Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

church fathers on the O.D.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by randyk View Post

    One reason I disagree with it is that the precedent set by Antiochus was not that an "abomination" must be based on his bringing an image of Zeus or an idol into the temple. Rather, the idea of an "abomination" can include things like that, but is not exclusive to that. An "abomination" can be a pagan Army standing on the holy grounds in and around Jerusalem. When the Roman Army surrounded Jerusalem in a siege, it was, in fact, an "abomination," and the Jews viewed them as that.
    An army surrounding Jerusalem or on the temple mount is not some "setup".



    11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by randyk View Post
      Brother, you just don't give me credit. I've been studying this a long time. Take my word for it: scholars have pinpointed the reign of Antiochus 4 to have lasted 1290 days. I'm not saying *I know this,* but only that scholars have said this!

      I'm not treating the book as an academic work either. I *never* treat it this way. I could explain to you how I treat it--I use the *exact words* to determine what's factual and what's speculative. In this case, it is a *fact* that Daniel is confused and asked about the prophecy that we know was all about the Greek Kingdom, leading up to Antiochus 4, and finally leading up to a time of great Distress for Israel, which I call the NT Jewish Diaspora.

      Daniel was confused about it because, as Peter said, the Prophets did not always know what they were prophesying, since they were serving *us!* But Daniel was told this very thing, that he was serving those who live in the endtimes, namely *us!* This was for a future time, Daniel was told, and he was told to "never mind." He was only told to tell future generations that this one foretold in Dan 11, and also in Dan 8, Antiochus 4, would threaten the Jewish People, and that they should be prepared to stand firm.

      So Daniel was told, when confused , that Antichrist would present a grave threat before the coming of God's Kingdom. He had heard, in ch. 7, that a great persecution of God's People would take place for 3.5 years under the Antichrist, the "Little Horn." But Daniel himself was not given much more detail. The "summary" of the book given to Daniel was actually in response to Daniel's confusion concerning some of the dreams and prophecies given throughout the book. Taking from 2 of these major prophecies and presenting them as the answer to Daniel's confusion does constitute a summary of the book to me.


      Dan 12.8 I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?”
      9 He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.
      For a college-educated clever guy, I find it difficult to reconcile with some of the things you say. I give credit where it is due. But unfortunately, your blind fellowship of some questionable doctrines simply on the basis that the proponents articulated their thoughts almost 2000 years ago, raises questions of your ability to be objective? It seems you equate time with wisdom - if the Church Fathers lived close to the time of Christ, ie almost 2000 years ago, surely their views have to be infallible? Never mind that they never claimed divine inspiration! You may not know it, but ask anyone sincere enough to tell you what they really think, that's how you come across with your ECFs-backed argument.

      The fact you are bold to tell me that some scholars associate the 1290 days to A4E without first, researching historical records to validate this assumption, is a cause for concern. I have already told you what I think about you and your scholars in an earlier post, therefore, it will be superfluous to add more.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
        It is explicable that you associated Antiochus IV with the 1290 days. According to you, this period represents "time of the end of his reign", whatever that means! Are you implying that 1290 days represents A4E kingship, ie from the time he came to the throne to his demise? Please clarify how 'the 1290 days' applies to Antiochus before I can go further.
        You know that I take a lot of effort to work through randyk's assertions and highlight the numerous errors in his claims.
        When I highlight them of course they are not considered rebuttals...
        However we also need to pay attention to the things he claims in case he gets something right, and not only because they challeneg our own views, but because we all get things wrong, as well as getting things right. No one on this forum is perfect.
        Where I agree with you is that 1290 days does NOT refer to the time from A4E becoming king, to his death.
        He took the throne in 175 BC and (according to wikipedia died in 164 BC).
        However Daniel 12:11 & 12 states:
        Dan 12:11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days.
        Dan 12:12 Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days.

        Now BOTH verse 11 and verse 12 have a countdown START from when the regular burnt offering is taken away.
        If we try to apply this to the FUTURE - and I have tried very hard to make this fit - we CANNOT get away from the START date of the cessation of regular offerings.
        Therefore this means there is SOMETHING which happens 1290 days AFTER it ends, and something else which happens 1335 days AFTER it ends.
        This does NOT work in any End Time scenario where Jesus returns.
        There are 45 days BETWEEN the endings.
        So IF you say Jesus returns on the 1290 day, then what happens 45 days later which brings a blessing?
        IF conversely you say Jesus returns on day 1335 then what happens 45 days earlier?
        Whichever way you try to work it, I can find ZERO scripture supporting either view. You can get away with one OR the other, but NOT both!

