Brother, I'm not trying to be arrogant, just understood. I appreciate your desire to prove your position, but lengthy posts which incorporate multifaceted explanations make a response to them very difficult. After numerous requests, I thought we'd entered into a meaningful back and forth dialogue about just two point - whether Antiochus was "exceeding great" and did he arrive at the correct time:
- In post 76, you said the Jews thought he was b/c he defiled their temple and suspended its services and that makes him the Little Horn.
- In post # 85, I responded by saying that the Bible assigned the level of "greatness" of the Ram and the He-goat based on glorious military expansionism, not the degree to which they persecuted Jews, and that it was inconsistent for you to change the basis for defining the "greatness" of the Little Horn from "military expansionism" to "degree of Jew persecution". I also pointed out that what Antiochus did to the Jews fades into obscurity when laid against what Nebuchadnezzer and the Caesars did to the Jews. Furthermore, I also said that Antiochus, as the 8th in a line of over 25 kings, arose too early to be the Little Horn that was to appear on the scene in the "latter time" of the kings of divided Greece. That's as far as it got - 2 posts. Notice how I stuck to only these the two points: Greatness and timing of arrival.
- In post # 91, you shut down the discussion without offering any response to my two points and referred me to another post of unrelated "proof" that Antiochus was the Little Horn.
Alas, your actions only serve to confirm to me that my position is correct.