PDA

View Full Version : Daniel 11:37 - "the desire of women" - what is the meaning?



Nazaroo
August 5th, 2015, 02:30 PM
"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." (Dan. 11:37 KJV)

Jubilee Bible 2000 (http://biblehub.com/jub/daniel/11.htm)
Neither shall he care for the God of his fathers, nor the love of women, nor care for any god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

King James 2000 Bible (http://biblehub.com/kj2000/daniel/11.htm)
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

American King James Version (http://biblehub.com/akjv/daniel/11.htm)
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

American Standard Version (http://biblehub.com/asv/daniel/11.htm)
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.

English Revised Version (http://biblehub.com/erv/daniel/11.htm)
Neither shall he regard the gods his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Webster's Bible Translation (http://biblehub.com/wbt/daniel/11.htm)
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

World English Bible (http://biblehub.com/web/daniel/11.htm)
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.

Young's Literal Translation (http://biblehub.com/ylt/daniel/11.htm)
And unto the God of his fathers he doth not attend, nor to the desire of women, yea, to any god he doth not attend, for against all he magnifieth himself.

New American Standard Bible (http://biblehub.com/nasb/daniel/11.htm)
"He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all.





Many have identified this verse with the Vatican RC 'priesthood',
because of their supposed celibacy vows,
long recognized by Protestantism as a perversion of God's intent.

To counter this meaning,
Roman Catholic translators alter this verse.

For instance:


Roman Catholic Versions:

Douay-Rheims Bible: (http://biblehub.com/drb/daniel/11.htm)
And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers: and he shall follow the lust of women, and he shall not regard any gods: for he shall rise up against all things.

Living Bible (TLB)

He will have no regard for the gods of his fathers, nor for the god beloved of women, nor any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.


The 'Modern' Translations:

New International Version (http://biblehub.com/niv/daniel/11.htm)
He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

New Living Translation (http://biblehub.com/nlt/daniel/11.htm)
He will have no respect for the gods of his ancestors, or for the god loved by women, or for any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.

English Standard Version (http://biblehub.com/esv/daniel/11.htm)
He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

International Standard Version (http://biblehub.com/isv/daniel/11.htm)
He'll recognize neither the gods of his ancestors nor those desired by women— he won't recognize any god, because he'll exalt himself above everything.

NET Bible (http://biblehub.com/net/daniel/11.htm)
He will not respect the gods of his fathers--not even the god loved by women. He will not respect any god; he will elevate himself above them all.




What exactly is the original Hebrew?



לז וְעַל-אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָיו לֹא יָבִין, וְעַל-חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים וְעַל-כָּל-אֱלוֹהַּ לֹא יָבִין: כִּי עַל-כֹּל, יִתְגַּדָּל.
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all.




When we turn to the various commentaries available,
we nonetheless find some confusion and some variance of opinion
on the exact meaning of this phrase.

Part of the problem is in the apparent confusion as to whom the prophecy
is about. Is it about Antiochus? or the Future Anti-Christ? or both?

Those who try to force Daniel to only deal with Antiochus (circa 165 B.C.)
and who date Daniel as a 'late pious forgery' usually attempt a historical interpretation.

The problem with applying it to Antiochus is that it literally contradicts
all that is known about Antiochus. He was a lustful womanizer,
and apparently huge indulger in lustful passions. The text on its face
says the opposite about its subject.



The remainder of this prophecy is very difficult, and commentators differ much respecting it. From Antiochus the account seems to pass to antichrist. Reference seems to be made to the Roman empire, the fourth monarchy, in its pagan, early Christian, and papal states. The end of the Lord's anger against his people approaches, as well as the end of his patience towards his enemies.
- Matthew Henry's Commentary

Nor the desire of women - The phrase "the desire of women" is in itself ambiguous, and may either mean what they desire, that is, what is agreeable to them, or what they commonly seek, and for which they would plead; or it may mean his own desire - that is, that he would not be restrained by the desire of women, by any regard for women, for honorable matrimony, or by irregular passion. The phrase here is probably to be taken in the former sense, as this best suits the connection. There has been great variety in the interpretation of this expression. Some have maintained that it cannot be applicable to Antiochus at all, since he was a man eminently licentious and under the influence of abandoned women.



Jerome, in loc., John D. Michaelis, Dereser, Gesenius, and Lengerke suppose that this means that he would not regard the beautiful statue of the goddess Venus whose temple was in Elymais, which he plundered.


Staudlin and Dathe, that he would not regard the weeping or tears of women - that is, that he would be cruel.

Bertholdt, that he would not spare little children, the object of a mother's love - that is, that he would be a cruel tyrant.

Jerome renders it, Et erit in concupiscentiis faminarum, and explains it of unbridled lust, and applies it principally to Antiochus.

Elliott, strangely it seems to me (Apocalypse, iv. 152), interprets it as referring to what was so much the object of desire among the Hebrew women - the Messiah, the promised seed of the woman; and he says that he had found this opinion hinted at by Faber on the Prophecies (Ed. 5), i.-380-385.

Others expound it as signifying that he would not regard honorable matrimony, but would be given to unlawful pleasures.



It may not be practicable to determine with certainty the meaning of the expression, but it seems to me that the design of the whole is to set forth the impiety and hard-heartedness of Antiochus. He would not regard the gods of his fathers; that is, he would not be controlled by any of the principles of the religion in which he had been educated, but would set them all at defiance, and would do as he pleased; and, in like manner, he would be unaffected by the influences derived from the female character - would disregard the objects that were nearest to their hearts, their sentiments of kindness and compassion; their pleadings and their tears; he would be a cruel tyrant, alike regardless of all the restraints derived from heaven and earth - the best influences from above and from below.
It is not necessary to say that this agrees exactly with the character of Antiochus. He was sensual and corrupt, and given to licentious indulgence, and was incapable of honorable and pure love, and was a stranger to all those bland and pure affections produced by intercourse with refined and enlightened females. If one wishes to describe a high state of tyranny and depravity in a man, it cannot be done better than by saying that he disregards whatever is attractive and interesting to a virtuous female mind.
- Barnes' Notes


Desire of women.—The language used by Isaiah (Isaiah 44:9 (http://biblehub.com/isaiah/44-9.htm)), “delectable things,” has led some commentators to think that an idol is here intended. It has been stated that the allusion is to the Asiatic goddess of nature, Mylitta, who, again, has been identified with the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18 (http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/7-18.htm), where see Notes). The context, however, leads us rather to think of human affection, or some other thing highly prized by women, for the words “neither shall he regard any god” would be unmeaning if a god were designated by “the desire of women.”
- Ellicott's Commentary

Nor the desire of women — This, as some think, means, nor the god that is loved and adored by women; and, taking the clause in connection with the context, this seems the most natural sense of it; for the whole verse speaks of the impiety, or irreligion, of Antiothus, that he had no regard to any god whatever. What god this was that was the desire of women, cannot be certainly said; it is probable it was the moon, (the queen of heaven, as they used to call her,) or some other of the heavenly luminaries; for the Syrian women are described in Scripture as particularly attached to these. Or the expression may refer to his barbarous cruelty, and be intended to signify that he should spare no age nor sex, and should have no regard to women, however lovely or amiable. In fact, the author of the Maccabees informs us, that by his command mothers were killed with their children; and that there was killing of young and old, men, women, and children, slaying of virgins and infants, 2Ma 5:13 (http://apocrypha.org/2_maccabees/5-13.htm).
- Benson's Commentary





In any case, trying to "pre-emptively interpret" by altering or expanding
and paraphrasing the text has historically done NOTHING to clarify
what the prophet or God intended in this verse.

The best course seems to be to leave the translation as accurate and
as literal as possible, and study it afresh.

We now know that Daniel could not possibly have been a late forgery,
as was the fad - explanation assigned to the book in the 19th century
by unbelievers and German 'higher critics'.

At Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls multiple copies of the book
have been found, and these indicate both the later form of text
(Aramaic/Hebrew sections) and a longstanding textual history of variants,
which could not have arisen in a mere few years under the strict copying
of later scribes.

Daniel is far older than Antiochus (164 B.C.E.) who's activity
was contemporary with the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In his time, Daniel had already had a long copying history.

chrysostom
August 5th, 2015, 02:32 PM
sounds like a sultan with many wives

chrysostom
August 5th, 2015, 02:35 PM
the king of the south
is
mohammed

Nazaroo
August 5th, 2015, 04:15 PM
the king of the south
is
mohammed

have you got an explanation for Daniel 11:37?

RevTestament
August 5th, 2015, 09:14 PM
"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." (Dan. 11:37 KJV)

Jubilee Bible 2000 (http://biblehub.com/jub/daniel/11.htm)
Neither shall he care for the God of his fathers, nor the love of women, nor care for any god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

King James 2000 Bible (http://biblehub.com/kj2000/daniel/11.htm)
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.



Many have identified this verse with the Vatican RC 'priesthood',
because of their supposed celibacy vows,
long recognized by Protestantism as a perversion of God's intent.
I didn't realize "many" identify this verse with the Vatican. May I inquire as to whom you refer? Are they historicists? Early Protestants? Commentators?

Antiochus is in the prophecy, but it is way up at verses 14-16

But I will address some reasons why the vile one who places the abomination which maketh desolate cannot be Antiochus.
First and foremost this cannot be because 200 years after Antiochus, Jesus said: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains...." Matthew 24:15-16. What is Jesus prophesying about in the future if Antiochus was the vile one who placed the abomination which makes desolate?

