Kobojunkie:
1. You still haven't answered my question regarding why you feel the word detained should be used in this case.

2. You mean your special interpretation of Ephesians 6 vs 12 right? My understanding of what Paul supposedly said in Ephesians 6 v 12 is completely different from what you seem to assert. Also, I didn't know that the same rules applied during the time of Daniel, and God didn't know this. I say this because, in the Old Covenant, God never blamed a demon or devil for the sins of the peoples of any land for that matter. Never!

3. Over and over, you continue to apply this literal interpretation to that stated in the vision and somehow you expect me to accept it, why?

I don't accept that an angel was literally detained by anyone, not even a demon, for a literal period of 21 days. So why do you keep pushing this at me as if it is supposed to simply accept it and respond to exactly that? Why?

4. According to God the world was of men and He chose for His inheritance the descendants of Israel. At the time of Jesus Christ, when the Kingdom of God came into play, Jesus set Himself as the ruler of the Kingdom of God whereas Satan was put to rule over the world that consists of the Lost sheep of Israel... the world that Jesus Christ was sent to.

5. Jesus Christ did mention it.
Or where you under some assumption that the above statement only applied as far as the devil after the temptation had already taken place?

1. Does detain necessarily mean to lock someone up? Yes or No?

2. Paul only confirm that there are evil spirit authorities or rulers. You can't make sense. You de reason backwards

3. An angel was sent an errand and someone detained or opposed him. Is that a vision? Or a literal event?

4. Satan is the ruler of this world. You are not making any sense. By means of his rule, he's misleading mankind and adding to our suffering

5. Where did Jesus mention that the kingdom of the world did not belong to Satan? Would Satan tempt Jesus with something that did not belong to him? Jesus told him to go away. Jesus said that the ruler of the world will be cast out!

Aemmyjah:
1. Common sense should've told you 4that was sarcastic. A mere human cannot oppose God's angel for 21 days. You disagree and call me delusional.
■ Wouldn't Michael have even killed that human prince?
■ You yourself input 'those evil angels' but still, sense no carry for you.
■ What did the Prince of Persia do to God's angel? What was the angel's mission? Was he looking for a spa?
■ The Prince of God's people. Who then is this prince of Persia that Michael fought with? Who was the angel referring to as 'those wicked angel'
■ I said they were demons or wicked angels. Was there any human prince of Greece in Daniel's day
■ Some parts are understood literally, others are not. Prince of Persia opposed an angel of God for 21 days until Michael intervened. The angel mentioned another prince of Greece after he goes. You yourself mentioned the angel as referring to 'those evil angels', yet, you can't see anything

1. Claiming that a mere demon can oppose God's very angel for even 1/10th of a second is just as ridiculous, mind you. But I let you continue anyway since that is the delusion you carry with you there. And of greater importance to me here is understanding how you only apply this demon theory to some characters and not all mentioned in the same vision.

2. What reason would Micheal, a prince of the israelites, have had to want to "kill" the other supposedly human prince of Persia?

3. I didn't put that there. The Shiny man in the vision cast them as evil angels. I am simply repeating the words used by Him. Does not mean I give it a literal interpretation like you do.

4. According to the shiny man, he was withstood by the Prince of Persia. That could even mean an argument or a standoff or even a continuance of time .... who knows? Again, we are speaking here of that which was revealed in a vision after all. So, for the umpteenth time, I don't see the sense in your continued attempts to subject it to literal interpretation only to have to throw some parts off to the side.

5. I already more than answered that question at this point so please go back to my previous post on that. https://www.nairaland.com/4715217/prince-persia-daniel-10/2#126902331

6. Why does it have to have been during the days of Daniel though?

7. Some aspects, sure, like the names of people or offices/political systems mentioned maybe. But you have been arbitrarily applying literal interpretation to much that you just seem all over the place trying to subject it to ideas previously fed to you by others.

