King of the North and King of the South.

[Fenris]

I'm going to try to "reset" the tone of this conversation, because I agree with the admin--it's getting overheated. Let me just reassure you that I don't believe I know the Jewish version of the Bible well. I don't believe I know that near as well as you do.

I know the Scriptures, OT and NT, pretty well, though, and do have a different interpretation than Jews do. I don't think it's ignorance on anybody's part necessarily. The same Scriptures can be read by educated people and get different interpretations.

OK, fair enough.

But let's turn the corner on any argument about who knows what better, okay? That was never my intention regardless. I don't believe the Jewish view lacks scholarship or credibility, as a legitimate religious alternative to the Christian version. I just disagree based on my own experience with God.

Okay.

I want to assure you that I'm here suggesting what the ideal Jewish interpretation "should be," based on my Christian understanding. I'm not telling you what "Jews believe" about this!

I'm a "holiness" Christian--there are more ecumenical Christian brands. As a holiness Christian I based my relationship with the non-Christian world on the same Scriptures that you use and perhaps interpret differently. I've been reading out of Deuteronomy--the 1st 10 chapters or so--about the need to separate from the pagans, ie not to intermarry with them, not to adopt their pagan ways, etc. And it is on that basis that I derive my own need not to over-fraternize with non-Christians in terms of marriage, business, etc.

Okay, so now here's the thing. The bible was written a long time ago. At that point in time, the world was divided into two groups of people: Jews, and idol worshippers. And that was it. Now of course one couldn't fraternize with idol worshippers or become their business partners or best friends. It was just that they worshipped idols. Their whole value system was horrible.

How does that pertain to us today? The world is a very different place now. Just because someone isn't Jewish today doesn't mean they're an idol worshipper with bad values. Today we have Christians and yes, Muslims too, who are fellow monotheists and who have adopted the bible's values. Because of that, the rules about idol worshippers (what you refer to as "pagans") does not apply to them.

Judaism is not a fossilized relic, trapped in time three millennia ago. It's intellectually vigorous and dynamic. Jewish law and philosophy have adapted to the modern era because the world is a changed place. If you don't understand this then you can't claim to understand Judaism. I've mentioned this before, many Christians sole knowledge of Judaism comes from the NT. Dude, it was written two thousand years ago. I don't find it especially accurate in explaining Judaism (but if you do, that's fine) but you have to remember that Judaism has changed in the last two thousand years. One of the reasons that I hang around here is because I want to be a source of information for people who want to understand Judaism, just as many of you here are a source of information for helping me understand Christianity.

As a Christian I believe, as you do, that moral people living under the laws of God should be a witness to the world, to hopefully change some of them.

Hopefully. But even if we don't, we still have to ability to go to those profane places in the world and sanctify them, make them holy through our actions.

As such, I am not an isolationist Christian--just separated for the purpose of holiness, not wanting to agree with the message ungodly people bring. The more moral someone in the pagan world is, the easier it is to get close to him or her. But I strongly believe in peace agreements, or truces, which should be the goal of all groups, no matter what their religion is.

I do not feel that I'm "at war" with other religions that some "peace treaty" is necessary. There's nothing wrong with working with those of another faith to a common goal.

No, I do appreciate your friendship with Christians, including me, if I haven't thrown you too far off already? I also have friends from work, from places I go, from business transactions, etc. But I would distinguish this from more personal associations.

Ok, you can. But I don't feel obligated to.

I would repeat--I don't wish to suggest I'm describing "Judaism," as you know it. I'm describing how I, as a Christian, believe that original Judaism was in ancient times, or how I think it should've been practiced. Do you understand the difference?

Yes. And as I've said, Judaism has adapted to the modern world.

[Fenris]

No, I do appreciate your friendship with Christians, including me, if I haven't thrown you too far off already?

I just want to address this point, specifically. Not just to you but to anyone else reading this.

