Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Daniel

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

  • Re: Daniel

    Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    I don't know where it leaves anybody, but I do know what "soon" and "near" mean, and what they cannot mean. I'm not interested in how many Christians think they mean differently, it's not a vote, words mean what they mean. Changing the meaning of scripture is not wise.
    You just danced around the points I raised in post #366 without laying a marker. The post is open to every objective mind to interpret as they see fit.

    Comment


    • Re: Daniel

      Originally Posted by Trivalee

      Yes, that's the battle between good and evil.


      But you said the final battle between good and evil what about the battle in Revelation 20?

      Comment


      • Re: Daniel

        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
        You just danced around the points I raised in post #366 without laying a marker. The post is open to every objective mind to interpret as they see fit.
        I didn't want to be accused of a "need to have the last word" or of "arguing hermeneutics that I don't really understand."

        I have no trouble "working out who embodies lies and evil against Jesus who symbolizes truth and goodness." Good and evil battling implies Good is threatened by evil, which it is not.

        What I have trouble with is your interpretation of scripture and of "Armageddon." But this is off topic to Daniel.

        Comment


        • Re: Daniel

          Originally posted by marty fox View Post
          Originally Posted by Trivalee

          Yes, that's the battle between good and evil.


          But you said the final battle between good and evil what about the battle in Revelation 20?
          Actually no battle occurred in Rev 20. We are told that Satan gathered a bunch of misfits after release from prison and surrounded the holy city - only this time, God was in no mood to indulge his fantasies and sent down fire from heaven to devour them (Rev 20:9).

          Comment


          • Re: Daniel

            Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
            Actually no battle occurred in Rev 20. We are told that Satan gathered a bunch of misfits after release from prison and surrounded the holy city - only this time, God was in no mood to indulge his fantasies and sent down fire from heaven to devour them (Rev 20:9).
            If you reread the scenes in Rev 19 and Rev 20 you will see that there is no difference there is no battle just sudden destruction one by fire and one by the sword of Jesus, mouth which is his word

            Comment


            • Re: Daniel

              Originally posted by marty fox View Post
              If you reread the scenes in Rev 19 and Rev 20 you will see that there is no difference there is no battle just sudden destruction one by fire and one by the sword of Jesus, mouth which is his word
              Prophet Zechariah described it as a battle.

              Zech 14:3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

              Comment


              • Re: Daniel

                Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                Prophet Zechariah described it as a battle.

                Zech 14:3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
                Are you saying this verse refers to revelation 19 or 20?

                If 19 were do you see Jerusalem in revelation 19?

                Comment


                • Re: Daniel

                  Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                  Are you saying this verse refers to revelation 19 or 20?

                  If 19 were do you see Jerusalem in revelation 19?
                  Zech 14:3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

                  The above battle refers to Armageddon. Did Jesus fight any war in the first advent? The answer is no. Therefore it doesn't take a genius to work out that Zech 14 refers to the end times battle.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Daniel

                    Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                    Zech 14:3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

                    The above battle refers to Armageddon. Did Jesus fight any war in the first advent? The answer is no. Therefore it doesn't take a genius to work out that Zech 14 refers to the end times battle.
                    Revelation 19 omits the words Armageddon and Jerusalem would it really if they both were the places?

                    Why would the bible ever not mention them so we knew for sure that they were the same events?

                    There are so many differences in revelation 19 and Zechariah 14 like the people fleeing who are they and why are they fleeing if Jesus destroyes all of his enemies?

                    What do you believe the sword of Jesus, mouth is a literal sword or his word?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Daniel

                      Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                      Revelation 19 omits the words Armageddon and Jerusalem would it really if they both were the places?

                      Why would the bible ever not mention them so we knew for sure that they were the same events?

                      There are so many differences in revelation 19 and Zechariah 14 like the people fleeing who are they and why are they fleeing if Jesus destroyes all of his enemies?

                      What do you believe the sword of Jesus, mouth is a literal sword or his word?
                      There is no requirement for Rev 19 to specifically mention Armageddon and Jerusalem as the true event has been satisfactorily stated. The truth is that the word "Armageddon" doesn't exist anywhere in the Bible, nevertheless, everyone knows what it stands for. Armageddon is an area around the plains of Megiddo in Northern Israel generally known as the end times battleground between the forces of "good" led by the return Jesus Christ and the axis of evil commanded by the Antichrist.

                      Rev 19:14-21 gave a vivid description of the outcome of this battle. on the other hand, Zech 14 describes the Antichrist's victory over Jerusalem before his ultimate defeat by Jesus Christ. And, as in every war, there is the remnant that survives alive who either flees the battle zone or are captured and taken captive.

                      There is no literal sword coming out of Jesus Christ' mouth. So the sword is the word of God which speaks of condemnation to the wickedness of the Beast.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Daniel

                        Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
                        Perpetually imminent is a contradiction. Nothing can be always soon, it is either soon, or it is not soon. From the writings of the apostles we can deduce that they believed Christ was coming soon. It is a theme repeated often. But soon can only mean soon. And we, in our time, is not by any measure "soon" to them when they wrote it.

                        How language can be twisted to a preferred meaning, and then declared to be correct, is not reasonable. When Paul wrote "now" he could have only meant what was "now" to him.
                        Yes even in the first century there were many antichrists, the now did apply then. If you do a study on the word antichrist it means "in place of", many aspired to be Christ then especially during the Roman War when a few Jewish leaders wanted to be the hero to destroy the Roman Army.

