1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe "King of Greece" nonsense is discussed on page one of this thread. To recap: Alexander the Great was the King of Macedonia, not Greece and the greeks never called or considered him King of Greece. In all probability, Daniel had never heard of Macedonia.
[b/]Those parts of Daniel I covered predict what year the Messiah will die? Which passages exactly?
Can you also remind me which passages talk about the King of Greece so I can take another look at them?
Remember, I have only just ...[text shortened]... he correlation between the prediction and Jesus being on a donkey.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderMore lies from the master.
The "King of Greece" nonsense is discussed on page one of this thread. To recap: Alexander the Great was the King of Macedonia, not Greece and the greeks never called or considered him King of Greece. In all probability, Daniel had never heard of Macedonia.
Originally posted by DarfiusIf they are indeed lies (or perhaps errors), then it should be trivial
More lies from the master.
for you to demonstrate their falseness.
Find me a contemporary source that explicitly says 'Alexander [the
Great] was King of Greece,' and I am sure #1 will repent of his evil
ways.
If he was in fact King, then there should be a plethora of sources that
support the claim.
I anxiously await hearing from you, for I look forward as much as
anyone to seeing #1 eat crow.
Nemesio
4 edits
Originally posted by NemesioYou can check page three, also. I wonder what I'm supposedly lying about: that Alexander was the King of Macedonia? That the Greeks never called him King of Greece? I quoted a website proving both assertions on page one.
If they are indeed lies (or perhaps errors), then it should be trivial
for you to demonstrate their falseness.
Find me a contemporary source that explicitly says 'Alexander [the
Great] was King of Greece,' and I am sure #1 will repen ...[text shortened]... ook forward as much as
anyone to seeing #1 eat crow.
Nemesio
Alexander then marched south, pacified Thessaly, and at an assembly of the Greek League, at Corinth was confirmed as strategos autocrator (the supreme commander) of the Hellenes against the barbarians, in the place of his father Philip
for the expected invasion of the Persian Empire, previously planned and initiated by Philip. http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/
If a "Supreme Commander of the Hellenes for the expected invasion of the Persian Empire" is the King of the Greeks, then Ike was King of England during WWII.
Originally posted by DarfiusI'd like your interpretation of this exchange, as we're clearly not understanding our conversation in the same way (I'm in italics, you're in bold):
Key word is 'objectively'.
You're right, you did go through Daniel, though I'm not entirely sure objectively, unless you honestly think Daniel had the most lucky guesses in human history.
Lucky guesses? His guesses were so vague as to be useless. Which specific guesses (which I have so far covered) are you referring to?
King of Greece. And the year the Messiah would die.
Those parts of Daniel I covered predict what year the Messiah will die? Which passages exactly? Can you also remind me which passages talk about the King of Greece so I can take another look at them?
I didn't realize you were still analyzing Daniel. Good deal.
The way I read this, you thought I had read and analyzed the entirety of Daniel, but did not do so objectively in the places where the King of Greece is mentioned and where the year of the Messiah's death is described. I did not remember reading these things, so I asked you where they had been mentioned in chapters 1-5. You responded by saying you didn't realize I hadn't finished the book. Did I misunderstand your perspective in your posts? It seems pretty clear to me.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, I know it's been mentioned, but I thought this discussion involved chapter 8. I haven't gone back to look though, so I may be mistaken.
The "King of Greece" nonsense is discussed on page one of this thread. To recap: Alexander the Great was the King of Macedonia, not Greece and the greeks never called or considered him King of Greece. In all probability, Daniel had never heard of Macedonia.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe King of Grecia reference is Daniel 8:21.
Yes, I know it's been mentioned, but I thought this discussion involved chapter 8. I haven't gone back to look though, so I may be mistaken.
In case some find my Ike reference obscure, Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during World War II in charge of the Allied invasion of Europe.http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/ike/ike.htm The Allied forces contained troops from various nations including England, Canada, Australia, Brazil and many others. By Darfius' logic, Ike could have been called King of all these nations as he was in command of their troops for an invasion of enemy territory, just as Alexander of Macedonia was.
See also: http://www.ancientmacedonia.com/ancientevidence.html
The fact is that not one ancient writer has called the Macedonian Empire "Greek" or the Macedonian Army and Conquest "Greek" but specifically Macedonian.
The site quotes 22 ancient writers including Plutarch, Herodotus and Josephus as stating the Macedonians were never considered Greeks. As I stated earlier in thread, you could just as legitimately call George W Bush President of Iraq as Alexander King of the Greeks and you could have called Alexander King of Illyria, Asia Minor, etc. with the same validity. The bottom line is that Alexander was not, and was never considered, King of the Greeks by himself, the Greeks (Sparta and its allies were not subjugated by Alexander) or any ancient writers. Darfius' claim otherwise is BS.
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusDarfius, you wrote once that the British Empire didn't count as a world ruling empire like the Roman Empire did because Spain was a challenge to her dominance.
It is not time for the eternal kingdom yet. The Roman empire isn't over yet. It has lived on in the Vatican. And the European Union is hailing itself as the "Revived Roman empire". The Antichrist will likely be its leader.
They ...[text shortened]... Remember that from the Revelations verse I cited in one thread?
In the world today, the United States of America, a mostly Protestant nation, (and not long ago the USSR, and the Nazis, and before that Britain...) are (were) far more powerful than the Vatican. How can you claim there is one world dominating empire nowadays when the British Empire did not count because of Spain?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe Vatican isn't ruling the world. Daniel said the final empire would be iron mixed with clay, right? Rome was the iron. When it dissipated and the Vatican took up the charge, it went on pause for being a world empire until it rises again in the last days. The 10 toes will be a body with 10 kings or rulers of 10 sections of the world. The EU will likely be the embodiment.
Darfius, you wrote once that the British Empire didn't count as a world ruling empire like the Roman Empire did because Spain was a challenge to her dominance.
In the world today, the United States of America, a mostly Protestant nation, (and not long ago the USSR, and the Nazis, and before that Britain...) are (were) far more powerful than the Va ...[text shortened]... is one world dominating empire nowadays when the British Empire did not count because of Spain?
Originally posted by Darfius🙄
The Vatican isn't ruling the world. Daniel said the final empire would be iron mixed with clay, right? Rome was the iron. When it dissipated and the Vatican took up the charge, it went on pause for being a world empire until it rises again in the last days. The 10 toes will be a body with 10 kings or rulers of 10 sections of the world. The EU will likely be the embodiment.