I try not to take anything that gets said too personally. I realize that I am in a place with some very different beliefs from my own, and I accept that. I also know that some Christians have grown up hearing some pretty ridiculous ideas about Jews, and I accept that too. I'm not getting angry or sad at anyone for saying anything, no matter how odd or peculiar it may be. The truly off the wall postings (like "Jews worship the devil") just makes me realize that such a person is not worth conversating with, and I tune that person out.

[RandyPNW]

Okay, so now here's the thing. The bible was written a long time ago. At that point in time, the world was divided into two groups of people: Jews, and idol worshippers. And that was it. Now of course one couldn't fraternize with idol worshippers or become their business partners or best friends. It was just that they worshipped idols. Their whole value system was horrible.

How does that pertain to us today? The world is a very different place now. Just because someone isn't Jewish today doesn't mean they're an idol worshipper with bad values. Today we have Christians and yes, Muslims too, who are fellow monotheists and who have adopted the bible's values. Because of that, the rules about idol worshippers (what you refer to as "pagans") does not apply to them.

Judaism is not a fossilized relic, trapped in time three millennia ago. It's intellectually vigorous and dynamic. Jewish law and philosophy have adapted to the modern era because the world is a changed place. If you don't understand this then you can't claim to understand Judaism. I've mentioned this before, many Christians sole knowledge of Judaism comes from the NT. Dude, it was written two thousand years ago. I don't find it especially accurate in explaining Judaism (but if you do, that's fine) but you have to remember that Judaism has changed in the last two thousand years. One of the reasons that I hang around here is because I want to be a source of information for people who want to understand Judaism, just as many of you here are a source of information for helping me understand Christianity.

I still don't think you understand my point, which is that I'm *not* trying to present "the Jewish view." I'm trying to present *my Christian view* of what I think Judaism originally was and was intended to be. How you view Judaism from where you are in Judaism today, and how you think Judaism always was, is *your point of view*--not mine.

I'm not trying to tell you what your own personal religion is. I'm trying to tell you what I, as a Christian, believe Judaism should've become, which it did *not* become. I believe, obviously, that Judaism should've become Christianity. And I believe Christianity is the true successor of Judaism, just as Islam believes it is the true successor of both Judaism and Christianity.

I do agree that we have 3 major monotheistic faiths, and that the world has changed from the original Jewish binary view, Hebrew monotheists and pagan outsiders.

I also think you are naive if you think Jews should trust "the modern world," including forms of monotheism that do not truly conform to divine law. Even Christians and Muslims cannot be trusted if they do not have a theology that properly synchronizes them with God's Spirit, or if they do not "practice what they preach."

I would repeat--I don't wish to suggest I'm describing "Judaism," as you know it. I'm describing how I, as a Christian, believe that original Judaism was in ancient times, or how I think it should've been practiced. Do you understand the difference?

Yes. And as I've said, Judaism has adapted to the modern world.

I understand that's your position. But my position is to describe how I see the Bible being interpreted properly or not--I'm not describing Judaism as Judaism today sees it, nor how Judaism has seen it since the time of Jesus.

I'm describing how I think, as a Christian, Judaism was meant to be originally and even how it should be today. Jews do not have a monopoly on how Judaism should be viewed.

You may have an inside and more-experienced view of what Judaism is, and I don't pretend to know that with any precision. But I have every right to judge, based on the Christian Bible, how I think the Jewish Bible--the OT--should be interpreted, and thus, what Judaism should've become.

The best you can do, as a Jew, is describe how Jews believe their own faith legitimately represents biblical faith. They can say what Jews believe today, and how they think Jews should believe today. But they cannot maintain the exclusive view of how Jews *should* be practicing Judaism today. That depends on one's particular religious perspective.

That is a matter of one's own personal belief. And I, as a Christian, have every right to decide whether I think Judaism today or yesterday conforms to true biblical faith.

This is not dictating to you, as a Jew, what you believe or what Judaism believes. Rather, this is me, as a Christian, telling you whether I think, based on your own Bible, that you are properly following that Bible or not.

[RandyPNW]

No, I do appreciate your friendship with Christians, including me, if I haven't thrown you too far off already?

I just want to address this point, specifically. Not just to you but to anyone else reading this.

