I want to deal with your Beast theory.
Please lead out by stating what exactly it is and your evidence for it.
Lets us begin with something of a quiet start to our discussion.
A simple statement in relation to Daniels Prophecy.
I believe the imagery in Daniels Prophesies of Beasts speak to the rise and fall of nations or empires and that the same imagery though given through the eyes of Neb is that of a mighty warrior showing forth the pride and pomp of man.
Dan 2 & 7, are in fact the same symbolism but with different imagery...
It is God who revealed these empires using the symbology of Beasts to characterise certain elements applicable to their empire and their end
Really what I am seeking here is your understanding of the symbology adopted by God to demonstrate the nations.
Insight
LH
As you may be aware the apocalypse is one of unveiling something which has been disclosed or hidden; a revelation of divine secrets which are revealed by divine purpose. I have found in my studies that Daniel and Revelation possess some wonderful commonality in regards to the style and symbology they harmonise beautifully to provide us powerful insight into the Mind of the Father and now the Son.
I will be referring to both books showing forth a connection and theme. Both books record the dramatic crises, the rise and fall of nations symbolised as beasts, the emphasis on the time of the end, appear in both books.
Another symbol as Daniel was revealed is the "man of the one" (Dan 10) and The Revelation its "one like unto the Son of man" (Rev. 1).
Daniel sees the Ancient of Days enthroned and manifested in the earth; and John sees "the appearance of one upon a throne" whose likeness is to God and man. Daniel tells of visions of beasts striving for the mastery; and similar visions are seen by John in Patmos.
Both stand upon the sands of the sea, and describe the effect of the storm that rages thereon (Dan. 7:2; Rev. 13:1).
Both books outline the final outcome of the Divine purpose in similar terms. Daniel declares that "the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed" (though itself overthrowing other kingdoms Dan. 2:44); and John hears voices in the political heavens proclaiming:
"The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ and He shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15).
In speaking to the topic of beasts we shall find the Spirit draws us into the imagery of perverse animals which reveal their ferocious anger consuming lands peoples and nations.
I look forward to entering the Word once more to find the hidden knowledge of Yahweh.
Insight
I am not exactly sure what you want from me.
: LightHammer Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 11:24:14
I am not exactly sure what you want from me.
Nothing at present.
I wanted to lay a foundation showing forth the common message/symbols from both the books of Daniel and Revelation.
You may like to comment on the below should you agree/disagree
Both books record the dramatic crises, the rise and fall of nations symbolised as beasts, the emphasis on the time of the end, appear in both books.
After this you may like to guide me in regards to which beast you wish to discuss.
We have four (4) in Daniel and four (4) in Revelation though the beasts of Revelation are in fact the same beast in different phases of its developement?
Insight
: Insight Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 20:41:20
: LightHammer Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 11:24:14
I am not exactly sure what you want from me.
Nothing at present.
I wanted to lay a foundation showing forth the common message/symbols from both the books of Daniel and Revelation.
You may like to comment on the below should you agree/disagree
Both books record the dramatic crises, the rise and fall of nations symbolised as beasts, the emphasis on the time of the end, appear in both books.
After this you may like to guide me in regards to which beast you wish to discuss.
We have four (4) in Daniel and four (4) in Revelation though the beasts of Revelation are in fact the same beast in different phases of its developement?
Insight
Daniel is pretty much agreed upon among all eschatological schools of thought. Let's deal with Revelation. The Beasts of the Sea and Land.
: LightHammer Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 21:04:04
: Insight Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 20:41:20
: LightHammer Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 11:24:14
I am not exactly sure what you want from me.
Nothing at present.
I wanted to lay a foundation showing forth the common message/symbols from both the books of Daniel and Revelation.
You may like to comment on the below should you agree/disagree
Both books record the dramatic crises, the rise and fall of nations symbolised as beasts, the emphasis on the time of the end, appear in both books.
After this you may like to guide me in regards to which beast you wish to discuss.
We have four (4) in Daniel and four (4) in Revelation though the beasts of Revelation are in fact the same beast in different phases of its developement?
Insight
Daniel is pretty much agreed upon among all eschatological schools of thought. Let's deal with Revelation. The Beasts of the Sea and Land.
So you agree the 4th terrible beast of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire (Iron)? This would reduce my work load in Revelation if this was so...
::smile::
Daniel's night vision of Four Beasts.
1. like a Lion
2. a Bear
3. a Leopard;
4. the fourth was like nothing seen among beasts.
LH, it is this last and final fourth beast of Dan 7:23 which must be considered in the Revelation as we are told it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it, which must be read to mean as per the interpretation of Dan 7 "diverse from all kingdoms."
Consider it traits with me...
· it had a head
· eleven horns
· claws of brass
· teeth of iron.
Daniel saw it arise in a stormy period out of the Great Sea; and Daniel perceived that this beast would continue in the earth until the "Ancient of Days
: Insight Thu Jan 26, 2012 - 21:24:33
Allow you to consider the evidence below from Dan 7:
21 I (Daniel) beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
LH, the importance of the little word "until" is important as it connects the rising of this great empire and its existence in the earth until Christ returns styled "ancient of days"
Daniel's prophecy does not possess the finer details of the apocalypse clearly God withheld such knowledge for John at Patmos and the seven ekklesias and then those smaller communities throughout the following 2000 years.
Dan 7 is really a general outline which Yahweh of course was required to wait until the revealing of the "son of man" who was not yet made known in the earth.
If you read Rev 1:1 you will see that Yahweh gave the finer details outlinning the things which must shortly come to pass to Jesus Christ, in turn Jesus sent this via his messenger to John at Patmos.
I hope to in time outline in great detail the following symbols as delivered to John:
1. the Great Fiery-Red Dragon (Catholic Dragon)
2. the Beast of the Sea
3. the Name of Blasphemy
4. the Beast of the Earth
5. the Image of the Beast
6. The Woman- riding a Scarlet-Beast.
Every element of the above symbols are seen in the forth and final beast of Daniel 7
In previous discussion in the Catholic forum we have spoken about the terrible aspects of the beasts actions amidst the nations it has at times devoured whether doctrinally or militarily.
God Willing our discussion will be fruitfull.
Insight
: Insight Thu Jan 26, 2012 - 21:01:31
: LightHammer Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 21:04:04
: Insight Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 20:41:20
: LightHammer Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 11:24:14
I am not exactly sure what you want from me.
Nothing at present.
I wanted to lay a foundation showing forth the common message/symbols from both the books of Daniel and Revelation.
You may like to comment on the below should you agree/disagree
Both books record the dramatic crises, the rise and fall of nations symbolised as beasts, the emphasis on the time of the end, appear in both books.
After this you may like to guide me in regards to which beast you wish to discuss.
We have four (4) in Daniel and four (4) in Revelation though the beasts of Revelation are in fact the same beast in different phases of its developement?
Insight
Daniel is pretty much agreed upon among all eschatological schools of thought. Let's deal with Revelation. The Beasts of the Sea and Land.
So you agree the 4th terrible beast of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire (Iron)? This would reduce my work load in Revelation if this was so...
::smile::
::headscratch::
Of course I agree the 4th Beast was the Roman Empire. Nothing new about that one. The Catholic Church was believed that before there any Protestants.
I can see this is going to be interesting.
Derived from Reply #7Consider it traits with me...
· it had a head
· eleven horns
· claws of brass
· teeth of iron.
I wanted to bring this to your attention. The 4th Beast of Daniel 7 at no time had 11 horns. He originally had 10 but then a small one sprouted destroying 3 horns to claim its place on the Beast's head.
10-3= 7
7+1=8St. Daniel decribes of the small horn's ascension and the 3 horns eradication occuring simultaneously. In conclusion the Beast never had 11 horns at a single time.
Daniel saw it arise in a stormy period out of the Great Sea; and Daniel perceived that this beast would continue in the earth until the "Ancient of Days
::eatingpopcorn:
: LightHammer Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 16:07:40
Derived from Reply #7
Consider it traits with me...
· it had a head
· eleven horns
· claws of brass
· teeth of iron.
I wanted to bring this to your attention. The 4th Beast of Daniel 7 at no time had 11 horns. He originally had 10 but then a small one sprouted destroying 3 horns to claim its place on the Beast's head.
10-3= 7
7+1=8
LH
If I can bring to your attention the inspired record of the eleven horns, maybe your understanding can be adjusted "a little
: LightHammer Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 16:07:40
Derived from Reply #7
Consider it traits with me...
· it had a head
· eleven horns
· claws of brass
· teeth of iron.
I wanted to bring this to your attention. The 4th Beast of Daniel 7 at no time had 11 horns. He originally had 10 but then a small one sprouted destroying 3 horns to claim its place on the Beast's head.
10-3= 7
7+1=8
St. Daniel decribes of the small horn's ascension and the 3 horns eradication occuring simultaneously. In conclusion the Beast never had 11 horns at a single time.
Daniel saw it arise in a stormy period out of the Great Sea; and Daniel perceived that this beast would continue in the earth until the "Ancient of Days
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
I'm using the very same verse you are. In it the process is clearly illustrated. The 4th Beast at no time ever had 11 horns. Three of its ten horns were uprooted to make room for the little one.
I don't know how fundamental eleven horns is to your theory but the 4th beast never had eleven horns.
: LightHammer Sun Jan 29, 2012 - 08:56:35
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
I'm using the very same verse you are. In it the process is clearly illustrated. The 4th Beast at no time ever had 11 horns. Three of its ten horns were uprooted to make room for the little one.
I don't know how fundamental eleven horns is to your theory but the 4th beast never had eleven horns.
In the process of the little horn coming through one is hard pushed to argue that eleven horns are not present on/in the beast. If you believe the three horns were uprooted before the little horn came up?...well let's just agree the beast possessed eleven horns and at the end of the process there were eight.
This understanding is not pivotal in the correct interpretation of the Revelation Beast, however understanding the fulfilment of the little horn would change your opinion very quickly.
: Insight Sun Jan 29, 2012 - 04:44:50
: LightHammer Fri Jan 27, 2012 - 16:07:40
Derived from Reply #7
Consider it traits with me...
· it had a head
· eleven horns
· claws of brass
· teeth of iron.
I wanted to bring this to your attention. The 4th Beast of Daniel 7 at no time had 11 horns. He originally had 10 but then a small one sprouted destroying 3 horns to claim its place on the Beast's head.
10-3= 7
7+1=8
St. Daniel decribes of the small horn's ascension and the 3 horns eradication occuring simultaneously. In conclusion the Beast never had 11 horns at a single time.
Daniel saw it arise in a stormy period out of the Great Sea; and Daniel perceived that this beast would continue in the earth until the "Ancient of Days
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 04:53:26
: LightHammer Sun Jan 29, 2012 - 08:56:35
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
I'm using the very same verse you are. In it the process is clearly illustrated. The 4th Beast at no time ever had 11 horns. Three of its ten horns were uprooted to make room for the little one.
I don't know how fundamental eleven horns is to your theory but the 4th beast never had eleven horns.
In the process of the little horn coming through one is hard pushed to argue that eleven horns are not present on/in the beast. If you believe the three horns were uprooted before the little horn came up?...well let's just agree the beast possessed eleven horns and at the end of the process there were eight.
This understanding is not pivotal in the correct interpretation of the Revelation Beast, however understanding the fulfilment of the little horn would change your opinion very quickly.
No the 4th Beast never possessed 11 horns period. Its simple English so it shouldn't be that hard to accept.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)You're not illiterate so I know you know that there were never 11 horns at one time. I don't even its a big deal but it aggravates me when Sacred Scripture is crytsal clear and people still hold to their own things. It makes it hard for me to take people like that seriously.
The Beast had ten horns then three were uprooted to make way for the little horn. St. Daniel is abundantly clear on that.
You can act like the Beast had eleven horns if you want but he never did and this conversation will only keep referring back to this verse each and everytime you try and insuate that the Beast had eleven horns.
Quote
If you believe the 4th Beast of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire what do you believe the 'Little Horn" to be?
I'll deal with this one when I get back.
: LightHammer Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 11:46:20
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 04:53:26
: LightHammer Sun Jan 29, 2012 - 08:56:35
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
I'm using the very same verse you are. In it the process is clearly illustrated. The 4th Beast at no time ever had 11 horns. Three of its ten horns were uprooted to make room for the little one.
I don't know how fundamental eleven horns is to your theory but the 4th beast never had eleven horns.
In the process of the little horn coming through one is hard pushed to argue that eleven horns are not present on/in the beast. If you believe the three horns were uprooted before the little horn came up?...well let's just agree the beast possessed eleven horns and at the end of the process there were eight.
This understanding is not pivotal in the correct interpretation of the Revelation Beast, however understanding the fulfilment of the little horn would change your opinion very quickly.
No the 4th Beast never possessed 11 horns period. Its simple English so it shouldn't be that hard to accept.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
You're not illiterate so I know you know that there were never 11 horns at one time. I don't even its a big deal but it aggravates me when Sacred Scripture is crytsal clear and people still hold to their own things. It makes it hard for me to take people like that seriously.
The Beast had ten horns then three were uprooted to make way for the little horn. St. Daniel is abundantly clear on that.
You can act like the Beast had eleven horns if you want but he never did and this conversation will only keep referring back to this verse each and everytime you try and insuate that the Beast had eleven horns.
Quote
If you believe the 4th Beast of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire what do you believe the 'Little Horn" to be?
I'll deal with this one when I get back.
So what in fact you are teaching is the three horns were removed before the little arrogant horn came up? And you would adamantly state this is according to the Scripture.
Any right minded student will see that a process of coming up and displacing meant that for a period of time the beast held 11 horns
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one,Very simple...I even gave you a picture to illustrate.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gwcnvLzUgb8/Sp3Vk3FyVJI/AAAAAAAAABU/8k3RkMC2e6c/s320/DANIEL-7-little-horn.jpg)
Process
1. First 10 horns
2 Then little horn came up
3. Eventually three horns were uprooted
I am speaking to point 2 where you are going staight to point 3.
Insight
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 22:09:48
: LightHammer Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 11:46:20
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 04:53:26
: LightHammer Sun Jan 29, 2012 - 08:56:35
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
I'm using the very same verse you are. In it the process is clearly illustrated. The 4th Beast at no time ever had 11 horns. Three of its ten horns were uprooted to make room for the little one.
I don't know how fundamental eleven horns is to your theory but the 4th beast never had eleven horns.
In the process of the little horn coming through one is hard pushed to argue that eleven horns are not present on/in the beast. If you believe the three horns were uprooted before the little horn came up?...well let's just agree the beast possessed eleven horns and at the end of the process there were eight.
This understanding is not pivotal in the correct interpretation of the Revelation Beast, however understanding the fulfilment of the little horn would change your opinion very quickly.
No the 4th Beast never possessed 11 horns period. Its simple English so it shouldn't be that hard to accept.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
You're not illiterate so I know you know that there were never 11 horns at one time. I don't even its a big deal but it aggravates me when Sacred Scripture is crytsal clear and people still hold to their own things. It makes it hard for me to take people like that seriously.
The Beast had ten horns then three were uprooted to make way for the little horn. St. Daniel is abundantly clear on that.
You can act like the Beast had eleven horns if you want but he never did and this conversation will only keep referring back to this verse each and everytime you try and insuate that the Beast had eleven horns.
Quote
If you believe the 4th Beast of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire what do you believe the 'Little Horn" to be?
I'll deal with this one when I get back.
So what in fact you are teaching is the three horns were removed before the little arrogant horn came up? And you would adamantly state this is according to the Scripture.
Any right minded student will see that a process of coming up and displacing meant that for a period of time the beast held 11 horns
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one,
Very simple...I even gave you a picture to illustrate.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gwcnvLzUgb8/Sp3Vk3FyVJI/AAAAAAAAABU/8k3RkMC2e6c/s320/DANIEL-7-little-horn.jpg)
Process
1. First 10 horns
2 Then little horn came up
3. Eventually three horns were uprooted
I am speaking to point 2 where you are going staight to point 3.
