Prophecies of Daniel.

[jap23]

---

In the 2nd and 3rd century BC rome began to dominate the mediterranean region, and thus became the news kings at around that time

Time to put down your stupid-ass bible and learn some Roman history so you won't make a fool out of yourself.

Rome ended the 3'd century BC having finally defeated Carthage in a struggle to the death in 202. She opened the 2d century at war with Macedon and trying to pacify Greece. This was accomplished when Titus Quinctius Flamininus defeated Phillip of Macedon in 198. With the Macedonians crushed, Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire tried to assert Seleucid rule in Greece which provoked the First Syrian War with Rome. Antiochus III was kicked out of Greece by M. Acilius Glabrio at the Battle of Thermopylae (yes, THAT Thermopylae) in 191 and then the Romans, with their allied states, Pergamum and Rhodes defeated the Seleucid navy, crossed to Asia Minor and defeated Antiochus at Magnesia under the command of Lucius Cornelius Scipio...who had his more famous brother, Publius, along as "advisor." The Romans saddled Antiochus with a savage war reparation and took a great deal of terrritory from him...which they turned over to their Pergamene and Rhodian allies. Contrary to your statement, the Romans withdrew from Asia Minor at that time (early in the 2d century.)

They still had periodic problems in Greece and Spain and factions in the Senate were agitating for another war with Carthage ( Marcus Porcius Cato famously ended every speech in the Senate with "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed). In 146 BC Cato got his wish....while another Roman commander sacked and burned Corinth for good measure.

At such a point in time your assertion of Roman domination of the Mediterranean might have been true except for 100 years of civil strife;
the Gracchi brothers, a slave revolt in Sicily, the Social Wars, the slave revolt of Spartacus, Marius, Sulla, and the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. In foreign affairs the Romans suffered a stunning defeat at the hands of Germanic tribes. The second half of the 2d century and the beginning of the first were hardly a pax Romana. For most of that time they maintained their alliances in the east with Pergamon, Rhodes and the Ptolemies in Egypt. They managed to avoid major war in the East until the First Mithridatic War in 86 BC.

It wasn't until Pompey was given given a command against pirates in the East (and exceeded his authority) that Roman control of the East was established.

Now, all of this was done without a single KING (or emperor ) being established in the Roman world. The various consuls named above were all elected to their positions by the senate. Rome remained a republic... at least in form...so when you try to stretch your fairy tales like you did you had best take a little time to learn some shit.

You wouldn't want people to think you were stupid...in addition to being a xtian... would you?

---

First things first, I love history, especially that of the Romans and Greeks- not saying that I get everything right though.
Now- I hate it when I have to talk about a previous post instead of the actual topic, but that's what I'll have to do. I'll repost what I wrote, and underline the bit you obviously missed out:

In the 2nd and 3rd century BC rome began to dominate the mediterranean region, and thus became the news kings at around that time

Now if you want me to spell it out- the Romans emerged as a dominant (i.e. pretty powerful) presence around that time, and eventually came to dominate the region (mostly after the birth of Christ (the alleged date anyway- just so you don't start flaming me for being close-minded, assumptive, etc.)). Hence why I mentioned the third century, which was way before this whole 167 BC thing- It was a gradual process and I was well aware of it. Surely it was obvious that I wasn't saying they suddenly popped into absolute dominance? But they were making reasonable progress. Your own historical recap shows a successful campaign against Greece in 147 BC (Around the the time we're talking about).

Now, all of this was done without a single KING (or emperor ) being established in the Roman world. The various consuls named above were all elected to their positions by the senate.

Okay.... rulerships then. I understand that Rome had Tribunal and Consular systems early on, but the Caesars were established at about 27 BC- and it was under their rule that the saints experienced the relevant opposition. I don't see the point of spelling everything out as though I was speaking to a three-year-old; it doesn't really affect my point.

You've taken a hardly relevant blip in my post, ignored everything else, and decided to flame me over that. All of the things that you've said doesn't change the essential part of what I was talking about. I could have taken what you just said in the quote above, and decided to flame you about the fact that you didn't consider that Rome had Regal and Dictatorial systems well before that happened- but rather I understood the essence of what you were saying and build on that. Can't you do the same? This whole thing shouldn't have happened.

Open-minded, intelligent and reasonable people would take whatever opposing ideas there are, and compare them to their own to see what they can make of it. If you were like that, you wouldn't choose to ignore everything else I wrote and decide to attack me over a little blip.

deep breath...
Justtristo

Richard Carrier in a couple of paragraphs in the article quotes Josephus to describe how gullable even the Jews were back then.

Quote:
Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

Thanks for being reasonable, but I get the feeling your argument is based on the assumption that I was speaking in absolute terms. The fact that there's always an exception to the rule (even that one itself) should obvious.

I like what you said because:
1) You're using Josephus. Now see what he wrote about Alexander the great's reaction to the prophecy of Daniel, and about person of Christ
2) Considering that particular time-frame you're talking about (after Christ), it simply adds to Christ's words in the Olivet Prophecy about false-prophets coming and deceiving many towards the time of AD 70. If you want to be proven right you should steer clear of proving Christ's words because it was the same man, during the same discourse, who apparently believed Daniel was written by Daniel.