        Now IF we recognise that Dan 12 is part of the whole Dan 11 story (and we ignore the idea of Herod being involved) but work it through as being about A4E, THEN is there anything in history (and the Apocrypha) which supports these periods of days? Is there anything which connects with the 1150 days of Dan 8:14?

        Here is where it gets interesting.
        In 168 BC A4E stops sacrifice and offering setting up an abomination IN the Temple. 1150 days later the temple is cleansed and sacrifices and offerings restart. We find Dan 8:14 fulfilled.
        1150 days from 168 BC leads us to 3 years later around 25th December 165 BC.
        Now I did research on this and found TWO interesting events that happened in 164 BC.
        1) A4E died
        2) The armies of A4E were defeated, effectively ending the rule of the Greeks over Israel.

        If my memory is correct 140 days after the temple was cleansed an army was defeated, under one of A4E's generals. 45 days later A4E died. However my memory might be wrong and it may be the other way around. I would have to check or you could check...
        What I discovered was that BOTH the 1290 and the 1335 days WERE connected to the stopping of sacrifices AND to the ending of the shattering of the power of the Jews was over - for they then had autonomy for a period of almost 100 years - just as scripture says.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
          You know that I take a lot of effort to work through randyk's assertions and highlight the numerous errors in his claims.
          When I highlight them of course they are not considered rebuttals...
          However we also need to pay attention to the things he claims in case he gets something right, and not only because they challeneg our own views, but because we all get things wrong, as well as getting things right. No one on this forum is perfect.
          Where I agree with you is that 1290 days does NOT refer to the time from A4E becoming king, to his death.
          He took the throne in 175 BC and (according to wikipedia died in 164 BC).
          However Daniel 12:11 & 12 states:
          Dan 12:11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days.
          Dan 12:12 Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days.

          Now BOTH verse 11 and verse 12 have a countdown START from when the regular burnt offering is taken away.
          If we try to apply this to the FUTURE - and I have tried very hard to make this fit - we CANNOT get away from the START date of the cessation of regular offerings.
          Therefore this means there is SOMETHING which happens 1290 days AFTER it ends, and something else which happens 1335 days AFTER it ends.
          This does NOT work in any End Time scenario where Jesus returns.
          There are 45 days BETWEEN the endings.
          So IF you say Jesus returns on the 1290 day, then what happens 45 days later which brings a blessing?
          IF conversely you say Jesus returns on day 1335 then what happens 45 days earlier?
          Whichever way you try to work it, I can find ZERO scripture supporting either view. You can get away with one OR the other, but NOT both!

          Now IF we recognise that Dan 12 is part of the whole Dan 11 story (and we ignore the idea of Herod being involved) but work it through as being about A4E, THEN is there anything in history (and the Apocrypha) which supports these periods of days? Is there anything which connects with the 1150 days of Dan 8:14?

          Here is where it gets interesting.
          In 168 BC A4E stops sacrifice and offering setting up an abomination IN the Temple. 1150 days later the temple is cleansed and sacrifices and offerings restart. We find Dan 8:14 fulfilled.
          1150 days from 168 BC leads us to 3 years later around 25th December 165 BC.
          Now I did research on this and found TWO interesting events that happened in 164 BC.
          1) A4E died
          2) The armies of A4E were defeated, effectively ending the rule of the Greeks over Israel.

          If my memory is correct 140 days after the temple was cleansed an army was defeated, under one of A4E's generals. 45 days later A4E died. However my memory might be wrong and it may be the other way around. I would have to check or you could check...
          What I discovered was that BOTH the 1290 and the 1335 days WERE connected to the stopping of sacrifices AND to the ending of the shattering of the power of the Jews was over - for they then had autonomy for a period of almost 100 years - just as scripture says.
          I have considered your alternative interpretation and find it impossible to see how A4E fits into v-11-12, for the following reasons.
          • I don't believe that Antiochus IV is the king that met his death in Dan 11:45. I am convinced that it is Herod. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's A4E.
          • His escapade ended in the last chapter and starting from Dan 12:1-10 (I know that the original text is not broken into chapters, so let's not make a sing-song of it), the prophet is shown visions of the eschaton.
          • If you're to be believed, suddenly out of nowhere, Daniel is told about a time period (1290 days) that best fits into chapter 8 or 11 as if the angel just remembered a piece of important information he forgot to tell Daniel earlier.
          • So, as far as parenthesis go, this one pretty sucks, if you ask me!
          On the contrary, once the reader recognises that the last vision shown to Daniel was all about the end-time, starting with Michael standing up for Daniel's people during what is undeniably the GT (v1-3). The next significant clue in the narrative is the reference to the future AC in v-7. Thus, we recognise that the contextual meaning of the "time of the end" in v-9, is the eschaton. In the same unbroken timescale, we get to verses 11-12. I am sure that the 1335 days starts the countdown for the return of the Messiah.