I try not to take anything that gets said too personally. I realize that I am in a place with some very different beliefs from my own, and I accept that. I also know that some Christians have grown up hearing some pretty ridiculous ideas about Jews, and I accept that too. I'm not getting angry or sad at anyone for saying anything, no matter how odd or peculiar it may be. The truly off the wall postings (like "Jews worship the devil") just makes me realize that such a person is not worth conversating with, and I tune that person out.

You need not address this to me, however. And I'm not sure why you do? I've never said Jews worship the Devil. My position, as a Christian, is that Jews worship the true God, but fail to recognize that Jesus is His unique Son and Messiah of the Jews.

Does this affect Jewish worship negatively? I believe it does. But I'm certainly not saying that Jews are of the Devil or worship the Devil. On the contrary, I believe they worship the one true God, albeit in a short-sighted and weakened way.

I find acceptance of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah valuable, which may be explained as the addition of NT Scriptures to the Jewish Scriptures. It is the life of Jesus, complete with his all-encompassing expression of forgiveness for human sin, in particular for the sin of doing harm to the thing he represented.

To ignore this does hurt you, I think. But it does not keep you from worshiping the one true God. Even though we do not agree on this, it is a strong basis for humane relations and social acceptance.

[IMINXTC]

The idea is to churn out seemingly endless volumes of multi- colored and highlighted, out of context scripture verses (as if quantity of verbosity somehow proves the point), fashioned as ranting weapons against a particular group in God's name, as in "God's word is God."

A regular feature of the Internet, alongside that of non-scriptural rambling, another waste of time.

[Fenris]

I still don't think you understand my point, which is that I'm *not* trying to present "the Jewish view." I'm trying to present *my Christian view* of what I think Judaism originally was and was intended to be.

And here I thought we were making progress.

HOW do you think you know "what Judaism was originally intended to be"? You've already admitted that I know my bible better than you do. On the other hand, if your knowledge of Judaism comes from YOUR bible, then it's 1)Very outdated and 2)Not correct anyway. The NT presents how first century Christians viewed Judaism- not how first century Judaism actually was. 

I'm not trying to tell you what your own personal religion is. I'm trying to tell you what I, as a Christian, believe Judaism should've become, which it did *not* become.

Which is not your place, as a Christian, to decide. Stay in your lane.

I also think you are naive if you think Jews should trust "the modern world,"

I happen to be Jewish. Who are you to tell me what Jews do and don't trust? Seriously?

including forms of monotheism that do not truly conform to divine law. Even Christians and Muslims cannot be trusted if they do not have a theology that properly synchronizes them with God's Spirit

Who are you to tell me who Jews should and shouldn't trust? You're quite arrogant.

I'm describing how I think, as a Christian, Judaism was meant to be originally and even how it should be today. Jews do not have a monopoly on how Judaism should be viewed.

It's not for people outside of a religion to decide what that religion should or shouldn't be. I can't believe I have to tell you this.

That is a matter of one's own personal belief. And I, as a Christian, have every right to decide whether I think Judaism today or yesterday conforms to true biblical faith.

And I think you're smug and arrogant to even suggest such a thing. By what right?

I've read the NT and so I think that Christians should believe such and such. Sounds ridiculous, no? It's not OK when you do it either.

[Fenris]

The idea is to churn out seemingly endless volumes of multi- colored and highlighted, out of context scripture verses (as if quantity of verbosity somehow proves the point), fashioned as ranting weapons against a particular group in God's name, as in "God's word is God."

Yeah seems to be everywhere in some form or another.

[Fenris]

You need not address this to me, however. And I'm not sure why you do? I've never said Jews worship the Devil.

I wasn't talking about you.

[RandyPNW]

You need not address this to me, however. And I'm not sure why you do? I've never said Jews worship the Devil.

I wasn't talking about you.

Yea, that especially needs clarification since on the other thread you said that I'm trying to teach you about Judaism. I'm trying to tell you what I believe Judaism *should be* teaching, based on my view of its Bible. It's also my Bible.

[Reddogs]

Seleucid was the king of the North.

