Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A quick look at Daniel

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    Dan 2. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream of the Great Image. This King of Babylon represented the beginning of a string of 4 successive empires who would rule somewhere between the Mediterranean Sea and the Near East. Each empire conquered the preceding one. The final empire would somehow endure until the Kingdom of Christ. The last empire was the Roman Empire, which has endured, in a different form in Europe, throughout the NT age. It has been represented by Christian Civilization both in the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. It has also been represented by various Christian states and empires that ruled from within this former Roman territory, albeit somewhat expanded.
    You get everything right, then for some reason, like many others, you go off on the erroneous Holy Roman Empire which has nothing to do with a Roman Beast and neither does the Byzantine empire. The number 10 is used for completeness, along with the number 7, if both are used in the same phrase the number 7 supersedes the number 10. For instance, in Revelation, there are 7 Eyes and 7 Spirits and all that means is that God sees everything and lives everywhere or is omnipresent. The number 10 as in the 10 kings, likewise doesn't mean 10 kings, it means all the kings of a fractured Europe, the Iron, and Clay that can not CLEAVE to one another tells us there is nor can be NO.......Holy Roman BEAST nor a Byzantine BEAST. There is no Israel, thus there is no Beast over Israel, a DOMINANT POWER is only a DOMINANT POWER, thus we could call the United States a BEAST POWER but that is not how the bible works, God has given us a book by Jews about Jews, and in Juxtaposition to the Jewish Nation. God has turned his back on the Jews from 70 AD to 1948, there can be NO BEAST over Israel during that time, it's true that the Roman Beast did not fully fall until much later, but they ceased being a Beast Power over Israel because God forsook Israel for nigh 2000 years. Thus, the Church overcame Rome, we turned Rome from a BEAST into a conveyor belt of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, its a FACT.

    Now, as per the FRACTURED KINGDOMS, no one seems to get it tbh. The 10 were one during Rome's time, then it fell apart and thus fractured into many kings which God describes as 10 Kings or the complete number of kingdoms in Europe at any moment in time. For instance, Chralamagne in the 8th century tried to reunite Europe, as did Napoleon Bonaparte in the 18th century, and of course Hitler tried to create the 1000 year reign. But they all failed, as did the Royals trying to accomplish the exact same thing via Royal Marriage, or via the MIXING OF SEED:

    Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another,even as iron is not mixed with clay.

    So, try as they might, via Wars and Royal Marriage, these "10 Kings/Kingdoms" do not cleave to one another. Thus the "10" might have been 6 to 7 kings in the 7th century, it might have been 15 kings/kingdoms in the 15th century, right now it is 27 kings/kingdoms when England finally leaves it will be 26. Thus God has to use the number 10 to speak about ALL the Kings/Kingdoms over a 2000 some odd year period because the numbers are of course ever-changing. The number 10 is not 10 per se, just like 7 doesn't really mean 7 in Revelation. It is a stand-in for all the FRACTURED KINGS of Europe over a 2000 some odd year period of time, OR the collective of all Europe in general. They remain Fractured until when? Well, the bible tells us, until the last 1260 days, when they RULE for a SHORT TIME (3.5 years) with the Beast. Of course, they reunited in the 50s-70s via the E.U., but they can only rule for 42 months with "The Beast" over Israel and the whole Mediterranean Sea Region.


    Dan 12. This conclusion to the book contains two major events that God used to summarize the book for Daniel. Those 2 future events are the 3.5 years of Antichristian rule, mentioned in Dan 7, and the reign of Antiochus 4, mentioned in Dan 8 and 11. Antiochus reigned 1290 days, which also is roughly 3.5 years. But these two prophecies are separate prophecies in ch. 12.
    The 1290 is about the very end times, not Antiochus.
    Last edited by Revelation Man; Aug 2nd 2020, 03:35 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Revelation Man View Post
      You get everything right, then for some reason, like many others, you go off on the erroneous Holy Roman Empire which has nothing to do with a Roman Beast and neither does the Byzantine empire. The number 10 is used for completeness, along with the number 7, if both are used in the same phrase the number 7 supersedes the number 10. For instance, in Revelation, there are 7 Eyes and 7 Spirits and all that means is that God sees everything and lives everywhere or is omnipresent. The number 10 as in the 10 kings, likewise doesn't mean 10 kings, it means all the kings of a fractured Europe, the Irion, and Clay that can not CLEAVE to one another tells us there is nor can be NO.......Holy Roman BEAST nor a Byzantine BEAST. There is no Israel, thus there is no Beast over Israel, a POWER is only a POWER, thus we could call the United States a BEAST but that is not how the bible works, God has given us a book by Jews about Jews, and in Juxtaposition to the Jewish Nation. God has turned his back on the Jews from 70 AD to 1948, there can be NO BEAST over Israel during that time, it's true that the Roman Beast did not fully fall until much later, but they ceased being a Beast over Israel because God forsook Israel for nigh 2000 years. Thus, the Church overcame Rome, we turned her from a BEAST into a conveyor belt of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, its a FACT.

