Follow
As we have highlighted in the preceding weeks, when examined in their context, the events of Daniel 8 and 9 culminate in the rise and fall of Antiochus IV, king of Syria, from 175 – 163 B.C.. The context of Daniel 9 is fundamentally Mosaic rather than Messianic, and its basis is the Leviticus 26 Protocol. The fulfillment of Daniel 9 is found in the restoration of the Temple under the First Covenant, using Ezekiel’s instructions, as we described in All the Evenings and Mornings. Notably, the background of the successive chastisements prescribed in Leviticus 26 is Jewish idolatry, sabbath violations, and profanation of the sanctuary (Leviticus 26:1-2). The objective of the successive chastisements under Leviticus 26 is that the Jews “confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers,” and that “their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity” (Leviticus 26:40-41). As Ezekiel prescribed to the Jews in captivity, “if they be ashamed of all that they have done” they will restore the Temple in accordance with “the pattern” he was given for them (Ezekiel 43:11), and as Gabriel prophesied, the final outcome of the Seventy Weeks was that the Temple would be anointed in accordance with the instructions in Exodus 40 (Daniel 9:24). In 164 B.C., in what would become the first celebration of Hannukha, the Jews finally rededicated the Temple as prescribed and prophesied. It was the conclusion of the Seventieth Week of Daniel 9, the objective of which was for the Jews to repent of their idolatry, sabbath violations and sanctuary profanations, by restoring the Mosaic order according to Ezekiel’s pattern. These events were prophesied to occur under the period of Greek rule, in the aftermath of the four-way division of Alexander’s empire, as described in Daniel 8. Having laid this groundwork, including the Reduction of the Diadochi last week, we now proceed with an analysis of Daniel chapter 8.
The opening of the narrative in Daniel 8 is simple enough. In his vision, Daniel sees a two-horned Ram (Daniel 8:3-4), and Gabriel explains that the Ram with its two horns signifies “the kings of Media and Persia” (Daniel 8:20). Then there is a one-horned He-goat who came and destroyed the Ram (Daniel 8:5-7), and again Gabriel provides the explanation:
“And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.” (Daniel 8:21)
But the great horn is broken at the height of its power, “and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven” (Daniel 8:8). Again, Gabriel explains,
“Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power” (Daniel 8:22).
Last week, we surveyed the history of the Diadochi, Alexander’s successors who, in the process of being reduced to four, established the four nations that came up out of Greece, but without Alexander’s strength. Of the four nations that “came up … toward the four winds of heaven” (Daniel 8:8), Seleucus I “Nicator” formed the eastern kingdom, reigning over the eastern territories from Syria to India.
Seleucus I was succeeded in 281 B.C. by his son Antiochus I “Soter.” Antiochus I was succeeded in 261 B.C. by his son Antiochus II “Theos.” Antiochus II was succeeded in 246 B.C. by his son Seleucus II “Callinicus.” Seleucus II was succeeded in 225 B.C. by his son Seleucus III “Ceraunus.” Seleucus III was succeeded in 222 B.C. by his son Antiochus III “the Great.” Antiochus III was succeeded in 187 B.C. by his son Seleucus IV “Philopator,” who produced an heir, Demetrius I “Soter,” while he was king. However, in compliance with the terms of the 188 B.C. Treaty of Apamea, Demetrius I was sent to Rome as a hostage to replace Antiochus IV, and Antiochus IV, the third son of Antiochus III, was released to return to Syria.
Seleucus IV was then assassinated in 175 B.C. by Heliodorus, his own courtier. Heliodorus’ coup did not last long, and the king of Pergamon removed him, installing Antiochus IV in his place. “Thus,” writes Appian, “Antiochus [IV], the son of Antiochus [III] the Great, ascended the throne of Syria” (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 45). And thus, did Antiochus IV come into his reign “but not by his own power” (Daniel 8:24).
Notably, after Antiochus IV’s reign, the throne was eventually restored to its proper occupant, Demetrius I, son of Seleucus IV. When Antiochus IV died, he made his friend, Philip, king in his place (1 Maccabees 6:14) with the instructions that his son, Antiochus V “Eupator,” only eleven years old at the time, be made king when he came of age (1 Maccabees 6:15). However, Demetrius I eventually escaped from Rome, had Antiochus V killed, and took back the Syrian throne in 161 B.C. (1 Maccabees 7:1-4). Thus, the Seleucid “horn” of Daniel’s vision had produced an unbroken line of legitimate kings from Seleucus I to Demetrius I. Antiochus IV’s reign had simply been an adventurous but illegitimate administration that grew out of that line. As Daniel had foreseen, “out of one of them came forth a little horn” (Daniel 8:9), for Antiochus had been an offshoot of the Seleucid house, but was not legitimately in the line of succession.
According to Daniel’s vision, this Little Horn “waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.” Here Daniel identifies the three objects of Antiochus’ exploration and military aggression—Egypt to the south (1 Maccabees 1:16), the east beyond the Euphrates to Babylon (1 Maccabees 3:37) as well as to the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf—the exploration of which Pliny the Elder credits to him (Pliny the Elder, Natural History, Book 6.32)—and Judæa (1 Maccabees 1:20), the pleasant land (Psalms 106:24, Jeremiah 3:19, Zechariah 7:14).
As Gabriel goes on describing the events surrounding the rise of Antiochus IV, he explains them in terms of “the last end of the indignation” (Daniel 8:19) using the same term that is employed in Daniel 11, in which it is said that this same antagonist “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished” (Daniel 11:36). The “indignation” here refers to the wrath and the anger of God (i.e., Psalms 38:3, 69:24, 78:49, 102:10, Isaiah 10:5, Jeremiah 50:25, Ezekiel 21:31) and in accordance with Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 43, the “indignation” would not come to an end until the Jews repented of their ways and restored the sanctuary (Leviticus 26:40-42, Ezekiel 43:11). Thus, as Gabriel would explain elsewhere, Seventy Sevens were given “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity” (Daniel 9:24), the explicit objective of the Leviticus 26 Protocol. According to the vision, Antiochus IV’s rise and reign would coincide with “the last end of the indignation,” the end of the Seventy Weeks of chastisement.
