Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Fulfilled prophecy - The Edomites will disappear

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fulfilled prophecy - The Edomites will disappear

    " 'Jacob will be a fire
    and Joseph a flame;
    Esau will be stubble,
    and they will set him on fire and destroy him.
    There will be no survivors
    from Esau.'

    The LORD has spoken." (Obadiah 18)

    This finally was fulfilled when the Idumeans, who were present when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70, disappeared from the world scene.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  • #2
    I'll probably get hit on both sides for this comment, but I am of the opinion that Daniel 11:36-45 is prophetic of the Roman republic. Daniel 11:40-41, particularly, refer to the war against Jugurtha (king of the south, 111-105 BC), and the Mithridatic Wars (king of the north), particularly 67-65 BC, when Pompey got sidetracked from his original goal of capturing Mithridates, and went on a campaign of conquest. He invaded Judea, even entered the Holy of Holies, and prepared to lead his army into Petra and the Nabataean Kingdom, which occupied the regions formerly settled by Ammon, Edom and Moab. But when he learned of Mithridates' death in 63BC, Pompey ended his campaign and proceeded to Pontus, where he could confirm the death of Mithridates.

    “At the end time the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them and pass through. He will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab and the foremost of the sons of Ammon." (Daniel 11:40-41, NASB)
    When I Survey....

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Faber View Post
      I'll probably get hit on both sides for this comment, but I am of the opinion that Daniel 11:36-45 is prophetic of the Roman republic. Daniel 11:40-41, particularly, refer to the war against Jugurtha (king of the south, 111-105 BC), and the Mithridatic Wars (king of the north), particularly 67-65 BC, when Pompey got sidetracked from his original goal of capturing Mithridates, and went on a campaign of conquest. He invaded Judea, even entered the Holy of Holies, and prepared to lead his army into Petra and the Nabataean Kingdom, which occupied the regions formerly settled by Ammon, Edom and Moab. But when he learned of Mithridates' death in 63BC, Pompey ended his campaign and proceeded to Pontus, where he could confirm the death of Mithridates.
      I had heard and read many times where these verses applied to the Alexandrian wars. Wasn't there a grecian, Titus Andronicus who was said to have made an altar to Zeus inside the Holy Temple?
      A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
      George Bernard Shaw

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
        I had heard and read many times where these verses applied to the Alexandrian wars. Wasn't there a grecian, Titus Andronicus who was said to have made an altar to Zeus inside the Holy Temple?
        That would be Antiochus IV Epiphanes, in 167 BC:

        “And forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. (Daniel 11:31, NASB)
        On December, 167 BC (25th day of Chislev, year 145 of the Syrian Calendar, according to 1 Maccabees 1:54) Antiochus formally dedicated the temple of God as a shrine to the Greek god Zeus and offered a pig, the abomination of desolation, as a sacrifice on the altar of the Lord, and put an end to the daily sacrifice in his attempt to Hellenize the Jews. Swine blood was sprinkled around the Holy of Holies and upon some copies of the Scriptures found in the temple. All Jewish symbols were removed from the temple, and religious prostitution was introduced in the temple courts. A statue of Zeus with the face of Antiochus was set before the altar that once held the sacrifices for the sins of the people.
        When I Survey....

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
          I had heard and read many times where these verses applied to the Alexandrian wars. Wasn't there a grecian, Titus Andronicus who was said to have made an altar to Zeus inside the Holy Temple?
          Those intrigued with end-time prophecy may find some thought provoking reading in some of Joel Richardson's works. Here is a link to one of his books you can read for free: https://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm

          Essentially the same book is available on Amazon under different titles but by the same author. I have one of the hard copies and it is essentially the exact same book as the free digitized version I linked you to.