      Now, as per the FRACTURED KINGDOMS, no one seems to get. The 10 were one during Rome's time, then it fell apart and thus fractured into many kings which God describes as 10 Kings or the complete number of kingdoms in Europe at any moment in time. For instance, Chralamagna in the 8th century tried to reunite Europe, as did Napoleon Bonaparte in the 18th century, and of course Hitler tried to create the 1000 year reign. But they all failed, as did the Royals trying to accomplish the exact same thing via Royal Marriage, or via the MIXING OF SEED:

      Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another,even as iron is not mixed with clay.

      So, try as they might, via Wars and Royal Marriage, these "10 Kings/Kingdoms" do not cleave to one another. Thus the "10" might have been 6 to 7 kings in the 7th century, it might have been 15 kings/kingdoms in the 15th century, right now it is 27 kings/kingdoms when England finally leaves it will be 26. This God has to use the number 10 to speak about ALL the Kings/Kingdoms over a 2000 year period because the numbers are of course ever-changing. The number 10 is not 10, just like 7 doesn't really mean 7. It is a stand-in for all the FRACTURED KINGS of Europe over a 2000 some odd year period of time, OR the collective of all Europe in general. They remain Fractured until when? Well, the bible tells us, until the last 1260 days, the RULE for a SHORT TIME (3.5 years) with the Beast.

      The 1290 is about the very end times, not Antiochus.
      Sorry, this is just a simple disagreement, including on the style of interpretation. I'm familiar with your style of interpretation, seeing numbers as symbolic, instead of literal. I've held to that position in the distant past, but haven't for a long time. I adopt the literal position, except perhaps in the case of the 144,000.

      I do indeed believe the 4th Kingdom was the Roman Empire, continuing in European/Christian Civilization. That's pretty much how the Church Fathers saw it also. For them, the 4th Kingdom was Rome, and I concur. Thanks for offering your position here for others to consider.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by randyk View Post

        We don't have enough details about the Antichrist to study in more detail. We are only given what is there. And we only have Dan 7 in the OT and Rev 13 in the NT, which is also based on Dan 7--not much by which to distinguish between names.

        We have plenty of detail to know what the function of the Christ is. Therefore to know the function of what it means to be the Antichrist. And it is not to be the king of the fourth kingdom. The function of the little horn and beast is to be the king of the forth kingdom.

        As I said, I believe the names all come from Dan 7, for the reasons I gave you. The Little Horn is part of the 4th Beast, and boasts, as a mere man, against God--hence he "claims he is God." He persecutes the saints and thus instigates lawless behavior, or sin--hence he is the "Man of Sin." And he is the "Antichrist" because he is portrayed as one who dominates on earth, in opposition to the coming of the Son of Man, or Christ.

        All of these things are wrapped up in what we today refer to as "the Antichrist." Beyond this I think we're digging too deep.


        The bible presents a biography of the person. It is in order.

        Daniel 7 (little horn), Daniel 8 (little horn), Daniel 9 (prince who shall come), end of Daniel 11 and Daniel 12 (beast) .

        Then in gospels John 5:43 (another coming in his own name).

        Then in the epistles, 1John2:18 (antichrist shall come). 2Thessalonians2:3-4 (revealed as the man of sin)

        Then in Revelation 13 (the beast)


        What you are doing by calling the person the Antichrist - in the universal sense - in his biography - would be like someone writing a book on JFK's biography referring him universally as the Senator of Massachusetts, not recognizing the difference between being commander of PT109, nor being President of the United State..


        The person is not the "Antichrist" because he dominates the earth. The person will be the Antichrist because he will be anointed the king of Israel for a short time. The person dominates the earth when he later become the beast.

        __________________________________________________ _______________________________

        I don't refer to the little horn and the beast as the Antichrist. People who do - know not what they are doing. They are operating on crowd instinct - i.e. because everyone else does.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Douggg View Post


          We have plenty of detail to know what the function of the Christ is. Therefore to know the function of what it means to be the Antichrist. And it is not to be the king of the fourth kingdom. The function of the little horn and beast is to be the king of the forth kingdom.



          To compare what we know about Christ with what we know about Antichrist is absurd beyond words! We *must* know about Christ. What we must know about Antichrist is very small, by comparison.

          Originally posted by Douggg View Post
          The bible presents a biography of the person. It is in order.

          Daniel 7 (little horn), Daniel 8 (little horn), Daniel 9 (prince who shall come), end of Daniel 11 and Daniel 12 (beast) .

          Then in gospels John 5:43 (another coming in his own name).

          Then in the epistles, 1John2:18 (antichrist shall come). 2Thessalonians2:3-4 (revealed as the man of sin)

          Then in Revelation 13 (the beast)
          There is zero basis for such an evolution. And quite frankly, you haven't proven that Antichrist is the "prince to come" in Dan 9, or the king in Dan 11.