Gabriel continues by explaining that Antiochus IV would arise “in the latter time of their kingdom” (Daniel 8:23), indicating that his ascent to power would take place toward the end of the empire of the Greeks. It is also the time “when the transgressors are come to the full” (Daniel 8:23). Given the context of Jewish disobedience that led up to the 70 year chastisement (Jeremiah 25:11, 29:10), and the Seventy Weeks chastisement (Daniel 9:24), it is the transgression of the Jews that is in mind here. Gabriel is using language strongly reminiscent of the Mosaic language of Genesis 15:16 in which it is said that the Jews will not come out of Egypt until the “fourth generation … for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” In that passage, the Jews are the instruments of God’s wrath against the Amorites, whose transgression “is not yet full.” In the context of Daniel 8, 9 and 11, Antiochus IV is the instrument of God’s wrath, and it is the sinners among the Jews that have yet to “come to the full.”
Gabriel describes Antiochus IV as “a king of fierce countenance” (Daniel 8:23), which is resonant of the Lord’s warning in Deuteronomy. “If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes” (Deuteronomy 28:15), Moses warned, He will “bring a nation against thee from far, … A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young” (Deuteronomy 28:49-50). Given the descriptions of Antiochus IV’s disposition toward the Jews, he certainly fits the description:
“He committed deeds of murder, and spoke with great arrogance. Israel mourned deeply in every community, rulers and elders groaned, maidens and young men became faint, the beauty of women faded.” (1 Maccabees 1:24-26)
“According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks” (1 Maccabees 1:60-61).
“So they attacked them on the sabbath, and they died, with their wives and children and cattle, to the number of a thousand persons.” (1 Maccabees 2:38)
Gabriel also describes Antiochus IV as “a king … understanding dark sentences” (Daniel 8:23). The phrase “understanding dark sentences” carries with it the connotation of genius, grasping complex ideas, and being able to grapple with difficult riddles, puzzles and enigmas (i.e, 2 Chronicles 9:1; Psalms 49:4, 78:2 I; Proverbs 1:6). What we know of Antiochus IV is that he behaved as an erratic man of diabolical genius. He took the title “Epiphanes,” but his contemporaries called him “Epimanes,” meaning “The Madman” (Polybius, Histories, Fragments of Book 26.1.1).
He would excuse himself from court and only to be “found at the silversmiths’ and goldsmiths’ workshops, holding forth at length and discussing technical matters with the moulders and other craftsmen” (Polybius, Histories, Fragments of Book 26.1.2). He would forsake his royal attire, don the toga and run for public office. “Upon being elected, he would sit upon the ivory curule chair, as the Roman custom is, listening to the lawsuits tried there, and pronouncing judgement with great pains and display of interest” (Polybius, Histories, Fragments of Book 26.1.6). “He did this with such close attention and zeal that all men of refinement were perplexed about him, some ascribing his behaviour to artless simplicity, others to folly, and some to madness” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 29.32.1). “Roaming through every phase of life, he was so far from remaining constant to any one form of it, that neither he himself nor any one else was at all clear as to his real character” (Livius, History of Rome, Book 41.20). His unpredictable behavior was frequently on display for all to see:
“He also used to bathe in the public baths, when they were full of common people, having jars of the most precious ointments brought in for him; and on one occasion when some one said to him, ‘How lucky you are, you kings, to use such scents and smell so sweet!’ he answered nothing at the time, but next day, when the man was having his bath, he came in after him and had a huge jar of most precious ointment called stacte poured over his head, so that all the bathers jumped up and rolled themselves in it, and by slipping in it created great amusement, as did the king himself.” (Polybius, Histories, Fragments of Book 26.1.12-14)
And yet despite his quixotic displays—and we have not listed them all—he was nevertheless able to reduce all of Egypt (1 Maccabees 1:16-19) and expand the eastern provinces (1 Maccabees 3:37) at the head of his army, and to capture Jerusalem with but a word (1 Maccabees 1:30). His victories in battle were celebrated by the Greek people from Cilicia (Libanius, Oration 11: In the Praise of Antioch, 122) to Babylon (Politai Chronicle, A15).
At the end of his life, he fell into a deep and fatal depression when he encountered failure (1 Maccabees 6:4-9). As is commonly known, there is a thin line between genius and madness—disproportionate exuberance, manic depression, excessive frivolity, unpredictability, bipolarity and genius often being found in the same man. Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” lived his life at the boundary, able to immerse himself in technical minutiae, grapple with complexities, achieve accomplishments of a grand scale, and field an army “unmatched by any of the other kings” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 31.17a)—a man for whom there was apparently no topic beyond his passing interest. If anything, ruling a kingdom seemed too boring to him, for that was the one activity that failed to captivate his interest. Libanius (314 – 392 A.D.), in his oration on the praise of Antioch, leaves us with this summary of his life:
“He was at once a man of peace and a man of war. He rejoiced in peace provided that he was not provoked; in war he was courageous, if ever there was need for it. He did not because of the allurements of peace give ground to those who wronged him, nor did he despise peace because of his victories. He knew, as well as any man, how to take up arms at the right moment, and how to lay them down again.” (Libanius, Oration 11, 122)
Antiochus IV may have been a madman, and may have even played the jester in his own court. But he was no fool. And if we are in search of “a king … understanding dark sentences,” we have certainly found one in Antiochus.
Daniel continues describing the vision of the Little Horn, explaining that it grew strong:
“And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.” (Daniel 8:10)
Again, Gabriel provides the interpretation, explaining that the “host” and the “stars” are the “holy people” whom Antiochus would persecute:
“… and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.” (Daniel 8:24)
Daniel also notes that the Little Horn “magnified himself even to the prince of the host” (Daniel 8:11). Gabriel explains, “he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes” (Daniel 8:25). Depending on the translation, this description is either taken to refer to Christ or to the High Priest of Israel. Given the context in which it is stated—the desolation of the sanctuary and the cessation of daily sacrifices—we are inclined to see this as a description of the High Priest. Daniel 11:22 indicates as much when speaking of Antiochus’ rise to power: “with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant,” a reference to the fact that Onias III, the High Priest, would be a casualty of Antiochus’ rise to power.
Antiochus IV stood up “against the prince of princes” in several ways. Numbers 7 describes the Levitical priests as the princes: “They shall offer their offering, each prince on his day, for the dedicating of the altar” (Numbers 7:11). The land to the east and the west of the Temple was to belong to “the prince” (Ezekiel 45:7, 48:21). According to Josephus, when Antiochus sacked Jerusalem, he knocked down the walls of the city and constructed a citadel, the Acra:
“[W]hen he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, chapter 5.4).