Kobojunkie:
1. We know from the vision given to Daniel by the Shiny man that at the time presented in the vision which was given to Daniel, this Michael character was. But to suggest that based on that one line in Daniel 12, Micheal also had to be alive at the end of days, just over 550 years after Daniel received the vision, is a bit of a stretch on your part, given what is stated in that verse.
The same Shiny man spoke the vision in Daniel 10, 11, and 12. So it is not a leap to suggest He spoke of the same Daniel.

2. What aspect of what Daniel saw do you believe was not fulfilled at the end of days which happened less than 600 years after Daniel was given the visions?

3. You say that but the truth I keep seeing in what is clearly stated does not seem to be what you continue to allude to, how come?

Speak of the identity of Micheal and answer the questions.

Focus on Micheal please... +leave your shining man out of the equation for now

1. Is the Micheal in Dan 10:21 different from Michael in Dan 12:1?

2. Is Dan 12:1 already fulfilled or it is in the future time? If it has been fulfilled, when and how?

Or are you saying that Micheal did not exist as a personality?

Aemmyjah:
1. Does detain necessarily mean to lock someone up? Yes or No?
2. Paul only confirm that there are evil spirit authorities or rulers. You can't make sense. You de reason backwards
3. An angel was sent an errand and someone detained or opposed him. Is that a vision? Or a literal event?
4. Satan is the ruler of this world. You are not making any sense. By means of his rule, he's misleading mankind and adding to our suffering
5. Where did Jesus mention that the kingdom of the world did not belong to Satan? Would Satan tempt Jesus with something that did not belong to him? Jesus told him to go away. Jesus said that the ruler of the world will be cast out!

1. No! Take a look at the text underlined in the attached image. See, I prefer how it reads that the " and chief of Kingdom-of Persia standing to in-front-of-me", which is translated to mean "The prince of the Kingdom of Persia withstood me". All that stuff about fighting/warring, etc., just seems like overkill when you consider the base words written.

2. Rubbish!

3. That whole hogwash about God supposedly sending an angel on an errand and the angel being held up... sounds every bit like the hogwash it is. Stop assuming I believe that rubbish or even agree with it and focus.

4. That may be what you cling to but that is not the truth as declared in Scripture. Satan misleading mankind is religious hogwash.

5. So, given statements A through F below....

Statement A: Satan was a murderer from the beginning.
Statement B: He was always against the truth.
Statement C: There is no truth in him.
Statement D: He is like the lies he tells.
Statement E: Yes, the devil is a liar.
Statement F: He is the father of lies.

You rather choose that Satan tells the truth?

TenQ:
Speak of the identity of Micheal and answer the questions.
Focus on Micheal please... +leave your shining man out of the equation for now
1. Is the Micheal in Dan 10:21 different from Michael in Dan 12:1?
2. Is Dan 12:1 already fulfilled or it is in the future time? If it has been fulfilled, when and how?
Or are you saying that Micheal did not exist as a personality?

My mistake!

1. We know from the vision given to Daniel by the Shiny man that at the time presented in the vision which was given to Daniel, this Michael character was. But to suggest that based on that one line in Daniel 12, Micheal also had to be alive at the end of days, just over 550 years after Daniel received the vision, is a bit of a stretch on your part, given what is stated in that verse.

1. “Daniel, at that time the great prince Michael will stand up. Michael is in charge of your people. There will be a time of much trouble, the worst time since nations have been on earth. But Daniel, at that time every one of your people whose name is found written in the Book of Life will be saved. - Daniel 12 vs 1

The same Shiny man spoke the vision in Daniel 10, 11, and 12. So it is not a leap to suggest He spoke of the same Michael character.

Kobojunkie:
My mistake!

1. We know from the vision given to Daniel by the Shiny man that at the time presented in the vision which was given to Daniel, this Michael character was. But to suggest that based on that one line in Daniel 12, Micheal also had to be alive at the end of days, just over 550 years after Daniel received the vision, is a bit of a stretch on your part, given what is stated in that verse.
The same Shiny man spoke the vision in Daniel 10, 11, and 12. So it is not a leap to suggest He spoke of the same Michael character.