Insight
How about you read the entire verse and try again. You are trying to suggest that the three horns were uprooted after the Little Horn sprouted but the Bible is clear that they were uprooted before it sprouted.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)There is no "eventually the three horns were uprooted after the Little Horn sprouted". The three horns were gone before the Little Horn was there.
I'm going to pretend that English is a second language for you and give you a more simple translation.
Daniel 7:8 I beheld the horns, and lo! another little horn came forth (out) of the midst of those, and three of the first horns were drawn out from the face thereof (and three of the first horns were drawn out to make room for it); and lo! eyes as (the) eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
: LightHammer Tue Jan 31, 2012 - 06:56:02
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 22:09:48
: LightHammer Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 11:46:20
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 04:53:26
: LightHammer Sun Jan 29, 2012 - 08:56:35
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
I'm using the very same verse you are. In it the process is clearly illustrated. The 4th Beast at no time ever had 11 horns. Three of its ten horns were uprooted to make room for the little one.
I don't know how fundamental eleven horns is to your theory but the 4th beast never had eleven horns.
In the process of the little horn coming through one is hard pushed to argue that eleven horns are not present on/in the beast. If you believe the three horns were uprooted before the little horn came up?...well let's just agree the beast possessed eleven horns and at the end of the process there were eight.
This understanding is not pivotal in the correct interpretation of the Revelation Beast, however understanding the fulfilment of the little horn would change your opinion very quickly.
No the 4th Beast never possessed 11 horns period. Its simple English so it shouldn't be that hard to accept.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
You're not illiterate so I know you know that there were never 11 horns at one time. I don't even its a big deal but it aggravates me when Sacred Scripture is crytsal clear and people still hold to their own things. It makes it hard for me to take people like that seriously.
The Beast had ten horns then three were uprooted to make way for the little horn. St. Daniel is abundantly clear on that.
You can act like the Beast had eleven horns if you want but he never did and this conversation will only keep referring back to this verse each and everytime you try and insuate that the Beast had eleven horns.
Quote
If you believe the 4th Beast of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire what do you believe the 'Little Horn" to be?
I'll deal with this one when I get back.
So what in fact you are teaching is the three horns were removed before the little arrogant horn came up? And you would adamantly state this is according to the Scripture.
Any right minded student will see that a process of coming up and displacing meant that for a period of time the beast held 11 horns
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one,
Very simple...I even gave you a picture to illustrate.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gwcnvLzUgb8/Sp3Vk3FyVJI/AAAAAAAAABU/8k3RkMC2e6c/s320/DANIEL-7-little-horn.jpg)
Process
1. First 10 horns
2 Then little horn came up
3. Eventually three horns were uprooted
I am speaking to point 2 where you are going straight to point 3.
Insight
How about you read the entire verse and try again. You are trying to suggest that the three horns were uprooted after the Little Horn sprouted but the Bible is clear that they were uprooted before it sprouted.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
There is no "eventually the three horns were uprooted after the Little Horn sprouted". The three horns were gone before the Little Horn was there.
I'm going to pretend that English is a second language for you and give you a more simple translation.
Daniel 7:8 I beheld the horns, and lo! another little horn came forth (out) of the midst of those, and three of the first horns were drawn out from the face thereof (and three of the first horns were drawn out to make room for it); and lo! eyes as (the) eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
O I see your error...
New International Version (©1984)
"While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted
before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
Or in the presence of it...and not as you imply "prior" to it coming up.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled
out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
While I was thinking about the horns, another horn, a little horn, came up among them. It uprooted three of the other horns. This horn had eyes like human eyes and a mouth that spoke impressive things.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
American King James Version
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn,
before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
American Standard Version
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one,
before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Douay-Rheims Bible
I considered the horns, and behold another little horn sprung out of the midst of them: and three of the first horns were plucked
up at the presence thereof: and behold eyes like the eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
Darby Bible Translation
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another, a little horn, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots; and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
English Revised Version
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Webster's Bible Translation
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
World English Bible
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Young's Literal Translation
I was considering about the horns, and lo, another horn, a little one, hath come up between them, and three of the first horns have been
eradicated from before it, and lo, eyes as the eyes of man are in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
If you ponder the context and structure of the original text you will see that the idea of being plucked up in the "presence of" is far more appropriate than them being removed before the little horn even came up!
I am not English scholar, unlike yourself, but I am sure you will find this so.
Insight
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6925&t=KJV
And the Hebrew agrees. ::smile::
i.e. before, in front of...
The three were uprooted in front of the little horn...
Hence why I am waiting for your understanding of the little horn to see if your understanding speaks to this verse correctly.
We shall see.
Insight
: Insight Tue Jan 31, 2012 - 16:23:53
: LightHammer Tue Jan 31, 2012 - 06:56:02
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 22:09:48
: LightHammer Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 11:46:20
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 04:53:26
: LightHammer Sun Jan 29, 2012 - 08:56:35
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
I'm using the very same verse you are. In it the process is clearly illustrated. The 4th Beast at no time ever had 11 horns. Three of its ten horns were uprooted to make room for the little one.
I don't know how fundamental eleven horns is to your theory but the 4th beast never had eleven horns.
In the process of the little horn coming through one is hard pushed to argue that eleven horns are not present on/in the beast. If you believe the three horns were uprooted before the little horn came up?...well let's just agree the beast possessed eleven horns and at the end of the process there were eight.
This understanding is not pivotal in the correct interpretation of the Revelation Beast, however understanding the fulfilment of the little horn would change your opinion very quickly.
No the 4th Beast never possessed 11 horns period. Its simple English so it shouldn't be that hard to accept.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
You're not illiterate so I know you know that there were never 11 horns at one time. I don't even its a big deal but it aggravates me when Sacred Scripture is crytsal clear and people still hold to their own things. It makes it hard for me to take people like that seriously.
The Beast had ten horns then three were uprooted to make way for the little horn. St. Daniel is abundantly clear on that.
You can act like the Beast had eleven horns if you want but he never did and this conversation will only keep referring back to this verse each and everytime you try and insuate that the Beast had eleven horns.
Quote
If you believe the 4th Beast of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire what do you believe the 'Little Horn" to be?
I'll deal with this one when I get back.
So what in fact you are teaching is the three horns were removed before the little arrogant horn came up? And you would adamantly state this is according to the Scripture.
Any right minded student will see that a process of coming up and displacing meant that for a period of time the beast held 11 horns
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one,
Very simple...I even gave you a picture to illustrate.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gwcnvLzUgb8/Sp3Vk3FyVJI/AAAAAAAAABU/8k3RkMC2e6c/s320/DANIEL-7-little-horn.jpg)
Process
1. First 10 horns
2 Then little horn came up
3. Eventually three horns were uprooted
I am speaking to point 2 where you are going straight to point 3.
Insight
How about you read the entire verse and try again. You are trying to suggest that the three horns were uprooted after the Little Horn sprouted but the Bible is clear that they were uprooted before it sprouted.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
There is no "eventually the three horns were uprooted after the Little Horn sprouted". The three horns were gone before the Little Horn was there.
I'm going to pretend that English is a second language for you and give you a more simple translation.
Daniel 7:8 I beheld the horns, and lo! another little horn came forth (out) of the midst of those, and three of the first horns were drawn out from the face thereof (and three of the first horns were drawn out to make room for it); and lo! eyes as (the) eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
O I see your error...
New International Version (©1984)
"While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
Or in the presence of it...and not as you imply "prior" to it coming up.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
While I was thinking about the horns, another horn, a little horn, came up among them. It uprooted three of the other horns. This horn had eyes like human eyes and a mouth that spoke impressive things.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
American King James Version
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
American Standard Version
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Douay-Rheims Bible
I considered the horns, and behold another little horn sprung out of the midst of them: and three of the first horns were plucked up at the presence thereof: and behold eyes like the eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
Darby Bible Translation
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another, a little horn, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots; and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
English Revised Version
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Webster's Bible Translation
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
World English Bible
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Young's Literal Translation
I was considering about the horns, and lo, another horn, a little one, hath come up between them, and three of the first horns have been eradicated from before it, and lo, eyes as the eyes of man are in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
If you ponder the context and structure of the original text you will see that the idea of being plucked up in the "presence of" is far more appropriate than them being removed before the little horn even came up!
I am not English scholar, unlike yourself, but I am sure you will find this so.
Insight
Lol. Ok Insight let's pretend like the English language is that difficult. If you read any of these verses it clearly states that the ascendancy of the little horn uprooted three before it but let's do this.
: LightHammer Tue Jan 31, 2012 - 17:54:55
: Insight Tue Jan 31, 2012 - 16:23:53
: LightHammer Tue Jan 31, 2012 - 06:56:02
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 22:09:48
: LightHammer Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 11:46:20
: Insight Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 04:53:26
: LightHammer Sun Jan 29, 2012 - 08:56:35
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
I'm using the very same verse you are. In it the process is clearly illustrated. The 4th Beast at no time ever had 11 horns. Three of its ten horns were uprooted to make room for the little one.
I don't know how fundamental eleven horns is to your theory but the 4th beast never had eleven horns.
In the process of the little horn coming through one is hard pushed to argue that eleven horns are not present on/in the beast. If you believe the three horns were uprooted before the little horn came up?...well let's just agree the beast possessed eleven horns and at the end of the process there were eight.
This understanding is not pivotal in the correct interpretation of the Revelation Beast, however understanding the fulfilment of the little horn would change your opinion very quickly.
No the 4th Beast never possessed 11 horns period. Its simple English so it shouldn't be that hard to accept.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
You're not illiterate so I know you know that there were never 11 horns at one time. I don't even its a big deal but it aggravates me when Sacred Scripture is crytsal clear and people still hold to their own things. It makes it hard for me to take people like that seriously.
The Beast had ten horns then three were uprooted to make way for the little horn. St. Daniel is abundantly clear on that.
You can act like the Beast had eleven horns if you want but he never did and this conversation will only keep referring back to this verse each and everytime you try and insuate that the Beast had eleven horns.
Quote
If you believe the 4th Beast of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire what do you believe the 'Little Horn" to be?
I'll deal with this one when I get back.
So what in fact you are teaching is the three horns were removed before the little arrogant horn came up? And you would adamantly state this is according to the Scripture.
Any right minded student will see that a process of coming up and displacing meant that for a period of time the beast held 11 horns
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one,
Very simple...I even gave you a picture to illustrate.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gwcnvLzUgb8/Sp3Vk3FyVJI/AAAAAAAAABU/8k3RkMC2e6c/s320/DANIEL-7-little-horn.jpg)
Process
1. First 10 horns
2 Then little horn came up
3. Eventually three horns were uprooted
I am speaking to point 2 where you are going straight to point 3.
Insight
How about you read the entire verse and try again. You are trying to suggest that the three horns were uprooted after the Little Horn sprouted but the Bible is clear that they were uprooted before it sprouted.
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8)
There is no "eventually the three horns were uprooted after the Little Horn sprouted". The three horns were gone before the Little Horn was there.
I'm going to pretend that English is a second language for you and give you a more simple translation.
Daniel 7:8 I beheld the horns, and lo! another little horn came forth (out) of the midst of those, and three of the first horns were drawn out from the face thereof (and three of the first horns were drawn out to make room for it); and lo! eyes as (the) eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
O I see your error...
New International Version (©1984)
"While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
Or in the presence of it...and not as you imply "prior" to it coming up.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
While I was thinking about the horns, another horn, a little horn, came up among them. It uprooted three of the other horns. This horn had eyes like human eyes and a mouth that spoke impressive things.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
American King James Version
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
American Standard Version
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Douay-Rheims Bible
I considered the horns, and behold another little horn sprung out of the midst of them: and three of the first horns were plucked up at the presence thereof: and behold eyes like the eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
Darby Bible Translation
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another, a little horn, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots; and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
English Revised Version
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Webster's Bible Translation
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
World English Bible
I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Young's Literal Translation
I was considering about the horns, and lo, another horn, a little one, hath come up between them, and three of the first horns have been eradicated from before it, and lo, eyes as the eyes of man are in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
If you ponder the context and structure of the original text you will see that the idea of being plucked up in the "presence of" is far more appropriate than them being removed before the little horn even came up!
I am not English scholar, unlike yourself, but I am sure you will find this so.
Insight
Lol. Ok Insight let's pretend like the English language is that difficult. If you read any of these verses it clearly states that the ascendancy of the little horn uprooted three before it but let's do this.
No need to laugh LH its an easy mistake to make.
You either stood
before me or you walked through the door
before me.
Dan 7:8 no doubt reads "in the presence" of the little horn.
When you consider the Scriptures at this level you will no doubt find our perceptions are often challenge by the reality of what is true. You ought not to be offended by this as it happens to me often.
You may see this as a small matter but when we come to define the little horn you will not be disappointed.
Insight
If you believe the 4th Beast of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire what do you believe the 'Little Horn" to be? : LightHammer Mon Jan 30, 2012 - 11:46:20
I'll deal with this one when I get back.
A friendly reminder
You asked for my theory regarding Little Horn. As you're aware there are two little horns of St. Daniel's prophecy. The little horn of chapter 7 and the little horn of chapter 8. They are completely independent from one another, with each sprouting on its own respective beast.
I personal believe that the little horn of St. Daniel 7 was Herod the Great and the little horn of chapter 8 was Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire.
Thank you for being open and to the point.
: LightHammer Tue Jan 31, 2012 - 21:35:30
You asked for my theory regarding Little Horn. As you're aware there are two little horns of St. Daniel's prophecy. The little horn of chapter 7 and the little horn of chapter 8. They are completely independent from one another, with each sprouting on its own respective beast.
I personal believe that the little horn of St. Daniel 7 was Herod the Great and the little horn of chapter 8 was Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire.
I have read this interpretation before but it fails to grasp the little horns unique position and qualities. It also fails to address how this little arrogant horn possessed "eyes and a mouth" unlike any of the other horns.
At first, this eleventh horn was small in comparison with its fellows; but it grew to be dominant. Where the other horns and the beast itself were clearly military in nature this little horn was clearly ecclesiastical in it workings.
As you know Dan 2 and the image there mentioned makes clear reference to the toes (10) which have long been understood to be the divided Roman Empire (or EU today). We find the corresponding symbol in Dan 7 are the horns which link the fourth beast with the toes of the Image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, representative of the divided state of the Roman Empire.
Now to ascribe the little horn which became so great it displaced 3 of the other horns as Herod the Great cannot fit the divine language.
At first, this eleventh horn was small in comparison with its fellows; but it grew to be dominant.
Where the other horns and the beast itself were clearly secular and military in nature, however this little horn was clearly ecclesiastical in its disposition.
This little horn was totally unique compared to anything ever witnessed within the Roman Fourth Beast.
Little Horn's Eyes: We are looking for an all looking See whose eyes penetrate the whole earth. Because this horn is ecclesiastical we are also seeking eyes that extend throughout the whole earth and able to report back to Roman headquarters.
Actually Zechariah predicted the coming destruction of this power when he wrote
"Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm (secular authority) and upon his right eye (ecclesiastical supervision); his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened (Zech. 11:17).
I could provide many more references in relation to the all seeing power of this arrogant little horn but I believe digesting these matters slowly is appropriate.
Little Horn's Mouth: Now this little horn that became arrogant and spoke of
"great things" these blasphemies were against
Yahweh.
And he (Little Horn) shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (Daniel 7:25)
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:5-8)
Of course any sensible Bible Student will not see either Herod the Great or Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire to fit this description for they never had this type of influence
"him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations"You see LM the
"voice" from this Little Arrogant Horn is proclaimed also throughout the whole world – I believe protestants have called them "Papal bulls
I have read this interpretation before but it fails to grasp the little horns unique position and qualities. It also fails to address how this little arrogant horn possessed "eyes and a mouth" unlike any of the other horns.
Assuming we're talking about chapter 7 and Herod the Great it actually fits pretty well.
The attribution of eyes and a mouth to the little horn is the prophetic means of making the little horn seem like a man or rather like a "son of man". The little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 are similar in that a male ruler comes to impose his dominance as a rival king of the Jewish population.