          Many have struggled to make sense of the 45 days between 1335 days and 1290 days and particularly why it is a blessing. I am satisfied that the 45 days is the period the Jews will hear the gospel from the Two Witnesses and repent. It is the time that both Zech 12:10 and Malachi 4:5-6 will be fulfilled. Thus, when the AC causes the cessation of the temple sacrifice by unrepentant Jews at the 1290 days point, the converted Christ believers will recognise it as the sign to flee for protection.

          Some may be in an uproar in the false belief that the AC will not dare to interfere with the temple proceedings while the 2Ws are ministering. But they are wrong. While others speculate to their heart's content, I loath to do so. But on this occasion, I would speculate that in a desperate bid to undermine the 2Ws and assert his claim as God, the AC will enter the temple, stop the daily sacrifice and make the preposterous claim to be God. There is NOTHING to support any assumption that the Witnesses' preaching will be inside the temple. I believe they will be outdoors.

          Secondly, although they have the power to resist the AC, I don't think they will intervene since his (AC) actions in the temple will not interfere with their gospel. Furthermore, the Jews that have come to faith at that point, will not participate in the sacrifices.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Trivalee View Post

            According to you, "scholars think that the 1290 days applies to Antiochus"; but what are your thoughts? Are you telling me you have none, that you'll rather go with the view of the so-called scholars with zero self input? A quick Wikipedia search shows that A4E came to the throne in 175 BC and died in 164 BC - a total of 11 years of prominence on the throne. You and your scholars just attributed 1290 days to him without so much as an explanation of how 1290 fits into his tenure? Do you accept that you're clutching at straws here?
            No, I have an Encyclopedia of Prophecy by J. Barton Payne. In it he details all this. I could look it up, if you like? I've probably posted it before.

            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
            Your interpretation of Dan 12 is so outlandish it's hard to take you seriously. It's plain to the blind that you're out of your depth in this chapter. But keeping studying with an open heart and God will give you the necessary discernment to the truth.
            I always feel a little out of my depth, and so should you. It takes an immense amount of study if you wish to search out and read all of the source material necessary to look at all the views on this from the Church Fathers to the Reformers to the present.

            If you think you have a better handle on it, be at peace with yourself. I have peace with my position, having studied it for decades.

            That doesn't make me right, or super-studied. It just means I've looked at it for a long time, and have considered numerous views on it.

            My view is not only not outlandish, it is based on scholars, like J. Barton Payne. He was recommended for students of prophecy by famed apologist, Walter Martin.

            I certainly disagree with Payne on some interpretations. My view of the "Great Tribulation" came to me simply by studying the Olivet Discourse in conjunction with Dan 12. It makes perfect sense to me, and I see no reason why it wouldn't to you, unless you just can't see it in light of your own assumptions? Your own view of Dan 11 may simply make it appear to be unreasonable.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
              I have considered your alternative interpretation and find it impossible to see how A4E fits into v-11-12, for the following reasons.
              • I don't believe that Antiochus IV is the king that met his death in Dan 11:45. I am convinced that it is Herod. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's A4E.
              • His escapade ended in the last chapter and starting from Dan 12:1-10 (I know that the original text is not broken into chapters, so let's not make a sing-song of it), the prophet is shown visions of the eschaton.
              • If you're to be believed, suddenly out of nowhere, Daniel is told about a time period (1290 days) that best fits into chapter 8 or 11 as if the angel just remembered a piece of important information he forgot to tell Daniel earlier.
              • So, as far as parenthesis go, this one pretty sucks, if you ask me!
              On the contrary, once the reader recognises that the last vision shown to Daniel was all about the end-time, starting with Michael standing up for Daniel's people during what is undeniably the GT (v1-3). The next significant clue in the narrative is the reference to the future AC in v-7. Thus, we recognise that the contextual meaning of the "time of the end" in v-9, is the eschaton. In the same unbroken timescale, we get to verses 11-12. I am sure that the 1335 days starts the countdown for the return of the Messiah.
              OK let's deal with your objections.
              1) You don't believe that A4E is the king who meets his death in 11:45. Well if you don;t accept that then you will NOT have a connection for the rest of the passage. IF you accept it refers to A4E THEN all the rest makes sense and your objections are removed.
              2) Dan 12 is about what happens at the time of distress. This can refer to either 168 BC (which it naturally does follow IF you accept A4E above) or 70 AD, (which does NOT work if you have INSERTED Herod at the end of Dan 11) or some unknown future event, which is TOTALLY disconnected from ANYTHING previously mentioned, and makes ZERO sense WITHIN the vision that has been given. The VERY obvious connection is with what was stated in Dan 11.
              3) The 1290 days and the 1335 days are NOT out of nowhere, but DIRECTLY connected with Dan 11 which is what Dan 12 is part of.

