Life After People

Limit your sarcasm my friend! This is your mode of operation on every conversation. When you are unable to face reality you resort to sarcasm.

YOU have been shown over and over by more than just me and you refuse to accept what is shown to you.

I have asked you over and over to respond to certain historical facts and you have totally ignored me and now you make assertion of "Put up or shut up".

Don't you think that is rather ambiguous and miss-leading????
What sarcasm? Antiochus was a chump and a coward who bullied Israel. If you want a response to your points, then let's address them one at a time. I suspect you are as long winded in speech as your posts suggest.
 
What do the writings of Ellen G. White have to do with my arguments against Jesuit Futurism and your sad devotion to it, Major, which by the way come EXCLUSIVELY from Scripture? Your inability to frame a coherent rebuttal along with your stubborn opposition to historical facts do not contribute to a meaningful discussion as to the identity of Antiochus or the primary focus of this thread, so either please change your approach or change your destination.

I think that we are done. I just refuse to deal with your attitude and arrogance.

 
What sarcasm? Antiochus was a chump and a coward who bullied Israel. If you want a response to your points, then let's address them one at a time. I suspect you are as long winded in speech as your posts suggest.

And right there is the arrogance I was talking about. See ya around.
 
And right there is the arrogance I was talking about. See ya around.
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
 
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

I do not agree with you!
 
No, you refuse to deal in facts, but that's fine with me.

You remind me of the comedian George Carlin who once said......
"“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”

As I said Phoneman....we are done. I just can not have these tedious, repetitive conversations over things that you just refuse to accept and twist to make YOUR point acceptable.

The idea that you would base a belief on whether or not a man was "EXCEEDINLY Great" or just "great" in YOUR opinion is just laughable and I for one just can not continue with such stuff.

See ya around.
 
Last edited:
You remind me of the comedian George Carlin who once said......
"“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”

As I said Phoneman....we are done. I just can not have these tedious, repetitive conversations over things that you just refuse to accept and twist to make YOUR point acceptable.

The idea that you would base a belief on whether or not a man was "EXCEEDINLY Great" or just "great" in YOUR opinion is just laughable and I for one just can not continue with such stuff.

See ya around.
There's nothing amusing about unanswerable arguments, the sum total of which is why I reject Antiochus as the Little Horn. One such is:

Antiochus, like all the other Seleucid kings, represents the Seleucid horn of divided Greece just as the other 3 horns are represented by their respective kings. How, then, can Antiochus also be the Little Horn, if according to you, the Little Horn is to arise out of the Seleucid horn? He would have to arise out of himself, which is kinda silly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top