Notice the placement of the chapter 7 little horn. That is not the Roman Empire. It is the Roman Republic. This Beast is still before the coming of Christ.
Herod the Great got his power just before the brith of Christ by convincing Mark Antony, Augustus and Lepidus to recognize him as the King of the Jews. (Note the "rival king" illegitmately taking the place of the Davidic king and claiming a title that only the Messiah was coming to fulfill). After the Roman authority declared Herod the Great king, he and Mark Antony inavded Jerusalem desposed of the King Antigonus II Mattathias and set up the new order.
When you consider that the little horn of seven is of the Roman Republic Beast and not the Roamn Imperial Beast of Revelation it makes sense that its Herod the Great.
At first, this eleventh horn was small in comparison with its fellows; but it grew to be dominant. Where the other horns and the beast itself were clearly military in nature this little horn was clearly ecclesiastical in it workings.
Not at all. It seems you are using Scripture to support your theory rather using Scripture to derive your theory from.
This Beast is not the same Beast of Revelation or rather not of the same time period. The Beast of Daniel 7 dies with 8 horns.
(Daniel 7:11)The little horn sprouts eradicating three horns as it does. We can also use your theory and say it sprouts, waxes strong then destroys three horns. Either way the Beast of Daniel 7 is destoryed with 8 horns.
The Beast of Revelation is destroyed with ten horns and a healed wound.
(Revelation 19:20)These are not the same time period and prophecy divides time by BC and AD or Post-Resurrection.
For further proof that these are different time periods look at the separate judgments of each Beast. The 4th Beast of Daniel 7 is destoryed but the three other Beasts live on without authority or dominion.
(Daniel 7:11-12) The Beast of Revelation is destoryed with his partner the False Prophet Beast and his army was utterly destroyed and given to the birds for food.
(Revelation 19:20)Daniel 7 is BC prrophecy and Revelation is post Ascension Prophecy.
Seeing how Daniel 7 is BC prophecy, an "ecclesiatical" attribution would be completely false and inappropriate.
As you know Dan 2 and the image there mentioned makes clear reference to the toes (10) which have long been understood to be the divided Roman Empire (or EU today). We find the corresponding symbol in Dan 7 are the horns which link the fourth beast with the toes of the Image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, representative of the divided state of the Roman Empire.
Understood without valid stances. The ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar do not refer to modern Europe but to the 4th Beast of Daniel. The Roman Republic. The four metals that describe the four kings are the same four kings described in Daniel 7's four beasts. The ten toes refer to the Roman Republic BC or prior to the resurrection.
Now to ascribe the little horn which became so great it displaced 3 of the other horns as Herod the Great cannot fit the divine language.
Not at all. The displacement refers to authority. The little horn gained his authroity in position from the three either by taking it or them submitting it to him. There are several ways Herod the Great fits this bill. Herod got his power by the allotment of an allliance with the Second Triumvate of Rome i.e. Octavian, Mark Antony and Lepidus. (Three kings submitting rule to Herod)
The greatness mentioned is that Herod blashpemed Heaven and the Ancient of Days ruling in His glory WAS Herod the Great claiming to be the ruler of the Jews ordained by the power of Rome the head of the enslaving 4th Beast. Greatness is not in conquest but in blasphemy.
Even still before Herod rose to the throne he was just one tetrarch in a community of four rulers. After he ruled he the other three lost their power.
Herod the Great fits multiple ways.
We are looking for an all looking See whose eyes penetrate the whole earth. Because this horn is ecclesiastical we are also seeking eyes that extend throughout the whole earth and able to report back to Roman headquarters.
Actually Zechariah predicted the coming destruction of this power when he wrote "Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm (secular authority) and upon his right eye (ecclesiastical supervision); his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened (Zech. 11:17).
I could provide many more references in relation to the all seeing power of this arrogant little horn but I believe digesting these matters slowly is appropriate.
Little Horn's Mouth:
Now this little horn that became arrogant and spoke of "great things" these blasphemies were against
Yahweh.
And he (Little Horn) shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (Daniel 7:25)
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:5-8)
Of course any sensible Bible Student will not see either Herod the Great or Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire to fit this description for they never had this type of influence "him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations"
Here you are crossbreeding Beasts from two completely different timeperiods who live two completely different lives. I believe I have adequately shown how the Beast of Daniel 7 is of a different time and incarnation than the Beast of Revelation so I'll move on.
You see LM the "voice" from this Little Arrogant Horn is proclaimed also throughout the whole world – I believe protestants have called them "Papal bulls
: LightHammer Wed Feb 01, 2012 - 12:02:41
Assuming we're talking about chapter 7 and Herod the Great it actually fits pretty well.
Correct.
The attribution of eyes and a mouth to the little horn is the prophetic means of making the little horn seem like a man or rather like a "son of man". The little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 are similar in that a male ruler comes to impose his dominance as a rival king of the Jewish population.
I need you to support your thoughts with Scripture otherwise I am left guessing as to which passage in Daniel 7 & 8 you are referring too.
Notice the placement of the chapter 7 little horn. That is not the Roman Empire. It is the Roman Republic. This Beast is still before the coming of Christ.
As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.Now do you honestly believe Herod fits the above symbol of the Little Horn?
Herod to mean a single man born 73 /74 BCE, died 4 BCE to represent a ecclesiastical system which will persecute the mortal saints throughout "a time". It is clear you have not considered this chapter in sufficient detail.
"And the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom" (also see verse 27)
In this context the term "time" is specific: it signifies "an appointed time"; the time referred to by Peter, who warned that though it may appear on the surface that Yahweh is "slack" concerning His promises, that is not so; the Lord will come at the appointed time, though many may be taken off guard when it arrives (2 Pet. 3:8-15). Subsequently, Daniel was given time periods that mark off chronologically the epochs of the Time of the End.
I see how your theory cannot explain how the little horn power that rose amidst the 10 horns would be present on this fourth beast when the immortalised saints after resurrection and judgement would destroy this secular and ecclesiastical system.
This Beast is not the same Beast of Revelation or rather not of the same time period. The Beast of Daniel 7 dies with 8 horns. (Daniel 7:11)The little horn sprouts eradicating three horns as it does. We can also use your theory and say it sprouts, waxes strong then destroys three horns. Either way the Beast of Daniel 7 is destroyed with 8 horns.
What you fail to see is the fourth beast of Daniel is taken up in the Revelation and revealed as four successive beasts in its development until the end. Each of the four beasts of Rev are phases in the fourth beast of Daniel though taken from the time of John at Patmos, till the end, whereas Daniel shows us the Roman Republic/Empire from its beginnings.
Daniel 7 is BC prophecy and Revelation is post Ascension Prophecy.
Sadly your theology is like scramble eggs and it's frustrating to speak to one who cannot grasp the most basic elements of prophecy.
The above comment has already proven you wrong in terms of the fourth beast and its horns taking us to Christ's second coming.
As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom. Now is this Christ first or second coming?
The possession of the Kingdom occurs upon his second advent and not his first. This and many other passages including Dan 2 and the feet of the image where Christ returns and smites the feet of the image is also witnessed here in Daniel 7.
However if you don't believe the rock smiting the feet on the image in Dan 2 is not the Christ and the iron (Roman) is not found in the feet then of course you will also discount the the fourth beast in Dan 7 is destroyed by Christ and the saints at the end time.
Seeing how Daniel 7 is BC prophecy, an "ecclesiastical" attribution would be completely false and inappropriate.
We come to a crossroad LH.
If you re-read Dan 2 & 7 and draw a conclusion it is only prophesying BC times you are seriously deluded.
Daniel 2
34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. Daniel 7
26But the judgment shall sit, and they (Christ & Saints) shall take away his (Little Horn) dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 27And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. LH, you mock me and the Word by teaching such a BC only interpration of Dan 7. ::headscratch::
I didnt bother answering the remainder of your post as the above wresting of scripture was differcult to stomach.
Insight
I expected a response like this.
As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.
Now do you honestly believe Herod fits the above symbol of the Little Horn?
Herod to mean a single man born 73 /74 BCE, died 4 BCE to represent a ecclesiastical system which will persecute the mortal saints throughout "a time". It is clear you have not considered this chapter in sufficient detail.
"And the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom" (also see verse 27)
In this context the term "time" is specific: it signifies "an appointed time"; the time referred to by Peter, who warned that though it may appear on the surface that Yahweh is "slack" concerning His promises, that is not so; the Lord will come at the appointed time, though many may be taken off guard when it arrives (2 Pet. 3:8-15). Subsequently, Daniel was given time periods that mark off chronologically the epochs of the Time of the End.
I see how your theory cannot explain how the little horn power that rose amidst the 10 horns would be present on this fourth beast when the immortalised saints after resurrection and judgement would destroy this secular and ecclesiastical system.
Yes I believe the Little Horn is Herod. If I didnt I wouldn't have said it.
You have not demonstrated in any way how this prophecy refers to any eccelsiastical structure. The horns represent regular kingdoms not religio-political false churches.
Again I believe you are shaping Sacred Scripture to fit your theory rather than vice versa.
"And the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom" (also see verse 27)
In this context the term "time" is specific: it signifies "an appointed time"; the time referred to by Peter, who warned that though it may appear on the surface that Yahweh is "slack" concerning His promises, that is not so; the Lord will come at the appointed time, though many may be taken off guard when it arrives (2 Pet. 3:8-15). Subsequently, Daniel was given time periods that mark off chronologically the epochs of the Time of the End.
Here you simply trying to equate time to the end of the new era when the Old Testament scriptures foreshadow Christ's first coming(St. John5:39). This is BC stuff not post-ascension. I have adequately covered this already.
Furthermore the "time" when the saints will possess the kingdom is talking about the victory of Christ resurrection when this happens:
John 19:30when, therefore, Jesus received the vinegar, he said, `It hath been finished;' and having bowed the head, gave up the spirit.
Matthew 28:18And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, `Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth;
17 And the seventh angel shedded out his vial into the air, and a great voice went out of heaven from the throne, and said, It is done [saying, It is done].
18 And lightnings were made, and voices, and thunders; and a great earth-moving was made, which manner never was, since men were on earth [since men were upon earth], such earth-moving so great. What you fail to see is the fourth beast of Daniel is taken up in the Revelation and revealed as four successive beasts in its development until the end. Each of the four beasts of Rev are phases in the fourth beast of Daniel though taken from the time of John at Patmos, till the end, whereas Daniel shows us the Roman Republic/Empire from its beginnings.
That's cute but no. The four Beasts of St. Daniel represent four empires that ruled over the Jews before the coming of Christ. The beast of Revelation represents a empire ruling over the Jews at the time of Christ's leaving.
These empires are agents of God's wrath on the Jews who had apostacised. This is all BC stuff. Let me show from God's own mouth.
Hosea 13:4 And I [am] Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt, And a God besides Me thou dost not know, And a Saviour -- there is none save Me.
5I -- I have known thee in a wilderness, In a land of droughts.
6According to their feedings they are satiated, They have been satiated, And their heart is lifted up, Therefore they have forgotten Me,
7And I am to them as a lion, As a leopard by the way I look out.
8I do meet them as a bereaved bear, And I rend the enclosure of their heart.
9And I consume them there as a lioness, A beast of the field doth rend them. Seem familiar? Well it should. Remember "agents of God's wrath against fallen away Jews."
This is all BC stuff. I think you're mispplication of St. Daniel goes hand in hand with your misunderstanding of Revelation.
Considering that Revelation means "unveiling" and 65% of it is derived from the Old Testament, for students of the Bible and not modern eschatology it is a well known realization that Revelation is not just looking at the future but at past, present and future through eternity.
You need to catch up.
: LightHammer Thu Feb 02, 2012 - 22:16:25
Yes I believe the Little Horn is Herod. If I didnt I wouldn't have said it.
You appeared hesitant at first.
You have not demonstrated in any way how this prophecy refers to any ecclesiastical structure. The horns represent regular kingdoms not religio-political false churches.
This horn possesses eyes like a man and a mouth speaking great things.
Herod was no different to any other client king nor does he in any respect appear to be different than the kings of the earth...he certainly does not fit the severity of one who persecutes the true saints for generations.
The eyes and mouth are Babylonian language as proven by my previous post which went unanswered.
This horn has eyes and mouth which are exercised particularly against the saints of the Most High.
Now what was established out of the Roman Empire which had all seeing eyes and an outspoken mouth – and speaking what? That all nations, peoples and kindred's could hear?
"Even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things" Precisely what "very great things
Let me help you LH while you are reading and considering your response.
Read Dan. 2:44 then read Dan 7:27
"Whose kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom"
The adjective "everlasting" is rendered from the Chaldean alam the equivalent of the Hebrew olam, and denotes a "hidden period". This is the Millennium which has beginning and end. At its conclusion it will be delivered up unto the Father that "God may be all and in all" (1 Cor. 15:24-28).
Please dont insult the Scriptures by implying Dan 7 only contains BC prophecy.
You are doing yourself great harm.
Insight
"And all dominions shall serve and obey him"
Now you say this applies to Christs ascension, whereby all reading this would agree cannot apply - impossible!
When the Lord ascended into heaven, he was given power over the nations (v.14)
14 He (Christ) was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. cp with Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3 :22; though, as yet, they do not "serve and obey him". The time is coming, however, when they will do so, for "the peoples shall be gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve Yahweh" (Ps. 102:22).
Those that refuse to do so will be "cut off" (Isa. 60:12).
Now understanding this to be true you must not restrict a view of Dan 7 as BC but broaden your foresight beyond his ascension to when the little horn would develope its power throughout the whole earth.
Insight
Ignoring Hosea I see. Convenient.
This horn possesses eyes like a man and a mouth speaking great things.
Herod was no different to any other client king nor does he in any respect appear to be different than the kings of the earth...he certainly does not fit the severity of one who persecutes the true saints for generations.
The eyes and mouth are Babylonian language as proven by my previous post which went unanswered.
This horn has eyes and mouth which are exercised particularly against the saints of the Most High.
Now what was established out of the Roman Empire which had all seeing eyes and an outspoken mouth – and speaking what? That all nations, peoples and kindred's could hear?
"Even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things"
Precisely what "very great things
: Insight Thu Feb 02, 2012 - 23:13:19
Let me help you LH while you are reading and considering your response.
Read Dan. 2:44 then read Dan 7:27
"Whose kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom"
The adjective "everlasting" is rendered from the Chaldean alam the equivalent of the Hebrew olam, and denotes a "hidden period". This is the Millennium which has beginning and end. At its conclusion it will be delivered up unto the Father that "God may be all and in all" (1 Cor. 15:24-28).
Please dont insult the Scriptures by implying Dan 7 only contains BC prophecy.
You are doing yourself great harm.
Insight
Considering my response? Not really my old man called me to help him at the warehouse before the trucks roll so I had to go.
I checked Thayers lexicon and saw no reference of a hidden anything with everlasting in the Koine Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic but feel free to substantiate.
: Insight Thu Feb 02, 2012 - 23:58:14
"And all dominions shall serve and obey him"
Now you say this applies to Christs ascension, whereby all reading this would agree cannot apply - impossible!
When the Lord ascended into heaven, he was given power over the nations (v.14)
14 He (Christ) was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. cp with Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3 :22; though, as yet, they do not "serve and obey him". The time is coming, however, when they will do so, for "the peoples shall be gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve Yahweh" (Ps. 102:22).
Those that refuse to do so will be "cut off" (Isa. 60:12).
Now understanding this to be true you must not restrict a view of Dan 7 as BC but broaden your foresight beyond his ascension to when the little horn would develope its power throughout the whole earth.
Insight
The Resurrection of Christ is when He began His reign.
The milinieum reign began when Satan was thrown into the pit.
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:12:13
Ignoring Hosea I see. Convenient.
Hosea 13:4 And I [am] Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt, And a God besides Me thou dost not know, And a Saviour -- there is none save Me.
5I -- I have known thee in a wilderness, In a land of droughts.
6According to their feedings they are satiated, They have been satiated, And their heart is lifted up, Therefore they have forgotten Me,
7And I am to them as a lion, As a leopard by the way I look out.
