:11-15 might apply to you if you choose not to believe and obey Gods Words. Of course I believe the Apostles Paul's writings. Its Gods Word and scripture. Paul use to also quote Isaiah 6:9-10 to those who refused to believe and obey Gods Word following in the footsteps of Jesus in Acts 28:26-27.