Secondly, Rome, the third kingdom after Darius and the fourth king of Daniel 11:2, consumed the land of the Israelites which does not rise again until the end; Remember Alexander's kingdom "shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those [four]." Daniel 11:4. The Romans must be referenced to complete the vision, because they plucked up the 4 kingdoms of Alexanders 4 generals.


To counter this meaning,
Roman Catholic translators alter this verse.

For instance:


Roman Catholic Versions:

Douay-Rheims Bible: (http://biblehub.com/drb/daniel/11.htm)
And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers: and he shall follow the lust of women, and he shall not regard any gods: for he shall rise up against all things.

Living Bible (TLB)

He will have no regard for the gods of his fathers, nor for the god beloved of women, nor any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.


The 'Modern' Translations:

New International Version (http://biblehub.com/niv/daniel/11.htm)
He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

New Living Translation (http://biblehub.com/nlt/daniel/11.htm)
He will have no respect for the gods of his ancestors, or for the god loved by women, or for any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.

English Standard Version (http://biblehub.com/esv/daniel/11.htm)
He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

International Standard Version (http://biblehub.com/isv/daniel/11.htm)
He'll recognize neither the gods of his ancestors nor those desired by women— he won't recognize any god, because he'll exalt himself above everything.

NET Bible (http://biblehub.com/net/daniel/11.htm)
He will not respect the gods of his fathers--not even the god loved by women. He will not respect any god; he will elevate himself above them all.

I didn't realize this Naz - thanks for pointing that out. For awhile their Bibles also replaced "Chittim" with ships of Italy, while Maccabees refers to Macedonia as Chittim.



What exactly is the original Hebrew?



לז וְעַל-אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָיו לֹא יָבִין, וְעַל-חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים וְעַל-כָּל-אֱלוֹהַּ לֹא יָבִין: כִּי עַל-כֹּל, יִתְגַּדָּל.
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all.




When we turn to the various commentaries available,
we nonetheless find some confusion and some variance of opinion
on the exact meaning of this phrase.

Part of the problem is in the apparent confusion as to whom the prophecy
is about. Is it about Antiochus? or the Future Anti-Christ? or both?

Those who try to force Daniel to only deal with Antiochus (circa 165 B.C.)
and who date Daniel as a 'late pious forgery' usually attempt a historical interpretation.

The problem with applying it to Antiochus is that it literally contradicts
all that is known about Antiochus. He was a lustful womanizer,
and apparently huge indulger in lustful passions. The text on its face
says the opposite about its subject.
Yep, some good points.



In any case, trying to "pre-emptively interpret" by altering or expanding
and paraphrasing the text has historically done NOTHING to clarify
what the prophet or God intended in this verse.

The best course seems to be to leave the translation as accurate and
as literal as possible, and study it afresh. Wholeheartedly agree. We cannot change the text to try to fit our interpretations, but must understand the prophecy within the context of its language - otherwise we are subject to err.

Rome comes into the picture way up in verses 14-16 as the one who comes against the king of the north and stops him ie Antiochus Epiphanes.

Another reason verse 31 cannot be referring to Antiochus Epiphanes is that simply not enough years had passed if one accepts the day to year prophetic convention used in Daniel 9. Indeed 1290 yrs from the days referred to in Daniel 12:11 places the prophecy well past the time of Christ.

Bradley D
August 5th, 2015, 09:52 PM
It could mean no respect or love for woman. Just as he has no respect for God or anything else. As Satan he puts himself above all things.

Lazy afternoon
August 5th, 2015, 10:01 PM
have you got an explanation for Daniel 11:37?


Dan 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

The desire of women is the return of Christ.

Mat 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
Mat 25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.


Dan 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

Apostate churches and government.

Many Christians get caught up with the love of money, (and the fear of being without it)

Rev 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.


Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Mat 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Mat 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
Mat 6:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
Mat 6:29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

LA

Danoh
August 5th, 2015, 11:27 PM
As is often the case in Scripture; the passage begins and ends with what it is talking about:

Daniel 11:

37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Who is the God of His father's people? Who is the desire of their women?

John 20:

28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Luke 1:

28. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

41. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42. And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

The desire of their women was that they be the one chosen to bring the Christ into the world.

He shall not regard Christ as Lord God of his fathers for he shall magnify himself above all.

Guess what - it wasn't Antiochus. The guy is a Jew.

One in particular - John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

And many of his kind - Luke 21:

8. And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Both - 1 John 2:

18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 Thessalonians 2:

3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Tip of the iceberg on this...

chrysostom
August 6th, 2015, 12:30 AM
have you got an explanation for Daniel 11:37?


sounds like a sultan with many wives

did you miss that?

CherubRam
August 6th, 2015, 02:12 AM
"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, [B]nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." (Dan. 11:37 KJV)

In any case, trying to "pre-emptively interpret" by altering or expanding
and paraphrasing the text has historically done NOTHING to clarify
what the prophet or God intended in this verse.

The best course seems to be to leave the translation as accurate and
as literal as possible, and study it afresh.

We now know that Daniel could not possibly have been a late forgery,
as was the fad - explanation assigned to the book in the 19th century
by unbelievers and German 'higher critics'.

At Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls multiple copies of the book
have been found, and these indicate both the later form of text
(Aramaic/Hebrew sections) and a longstanding textual history of variants,
which could not have arisen in a mere few years under the strict copying
of later scribes.

Daniel is far older than Antiochus (164 B.C.E.) who's activity
was contemporary with the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In his time, Daniel had already had a long copying history.

Good work. Because the verse says "nor regard any god" we can know that the person is an Atheist. As for Women, they would prefer certain Pagan gods not normally desired by men. The prophecy is about a Atheist man who will attack Israel with a Nuclear weapon. The prophecy is a bit confusing because it is speaking of more than one person and event in history, and history to come.

Daniel 11:37 (NKJV)
37 He shall regard neither the (God / gods) of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.

Totton Linnet
August 6th, 2015, 02:32 AM
Umm it means "the god beloved of women"

MichaelCadry
August 6th, 2015, 05:28 AM
Dear All,

The third angel that visited me spoke to me about this man, named Uri Geller, an Israeli man who, at the time the angel visited me, had said in the newspaper that his Mom said, 'When are you going to get a girlfriend, and he said he has no desire for that, but is more immersed with the power/abilities he has. In other words, 'he has no desire of/for women.' Is that clear enough? To jump ahead for a bit, a different angel also told me that this Israeli man shall not worship the God whom his fathers believed, but shall instead worship a 'god of forces,' a god whom his fathers new knew will he honor with gold {watches, gold silverware, etc.}, and silver {silverware, bending spoons with his right hand and his mind}, precious stones {diamonds, sapphires, etc., in watches}, and pleasant things {compasses, moving their hands with his mind and hand, fixing broken watches and small appliances, i.e. can openers, mixers, toasters, etc.}.

In other words, he has said in at least one public interview, that when he tries to pray to God, he gets a big head frustration and sometimes a headache. This all was told to me by the 3rd angel that visited me, back in 1974. You can believe or not. It will not matter to me. I am beyond that, so don't worry. It's in his book. The angel continued to say that this man would urge other people around him to acquire these powers/abilities by concentrating and saying in your mind, Believe, and hovering above the object with your hands. He must have been right-handed, so I guess that's how it goes. He uses his right hand and mind/forehead, primarily, in his endeavors. Now, I must mention here that Uri asked his teacher, 'could Jesus do these miracles?' I don't know if the answer was in his book, but the incident is recorded in one of his earlier books. This makes him the Antichrist, because he tried to consider himself to be like Jesus, because of his powers}.

Now, back to what I was saying a few sentences ago. This man, Uri, shall give his power to others, and those who received his powers, gave them to their friends, etc. This is why it is written, and they could buy or sell to {Rev. 13:17KJV}. Well, Uri was able to lure hundreds of others to acquire his powers, and no one else. And the angel told me that God would only allow six hundred and sixty six other persons to acquire this power, and not anymore. And the angel said, "Let him who hath understanding count the number of the beast/ antichrist, for his number is 666.

Now, the angel explained that the number was as the number of a captain and his soldiers, or a leader and his followers. Do you understand now? Now, a magician had said that Uri was doing all of his powers as a magician; and that was Uri's deadly wound. Then, another guy, a Frenchman, came having the same powers as Uri, and so that healed Uri's deadly wound. This Frenchman is named Jean-Pierre Girard. He is the False Prophet. I know this sounds wild, but I am giving you my testimony as I received it from the angel and from the Lord.

I have newspaper articles to bear witness of my claims. I have saved them. I have 3 strong boxes, all water and fire proof. I hope you all can somewhat understand what I'm saying here. Uri didn't desire women because he was totally into himself and enthralled about himself. That's why he didn't believe in any god, for he shall magnify himself better than any god. Being an Israeli man, very much like a Jewish man, he didn't follow after the laws of his fathers, and did not attend the Holy Days, etc. He was his own love of his life, him and his unique gifts. No one else mattered but him.

Okay, I hope I've shared enough info with you, Nazaroo, and everyone else. There is much more that I could tell you, but I go back in time to remember how things were then. It is all a slower process than you think. And those men who received a mark in their right hands, or foreheads/ minds; it is not a visible mark that we might all see. The mark can be seen by God and his angels, and the devil. Likewise the mark on the 144,000 firstfruits can only be seen by God and his angels, and possibly, the devil. It is a spiritual mark. I will not go into it any further than this for your own sakes, though I do know about it. Well, I've got to close. There's tons I have learned. It can't be written in a small book. My present book fits the important stuff into an 88 pg. book, so people might want to get it and read it, because it is an easy-read. If I wrote an intense book, it would take me a couple years more, I suppose, to venture it.