8I do meet them as a bereaved bear, And I rend the enclosure of their heart.
9And I consume them there as a lioness, A beast of the field doth rend them.
I fail to see how your obvious point of Roman dominance over Israel proves the Little Horn is but one of her kings?
All these empires have been destroyers of Israel i.e the "lion" (Daniel 7:4), the "leopard" (Daniel 7:6) the "bear" (Daniel 7:5), and the "wild beast" (Daniel 7:7,8).
However, this is a good reference to show an understanding of how God has used the wild beasts of the field as symbols of beastly/fleshly empires, but again we are considering the little arrogant horn with eyes and a mouth who spoke blasphemous teachings from its mouth.
Its ecclesiastical in disposition because of its eyes and mouth.
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:32:57
: Insight Thu Feb 02, 2012 - 23:13:19
Let me help you LH while you are reading and considering your response.
Read Dan. 2:44 then read Dan 7:27
"Whose kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom"
The adjective "everlasting" is rendered from the Chaldean alam the equivalent of the Hebrew olam, and denotes a "hidden period". This is the Millennium which has beginning and end. At its conclusion it will be delivered up unto the Father that "God may be all and in all" (1 Cor. 15:24-28).
Please dont insult the Scriptures by implying Dan 7 only contains BC prophecy.
You are doing yourself great harm.
Insight
Considering my response? Not really my old man called me to help him at the warehouse before the trucks roll so I had to go.
I checked Thayers lexicon and saw no reference of a hidden anything with everlasting in the Koine Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic but feel free to substantiate.
Yes the Hebrew word olam occurs is widely used in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The noun olam comes from a verb root alam meaning to hide. See http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5956&t=KJV
You need to study the context to better appreciate the use of Olam as it most always refers to what is hidden especially from our view!
Anything beyond our vision is hide like the Dan 7 passage speaking to everlasting kingdom which Christ will physically preside over on earth as was promised by his Father.
If you would like scriptural examples of its various contexts just ask.
Insight
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:36:41
: Insight Thu Feb 02, 2012 - 23:58:14
"And all dominions shall serve and obey him"
Now you say this applies to Christs ascension, whereby all reading this would agree cannot apply - impossible!
When the Lord ascended into heaven, he was given power over the nations (v.14)
14 He (Christ) was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. cp with Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3 :22; though, as yet, they do not "serve and obey him". The time is coming, however, when they will do so, for "the peoples shall be gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve Yahweh" (Ps. 102:22).
Those that refuse to do so will be "cut off" (Isa. 60:12).
Now understanding this to be true you must not restrict a view of Dan 7 as BC but broaden your foresight beyond his ascension to when the little horn would develope its power throughout the whole earth.
Insight
The Resurrection of Christ is when He began His reign.
The milinieum reign began when Satan was thrown into the pit.
Just out of interest as I sense you are way left of centre in your understanding of the Millennium age when do you envisage this passage to be fulfilled?
Luke 1:32
Jesus will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob's descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:12:13
Ignoring Hosea I see. Convenient.
This horn possesses eyes like a man and a mouth speaking great things.
Herod was no different to any other client king nor does he in any respect appear to be different than the kings of the earth...he certainly does not fit the severity of one who persecutes the true saints for generations.
The eyes and mouth are Babylonian language as proven by my previous post which went unanswered.
This horn has eyes and mouth which are exercised particularly against the saints of the Most High.
Now what was established out of the Roman Empire which had all seeing eyes and an outspoken mouth – and speaking what? That all nations, peoples and kindred's could hear?
"Even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things"
Precisely what "very great things
"Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet;
What would happen if such a devouring beast empire became ecclesiastical? ::shrug::
Read with care...
21 "I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
23 "Thus he said:
'The fourth beast shall be
A fourth kingdom on earth,
Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
And shall devour the whole earth,
Trample it and break it in pieces.
24 The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.
25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute[d] the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time.
26 'But the court shall be seated,
And they shall take away his dominion,
To consume and destroy it forever.
27 Then the kingdom and dominion,
And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.'
28 "This is the end of the account.[e] As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my countenance changed; but I kept the matter in my heart.
: Insight Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 04:13:28
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:12:13
Ignoring Hosea I see. Convenient.
Hosea 13:4 And I [am] Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt, And a God besides Me thou dost not know, And a Saviour -- there is none save Me.
5I -- I have known thee in a wilderness, In a land of droughts.
6According to their feedings they are satiated, They have been satiated, And their heart is lifted up, Therefore they have forgotten Me,
7And I am to them as a lion, As a leopard by the way I look out.
8I do meet them as a bereaved bear, And I rend the enclosure of their heart.
9And I consume them there as a lioness, A beast of the field doth rend them.
I fail to see how your obvious point of Roman dominance over Israel proves the Little Horn is but one of her kings?
All these empires have been destroyers of Israel i.e the "lion" (Daniel 7:4), the "leopard" (Daniel 7:6) the "bear" (Daniel 7:5), and the "wild beast" (Daniel 7:7,8).
However, this is a good reference to show an understanding of how God has used the wild beasts of the field as symbols of beastly/fleshly empires, but again we are considering the little arrogant horn with eyes and a mouth who spoke blasphemous teachings from its mouth.
Its ecclesiastical in disposition because of its eyes and mouth.
I imagine you fail to see because you lack extensive study of the Bible as a whole. I have already proven that St. Daniel is BC prophecy. Now of course I do not expect you to believe that, I mean how could you? Your error in your eschatology is but a symptom of your error in pneumatology and chrisiology. However let's not fade into that. I have more Bible to present.
The eyes mouth as eccelesiastical is baseless. You have no scriptural support for that just a faulty premise.
: Insight Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 04:54:51
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:12:13
Ignoring Hosea I see. Convenient.
This horn possesses eyes like a man and a mouth speaking great things.
Herod was no different to any other client king nor does he in any respect appear to be different than the kings of the earth...he certainly does not fit the severity of one who persecutes the true saints for generations.
The eyes and mouth are Babylonian language as proven by my previous post which went unanswered.
This horn has eyes and mouth which are exercised particularly against the saints of the Most High.
Now what was established out of the Roman Empire which had all seeing eyes and an outspoken mouth – and speaking what? That all nations, peoples and kindred's could hear?
"Even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things"
Precisely what "very great things
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 08:31:52
: Insight Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 04:13:28
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:12:13
Ignoring Hosea I see. Convenient.
Hosea 13:4 And I [am] Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt, And a God besides Me thou dost not know, And a Saviour -- there is none save Me.
5I -- I have known thee in a wilderness, In a land of droughts.
6According to their feedings they are satiated, They have been satiated, And their heart is lifted up, Therefore they have forgotten Me,
7And I am to them as a lion, As a leopard by the way I look out.
8I do meet them as a bereaved bear, And I rend the enclosure of their heart.
9And I consume them there as a lioness, A beast of the field doth rend them.
I fail to see how your obvious point of Roman dominance over Israel proves the Little Horn is but one of her kings?
All these empires have been destroyers of Israel i.e the "lion" (Daniel 7:4), the "leopard" (Daniel 7:6) the "bear" (Daniel 7:5), and the "wild beast" (Daniel 7:7,8).
However, this is a good reference to show an understanding of how God has used the wild beasts of the field as symbols of beastly/fleshly empires, but again we are considering the little arrogant horn with eyes and a mouth who spoke blasphemous teachings from its mouth.
Its ecclesiastical in disposition because of its eyes and mouth.
I imagine you fail to see because you lack extensive study of the Bible as a whole. I have already proven that St. Daniel is BC prophecy. Now of course I do not expect you to believe that, I mean how could you? Your error in your eschatology is but a symptom of your error in pneumatology and chrisiology. However let's not fade into that. I have more Bible to present.
The eyes mouth as eccelesiastical is baseless. You have no scriptural support for that just a faulty premise.
I will continue to provide the evidence from Scripture until the weight becomes unbearable...we are almost there.
Unlike Nebuchadnezzar he declared a truth you are yet to learn and understand. He said...
"His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation" Please dont reply to this with your foolish BC theory you only insult the understanding of Nebuchadnezzar who currently stands in a better position than yourself.
But.
Where did Nebuchadnezzar learn this truth?
Undoubtedly from Daniel.
In the Image prophecy he had given brief expression to this fact (Dan. 2:44)
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)
And no doubt further explanation had been supplied the king regarding God's future intentions (Dan. 7:27).
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. (Daniel 7:27)
In this remarkable statement, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar gave expression to two fundamental truths of Divine revelation:
1. God's kingdom shall last forever (see Luke 1:33; 1 Cor. 15:23-28)
2. The earth will always be inhabited (see Eccles. 1:4; Isa. 45:18; Rev. 21:3-4).
Though these are clear statements of doctrinal truth, they are frequently disputed by so-called ''Christians".
Nebuchadnezzar had a better understanding of the purpose of God than do many outside who mouth the name of Christ.
LH...you have proved yourself this day to be one of those ignorant Christians who because of your RCC dogmas cannot see the inspired Word and its crystal clear message.
This is the third time I have need of correcting your understanding and each time you have resisted "truth".
Allow me to show you the little horn ecclesiatical power with all seeing eyes and a mouth which speaks boastfully of gods, demons and purgatory.
Insight
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 09:07:05
: Insight Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 04:54:51
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:12:13
Ignoring Hosea I see. Convenient.
This horn possesses eyes like a man and a mouth speaking great things.
Herod was no different to any other client king nor does he in any respect appear to be different than the kings of the earth...he certainly does not fit the severity of one who persecutes the true saints for generations.
The eyes and mouth are Babylonian language as proven by my previous post which went unanswered.
This horn has eyes and mouth which are exercised particularly against the saints of the Most High.
Now what was established out of the Roman Empire which had all seeing eyes and an outspoken mouth – and speaking what? That all nations, peoples and kindred's could hear?
"Even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things"
Precisely what "very great things
You will notice in Daniel 7 the interpretation of these words are to mean a dominion and Kingdom or hidden Millennial Age as we understand from Revelation, which Jesus himself will reign over.
Now if we live during under Roman dominion do you think we would have known its existance?
Lets read it again..
and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven
It's easy to overlook this Kingdom is NOT"in" Heaven BUT "under
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 04:58:19
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 08:31:52
: Insight Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 04:13:28
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:12:13
Ignoring Hosea I see. Convenient.
Hosea 13:4 And I [am] Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt, And a God besides Me thou dost not know, And a Saviour -- there is none save Me.
5I -- I have known thee in a wilderness, In a land of droughts.
6According to their feedings they are satiated, They have been satiated, And their heart is lifted up, Therefore they have forgotten Me,
7And I am to them as a lion, As a leopard by the way I look out.
8I do meet them as a bereaved bear, And I rend the enclosure of their heart.
9And I consume them there as a lioness, A beast of the field doth rend them.
I fail to see how your obvious point of Roman dominance over Israel proves the Little Horn is but one of her kings?
All these empires have been destroyers of Israel i.e the "lion" (Daniel 7:4), the "leopard" (Daniel 7:6) the "bear" (Daniel 7:5), and the "wild beast" (Daniel 7:7,8).
However, this is a good reference to show an understanding of how God has used the wild beasts of the field as symbols of beastly/fleshly empires, but again we are considering the little arrogant horn with eyes and a mouth who spoke blasphemous teachings from its mouth.
Its ecclesiastical in disposition because of its eyes and mouth.
I imagine you fail to see because you lack extensive study of the Bible as a whole. I have already proven that St. Daniel is BC prophecy. Now of course I do not expect you to believe that, I mean how could you? Your error in your eschatology is but a symptom of your error in pneumatology and chrisiology. However let's not fade into that. I have more Bible to present.
The eyes mouth as eccelesiastical is baseless. You have no scriptural support for that just a faulty premise.
I will continue to provide the evidence from Scripture until the weight becomes unbearable...we are almost there.
Unlike Nebuchadnezzar he declared a truth you are yet to learn and understand. He said..."His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation"
Please dont reply to this with your foolish BC theory you only insult the understanding of Nebuchadnezzar who currently stands in a better position than yourself.
But.
Where did Nebuchadnezzar learn this truth?
Undoubtedly from Daniel.
In the Image prophecy he had given brief expression to this fact (Dan. 2:44)
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)
And no doubt further explanation had been supplied the king regarding God's future intentions (Dan. 7:27).
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. (Daniel 7:27)
In this remarkable statement, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar gave expression to two fundamental truths of Divine revelation:
1. God's kingdom shall last forever (see Luke 1:33; 1 Cor. 15:23-28)
2. The earth will always be inhabited (see Eccles. 1:4; Isa. 45:18; Rev. 21:3-4).
Though these are clear statements of doctrinal truth, they are frequently disputed by so-called ''Christians".
Nebuchadnezzar had a better understanding of the purpose of God than do many outside who mouth the name of Christ.
LH...you have proved yourself this day to be one of those ignorant Christians who because of your RCC dogmas cannot see the inspired Word and its crystal clear message.
This is the third time I have need of correcting your understanding and each time you have resisted "truth".
Allow me to show you the little horn ecclesiatical power with all seeing eyes and a mouth which speaks boastfully of gods, demons and purgatory.
Insight
Yes the kingdom of Christ is everlasting. He has had all power in Heaven and earth for more than 2000 years and that's never going to change. Remember the woman's child was enthroned in Heaven but the woman had to reside within the wilderness for a little while until the final judgment.
You are making the ancient Jews mistake the Jews did in expecting some sort of kingdom on Earth. It's ok though I know Christ is already ruling because He said so Himself.
You are quoting Bible verses and then interpreting them erroneously.
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 05:06:22
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 09:07:05
: Insight Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 04:54:51
: LightHammer Fri Feb 03, 2012 - 00:12:13
Ignoring Hosea I see. Convenient.
This horn possesses eyes like a man and a mouth speaking great things.
Herod was no different to any other client king nor does he in any respect appear to be different than the kings of the earth...he certainly does not fit the severity of one who persecutes the true saints for generations.
The eyes and mouth are Babylonian language as proven by my previous post which went unanswered.
This horn has eyes and mouth which are exercised particularly against the saints of the Most High.
Now what was established out of the Roman Empire which had all seeing eyes and an outspoken mouth – and speaking what? That all nations, peoples and kindred's could hear?
"Even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things"
Precisely what "very great things
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 05:47:36
You will notice in Daniel 7 the interpretation of these words are to mean a dominion and Kingdom or hidden Millennial Age as we understand from Revelation, which Jesus himself will reign over.
Now if we live during under Roman dominion do you think we would have known its existance?
Lets read it again..
and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven
It's easy to overlook this Kingdom is NOT"in" Heaven BUT "under
: LightHammer Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 12:19:31
You don't follow things well at all but I think you do that purposely. Go back and reread.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, Flesh and blood contain the sentence of death within its members - we are dying creature's because of the inherited nature from the first man
Jesus also himself likewise took part of the sameJesus had the exact same nature as you and I - fallen, one prone to sin and death
; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of deathJesus in submitting himself to crucifixion was able to allow God to condemn the very law which falsely accused them before God.
that is, the devil; GK False accuser - Sin which leads to death especially our inherited nature and bias toward sin was required to be removed from Jesus nature. God crucified his son through the weakness of the flesh and by doing so destroyed sins power i.e Which as Paul teaches can only be found in the Flesh; styled Sin's Flesh
(Hebrews 2:14)
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 14:29:19
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 05:47:36
You will notice in Daniel 7 the interpretation of these words are to mean a dominion and Kingdom or hidden Millennial Age as we understand from Revelation, which Jesus himself will reign over.
Now if we live during under Roman dominion do you think we would have known its existance?