Archaeologists are divided as to the location of the Acra—be it located to the west or to the east of the city—and many studies have suggested multiple such locations (Koen Decoster, Flavius Josephus and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-), Bd. 105 (1989), pp. 70-84). Wherever the Acra was located, it was built and situated for its altitude relative to the Temple itself, and importantly it was located in the part of the land that was reserved “for the prince on the one side and on the other side … from the west side westward, and from the east side eastward” (Ezekiel 45:7). Antiochus also “arrogantly entered the sanctuary” (1 Maccabees 1:21), which of course, was the duty and privilege of the “high priest among his brethren,” the prince among the princes, alone (Leviticus 21). Whether by his entrance into the Temple or by his construction on lands set aside “for the prince” of God’s people, Antiochus IV “magnified himself even to the prince of the host,” and “against the prince of princes,” the High Priest.
Next, Daniel sees the events that we have been discussing for the last few weeks—the prohibition of sacrifices and the desolation of the sanctuary:
“… and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.” (Daniel 8:11-12)
Here Daniel makes a passing reference to the “host” that “was given” to the Little Horn “against the daily sacrifice,” a reference to the fact that “the sanctuary [was] given over to aliens” (1 Maccabees 2:7) and that within the Acra Antiochus IV “stationed there a sinful people, lawless men” and the Acra “became an ambush against the sanctuary” (1 Maccabees 1:36). As we noted above, these events were “by reason of transgression,” which is to say, they were the culmination of the chastisement of Israel for its sabbath violations, idolatry and sanctuary profanations. As noted, the Little Horn “cast down the truth to the ground,” indicating Antiochus IV’s policy of destroying the sacred scriptures: “The books of the law which they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire” (1 Maccabees 1:56).
These events, Daniel is told, will take place over the course of 2,300 days (Daniel 8:13-14)—about 6 years and 4 months—upon which we expounded earlier in All the Evenings and Mornings. The period encompasses Antiochus’ persecution of the Jews and desecration of the sanctuary from his return from his first invasion of Egypt in 170 B.C. to the restoration of the Temple in December 164 B.C..
Gabriel then provides this additional description:
“And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many.” (Daniel 8:25)
Antiochus IV magnified himself in his heart by self-deification. In contrast with all of his predecessors—whom the Seleucids traditionally deified posthumously—Antiochus IV was the first of his line to deify himself during is own reign. As Bevan explains in The House of Seleucus,
“The worship of the Macedonian kings in the Greek cities goes back, as we saw, to the time of Alexander. But undoubtedly Antiochus IV lays more stress upon his deity than former kings. His surname Theos Epiphanes declares him to be an effulgence in human form of the Divine, a god manifest in flesh. Now first the addition of Theos is put upon the money, and the head which appears on the new coinage of the cities is crowned with rays.” (Edwyn Robert Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol 2 (London,1902) 154)
According to 1 Maccabees 1:30, Antiochus IV also employed craft, deceit and pledges of peace to accomplish his purposes:
“Deceitfully he spoke peaceable words to them, and they believed him; but he suddenly fell upon the city, dealt it a severe blow, and destroyed many people of Israel.” (1 Maccabees 1:30)
Finally, Gabriel assures Daniel that this brilliant, militant, deceptive, arrogant Little Horn “shall be broken without hand” (Daniel 8:25). As we noted two weeks ago, Antiochus IV died of grief sometime in 163 B.C. after hearing news of the successes of the Maccabean revolt and the defeat of his forces in Judæa.
Thus the rise and the fall of Antiochus IV “Epiphanes,” persecutor of the holy people (1 Maccabees 6:7-9), as prophesied by Gabriel to Daniel in chapter 8.
We dwell so long on Antiochus IV and his fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel 8 for a very simple reason. As we noted in The Intercalation of Time and All the Evenings and Mornings, the Little Horns of Daniel 8 and Daniel 7 are two different antagonists, separated in time by the succession of two empires. The periods of their respective rises to power were almost six centuries apart. The Little Horn of Daniel 8 is a Greek antagonist, and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is a Roman one. Historically there has existed a temptation to conflate the two, but the text of Scripture repeatedly differentiates between them in its recitation of their attributes.
There are similarities in their activities, but the textual cues to their differences in identity are not wanting. The danger that awaits us if we conflate them is simple and palpable: if we as eschatologists confuse the two, we are left looking for the attributes of the Greek Antiochus IV as depicted in Daniel 8, 9 and 11, to manifest themselves in the rise of a later Roman Antichrist as depicted in Daniel 7 and Revelation. The two antagonists arise in different ways, and do different things in different periods for different lengths of time. To make them into one is to put forth a single hybrid antagonist of whom neither Daniel, nor Gabriel, nor John endeavored to warn us.
Small typo…not big deal. “These events, Danile is told, will take place over the course of 2,300 ”
I must admit I have not learned so much about the Apocrypha books until I started reading this blog. Really fascinating. There is obviously a massive amount of history that has been removed from the canon of Scripture. While I certainly would not consider them Canon, it is interesting history how critical it is to your theory to pinpoint these dates, times and places.
It makes me wonder how the Jews view the Apocrypha books in their own historical literature?
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/omitting-the-maccabees/3/
“Although the Books of Maccabees were not included within the Hebrew Bible, they are still of value. Yet even this is difficult within a traditional Jewish context, due to another historical layer. First and Second Maccabees were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible originally prepared for the Jewish community of Alexandria. However, the Septuagint became the official version of the Bible for the nascent Christian Church. When this happened, its authoritative nature was rejected by the Jewish community. Ironically, the Books of Maccabees survived because they became part of the Christian canon, for otherwise they most certainly would have been lost during the centuries. But once this Christian canonization occurred, these books became lost to the Jewish world for many centuries.”
“Several Theories
There are various theories to explain the exclusion of the apocryphal books. One theory is that only books written originally in Hebrew were considered for inclusion in the canon. However, the Book of Daniel, although included within the canon, is to a large extent written in Aramaic. Even more problematic is the fact that scholars believe that the First Book of Maccabees was indeed written originally in Hebrew, therefore meeting the language criterion for inclusion–and yet it is absent from the biblical canon.
Another theory to explain the omission of the first two Books of Maccabees is based on the dating of these documents. Although it is often assumed that the biblical canon was formalized at Jamnia, there is some speculation that the accepted list of books was in existence long before. In other words, perhaps the gathering of rabbis at Jamnia inherited a list of documents already unofficially recognized as canonical and simply formalized this list.
If this is true, the relatively late date of the Maccabean revolt would preclude its inclusion in an already accepted previous list. It would be too “new” a book for serious consideration, since it had no history grounding it securely within tradition. This theory, however, is severely weakened through a comparison with the Book of Daniel, since Daniel is included within the biblical canon in spite of the fact that most scholars date the latter book to the time of the Maccabean revolt around 165 B.C.E.–in other words, to the time of the story related in the Books of Maccabees.