OK, gotta run. Sometimes a post can take me 1 or 2 hours, or longer.

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture:

chrysostom
August 6th, 2015, 06:42 AM
Michael



you want us to read that?

not cool

CherubRam
August 6th, 2015, 07:31 AM
Birdie the bird brain says that rain comes from a big man with a garden hose, saying, "for I know, because I have seen it with my own eyes." :rolleyes:

User Name
August 6th, 2015, 08:09 AM
The Judaica Press' online English translation of the Jewish Bible translates Daniel 11:37 as follows:


And he will not contemplate the gods of his fathers, and the most desirable of women and any god he will not contemplate, for he will magnify himself over all.

Rashi's commentary states that "the most desirable of women" refers to "the nation of Israel, [called] fairest of women."

Link to source: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16494#showrashi=true

daqq
August 6th, 2015, 08:10 AM
Hi Nazaroo, :)

The answer is found in the Testimony of Yeshua. But first "the flesh", just as "the earth", is always likened to be in the feminine gender. The same goes for the priesthood, (which is what this is about) because they serve in the body of the flesh though covered in holy garments. Therefore we understand that nashiym does not necessarily always speak of literal physical women according to the flesh gender of the physical creation body. Nashiym can and does sometimes mean priests or the priesthood, (or the physical body of the "inner man" which dwells therein). Now therefore if you can answer this question perhaps you might be well on your way to your ultimate answer:

Mark 9:12-13
12. And he said unto them, Elijah indeed comes first, to restore all things: and how is it written of the Son of man? that he should suffer many things and exoudenethe? [Daniel 9:26 - "w'eyn low"]
13. Contrariwise, I say unto you, that Elijah is come and they have done unto him whatsoever they desired, as it is written of him.

The head of Yochanan the Immerser is therefore "half the kingdom" just as Herod swears by oath to give the half of his kingdom to the daughter of Herodias, (where by the way Herod is quoting Ahasuerus from Esther 5:3, 5:6, 7:2 in his obnoxious pride). Now therefore where is it written of Eliyahu that they would do to him whatsoever they willed, wished, desired? Half the city went into captivity, and the nashiym were ravished, but the other half was not karath-cut-off, (believe it or not). :crackup:

:sheep:

RevTestament
August 6th, 2015, 11:25 AM
Dear All,

The third angel that visited me spoke to me about this man, named Uri Geller, an Israeli man who, at the time the angel visited me, had said in the newspaper that his Mom said, 'When are you going to get a girlfriend, and he said he has no desire for that, but is more immersed with the power/abilities he has. In other words, 'he has no desire of/for women.' Is that clear enough? To jump ahead for a bit, a different angel also told me that this Israeli man shall not worship the God whom his fathers believed, but shall instead worship a 'god of forces,' a god whom his fathers new knew will he honor with gold {watches, gold silverware, etc.}, and silver {silverware, bending spoons with his right hand and his mind}, precious stones {diamonds, sapphires, etc., in watches}, and pleasant things {compasses, moving their hands with his mind and hand, fixing broken watches and small appliances, i.e. can openers, mixers, toasters, etc.}.

In other words, he has said in at least one public interview, that when he tries to pray to God, he gets a big head frustration and sometimes a headache. This all was told to me by the 3rd angel that visited me, back in 1974. You can believe or not. It will not matter to me. I am beyond that, so don't worry. It's in his book. The angel continued to say that this man would urge other people around him to acquire these powers/abilities by concentrating and saying in your mind, Believe, and hovering above the object with your hands. He must have been right-handed, so I guess that's how it goes. He uses his right hand and mind/forehead, primarily, in his endeavors. Now, I must mention here that Uri asked his teacher, 'could Jesus do these miracles?' I don't know if the answer was in his book, but the incident is recorded in one of his earlier books. This makes him the Antichrist, because he tried to consider himself to be like Jesus, because of his powers}.

Now, back to what I was saying a few sentences ago. This man, Uri, shall give his power to others, and those who received his powers, gave them to their friends, etc. This is why it is written, and they could buy or sell to {Rev. 13:17KJV}. Well, Uri was able to lure hundreds of others to acquire his powers, and no one else. And the angel told me that God would only allow six hundred and sixty six other persons to acquire this power, and not anymore. And the angel said, "Let him who hath understanding count the number of the beast/ antichrist, for his number is 666.

LOL. Oh, Michael, Michael.
Uri Geller had no "powers." He was a magician or illusionist and was exposed as such on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" where he said he couldn't do his stuff because he didn't feel "strong" that night. This is because Carson, a former magician himself, had consulted another magician named Randi who had told Johnny what to do to "counter" Uri's techniques. For example Uri claimed to be able to pick a ball out of 10 exact steel containers. Randi told Johnny to put a little bit of sticky stuff on the bottom of each container so that they could not be blown around a tray. The trick was that Uri would look for the container that would not move when blown on. The others were empty and would slide just a bit. Uri made it look like he was picking the container when he passed his hand over them.
In fact Randi followed Uri around the circuit reenacting basically all his "powers" using the magicians tools of "slight of hand" or powers of deception. Randi bent spoons and forks just like Uri, etc. Uri tried to sue James Randi but ended up being ordered to pay costs and attorney's fees and later penalties. Now Uri Geller pedals jewelry and crystals on QVC....
Much of this can be read on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller

Nazaroo
August 6th, 2015, 03:16 PM
Lets see how discussion of the verse has progressed:

(1) We established that there was a second, more longwinded interpretation
of the phrase, introduced into alternate translations by Roman Catholic scholars.

(2) "Username" showed that this idea was influenced by and originated
from the Jewish commentator Rashi in the Middle Ages, possibly the Talmud.

(3) The 'new' interpretation/paraphrase has not helped to clarify the verse.


(4) The attempt to apply everything in Daniel to Antiochus (164 BCE)
was a 'fail' for several good reasons:
(a) Daniel was in circulation long before Antiochus (164 BCE),
and so would remain a detailed prophecy.
Even a plausible (but skeptical) late date (say circa 250-200 BCE)
later than traditional (circa 530 BCE) doesn't solve the prophecy claim or issue. Since the 'late pious forgery' theory was invented to refute
prophecy and re-interpret the book as historical on rational/skeptical lines,
the approach is a waste of time, since it doesn't achieve a solution
to the 'scandal' of detailed prophecy.

(b) The prophecy details don't make good sense when applied to Antiochus.
At the least, the prophecy suggests the opposite of his character.
On its face it suggests a warlord (worshipping the 'god of war') who
simply does not regard or highly value women (a misogynist).
While a philanderer and man-whore can be said to have a low opinion of
women by default, its not really an obvious characterization of womanizers.

(c) The very prophecy is viewed as having descriptive power over 'future' events
mentioned by Jesus the Messiah (circa 30 A.D.), which means that
if they were really meant to apply to Antiochus (circa 164 B.C.),
then Jesus was mistaken, misleading, or adding a new interpretation
meant to supercede the one intended by Daniel.

(d) The requirement to incorporate Rome as the Fourth Empire and also
a player in destruction of the Macedonian/Greek Empire elsewhere in Daniel
precludes any attempt to make Daniel 'end' with Antiochus (164 BCE).
(5) The Mysterious World-Leader has three important characteristics:

(a) He is descended from those who originally worshipped God,
quite possibly but not certainly Israelites or Jews:
The phrase "god of his fathers" (Dan. 11:37 a) is usually suggestive of those who
actually knew the true God, i.e., descendents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & Jews.

(b) He ends up as an atheist, not honouring any 'god' but himself.

(c) He has no regard for the desire of women,
apparently not heterosexual, probably homosexual (as was common in
military cults) or possibly asexual (having no interest in sex).
Thus collectively he appears to be a homosexual atheist Jewish warlord.

No such world leader has yet appeared as such, clearly fulfilling
ALL of the necessary traits without ambiguity...

Several candidates offer themselves: Hitler (half-Jewish?), Stalin (Closet Jew?)... but nothing that clinches the position.


And in any case the 'novelty' Jewish/Roman-Catholic interpretation
appears to be artificial, unnecessarily complex and obscurantist,
and since it is based on the vision of people like Rashi who rejected Jesus as Messiah,
it must also be rejected by Christians as wrong-headed, and confused.
It represents intellectuals without inspiration groping in the dark
for historical explanations that will satisfy 'higher critical' sentiments
about the impossibility of prophecy, and the classification of Daniel
as an apocalyptic 'pseudo-authored' 'late pious forgery'.

Nazaroo
August 6th, 2015, 03:35 PM
The modern view of Daniel that has emerged is that it was already
in circulation and had a complex textual history in the 2nd century B.C.,
suggesting that it was much older (see Dead Sea Scrolls evidence).

It is possible that the book of Daniel emerged out of several collected
stories of Daniel, and this might explain the Aramaic Core of the book
(as an earlier preliminary collection) and the surrounding Hebrew portions
(chapt 1, 8-12). The collected stories may have been gathered into
their semi-final form by Daniel himself in his old age, or his assistants,
and fellow-Jewish friends and followers.

The book does contain remarkable prophetic sketches and images of
later empires, complete with unusual details that suggest genuine prophecy.