Ptolemy was the king of the South.

Two generals of the 4 that divided Alexander the Great's empire when he "died suddenly but not in battle."

Pretty amazing prophesy, fulfilled in real time years after Daniel prophesied.

Yes, and it continues till the end which makes it very hard to completely understand..

[RabbiKnife]

Seleucid was the king of the North.

Ptolemy was the king of the South.

Two generals of the 4 that divided Alexander the Great's empire when he "died suddenly but not in battle."

Pretty amazing prophesy, fulfilled in real time years after Daniel prophesied.

Yes, and it continues till the end which makes it very hard to completely understand..

What does “continues to the end” mean?  These are historical events that occurred thousands of years ago

I mean , I guess, it is true that both of these generals continue to be dead

[Reddogs]

Seleucid was the king of the North.

Ptolemy was the king of the South.

Two generals of the 4 that divided Alexander the Great's empire when he "died suddenly but not in battle."

Pretty amazing prophesy, fulfilled in real time years after Daniel prophesied.

Yes, and it continues till the end which makes it very hard to completely understand..

What does “continues to the end” mean?  These are historical events that occurred thousands of years ago

I mean , I guess, it is true that both of these generals continue to be dead

This can get deep but what we find is that Daniel is putting down timelines that reach to the end as we see the end time destruction. Lets look at the chapters before Daniel 11 and we see it.

Daniel 2:44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Daniel 7:26-27
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Daniel 8:25
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Daniel 9 is the prophecy giving the timeline to Christ as the Messiah which He fulfilled when He was here with the apostles.
Daniel 9:25
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Daniel 10 tells us outright what is to be revealed in Daniel 11
Daniel 10:14
14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

Then we come to Daniel 11 and it has points that give us some clarity and also comes to the end and finishes in Daniel 12.

The Identifying Acts of the King of the North.

(1) He defeats the king of the south, and takes his kingdom (Dan. 11:15, 16), after which he stands in the "glorious land" (Dan. 11:16) -- Palestine.

(2) In the glory of the kingdom, a raiser of taxes stands up (Dan. 11:20).

(3) His kingdom is "overflown" with arms of a flood from before him (Dan. 11:22), and he loses Egypt and Palestine.

(4) Afterwards he works deceitfully, and becomes strong with a small people (Dan. 11:23).

(5) He flatters wicked ones for their wickedness (Dan. 11:32).

(6) He divides the land for gain (Dan. 11:39).

(7) He becomes strong the second time, yet is defeated by the king of the south (Dan. 11:25, 29, 30).

(8 ) Both kings speak lies at one table (Dan. 11:27).

(9) Having become strong the second time, and having engaged in an unsuccessful war with the king of the south, he sets his heart against the holy covenant (Dan. 11:28).

(10) He pollutes the sanctuary of strength, and takes away the daily (Dan. 11:31).

(11) He forsakes the god of his fathers (Dan. 11:37), acknowledges a strange god (Dan. 11:39), and disregards the desire of women (Dan. 11:37).

(12) In the time of the end, he again defeats the king of the south, enters into the countries, overflows and passes over (Dan. 11:40); then once more stands in the glorious land. Following this, Edom and Moab and the chief children of Ammon, escape out of his hand (Dan. 11:41); and the Libyans, also the Ethiopians, follow at his steps (Dan. 11:43).

(13) Tidings out of the east and out of the north trouble him. Therefore, he goes forth with great fury, destroys, and utterly makes away many (Dan. 11:44).

(14) He also plants the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain, yet comes to his end, and no one helps him.

Beginning with the ancient Medo-Persian Empire (Dan. 11:2, 3), the chain of events of this prophecy reaches on to the time that the "king of the north" plants "the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain" (Dan. 11:45), and culminates, as the angel explained, with the events of Daniel 12: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." Dan. 12:1.

[Reddogs]

Here is a better explanation..

"The contents of Daniel form a prophetic pattern. The various prophecies start at the time, or near the time, when Daniel was living, and they proceed forward from that point until the second coming of Christ, with each subsequent prophecy giving greater detail about the future.