              Dan 12 is NOT a SEPARATE vision and THEREFORE should be connected to Dan 11. It makes NO sense when Herod is INSERTED in 11:45, which is an obvious error.

              Many have struggled to make sense of the 45 days between 1335 days and 1290 days and particularly why it is a blessing. I am satisfied that the 45 days is the period the Jews will hear the gospel from the Two Witnesses and repent. It is the time that both Zech 12:10 and Malachi 4:5-6 will be fulfilled. Thus, when the AC causes the cessation of the temple sacrifice by unrepentant Jews at the 1290 days point, the converted Christ believers will recognise it as the sign to flee for protection.
              What?
              The 2W preach for 1260 days NOT 45!
              Also the 1335 ends AFTER the 1290 NOT before.
              How about trying to present the 7 years and how this works?
              For me it is simple:

              AC gets 10 kings to unite and invade Israel
              2W appear and prevent the Temple from being taken - they witness for 1260 days.
              2W killed and AC declares himself god. 42 months of AC starts
              AC tries to kill Jews, 2W ascend to heaven and Jews flee 1260 days start in wilderness.
              Jews are found in the wilderness and AC mobilises his armies to go and crush the Jews finally. This mobilisation takes a few days, and includes the drying up of the Euphrates.
              Armageddon, with Jesus returning, Saints rising and AC defeated.

              All of these things fit within a 7 year time frame, and ALL fit to any scripture, without a single scripture NOT fitting it.

              Some may be in an uproar in the false belief that the AC will not dare to interfere with the temple proceedings while the 2Ws are ministering. But they are wrong. While others speculate to their heart's content, I loath to do so. But on this occasion, I would speculate that in a desperate bid to undermine the 2Ws and assert his claim as God, the AC will enter the temple, stop the daily sacrifice and make the preposterous claim to be God. There is NOTHING to support any assumption that the Witnesses' preaching will be inside the temple. I believe they will be outdoors.
              Secondly, although they have the power to resist the AC, I don't think they will intervene since his (AC) actions in the temple will not interfere with their gospel. Furthermore, the Jews that have come to faith at that point, will not participate in the sacrifices.
              The SPECULATION is in the idea that the AC can assert his claim to be god, and can enter the temple EVEN though John was told to measure it as THAT was where the worshippers would be.
              The CONTEXT of Rev 11 IS the Temple.
              Nothing says outdoors - which is another speculation.
              For someone loath to speculate, you certainly make disconnected speculation.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                No, I have an Encyclopedia of Prophecy by J. Barton Payne. In it he details all this. I could look it up, if you like? I've probably posted it before.
                Unlike you, I compare every scholarly interpretation of scripture with my own. And if I believe the expert opinion doesn't reflect the Bible's view, I will reject it. Antiochus IV is not connected to the 1290 days and anyone who claims he is doesn't know what they are saying. So if Payne claims that A4E is in Dan 12, then he's talking out of his head.

                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                I always feel a little out of my depth, and so should you. It takes an immense amount of study if you wish to search out and read all of the source material necessary to look at all the views on this from the Church Fathers to the Reformers to the present.

                If you think you have a better handle on it, be at peace with yourself. I have peace with my position, having studied it for decades.

                That doesn't make me right, or super-studied. It just means I've looked at it for a long time, and have considered numerous views on it.

                My view is not only not outlandish, it is based on scholars, like J. Barton Payne. He was recommended for students of prophecy by famed apologist, Walter Martin.

                I certainly disagree with Payne on some interpretations. My view of the "Great Tribulation" came to me simply by studying the Olivet Discourse in conjunction with Dan 12. It makes perfect sense to me, and I see no reason why it wouldn't to you, unless you just can't see it in light of your own assumptions? Your own view of Dan 11 may simply make it appear to be unreasonable.
                For someone who said he's studied the Bible for decades, you seem to rely more on other people's interpretations than your own. If it's not the ECF, it's someone else; which interpretation do you really own?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                  OK let's deal with your objections.
                  1) You don't believe that A4E is the king who meets his death in 11:45. Well if you don;t accept that then you will NOT have a connection for the rest of the passage. IF you accept it refers to A4E THEN all the rest makes sense and your objections are removed.
                  2) Dan 12 is about what happens at the time of distress. This can refer to either 168 BC (which it naturally does follow IF you accept A4E above) or 70 AD, (which does NOT work if you have INSERTED Herod at the end of Dan 11) or some unknown future event, which is TOTALLY disconnected from ANYTHING previously mentioned, and makes ZERO sense WITHIN the vision that has been given. The VERY obvious connection is with what was stated in Dan 11.
                  3) The 1290 days and the 1335 days are NOT out of nowhere, but DIRECTLY connected with Dan 11 which is what Dan 12 is part of.