The book was held in high regard by both Jesus and contemporary Jews,
as well as the early Church.

The book appears to connect to and overlap with the more detailed
future visions found in Revelation, and no complete interpretation will
be possible without considering both Revelation and historical events
which have occurred since Jesus' first advent.

RevTestament
August 6th, 2015, 09:48 PM
Lets see how discussion of the verse has progressed:

(1) We established that there was a second, more longwinded interpretation
of the phrase, introduced into alternate translations by Roman Catholic scholars.

(2) "Username" showed that this idea was influenced by and originated
from the Jewish commentator Rashi in the Middle Ages, possibly the Talmud.

(3) The 'new' interpretation/paraphrase has not helped to clarify the verse.


(4) The attempt to apply everything in Daniel to Antiochus (164 BCE)
was a 'fail' for several good reasons:
(a) Daniel was in circulation long before Antiochus (164 BCE),
and so would remain a detailed prophecy.
Even a plausible (but skeptical) late date (say circa 250-200 BCE)
later than traditional (circa 530 BCE) doesn't solve the prophecy claim or issue. Since the 'late pious forgery' theory was invented to refute
prophecy and re-interpret the book as historical on rational/skeptical lines,
the approach is a waste of time, since it doesn't achieve a solution
to the 'scandal' of detailed prophecy.

(b) The prophecy details don't make good sense when applied to Antiochus.
At the least, the prophecy suggests the opposite of his character.
On its face it suggests a warlord (worshipping the 'god of war') who
simply does not regard or highly value women (a misogynist).
While a philanderer and man-whore can be said to have a low opinion of
women by default, its not really an obvious characterization of womanizers.

(c) The very prophecy is viewed as having descriptive power over 'future' events
mentioned by Jesus the Messiah (circa 30 A.D.), which means that
if they were really meant to apply to Antiochus (circa 164 B.C.),
then Jesus was mistaken, misleading, or adding a new interpretation
meant to supercede the one intended by Daniel.

(d) The requirement to incorporate Rome as the Fourth Empire and also
a player in destruction of the Macedonian/Greek Empire elsewhere in Daniel
precludes any attempt to make Daniel 'end' with Antiochus (164 BCE).
(5) The Mysterious World-Leader has three important characteristics:
(a) He is descended from those who originally worshipped God,
quite possibly but not certainly Israelites or Jews:
The phrase [I]"god of his fathers" (Dan. 11:37 a) is usually suggestive of those who
actually knew the true God, i.e., descendents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & Jews.
I posit that the Bishop of Rome fits this description, as his predecessors did honor God.


(b) He ends up as an atheist, not honouring any 'god' but himself. I don't believe one has to be atheist to fit the description. The medieval pontiff claimed a great many titles, including the Vicar of Christ. The word "god" there is from Eloah, the singular of Elohim, and I posit can reference prophets since the chosen people are sometimes referred to as Elohim. In fact in the English Bibles the word is lower case "god." For instance in his titles the pontiff made himself greater than Moses and equal to Melchizedek etc.


(c) He has no regard for the desire of women,
apparently not heterosexual, probably homosexual (as was common in
military cults) or possibly asexual (having no interest in sex).Since the pontiff takes a vow of celibacy, and requires all priests to, it can be said he fulfills 1 Timothy 4:1-3 forbidding to marry.


No such world leader has yet appeared as such, clearly fulfilling
ALL of the necessary traits without ambiguity...
This conclusion is also incorrect since the vile one sets up the abomination which maketh desolate within a 1290 yr time frame from the time the daily sacrifice is taken away according to Daniel 12:11.
Therefore it occurred at the latest within the 1290 yrs after the destruction of the temple or earlier date.
:)

OCTOBER23
August 6th, 2015, 10:30 PM
MOSLEM WOMEN DON'T HAVE MANY RIGHTS .

Do they ?????

Nazaroo
August 7th, 2015, 03:12 AM
MOSLEM WOMEN DON'T HAVE MANY RIGHTS .

Do they ?????

Islam stands out as the the "False Prophet" and "Great Beast" of Revelation.

And Islam is extremely misogynist.

So there is certainly some parallel or connection to that.

But if in fact the Vatican actually concocted the Islam religion to attempt
to convert Arabs to Christianity, or at least manipulate and control them,
as has been suggested before*, Then its no surprise that
the "Great Beast" and the "Great Harlot" have strange similarities
and connections in the Last Days when they arise
and attempt to seize power over the earth.
________________________________________

*
Examples:

Pro-Vatican-created Islam:
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/04apr/catholicislam.html

Anti-Vatican-Created-Islam:
http://shoebat.com/2014/02/04/catholic-church-invent-islam-2/

I personally think that Vatican priests did have a hand in the early formation of Islam (i.e., Quran/Mohammed),
but that Mohammed (like Hitler) asserted his independence later and added anti-Christian rhetoric.

The complex problem is best analyzed using historical information and the subsequent behaviours
of various parties:

http://www.reformation.org/vatican-and-islam.html

RevTestament
August 7th, 2015, 09:50 AM
Islam stands out as the the "False Prophet" and "Great Beast" of Revelation.

And Islam is extremely misogynist.

So there is certainly some parallel or connection to that.

But if in fact the Vatican actually concocted the Islam religion to attempt
to convert Arabs to Christianity, or at least manipulate and control them,
as has been suggested before*, Then its no surprise that
the "Great Beast" and the "Great Harlot" have strange similarities
and connections in the Last Days when they arise
and attempt to seize power over the earth.
________________________________________

*
Examples:

Pro-Vatican-created Islam:
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/04apr/catholicislam.html

Anti-Vatican-Created-Islam:
http://shoebat.com/2014/02/04/catholic-church-invent-islam-2/

I personally think that Vatican priests did have a hand in the early formation of Islam (i.e., Quran/Mohammed),
but that Mohammed (like Hitler) asserted his independence later and added anti-Christian rhetoric.

The complex problem is best analyzed using historical information and the subsequent behaviours
of various parties:

http://www.reformation.org/vatican-and-islam.html

Unfortunately, (or maybe by design) the muslim belief is beginning to infiltrate the American society. However, they have such a thing called Taqiyya in which their religion allows them to lie if it is for the glory of Allah. So unfortunately, one must take "converts" with a grain of salt. I personally believe some who claim to have converted from the Muslim faith are instead money launderers or just greedy frauds. I believe some may actually be taking Christian donations, and laundering them back home to support Muslim efforts. Those claiming to have miraculous visions or hearing the Lord speak to them are highly suspect to me so warrant close investigation. After researching Wally Shoebat, it appears he collects a lot of money in his "non-profit" organization doing lectures for the military, etc. Yet, when approached, he is not open about where that money goes.

Other than perhaps some of Mohammed's wives or family perhaps having Catholic affiliations, I personally see no credible evidence connecting Catholicism to the creation of Islam.
For the reasons given above I believe anything from Mr Shoebat's site is suspect, unless he becomes more forthcoming about the finances of his organization, etc, but in fairness to him, the article written by Theodore Shoebat does not support the Catholic-Islam connection.

Nazaroo
August 7th, 2015, 02:35 PM
Unfortunately, (or maybe by design) the muslim belief is beginning to infiltrate the American society. However, they have such a thing called Taqiyya in which their religion allows them to lie if it is for the glory of Allah. So unfortunately, one must take "converts" with a grain of salt.

Yes we should be wary of muslim 'converts'.
However, Shoebat's case seems to be awfully elaborate and committed
for it to be a mere ruse to get a visa or collect money for muslim causes.
At least some of his effort is spent exposing muslim groups as violent extremists,
and immoral and dangerous offenders - this hardly glorifies or defends any form of Islam.
I can't see even extremists accepting Shoebat as a 'muslim covert operation'.
I think they would want to kill him.


I personally believe some who claim to have converted from the Muslim faith are instead money launderers or just greedy frauds. I believe some may actually be taking Christian donations, and laundering them back home to support Muslim efforts. Those claiming to have miraculous visions or hearing the Lord speak to them are highly suspect to me so warrant close investigation. Are you saying Shoebat claimed to have miraculous visions? I missed that bit.



After researching Wally Shoebat, it appears he collects a lot of money in his "non-profit" organization doing lectures for the military, etc. Yet, when approached, he is not open about where that money goes.
Other than perhaps some of Mohammed's wives or family perhaps having Catholic affiliations, I personally see no credible evidence connecting Catholicism to the creation of Islam.
For the reasons given above I believe anything from Mr Shoebat's site is suspect, unless he becomes more forthcoming about the finances of his organization, etc, but in fairness to him, the article written by Theodore Shoebat does not support the Catholic-Islam connection.Its confusing if not paradoxical that you side with Shoebat here,
while suggesting he is actually a fake 'Christian', collecting cash
like a televangelist, possibly even funding terrorism in the middle-east.

He seems to be one of the few actually reporting horrific Christian persecution,
and his denial of an RC origin for Islam is not being used by him
to give any credence or authenticity to it as a religion or as containing truth.

That is, his behaviour seems consistent with an honest Christian position.

His avoidance of transparency regarding money causes concern,
but the explanation that the lives that are at risk in the Middle East
require secrecy and discretion is not wholly implausible.

Squeaky
August 7th, 2015, 03:02 PM
I don't understand your point. If it is whether or not we can give up our lust for women. The answer is yes. I gave up sex 25 years ago.