Lets read it again..
and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven
It's easy to overlook this Kingdom is NOT"in" Heaven BUT "under
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 16:09:02
: LightHammer Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 12:19:31
You don't follow things well at all but I think you do that purposely. Go back and reread.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
Flesh and blood contain the sentence of death within its members - we are dying creature's because of the inherited nature from the first man
Jesus also himself likewise took part of the same
Jesus had the exact same nature as you and I - fallen, one prone to sin and death
; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death
Jesus in submitting himself to crucifixion was able to allow God to condemn the very law which falsely accused them before God.
that is, the devil;
GK False accuser - Sin which leads to death especially our inherited nature and bias toward sin was required to be removed from Jesus nature. God crucified his son through the weakness of the flesh and by doing so destroyed sins power i.e Which as Paul teaches can only be found in the Flesh; styled Sin's Flesh
(Hebrews 2:14)
Try again Insight you kind of lost sight of my point and are now arguing a point I did not make.
Maybe we should try this after your home renovations are finished so that you can follow the chronology of posts more attentively.
: LightHammer Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 23:43:59
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 16:09:02
: LightHammer Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 12:19:31
You don't follow things well at all but I think you do that purposely. Go back and reread.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
Flesh and blood contain the sentence of death within its members - we are dying creature's because of the inherited nature from the first man
Jesus also himself likewise took part of the same
Jesus had the exact same nature as you and I - fallen, one prone to sin and death
; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death
Jesus in submitting himself to crucifixion was able to allow God to condemn the very law which falsely accused them before God.
that is, the devil;
GK False accuser - Sin which leads to death especially our inherited nature and bias toward sin was required to be removed from Jesus nature. God crucified his son through the weakness of the flesh and by doing so destroyed sins power i.e Which as Paul teaches can only be found in the Flesh; styled Sin's Flesh
(Hebrews 2:14)
Try again Insight you kind of lost sight of my point and are now arguing a point I did not make.
Maybe we should try this after your home renovations are finished so that you can follow the chronology of posts more attentively.
Precisely your original point began with error and ended with error.
I decided to run with the later to show you the truth concerning Hebrews 2:14 which it appears is still unanswered.
: LightHammer Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 23:38:28
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 14:29:19
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 05:47:36
You will notice in Daniel 7 the interpretation of these words are to mean a dominion and Kingdom or hidden Millennial Age as we understand from Revelation, which Jesus himself will reign over.
Now if we live during under Roman dominion do you think we would have known its existance?
Lets read it again..
and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven
It's easy to overlook this Kingdom is NOT"in" Heaven BUT "under
: Insight Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 00:24:54
: LightHammer Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 23:38:28
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 14:29:19
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 05:47:36
You will notice in Daniel 7 the interpretation of these words are to mean a dominion and Kingdom or hidden Millennial Age as we understand from Revelation, which Jesus himself will reign over.
Now if we live during under Roman dominion do you think we would have known its existance?
Lets read it again..
and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven
It's easy to overlook this Kingdom is NOT"in" Heaven BUT "under
: Insight Sat Feb 04, 2012 - 04:58:19
I will continue to provide the evidence from Scripture until the weight becomes unbearable...we are almost there.
Unlike Nebuchadnezzar he declared a truth you are yet to learn and understand. He said..."His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation"
Please dont reply to this with your foolish BC theory you only insult the understanding of Nebuchadnezzar who currently stands in a better position than yourself.
But.
Where did Nebuchadnezzar learn this truth?
Undoubtedly from Daniel.
In the Image prophecy he had given brief expression to this fact (Dan. 2:44)
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)
And no doubt further explanation had been supplied the king regarding God's future intentions (Dan. 7:27).
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. (Daniel 7:27)
In this remarkable statement, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar gave expression to two fundamental truths of Divine revelation:
1. God's kingdom shall last forever (see Luke 1:33; 1 Cor. 15:23-28)
2. The earth will always be inhabited (see Eccles. 1:4; Isa. 45:18; Rev. 21:3-4).
and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.Who are the decendants of Jacob?
When will this Kingdom formly begin?
How will it begin?
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (DELIVER UP!!!!!)
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. When is this coming of Christ and to do what?
After his reign on earth "then cometh the end" when and where does this hapen?
He must reign ? What from heaven? But DAvids throne is on earth to be established in Jerusalem?
Well this kingdom cannot be now because death is still here and very active!
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. If the tabernacle of God is with men - it must be on earth as men canot dwell in heaven! Verse 4 is speaking of death on earth. And what of vewrse 24?
24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. You would have the nations in heaven also? Hold on LH - how can the Kings of the earth bring thier glory and honour to heaven? Ah, so Christ must be on earth along with his saints and the 12 judging over the twelve tribes of Israel...
It is enough.
Insight
So at Jesus Christ's return we are told from Revelation "the kingdoms of this world (will) become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15).
Did you not read the Lords prayer?
"Thy kingdom come (that) Thy will be done in earth, as it is (now) in heaven" (Matt. 6:10).
Surely you also know that the phrase "kingdom of God" is one interchangeable with "the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 13:11 cp. Mark 4:11). Now its not a Kingdom in heaven';but a kingdom of heaven which will be established by Christ on earth at his return.
::shrug::
"at his (Jesus) appearing and his kingdom" (2 Tim. 4:1).
What does it mean?
In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and peoples will stream to it.
Many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.
When is this coming of Christ and to do what?
After his reign on earth "then cometh the end" when and where does this hapen?
He must reign ? What from heaven? But DAvids throne is on earth to be established in Jerusalem?
Well this kingdom cannot be now because death is still here and very active!
Oh snap you are so close but no not from Earth but from Heaven.
He reigns from Heaven and then afterwards Gis enemies are conquered and then the old Heaven and Earth pass away and the New come.
St. Matthew 22:44The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool?From your own quoted verse:
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (DELIVER UP!!!!!)
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
I'm here to tell you He reigns my brother. He reigns.
Romans 8:34who [is] he that is condemning? Christ [is] He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us.
He's at the Right Hand now, with all power in Heaven and Earth holding the key of the house of St. David spreading liberty in and out of death with the key of Death.
Get with the program.
: LightHammer Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 00:59:55
When is this coming of Christ and to do what?
After his reign on earth "then cometh the end" when and where does this hapen?
He must reign ? What from heaven? But DAvids throne is on earth to be established in Jerusalem?
Well this kingdom cannot be now because death is still here and very active!
Oh snap you are so close but no not from Earth but from Heaven.
He reigns from Heaven and then afterwards Gis enemies are conquered and then the old Heaven and Earth pass away and the New come.
St. Matthew 22:44The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool?
From your own quoted verse:
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (DELIVER UP!!!!!)
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
I'm here to tell you He reigns my brother. He reigns.
Romans 8:34who [is] he that is condemning? Christ [is] He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us.
He's at the Right Hand now, with all power in Heaven and Earth holding the key of the house of St. David spreading liberty in and out of death with the key of Death.
Get with the program.
Yes and no
: Insight Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 01:43:31
: LightHammer Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 00:59:55
When is this coming of Christ and to do what?
After his reign on earth "then cometh the end" when and where does this hapen?
He must reign ? What from heaven? But DAvids throne is on earth to be established in Jerusalem?
Well this kingdom cannot be now because death is still here and very active!
Oh snap you are so close but no not from Earth but from Heaven.
He reigns from Heaven and then afterwards Gis enemies are conquered and then the old Heaven and Earth pass away and the New come.
St. Matthew 22:44The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool?
From your own quoted verse:
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (DELIVER UP!!!!!)
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
I'm here to tell you He reigns my brother. He reigns.
Romans 8:34who [is] he that is condemning? Christ [is] He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us.
He's at the Right Hand now, with all power in Heaven and Earth holding the key of the house of St. David spreading liberty in and out of death with the key of Death.
Get with the program.
Yes and no
::lookaround::
: LightHammer Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 02:06:25
: Insight Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 01:43:31
: LightHammer Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 00:59:55
When is this coming of Christ and to do what?
After his reign on earth "then cometh the end" when and where does this hapen?
He must reign ? What from heaven? But DAvids throne is on earth to be established in Jerusalem?
Well this kingdom cannot be now because death is still here and very active!
Oh snap you are so close but no not from Earth but from Heaven.
He reigns from Heaven and then afterwards Gis enemies are conquered and then the old Heaven and Earth pass away and the New come.
St. Matthew 22:44The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool?
From your own quoted verse:
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (DELIVER UP!!!!!)
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
I'm here to tell you He reigns my brother. He reigns.
Romans 8:34who [is] he that is condemning? Christ [is] He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us.
He's at the Right Hand now, with all power in Heaven and Earth holding the key of the house of St. David spreading liberty in and out of death with the key of Death.
Get with the program.
Yes and no
::lookaround::
Jesus informed his disciples that he would never again drink wine
"until I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:29).
They drink wine in heaven?
"Blessed is he that shall (future) eat bread in the kingdom of God" (Luke 14:15).
And bread too?
And Jesus continues speak future
"I appoint unto you a kingdom. that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom".And what of
"When ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh" (Luke 21:31)
But you say this kingdom is now?
No. Jesus has been given all power and authority but is yet to fully exercise that authority in the earth.
This will require his return and ascension of his father Davids throne.
This would be the total fulfillment of his first coming...
33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. So is Christ Kingdom on earth or in heaven?
27And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.Did you catch that LH?
Under whole heaven? you know on the earth.
Insight
What will the master do when he returns?
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet
Back to Daniel 7 to get us onto a right foundation.
"And all dominions shall serve and obey him"
When the Lord ascended into heaven, he was given power over the nations (see verse 14; cp. Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22); though, as yet, they do not "serve and obey him".
One must understand the work of Jesus Christ in bringing the nations under his subjection. The time is coming when they will do so, for "the peoples shall be gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve Yahweh" (Ps.102:22).
So from your understanding which in part is correct that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father and all power and authority has been given however if you believe all the dominions in the earth today serve and obey Christ... ::frown::
You have been shown a true interpratation but you deny its power.
"And the Kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the Kingdom under the whole heaven"
If you read this with a clear mind uninhibited with dogmas you would see this is speaking of Christs world dominion in accordance with Dan.2:44.
The Revised Version renders "kingdom" in the plural. All powers on earth, under the heaven are incorporated in the phrase. It is a significant refutation of the
heaven-going theories of the churches that the dominion of the redeemed is described by the expression under the whole heaven.
If you cannot read plain english, which I know you can being very capable - I am prepared to pause our discussion here having provide ample evidence for you to review and reconsider.
I will post a picture of the Dan 2 image again to support the Image is still standing waiting the stones return to destroy these kingdoms of men and replace it with his own.
(http://untilallhaveheard1.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/ba66b69e53961ac8528e7566c63ba512.jpg?w=600)
courtesy of untilallhaveheard
Insight
"Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee."
"Ask of me (Yahweh) and I shall give thee the heathen (i.e nations) for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break in pieces like a potter's vessel" (Psalm 2:7-9).
LH, you should also know that Jesus has promised the righteous will assist him in this great work of a future hidden age.
"He that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers" (Rev. 2:25-27).
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne (Davids Throne), even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in His throne" (Rev. 3:21).
"They (Saints) shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years" (Rev. 20:6).
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:12).
"Thou hast made us unto our God Kings and priests and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev. 5:9-10).
"The Kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15).
"He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (1st Cor. 15:25-26).
These passages outline the inheritence for obedient saints who understand the One True God and Jesus Christ whom He sent.
Christ to reign on earth with his saints.
Insight
: LightHammer Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 00:59:55
From your own quoted verse:
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (DELIVER UP!!!!!)
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
"Then cometh the end"
End of what?
Answer: 1000 year reign on earth
What shall happen at the end of this reign on earth?
Answer: "he (Jesus) shall have delivered "up" the kingdom to God
What determines the duration?
Answer: "For he must reign (past tense speaking of the 1000 years),
till he hath put all enemies under his feet
Rather simple reading LH.
Insight
LH,
Your BC theory was an unusual detour but I sense we can move past it as being unscriptual.
Now getting back to the little horn of the fourth beast.
You believe this is speaking to one man who lived a short life on this planet. Unlike any other client king he is not noted for speaking great things and having eyes that see throughout the earth.
"And a mouth speaking great things"
These "'great things" are blasphemies against Yahweh (see verse 25 and also Rev. 13:5-8).
Now are you able explain Rev 13:5-8 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies?
The interpratation speaks to the same meaning; where Daniel gave the shadow we get the detail in Rev 13.
Insight
Jesus informed his disciples that he would never again drink wine "until I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:29).
They drink wine in heaven?
"Blessed is he that shall (future) eat bread in the kingdom of God" (Luke 14:15).
And bread too?
Its a polyvalent. It refers to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist by which His body and blood are consecrated with bread and wine, and the wedding feast.
John 6:48 I am the bread of the life;
John 6:55for my flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink;
56he who is eating my flesh, and is drinking my blood, doth remain in me, and I in him. We eat this true flesh and drink this true blood in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Christ is truly present hence the title "Communion".
Matthew 26:26And while they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread, and having blessed, did brake, and was giving to the disciples, and said, `Take, eat, this is my body;'
27and having taken the cup, and having given thanks, he gave to them, saying, `Drink ye of it -- all;
28for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins;Before you claim that Christ was speaking symbollically, you should already be aware that Christ did not speak like that in the privacy of His Apostles and seventy without revealing the secret of His parabalic expressions. As these statements are given in the privacy of the Apostles and are not followed by any elaboration of any kind, it validates that Christ was speaking literally. He took bread and offered His body. He took wine and presented His blood.
To validate that Christ didn't speak in parables in the private company of His Apostles without explaining away His symbollism I give you this verse for your consideration.
Matthew 13:10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?
LH,
Your BC theory was an unusual detour but I sense we can move past it as being unscriptual.
Now getting back to the little horn of the fourth beast.
You believe this is speaking to one man who lived a short life on this planet. Unlike any other client king he is not noted for speaking great things and having eyes that see throughout the earth.
"And a mouth speaking great things"
These "'great things" are blasphemies against Yahweh (see verse 25 and also Rev. 13:5-8).
Now are you able explain Rev 13:5-8 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies?
The interpratation speaks to the same meaning; where Daniel gave the shadow we get the detail in Rev 13.
Insight
Not at all.
I have yet to show you the extent of my theory which you are surprisingly forced to ignore large portions of Sacred Scripture to evade away from.
Back to Daniel 7 to get us onto a right foundation.
"And all dominions shall serve and obey him"
When the Lord ascended into heaven, he was given power over the nations (see verse 14; cp. Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22); though, as yet, they do not "serve and obey him".
One must understand the work of Jesus Christ in bringing the nations under his subjection. The time is coming when they will do so, for "the peoples shall be gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve Yahweh" (Ps.102:22).
So from your understanding which in part is correct that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father and all power and authority has been given however if you believe all the dominions in the earth today serve and obey Christ...
I do not disagree at least not entirely. I simply believe you are misunderstanding a few things here.
You are making the coming of the kingdom of God or Christ's reign synonymous with two things; 1) That Christ reigns
on the Earth and not over the Earth. 2) The
immediate destruction or subjugation of all the kingdoms of the earth.
I believe both points are false. The establishment of Christ kingdom has already happened.
Matthew 28:18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Christ now reigns holding the key of St. David and the key of death.
(Revelation 3:7, Revelation 1:18) However this is where I believe you fall off on point 2. The kingdom of God has come already. It is established but it is at war. The kingdom of God(Church)/Christ Himself are the proverbial stones shaterring the rule of the nations.
Daniel 2:44And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Notice how St. Daniel records the kingdom of God shattering the the statue of the kingdoms. This kingdom has already been set up, in the Church.
Matthew 16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Try to stay with me here because this is important to me. Notice the imagery Christ is using. He refers to His Church, resting on a stone empowered as the kingdom of Heaven, being of the offensive against the gates of hell. Doesn't that seem a bit familiar to you. Notice St. Daniel 2:44. The kingdom attacks the image of the reign of man.
St. Daniel saw the end of the old kingdoms of man as the coming of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Now victory rests with Christ because now He reigns. However we know by St. Daniel's account that the coming of the new era and the Church did not bring about the immediate subjugation of everything.
Daniel 7:12As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. Their dominion was taken away, because Christ now has all dominion in Heaven and earth but they still remain. You are equating their absolute destruction with the arrival of the kingdom. Not just yet. That's not the same time period. That's the entire reason God gave St. John the Revelator the Revelation chapter 21.