You and your obsession with your Shiny man
Are you saying that the Report on Micheal was a VISION!?

Is your Shiny man real or not?

Again!
The emphasis is not on your Shiny man but on the identity of Micheal The prince of Israel.


Speak of the identity of Micheal and answer the questions.

Focus on Micheal please... +leave your shining man out of the equation for now

1. Is the Micheal in Dan 10:21 different from Michael in Dan 12:1?

2. Is Dan 12:1 already fulfilled or it is in the future time? If it has been fulfilled, when and how?

Or are you saying that Micheal did not exist as a personality?

TenQ:
■ You and your obsession with your Shiny man
Are you saying that the Report on Micheal was a VISION!?
Is your Shiny man real or not?
Again!
The emphasis is not on your Shiny man but on the identity of Micheal The prince of Israel.
Speak of the identity of Micheal and answer the questions.
Focus on Micheal please... +leave your shining man out of the equation for now
1. Is the Micheal in Dan 10:21 different from Michael in Dan 12:1?
2. Is Dan 12:1 already fulfilled or it is in the future time? If it has been fulfilled, when and how?
Or are you saying that Micheal did not exist as a personality?

Is there some reason why you refuse to read my response to this very same question to you for like the third or fourth time now? I have no intention of changing my response just so you know.

As for my continued mention of the Shiny Man, well, He is the narrator of the vision afterall, the same one who narrated beginning in Daniel 10 all the way through to end of chapter 12. I have to quote him since it is he -- not Daniel or anyone else -- who mentioned the character called Micheal.

Kobojunkie:
Is there some reason why you refuse to read my response to this very same question to you for like the third or fourth time now? I have no intention of changing my response just so you know.

As for my continued mention of the Shiny Man, well, He is the narrator of the vision afterall, the same one who narrated beginning in Daniel 10 all the way through to end of chapter 12. I have to quote him since it is he -- not Daniel or anyone else -- who mentioned the character called Micheal.

Since you insist on talking about your shinny man:

You said: The shinny man related a vision!?
How mistaken could you have been!?


1. Is this statement below a report of a vision or actual occurrence:
Dan 10:13:
"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, see, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

2. If your shinny man merely related a vision, then Micheal does not exist as a man: do you agree with this?

Aemmyjah, you still have not understood my question.

In that italicized portion of verse 13, would you say that the king of Persia was detained physically?

For those who have been disputing the identities of the beings mentioned in the chapter of the book of Daniel under review and what actually transpired, can they tell us if Yahushua the Messiah meant the being, whom he referred to as the prince of this world, was coming physically or otherwise? Did Yahushua the Messiah mean a human being who was a prince or not? Also, would his disciples have seen such being physically?

Here is the portion of the Scripture.

John 14: 28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

TenQ:
■ Since you insist on talking about your shinny man: You said: The shinny man related a vision!?
How mistaken could you have been!? 1. Is this statement below a report of a vision or actual occurrence:
Dan 10:13:
"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, see, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."
2. If your shinny man merely related a vision, then Micheal does not exist as a man: do you agree with this?

1. Why couldn't it have been a part of the vision givem that the the himself appeared in a vision?

2. I don't agree with you. The way the name Michael was used suggested Daniel was aware of who he was that was being referred to.

..

Kobojunkie:
1. Why couldn't it have been a part of the vision givem that the the himself appeared in a vision?

2. I don't agree with you. The way the name Michael was used suggested Daniel was aware of who he was that was being referred to.

So, your shinny man was retelling his own vision to Daniel!

See how far you are willing to twist the scripture to fit into your conjectures.

So, your shinny man saw a vision of Micheal and he is going to go back into the visonl as Micheal was fighting with those who held him down in his vision!?


You are impossible!

TenQ:
■ So, your shinny man was retelling his own vision to Daniel! See how far you are willing to twist the scripture to fit into your conjectures. So, your shinny man saw a vision of Micheal and he is going to go back into the visonl as Micheal was fighting with those who held him down in his vision!? You are impossible!