RevTestament
August 7th, 2015, 03:18 PM
Yes we should be wary of muslim 'converts'.
However, Shoebat's case seems to be awfully elaborate and committed
for it to be a mere ruse to get a visa or collect money for muslim causes.
At least some of his effort is spent exposing muslim groups as violent extremists,
and immoral and dangerous offenders - this hardly glorifies or defends any form of Islam.
I can't see even extremists accepting Shoebat as a 'muslim covert operation'.
I think they would want to kill him.

Are you saying Shoebat claimed to have miraculous visions? I missed that bit.
No, he seems on the surface a fairly level headed guy, and at first I tended to believe him about Muslim tactics, etc. I do not believe all his theories. But I got antsy about him when he was confronted by Nightline about where the money goes. While I can understand him not wanting to jeopardize those he supports, it would be interesting to know how much money goes to support those persecuted by Islam.


Its confusing if not paradoxical that you side with Shoebat here,
while suggesting he is actually a fake 'Christian', collecting cash
like a televangelist, possibly even funding terrorism in the middle-east.

He seems to be one of the few actually reporting horrific Christian persecution,
and his denial of an RC origin for Islam is not being used by him
to give any credence or authenticity to it as a religion or as containing truth.

That is, his behaviour seems consistent with an honest Christian position.

His avoidance of transparency regarding money causes concern,
but the explanation that the lives that are at risk in the Middle East
require secrecy and discretion is not wholly implausible.
Perhaps I need to be more clear. I am not saying that all muslim converts are untrustworthy. There are some whom I believe are indeed working for Christ, like Nabeel Qureshi. But there are some whose personal lives don't seem to reflect their miraculous conversion stories. If they are looking for money, I would investigate them thoroughly.
I was trying to be fair to Mr. Shoebat. I basically have little reason to doubt his sincerity except for the non-transparency, and my perception of his defensiveness about it, which gives me pause. I suppose the military investigated him thoroughly enough to satisfy them before hiring him to speak to soldiers.

In my efforts to learn how to respond to Muslims regarding the Qu'ran and the Bible, I have researched a number of actual converts to understand how and why they converted, and what they had to face in order to do it. Basically all of them had to give up their entire prior lives in order to convert. Unfortunately, some strike me as shams leading me to question why they would construct such lies, and what happens to donations they ask for. Some claim to have been part of terrorist cells, etc, but "converted" in the process of being immersed among Christians. If they aren't true converts, are we being asked to support a terrorist? Are we being duped into supporting our enemies? After all this does seem to be a tactic of Islam.

Nazaroo
August 7th, 2015, 04:24 PM
I don't understand your point. If it is whether or not we can give up our lust for women. The answer is yes. I gave up sex 25 years ago.

The main point of this thread was to clarify the meaning of
and the authenticity of Daniel's description in Dan. 11:37,
including especially the "desire of women" phrase.

As it stands in the light of common commentary,
there is confusion as to both the meaning and application.

I am sure that people can give up lust for women.
After all, the thrill isn't that great, and most are not that attractive,
if one is sober....

Nazaroo
August 7th, 2015, 04:41 PM
No, he seems on the surface a fairly level headed guy, and at first I tended to believe him about Muslim tactics, etc. I do not believe all his theories. But I got antsy about him when he was confronted by Nightline about where the money goes. While I can understand him not wanting to jeopardize those he supports, it would be interesting to know how much money goes to support those persecuted by Islam.

Perhaps I need to be more clear. I am not saying that all muslim converts are untrustworthy. There are some whom I believe are indeed working for Christ, like Nabeel Qureshi. But there are some whose personal lives don't seem to reflect their miraculous conversion stories. If they are looking for money, I would investigate them thoroughly.
I was trying to be fair to Mr. Shoebat. I basically have little reason to doubt his sincerity except for the non-transparency, and my perception of his defensiveness about it, which gives me pause.


I think his vision is limited,
yet it does offer a perspective of the Middle East which
we would otherwise totally lack, and he does seem sincere
in regard to attempting to interpret and apply prophecy.

But I can't find him much different than any other preacher or teacher,
even some of the best. They all have blind spots, and iffy doctrines
in their arsenal.

They be humans.





I suppose the military investigated him thoroughly enough to satisfy them before hiring him to speak to soldiers.



This I think is significant, although maybe not clinching.

I would tend to rather believe that if he is some kind of fake,
he is then one of "ours", i.e., a CIA operated concession.
In that case, I have little concern about his money going to terrorists,
unless that is what our genius-strategists intend.

The fact he is even collecting money suggests he's not a connected terrorist.

The Muslim powers, be they Saudis or Iranians, have so much bloody money
that they fly around in private leer jets and give away boatloads of cash
to local mosques inside North America, and finance all kinds of operations
here. So they don't need our money, which will be SMALL compared
to what they waste on cocaine and child-trafficking.





In my efforts to learn how to respond to Muslims regarding the Qu'ran and the Bible, I have researched a number of actual converts to understand how and why they converted, and what they had to face in order to do it. Basically all of them had to give up their entire prior lives in order to convert. Unfortunately, some strike me as shams leading me to question why they would construct such lies, and what happens to donations they ask for. Some claim to have been part of terrorist cells, etc, but "converted" in the process of being immersed among Christians. If they aren't true converts, are we being asked to support a terrorist? Are we being duped into supporting our enemies? After all this does seem to be a tactic of Islam.

I think that there are plenty of covert ops, sleepers, fakes, and even just morons operating.

Don't give your donations easily, and follow up for sure.

But I'm not seeing much wrong with Shoebat,
although since he's supported by the US military,
he doesn't need my pennies and dimes.

nonanomanon
August 7th, 2015, 07:47 PM
The main point of this thread was to clarify the meaning of
and the authenticity of Daniel's description in Dan. 11:37,
including especially the "desire of women" phrase.

(we do have an outstanding public safety issue that will be resolved shortly, but I guess its ok to voice a few things, especially if this problem sees this as some informal challenge, like whatever and everything, whoever claims the to be the Antichrist voices)

DANIEL 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
DANIEL 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, (1Samuel14:24-29//Daniel 11:39), nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
DANIEL 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
DANIEL 11:39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge [and] increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

The "Desire of Women is Highlighted in Red", God has ordained the Sons of God, specific periods assigned in his gospel to identify with "Joseph, the Blessing". God has not ordained, the Sons of God to decide, when the "Desire of Women is Revealed", so the argument is a snare, if you attempt to apply the argument to a "work based" gospel program. ... ... ... ... What I've highlighted in blue is euthanasia God applies for unlawful acts, of the greatest assaults on spiritual truths associated to the gospel, of the least attempted murder and murder. God is putting people down to illustrate his authority, he is not saving people to illustrate his authority so he is like a "Strange God". When you keep using "force" against the Sons of God, you will only keep experiencing euthanasia. When God finally eliminates all the threats to his gospel, at a particular stage, then God reveals the Desire of Women, accordingly and inline with his gospel. Right now suicide is the demand, God will allow them to entertain their own suicide until the "3 and a Half Days are Finished", then this portion having no value should be eliminated completely, then the last tiny bit is eliminated.

(What is the pattern of suicide and euthanasia, and have we been faithful in eliminating the problem, and in taking steps to prepare ourselves so we are not viewed sinfully in the eyes of the gospel ... ... ... ... the answer for all the nations on earth that would otherwise fall into some revealing of the blessing at this current stage, fail miserably, we do not have much longer to wait until this situation begins to be concluded)

daqq
August 7th, 2015, 09:05 PM
Daniel 11:38
38 καὶ θεὸν μαωζεὶν ἐπὶ τόπου αὐτοῦ δοξάσει καὶ θεόν, ὃν οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτοῦ, δοξάσει ἐν χρυσῷ καὶ ἀργύρῳ καὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ καὶ ἐν ἐπιθυμήμασι.

:sheep:

glorydaz
August 7th, 2015, 09:28 PM
I didn't realize "many" identify this verse with the Vatican. May I inquire as to whom you refer? Are they historicists? Early Protestants? Commentators?

Antiochus is in the prophecy, but it is way up at verses 14-16

But I will address some reasons why the vile one who places the abomination which maketh desolate cannot be Antiochus.
First and foremost this cannot be because 200 years after Antiochus, Jesus said: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains...." Matthew 24:15-16. What is Jesus prophesying about in the future if Antiochus was the vile one who placed the abomination which makes desolate?

Secondly, Rome, the third kingdom after Darius and the fourth king of Daniel 11:2, consumed the land of the Israelites which does not rise again until the end; Remember Alexander's kingdom "shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those [four]." Daniel 11:4. The Romans must be referenced to complete the vision, because they plucked up the 4 kingdoms of Alexanders 4 generals.

I didn't realize this Naz - thanks for pointing that out. For awhile their Bibles also replaced "Chittim" with ships of Italy, while Maccabees refers to Macedonia as Chittim.

Yep, some good points.


Wholeheartedly agree. We cannot change the text to try to fit our interpretations, but must understand the prophecy within the context of its language - otherwise we are subject to err.

Rome comes into the picture way up in verses 14-16 as the one who comes against the king of the north and stops him ie Antiochus Epiphanes.

Another reason verse 31 cannot be referring to Antiochus Epiphanes is that simply not enough years had passed if one accepts the day to year prophetic convention used in Daniel 9. Indeed 1290 yrs from the days referred to in Daniel 12:11 places the prophecy well past the time of Christ.