          As I said, if you're interested in end-time prophecy you may well find the book to be some thought provoking reading. I have never been able to accept a revival of the old Roman Empire as being Biblical taught Nor do I believe the end time religion is Catholicism. NO ... I am not a Catholic and never could be a Catholic, but I don't see the Catholic Church as being the end-time religion.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Faber View Post
            That would be Antiochus IV Epiphanes, in 167 BC:



            On December, 167 BC (25th day of Chislev, year 145 of the Syrian Calendar, according to 1 Maccabees 1:54) Antiochus formally dedicated the temple of God as a shrine to the Greek god Zeus and offered a pig, the abomination of desolation, as a sacrifice on the altar of the Lord, and put an end to the daily sacrifice in his attempt to Hellenize the Jews. Swine blood was sprinkled around the Holy of Holies and upon some copies of the Scriptures found in the temple. All Jewish symbols were removed from the temple, and religious prostitution was introduced in the temple courts. A statue of Zeus with the face of Antiochus was set before the altar that once held the sacrifices for the sins of the people.
            And the response of the Maccabees made it quite clear how the Jews felt about anthropomorphic deities and other idolatries, despite the allegations of various Christians on these boards to the contrary.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              And the response of the Maccabees made it quite clear how the Jews felt about anthropomorphic deities and other idolatries, despite the allegations of various Christians on these boards to the contrary.
              Funny that you don't understand the Messianic Judaism perspective that we hold.

              I don't think there is a lack of understanding of mythology where perhaps genealogies of the gentiles were treated as demigods. However, like has been discussed, the continuation of the multiple persons of the Lord God has been made known in the Old and New Testaments. Stopping playing the part of an ignorant inquisitor.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                Funny that you don't understand the Messianic Judaism perspective that we hold.
                The Jewish Messiah is not a divinity. It is believed that he will be a man chosen by the almighty. Not a divinity in his own right.

                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                I don't think there is a lack of understanding of mythology where perhaps genealogies of the gentiles were treated as demigods.
                Where precisely is the difference between acknowledging a god in human form [Apollo, Zeus, etc.] and your belief that an anthropomorphic deity assumed the human form of a Galilean Jewish peasant itinerant holy man?

                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                However, like has been discussed, the continuation of the multiple persons of the Lord God has been made known in the Old and New Testaments.
                I repeat that is merely Christian apologetics.

                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                Stopping playing the part of an ignorant inquisitor.
                It appears that if anyone writes something you do not care for you resort to making pejorative remarks.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  The Jewish Messiah is not a divinity. It is believed that he will be a man chosen by the almighty. Not a divinity in his own right.

                  Where precisely is the difference between acknowledging a god in human form [Apollo, Zeus, etc.] and your belief that an anthropomorphic deity assumed the human form of a Galilean Jewish peasant itinerant holy man?

                  I repeat that is merely Christian apologetics.

                  It appears that if anyone writes something you do not care for you resort to making pejorative remarks.
                  That was not pejorative. You are pretending about what Christians are saying even though you know what they are saying.

                  You are persisting in the appearance of ignorance here. But you keep repeating your mantras, as if this will make your ideas true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    That was not pejorative.
                    I beg to differ.

                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    You are pretending about what Christians are saying even though you know what they are saying.
                    Irrespective of what Christians believe, the Jewish Messiah is not a divinity.

                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    You are persisting in the appearance of ignorance here.
                    I am fully aware of what Christians believe regarding the divine status of the Son but those beliefs are premised on human interpretations and decisions. As for your remark that "this will make your ideas true" the known facts of early Christianity speak for themselves and for its first 250 years the religion was entirely fluid.

                    Now to my question, What precisely is the difference between acknowledging a god in human form [Apollo, Zeus, etc.] and your belief that an anthropomorphic deity assumed the human form of a Galilean Jewish peasant itinerant holy man?

                    Are you going to address that?
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      I beg to differ.

                      Irrespective of what Christians believe, the Jewish Messiah is not a divinity.

                      I am fully aware of what Christians believe regarding the divine status of the Son but those beliefs are premised on human interpretations and decisions. As for your remark that "this will make your ideas true" the known facts of early Christianity speak for themselves and for its first 250 years the religion was entirely fluid.

                      Now to my question, What precisely is the difference between acknowledging a god in human form [Apollo, Zeus, etc.] and your belief that an anthropomorphic deity assumed the human form of a Galilean Jewish peasant itinerant holy man?

                      Are you going to address that?
                      You can study the Trinitarian doctrine to understand what the Old and New Testament show about our monotheistic understanding. God does not have to conform to the image that you can imagine. You try to limit God based on what you comprehend ... and on the rejection of the OT testimony to the multiple person in the Godhead.