It has also been suggested that the exclusion of the Books of the Maccabees can be traced to the political rivalry that existed during the late Second Temple Period between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees, a priestly class in charge of the Temple, openly rejected the oral interpretations that the Pharisees, the proto-rabbinic class, openly promoted. The Maccabees were a priestly family, while the rabbis who may have determined the final form of the biblical canon at Jamnia were descended from the Pharisees. Is it possible that the exclusion of the Books of Maccabees was one of the last salvos in the battle between the Pharisees and Sadducees? Would the rabbis at Jamnia have been inclined to canonize a document that so clearly praised the priestly Hasmonean family?”
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5217/why-is-daniel-chapter-24-728-written-in-aramaic
———–
Why is Daniel Chapter 2:4 – 7:28 written in Aramaic?
Question is straightforward: Why is part of Daniel written in Hebrew but a middle section written in Aramaic?
———–
There are a whole host of explanations that have been proffered. Most of this answer is based on this book which summarises the consensus opinion that the first six chapters and the remaining ones constitute two separate sections (textually that isn’t difficult to see, the first section is narrative and the second visionary, they also run chronologically parallel). This of course is almost the basis for an answer to the question – since this dissection is almost in line with the language shift – save the first chapter (which “should” be in Aramaic) and the seventh (which “should” be in Hebrew).
It seems entirely plausible that the first section was composed in Babylon and the second in Israel. This would lend to the explanation that the first chapter’s Hebrew is merely introductory (similar to the rest of the more historical accounts of the Bible), while the seventh’s Aramaic remains problematic. There is a lovely textual/narrative symmetry that links chapters 2-7 in pairs (2 and 7, 3 and 6, 4 and 5) which would then tie the seventh chapter in some way to the first section, making its Aramaic an understandable choice.
Further opinions speculate simply that the entire book was originally written in Hebrew, but lost, and only the Aramaic translations (which were and still are prevalent because Aramaic was widely spoken) of some sections were preserved. Others speculate precisely the opposite – the entirety was written in Aramaic (being the more universal and diplomatic language of the time) but in order to canonise the book they needed to translate at least some sections to Hebrew. Which chapters to translate could still be explained as above. Still others propose an explanation that is seen in certain parts of Jewish dogma from the same period – that the Aramaic was for the layperson and the Hebrew was for the more academic/elite. This makes a lot of sense in light of the narrative/visionary breakdown.
Another explanation for chapter seven’s diversion from the Hebrew of the rest of the section is that it’s a connecting link – being contently more like the second section, but in the language of the first.
The simplest explanation is simply redaction. The two languages are a natural result of the bilingual region.
For the last portion of the book there is a frame of sealing. The prophecies were to become relevant for the future after the time in Babylon, when the people would have long settled back in their land and speak their language, Hebrew.
For Daniel Hebrew was not just his mother-tongue, the language of his youth, it was the language of a chosen people. At his old age he still turned towards Jerusalem when he prayed to God. He loved, studied and knew the Law and the Prophets. In his decisions as an official under different kings he had very certainly often relied on Mosaic regulations (which had proven successful to him from young age on).
If he in Babylon in a a foreign environment had retained his Hebrew, those returning to their promised home land could and should regain it, if it should have been lost.
This is the frame of sealed prophecy spanning over the visions of chapers 8 to 12:
‘The vision … that was told to you is correct. But you should seal up the vision, for it refers to a time many days from now.’ – Daniel 8:26
‘He said, “Go, Daniel. For these matters are closed and sealed until the time of the end.’ – 12:29
To write this last part of the book (which really was a collection of documents) in Hebrew would be just natural. With regard to the sealing of these contents it seems more than indicated not to use the Aramaic.
For the first part to be in Hebrew the most likely reason is that there was no written account of these first three years of Daniel’s education in Babylon. The beginning of chapter 2 is an introductory link to what was the beginning of Daniel’s career as an official of high rank of the Babylonian court. Verses 4b to 11 of chapter 2 (the beginning of the Aramaic text may have been part of a royal protocol and decree (in Aramaic) which followed the reported event.
To continue in Aramaic may (in addition to the fact that the now surrounding and officially used language was Aramaic) be interpreted as Daniel’s signal to his fellow countrymen that God’s decree for those living in Babylon was to settle and work for the good of the city (which obviously would not mean to shun and despise the language spoken there).
Daniel may have written the first part of the book as an introduction to the collection of documents and accounts he arranged in his old age. The parallelism of the chapters 2 and 7, 3 and 6, 4 and 5 indicates a late arrangement, as well as the end of the first chapter does:
‘Now Daniel lived on until the first year of Cyrus the king.’ – Daniel 1:21
Tim wrote:
“The danger that awaits us if we conflate them is simple and palpable: if we as eschatologists confuse the two, we are left looking for the attributes of the Greek Antiochus IV as depicted in Daniel 8, 9 and 11, to manifest themselves in the rise of a later Roman Antichrist as depicted in Daniel 7 and Revelation. The two antagonists arise in different ways, and do different things in different periods for different lengths of time. To make them into one is to put forth a single hybrid antagonist of whom neither Daniel, nor Gabriel, nor John endeavored to warn us.”
Some believe:
“There is a lovely textual/narrative symmetry that links chapters 2-7 in pairs (2 and 7, 3 and 6, 4 and 5) which would then tie the seventh chapter in some way to the first section, making its Aramaic an understandable choice.
If he in Babylon in a a foreign environment had retained his Hebrew, those returning to their promised home land could and should regain it, if it should have been lost.
This is the frame of sealed prophecy spanning over the visions of chapers 8 to 12:
‘The vision … that was told to you is correct. But you should seal up the vision, for it refers to a time many days from now.’ – Daniel 8:26
‘He said, “Go, Daniel. For these matters are closed and sealed until the time of the end.’ – 12:29
To write this last part of the book (which really was a collection of documents) in Hebrew would be just natural. With regard to the sealing of these contents it seems more than indicated not to use the Aramaic.
