Seeing as no-one else is talking to you, I thought we coudl carry on with
our Damiel discussion, it was getting interesting.
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041116081133.06349.00000363@mb-m27.aol.com...
"tw"
wrote:
eh? Judas Maccabite started the revolt in > 165 BC, Antiochus epiphanes
reigned 175-63. Hence his persecutions >predate the maccabites, don't
they?
So what?
Err.. are you playing dumb? Or is it for real? YOu said that if it was
written before the maccabites and mentinoed the persecutions of antiochus
then it was prophetic! I pointed out that seeing as the persecutinos of
Antiochus PRECEDED the time of the maccabites, that is a false conclusion.
Di I get my dates wrong? Presumably I didn't, seeig as you have now
abandoned this line and gone over tothe "jesus said it, so it must be true"
argument.
Daniel was around long before this time
Oh, Daniel the man may have been.
and regarded as a Holy Book, which is
why it was read for inspiration and hope during this time.
...yet the book was seems most likely to have been written just before or
possibly during the time of the maccabites, see above.
They wouldn't pick up what would have amounted to a newspaper (if it were
written as it was taking place) and read it for inspiration and hope.
Why not? A cleverly disguided peice f post.diction woudl be excellent
propoganda/morale booster. Similar things were done with Mother Shipton's
"prophecies" in Britain during noth world wars.
Get a clue.
I'm trying to .- so who got their dates mixed up, me or yuo?
--
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:I9%kd.2810559$yk.442154@news.easynews.com...
Nah, impeached mean you are found guilty.
.