                      It just seems so odd that you want to deny the Trinitarian understanding of the God of Israel when in fact you are denying the existence of God himself. If you think God does not exist, what does it matter how He is described?
                      Last edited by mikewhitney; 07-07-2020, 01:22 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        You can study the Trinitarian doctrine to understand what the Old and New Testament show about our monotheistic understanding.
                        There is no Trinitarian doctrine in the Hebrew texts nor the NT. Circumlocutory language in the New Testament was later employed to justify the construct of a Triune deity.

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        God does not have to conform to the image that you can imagine. You try to limit God based on what you comprehend
                        Then from that logic it follows no one can "comprehend" "God" in any of its guises or forms, including your notion of a Triune deity.

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        ... and on the rejection of the OT testimony to the multiple person in the Godhead.
                        There is nothing in the Hebrew bible that mentions a triune deity

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        It just seems so odd that you want to deny the Trinitarian understanding of the God of Israel
                        There is no "Trinitarian" understanding of the "God of Israel".

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        when in fact you are denying the existence of God himself.
                        My views on theology are immaterial.

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        If you think God does not exist, what does it matter how He is described?
                        My interest stems purely from an academic perspective.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          There is no Trinitarian doctrine in the Hebrew texts nor the NT. Circumlocutory language in the New Testament was later employed to justify the construct of a Triune deity.

                          Then from that logic it follows no one can "comprehend" "God" in any of its guises or forms, including your notion of a Triune deity.

                          There is nothing in the Hebrew bible that mentions a triune deity

                          There is no "Trinitarian" understanding of the "God of Israel".

                          My views on theology are immaterial.

                          My interest stems purely from an academic perspective.
                          That is funny. Everything you are saying is from a theological standpoint. We are talking about the knowledge of God Himself -- which is central to theology. You are basically right about no concept of Trinity in the OT but, as said elsewhere, the multiple aspects of the Godhead appear in the OT. There is no purely academic perspective -- no single perspective, at least. Everything is sort of a restoring of the framework to understand things. But your restoration is weaker because you are countering the continuity of understanding within Christianity and are now introducing conspiracy theories.

                          We have understanding of the Godhead through Old Testament and New Testament writings. The revelation of God to us is the only place we really can start to know anything about God.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            That is funny. Everything you are saying is from a theological standpoint
                            How do you arrive at that conclusion? This appears to be mere opinion on your part.

                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            We are talking about the knowledge of God Himself -- which is central to theology.
                            For which you have previously stated “God does not have to conform to the image that you can imagine. You try to limit God based on what you comprehend ...”. It therefore follows that you are as limited as am I when it comes to comprehending god and your views on that matter carry no more weight than those of anyone else [including myself].
                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            You are basically right about no concept of Trinity in the OT
                            I am not “basically right” I am entirely correct.

                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            but, as said elsewhere, the multiple aspects of the Godhead appear in the OT.
                            No they do not. That is merely later Christian apologetics taking verses from the Hebrew texts out of their historical context and manipulating those verses to fit their own Christian viewpoint/agenda.

                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            There is no purely academic perspective -- no single perspective, at least.
                            When it comes understanding these texts in their original languages, and the socio-historical context in which they were written, there is a wealth of academic research.

                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            Everything is sort of a restoring of the framework to understand things.
                            What is this “framework”?
                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            But your restoration is weaker because you are countering the continuity of understanding within Christianity and are now introducing conspiracy theories.
                            I suspect what you really mean by those remarks is that my conclusions do not agree with your own preconceived theological beliefs.

                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            We have understanding of the Godhead through Old Testament and New Testament writings.
                            The beliefs and interpretations concerning this “Godhead” as you term it, varied considerably from the early history of the Israelites and then on to Second Temple Judaism.

                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            The revelation of God to us is the only place we really can start to know anything about God.
                            That is merely your own theological idea and you have already stated that “God does not have to conform to the image that you can imagine. That statement must therefore include your own imagined image.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                            14 responses
                            42 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post tabibito  
                            Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                            21 responses
                            129 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                            78 responses
                            411 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post tabibito  
                            Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                            45 responses
                            303 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X