          Originally posted by Douggg View Post
          What you are doing by calling the person the Antichrist - in the universal sense - in his biography - would be like someone writing a book on JFK's biography referring him universally as the Senator of Massachusetts, not recognizing the difference between being commander of PT109, nor being President of the United State..
          Actually, it's more like referring to Kennedy as the US President who lived out all of those roles. Same fella.

          Originally posted by Douggg View Post
          The person is not the "Antichrist" because he dominates the earth. The person will be the Antichrist because he will be anointed the king of Israel for a short time. The person dominates the earth when he later become the beast.
          I feel he is the "Antichrist" because he opposes the saints, and tries to inhibit the coming of the Kingdom of the Son of Man. He is anti-Son of Man, or "Antichrist."

          Originally posted by Douggg View Post
          __________________________________________________ _______________________________

          I don't refer to the little horn and the beast as the Antichrist. People who do - know not what they are doing. They are operating on crowd instinct - i.e. because everyone else does.
          Oh yea, I've heard that one before. Only you have the truth, right? Everyone else is "lost?"

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by randyk View Post

            To compare what we know about Christ with what we know about Antichrist is absurd beyond words! We *must* know about Christ. What we must know about Antichrist is very small, by comparison.
            "Anti" is just a prefix. It is added to "Christ". "instead of and against" Christ Jesus - the rightful King of Israel, coming in the name of the Lord..

            There is zero basis for such an evolution. And quite frankly, you haven't proven that Antichrist is the "prince to come" in Dan 9, or the king in Dan 11.
            Everyone has a biography. The bible presents the biography of the person.

            I never said the Antichrist is "the prince to come" or that the Antichrist is the king in Dan 11; That is you mis-calling the person the Antichrist, repeating the same error over and over.

            I said the person is the prince to come. and the person in the last part of Daniel 11 (Daniel 11:36 and forward) is the beast.

            A big part of the problem (for me) is that you are unlearned regarding what the Jews are looking for in the messiah. I doubt that you have even heard of the RAMBAM. I have made over 10,000 posts at their sites, since 2004 learning what they believe.

            What the Jews believe is a big factor in eschatology understanding.

            Matthew 24:15-16 to them living in Judea is end times to the Jews. Flee to the mountains for protection is the message to them. Differently, not knowing the day nor hour, in Matthew 24, the watching for Jesus is the message for Christians to escape the great tribulation. Neither things have happen yet.

            The Jews are the ones who will be making the mistake thinking the prince who shall come is the messiah.

            I gave you Deuteronomy 31:9-13 as the basis and reason for the confirming of the covenant for 7 years by the prince who shall come. But that has fallen on deaf ears.


            Actually, it's more like referring to Kennedy as the US President who lived out all of those roles. Same fella.
            Being the beast is last function of the person. Not being the Antichrist. You have to understand the biography of the person given in the bible to understand anything dealing with eschatology.

            I feel he is the "Antichrist" because he opposes the saints, and tries to inhibit the coming of the Kingdom of the Son of Man. He is anti-Son of Man, or "Antichrist."
            The function of the Christ is to be the King of Israel, coming in the name of the Lord. Not as the King of the fourth kingdom, the Roman Empire.

            You are creating a definition of the Antichrist in your mind.... but it is wrong.... because you are not grasping, or perhaps not accepting, that the function of the Christ as being the King of Israel.

            Oh yea, I've heard that one before. Only you have the truth, right? Everyone else is "lost?"
            You are running with the crowd, because it is an almost universal error made. You are reacting to what I am enlightening you to, giving you the verses to examine for yourself, in the wrong way. You should be adjusting your eschatology instead of digging your heels in.

            Christ the King of Israel coming in the name of the Lord is right in the text of John 12:13. Christ the King of Israel is the function of "the" Christ. In Mark 15:32-33, Christ the King of Israel, right in the text.

            If you don't latch on to that - you cannot understand the concept of the "Anti" Christ.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by randyk View Post
              [SIZE=16px]Oh yea, what other respectable Christian scholars think be damned--it's only what you think that determines the outcome? I refuse to dismiss all of the commentaries in favor of *your commentary?"
              Did I say "be damned"?
              No, I look at the BASIS for their claim, and THEN compare it with scripture.
              Scripture MUST always triumph over any Christian scholar.
              Moreover as I stated, commentaries over time have had DIFFERING views as to what the kingdoms are, even as the ECFs had differing views. They CANNOT all be correct.
              I will NEVER put a commentary ABOVE scripture, and NEITHER should you!

              The Kingdoms are numbered so that we know there are only 4.
              An interesting response, EXCEPT it fails when we note that the 2nd kingdom is not numbered, so should we determine that the 2nd is a sub set of the first or third?

