The Five Fulfilments Of Daniel's 2300 Mornings And Evenings

[@amaneyugihanako-kunofthesi8849]

Daniel's prophecies and visions are really interesting to read and look into. In fact, Daniel 7 is among the chapters I like to read often because of both the prefiguration of Jesus Christ's enthronement as King of All Creation, and the Trinitarian elements of it, as well as how the beasts are described and then explained. But the very prophecy in this video is often one of the many elements that a lot of people attempting to find the time of the end, often use, like many of the millenarist groups, and if I recall, Harold Camping's failed 2011 prophecy was also based on it.

[@gigantals]

I know. I think I saw the Adventist use it to claim that, beginning with the return of the exiles to Jerusalem, the World would somehow end in 1844. Or sometime around that.

[@amaneyugihanako-kunofthesi8849]

Also, I'm curious. What is your take on the legitimacy of the State of Israel? I'm from a circle of normal traditional Catholics that say that the State of Israel is illegitimate, and so is the State of Palestine as well. I know it's a very hot topic, given the ongoing conflict in there, but the guys in that group state that it would be better if a Christian Empire, preferably a much better version of the Kingdom of Jerusalem were to exist there, as they said that it would be the only legitimate state in the Holy Land. And also, not everyone might agree with you on the statement that "GOD is still with the Jews", rather, they claim that GOD has abandoned them, and now refers to the Church as the "New Israel". And they will cite both the Blood Libel statement and some verses of the early chapters of Revelation to prove their point. What can you say to address these concerns and give a answer that both defends the stance, and is still in line with what the Church has said about the Jews?

[@gigantals]