1. His own vision? What in the world are you on about?

The context, beginning in Daniel 10, all through to Daniel 12, is of the shiny man, himself a part of the vision relaying the contents of the vision which he, the shiny man, is himself a part of to Daniel and you want to pretend that is somehow not what is presented in clear text? Just tell us your cylinders are finally empty and move on abeg!

Kobojunkie:
1. Why couldn't it have been a part of the vision givem that the the himself appeared in a vision?

2. I don't agree with you. The way the name Michael was used suggested Daniel was aware of who he was that was being referred to.

You need deliverance from "shinny man spirit"

TenQ:
■ You need deliverance from "shinny man spirit"

I don't believe you in religious deliverance/voodoo rituals either.

elated177:
Aemmyjah, you still have not understood my question.

In that italicized portion of verse 13, would you say that the king of Persia was detained physically?

For those who have been disputing the identities of the beings mentioned in the chapter of the book of Daniel under review and what actually transpired, can they tell us if Yahushua the Messiah meant the being, whom he referred to as the prince of this world, was coming physically or otherwise? Did Yahushua the Messiah mean a human being who was a prince or not? Also, would his disciples have seen such being physically?

Here is the portion of the Scripture.

John 14: 28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Where did it say that the king of Persia was detained

Kobojunkie:
1. No! Take a look at the text underlined in the attached image. See, I prefer how it reads that the " and chief of Kingdom-of Persia standing to in-front-of-me", which is translated to mean "The prince of the Kingdom of Persia withstood me". All that stuff about fighting/warring, etc., just seems like overkill when you consider the base words written.

2. Rubbish!

3. That whole hogwash about God supposedly sending an angel on an errand and the angel being held up... sounds every bit like the hogwash it is. Stop assuming I believe that rubbish or even agree with it and focus.

4. That may be what you cling to but that is not the truth as declared in Scripture. Satan misleading mankind is religious hogwash.

5. So, given statements A through F below....
You rather choose that Satan tells the truth?

1. A human prince withstood God's angel for 21 days, preventing him from delivering God's message to Daniel. Yes or No?

2. You always say nonsense

3. Cos it makes sense to you that a mere mortal would withstand an angel until another angel comes to rescue him

4. Revelation 12 says Satan is misleading mankind. Junkie guy says he is misleading religion

5. Satan was lying that the kingdom of the world become to him shey? Something that God's kingdom would soon destroy. De play

Kobojunkie:
1. Claiming that a mere demon can oppose God's very angel for even 1/10th of a second is just as ridiculous, mind you. But I let you continue anyway since that is the delusion you carry with you there. And of greater importance to me here is understanding how you only apply this demon theory to some characters and not all mentioned in the same vision.

2. What reason would Micheal, a prince of the israelites, have had to want to "kill" the other supposedly human prince of Persia?

3. I didn't put that there. The Shiny man in the vision cast them as evil angels. I am simply repeating the words used by Him. Does not mean I give it a literal interpretation like you do.

4. According to the shiny man, he was withstood by the Prince of Persia. That could even mean an argument or a standoff or even a continuance of time .... who knows? Again, we are speaking here of that which was revealed in a vision after all. So, for the umpteenth time, I don't see the sense in your continued attempts to subject it to literal interpretation only to have to throw some parts off to the side.

5. I already more than answered that question at this point so please go back to my previous post on that. https://www.nairaland.com/4715217/prince-persia-daniel-10/2#126902331

6. Why does it have to have been during the days of Daniel though?

7. Some aspects, sure, like the names of people or offices/political systems mentioned maybe. But you have been arbitrarily applying literal interpretation to much that you just seem all over the place trying to subject it to ideas previously fed to you by others.

