Constantine defeated Daia, Severus, and Licinius.
That is incorrect. As I previously stated, Constantine defeated Licinius. But Licinius had first defeated Daia. Constantine did not defeat Severus. The Emperor Severus died of an illness in 211 CE. Constantine was born in 272 CE.
Instead of trying to reinvent history to support your otherwise unsupportable claims, try studying actual history.
I suggest that you read all of Daniel. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that he was the head of gold (Daniel 2:28) of the statue, the first nation to crush Jerusalem. The statue also had breast and arms of silver, which indicated the Persian empire, which was further described in Daniel 7:5, thighs of bronze, which indicated the Macedonian Empire, further described in Daniel 7:6, and legs of iron with feet of iron and clay, which indicated the Roman empire, as described in Daniel 7:7, until the end of time (Daniel 12). Further descriptions of these empires can be found throughout Daniel all ending up with the whole set of Empires being destroyed at the same time by a stone made without hands, which is the kingdom of God. We are now in the era of the 8th head of the beast who also has 10 horns, and is represented by the feet of iron mixed with clay. The red clay being descriptive of Essau/Edom, the Arabs and other followers of Muhammid, who will combined with the remnants of the Roman empire to try and crush Jerusalem, and will wind up being crushed. Somewhat like the Ottomans and Germans being crushed in the 1st world war, and the Arab states and Russia being crushed in the 6 day war. The final crushing will include all the empires at the same time. The kingdom of God following the crushing of all these empires by the kingdom of heaven will not have to deal with the evil one, for he will be locked up for 1000 years (Revelation 20:2)
Nebuchadnezzar was not the first to ‘crush’ Jerusalem. Around 1500 BCE, the then Canaanite city had become a vassal of the Egyptians. The Egyptian New Kingdom was known for armed conquest although exactly how Jerusalem was taken is not known. After the decline of the New Kingdom, David conquered Jerusalem by force around 1000 BCE. During the reign of King Rehoboam, sometime before 900 BCE, the Pharaoh Shishak sacked Jerusalem. Around 840 BCE, Jerusalem was again sacked by Philistines, Arabs and Ethiopians. By the end of that century, Jerusalem was again conquered by Hazael of Aram Damascus, who made off with the Temple treasure and killed the king’s sons. Around 750 BCE, Jehoash took Jerusalem and destroyed the walls. The Babylonians actually conquered Jerusalem twice, once in 597 BCE and again in 587 BCE after the revolt of Zedekiah.
The common Christian interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies is significantly in error.
The 146 BCE date for the start of the Roman presence in Jerusalem is just wrong. There was no Roman presence in the region at all until Pompey went there in 68 BCE to deal with a war over who would succeed to the head of Hasmonean rule in Judea. Pompey had just ended several wars against Rome north of there and wanted all unrest in the area to come to an end to protect the Roman borders. Pompey sided with one of the claimants and defeated the other, restoring peace. Judea became a vassal of Rome, paying annual tribute but otherwise left autonomous. Not until 37 BCE did Hasmonean rule end when Herod the Great attacked them, making Judea a client state of Rome.
What is the 146 BCE date? It is when the Seleucid Empire in Judea was defeated by the Maccabean revolt, restoring entirely Jewish rule to Jerusalem and the surrounding area for the first time in over five hundred years. The Seleucid Empire had emerged out of the Alexandrian Empire that had broken into pieces after the death of Alexandria. The abuses of Antiochus IV Epiphanes had prove too much to bear.
The common Christian interpretation of Daniel ignores the existence of the Seleucid empire, the ‘fourth beast’ of Daniel and the Hasmonean kingdom. The Book of Daniel can be dated rather accurately by those detailed that cam true and those that did not to about 165 BCE. Daniel 11 contains a rather detailed and accurate account of events in the timeframe of the Maccabean Revolt up until verse 39, then it completely fails.
Daniel 11
40 “At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train. 44 But news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction. 45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.