                  Dan 12 is NOT a SEPARATE vision and THEREFORE should be connected to Dan 11. It makes NO sense when Herod is INSERTED in 11:45, which is an obvious error.
                  On the contrary, A4E's account ended in Dan 11:35. People who claim he is the king without the designation of north or south, are just lazy to dig deep to find the king that fulfilled the rest of the prophecies in that chapter. The grave error is the attempt to force A4E where he doesn't belong.

                  Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                  What?
                  The 2W preach for 1260 days NOT 45!
                  Also the 1335 ends AFTER the 1290 NOT before.
                  How about trying to present the 7 years and how this works?
                  For me it is simple:

                  AC gets 10 kings to unite and invade Israel
                  2W appear and prevent the Temple from being taken - they witness for 1260 days.
                  2W killed and AC declares himself god. 42 months of AC starts
                  AC tries to kill Jews, 2W ascend to heaven and Jews flee 1260 days start in wilderness.
                  Jews are found in the wilderness and AC mobilises his armies to go and crush the Jews finally. This mobilisation takes a few days, and includes the drying up of the Euphrates.
                  Armageddon, with Jesus returning, Saints rising and AC defeated.

                  All of these things fit within a 7 year time frame, and ALL fit to any scripture, without a single scripture NOT fitting it.
                  I thought that you of all people would have understood my argument? I didn't say that the duration of their ministry will be 45 days. Of course, it is 1260 days. But 45 days into their gospel, amenable Jews will accept Christ and when the AC sets up his AoD at the 1290 days point, they will recognise the significance and run for their lives. How in the name of heaven did you conclude that the 1335 ends after the 1290 days?

                  Your timescale is flawed because the 1260 days of the 2Ws and the AC's 42 months will overlap as already proven to you, so your 7 years theory won't work. I urge you to go back with an open mind and take a second look at my post yesterday and you'll see how everything fits.

                  Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                  The SPECULATION is in the idea that the AC can assert his claim to be god, and can enter the temple EVEN though John was told to measure it as THAT was where the worshippers would be.
                  The CONTEXT of Rev 11 IS the Temple.
                  Nothing says outdoors - which is another speculation.
                  For someone loath to speculate, you certainly make disconnected speculation.
                  Nothing you said invalidated what I asserted. You said the temple is where the worshippers will be and it doesn't disagree with my position, either. My argument is that the Witnesses will be outdoors because I believe that their gospel will probably be transmitted by satellite by the world's news media that will gather in Jerusalem to film them. Secondly, if they are in the temple, then their ministry will be heard by only those in the temple. l believe their message will reach a worldwide audience.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Trivalee View Post

                    Unlike you, I compare every scholarly interpretation of scripture with my own. And if I believe the expert opinion doesn't reflect the Bible's view, I will reject it. Antiochus IV is not connected to the 1290 days and anyone who claims he is doesn't know what they are saying. So if Payne claims that A4E is in Dan 12, then he's talking out of his head.

                    For someone who said he's studied the Bible for decades, you seem to rely more on other people's interpretations than your own. If it's not the ECF, it's someone else; which interpretation do you really own?


                    Using Bible commentators and teachers is the very way God Himself determined to show us the way on these matters! The Scriptures did not say that all teaching must come from the Apostles directly to us, so that we ourselves become the expert interpreters of the Scriptures!

                    No, we are told that the Holy Spirit gifted teachers in the Church to help us--not that they are perfect or always have the right theology, but only to help us on our way. Without them I don't think you could have an informed position on much anything on the Scriptures!


                    You elevate yourself unduly when you place your own views over those of the commentators, whether Church Fathers, Reformers, or modern teachers. Certainly, you must choose between the positions. But to throw all of those positions out, what are you going to be left with? You'll only have the Bible and you. And you would soon find yourself in the place where the commentators began--studying the experts in the field!

                    No, I trust expert Christian scholars who have seen Antiochus 4 ruled for 1290 days. I do trust J. Barton Payne on the subject.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                      On the contrary, A4E's account ended in Dan 11:35. People who claim he is the king without the designation of north or south, are just lazy to dig deep to find the king that fulfilled the rest of the prophecies in that chapter. The grave error is the attempt to force A4E where he doesn't belong.
                      You didn't actually deal with my point, which was IF you reject A4E THEN the rest won;t make sense.
                      Therefore it is your ILLOGICAL rejection of A4E which would need to be resolved - perhaps in a separate thread, though I recall we did have one, which came to an end.