1. Junkie guy says a human prince withstood God's angel. You earlier said it was part of a vision

2. The angel of God was so weak that a mere mortal could withstand him for 21 days?

3. If you like, accuse shiny man. Who was he referring to as evil angels?

4. Shiny Man mention those evil angels meaning they are plural. Who are those evil angels

Kobojunkie:
1. Claiming that a mere demon can oppose God's very angel for even 1/10th of a second is just as ridiculous, mind you. But I let you continue anyway since that is the delusion you carry with you there. And of greater importance to me here is understanding how you only apply this demon theory to some characters and not all mentioned in the same vision.

2. What reason would Micheal, a prince of the israelites, have had to want to "kill" the other supposedly human prince of Persia?

3. I didn't put that there. The Shiny man in the vision cast them as evil angels. I am simply repeating the words used by Him. Does not mean I give it a literal interpretation like you do.

4. According to the shiny man, he was withstood by the Prince of Persia. That could even mean an argument or a standoff or even a continuance of time .... who knows? Again, we are speaking here of that which was revealed in a vision after all. So, for the umpteenth time, I don't see the sense in your continued attempts to subject it to literal interpretation only to have to throw some parts off to the side.

5. I already more than answered that question at this point so please go back to my previous post on that. https://www.nairaland.com/4715217/prince-persia-daniel-10/2#126902331

6. Why does it have to have been during the days of Daniel though?

7. Some aspects, sure, like the names of people or offices/political systems mentioned maybe. But you have been arbitrarily applying literal interpretation to much that you just seem all over the place trying to subject it to ideas previously fed to you by others.

1. Junkie guy says a human prince withstood God's angel. You earlier said it was part of a vision

2. The angel of God was so weak that a mere mortal could withstand him for 21 days?

3. If you like, accuse shiny man. Who was he referring to as evil angels?

4. Shiny Man mention those evil angels meaning they are plural. Who are those evil angels

5. Drop the quote here. Have 45 mentions to reply

6. Na me de script vision?

7. Who is the prince of Persia that withstood God's angel for 21 days?
Who did the angel refer to as evil angels?

Aemmyjah:
1. Junkie guy says a human prince withstood God's angel. You earlier said it was part of a vision
2. The angel of God was so weak that a mere mortal could withstand him for 21 days?
3. If you like, accuse shiny man. Who was he referring to as evil angels?
4. Shiny Man mention those evil angels meaning they are plural. Who are those evil angels
5. Drop the quote here. Have 45 mentions to reply
6. Na me de script vision?
7. Who is the prince of Persia that withstood God's angel for 21 days?
Who did the angel refer to as evil angels?

No need for us to go in circles at this point. Its OK if you have nothing more to say.

Aemmyjah:
1. A human prince withstood God's angel for 21 days, preventing him from delivering God's message to Daniel. Yes or No?
2. You always say nonsense
3. Cos it makes sense to you that a mere mortal would withstand an angel until another angel comes to rescue him
4. Revelation 12 says Satan is misleading mankind. Junkie guy says he is misleading religion
5. Satan was lying that the kingdom of the world become to him shey? Something that God's kingdom would soon destroy. De play

Again, we have already dotted all these i's and crossed all of these T's so no point in going in circles if you have nothing new of note to say. No need recycling the same old meaningless ideas which have been of no real value so far.

Aemmyjah, I can see you have been deliberately evasive and not ready for the discourse and I wonder why.

elated177:
Aemmyjah, I can see you have been deliberately evasive and not ready for the discourse and I wonder why.

I answered you well

Kobojunkie:
Again, we have already dotted all these i's and crossed all of these T's so no point in going in circles if you have nothing new of note to say. No need recycling the same old meaningless ideas which have been of no real value so far.

You mentioned where shiny man made references to those evil angels and you still could not get the sense of it

Bible says Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth, you said he is misleading religion

Angel said he was withstood oj his way to meeting Daniel to deliver a message from God, you say it was part of a vision that should not be taken literally

Kobojunkie:
Again, we have already dotted all these i's and crossed all of these T's so no point in going in circles if you have nothing new of note to say. No need recycling the same old meaningless ideas which have been of no real value so far.