                        Yet those antichrists continue afterwards as well, culminating in the man of sin at the end of the age. There is nothing wrong with calling the final antichrist, "the antichrist", it's just a well known label for the man of sin who is destroyed at the second coming.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Daniel

                          Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                          There is no requirement for Rev 19 to specifically mention Armageddon and Jerusalem as the true event has been satisfactorily stated. The truth is that the word "Armageddon" doesn't exist anywhere in the Bible, nevertheless, everyone knows what it stands for. Armageddon is an area around the plains of Megiddo in Northern Israel generally known as the end times battleground between the forces of "good" led by the return Jesus Christ and the axis of evil commanded by the Antichrist.

                          Rev 19:14-21 gave a vivid description of the outcome of this battle. on the other hand, Zech 14 describes the Antichrist's victory over Jerusalem before his ultimate defeat by Jesus Christ. And, as in every war, there is the remnant that survives alive who either flees the battle zone or are captured and taken captive.

                          There is no literal sword coming out of Jesus Christ' mouth. So the sword is the word of God which speaks of condemnation to the wickedness of the Beast.
                          Yes the sword is His word which is the only weapon mentioned in revelation 19 thus it is not a literal battle but a symbolic sign of judgement

                          Armageddon is mentioned in the bible

                          Revelation 16:16
                          16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon

                          Zechariah 14 isnít the antichrist victory over Jerusalem God gathers them and that is what He did in 70AD

                          Zechariah 14;2
                          2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city

                          Luke 19:41-44
                          41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, ďIf you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peaceóbut now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of Godís coming to you.Ē

                          Comment


                          • Re: Daniel

                            Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                            Revelation 19 omits the words Armageddon and Jerusalem would it really if they both were the places?

                            Why would the bible ever not mention them so we knew for sure that they were the same events?

                            There are so many differences in revelation 19 and Zechariah 14 like the people fleeing who are they and why are they fleeing if Jesus destroyes all of his enemies?

                            What do you believe the sword of Jesus, mouth is a literal sword or his word?
                            It's not logical for every prophecy to mention everything, due to so many events occurring at the second coming.

                            Sure Rev 19 does not mention a location, but it mentions a final battle involving the beast. The beast starts his reign with deceiving signs and wonders just like the man of sin, who is also destroyed at the second coming.

                            Daniel 11 also places the destruction of the boastful leader at Jerusalem at the time of the resurrection.

                            It all fits, the boastful leader of Rev 13, Rev 19, 2 Thess 2, Dan 7 will be destroyed at Jerusalem at the second coming. This is one consistent pattern that is pretty easy to understand.

                            Zech 14 also places that final battle at Jerusalem, and so does the winepress of wrath of Rev 19 match the Rev 14 winepress of wrath just outside Jerusalem, which matches the winepress of wrath in Joel 3 on the DOTL just outside Jerusalem at Jehosaphat.

                            Joel 2 states that the army extends from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, which explains why the valley of Megiddo is also involved during the battle of Armageddon.

                            The final war will be of more dramatic proportions than 70 AD, and many events will occur then that do not match 70 AD which was a slaughter of Jews. The war involving the beast is a slaughter of armies attacking Jerusalem, note the difference??

                            Second coming and DOTL prophecies fit well with each other. To move the second coming into history does not fit all the pieces together of this massive attacking army spread across Israel and whose destruction is concentrated at a location just outside of Jerusalem at a location described as the "winepress" of wrath.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Daniel

                              Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                              Yes even in the first century there were many antichrists, the now did apply then. If you do a study on the word antichrist it means "in place of", many aspired to be Christ then especially during the Roman War when a few Jewish leaders wanted to be the hero to destroy the Roman Army.

                              Yet those antichrists continue afterwards as well, culminating in the man of sin at the end of the age. There is nothing wrong with calling the final antichrist, "the antichrist", it's just a well known label for the man of sin who is destroyed at the second coming.
                              Since Christ there have always been antichrists. Scripture defines it perfectly and does not need any embellishment. The beast and the man of lawlessness were also antichrists, as were and are all the Jews and everyone else who denied Christ is the Son of God. When a single individual is referred to as THE antichrist it can lead to different characters in scripture being combined into a single character.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Daniel

                                Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
                                Since Christ there have always been antichrists. Scripture defines it perfectly and does not need any embellishment. The beast and the man of lawlessness were also antichrists, as were and are all the Jews and everyone else who denied Christ is the Son of God. When a single individual is referred to as THE antichrist it can lead to different characters in scripture being combined into a single character.
                                Only if you want to be argumentative.

                                The rest of us know that when the term "antichrist is used people have an end-times character in mind who is also known as the man of sin.

                                Sure if you want to debate if he will exist, that would be an interesting debate. But to debate common usage as not perfectly semantically correct is actually a distraction to the real point you are trying to make, not really a constructive approach.

                                Regarding the real point you are attempting to put forward, the man of sin is a future character, not historical. You have not shown why your historical view should be preferred.

                                If one goes too symbolic, any character can fit. Because the second coming isn't really the second coming. Signs in the sky are not really signs in the sky. A great earthquake is not really a great earthquake. A period of persecution is not really a period of persecution. A ruler isn't really a ruler. A war isn't really a war. Israel isn't really Israel. Jerusalem isn't really Jerusalem. Jesus isn't really Jesus. The crucifixion isn't really the crucifixion. The 12 disciples are not really the 12 disciples.

                                That method is a joke, you can't pick and choose what is symbolic. The Bible is clear that the man of sin will come to power in Jerusalem amidst signs and wonders, have authority over the nations, and be destroyed in a war against Israel. The armies attacking Jerusalem will be slaughtered then, at the second coming. No historical character can possibly fit that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X