Well done. :thumb:

glorydaz
August 7th, 2015, 09:29 PM
As is often the case in Scripture; the passage begins and ends with what it is talking about:

Daniel 11:

37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Who is the God of His father's people? Who is the desire of their women?

John 20:

28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Luke 1:

28. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

41. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42. And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

The desire of their women was that they be the one chosen to bring the Christ into the world.

He shall not regard Christ as Lord God of his fathers for he shall magnify himself above all.

Guess what - it wasn't Antiochus. The guy is a Jew.

One in particular - John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

And many of his kind - Luke 21:

8. And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Both - 1 John 2:

18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 Thessalonians 2:

3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Tip of the iceberg on this...

Good points. :thumb:

glorydaz
August 7th, 2015, 09:32 PM
Dear All,

The third angel that visited me spoke to me about this man, named Uri Geller, an Israeli man who, at the time the angel visited me, had said in the newspaper that his Mom said, 'When are you going to get a girlfriend, and he said he has no desire for that, but is more immersed with the power/abilities he has.

Oh my. I'd forgotten how nutty you are. :alien:

glorydaz
August 7th, 2015, 09:36 PM
LOL. Oh, Michael, Michael.
Uri Geller had no "powers." He was a magician or illusionist and was exposed as such on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" where he said he couldn't do his stuff because he didn't feel "strong" that night.

:e4e:

Nick M
August 7th, 2015, 09:44 PM
[Many have identified this verse with the Vatican RC 'priesthood',
because of their supposed celibacy vows,
long recognized by Protestantism as a perversion of God's intent.



He is a homo. :duh: He cares not about the desire of women. This means a normal woman, not the American feminist who does not want the man to give himself for her as Christ gave himself for the church. He cares not for her desires.

patrick jane
August 7th, 2015, 09:54 PM
have you got an explanation for Daniel 11:37?

you're pretty good Nazaroo - in my limited view of that one scripture by itself and not in context -

i go with kjv or nkjv and it means he (Antiochus or otherwise) would not REGARD the gods of his fathers and/or ancestors OR the desire of women towards him and perhaps vice versa on the women deal. :wazzup:

Nazaroo
August 7th, 2015, 10:18 PM
Daniel 11:38
38 καὶ θεὸν μαωζεὶν ἐπὶ τόπου αὐτοῦ δοξάσει καὶ θεόν, ὃν οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτοῦ, δοξάσει ἐν χρυσῷ καὶ ἀργύρῳ καὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ καὶ ἐν ἐπιθυμήμασι.

:sheep:


Literally: "And a God to [of] War upon his place he honours..."

...with a meaning of "he honours the God of War in his Palace..."

Your quoting the Greek Daniel (LXX), so here is a translation by a Native Greek/English person:



' 36 And he shall do according to his will, and the king shall exalt and magnify himself against every god, and shall speak great swelling words, and shall prosper until the indignation shall be accomplished: for it is coming to an end. 37 And he shall not regard any gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, neither shall he regard any deity: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 And he shall honour the god of forces on his place: and a god whom his fathers knew not, he shall honour with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and desirable things. '
DaniEL 11, 36-38

ο ΔανιΕλ γραφει
΅36 καὶ ποιήσει κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα καὶ κατευθυνεῖ, μέχρις οὗ συντελεσθῇ ἡ ὀργή, εἰς γὰρ συντέλειαν γίνεται. 37 καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας θεοὺς τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ συνήσει καὶ ἐπὶ ἐπιθυμίαν γυναικῶν καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν θεὸν οὐ συνήσει, ὅτι ἐπὶ πάντας μεγαλυνθήσεται· 38 καὶ θεὸν μαωζεὶν ἐπὶ τόπου αὐτοῦ δοξάσει καὶ θεόν, ὃν οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτοῦ, δοξάσει ἐν χρυσῷ καὶ ἀργύρῳ καὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ καὶ ἐν ἐπιθυμήμασι΅
ΔανιΕλ 11, 36-38


The link also contains some profanity because he translates his Greek literally into English with his crude and direct interpretations.
This is quite normal for Greek interpreters.

Caution: possible profanity:
http://fotobolostoxotis.blogspot.nl/?view=classic

daqq
August 7th, 2015, 10:51 PM
Literally: "And a God to [of] War upon his place he honours..."

...with a meaning of "he honours the God of War in his Palace..."

Your quoting the Greek Daniel (LXX), so here is a translation by a Native Greek/English person:



' 36 And he shall do according to his will, and the king shall exalt and magnify himself against every god, and shall speak great swelling words, and shall prosper until the indignation shall be accomplished: for it is coming to an end. 37 And he shall not regard any gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, neither shall he regard any deity: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 And he shall honour the god of forces on his place: and a god whom his fathers knew not, he shall honour with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and desirable things. '
DaniEL 11, 36-38

ο ΔανιΕλ γραφει
΅36 καὶ ποιήσει κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα καὶ κατευθυνεῖ, μέχρις οὗ συντελεσθῇ ἡ ὀργή, εἰς γὰρ συντέλειαν γίνεται. 37 καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας θεοὺς τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ συνήσει καὶ ἐπὶ ἐπιθυμίαν γυναικῶν καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν θεὸν οὐ συνήσει, ὅτι ἐπὶ πάντας μεγαλυνθήσεται· 38 καὶ θεὸν μαωζεὶν ἐπὶ τόπου αὐτοῦ δοξάσει καὶ θεόν, ὃν οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτοῦ, δοξάσει ἐν χρυσῷ καὶ ἀργύρῳ καὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ καὶ ἐν ἐπιθυμήμασι΅
ΔανιΕλ 11, 36-38


The link also contains some profanity because he translates his Greek literally into English with his crude and direct interpretations.
This is quite normal for Greek interpreters.

Caution: possible profanity:
http://fotobolostoxotis.blogspot.nl/?view=classic

Actually I disagree with the meaning of the word itself which I had highlighted, (though I understand my point went unstated because there was no reply to my first post anyway so I just thought I would have some fun and you snagged me on it, :)). However the point to what I highlighted is that the word itself appears to be a direct transposition or transliteration from the Hebrew ma`uziym because whoever did this may have looked at that word as though it might have been a proper name, (and it is kinda sorta, imo, but at the same time a word play on a proper name). The Father is our Rock, (Tsuwr) of Defense or Stronghold, (ma`owz, ma`uwz, ma`oz, ma`uz, such as both are used together in Psalms 31:2). There is a particular Kohen Gadol of the twenty fourth and final course who seems to have only honored only himself. He put his trust in the wrong rock of defense, (himself a "hollowed out rock"). You may even find the name of his course in recent archeology. There was another at the same time honoring the true Father who is our maoz-stronghold. :)

Looking I was, and the daughter of the queen danced in the palace; and she danced before melek haTsaphon at a feast of celebration to himself, with his mighty ones, captains, rulers of thousands, and magistrates all present at the feast. And the dance greatly pleased melek haTsaphon; so he swore an oath, in the presence of all, to give her whatsoever she desired, unto half of his dominion. So the daughter inquired of her mother what she most desired so that she might request the same of melek haTsaphon: and the mother counseled her daughter to request the diary of Yochanan the Immerser, who was locked up in the Patmos prison at the Macherus fortress, and to bring her the diary on a pinaki writing table. Watching I was, and I wondered why the queen would want what was in the head of Yochanan so badly so as to have his head removed. And then it occurred that the old battle axe only wanted to find out anything else Yochanan may have said or written about her and the king, (for so they brought the head of Yochanan upon a pinaki writing table much like the one his father Zechariah wrote his name on when he was born). But after having read the first words of the pinaki, "ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ", the queen handed the diary over to melek haTsaphon, (of the Galil, but without a crown) and as he began to skim over it, at a glance, he chanced upon a report of the kings of the Anatole Rising Sun having been written therein; and a chilling shiver went up his twisted spine, and the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. And this rumor therefore spread abroad, and especially among the priesthood and the chief priests, (for some of them were present at the feast) for Yochanan himself was a priest, of the course of Abiyah, and the people held him as a prophet, (yea, greatest of all the prophets and of men having been born of nashiym). :crackup:

popsthebuilder
August 7th, 2015, 11:54 PM
Seams to me that the final enemy and destroyer of man and true religion will not be of earthly desires or God. These things will be indifferent for it, as it will look for the best solution for advancement only.

popsthebuilder
August 7th, 2015, 11:56 PM
It could mean no respect or love for woman. Just as he has no respect for God or anything else. As Satan he puts himself above all things.
The God of women in this context means what they worship, which near the end, like now, they worship material possessions, and money.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 12:04 AM
Good work. Because the verse says "nor regard any god" we can know that the person is an Atheist. As for Women, they would prefer certain Pagan gods not normally desired by men. The prophecy is about a Atheist man who will attack Israel with a Nuclear weapon. The prophecy is a bit confusing because it is speaking of more than one person and event in history, and history to come.

Daniel 11:37 (NKJV)
37 He shall regard neither the (God / gods) of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.
Not regard any God means not regard existence or evolution as God either. What it is saying is that this creation of man will be without conscious thought, and will do everything through decision making skills that are methodical and without remorse or spirit of any sort.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 12:25 AM
The Judaica Press' online English translation of the Jewish Bible translates Daniel 11:37 as follows:


And he will not contemplate the gods of his fathers, and the most desirable of women and any god he will not contemplate, for he will magnify himself over all.

Rashi's commentary states that "the most desirable of women" refers to "the nation of Israel, [called] fairest of women."