St. Daniel was seeing the establishment of the Church which is several times refer to as kingdom. That Church which beat against the gates of Hell and destroy them. The gates of Hell(death) that empowered the rule of the nations. That powered that reigned freely upon the earth until it was challenged by Moses and conquered by Christ. That power we wrestle with even to this day.
Ephesians 6:12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. St. Daniel was made aware that eventually the kingdom would but he himself did not see that in his vision. You know this to be true because he does not record the destruction of the other three beasts. Secondly, St. John records the destruction of the last enemy and that was death and the dragon which St. Daniel doesn't even mention. Furthermore St. John actually sees not only the subjugation of all of the nations but the coming of the New Heaven and the New Earth.
If both St. Daniel and St. John were seeing the same end to the same time period their records would be identical. They are not therefore they did not see the end of the same era.
: Insight Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 19:45:53
: LightHammer Sun Feb 05, 2012 - 00:59:55
From your own quoted verse:
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (DELIVER UP!!!!!)
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
"Then cometh the end"
End of what?
Answer: 1000 year reign on earth
What shall happen at the end of this reign on earth?
Answer: "he (Jesus) shall have delivered "up" the kingdom to God
What determines the duration?
Answer: "For he must reign (past tense speaking of the 1000 years), till he hath put all enemies under his feet
Rather simple reading LH.
Insight
No the 1000 year reign is not the beginning of Christ's reign. The 1000 years occurs some where within Christ's reign. It is only unique because Satan is bound up for a 1000, after which he is loosed and goes on his last rampage.
Just take a second and actually think it through.
Matthew 22:44The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool? But Christ seated at the Right Hand is not the beginning of the 1000 year reign because we know that Christ has been seated at the Right Hand for just a little over 2000 years.
Colossians 3:1
If, then, ye were raised with the Christ, the things above seek ye, where the Christ is, on the right hand of God seated,
Hebrews 1:3
who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might -- through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest,
1 Peter 3:22
who is at the right hand of God, having gone on to heaven -- messengers, and authorities, and powers, having been subjected to him.Oh snap check out St. Peter in that last quote. Kind of powerful don't you think? ::whistle::
: LightHammer Mon Feb 06, 2012 - 11:13:22
LH,
Your BC theory was an unusual detour but I sense we can move past it as being unscriptual.
Now getting back to the little horn of the fourth beast.
You believe this is speaking to one man who lived a short life on this planet. Unlike any other client king he is not noted for speaking great things and having eyes that see throughout the earth.
"And a mouth speaking great things"
These "'great things" are blasphemies against Yahweh (see verse 25 and also Rev. 13:5-8).
Now are you able explain Rev 13:5-8 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies?
The interpratation speaks to the same meaning; where Daniel gave the shadow we get the detail in Rev 13.
Insight
Not at all.
I have yet to show you the extent of my theory which you are surprisingly forced to ignore large portions of Sacred Scripture to evade away from.
Actually many reading these posts would see I am holding you to the Scriptures on critical points such as:
1. The little horn came up among all 10 horns before it displacing the three.
2. Daniel's prophecies incorporate the 1000 year reign of Christ before offering up a perfected earth full of righteousness.
3. Christ will return to establish a Kingdom whereby its capital will be Jerusalem
This approach has frustrated your theology causing you to defend your erroneous beliefs with random unrelated Scriptures.
Insight
: LightHammer Mon Feb 06, 2012 - 11:55:25
I do not disagree at least not entirely. I simply believe you are misunderstanding a few things here.
You are making the coming of the kingdom of God or Christ's reign synonymous with two things; 1) That Christ reigns on the Earth and not over the Earth. 2) The immediate destruction or subjugation of all the kingdoms of the earth.
What you fail to understand is Bible language and you make so many assumptions rather than establishing collective truths.
And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king
over Judah and Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 36:10)
Now while he was not yet gone back, he said, Go back also to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor
over the cities of Judah, and dwell with him among the people: or go wheresoever it seemeth convenient unto thee to go. So the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a reward, and let him go. (Jeremiah 40:5)
Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with him, and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword, and slew him, whom the king of Babylon had made governor
over the land. (Jeremiah 41:2)
Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors
over all the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:48)
Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,
over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. (Daniel 2:49)
And so many more Scriptural examples showing that
"over
Ephesians 6:12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
St. Daniel was made aware that eventually the kingdom would but he himself did not see that in his vision. You know this to be true because he does not record the destruction of the other three beasts. Secondly, St. John records the destruction of the last enemy and that was death and the dragon which St. Daniel doesn't even mention. Furthermore St. John actually sees not only the subjugation of all of the nations but the coming of the New Heaven and the New Earth.
If both St. Daniel and St. John were seeing the same end to the same time period their records would be identical. They are not therefore they did not see the end of the same era.
Coming soon ::smile::
: Insight Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 03:06:07
: LightHammer Mon Feb 06, 2012 - 11:13:22
LH,
Your BC theory was an unusual detour but I sense we can move past it as being unscriptual.
Now getting back to the little horn of the fourth beast.
You believe this is speaking to one man who lived a short life on this planet. Unlike any other client king he is not noted for speaking great things and having eyes that see throughout the earth.
"And a mouth speaking great things"
These "'great things" are blasphemies against Yahweh (see verse 25 and also Rev. 13:5-8).
Now are you able explain Rev 13:5-8 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies?
The interpratation speaks to the same meaning; where Daniel gave the shadow we get the detail in Rev 13.
Insight
Not at all.
I have yet to show you the extent of my theory which you are surprisingly forced to ignore large portions of Sacred Scripture to evade away from.
Actually many reading these posts would see I am holding you to the Scriptures on critical points such as:
1. The little horn came up among all 10 horns before it displacing the three.
2. Daniel's prophecies incorporate the 1000 year reign of Christ before offering up a perfected earth full of righteousness.
3. Christ will return to establish a Kingdom whereby its capital will be Jerusalem
This approach has frustrated your theology causing you to defend your erroneous beliefs with random unrelated Scriptures.
Insight
1. I haven't given your little horn theory the time of day in all honesty. 11 horns or 8 horns, the Bible affirms that St. Daniel's 4th beast and the beast of the sea in Revelation are different. One dies with 11/8 horns the other with 10. St. Daniel's has three peers who live on after his demise and St. John's is hurled forevermore into the abyss with his only partner the false prophet beast of the land.
When it comes to the text you aren't really doing that well at all.
2. St. Daniel's prophecy hails the establishment of the Church. Go back and reread the quotes of the text.
3. No the Parousia will bring about a totally New Heaven and a New Earth with a New Jerusalem. This is completely different from the end St. Daniel saw.
In your mind you may have a sound stance but what you have presented is rather sloppy and poorly conformed to the Bible. Sorry if this is the first time someone bothered to point it out to you.
What you fail to understand is Bible language and you make so many assumptions rather than establishing collective truths.
And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 36:10)
Now while he was not yet gone back, he said, Go back also to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor over the cities of Judah, and dwell with him among the people: or go wheresoever it seemeth convenient unto thee to go. So the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a reward, and let him go. (Jeremiah 40:5)
Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with him, and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword, and slew him, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land. (Jeremiah 41:2)
Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:48)
Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. (Daniel 2:49)
And so many more Scriptural examples showing that "over
Upon Christs return we are told the following will take place:
Christ..."Which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and day, and break them to pieces"
Wrong Daniel 2:34 is talking about Christ's first coming not His second coming. Its refers to Christ and the established offensive of the Church.
Matthew 21:43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.Taken from the Jews and given to the a new people. Christ talking about the end of the Old Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant. Its talking about the Church.
Further proof.
Luke 1:32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. St. Jacob in Genesis 1 foreshadows the beginning of thsi reign in the establishment of the Church.
Genesis 1:44Now therefore come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and thee.
45And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar.
46And Jacob said unto his brethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made an heap: and they did eat there upon the heap.
47And Laban called it Jegarsahadutha: but Jacob called it Galeed. Now watch Christ make the mystery bloom like the lotus.
The Ruler of the House of Jacob forges a New Covenant.
Hebrews 8:8
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel(Jacob) and with the house of Judah:That correlates with St. Jacob in Genesis 1:44.
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.That correlates with St. Jacob in Genesis 1:45 using a stone to establish a pillar. Keep focus. This pillar is added to by other gathered stones.
1 Peter 2:4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Genesis 1:46 where the covenant of the House of Jacob is personified.
And for the crescendo. What do both St. Jacob and St. Laban call this heap of stones mounted upon this
cornerstone (
note Acts 4:11)?
From Thayer's Lexicon.
Jegar-sahadutha = "witness heap"
Galeed = "witness heap"http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H1567
Acts 2:32
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Acts 3:15
And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Acts 10:39
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Romans 9:1
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
1 Thessalonians 2:10
Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:St. Daniel did not see the end of the 1000 year reign. He saw the first coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the Church. This Church of living stones, of a new covenant with the House of Jacob, that attacks and destroys the principalities of this world.
Bloom forth Holy Mystery.
St. Daniel 2:44And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Matthew 16:18....and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I think I have made my point.
Compare with the prophetic statements of 2 Sam 22:43; Psa. 18:42 relating to the future work of Messiah (please look up, read and mediate)
All refering to the first coming.
Have you ever notice the Lord's citation of this passage in illustration of his own future work (Matt. 21:43-44)? The use of the word together is significant. It teaches that in "the latter days" (See v. 28) the Image must stand upon its feet.
Yes that future work is the Resurrection.
The proceeding phase will take an undisclosed period of time that some believe could correspond to 40 or 50 years, however I will not be dogmatic on such a time frame. What we do know is the following "grinding
: Insight Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 05:35:35
Ephesians 6:12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
St. Daniel was made aware that eventually the kingdom would but he himself did not see that in his vision. You know this to be true because he does not record the destruction of the other three beasts. Secondly, St. John records the destruction of the last enemy and that was death and the dragon which St. Daniel doesn't even mention. Furthermore St. John actually sees not only the subjugation of all of the nations but the coming of the New Heaven and the New Earth.
If both St. Daniel and St. John were seeing the same end to the same time period their records would be identical. They are not therefore they did not see the end of the same era.
Coming soon ::smile::
A separate thread is not necessary at all but if you insist.
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 10:14:05
What you fail to understand is Bible language and you make so many assumptions rather than establishing collective truths.
And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 36:10)
Now while he was not yet gone back, he said, Go back also to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor over the cities of Judah, and dwell with him among the people: or go wheresoever it seemeth convenient unto thee to go. So the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a reward, and let him go. (Jeremiah 40:5)
Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with him, and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword, and slew him, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land. (Jeremiah 41:2)
Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:48)
Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. (Daniel 2:49)
And so many more Scriptural examples showing that "over
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 11:45:01
Compare with the prophetic statements of 2 Sam 22:43; Psa. 18:42 relating to the future work of Messiah (please look up, read and mediate)
All refering to the first coming.
Have you ever notice the Lord's citation of this passage in illustration of his own future work (Matt. 21:43-44)? The use of the word together is significant. It teaches that in "the latter days" (See v. 28) the Image must stand upon its feet.
Yes that future work is the Resurrection.
The proceeding phase will take an undisclosed period of time that some believe could correspond to 40 or 50 years, however I will not be dogmatic on such a time frame. What we do know is the following "grinding
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 11:45:01
Micah 4:10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.
Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
You dont read very well do you.
Who is being redeemed in Micah...be precise.
Insight
Matt 28:18 I agree with no exception and actually go further to say his inherited power is the same Power that of his Father ,who likewise from the beginning of the kingdoms of men held such power, though not all peoples of the earth served an obeyed Him.
St. Daniel didn't see all peoples serving Him. He saw all dominions serving Him. The word in St. Daniel 7:27 used was
sholtan. From Thayer's Lexicon
sholtan (Aramaic)
masculine noun
1) dominion, sovereignty
a) dominion, sovereignty
b) realmhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7985&t=KJV
St. Daniel is not referring to a transferral of the hearts of people, its referring to a transferral of the powers of the world. A transferral that has already happened.
1 Peter 3:21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. What do you say? he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
The power of the key of death.
Matthew 27:52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, Can you explain who represents Yahweh in the following verse?
The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. (Joel 3:16)
Seriously? That doesn't like that one doesn't automatically jump out at you?
The Lord on the cross in Jerusalem.
Matthew 27:50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Matthew 28:2
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Come on are you seriously trying to act like you don't know this is the first coming? Joel chapter 3 makes it so clear that I'm starting to think you're trying to be funny.
Joel 3:18And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth out of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Shittim. Matthew 9:17Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. This illustration is one of only a handful that is recorded in all four Gospel accounts and you just brush right passed it.
Who is being represented here in Yahweh?
So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more. (Joel 3:17)
Dwelling in Zion AND my Holy Mountain...?
Please show the future fulfilment of these verses making sure to address the Yahweh being in Zion,
*sigh*
Yes this has already happened too and is collectively still happening now.
Hebrews 12:22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, You should pay close attention to the "heavenly Jerusalem" part.
Precisely...but not in the Church for she is defiled and drunk on the wine of her many dogmas. This thread has certainly highlighted a number thus far.
I knew you were building your eschatology on that premise. No wonder you have been knocked off your proverbial horse in this thread. You lasted much longer in the Trinity debate although not that long there either.
You can't build on a faulty premise. Thats how you end up with an eschatology as broken as your own.
I will wait for you to answer Rev 3:7 before going any further.
Its called delegation of powers.
Christ holds the keys but delegates that authority on earth to His Church. Much like oh I don't know St. David was king of the Jews but God was/is the ultimate leader of Israel.
Its not a difficult concept.
Well, firstly the stone is Christ and not Peter who was a sinner; though a wonderful Apostle not one to whom the Church was established. Actually I am surprised you do not reserve this honour for Paul who took the Gospel to the Gentiles...I can sense strongly the defence of Church teaching rather then adhering to the Word.
Actually no. The stone is the faith and reality of Christ the King that St. Peter declared. That faith which was so ingrained in St. Peter that when the crowds had saw Christ as another prophet he had already committed the greater reality to his confidence, which his brother St. Andrew had mentioned to him earlier on.
Before you accuse me of defending my Church's teachings you should at least know what they are but then again maybe that is too much to expect.
This is strong delusion!
You added an exclamation point so by all means it must be so!
Explain to me precisely who are the "the people of the saints"
Who are these "people
: Insight Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 16:37:02
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 10:14:05
What you fail to understand is Bible language and you make so many assumptions rather than establishing collective truths.
And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 36:10)
Now while he was not yet gone back, he said, Go back also to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor over the cities of Judah, and dwell with him among the people: or go wheresoever it seemeth convenient unto thee to go. So the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a reward, and let him go. (Jeremiah 40:5)
Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with him, and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword, and slew him, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land. (Jeremiah 41:2)
Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:48)
Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. (Daniel 2:49)
And so many more Scriptural examples showing that "over
All can be refuted by one simple little passage...
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall (future work) judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom This is referring to the Second Resurrection. Now you're on post-Resurrection. This does nothing to refute my works but if it helps you evade the overwhleming Sacred Scriptures than I understand why you're lying to yourself.
This verse does not say that "at his appearing of his kingdom" it says "and his kingdom"
A kingdom that is recorded in the very same chapter as already established.
2 Timothy 4:18And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. You see LH your RCC doctrines limit the Word to present a whole complete view of the future - you have discounted all of Daniel to be BC; knowing this your understanding of the Revelation is lost.
Insight
The Catholic Church has no official eschatological positions. This is all me.
By the way LH - when this was written Jesus was at the right hand of the Father rofl
Hence St. Paul refering to the heavenly kingdom six verses later. Honestly are you even reading the Bible or are you just coping your verses from the internet like you're doing with your pictures?
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 17:52:23
: Insight Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 16:37:02
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 10:14:05
What you fail to understand is Bible language and you make so many assumptions rather than establishing collective truths.