              Actually, you are limiting the possibilities. It is also possible--even likely--that this Divided Kingdom is not a 5th Kingdom, but only a different stage of the 4th Kingdom. Or, haven't you considered that? You should because I've suggested it several times!
              The ONE thing it CANNOT be is the 4th kingdom. This is a CERTAINTY.
              Why do I say this with such conviction?
              Very easily - for we are told WHAT the 4th kingdom is like. IF it does NOT fit the description of the 4th kingdom THEN it is NOT the 4th kingdom (quite apart from other points raised).
              The 4th Kingdom is ONLY the Legs of Iron.

              False. If a list is provided and a number given, you assume the previous items on the list are previous numbers in the list. You do *not* assume any items following the number given is included in the list.
              Simple example. I list 10 things I bought from the grocery store. I tell someone I just bought my 10th item. This presumes the previous 9 items were part of the numbered list. 1-10--not 11, or 12!
              Now, I may go and buy more items, but they will never be part of the original list of 10 items, because those items were determined to be part of a list leading up to 10 items. Even if I buy an 11th item, it will never be counted forward from 10 unless we know it is actually part of that list. But the previous items we *know* were part of the list, because it has already taken place!
              This is ONLY true IF you state you ONLY have 10 items. However when you do NOT state there are ONLY 10 items, but in fact you say "the 10th item was very green and hard. A red and soft item was..." THEN it is PROBABLE you have MORE THAN 10 items because the "red and soft item" does NOT describe the 10th item, and IF no other item was described as red and soft, then this probability becomes a CERTAINTY.
              You see WE KNOW that ALL the kingdoms are part of the LIST because the LIST was NOT based on numbers BUT on collections of Body Parts.
              The list was GIVEN here:
              Dan 2:31 - 33 “You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.
              Now when you look at this LIST we have a TOTAL length of the LIST being what is making up the IMAGE (or statue if you prefer).
              What makes UP this image are FIVE separately stated parts. Also stated are FIVE different materials.
              You choose to IGNORE what is CLEARLY stated in verse 31 - 33 and latch SOLELY onto the number 4, which is EISEGESIS as you FORCE it to eb the SAME as Daniel 7.
              So when Daniel describes the image to the King, he lists FIVE separate parts and FIVE different material make-ups of those FIVE parts!

              It would be perfectly natural to assume that another, distinctly-different Kingdom listed after 4 Kingdoms would be a 5th. But in this case, we don't even *know* that this Divided Kingdom is part of the original list of 4 or not!
              The assumption has to be made that it is actually a latter stage of the 4th Kingdom, because both "leg" stage and "foot" stage have iron in them, indicating they are portions of the same Kingdom. And further, if we compare with a corresponding passage in Dan 9, the 4 Kingdoms clearly indicate that the 4th Kingdom has a latter stage.
              We DO KNOW that the DIVIDED Kingdom is NOT a latter stage of the 4th kingdom for many reasons as given before.
              Again this next verse clarifies that the Feet are NOT the Legs:
              Dan 2:34 As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.

              It couldn't be much clearer that the Feet IS the Last Kingdom.
              Yet WHEN we look at the DETAIL of the Feet kingdom, Daniel expands it that we realise this LAST Kingdom has TWO parts, the Feet and the Toes.
              This corresponds for us, like the Belly (or Middle) and Thighs.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Douggg View Post
                Well, the text in Daniel 2 doesn't say fifth kingdom. In Daniel 2:40-41, the fourth kingdom just continues.
                It doesn't need to say "fifth kingdom." It has a very clear style in these verses, where the kingdom is mentioned and then a description about it.
                The divided kingdom is NOT the same as the Legs of Iron 4th kingdom.

                And in Daniel 7, it is the fourth kingdom in power when the saints inherit the everlasting kingdom - Daniel 7:27.
                So there is no reason to create a confusion factor by saying fifth kingdom
                This is what is known as eisegesis.
                You take the number four and FORCE it into another passage where it is different.
                You see in Dan 7 it is the LAST kingdom in power, and in Dan 2 again the LAST kingdom.
                These two visions are FIFTY years apart, and the world changed in that time.

                A person could say that the fourth kingdom has special attributes about itself, in the latter days.
                No what it says is that the LAST kingdom is DIFFERENT to the 4th kingdom.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post

                  This is what is known as eisegesis.
                  You take the number four and FORCE it into another passage where it is different.
                  You see in Dan 7 it is the LAST kingdom in power, and in Dan 2 again the LAST kingdom.
                  These two visions are FIFTY years apart, and the world changed in that time.
                  The fourth kingdom and it's leader the little horn ends the same way as in the final days of the Daniel 2 statue image. With the kingdom of God being setup here on earth. End times.


                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Douggg View Post

                    "Anti" is just a prefix. It is added to "Christ". "instead of and against" Christ Jesus - the rightful King of Israel, coming in the name of the Lord..

                    Everyone has a biography. The bible presents the biography of the person.

                    I never said the Antichrist is "the prince to come" or that the Antichrist is the king in Dan 11; That is you mis-calling the person the Antichrist, repeating the same error over and over.

                    I said the person is the prince to come. and the person in the last part of Daniel 11 (Daniel 11:36 and forward) is the beast.