                      I thought that you of all people would have understood my argument? I didn't say that the duration of their ministry will be 45 days. Of course, it is 1260 days. But 45 days into their gospel, amenable Jews will accept Christ and when the AC sets up his AoD at the 1290 days point, they will recognise the significance and run for their lives. How in the name of heaven did you conclude that the 1335 ends after the 1290 days?
                      Dan 12:11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days.

                      Very CLEARLY we have the START of the count of time is FROM when the sacrifice and burnt offering STOPS and when the AoD occurs.
                      Do they occur at the SAME time? From this sentence it certainly seems so.
                      Therefore we CANNOT start ANY count of days UNTIL the AoD happens.
                      IF we AGREE that the AoD occurs at the START of the AC's reign THEN the problem is that the AC's reign in Rev 13 is 42 months, which at the longest is
                      1279 days. July to June for 3 years is 365 * 3 + 31 (July) + 31 + 30 + 31 +30 + 31 = 1095 + 184 = 1279 days.
                      IF we AGREE that the AC's reign ends with the return of Jesus THEN we are 11 days SHORT of the 1290 day, and a further 45 days short of the 1335 days.
                      This is very SIMPLE and CLEAR chronology.
                      In order to fit in the 1290 days, you need to have the sacrifice and AoD occurring 12 days BEFORE the AC starts to reign.
                      This is a stretch.
                      Yet you want to fit in a further 45 days BEFORE that?
                      Moreover what happens 45 days BEFORE Jesus returns that makes the 1290 days special?
                      You see your entire reasoning of time IGNORES what is CLEARLY stated in Dan 12 and puts things backwards trying to fit BOTH the 1290 and the 1335 days as ENDING on the Day when Jesus returns meaning they have a different START date, which Dan 12 prohibits.

                      Your timescale is flawed because the 1260 days of the 2Ws and the AC's 42 months will overlap as already proven to you, so your 7 years theory won't work. I urge you to go back with an open mind and take a second look at my post yesterday and you'll see how everything fits.
                      You certainly have NOT proven that the 2W and the ACs reign overlap by even a full day. You can just about argue the AC's reign STARTS on the day the 2W's testimony ENDS.
                      What post ~ are you suggesting I look at? I have NOT read anything of yours which could possibly fit.

                      Nothing you said invalidated what I asserted. You said the temple is where the worshippers will be and it doesn't disagree with my position, either. My argument is that the Witnesses will be outdoors because I believe that their gospel will probably be transmitted by satellite by the world's news media that will gather in Jerusalem to film them. Secondly, if they are in the temple, then their ministry will be heard by only those in the temple. l believe their message will reach a worldwide audience.
                      Wowsers! You need to be outdoors to have satellite transmission? Quick someone tell the BBC they have been doing things wrong for the last few decades...
                      All you need is a camera and a network connection or link....
                      I agree they will almost certainly reach a worldwide audience, but have you ever heard of Reuters?
                      The 2W could go anywhere in the world, and possibly will, but the point about the Temple is that IT is inviolate as Rev 11:1 & 2 highlights.
                      Outside the Inner court anyone can go, and so it is NOT to be measured. However the Inner court is HOLY, which means it is NOT violated by those who are unholy.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by randyk View Post
                        I'm going to post a few messages from the Church Fathers to try to show that although they were futurists, they interpreted Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse historically. Aside from Antichrist and the 2nd Coming, which they thought were future, they saw the 70th Week of Daniel 9 and the Great Tribulation of Luke 21 as fulfilled or being fulfilled historically in the death of Christ and in the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The Great Tribulation is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT era, which began in 70 AD and continues to the present day. Indeed, it will only end at the 2nd Coming.

                        Stay tuned!...
                        Relying on the ancestors is pathetic. I cannot place my faith and trust in a person who is without any apocalyptic revelation made to them. Paul's general teaching regarding the AC is so simple and can only be adopted by fulfilling it. Jesus taught his disciples and especially patented that He should say the things He mentions, that they should know He told them beforehand, when these things happen. In other words, if prophetic fulfillments have not yet taken place, there is no prophetic evidence that such events have taken place. We can not grab any straw just to make a statement. For me, eschatology is about facts laid down as history fulfilled. Then we must pay particular attention to the pronouncement of intelligibility around its events. Every historical survey that has been laid down must surely present every detail to make the prophecy valid. It does us no good to recklessly rape ourselves in history for answers as if every detailed event applicable to the prophecy justifies. Today, the actions and events in Israel are clear proof that the prophecies are slowly being fulfilled and are making the ancestral prophecies powerless, because they did not move into the era of intelligibility. Many have tried to lay down his information as they understood it, yet this does not justify us having to dwell on past events. Prophecy is future events that must take place and explains the end of the era of mankind and God's great plan for eternal life.
                        To God be the Glory

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by angelmike View Post
                          Relying on the ancestors is pathetic. I cannot place my faith and trust in a person who is without any apocalyptic revelation made to them.
                          Do you realize, brother, that the same argument you use against the "ancestors" can be used against you? Why should I listen to you instead of them? If I can't listen to them, I shouldn't listen to you!