And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 36:10)
Now while he was not yet gone back, he said, Go back also to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor over the cities of Judah, and dwell with him among the people: or go wheresoever it seemeth convenient unto thee to go. So the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a reward, and let him go. (Jeremiah 40:5)
Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with him, and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword, and slew him, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land. (Jeremiah 41:2)
Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:48)
Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. (Daniel 2:49)
And so many more Scriptural examples showing that "over
: Insight Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 16:51:32
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 11:45:01
Micah 4:10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.
Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
You dont read very well do you.
Who is being redeemed in Micah...be precise.
Insight
The people who were redeemed in Galatians. Go back and reread.
For some added reading.
Hosea 13:14
I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
1 Timothy2:5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. So unimpressive. Really.
: Insight Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 18:03:33
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 17:52:23
: Insight Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 16:37:02
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 10:14:05
What you fail to understand is Bible language and you make so many assumptions rather than establishing collective truths.
And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 36:10)
Now while he was not yet gone back, he said, Go back also to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor over the cities of Judah, and dwell with him among the people: or go wheresoever it seemeth convenient unto thee to go. So the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a reward, and let him go. (Jeremiah 40:5)
Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with him, and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword, and slew him, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land. (Jeremiah 41:2)
Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:48)
Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. (Daniel 2:49)
And so many more Scriptural examples showing that "over
LH Wrote:
St. Daniel was made aware that eventually the kingdom would but he himself did not see that in his vision. You know this to be true because he does not record the destruction of the other three beasts.
Secondly, St. John records the destruction of the last enemy and that was death and the dragon which St. Daniel doesn't even mention. Furthermore St. John actually sees not only the subjugation of all of the nations but the coming of the New Heaven and the New Earth.
If both St. Daniel and St. John were seeing the same end to the same time period their records would be identical. They are not therefore they did not see the end of the same era.
After reading this a second time I see again your lack of appreciation toward Daniels prophetical content. I recall writing previously that Daniel is the shadow of events leading up to the end of all ages when Jesus Christ kingdom (1000 years) will become an everlasting Kingdom.
His (Christ's) dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" Clearly referring to an earthly kingdom for how can a heavenly Kingdom be destroyed? This earthly divine Kingdom is compared to the Kingdoms of men on Earth however a distinct difference with this earthly Kingdom...
Maybe you could explain to us the difference?
I realise I keep providing evidence which you will twist and manipulate to suit your addenda but I will persist to show how this earthly Kingdom which is yet to be established, which is compared to the Kingdom's before it will not be destroyed because of the presence of its King of Righteousness ruling over it.
13Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.Notice how the Kingdom has existed throughout generations however it yet has a King over/in the throne of David.
15And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.Where do you place the sounding of the seventh angel?
The reality here is Christs shall rule over a Kingdom age which will "last forever" and have "no
end" (Luke 1:33), it will be subject to change of constitution.
For a Millennium the saints shall rule over the mortal populations of the earth; but at the end of that epoch, when every enemy has been destroyed, including sin and death, the perfected Kingdom will be delivered up to the Father with
"the Son also himself subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:28).
This age is spoken of with Daniel as proven, however you are right in terms of the finer details of the period not given. For greater detail of this age we would need to consider development of the Roman Empire - East and West and its ecclesiastical development throughout the world.
I appreciate it must be difficult to hear the Church you belong to is prophesied to be utterly destroyed including all those who remain intoxicated on her wine.
These posts have been tainted with such a smell coming from an adulterous woman who is soon to ride a beast and give her power over to it.
Insight
After reading this a second time I see again your lack of appreciation toward Daniels prophetical content. I recall writing previously that Daniel is the shadow of events leading up to the end of all ages when Jesus Christ kingdom (1000 years) will become an everlasting Kingdom.
His (Christ's) dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed"
Clearly referring to an earthly kingdom for how can a heavenly Kingdom be destroyed? This earthly divine Kingdom is compared to the Kingdoms of men on Earth however a distinct difference with this earthly Kingdom...
Maybe you could explain to us the difference?
I am positive you are unable to take in the counsel of Sacred Scripture. I have already demonstrated to you that the word
"dominion" does not imply an absolute submission of the population but an absolute possession of sovereignty and power.
I have quoted expert testimony to this with the citation of Thayer's Lexicon but you seem to want to hold to whatever you want regardless of how it contradicts the written word.
The earthly entity that St. Daniel saw was Christ's Church.
Proven here.
Daniel 7:14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Matthew 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I realise I keep providing evidence which you will twist and manipulate to suit your addenda but I will persist to show how this earthly Kingdom which is yet to be established, which is compared to the Kingdom's before it will not be destroyed because of the presence of its King of Righteousness ruling over it.
13Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
I like to let the Bible do my talking for me. Proof of the everlasting kindgom foreshadowing the coming of the New Covenant, the Church.
Hebrews 13:20Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Not conclusive enough?
Ok.
Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Luke 1:33
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
1 Corinthians 15:25
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
Matthew 22:44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Revelation 5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; Revelation 11:15And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Where do you place the sounding of the seventh angel?
Two thousand years in the past.
Fulfilled here.
Matthew 28:18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.You're reading Revelation as if was written today with each aspect being something that occurs in the future. You are wrong to do so for two main reasons.
1. Revelation was written 2000 years ago. Stuff has already been going happened.
2. According to Thayer's Lexicon, the primary defintion for the Greek
apokalypsis is "laying bare or making naked". There is meaning in that definition. Revelation is not completely prophecy. Its is unveiling of time. St. John is seeing things unravel from the perspective of Heaven which is outside of the ideal construct we call time. Meaning he's seeing everything. From time of the two olive trees onward to the desolation of apostate Israel, the establishment of the Church, to its offensive with the principailities of the world, to her ultimate victory ending with death, and finally to the apex of revelation; the coming of New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem.
You have an arbitrary and honestly flawed view of the Holy Scriptures.
For a Millennium the saints shall rule over the mortal populations of the earth; but at the end of that epoch, when every enemy has been destroyed, including sin and death, the perfected Kingdom will be delivered up to the Father with "the Son also himself subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:28).
Point?
For greater detail of this age we would need to consider development of the Roman Empire - East and West and its ecclesiastical development throughout the world.
Not at all. St. Daniel has been unequivocally proven as pre-Resurrection prophecy. If you can not see that its simply because you do not want to.
I appreciate it must be difficult to hear the Church you belong to is prophesied to be utterly destroyed including all those who remain intoxicated on her wine.
Its not difficult to hear. I'm black I've heard far worse. It makes it especially easier to take in knowing who the originators of this false doctrine are, i.e. the Reformers. A bunch of anti-semitic hate breeders who successfully discarded several books from the Bible. Funny thing they even tried to get Revelation thrown out as well as other books of the New Testament they didn't like.
Adding Arians, who deny Christ as God by ignoring St. John 1:1, to this eschatological school of thought only helps make it even more easy to hear.
Alone, and in ths thread, you are unimpressive but your team mates are even worse. Sabbatarians who don't know history from proganda while beautifully ignoring Hosea. Modernists who support predestination and universalism. People who obviously flunked English class because they think Christmas, Halloween and Easter are pagan holidays. The etymology in the words should easily give them all they need to let that misunderstanding go.
In all honesty none of you are impressive. I have been hoping for some non Catholics with Wycliffe, DCR or HRobernson knowledge to share differentianting views with but I always get stuck with people who rather ignore parts of the Bible they don't like and who have the insightinferior to my thirteen year old brother.
Its all good I guess its just fate.
These posts have been tainted with such a smell coming from an adulterous woman who is soon to ride a beast and give her power over to it.
Insight
I imagine thats what Truth smells like to Satan.
: LightHammer Wed Feb 08, 2012 - 12:59:29
After reading this a second time I see again your lack of appreciation toward Daniels prophetical content. I recall writing previously that Daniel is the shadow of events leading up to the end of all ages when Jesus Christ kingdom (1000 years) will become an everlasting Kingdom.
His (Christ's) dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed"
Clearly referring to an earthly kingdom for how can a heavenly Kingdom be destroyed? This earthly divine Kingdom is compared to the Kingdoms of men on Earth however a distinct difference with this earthly Kingdom...
Maybe you could explain to us the difference?
I am positive you are unable to take in the counsel of Sacred Scripture. I have already demonstrated to you that the word "dominion" does not imply an absolute submission of the population but an absolute possession of sovereignty and power.
I have quoted expert testimony to this with the citation of Thayer's Lexicon but you seem to want to hold to whatever you want regardless of how it contradicts the written word.
The earthly entity that St. Daniel saw was Christ's Church.
Proven here.
Daniel 7:14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Matthew 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I realise I keep providing evidence which you will twist and manipulate to suit your addenda but I will persist to show how this earthly Kingdom which is yet to be established, which is compared to the Kingdom's before it will not be destroyed because of the presence of its King of Righteousness ruling over it.
13Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
I like to let the Bible do my talking for me. Proof of the everlasting kindgom foreshadowing the coming of the New Covenant, the Church.
Hebrews 13:20Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Not conclusive enough?
Ok.
Your scattering machine gun approach to the Scriptures is laborious.
Answer why the earthly Kingdoms "become" a divine earthly Kingdom which is compared to earthly Kingdoms. Who knows what is your mind in quoting Heb 13:20 only in that those who take part in that covenant (Christ included) will possess this coming Kingdom.
Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
When will this be made?
When will Judah appoint their King?
Luke 1:33
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
he shall!
1.Earthly reign
2.Natural Jewry
3.Physical Kingdom on Earth
1 Corinthians 15:25
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
Furture tense while Jesus was in Heaven yet to put all his enemies under his feet.
Matthew 22:44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
The earth is not yet His footstool!!!!
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
I agree totally but this does not mean that Christ cannot leave his side reign on earth and not still be at the side of the Father....who does the throne of David belong too?
You cannot speak to Daniels prophesy and your approach to avoid it is well noted.
Insight
Answer why the earthly Kingdoms "become" a divine earthly Kingdom which is compared to earthly Kingdoms. Who knows what is your mind in quoting Heb 13:20 only in that those who take part in that covenant (Christ included) will possess this coming Kingdom.
Nope not "will posess" already posess. The earthly kingdoms became the kingdoms of Christ when He rose saying all power in heaven and earth were His.
I know I know. You're right and Christ is wrong. He doesn't have all power and authority yet. He has to descend from the glory of Right Hand and sit on an earthly throne.
It's ok Insight we know.
When will this be made?
When will Judah appoint their King?
What?lol What do you mean when? What hole did you crawl out of?
1 Corinthians 11:25
In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink [it] -- to the remembrance of me;'
2 Corinthians 5:17
so that if any one [is] in Christ -- [he is] a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things.
Galatians 6:15
for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation;When?lol How about 2000 years ago.
he shall!
1.Earthly reign
2.Natural Jewry
3.Physical Kingdom on Earth
Not "he shall" He does!
1. Matthew 28:18
2. Matthew 16:18-19
3. Romans 8:34,
Revelation 1:5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood,
Let it go Insight. You know what it is.
Furture tense while Jesus was in Heaven yet to put all his enemies under his feet.
That's the key my Brother. Use it and be liberated.
Christ stays at the Right Hand until ALL of His enemies are conquered. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Who is the LAST enemy to fall. You know it. Say it out loud. DEATH.
What does Revelation teach us as following the demise of death. Take it to the Scriptures.
Revelation 20:14and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire -- this [is] the second death;
15and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire.Death is conquered and then.....
Revelation 21:1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth did pass away, and the sea is not any more;
2and I, John, saw the holy city -- new Jerusalem -- coming down from God out of the heaven, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband;Do you not see? Come on Insight I make jokes in all because you're not sensitive and I know you can take them. All jokes aside do you not see?
Christ is seated at the Right Hand until His enemies are conquered His last enemy to be conquered is death after which victory New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem descend.
It's verbatim from Sacred Scripture. No earthly millennium reign with Christ on earth.
Peace.
: LightHammer Wed Feb 08, 2012 - 17:57:25
Answer why the earthly Kingdoms "become" a divine earthly Kingdom which is compared to earthly Kingdoms. Who knows what is your mind in quoting Heb 13:20 only in that those who take part in that covenant (Christ included) will possess this coming Kingdom.
Nope not "will posess" already posess. The earthly kingdoms became the kingdoms of Christ when He rose saying all power in heaven and earth were His.
I know I know. You're right and Christ is wrong. He doesn't have all power and authority yet. He has to descend from the glory of Right Hand and sit on an earthly throne.
It's ok Insight we know.
Now you move your rhetoric to the extreme and force both error and now gainsaying to your reasoning.
Show me where I stated Christ power and authority is limited in any way? Throughout the Kingdoms of men was God power inhibited in any way because He chose to exercise restraint in allowing man to think his rule is supreme?
You speak as a fool in this matter.
When will this be made?
When will Judah appoint their King?
What?lol What do you mean when? What hole did you crawl out of?
1 Corinthians 11:25
In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink [it] -- to the remembrance of me;'
2 Corinthians 5:17
so that if any one [is] in Christ -- [he is] a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things.
Galatians 6:15
for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation;
When?lol How about 2000 years ago.
Why is it you cannot speak to the Scriptures at hand? Why run off to another passage with another context but fail to understand the Jew both natural and spiritual must have a physical King over them?
Even in the first chapter of the Gospel we see in his promise coming his position description and yet you fail in every way to understand its fulfilment.
"And He will be King over the House of Jacob for the Ages, and of His Kingdom there will be no end."
This Kingship is not a heavenly ethereal relationship but one of physical presence.
Again, I suggest you study and define what "a Kingdom" looks like through the eye of God and Jesus Christ
Maybe you should see the Masters teachings on "The Kingdom of Heaven shall be likened...."
NOTHING MENTIONED ABOUT HEAVEN GOING!!!!
he shall!
1.Earthly reign
2.Natural Jewry
3.Physical Kingdom on Earth
Not "he shall" He does!
1. Matthew 28:18
2. Matthew 16:18-19
3. Romans 8:34,
Revelation 1:5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood,
You say Jesus today is King over all the earth and all heads of state, priminsters etc obey and serve him?
Let it go LH and return to the Word of God and what is real!
Furture tense while Jesus was in Heaven yet to put all his enemies under his feet.
That's the key my Brother. Use it and be liberated.
Christ stays at the Right Hand until ALL of His enemies are conquered. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Who is the LAST enemy to fall. You know it. Say it out loud. DEATH.
And have made us unto our God a kingdom and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.Where about shall the true saints reign? ::tippinghat::
What does Revelation teach us as following the demise of death. Take it to the Scriptures.
Revelation 20:14and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire -- this [is] the second death;
15and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire.
Death is conquered and then.....
Revelation 21:1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth did pass away, and the sea is not any more;
2and I, John, saw the holy city -- new Jerusalem -- coming down from God out of the heaven, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband;
Do you not see? Come on Insight I make jokes in all because you're not sensitive and I know you can take them. All jokes aside do you not see?
What do you see happening actually happening in Rev 21? Provide the timing and location.
Christ is seated at the Right Hand until His enemies are conquered His last enemy to be conquered is death after which victory New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem descend.
It's verbatim from Sacred Scripture. No earthly millennium reign with Christ on earth.
Find out what this meaneth...
"that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50). We are
"heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him" (James 2:5)
Heirs and by promise but not here and now...but to come when he does come he will as was written
"We must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). Whereby God has
"called you unto his kingdom" (1 Thess. 2:12)
All future though you deny its truth.
Insight
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 18:08:00
Micah 4:10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.
Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Everywhere you take me we find a future earthly Kingdom passage which here speaks to a re gathering of Israel in the Land with a King residing over them...
I guess thanks is in order.
MANY NATIONS WILL COME AND SAY,
"COME, LET US GO UP TO THE MOUNTAIN OF THE LORD, TO THE HOUSE OF THE GOD OF JACOB. HE WILL TEACH US HIS WAYS, SO THAT WE MAY WALK IN HIS PATHS." THE LAW WILL GO OUT FROM ZION, THE WORD OF THE LORD FROM JERUSALEM
Through whose mouth will the Law go forth?
Who is capable of teaching the nations how to walk in God's Ways.
Where is the mountain of the Lord?
And where is his house to be situated?