                    A big part of the problem (for me) is that you are unlearned regarding what the Jews are looking for in the messiah. I doubt that you have even heard of the RAMBAM. I have made over 10,000 posts at their sites, since 2004 learning what they believe.
                    I made over a 100,000 posts on a a site featuring messianic Jews and opposing Jews. I do know who the great Jewish scholar is. I'm not sure that it helps your argument that we cannot identify the Antichrist as having different names.

                    Originally posted by Douggg View Post
                    What the Jews believe is a big factor in eschatology understanding.
                    The Jews "crucify" their own book of Daniel, and try to revise prophecies of Jesus. But yes, their views can help at times, since the OT prophecies belonged to them originally.

                    Originally posted by Douggg View Post
                    Matthew 24:15-16 to them living in Judea is end times to the Jews. Flee to the mountains for protection is the message to them. Differently, not knowing the day nor hour, in Matthew 24, the watching for Jesus is the message for Christians to escape the great tribulation. Neither things have happen yet.
                    The "Great Tribulation" is the NT Jewish Diaspora. There is no escape from that. The Jewish believers were called upon, by Jesus, to seek to escape the coming entrapment in Jerusalem when the Romans arrived in 70 AD.

                    Originally posted by Douggg View Post
                    The Jews are the ones who will be making the mistake thinking the prince who shall come is the messiah.

                    I gave you Deuteronomy 31:9-13 as the basis and reason for the confirming of the covenant for 7 years by the prince who shall come. But that has fallen on deaf ears.
                    There is no relationship between Deut 31.9-13 and a "prince to come." It was a reference to the 7 year periodic release of slaves in Israel.

                    Originally posted by Douggg View Post
                    Being the beast is last function of the person. Not being the Antichrist. You have to understand the biography of the person given in the bible to understand anything dealing with eschatology.
                    The function of the Christ is to be the King of Israel, coming in the name of the Lord. Not as the King of the fourth kingdom, the Roman Empire.

                    You are creating a definition of the Antichrist in your mind.... but it is wrong.... because you are not grasping, or perhaps not accepting, that the function of the Christ as being the King of Israel.
                    We're just going to have to disagree. I understand that you're comparing Christ with the Anti-Christ, and perhaps that's somewhat valid. But I don't find any need to remove the title of Antichrist from a person to see him in any role that he plays, whether Beast, or Lawless One, or whatever.

                    Originally posted by Douggg View Post
                    You are running with the crowd, because it is an almost universal error made. You are reacting to what I am enlightening you to, giving you the verses to examine for yourself, in the wrong way. You should be adjusting your eschatology instead of digging your heels in.
                    I'm not digging my heels in. I just honestly think you're wrong to divide up the Antichrist into different "persons."

                    Originally posted by Douggg View Post
                    Christ the King of Israel coming in the name of the Lord is right in the text of John 12:13. Christ the King of Israel is the function of "the" Christ. In Mark 15:32-33, Christ the King of Israel, right in the text.

                    If you don't latch on to that - you cannot understand the concept of the "Anti" Christ.


                    Yes, I do understand the Antichrist--as well as you do. We just disagree.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                      Did I say "be damned"?
                      No, I look at the BASIS for their claim, and THEN compare it with scripture.
                      Scripture MUST always triumph over any Christian scholar.
                      Moreover as I stated, commentaries over time have had DIFFERING views as to what the kingdoms are, even as the ECFs had differing views. They CANNOT all be correct.
                      I will NEVER put a commentary ABOVE scripture, and NEITHER should you!


                      I'm glad you respect the commentaries. They are the work of Christians called of God, just as the apostles were. But the apostles spent years with Jesus so that they could convey pure doctrine. The commentators have to be looked at more carefully. But they are helpful.

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                      An interesting response, EXCEPT it fails when we note that the 2nd kingdom is not numbered, so should we determine that the 2nd is a sub set of the first or third?


                      If I say a thing happened, and then another, and then another, and finally a 4th thing happened, then we can number those "things," 1,2,3, and 4.

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                      The ONE thing it CANNOT be is the 4th kingdom. This is a CERTAINTY.
                      Why do I say this with such conviction?
                      Very easily - for we are told WHAT the 4th kingdom is like. IF it does NOT fit the description of the 4th kingdom THEN it is NOT the 4th kingdom (quite apart from other points raised).
                      The 4th Kingdom is ONLY the Legs of Iron.


                      There is a flaw in your argument, and if you recognized it, you would be less "certain." You are separating the 4th Kingdom and the Divided Kingdom based on superficial differences.

                      If the 4th Kingdom is determined to incorporate these differences in 2 different stages of the same Kingdom, then you cannot be certain the Divided Kingdom is separate from the 4th Kingdom. Yes, it is distinct, but no, it is *not* separate!