Daniel may have written the first part of the book as an introduction to the collection of documents and accounts he arranged in his old age. The parallelism of the chapters 2 and 7, 3 and 6, 4 and 5 indicates a late arrangement, as well as the end of the first chapter does:
‘Now Daniel lived on until the first year of Cyrus the king.’ – Daniel 1:21”
Next week…let’s see how Daniel 7 fits into “most commentators who interpret these passes literally and from a futuristic viewpoint”:
http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_7_commentary%283%29.htm
“The other horn – The Little Horn (LH) of Da 7:8-note. Most commentators who interpret these passages literally and from a futuristic viewpoint (and accept the principle of predictive prophecy), interpret the LH as the Anti-Christ (1Jn 2:18-note). The prefix “anti-” has 2 meanings, both of which are fulfilled by the coming Anti-Christ – (1) Instead of and (2) Against. So if you are an Orthodox Jew, you are looking for the Messiah (thinking that this will be his first coming), and on the world scene comes a man who comes “instead of” the true Christ (Messiah) and “against” the true Christ. And since he performs signs and wonders (Jn 7:31, 2Thes 2:8, 9, 10, 11, 12), many will be deceived thinking he is the true Christ. And when he recovers from a fatal wound, they will be fully convinced he is the Christ (see Rev 13:3-note, Rev 13:4-note, Rev 13:8-note).
Which was larger in appearance than its associates – The one who started out as a “little” horn has grown in stature, power and prestige. Many of the uses of the Aramaic word rab translated “larger” in this passage speak of one who in a position of authority or power over others. This word is used to describe the Stone which became a great mountain (Da 2:35) which filled the whole earth.”
http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_7_commentary%283%29.htm
THE ANTICHRIST.
This word does not occur in the Apocalypse, nor in any other book of the New Testament except the first and second epistles, by the apostle John. There it is found in the singular and plural form. (1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; ii. 7.) The apostles in their ministry had spoken frequently and familiarly to the disciples of this personage, as an enemy of God and man. “Ye have heard that Antichrist shall come.” “Remember ye not,” asks Paul, “that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” (2 Thess. ii. 5.) Paul blames his countrymen, the Hebrews, that they had need that one should teach them again which be the first principles of the oracles of God, (Heb. v. 12.) And it is just so now, in the case of most professing Christians, learned and illiterate; they yet need to be taught again what is meant by Antichrist.
All who are acquainted with the sentiments of the reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are aware that their conceptions of this enemy were vague and confused. Persecuted as heretics and apostates from the only true church, the church of Rome, the reformers very naturally concluded that the Pope, or the church of which he is the visible head, was the Antichrist. And this opinion is very generally held at the present day.
Mr. Faber, however, dissents from this popular notion, and with much confidence and plausibility broaches a new theory of his own. His style is always forcible, and so perspicuous that he cannot be misunderstood. In his “Dissertation on the Prophecies,” he lays down the following canon or rule for expositors:—“Before a commentator can reasonably expect his own system to be adopted by others, he must show likewise that the expositions of his predecessors are erroneous in those points wherein he differs from them.” To enforce this rule he adds,—“It will be found to be the only way, in which there is even a probability of attaining to the truth.”
I can neither admit the justness of his rule, nor the conclusiveness of his reason; for by its adoption, “of making many books there would be no end; and the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” To deduce the truth from any portion of God’s word, it is by no means necessary that the expositor shall undertake the Herculean task of refuting all the heresies and vagaries which “men of corrupt minds” have pretended or attempted to wring out of it. But as Mr. Faber is not to be reckoned in this category, I shall pay him so much deserved respect as to apply to himself his own rule in some following particulars:—
By a formal syllogism Mr. Faber proposes to overthrow the generally received interpretation of the term Antichrist, that it means, the Papacy, or, the Church of Rome. Thus he reasons:—“He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son: but the Church of Rome never denied either the Father or the Son: therefore the church of Rome cannot be the Antichrist intended by St. John.” Now, in this argument, which seems to be so clear and conclusive, there is a latent sophism, an assumption contrary to the Scriptures. The false assumption is, that the word denieth is univocal; that is, that it has in the Bible, and on this doctrinal point in particular, only one sense; whereas this is not the case. The Church of Rome does indeed “profess to know” the Father and the Son, but “in works denies” both, (1 Tim. v. 8; Tit. i. 16.) Therefore Mr. Faber’s conclusion is not sustained by his premises, and the Church of Rome might be the Antichrist for any thing that his syllogism says to the contrary.
Mr. Faber imagined that “Republican France,—infidel and atheistical France,”—was the Antichrist; and he labored with much ingenuity to sustain his position by applying to revolutionary France the latter part of the eleventh chapter of Daniel, together with the prophecies of Paul, Peter and Jude. I presume that most divines and intelligent Christians are long since convinced, by the developments of Providence, that he was mistaken. The commotions of the French Revolution and the military achievements of the first Napoleon, however important to peninsular Europe, were on much too limited a scale to correspond with the magnitude and duration of the great Antichrist’s achievements. They were, however, owing to their proximity to Britain and their threatening aspect, of sufficient importance to excite the alarm and rouse the political antipathies of the Vicar of Stockton upon Tees! Mr. Faber’s Antichrist is an “infidel king, wilful king, an atheistical king, a professed atheist,” of short duration, and his influence of limited geographical extent. He is not in most of these features the Antichrist of prophecy, whose baleful influence is co-extensive with Christendom, and whose duration is to be 1260 years. Mr. Faber’s erudition is to be respected, his imagination admired, but his political feelings to be lamented. Indeed, his very ecclesiastical title of office,—“Vicar,” is itself partly indicative and symbolical of the prophetic Antichrist.
I do not believe that infidel France, whether republican or monarchical, nor the Papacy, nor the Church of Rome, is the Antichrist of the apostle John; yet I do believe that all these are essential elements in his composition. The following are the principal component parts of that complex moral person, as defined by the Holy Spirit, by which any disciple of Christ without much learning may identify John’s Antichrist. His elemental parts are three, and only three, and all presented in the thirteenth chapter of Revelation. The “beast of the sea,” (vs. 1, 2,) the “beast of the earth,” (v. 11,) and the “image of, or to the first beast,” (v. 14,) that is, the Roman empire, the Roman church and the Pope: all these in combination, professing Christianity; these, with their adjuncts as subordinate agencies constitute the Apocalyptic Antichrist. Besides this personage, well defined by the inspired prophets, Daniel, Paul, John and others, there is no other Antichrist. An “infidel king, a professed atheist,” as distinct from this one and symbolized in prophetic revelation, I find not. I conclude that such a personage is wholly chimerical, framed as a creature of a lively imagination.
http://www.bookrags.com/ebooks/14485/186.html#gsc.tab=0
Tim, have you heard of this to be factual that the Septuagint included the Books of Maccabees as Canon?
“Although the Books of Maccabees were not included within the Hebrew Bible, they are still of value. Yet even this is difficult within a traditional Jewish context, due to another historical layer. First and Second Maccabees were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible originally prepared for the Jewish community of Alexandria. However, the Septuagint became the official version of the Bible for the nascent Christian Church. When this happened, its authoritative nature was rejected by the Jewish community. Ironically, the Books of Maccabees survived because they became part of the Christian canon, for otherwise they most certainly would have been lost during the centuries. But once this Christian canonization occurred, these books became lost to the Jewish world for many centuries.”