None of this happened.
After the defeat of the Seleucids, the end of days was supposed to take place as detailed in Daniel 12, including the resurrection of the dead. The final defeat of the nations (the foreign control of the Jewish homeland) as the beginning of the messianic age was in line with earlier scriptures. That did not happen either. But reinterpreting the meaning of older scriptures to get around problems like this is an old game among Christians.
As for the "kingdom of heaven", Yeshua said when raising the dead and healing the sick, the kingdom is at hand. He told his disciples to heal the sick and raise the dead and preach that the kingdom is at hand. In Matthew 11:12 he taught that the kingdom of heaven has been treated violently since the days of John the Baptist until now. Most of the images taught by Yeshua were about the kingdom of heaven, such as Matthew 13:24, whereas the kingdom of heaven is as a man who sowed good seed in his field and the enemy came by while the man slept and sowed tare seeds. The good seed is the testimony of Yeshua, and the tare seed would be the seed sowed by the evil one/devil and his minions.
According to the Olivet Discourse in the Synoptic Gospels, the Kingdom of Heaven/God (same thing according to Matthew 19) was indeed supposed to have been at hand. Some of the people who heard the still living Jesus speak around 30 CE or so would still be alive when the end of days came not very long after the Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
You still have not responded to my detailed criticism of your interpretation of Matthew 19:17, just repeated your original argument which I have now knocked down twice.
As for the unknow guy "Luke", who was supposedly a friend of the false prophet Paul, his first paragraph states that he was a teller of other peoples tales. The Lazarus story probably came out of the lies of the scribes (Jeremiah 8:8), better known as the Talmud.
As for entering the kingdom of heaven being a stretch for the rich man, well until you sell all you have and follow me, it will only be a supposition to you. To inherit "eternal life", one must first "enter into life" in the here and now. Following the false prophets only leads to destruction, which is disease and death. The walking dead can't expect to have life after their death, apart from the white throne resurrection and judgment. People can repent, or drink from the cup of God's wrath (Revelation 14:10)
.
Address my arguments above about there being no difference between ‘life’ as something to be entered into and ‘eternal life’ as something to be obtained. Or was Jesus lying to the man?
Perhaps you can find passages in the Gospels where ‘life’ without further qualification clearly does
not mean ‘eternal life’. Don’t just claim it does. Prove it.
Selling all you have is not a universal injunction. If it were then giving the money you got to the poor would be to prevent them from following, while presenting material possessions to those who did the buying. Are they now supposed to sell their possessions? Who buys them? And notice that the poor are getting richer as this goes on and on.
Only after Jesus gives the requirements for obtaining eternal life and the man says he has always done those things does Jesus want him to sell his possessions and follow him. The man could have said, Thanks Teacher I will do that an walked away. Since it is not a universal injunction what can it mean. Jesus has disciples who eschew material possessions and all connections with their former lives so they can accompany Jesus on the road and be sent ahead in pairs without being tempted to return to their former lives. That is what Jesus is saying, inviting this very righteous man to become one of his traveling companions.
Look at Luke 14
25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33 So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
Is Jesus
discouraging people from being Christians? No, he is discouraging these great crowds from following him on the road (gobbling up all the food, getting in the way, annoying everyone along the way) unless they were really committed to the hard things needed from them and could be trusted to do them.
We may note that in Matthew 28, two different words are used that both get translated into ‘disciple’ in English the word μαθητής (
mathētēs) is used for those disciples who were part of those who accompanied Jesus on the road, in which sense the word is used ten times. But when referring to those to whom the Apostles are to baptize and teach, the word μαθητεύω
(mathēteuō) is used. Same translation but not the same word. In Luke 14, Jesus is not discouraging people from being Christians. He is only discouraging people from literally following him on the literal road unless they are totally and unswervingly committed to the hardships that will entail when he sends them of on missions. Likewise in Matthew 19, the man is being invited to that (literally) hard road which requires giving up everything he has.