                      Commentators see the Divided Kingdom as a later stage of the 4th Kingdom not because they reject the Bible but because they accept this as biblical. You arbitrarily determine that a late stage of the Kingdom, or that earlier stages of the Kingdom, cannot be the same Kingdom, because by your arbitrary definition a single Kingdom cannot incorporate different reigns.

                      But this goes against the whole inference that this Kingdom has all of this included. And this is why you have no respect for my position, nor for that of the commentators who would agree with my position. The 4th and last Kingdom is the Roman Kingdom, which includes different political systems beyond the fall of Rome and beyond the fall of Constantinople. In fact, it includes the final stage of this Kingdom, the Kingdom of Antichrist.

                      Are there differences in these different stages of the Roman Kingdom? Definitely. And as you suggest, the Scriptures describe these differences. There are legs, feet, and toes. There is pure iron and there is iron mixed with clay. These are different forms of the same Kingdom, which incorporate many different political governments within the same "Kingdom."

                      "Kingdom" here is described at a series of political structures that originate from Rome. All of the political systems after the Fall of Rome that inherited the Roman Christian culture were therefore part of this Roman political inheritance. And ultimately, the Antichrist will inherit the same tradition, although this final form of the Kingdom represents a turn back to Roman paganism.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by randyk View Post

                        The "Great Tribulation" is the NT Jewish Diaspora. There is no escape from that. The Jewish believers were called upon, by Jesus, to seek to escape the coming entrapment in Jerusalem when the Romans arrived in 70 AD.
                        No, the Great Tribulation is not the Jewish diaspora. When the Great Tribulation takes place, if not limited, all life on earth would cease to exist.


                        There is no relationship between Deut 31.9-13 and a "prince to come." It was a reference to the 7 year periodic release of slaves in Israel.

                        9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

                        10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,

                        11 When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

                        12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

                        13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

                        Moses made the law, to be directed at future generations, distanced by time, a speech from the place of God's choosing, on a 7 year cycle. Essentially confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant that God gave the land of Israel to the children of Israel as theirs forever.




                        I'm not digging my heels in. I just honestly think you're wrong to divide up the Antichrist into different "persons."
                        I am not dividing the person up into different persons. It is one person, which being the Antichrist is only for when the person is the King of Israel, coming in his own name.

                        The flaw in your thinking is that "the Antichrist" is a all encompassing title for the person.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by randyk View Post
                          I'm glad you respect the commentaries. They are the work of Christians called of God, just as the apostles were. But the apostles spent years with Jesus so that they could convey pure doctrine. The commentators have to be looked at more carefully. But they are helpful.
                          A commentator is worth respect because they have studied these things. However I do not know that they have some calling of God. Some may have done, others might simply be putting forward their own thoughts, just like the ECFs.

                          If I say a thing happened, and then another, and then another, and finally a 4th thing happened, then we can number those "things," 1,2,3, and 4.
                          You see the problem with this is that WHEN the thing described to have happened was DESCRIBED, it was described with FIVE things.
                          Further the person did NOT say "finally a 4th thing."
                          In Aramaic they do have a word for "last":
                          H318
                          אָחֳרֵן אָחֳרֵין
                          'ochŏrêyn 'ochŏrên
                          okh-or-ane', okh-or-ane'
                          (Chaldee); from H317; last: - at last.
                          There is also H319 which is the Hebrew equivalent used 61 times in the OT:
                          H319
                          אַחֲרִית
                          'achărı̂yth
                          akh-ar-eeth'
                          From H310; the last or end, hence the future; also posterity: - (last, latter) end (time), hinder (utter) -most, length, posterity, remnant, residue, reward.

                          IF Daniel had wanted to clarify the 4th kingdom was the last kingdom, then this word would have been used.
                          Daniel uses this word FIVE times in his book, for example:
                          Dan 8:19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

                          There is a flaw in your argument, and if you recognized it, you would be less "certain." You are separating the 4th Kingdom and the Divided Kingdom based on superficial differences.
                          There is NO flaw in my reasoning. There are NO superficial differences. EVERYTHING about the 4th and the 5th kingdom are different EXCEPT one superficial similarity, that there is partly iron in the 5th kingdom.

                          If the 4th Kingdom is determined to incorporate these differences in 2 different stages of the same Kingdom, then you cannot be certain the Divided Kingdom is separate from the 4th Kingdom. Yes, it is distinct, but no, it is *not* separate!
                          Who is determining this? Not Daniel.
                          We can be 100% certain it is a separate kingdom.
                          There is NOT connection made between the 4th and the 5th in terms of description or explanation.