I apologise in advance for the long read. Firstly, concerning the state of Israel, I'm perfectly fine with the concept of a sovereign entity carving up territories won through warfare into new countries. In this case, the British Empire had the authority to divide the Middle East it controlled after the Ottoman Empire collapsed. Could it make bad decisions? Sure, it definitely did in Africa by not accounting for ethnic populations. Ironically, the division of the Palestinian-Jordanian mandate did consider ethnicity. The Jews had been migrating back to the Near East for decades prior to the Mandate of Palestine ending, and for them to be considered makes sense. Since the Holocaust had occurred a few years earlier, the desire for the Jews to have their own state to live in where they couldn't be persecuted again sounds reasonable. They had previously considered Argentina (which many Nazis fled to ironically), but desired their historical homeland in Canaan, which many of them had never left. Their choosing of Mandatory Palestine wasn't part of some larger conspiracy or random choice. So the intention to create a country and their ideal location for it seems legitimate. There have been numerous wars in the Near East with many Palestinians unfortunately being used as proxies by the surrounding Arab nations. The original territory allotted to the Jews was practically indefensible, a rump state that they were still eager to have. If the missile bombardment back in 2021 taught us anything, it was that many important Israeli cities like Ashdod and Ashkelon are in danger of destruction in the event of an attack from Gaza, occupied between 1948-1967 by Egypt. Jordan occupying the West Bank meant that they could station their troops near the heartland of Israel, buying time in the event of a war to build bridges across the Jordan river and transport heavy weaponry across. The Golan Heights, despite not being part of the original territory of Mandatory Palestine, meant that Syria literally could fire upon Northern Israel from a great height. So when Israel annexed the territory after 1967 with the intention of securing their borders against another conflict, that makes perfect sense from a military perspective. Syria cannot just chuck bombs at Israel now (especially with the UN there) and Jordan cannot launch an offensive against Israel without amassing a great number of troops on the bank of the Jordan river, which would be seen by satellites (which is also why China cannot invade Taiwan without being spotting preparing months in advance). Israel occupying the Sinai peninsula gave them a buffer of land with Egypt that helped them in the Yom Kippur War. Yet they still gave the peninsula back to Egypt as a sign of friendship. Then they later let the Palestinian Authority (or whatever they're called) take control of the Palestinian populations of Israel, including the land they settled on. They have their own courts and government. Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza in 2005, and that backfired massively when Hamas took over. So regarding Israel's military actions, whether they attacked first or second, I understand their actions were never motivated by imperialism. In a region of the world where you need to show strength against your neighbours that want to destroy you, they attack when necessary to show they won't go down without a fight, but also demonstrate that their can be a peaceful alternative. The Abraham Accords are a brilliant example of this. I don't think the state of Israel is a perfect, spotless entity, in case I give that impression above. But I don't for one second think that the situation would improve if there was a Christian state there instead. I can guarantee you that terrorism would be significantly worse, with people on both sides being motivated by the Crusades. The Jews on the other hand have historically been very isolationist, preferring to keep to themselves rather than engage in constant warfare and imperialism. And a Muslim state would just contribute to all the chaos in the Middle East whilst destroying all our religious sites. At this point, there is no way to stabilise the Middle East without destroying a dozen countries and wiping out hundreds of millions of people. But that becomes its own Holocaust. The situation we have right now is far from perfect, but offers a peaceful alternative to genocide continued over decades. The Abraham Accords show that the peaceful solution is possible. You're right that the Church is the 'New Israel'. But that doesn't mean that we should completely disregard or abandon the 'Old Israel'. If the Jews were to be punished for their actions in 33 AD, they were with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Which fulfils the '40 days' prophecy of Jonah, giving '40 days' to Nineveh to repent, whilst Jerusalem had 40 years from the time Jesus began preaching. We need to give credit where due to Israel and the Jews, being the precursors to Christianity that God worked through. Practically all their holy sites are holy to us as well. it's not our job to punish them, when the people who actually persecuted Christ and the early Christians lives almost 1900 years ago. Remember, every Jew and Hebrew that followed the Laws of Moses (as well as the laws of Adam and Noah before Moses) didn't go to Hell, but to the Limbo of the Fathers, where Christ preached to them on Holy Saturday. That says something about their religious beliefs. They will of course need to have Faith in Christ to be saved (which Revelation predicts a mass conversion of Jews), but not everything they're doing is wrong. Limbo is not quite salvation, but also not quite Hell. Even the Jewish idea of Purgatory is surprisingly similar to ours. All they need now is Christ, and we should, consensually, tell them about Him. The Church teaches that Amillennialism is the correct interpretation of Revelation. What parts of Revelation do your groups quote? Do they consider the historical context? Looking up the 'blood libel', it makes no sense. I see it might have originated in Hellenist Judaea, apparently under the same King who had a pig sacrificed to Zeus in the Temple, starting the Maccabean Revolt. That is obvious anti-Semitism used to try and justify his persecution of the 'traditional Jews' whilst working with the 'Hellenist Jews'. Human sacrifices were condemned in the Pentateuch. Or it began after the First Crusade, as Jews were killing their children and themselves before the Crusaders did the same to them, somehow making people think that they could kill Christian children as well. And then there are the claims of children who went missing and turning up dead in the Middle Ages, somehow being blamed on Jews. It appears to be nothing more than a conspiracy based upon ancient anti-Semitism, reminding me of the persecution of Christians by the Romans every time something went wrong. Or how innocent people were hung as witches whenever something weird happened. Regarding those that do not believe God is still with Israel, I think the fulfilment of the 2300 mornings and evenings prophecies I mention in my video are pretty good proof that He is still with them. It's not easy to plan something not only 2300 years apart, but to follow the same principle as the earliest fulfilments of the prophecy in the Maccabean Revolt. But I recognise that there is plenty of prejudice to begin with by many against Israel. The individuals in the groups you mention don't exactly seem like the most open-minded of people, willing to look at evidence and change their mind. Instead of letting their identify be centred around Catholicism, they let their identity centre around multiple ideas, one of them being anti-Semitism. Because the endorsement of the blood libel conspiracy is not in any way Catholic. And I'm sure they will criticise Popes for any positive statements regarding the Jews. It is this attitude of theirs that is required to believe what they do, that definitely helps undermine their arguments in general. I could refute their case by letting them speak and not interrupting them. I hope that answered a few of your questions.