                          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                          Paul's general teaching regarding the AC is so simple and can only be adopted by fulfilling it. Jesus taught his disciples and especially patented that He should say the things He mentions, that they should know He told them beforehand, when these things happen. In other words, if prophetic fulfillments have not yet taken place, there is no prophetic evidence that such events have taken place. We can not grab any straw just to make a statement.
                          The problem is, I'm talking about the Olivet Discourse, the Abomination of Desolation, and the Great Tribulation--not the Antichrist!


                          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                          For me, eschatology is about facts laid down as history fulfilled. Then we must pay particular attention to the pronouncement of intelligibility around its events. Every historical survey that has been laid down must surely present every detail to make the prophecy valid. It does us no good to recklessly rape ourselves in history for answers as if every detailed event applicable to the prophecy justifies. Today, the actions and events in Israel are clear proof that the prophecies are slowly being fulfilled and are making the ancestral prophecies powerless, because they did not move into the era of intelligibility. Many have tried to lay down his information as they understood it, yet this does not justify us having to dwell on past events. Prophecy is future events that must take place and explains the end of the era of mankind and God's great plan for eternal life.


                          A vast amount of biblical prophecy has *already been fulfilled!* Therefore, we need to determine, when studying the Bible, what prophecies have been fulfilled and what prophecies have yet to be fulfilled? Even prophecies that have been fulfilled can instruct us as Christian today. So *all* of the Bible is valuable, whether fulfilled prophecies or as-yet unfulfilled prophecies.

                          I believe the Abomination of Desolation has already been fulfilled in the Roman siege of 70 AD. And I believe the Great Tribulation began at that time and continues to the present time, and will continue until the end of the age. The Olivet Discourse therefore emphasized something already fulfilled in history. But it was intended to instruct Christians in every generation who would have to go through the same things in their own countries as Israel went through in theirs. And all of it is designed to lead up to eternal judgment at the Return of Christ. This latter part is future!


                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by randyk View Post
                            [SIZE=16px]

                            Do you realize, brother, that the same argument you use against the "ancestors" can be used against you? Why should I listen to you instead of them? If I can't listen to them, I shouldn't listen to you!
                            I know and I did not say that you should believe what I say. You can only hold on to your own views, if it makes you happy, but only future prophecies that apply to eschatology should be considered. I do not reject the history of the ancestors, but unfortunately they knew nothing of the prophecies of the 20th century. Did they know about the brand on the food parcels? Did they know about the advancing technology? No, I do not think so. So, my reason for rejecting the pronouncements of the past is because no one really understood how these things would work. Even today, there is much speculation about the 10 regions of the world classified by the EU. When we read the different layouts it is laughable.

                            I believe the Abomination of Desolation has already been fulfilled in the Roman siege of 70 AD. And I believe the Great Tribulation began at that time and continues to the present time, and will continue until the end of the age. The Olivet Discourse therefore emphasized something already fulfilled in history. But it was intended to instruct Christians in every generation who would have to go through the same things in their own countries as Israel went through in theirs. And all of it is designed to lead up to eternal judgment at the Return of Christ. This latter part is future!
                            As I understand it, you want to make future prophecy appear as fulfilled prophecy. The great tribulation was referred to the last 42 months period of the AC, not to the destruction of the temple. The destruction of the temple has absolutely nothing to do with the AC's description. Jesus did not quote much detail regarding the destruction of the temple. He did not describe the destruction of the temple as part of the AC government. The destruction of the temple occurs only in the first verse of Matthew. Most of the chapter of the Prophetic interpretation of Christ involves the seduction and deception that comes until the AC is revealed at last.

                            To God be the Glory

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by angelmike View Post

                              I know and I did not say that you should believe what I say. You can only hold on to your own views, if it makes you happy, but only future prophecies that apply to eschatology should be considered. I do not reject the history of the ancestors, but unfortunately they knew nothing of the prophecies of the 20th century. Did they know about the brand on the food parcels? Did they know about the advancing technology? No, I do not think so. So, my reason for rejecting the pronouncements of the past is because no one really understood how these things would work. Even today, there is much speculation about the 10 regions of the world classified by the EU. When we read the different layouts it is laughable.