                          Commentators see the Divided Kingdom as a later stage of the 4th Kingdom not because they reject the Bible but because they accept this as biblical. You arbitrarily determine that a late stage of the Kingdom, or that earlier stages of the Kingdom, cannot be the same Kingdom, because by your arbitrary definition a single Kingdom cannot incorporate different reigns.
                          I did NOT say commentators reject the Bible. You are NOT rejecting the Bible, and it would be wrong for me to say this is what is happening.
                          However commentators, like ourselves try to fit what we understand of the Bible with what we understand of reality and history. The commentators disagree with each other because they look at different aspects.
                          I have NOT stated a single thing arbitrarily, but with VERY CLEAR reasoning.
                          I did NOT say there cannot be different reigns, in FACT through various threads we looked at the FACT that different reigns does NOT change the kingdom. It is when there is a CHANGE of another kind, which changes the kingdom.
                          For example when Alexander died, we had a change from the Middle TO the Thighs, but the Kingdom remained the same one of Bronze.
                          When however a different power conquered the previous one THEN we had a CHANGE, and we see this with the Persians conquering Babylon, and the change of Gold to Silver, and AGAIN we see this with the Romans conquering the Greeks with a CHANGE from Bronze to Iron.
                          We see this also with the Caliphate conquering the Romans with a CHANGE from Iron, to partly Clay and partly Iron.

                          But this goes against the whole inference that this Kingdom has all of this included. And this is why you have no respect for my position, nor for that of the commentators who would agree with my position. The 4th and last Kingdom is the Roman Kingdom, which includes different political systems beyond the fall of Rome and beyond the fall of Constantinople. In fact, it includes the final stage of this Kingdom, the Kingdom of Antichrist.
                          I have paid attention to the CLAIM but note HOW and WHY it is a FALSE interpretation.
                          I have NO respect for "quasi-historical mystical continuations of conquered kingdoms".
                          The VERY argument you bring for Rome, could just as easily be brought for Babylon and for Persia and for Greece.
                          What YOUR argument simply shows is that the ENTIRE IMAGE is connected, but your argument does NOT show that the Kingdoms are ALL one, or that a kingdom continues AFTER it has been conquered.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            [SIZE=16px]
                            Originally posted by Douggg View Post

                            No, the Great Tribulation is not the Jewish diaspora. When the Great Tribulation takes place, if not limited, all life on earth would cease to exist.


                            The Great Tribulation is commonly defined as either the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem or the Reign of Antichrist. It is neither. It actually includes both. The Great Tribulation, as defined by Jesus, began in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and will only end at the end of the age. I've posted this quote many times here...

                            Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

                            There is no way around this. The Olivet Discourse began with Jesus' proclamation that the temple in Jerusalem would be annihilated, stone by stone. All versions, Matthew, Mark, and Luke say the same thing--this Address was all about the approaching judgment of God against Jerusalem. Jesus warned his Disciples to flee when the time came, when the Roman Army surrounded Jerusalem, laying siege to it.

                            Some Jews would deny the Romans would succeed, just as in the time of Jeremiah some false prophets denied that the Babylonians would succeed. But Jesus told his Disciples not to believe the false prophets, but to flee to the hills when the abominable pagan Romans stood on holy territory, surrounding the holy city Jerusalem, intending to destroy it. They would succeed!

                            Not only so, but Jesus warned that this would lead to Israel's worst national judgment in its history. It would last until the Kingdom of Messiah finally arrives at the end of the age. This would be an *age-long* punishment of the Jewish People. Jesus was warning his Disciples to stand apart from the Jewish corruption that was precipitating this punishment, so that even though they too would suffer, it would be for the Kingdom of God and not due to their sins.

                            This may not be popularly recognized, but it's the truth. All you need to do is listen and take it to heart.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by randyk View Post


                              Sorry, this is just a simple disagreement, including on the style of interpretation. I'm familiar with your style of interpretation, seeing numbers as symbolic, instead of literal. I've held to that position in the distant past, but haven't for a long time. I adopt the literal position, except perhaps in the case of the 144,000.

                              I do indeed believe the 4th Kingdom was the Roman Empire, continuing in European/Christian Civilization. That's pretty much how the Church Fathers saw it also. For them, the 4th Kingdom was Rome, and I concur. Thanks for offering your position here for others to consider.
                              So the 7 eyes and 7 spirits mean 7 also right ? I don't think so brother. And explain how God is going to describe the number of Kings when it is EVER CHANGING down through the ages? It can only be done using a stand in number.

                              The below is a discussion on this very subject elsewhere I recently had, so its not exactly a reply, but it pretty much is so I will just Copy & Paste it here.

                              The Bible is a book of both history and prophecy, the numbers given therein may be either literal or symbolic.

                              The number Ten [10]:

                              Ten is a number denoting fullness, entirety, the sum of all that exists of something. Where the numbers seven and ten are used together, the seven represents that which is higher or superior and ten represents something of a subordinate nature.

                              The Ten Plagues poured upon Egypt fully expressed God’s judgments upon Egypt​—all that were needed to humiliate fully the false gods of Egypt and to break the hold of Egypt upon God’s people Israel.

                              The “Ten Commandments” formed the basic laws of the Law covenant, the approximately 600 other laws merely enlarging on these, elucidating them, and explaining their application. (Ex 20:3-17; 34:28)

                              Jesus used the number ten in several of his illustrations to denote entirety or the full number of something.​—Mt 25:1; Lu 15:8; 19:13, 16, 17.