Walt,
Yes, 1st and 2nd Maccabees were part of the Alexandrian Canon, so called because they were among the books collected for the library of Alexandria by Ptolemy II of Egypt. He summoned 70 (LXX, thus the abbreviation, and the name for the Septuagint) Jews to Alexandria to translate the Torah, and according to a legend, which of course has since been debunked, all 70 (or 72, according to some versions) translated the entire text identically. This legend was accepted by several early writers as evidence for the inspiration of the LXX translation, and thus, the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 and 2 Maccabees were considered by some to be canonical. You can read more about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Legend
But not all were convinced. A worthwhile read is Africanus’ letter to Origen, in which explains to Origen that he should know better than to pass off the last two chapters of Daniel (the history of Susanna) as canonical: “I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is spurious. For, in truth, this section, although apart from this it is elegantly written, is plainly a more modern forgery. There are many proofs of this.”
Then there is Origen’s detailed response in which he explains that the Jews do not accept the apocrypha as inspired, and it is good to know why they did not. There is no doubt that in the early church, the books were in circulation in the church. There is no doubt that 1 and 2 Maccabees were used in the churches, but it is also clear that they eventually fell out of use, and Africanus’ objection is evidence of this.
Of note, as well, is that Pope Gregory the Great, in his Moralia in Job, cited Maccabees as “useful” but not “canonical”:
In any case, the first time Roman Catholicism listed the books of Maccabees in an “infallible” canon was at the 4th Session of the Council of Trent in 1546.
I do not consider 1 and 2 Maccabees to be inspired, but they are of some historical value of course, especially for their preservation of the events related to Antiochus IV.
Thanks,
Tim
Walt,
Don’t fall for Tim’s bamboozle. All you need to know is that the New Testament Church relied upon the LXX. Protestant scholars admit as much.
It wasn’t even until the Bar Kochba uprising that the Jews themselves officially turned against the LXX and the 7 books accepted by Christians whom they considered to be traitors for not joining in the fight against Rome.
The Church fathers accused the Jews of monkeying with the scriptures to conceal the fact that Jesus was the Christ. For example, Matthew writes that the Jews taunted Jesus on the cross by saying he should save himself if he were truly the son of God. This was foreseen clearly in one book of the OT, the book of Wisdom. That is why they denied it was inspired.
Remember Walt, the same Jews who denied the 7 also denied all of the NT.
Tim,
You don’t consider Maccabees to be inspired? Although Jesus used the feast mentioned only in those books as the backdrop for his “Light of the World” discourse?
Paul would disagree with your assessment. He mentions many famous Biblical personages of fame starting with Adam to the 7 Martyrs and their mother, from Genesis to Maccabees, in the book of Hebrews. Every single person listed was in the Bible. None were drawn from legends or myths including Eleazar, the mother and the boys.
Tim,
“Then there is Origen’s detailed response in which he explains that the Jews do not accept the apocrypha as inspired, and it is good to know why they did not.”
They rejected them for the same reason they rejected the entire NT.
“There is no doubt that in the early church, the books were in circulation in the church.”
Thank you for that concession.
“…but it is also clear that they eventually fell out of use,”
No. The Shepherd of Hermes, the Gospel of James, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc. fell into disuse. The 7 did not.
” and Africanus’ objection is evidence of this”
He objected for purely linguistic reasons. He never said they should be rejected because the Jews rejected them.
Walter,
“I must admit I have not learned so much about the Apocrypha books until I started reading this blog.”
It’s sad that you have to turn to Tim to learn about these books.
You go on to say,
” While I certainly would not consider them Canon,…”.
No? Why not? The early Christians considered them as such. Paul even refers to Maccabees in Hebrews. I would go with the early Church over Tim if I were you.
Sir Walter,
Speaking of the Septuagint, did you know that in Gen 46:27 it says 75 people of Israel went down into Egypt. In Acts 7:14 St. Stephan the martyr repeats this number in his speech.
The Hebrew text of the anti Christian Pharisees ( and Luther ) says 70 people.
Obviously, the LXX was used by the guys who wrote the New Testament.
Want more examples? I got ’em.
Walt,
I assume you are going to respond with the standard Protestant claim that the Jews were entrusted with determining O.T. canon.
Which group of Jews? At the time of the writing of the N.T. there were about 24 different Jewish denominations; Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Hemerbaptists, Masobotheans, etc.
They were not in agreement on when to celebrate the Passover or the canon of scripture.
Which group of Jews do you personally follow on this issue?
Remember, these same Jews rejected all of the books of the New Testament.
P.S.
In John’s Gospel, chapter 10, we see Christ keeping the feast mentioned in Maccabees.
Now, tell us how you, Walter the Scotophile, know the Deuterocanonical books are not part of the Bible?
Walt,
Don’t bother asking Tim to help you out on this. He didn’t come to your rescue on Penal Substitution. He won’t rescue you on this either because Tim’s forte is slurring Catholicism, not defending or promoting Protestantism. His position is all negative, nothing positive. He can tell you what he doesn’t believe but not what he does believe. Doubt me? Look at this site. Can you learn anything about Protestantism?
Happy feast day of Our Lady of Fatima.
Walt,
“I must admit I have not learned so much about the Apocrypha books… I certainly would not consider them Canon,…”.
So, although you openly admit you know next to nothing about these books, you consider yourself qualified to pontificate on the world wide web as to whether or not they belong in the Bible?
Brilliant, Walt. Absolutely brilliant.
JIM–
Why do you suppose the deuterocanonical books were not considered primary canon?
Bob,
Not sure. Maybe it was like how we Catholics give priority to the Gospels and Protestants give first place to Paul. Nobody disputed Genesis being canonical but they did some of the other books.
Bob,
I did some checking and found a better answer to your question.
The early Church divided the writings into three categories; 1. the canon,2. the books that were simply ” read” and 3. the apocrypha.
The second batch or deuterocanon were not considered canon but we still considered to be inspired. The third group were considered to be spurious or even heretical.
The first group were read in both synagogue and Church. The second group were read only in church but not in the synagogue. They had been rejected since the time of Akiba and the Bar Kochba uprising. Akiba is the first to ever have ever rejected those books. He did so out of hatred for anything non-Jewish.
How could the second group be considered inspired but not canonical? Simple to answer. The test as to whether a book was inspired or not was whether it had been read in the liturgy. The deuterocanon had always been used in the liturgy. The apocrypha never had been used in the liturgy.