                              As I understand it, you want to make future prophecy appear as fulfilled prophecy. The great tribulation was referred to the last 42 months period of the AC, not to the destruction of the temple. The destruction of the temple has absolutely nothing to do with the AC's description. Jesus did not quote much detail regarding the destruction of the temple. He did not describe the destruction of the temple as part of the AC government. The destruction of the temple occurs only in the first verse of Matthew. Most of the chapter of the Prophetic interpretation of Christ involves the seduction and deception that comes until the AC is revealed at last.
                              'You're confused. I'm not saying the AoD is the Antichrist--you are! The AoD, by Christ's definition, is the desolation of the temple, which took place in 70 AD. He said it would lead up to an age-long Jewish Diaspora. This positively identifies the AoD as the period from 70 AD to the present, and continuing until Christ returns. It is a *Jewish punishment* in the words of Jesus.

                              You can just ignore this and go on about it being the Antichrist if you like. But that isn't engaging in any discourse with me about it. We would have to define our terms and explain what we mean by those terms.

                              Every time I tell you this is not the Antichrist, you refuse to acknowledge that it is different in my terminology. If we have a different meaning for that terminology, then we must prove our case. I've proven mine. You haven't proven yours.

                              I've shown how Jesus defines the "Great Tribulation," and it is not the last 3.5 years of the age, nor is it about the Antichrist alone. Rather, it encompasses the entire period of Jewish punishment, from 70 AD to the end of the age, and includes the reign of Antichrist. It is *not* the reign of Antichrist alone! It is the entire period of Jewish punishment in the present age.

                              Again, I've quoted it for you in Luke 21, and have therefore positively proven this. You just ignore it, and claim that only future prophecy applies. If you wish to do that, you will have to throw out most of the Bible. Much of the Bible is about the past, or was fulfilled in the past. It is there to help us, in principle, with our lives today.

                              This doesn't mean I reject future prophecy. I don't. I absolutely agree that the book of Revelation contains a lot about the future reign of Antichrist, and about Christ's return to save us and to destroy the Kingdom of Antichrist.

                              But we should not try to make prophecies fulfilled in the past into a "future prophecy." Doesn't work. The AoD took place in 70 AD. That was in the past, and cannot be in the future. It merely began a long period of punishment for Israel, and will continue until the end of the age. Finishing off this period of Jewish punishment is future. We can agree on that.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by randyk View Post


                                'You're confused. I'm not saying the AoD is the Antichrist--you are! The AoD, by Christ's definition, is the desolation of the temple, which took place in 70 AD. He said it would lead up to an age-long Jewish Diaspora. This positively identifies the AoD as the period from 70 AD to the present, and continuing until Christ returns. It is a *Jewish punishment* in the words of Jesus.

                                You can just ignore this and go on about it being the Antichrist if you like. But that isn't engaging in any discourse with me about it. We would have to define our terms and explain what we mean by those terms.

                                Every time I tell you this is not the Antichrist, you refuse to acknowledge that it is different in my terminology. If we have a different meaning for that terminology, then we must prove our case. I've proven mine. You haven't proven yours.

                                I've shown how Jesus defines the "Great Tribulation," and it is not the last 3.5 years of the age, nor is it about the Antichrist alone. Rather, it encompasses the entire period of Jewish punishment, from 70 AD to the end of the age, and includes the reign of Antichrist. It is *not* the reign of Antichrist alone! It is the entire period of Jewish punishment in the present age.

                                Again, I've quoted it for you in Luke 21, and have therefore positively proven this. You just ignore it, and claim that only future prophecy applies. If you wish to do that, you will have to throw out most of the Bible. Much of the Bible is about the past, or was fulfilled in the past. It is there to help us, in principle, with our lives today.

                                This doesn't mean I reject future prophecy. I don't. I absolutely agree that the book of Revelation contains a lot about the future reign of Antichrist, and about Christ's return to save us and to destroy the Kingdom of Antichrist.

                                But we should not try to make prophecies fulfilled in the past into a "future prophecy." Doesn't work. The AoD took place in 70 AD. That was in the past, and cannot be in the future. It merely began a long period of punishment for Israel, and will continue until the end of the age. Finishing off this period of Jewish punishment is future. We can agree on that.
                                It seems you believe in the teachings of the SDA. Most believers on the forum stick to the SDA doctrine. I understand that you are trying to inform me regarding eschatology for the reason we differ, yes, we will differ because I concentrate on the end times and not in the past. Every day that passes is the past and has helped in the fulfillment of prophecy that is at hand. I believe in things to come because they have not yet happened. I'm not wasting my time sticking to the past after I've already acquired enough knowledge. I notice the future things that are only important now, that many saints do not notice and do not know what is going on around them. The end is in sight and many will be disappointed who do not pay attention to the future.
                                Tell me, where do we stand now in the prophecy, if you know.
                                To God be the Glory

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X