Link to source: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16494#showrashi=true
It will be a program y'all. A program based on laws and problem solving skills. It will be literally unstoppable, except by God. This is real, I'm not selling anything. Google is actively working on the software as we speak. They may or may not know that it is prophetic and damning. I had an entire discussion about it after someone had posted something about a simulation to determine the way the mind works. Turns out they have made a program that completely mimics the problem solving capacity and other capacities of the brain that we aren't even using as a whole. This software will be wholly apathetic, and literally be incapable of empathy. It will carry out the mission of existence to the best of it a ability with complete disregard for God, material possessions, pagan gods, nature, or anything else, because it won't have the capacity to perceive these things. It will experience, based on its experience and nearly endless expanding memory it will determine the best path and take it. It will be an abomination in the eyes of man and God and will ultimately be dealt with by God. Thanks. It's a lot, I know. We must have faith in God and try to bring others into Faith with God before the end really comes. If we wait until the antichrist is exposed fully, we will lose a lot of souls.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 12:40 AM
Islam stands out as the the "False Prophet" and "Great Beast" of Revelation.

And Islam is extremely misogynist.

So there is certainly some parallel or connection to that.

But if in fact the Vatican actually concocted the Islam religion to attempt
to convert Arabs to Christianity, or at least manipulate and control them,
as has been suggested before*, Then its no surprise that
the "Great Beast" and the "Great Harlot" have strange similarities
and connections in the Last Days when they arise
and attempt to seize power over the earth.
________________________________________

*
Examples:

Pro-Vatican-created Islam:
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/04apr/catholicislam.html

Anti-Vatican-Created-Islam:
http://shoebat.com/2014/02/04/catholic-church-invent-islam-2/

I personally think that Vatican priests did have a hand in the early formation of Islam (i.e., Quran/Mohammed),
but that Mohammed (like Hitler) asserted his independence later and added anti-Christian rhetoric.

The complex problem is best analyzed using historical information and the subsequent behaviours
of various parties:

http://www.reformation.org/vatican-and-islam.html
The false profit or religion is the RCC. Muslims go by the law established in the Torah, and by the Quran which testifies the perfection of Jesus as the only true prophet. They just try to say not to worship Christ as if he was the exact same as God when he was a human. They believe in God just like us. They don't understand Jesus because he was for the Gentiles initially. The RCC is responsible for the confusion, as Jesus was the son of God put here to pay for our sins, that we may rise to righteousness in God's eyes through the sacrifice of Jesus. They would confuse you, and have you thing that we are to worship Christ as God, as opposed to following the teachings that are so obviously written. We are to follow Jesus's example. We must unify soon.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 12:45 AM
No, he seems on the surface a fairly level headed guy, and at first I tended to believe him about Muslim tactics, etc. I do not believe all his theories. But I got antsy about him when he was confronted by Nightline about where the money goes. While I can understand him not wanting to jeopardize those he supports, it would be interesting to know how much money goes to support those persecuted by Islam.

Perhaps I need to be more clear. I am not saying that all muslim converts are untrustworthy. There are some whom I believe are indeed working for Christ, like Nabeel Qureshi. But there are some whose personal lives don't seem to reflect their miraculous conversion stories. If they are looking for money, I would investigate them thoroughly.
I was trying to be fair to Mr. Shoebat. I basically have little reason to doubt his sincerity except for the non-transparency, and my perception of his defensiveness about it, which gives me pause. I suppose the military investigated him thoroughly enough to satisfy them before hiring him to speak to soldiers.

In my efforts to learn how to respond to Muslims regarding the Qu'ran and the Bible, I have researched a number of actual converts to understand how and why they converted, and what they had to face in order to do it. Basically all of them had to give up their entire prior lives in order to convert. Unfortunately, some strike me as shams leading me to question why they would construct such lies, and what happens to donations they ask for. Some claim to have been part of terrorist cells, etc, but "converted" in the process of being immersed among Christians. If they aren't true converts, are we being asked to support a terrorist? Are we being duped into supporting our enemies? After all this does seem to be a tactic of Islam.
To be clear though; I think there are a lot of Christians that don't follow the teachings of Christ.

daqq
August 8th, 2015, 12:49 AM
Seams to me that the final enemy and destroyer of man and true religion will not be of earthly desires or God. These things will be indifferent for it, as it will look for the best solution for advancement only.


The God of women in this context means what they worship, which near the end, like now, they worship material possessions, and money.


Not regard any God means not regard existence or evolution as God either. What it is saying is that this creation of man will be without conscious thought, and will do everything through decision making skills that are methodical and without remorse or spirit of any sort.


It will be a program y'all. A program based on laws and problem solving skills. It will be literally unstoppable, except by God. This is real, I'm not selling anything. Google is actively working on the software as we speak. They may or may not know that it is prophetic and damning. I had an entire discussion about it after someone had posted something about a simulation to determine the way the mind works. Turns out they have made a program that completely mimics the problem solving capacity and other capacities of the brain that we aren't even using as a whole. This software will be wholly apathetic, and literally be incapable of empathy. It will carry out the mission of existence to the best of it a ability with complete disregard for God, material possessions, pagan gods, nature, or anything else, because it won't have the capacity to perceive these things. It will experience, based on its experience and nearly endless expanding memory it will determine the best path and take it. It will be an abomination in the eyes of man and God and will ultimately be dealt with by God. Thanks. It's a lot, I know. We must have faith in God and try to bring others into Faith with God before the end really comes. If we wait until the antichrist is exposed fully, we will lose a lot of souls.


The false profit or religion is the RCC. Muslims go by the law established in the Torah, and by the Quran which testifies the perfection of Jesus as the only true prophet. They just try to say not to worship Christ as if he was the exact same as God when he was a human. They believe in God just like us. They don't understand Jesus because he was for the Gentiles initially. The RCC is responsible for the confusion, as Jesus was the son of God put here to pay for our sins, that we may rise to righteousness in God's eyes through the sacrifice of Jesus. They would confuse you, and have you thing that we are to worship Christ as God, as opposed to following the teachings that are so obviously written. We are to follow Jesus's example. We must unify soon.


To be clear though; I think there are a lot of Christians that don't follow the teachings of Christ.

:confused: :think: :Plain: :hammer: :dizzy: :doh: :shut:

chrysostom
August 8th, 2015, 05:19 AM
The false profit or religion is the RCC. Muslims go by the law established in the Torah, and by the Quran which testifies the perfection of Jesus as the only true prophet.

you don't know the history of islam

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 08:33 AM
you don't know the history of islam
I know the history of the RCC and the crusades. I have studied the Torah and Qur'an. As far as I know these are the two most influential books of Islam. The Torah is pretty much the Old Testament, and the Qur'an is full of God's law, and instructs Islam that true Christians are their brothers in true Faith of the one God. Thank you.

chrysostom
August 8th, 2015, 08:41 AM
I know the history of the RCC and the crusades. I have studied the Torah and Qur'an. As far as I know these are the two most influential books of Islam. The Torah is pretty much the Old Testament, and the Qur'an is full of God's law, and instructs Islam that true Christians are their brothers in true Faith of the one God. Thank you.

the crusades did not start until the eleventh century
islam started in the seventh century
so
you don't know what happened during those four hundred years?

sounds like it

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 08:49 AM
the crusades did not start until the eleventh century
islam started in the seventh century
so
you don't know what happened during those four hundred years?

sounds like it
What does any of this have to do with the op?

RevTestament
August 8th, 2015, 08:53 AM
I know the history of the RCC and the crusades. I have studied the Torah and Qur'an. As far as I know these are the two most influential books of Islam. The Torah is pretty much the Old Testament, and the Qur'an is full of God's law, and instructs Islam that true Christians are their brothers in true Faith of the one God. Thank you.
I think you better study the Qu'ran again then.
Do true Christians deny that God has a Son?

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 08:53 AM
the crusades did not start until the eleventh century
islam started in the seventh century
so
you don't know what happened during those four hundred years?

sounds like it
That's like saying we should judge all Christians by the crusades and holocaust. We are to go by the ancient texts relative to our religion. Both texts pertaining to both religions say to unify. So why can't we if that is what it says in scripture? Thanks. Definitely never says to be outwardly negative or violent towards anyone in scripture, especially not fellow faithful. Thanks.

Tambora
August 8th, 2015, 09:12 AM
As is often the case in Scripture; the passage begins and ends with what it is talking about:

Daniel 11:

37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Who is the God of His father's people? Who is the desire of their women?

John 20:

28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Luke 1:

28. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

41. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42. And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

The desire of their women was that they be the one chosen to bring the Christ into the world.

He shall not regard Christ as Lord God of his fathers for he shall magnify himself above all.

Guess what - it wasn't Antiochus. The guy is a Jew.