Tim,
“I was once a follower of the visions of Mary at Fatima, Guadalupe and Lourdes, among others, but I no longer believe those visions were from God”
How do you feel about Pentecostals? Do you believe miracles still happen? Did all prophecy end when the Bible was written down? How about healings? Are they the work of charlatans? Are Protestants who speak in tongues deluded or duped by the devil? Followers of the above apparitions are duped by the devil, yes? You are a sort of cessationist, yes?
When you first left the Catholic Church, did you have the full orbed views that you now hold or did you “grow” into your present confusion? You were an Arminian, yes? Were you discipled by John MacArthur as was kelvin?
When did you get into the stuff you are into now? Within the past year or so, right? ( You seem to have moved beyond Fatima, Guadalupe and Lords into this new area rather recently. )
What makes Tim tick?
Thanks, Jim,
I did not “have the full orbed views,” as you say, when I first left Roman Catholicism. I did start studying the Seventy Weeks of Daniel almost immediately, before I even started realizing the problems with the apparitions, so you might say that my interest in the Diadochi preceded my interest in the apparitions.
Since I only recently wrote an entry on the topic of Daniel 7, and since the Little Horn of Daniel 8 and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 are often confused and conflated—and at the very least, both chapters occupy the same genre of apocalyptic literature—I thought it would be appropriate and timely to work through Daniel 8, as well. Just as the thirteen-way division of the Roman Empire cannot be understood apart from studying the diocesan divisions of Rome, the four-way division of the Greek empire cannot be understood without studying the wars of the Diadochi. Remarkably, these two periods in human history have been largely obscured by the unavailability of historical data necessary to give us the full picture. And yet our understanding of eschatology relies heavily on the scarce knowledge of what happened during those periods. An eschatology developed without knowledge of that history will be deficient, for obvious reasons.
Tim
Thanks Tim,
So, I gotta ask, are you being mentored in your studies? Or are you going it alone? Who are your favorite writers? Whose theories do you find interesting? Other than Walt and Kelvin, what are others saying? Other than this blog, do you have a following? How did so many others before you fail to find what you have found? How important are your discoveries? Does a Protestant need to agree with you in order to be justified by faith alone?
By the way, I am gratified to see you referencing Maccabees and Daniel. Since you seem to trust the historical accuracy of Maccabees, you must agree that offering sacrifice to loose dead people from their sins was the official Jewish practice. ( I say “official” because the temple authorities allowed it ).
Although as a devotee of Bill Webster and other Protestant luminaries, you are obliged to reject these books’ inspiration without question, you must accept they are useful for something. For instance, Jesus keeps the feast of Chanukah. This feast is not in your Bible. Yet Jesus keeps it. So Jesus follows extra biblical tradition, yes?
We also see Paul referring to these books in Hebrews which proves Jews did indeed consider these books to be of value.
You strain at apparitions of Mary but swallow apparitions of Jeremias and Onias. And angels too. And while you reject the miracles attached to Lourdes and Fatima, you buy the “extra-biblical” miracles found in these books.
You scoff at Mary’s role in redemption but have no problem with the mother and her 7 sons suffering for their people.
I assume you believe in the Creatio Ex Nihilo, a teaching found clearly only in Maccabees.
Plus, nowhere in these books do we find anything like JBFA.
As for Daniel, you don’t even have an entire book.
But thanks for arousing Walt’s interest in these books.
Tim, the blog does not allow me to repost my question above. Perhaps if you find time you can answer it.
Walt,
This blog does allow me to repost my question to you;
Why do you reject Maccabees? On the authority of some guy from Scotland? You have admitted you are just now learning, thanks to Tim’s website, about these books for the first time. So, you know zero about them but you are absolutely convinced these books are not inspired.
( And we Catholics are accused of checking our minds at the door ).
Jim, answer is that the Apocrypha books are spurious and not included in the Canon.
“Apocrypha are works, usually written works, that are of unknown authorship, or of doubtful authenticity, or spurious, or not considered to be within a particular canon. The word is properly treated as a plural, but in common usage is often singular.[1] In the context of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, where most texts are of unknown authorship, Apocrypha usually refers to a set of texts included in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible.
The word’s origin is the Medieval Latin adjective apocryphus, “secret, or non-canonical”, from the Greek adjective ἀπόκρυφος (apokryphos), “obscure”, from the verb ἀποκρύπτειν (apokryptein), “to hide away”.[2]
Some were not accepted by the Jews as part of the Hebrew Bible canon. It must be said however that Jerome preferred the Hebrew canon whereas Augustine preferred the wider (Greek) canon.[3] The Christian canon thus established was retained for over 1,000 years, even after the 11th-century schism that separated the church into the branches known as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Apocrypha were initially long rejected by the Catholic church as inspired writings, however, after controversy were officially canonized following the Protestant Reformation during the Council of Trent in 1546 AD.
Those canons were not challenged until the Protestant Reformation (16th century), when both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches officially canonized them. The reformers rejected the parts of the canon that were not part of the Hebrew Bible and established a revised Protestant canon.[4] Thus, concerning the Old Testament books, what is thought of as the “Protestant canon” is actually the final Hebrew canon. The differences can be found by looking here or by comparing the contents of the “Protestant” and Catholic Bibles, and they represent the narrowest Christian application of the term Apocrypha.”
AMEN!
Walt,
What you call the Apocrypha and what we call the Apocrypha are not the same.
Amen:
Spurious writings
In general use, the word “apocrypha” came to mean “false, spurious, bad, or heretical.” This meaning also appears in Origen’s prologue to his commentary on the Song of Songs, of which only the Latin translation survives: De scripturis his, quae appellantur apocryphae, pro eo quod multa in iis corrupta et contra fidem veram inveniuntur a majoribus tradita non placuit iis dari locum nec admitti ad auctoritatem.[5] “Concerning these scriptures, which are called apocryphal, for the reason that many things are found in them corrupt and against the true faith handed down by the elders, it has pleased them that they not be given a place nor be admitted to authority.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha
Roman Catholics may tell you, “You Protestants are missing part of the Bible. We have the rest of it.” [Note: These people’s leaders (popes, priests, etc.) have led them astray to this wrong belief.] This comment about missing books can throw people off, but it no longer has to. These popish additions to the Bible are commonly called the Apocrypha or sometimes the Deuterocanonical books. This is a short treatise on WHY these books are not in the Bible.
What is the Apocrypha anyway?
http://jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm
Walt,
Do you deny that the writers of the N.T. used the LXX, including the Deuterocanonical books? Yes or No?