Daniel 2: the multi-metal man prophecy starts with Babylon and goes through Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, fractured Europe, and the coming of Christ.
Daniel 7: the four beasts prophecy starts with Babylon and goes through Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, fractured Europe, then papal Rome and the coming of Christ.
Daniel 8 & 9: the ram and the goat prophecy starts with Medo-Persia being overthrown by Greece, followed by the initial rise of pagan Rome and its eventual transformation into its papal form. But this prophecy gives more detail, specifying how long until the Messiah would come and revealing Satan’s counterattack to infect the minds of people with a false understanding of God’s law and what Christ achieved, which is then followed by the end-time people of God being cleansed from sin and being made ready to meet Jesus and, finally, culminating in the second coming of Christ.
Then Daniel 11, our focus for this blog, is the last in this series of prophecies and begins again with events occurring in Persia at the time of Daniel.

Daniel 11:1–4: The vision is given during the third year of Cyrus’s reign and references three more kings to arise, followed by a fourth king more powerful than the rest, but who would have his empire broken up and parceled out to the four winds – i.e., four points of the compass. The three kings to follow Cyrus were Cambyses (530–522 B.C.); the False Smerdis (522 B.C.); and Darius I (522–486 B.C.). The fourth was Xerxes (486–465 B.C.), who stirred up the Greeks (vv. 2) and eventually, the empire was conquered by Alexander the Great (336–323 B.C.), who died at the height of his power and whose kingdom was broken into four regions (vv. 3, 4).
Daniel 11:5–14: Depicts the battles between the Hellenistic dynasties after the death of Alexander. There are various Bible commentaries that can give the specific historical events corresponding to these verses. The king of the North represents the portion of Persia corresponding to ancient Babylon, the Syrian portion, while the king of the South represents Egypt.
Daniel 11:16–28: In verse 16, we have the appearance of Rome, the kingdom that establishes itself in the “Beautiful Land,” which refers to the place where God dwells with His people. In verse 22, this power kills the prince of the covenant, which is a reference to the crucifixion of Jesus, thus confirming this section refers to pagan Rome.
Daniel 11:29–39: These verses transition us from literal Israel to spiritual Israel, those who are like Abraham in character and faith, and from pagan Rome as the king of the North to Christian Rome as the king of the North.
The theme that emerges is that the two kings (North and South) represent two philosophies that carry down through time.

The North (Babylon/Persia/Rome) represents powers that claim to believe in God but that use the methods of this sinful world, specifically the imposition of law and the coercive force of the state. Nebuchadnezzar claimed to believe in Daniel’s God yet used imposed law to enforce it (Daniel 3:28, 29); Darius claimed to believe in Daniel’s God yet used imposed law to enforce it (Daniel 6:23–27); and eventually pagan Rome became papal Rome, which claims to represent God but infects all Christianity with the imposed-law lie that leads to legal religiosity in Christianity, thus mispresenting God (Daniel 7:20–25). So the king of the North is the system that merges a belief in God (church) with human imposed-law methods (state) forming religious imperialism.

The South (Egypt) signifies powers that deny God, as Pharaoh famously said, “who is God that I should obey him?” (Exodus 5:2). The king of the South began its final (end-time) assault on the king of the North with the French Revolution, which denied all gods and enthroned the goddess of reason, laying the foundation for the rise of atheism, humanism, and secularism in the Western world, which has been advancing against the king of the North ever since."  ...https://comeandreason.com/daniel-11-end-time-events/

[RabbiKnife]

It would be difficult to imagine how much I am not interested in modern eschatological theories, but I acknowledge they sell a lot of books and email subscriptions, fuel thousands of speculative youtube channels and podcasts, and never lead anyone to Jesus.

[Reddogs]

It would be difficult to imagine how much I am not interested in modern eschatological theories, but I acknowledge they sell a lot of books and email subscriptions, fuel thousands of speculative youtube channels and podcasts, and never lead anyone to Jesus.

But then there is truth, and Christ puts it into the Word and His prophecy and the Holy Spirit guides those who truly seek...