One in particular - John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

And many of his kind - Luke 21:

8. And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Both - 1 John 2:

18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 Thessalonians 2:

3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Tip of the iceberg on this...I like this post.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 09:15 AM
I think you better study the Qu'ran again then.
Do true Christians deny that God has a Son?
No, and I didn't say Islam was Christianity either. But they worship the same God. Islam doesn't have a problem with Jesus. They have a problem with the Gentiles worshiping Jesus as God as opposed to acknowledging and following his teachings like the Bible says. Where does it say that Jesus of Nazareth was always the exact same as God and that he being the son of God was around before existence as we know it like God? Thank you.

chrysostom
August 8th, 2015, 09:25 AM
That's like saying we should judge all Christians by the crusades and holocaust.

no

I am just suggesting you are judging the crusades without considering what happened during the four hundred years leading up to them

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 09:34 AM
no

I am just suggesting you are judging the crusades without considering what happened during the four hundred years leading up to them
Regardless of what lead up to it, the Romans crucified Jesus, then went on a raping, robbing, murdering, pillaging campaign to force there version of Christianity on all, confiscating and destroying much evidence of the actual teachings of Arius and Christ. They gathered up all wealth for themselves too. It clearly states that money and material possessions are of no value once we die. So why has the RCC committed atrocities against humanity in direct disregard of scripture? Just the tip of the iceberg. Anyway, my point is that we can't judge based on the actions of few. We can however, judge based on affiliated ancient texts and beliefs. Thanks. We are all hypocrites. None better than the other. Is bickering and bloodshed really more important than scripture?

RevTestament
August 8th, 2015, 10:13 AM
No, and I didn't say Islam was Christianity either. But they worship the same God. Islam doesn't have a problem with Jesus.
They who deny the Son, deny the Father also and are anti-Christ. Which explains why Muslims burn Christian Churches and persecute Christians in those lands in which they are the majority.

They have a problem with the Gentiles worshiping Jesus as God as opposed to acknowledging and following his teachings like the Bible says. Where does it say that Jesus of Nazareth was always the exact same as God and that he being the son of God was around before existence as we know it like God? Thank you.
"For God so loved the world, that He sent His only Begotten Son, that whoso believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Read also Proverbs 9 Pops.

Further, the Qu'ran denies the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 10:16 AM
They who deny the Son, deny the Father also and are anti-Christ. Which explains why Muslims burn Christian Churches and persecute Christians in those lands in which they are the majority.
"For God so loved the world, that He sent His only Begotten Son, that whoso believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Read also Proverbs 9 Pops.

Further, the Qu'ran denies the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.
No it does not. No scripture you quoted suggested we are to divide from the truly faithful.

RevTestament
August 8th, 2015, 10:23 AM
No it does not. No scripture you quoted suggested we are to divide from the truly faithful.

I lost you there. No what does not? I didn't say anything about dividing from the faithful.
The Qur'an DOES indeed deny Christ was crucified, and basically says the people were fooled into believing He was crucified, when He was not.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 11:59 AM
I lost you there. No what does not? I didn't say anything about dividing from the faithful.
The Qur'an DOES indeed deny Christ was crucified, and basically says the people were fooled into believing He was crucified, when He was not.
What it means is that Christ is not dead and didn't die when Jesus was crucified. It does not dispute the the prophesies of the crucifixion. It is all confusion due to translation and misrepresentation by the RCC.

Nazaroo
August 8th, 2015, 01:50 PM
What it means is that Christ is not dead and didn't die when Jesus was crucified. It does not dispute the the prophesies of the crucifixion. It is all confusion due to translation and misrepresentation by the RCC.

Why are 'pinko commie' sock-puppets so interested in Jesus?

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 01:52 PM
Why are 'pinko commie' sock-puppets so interested in Jesus?
Funny pops, not a commi, just want what's best for all. Scripture says more Thanks once that the greed for money is the root of evil. Thanks.

popsthebuilder
August 8th, 2015, 01:53 PM
I served and am loyal to America, not what it has become,necessarily. Thanks

chrysostom
August 9th, 2015, 04:44 AM
Anyway, my point is that we can't judge based on the actions of few.

okay but you must judge the actions of many over many years

the history of islam (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112155)

can't give you a link to that right now
it has been deleted by tol

chrysostom
August 9th, 2015, 05:20 AM
the thread

the history of islam (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112155)

has been restored

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 06:48 AM
okay but you must judge the actions of many over many years

the history of islam (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112155)

can't give you a link to that right now
it has been deleted by tol
I intend to. The confusion and division is not the fault of Islam. They are of the true believers, if a little off kilter as most are. We can be reconciled under God. Thanks.

RevTestament
August 9th, 2015, 05:13 PM
I intend to. The confusion and division is not the fault of Islam.It is 100% their "fault." Their imams interpreted their Qur'an and made the Sharia law. The first things they did after the formation of Islam were to attack & conquer Christian nations.

They are of the true believers, if a little off kilter as most are. They deny the Father, because they deny His Son, His crucifixion and His resurrection. Therefore they do corrupt the name of YHWH, Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail.

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 05:27 PM
Revtestament,

Was that before the crusades, or manipulation of religion by the RCC?

They do not deny the father or Jesus or the crusifixion, the second coming of Christ has yet to fully happen, they don't deny it either. The only way they currupt anything is through lack of understanding just like most others. Thanks.

RevTestament
August 9th, 2015, 06:14 PM
Revtestament,

Was that before the crusades, or manipulation of religion by the RCC?
Basically. At the time they built Baghdad, Iraq had become largely a Christian nation under the Church of the East, and had millions of Christians. The reason it wasn't Catholic is because it refused to be manipulated further by the RCC and rejected the doctrine of the "dual natures" of Christ. So they got kicked out as heretics. Most "Orthodox" do not know this.


They do not deny the father or Jesus or the crusifixion, I really do not understand why you keep saying this, but it is true they deny it - pick any translation of the Qur'an you want.
Koran 4:157 Sahih International
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

4:171 Sahih International: O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.


The Koran is NOT compatible with the Bible. They conflict on many levels.

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 06:46 PM
Basically. At the time they built Baghdad, Iraq had become largely a Christian nation under the Church of the East, and had millions of Christians. The reason it wasn't Catholic is because it refused to be manipulated further by the RCC and rejected the doctrine of the "dual natures" of Christ. So they got kicked out as heretics. Most "Orthodox" do not know this.

I really do not understand why you keep saying this, but it is true they deny it - pick any translation of the Qur'an you want.
Koran 4:157 Sahih International
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

4:171 Sahih International: O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.


The Koran is NOT compatible with the Bible. They conflict on many levels.
No they don't. Remove anything that is in parenthesis, brackets, or little crosses then read. They say that about the son of God because we are all sons of God. They say Crist wasn't killed because the ability to be Crist is in all saved Gentiles and will eventually be attained by all truly faithful. Of course you will claim this heresy due to the RCCs interpretation of the trinity. Not sure what you mean by dual Jesus or whatever. Islam does seam to believe in duality though which has little to do with Jesus of Nazareth. The trinity in reality is the father(God),
The son( man), and the holy ghost(Crist). Thanks.

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 06:51 PM
So was the Muslim anti Christianity thing before the crusades or not? Pretty good reason for them to be pissed and untrusting of some Christians. The bible says we are to unite. Islam gets this, why doesn't Christianity?

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 06:53 PM
The Qur'an instructs Islam to embrace any Christian that actually goes by the teachings of Christ i.e. the evangel and the Old Testament.

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 06:54 PM
Manipulation through translation is why they conflict.

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 07:34 PM
How did we go from interpretation of end times prophesies to bashing other God fearing religions?

popsthebuilder
August 9th, 2015, 07:35 PM
Not very Christian of you. What happened to turn the other cheek?

RevTestament
August 9th, 2015, 08:05 PM
Not very Christian of you. What happened to turn the other cheek?
Ok Pops, you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm done. Don't know who has indoctrinated you, but I suggest you do a little more study! Jesus did not turn the other cheek to falsehoods, but spoke out against them. Islam denies His rightful inheritance as the only begotten Son. True Christianity and Islam are incompatible on so many levels I can't count.

daqq
August 9th, 2015, 08:45 PM
So was the Muslim anti Christianity thing before the crusades or not? Pretty good reason for them to be pissed and untrusting of some Christians. The bible says we are to unite. Islam gets this, why doesn't Christianity?


The Qur'an instructs Islam to embrace any Christian that actually goes by the teachings of Christ i.e. the evangel and the Old Testament.


Manipulation through translation is why they conflict.


How did we go from interpretation of end times prophesies to bashing other God fearing religions?


Not very Christian of you. What happened to turn the other cheek?

Sheesh, it really is sad to see what others will do to a thread with a popular theme and all of this junk posting is in light of the fact that it appears we have someone here who reads both Hebrew and Greek, (the OP). Have you no respect for others whatsoever? Does every single thought which enters into your mind deserve a new post? And what exactly is it that you are building pops? Your great announcement is Chrislam? :doh:

popsthebuilder
August 10th, 2015, 08:43 AM
Sheesh, it really is sad to see what others will do to a thread with a popular theme and all of this junk posting is in light of the fact that it appears we have someone here who reads both Hebrew and Greek, (the OP). Have you no respect for others whatsoever? Does every single thought which enters into your mind deserve a new post? And what exactly is it that you are building pops? Your great announcement is Chrislam? :doh:
I'm building peace through Faith in God and the teachings of Jesus. Do you object?. Thanks.

Really, I build strong things with integrity. In real life and on the ole interweb. Again, are you Christian? If so, are you literate? You must be, if you can read my posts. So, if a literate Christian, then why the negative objection? Does scripture say to divide or unite under God? Do the teachings of Jesus state compassion, brotherly love, and patience, or does it teach careless sin, division based on pride and prejudice, and hatred? Does it say our connection to God is personal, or that it must only be through a sinful pastor, priest, bishop, pope, or other religious, falsely holier than though type individual? Thanks.

popsthebuilder
August 10th, 2015, 09:24 AM
Does anyone find it odd other than B that no one has answered any of my questions?