No, do not deny, but that has nothing to do with faithful canon and what was infallible text vs. what was man inspired text. As a Catholic I was never expected to study and memorize any Scripture, including the Apocrypha books. I was taught sacred tradition and to read specific chapters of the bible 3 days a week during the morning mass. Never once was I asked to read from the books of Apocrypha. I assume this requirement is now only read in the mass during our generation, but when I was a Catholic boy I never read any passages from the Apocrypha books during mass. Nor do I remember ever hearing any Priest preach on these books.
Walt,
Whining about what it was like when you were a “Catholic boy” is irrelevant now. Stay on target. We are talking about why you reject the books used by the Apostles and Jesus, not about how your memory is so bad that you can’t remember the readings used at Mass when you were a kid. ( Ever hear at Mass during Christmas time that Jesus was born of a Virgin (Parthenos ) as prophesied by Isaiah? Matthew used the LXX in writing that. What, did you skip Mass as a “Catholic boy” or just not pay attention? )
You just conceded that the guys who wrote the New Testament used the Septuagint, including the 7 books not in your Protestant Bible. Doesn’t that mean anything to you?
Whether you realize it or not, Walt, you just gave away the farm. Think about what you just said; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. considered the LXX to be the word of God but you don’t. You say it has nothing to do with anything.
So then, you admit you are a follower of Tim, the Deformers, Scottish Protestants, etc. but not Jesus and the Apostles.
I guess we have nothing more to discuss then, do we? Cheers.
Tim,
First Kelvin, now Walt. Where do you find your groupies, Tim?
Scotty knows all about the Covenanters and other 17th century nobodies but finds Jesus and the Apostles to be of no interest.
You are really dragging the bottom of the barrel for devotees, aren’t you?
Jim, I stated: “No, do not deny,…”
Jim responded: “We are talking about why you reject the books used by the Apostles and Jesus, not about how your memory is so bad that you can’t remember the readings used at Mass when you were a kid.”
You are such a blind fool Jim…why don’t you please go away, and repent for your constant lies, ignorance and foolish comments on this site week after week. Go away!
I just saw this on Tim’s subscriber’s page, and found it to be an incredible joy to my heart after he rebuked Bob, and I share it to rebuke Jim as well from those of us who have left the terrible Romish church which is so damaging to anything holy and true.
————-
Gustavo P Gianello
June 8, 2015 at 4:55 am
Why are you even here? You are obviously not here to learn. Therefore you are a troll. How would you like me to go onto Scott Hahn’s site and call Roman Catholics followers of the whore of Babylon? Etiquette and common decency demand, that when you are a guest in a person’s house you do not call him a liar to his face. You are in Tim’s house, and since he is too much a gentleman to call you out I will. I am a former student of the Capuchins, taught by Capuchin nuns, and speak the unofficial language of the Roman Church–Italian. I can personally testify, by personal experience and my own studies, that Tim is not the deceiver–you are. Christ does not need to be sacrificed, over and over during the Oblation, for me. Once was enough. And the sacraments do not operate “ex opera operato” and the Virgin Mary cannot pray for me or operate as co-redemptrix. She was a good Christian woman, who like the Holy Spirit who inspired her, would not dare to take any of the attention off her Son, who is the King of heaven who DOES NOT NEED A QUEEN!
Gus,
reformed Presbyterian and former Romanist
Jim,
Watch this video…see the section starting at 13:50 to 17:00 to get a wonderful exposition on what us protestants in history think of the Catholic Mass. This speaker nails it perfectly and demonstrates for the viewer what is involved in the Roman Catholic Mass. It will bless your soul I know.
Walt,
I don’t need to click on some video to know what Protestants thinks of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Are you forgetting I am Kelvin’s chief critic?
Walter,
Did you or did you not write this, “No, do not deny, but that has nothing to do with faithful canon and what was infallible text…” in response to my, ” Walt, Do you deny that the writers of the N.T. used the LXX, including the Deuterocanonical books? Yes or No?”
Unless I am misreading you, you did in fact say that you DO NOT DENY the Apostles used the LXX. IOW, you concede my point that it was the text used by the first Christians. Amazingly, you then go on to dismiss the LXX with this bizarre statement, “…but that has nothing to do with faithful canon and what was infallible text..”.
I am sorry sir, but you seem to be confused. May I suggest you lighten up on the Glenfiddich fumes a wee bit when posting an argument.
Walt,
“You are such a blind fool Jim…why don’t you please go away, and repent for your constant lies, ignorance and foolish comments on this site week after week. Go away!”
Am I missing something? I thought you and I were discussing on what grounds you dismiss the books of Maccabees and the Greek LXX. You then suddenly change the subject and interject some video about how anti-Catholics slur and blaspheme how I pray ( the Mass).
May I ask why? What was your motive in so doing? It certainly wasn’t coming from a place of Christian charity, that’s for sure.
You ended your comment with a Judas like comment about how the video would “bless my soul”. IOW, you did something mean, you tried to hurt my feelings and insult my religion. But you did it with a blessing attached. You spat on my feelings but gave me a kiss of peace too. Like Judas did in the garden.
You talk about my comments but what about your evil and two trickery?
You are like Bozo Falloni who pukes out venom in his comments but signs off with an unctuous “God Bless”.
You, Kelvin and Tim are truly an unholy trinity.
Walter,
That should read, “your two faced treachery”.
Imagine if I said I hope you, your mother, your father, your kid sister and your dog all die a horrible death and then go rot in hell forever.
But I then sign off with a sanctimonious, God bless you”.
You are a geek, Walt. A bona fide geek.
For those who want more research on this period, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBYGOzMIlBI
While I don’t agree with this guys interpretation of Augustine and Calvin, I do find the history on Hanukkah very helpful.
Here is another one on Documentary Tube that covers “secular” version of the events:
Here is a pre-mill (error) view of eschatology. The video says:
BEWARE…this is similar to the Roman Catholic teaching.
———–
Stunning truth revealed by Rabbi Jonathan Cahn: The jewish feast of Hanukkah is exactly foreshadowing the antichrist and the end time. Don’t listen to those who say they already know who the antichrist is – but be aware of the upcoming impact of the spirit of the antichrist. Be prepared and be ready to become radical for the truth of Jesus the Messiah. This Video was published on the Jim Bakker Show on Nov. 12, 2012.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deK4TOJ2cNE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRJUP4YOpg0
We already know how false “Rabbi” Jonathan Cahn is as his last predictions in September never came to pass. He is really spinning now trying everything he can to justify his false prophecy. Beware of the false prophecy above.