                              One of the beasts of Daniel’s vision and certain beasts described in Revelation had ten horns. These evidently represented all the powers, or “kings,” of earth making up the beastly arrangement. (Dan. 7:7, 20, 24; Rev. 12:3; 13:1;17:3, 7, 12)

                              The fullness of the test or period of test that God determines for his servants or allows them to undergo is expressed at Revelation 2:10: “Do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. Look! The Devil will keep on throwing some of you into prison that you may be fully put to the test, and that you may have tribulation ten days.”

                              NOTE: The Bible is a book of both history and prophecy, the numbers given therein may be either literal or symbolic. The context usually reveals in which sense a number is used. [Bible usage of numbers should not be confused with numerology, in which occult mysticism is attached to figures, their combinations, and numerical totals.] Numerology apparently had its origin in ancient Babylon and, along with other forms of divination, comes under divine condemnation.​—De 18:10-12

                              God uses the 7 Spirits to signify He is everywhere, He uses the 7 eyes to signify He sees everything. In my opinion, the 144,000 are also a misconstrued understanding. The Jews who are fleeing Judea, to Petra, are shown in my honest opinion, as 12 x 12 x 1000, which means fullness via the number 12, and completeness via 1000 which is just used as a 10 with a larger emphasis. When God says one day is as a 1000 years it actually means eternity because God is eternal, there is no time with God, He lives in all time at once, hence 1000 equals eternity or all time, completeness etc. etc. The extra zeros are just an added emphasis of "COMPLETENESS" so to speak.

                              The key to the 10 Horns is understanding its "FRACTURED NATURE" and God calling them Iron & clay shows this. God bless brother. Going through my radition, haven't had time to get on here in a while, you guys say a prayer for me.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                                A commentator is worth respect because they have studied these things. However I do not know that they have some calling of God. Some may have done, others might simply be putting forward their own thoughts, just like the ECFs.


                                Eph 4.11 So Christ himself gave... teachers.

                                You either believe this or you don't. We must recognize that some teachers are better or worse than others. Even the most reputed teachers/commentators in history make mistakes, and have flawed theology. However, we should be able to extract from them revelation from Christ, who has inspired them. If we don't, we're missing out on a ministry that *Christ gave us!* This is how the Church is supposed to operate!

                                Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                                You see the problem with this is that WHEN the thing described to have happened was DESCRIBED, it was described with FIVE things.
                                Further the person did NOT say "finally a 4th thing."
                                In Aramaic they do have a word for "last":


                                My brother already informed me that there was another word that could've been used, and wasn't used for whatever reason. Apparently, the vav did the job more simply. Perhaps it was simply apparent that there were only 4 Kingdoms, and that the "legs" Kingdom was the last?

                                Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                                IF Daniel had wanted to clarify the 4th kingdom was the last kingdom, then this word would have been used.
                                Daniel uses this word FIVE times in his book, for example:
                                Dan 8:19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.


                                Daniel also could've used the words "5th Kingdom" had he wanted to clarify the issue. But he apparently saw it as sufficient to say there was only a "4th Kingdom," which would by default render the "Divided Kingdom" equal to the 4th Kingdom, albeit at a later stage of that Kingdom.

                                Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                                There is NO flaw in my reasoning. There are NO superficial differences. EVERYTHING about the 4th and the 5th kingdom are different EXCEPT one superficial similarity, that there is partly iron in the 5th kingdom.


                                Let me be clear about this so that we don't endlessly state the same arguments. I *agree* that there are differences between the 4th Kingdom and the Divided Kingdom. We do *not* disagree on that! What we disagree on is whether these differences require that we present them as separate Kingdoms? I don't believe so. You do.

                                We already know the arguments. I find the commonality of iron in both legs and feet as indication of the same Kingdom. You find the clay addition determining separate Kingdoms. I find the mention of a "4th Kingdom" as determinative that it is the Last Kingdom. You think that mention of a Kingdom past the 4th Kingdom as indicative of a "5th Kingdom." No need to rehash.


                                Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                                I have paid attention to the CLAIM but note HOW and WHY it is a FALSE interpretation.
                                I have NO respect for "quasi-historical mystical continuations of conquered kingdoms".


                                Yea, this seems to be the whole issue, and you state it well. And I fully sympathize. It is indeed an odd way of describing a Kingdom, when the capital of that Kingdom falls, and the other capital remains, and the Christian religion seems to carry the culture on to other kingdoms in the same regions.

                                And yet, this is the Bible, with its own language and its own mysticism. The Kingdom of God itself has a mystical definition to it. Although we know it is presently in heaven, there is a sense in which it is here presently.

                                I do think that Roman Civilization only began with the old Roman Empire. And God is, in my conviction, defining this Last Kingdom as an unfallen Civilization that has been perpetuated in European Christian Kingdoms. And so, our arguments are out there, and we can each decide for ourselves what is truest to the Scriptures. Thanks for your input.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X