You mentioned where shiny man made references to those evil angels and you still could not get the sense of it

Bible says Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth, you said he is misleading religion

Angel said he was withstood oj his way to meeting Daniel to deliver a message from God, you say it was part of a vision that should not be taken literally

Aemmyjah:
■ You mentioned where shiny man made references to those evil angels and you still could not get the sense of it.
■ Bible says Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth, you said he is misleading religion.
■ Angel said he was withstood oj his way to meeting Daniel to deliver a message from God, you say it was part of a vision that should not be taken literally

Well, it is simple! As I have been trying to tell you it is erroneous to apply a literal interpretation to information and ideas presented in vision Format. You conveniently ignore this because of greater importance to you is forwarding the special interpretation of what is written that you have been previously fed to you by those whom you have set as lord over your person. And I understand that but do think we are all as gullible as you. I was just on another thread with another one of your kind showing how doing that is not only antiChrist but literally evidence of a lack of knowledge of the Truth of God.

2. "Bible" did not say this! Instead, Jesus Christ, God's EVERLASTING Truth, and Law in the Kingdom of God said it! If only you could fathom the difference between both statements, you would pay particular attention to how you resolve the meaning of what you read. But I doubt you care for such things anything.

3. Feel free to hang on to the special interpretation you were previously loaded with. I choose to pass on that because I read and the book says something entirely different from the popular religious twist of your pastors and mogs. So good luck!

Aemmyjah:
■ You mentioned where shiny man made references to those evil angels and you still could not get the sense of it. Bible says Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth, you said he is misleading religion. Angel said he was withstood oj his way to meeting Daniel to deliver a message from God, you say it was part of a vision that should not be taken literally

Can you please stop with the desperate attempts to drive this in circles when it ought not to go there at all?

Kobojunkie:
Well, it is simple! As I have been trying to tell you it is erroneous to apply a literal interpretation to information and ideas presented in vision Format. You conveniently ignore this because of greater importance to you is forwarding the special interpretation of what is written that you have been previously fed to you by those whom you have set as lord over your person. And I understand that but do think we are all as gullible as you. I was just on another thread with another one of your kind showing how doing that is not only antiChrist but literally evidence of a lack of knowledge of the Truth of God.

2. "Bible" did not say this! Instead, Jesus Christ, God's EVERLASTING Truth, and Law in the Kingdom of God said it! If only you could fathom the difference between both statements, you would pay particular attention to how you resolve the meaning of what you read. But I doubt you care for such things anything.

3. Feel free to hang on to the special interpretation you were previously loaded with. I choose to pass on that because I read and the book says something entirely different from the popular religious twist of your pastors and mogs. So good luck!

1. God sent an angel to deliver a vision to Daniel. On the way, he was withstood by the prince of Persia. How is that part of a vision?

2. I mentioned what Bible said, you say something else. Revelation said Satan is misleading Mankind, you disagree

3. Cos the evidence you dropped does not even support what you say especially as you mentioned how the princes of Persia and Greece were referred to as evil angels. Seeing the folly, you blame it on shiny man

Aemmyjah:
1. God sent an angel to deliver a vision to Daniel. On the way, he was withstood by the prince of Persia. How is that part of a vision?
2. I mentioned what Bible said, you say something else. Revelation said Satan is misleading Mankind, you disagree
3. Cos the evidence you dropped does not even support what you say especially as you mentioned how the princes of Persia and Greece were referred to as evil angels. Seeing the folly, you blame it on shiny man

Still nothing new ... let it go and allow someone else who might have something more interesting to offer in the way of actual reasoning and not the same old religious doctrines which amount to lies have a go at this. .

Aemmyjah, you did not.

elated177:
Aemmyjah, you did not.

Ok

Kobojunkie:
Still nothing new ... let it go and allow someone else who might have something more interesting to offer in the way of actual reasoning and not the same old religious doctrines which amount to lies have a go at this. .

Ok sir
But answer na
Who did the Bible you quoted refer to as those evil angels?