In terms of Micah 4:10 this is speaking to the prediction of Babylonian captivity. This was latrer fulfilled. Of course we have a latter day fulfillment:
(1) We have been speaking to the historic Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar's day of course you know the future captives (of Judah) would be going
(2) the future Babylon, which are the Gentile powers that we know has grasped hold of Israel ever since Nebuchadnezzar reigned. (Read Gen 10:10; 11:4-9 & Rev 17; 18).
The Lords coming will redeem his people from Gentile lands as promised to his forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Insight
: LightHammer Tue Feb 07, 2012 - 17:50:37
Matt 28:18 I agree with no exception and actually go further to say his inherited power is the same Power that of his Father ,who likewise from the beginning of the kingdoms of men held such power, though not all peoples of the earth served an obeyed Him.
St. Daniel didn't see all peoples serving Him. He saw all dominions serving Him. The word in St. Daniel 7:27 used was sholtan.
From Thayer's Lexicon
sholtan (Aramaic)
masculine noun
1) dominion, sovereignty
a) dominion, sovereignty
b) realm
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7985&t=KJV
St. Daniel is not referring to a transferral of the hearts of people, its referring to a transferral of the powers of the world. A transferral that has already happened.
1 Peter 3:21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
I am surprised you would try to separate all the peoples of the earth will all the dominions of this earth. The sovereignty of the world is held under the iron and clay in the legs of the image.
1. Iron toes as seen in the EU and its associates.
2. Clay requires no interpretation at all and fly's in the face of your understanding.
(Dan 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.
This is a latter day prophesy currently unfulfilled but if you read Rev 16 you would see its corresponding fulfilment.
Consider this LH.
The power from Neb had been reduced through successive Kingdoms to the eventual dispersion of power to the peoples of the earth.
The democratic spirit certainly places us clearly in this feet time period.
Insight
LH - I perceive this back and forth jumping from one passage to another is not working very well for us.
I am willing to consider a passage of your choosing to better refine our discussions.
Book, Chapter or verse.
Insight
p.s boundaries are needed to allow a sound outcome one way or the other.
You are adamantly refusing to accept the clear affirmation of Sacred Scripture. I'm about to wash my hands of this conversation. It's circular and a waste of time.
Why is it you cannot speak to the Scriptures at hand? Why run off to another passage with another context but fail to understand the Jew both natural and spiritual must have a physical King over them?
It's called taking the Bible as a whole and not isolated out of context pieces. It's what separates the orthodoxy of my eschatology from the instability of your own.
That was the entire problem with the Jews. They were thinking carnally as you do. They were expecting the Messiah to come as Matthias or Judas Maccabbeus with the sword and mighty temporal power. That was not God's plan. Christ rode into Jerusalem on a donkey but they were looking for a mighty steed. Why are drinking the wine of old fornication?
Even in the first chapter of the Gospel we see in his promise coming his position description and yet you fail in every way to understand its fulfilment.
"And He will be King over the House of Jacob for the Ages, and of His Kingdom there will be no end."
This Kingship is not a heavenly ethereal relationship but one of physical presence.
Actually it's both. Christ first assumes all power and authority. He reigns from on high until all enemies are destroyed and then when death is destroyed He begins the physical reign. It's not the millennium chair on Earth. It's called New Heaven New Earth and New Jerusalem.
You have all the affirmation you need.
You say Jesus today is King over all the earth and all heads of state, priminsters etc obey and serve him?
Let it go LH and return to the Word of God and what is real!
Again the Bible is not speaking of total submission in obedience and servitude of the people. Its referring to totall submission of authority which Christ already has.
Again we know Insight. LightHammer is just reading things into the Bible. Christ is not really the ruler of Earth. It was just a formality an honorific of St. John not corresponding to any tangible reality.
We got it.
Where about shall the true saints reign? ::tippinghat::
It's called New Jerusalem. She comes when the last enemy is defeated and Christ descends from the Right Hand.
What do you see happening actually happening in Rev 21? Provide the timing and location.
The only location that matters is that of Jesus Christ's. He's at the Right Hand until Death is defeated. Death is destroyed then New Heaven New Earth and New Jerusalem descend. Christ stays at the Right Hand until His enemies are conquered. That's the key.
Use it to unlock your cell and be liberated.
: LightHammer Thu Feb 09, 2012 - 07:11:47
What do you see happening actually happening in Rev 21? Provide the timing and location.
The only location that matters is that of Jesus Christ's. He's at the Right Hand until Death is defeated. Death is destroyed then New Heaven New Earth and New Jerusalem descend. Christ stays at the Right Hand until His enemies are conquered. That's the key.
Use it to unlock your cell and be liberated.
From your comments thus far I see you place considerable weight on the New Heaven and New Earth understanding.
Allow me to test its substance...
Our current age is but one of three
"heavens and earths" spoken of in the Scriptures.
Lets spend some time in Revelation 21.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (Rev 21:1)
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Rev 21:2)
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. (Rev 21:3)
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Rev 21:4)__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here we see John describes a new vision which he sees, and records the words of the angel who explains details in relation to it.
Rev 21:1
And I (John) saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first (former) heaven and the first (former) earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. The previous
"heaven and earth" having perished away, they are replaced by a new heaven and a new earth, and are spoken of being the final abode of the Redeemed (Saints). In this chapter is new Jerusalem described as descending out of heaven, adorned as a bride for her groom. John is invited to a closer inspection of the vision, and describes the wall, foundations, gates, and glory of the holy city.
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth"—This term connects with this vision of the previous chapter. John there declared that
"the earth and the Heaven fled away" (Rev 20:11) to prepare for the new Heaven and Earth which will see the final destruction of sin and death, and as described New Jerusalem in its final glory.
Its essential that we see this new "heaven and earth" as political and symbolic, not literal.
This is not speaking of complete destruction of the current Heaven and Earth rather it relates to a new state of divine society on earth overruled by a righteous King from Jerusalem (Deut 32:1 Isa. 65:17 Dan 12:3),
"Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak, and let the earth hear the words of my mouth. "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. The literal heaven and earth will remain forever (Ecc. 1:4 Ps. 125:1 148:6 Isa. 45:18).
Those who trust in the Lord are like Mount Zion, which cannot be moved, but abides forever.
And he established them forever and ever; he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away. For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the Lord, and there is no other. LH - If you believe the earth shall literally melt away and a new Heaven will be created you have not entered the deep symbology of these passages.
"For the first heaven and the first earth were passed away"—How do they pass away as (Rev 20:11). This should make it very clear these are symbolic figures.
The Greek better renders "first" as "former" meaning the new Heaven and Earth must be at the conclusion of the 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth, for verse Rev 21:4 suggests sin and death are swallowed up. Verse 4 relates to the conditions on the Earth during the 1000 years and are referred to in verse one as the former Heaven and former earth now ready to pass away. This
"new heaven and new earth" is the "third heaven" referred to by Paul in relation to his vision of future glory (2 Cor 12:2).
Defining the three heavens and earth:
1. The first heaven was Jewish Kingdom of God on Earth established under the law of Moses (covenant Deut 32:1 Isa 1:2) presided over by various Kings David being the Righteous King who seed would inherite his throne Luke 1:27 Luke 1:32. That symbolic Heaven and Earth came to an end in the destruction of the Jewish State in A.D. 70 (2 Pet 3:7). The law and the sacrifice removed and the people scattered for 2000 years, regathered and in 1948 Israel became a state.
2. The second "heaven and earth" will be established at Christ's coming with the setting up of the Kingdom of God, the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6 2 Pet 3:13).
3. The third "heaven and earth" will be at the close of Christ's reign on earth, when a perfected kingdom will be delivered unto the Father by Christ that He (God) might be all and in all (1 Cor. 15:24).
"And there was no more sea" In other words there will be no more sin and death stricken Nations left in the Earth (Rev. 17:15), God through Christ will make a "a full end" of all nations but Israel (Jer 30:11).
Many shall know that "Sea" in the Bible is highly symbolic of nations in their various conditions:
1. Nations can be in a troubled, stormy state, casting up mire and dirt (Isa. 57:20)
2. Nations can be at peace especially after the Battle of Armageddon (Rev 15:2)
3. The Nations can be calm and pure, with all their sins removed and represented as a "clear as crystal" (Rev 4:6)
4. And finally here in Rev 21. The nations are completely removed, only immortal Israel will remain, those as the Scriptures describe in Eph 2:12 who through Baptism become part of the Commonwealth of Israel (spiritual Israel) and so able to take part in the promises to Abraham Gal 3:28-29 and where sin and death is no more and those great passages of scripture are fulfilled once and for all Numbers 14:21 & Hab 2:14
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
"And I John saw the holy city"— The best texts omit the word John.
This is speaking of a physical city, one made up of inhabitants. By metonymy, the term "city" can stand for its inhabitants, as in Matt 8:34; Matt 12:25; Matt 21:10; Mark 1:33; Acts 13:44.
And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, uthey begged him to leave their region.
Knowing their thoughts, ahe said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.
"And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, "Who is this?
"Coming down from God out of heaven"
Only those "born from above" (John 3:3) will find a place in this city. These are they who are begotten through "the incorruptible seed, even the word of God" (1 Pet 1:23), which is the "good and perfect gift" which is "from above" (James 1:17 James 3:15-17).
The Word of God is designed to change the characters of believers for the kingdom (John 15:3; John 17:17). When it takes possession of the minds and hearts of such, its influence is revealed in their lives, and their characters will gradually conform to that of the Lord Jesus Christ. His character is divine though his nature, while on earth, was human Heb 2:14. This word is able to transform (Rom 12:2) on the part of believers will be rewarded by the clothing upon of divine nature "from above" following the judgment. This "new Jerusalem," which is made up of the immortalised Redeemed will govern the earth, it is said to come "out of heaven," for every member of it must be "born from above" see 2 Pet 1:4; Rom. 5:1-2; 2 Cor 5:1-5; 1 Cor. 15:47-49 Col. 3:3 Rev. 22:12 Luke 14:14).
"Prepared as a bride adorned for her husband
I believe we are drifting a little bit. I think I have adequately debunked the heresy of Christ reigning physically on Earth for the thousand years Satan is bound up. I would like to conclude the dialogue on that heresy before we get too far into this next segiment.
I do not agree with your attempt to refer to the coming of the New Heaven and the New Earth as symbollic for some political fulfillment. Honestly it seems like a lazy left hook thrown by George Foreman after he has been worn down by the rope-a-dope. However I am willing to give it a fair shake. That's what this dialogue was supposed to be about.
However we do need to close the door on some of these open sub-topics primarily being this heresy of Christ leaving the Right Hand before His enemies are defeated and reigning on the Earth for a thousand years. We're both pretty upfront and honest Christians so I don't think its asking too much for you to acknowledge the revealed falsehood in that belief.
I wanted to test your undestanding of Rev 21 and whether you are able to draw back into the Old Testament to prove Yahweh has no need of destroying his Heavenly abode nor his earth as promised after the flood.
You cannot run from the literal return of Jesus Christ; this is why your apostacy has rob you of ever entering the Kingdom.
A true servant of Christ is eagerly waiting for the Master of the house to return:
Are your lamps trimmed and burning brightly? and a good supply of the oil of the Word in hand? Matt.24:42-44.
From our discussion I have determined you cannot speak to the Daniels prophecy or can you enter the Revelation with care.
"Therefore be ye also ready" (Roth.) "Wherefore ye also be getting ready". This is an exhortation to constant preparedness.
"ye think not" (Roth) "ye are not thinking".
You are like a sleeping man whose thoughts are constantly on dogmans so the very real danger that you will be found by my Lord in a state of unpreparedness is clear, not only have you lost your conception of the realities of the Kingdom but your vision of the glories to come you know not.
Jesus said....Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. (Revelation 16:15)
Of course we know why he is coming...
And they (saints) sung a new song, saying, Thou (Jesus) art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain (past tense), and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall (future tense) reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:9-10)
I will persist for a little while with Rev 21 so I can bed down the three phases of the Kingdom of God on earth - feel free to read along and enter once you have a handle on the symbology.
Enjoy
Insight
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven"
Having outlined what John had saw with his eyes the physical Jerusalem in all holiness and the means which this has occurred through a bride adorned for her husband.
A "great voice" now makes a proclamation outlining the new constitution of things on Earth.
"Saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men"
The Tabernacle comprised God's dwelling place in Israel (Exod. 25:8), which was a pattern of the future elect in whom He chooses to dwell (Heb 9:11; 2 Cor. 6:16).
And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
I know LH its hard to miss is it not!
With sin, death and the grave eradicated from the earth (Rev 20:14-15), and God made "all in all" (1 Cor 15:28), it can now at last be announced that "the tabernacle of God is with men"
The old Tabernacle (tent) in the wilderness was a parable of the new Jerusalem (Heb 9:9). It was made resplendent by materials obtained from Egypt, and built according to divine plan and specifications (Exod 12:36; 25:1-7). This foreshadowed the requirements of the new Jerusalem, or the "tabernacle not made with hands" (Heb. 9:11). It will be constructed of Yahweh's "special treasure" (Mal 3:17) taken from "out of the Gentiles" (Acts 15:14).
These divine plans have been accepted by the Elect and shaped them into divine beings full of glory and truth.
"And He will dwell with them"
Yahweh will not personally leave His throne in the heavens, to take up permanent residence on earth, but He will dwell with men in the terms of God manifestation: by revealing Himself through the Redeemed. Similar words are used to describe His dwelling in the sanctuary in the midst of Israel (Exod. 25:8; 29:45).
The token of His presence was the Shekinah (dwelling) glory which shone above the Mercy Seat and between the Cherubim (Psa. 80:1). Yahweh dwelt more personally among men when His glory was revealed through His son (John 1:14). He is yet to dwell among men in the multitude of the redeemed each one of whom will manifest His glory (Rom. 5:2; 2 Pet. 1:4; Rev. 3:12; Ezek. 43:1-3).
Finally, at the last judgment, at the conclusion of the millenium (1000 years), His glory will be so manifested, as to fulfil in every particular His declaration to Moses: "All the earth shall be filled with the glory of Yahweh" (Num. 14:21). He dwells with men, or better stated dwell in them, on Earth.
And they shall be His people" The Greek is laoi "peoples," plural. Abraham was promised that he would become "a father of many nations" (Gen. 17:5). At the end of the millenium (1000 yers), all nations will be incorporated into Christ, and will become one, united in the spiritual / physical walls of the new Jerusalem.
"And God Himself shall be with them, and be their God"
The words and be given in italics are inserted. The Greek is: "And God Himself will be with them - their God".
This is the foundation of the New Jerusalem: God manifested in each individual believer and each one acknowledging His status in the Heavens and the Earth.
Insight
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes" This is the final victory at the end of the millennium (1000 years) will see a repetition of those conditions which followed the initial judgment. Isa 25:8 Isa 35:10.
He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken.
And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
"And there shall be no more death"
Death is the final enemy to be conquered at the conclusion of the millennium (1 Cor.15:26). Until then, it continues, even throughout the millennium age though in a modified state (Isa 65:20).
LH - Note the distinct change the Lord brings with him to the earth?
No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
At the conclusion of the second ressurection and final judgement death will be the last enemy to be swallowed up; styled in the scriptures as "Satan (adversary), Devil (false accuser), Slandered, Fasle Accuser etc. and everything which stands for apostate doctrines will be permanently ddestroyed (RCC and her daughters).
"Neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" These conditions shall continue during the millennium (1000 years), though on a greatly reduced rate to that of today. Even Christs Kingdom is spoken here as being the former things, former order of things has passed away. To be replaced with the Garden of Eden restored in the Earth.
For the learned eye these are precious truths.
Insight
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (red = Jesus speaking)
"And he that sat upon the throne"....I will rest here a while to see if you can expound precisely the nature of this throne considering the substance of Rev 4:2.
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. Rev 4:2 - written in AD 95-96 (approx)
LH - we come to a cross road for everything seen by John has clearly been upon earth. Where is this throne? Who is sitting upon this throne? Whose name is "True and faithful"? And before you fall into the trap of going heavenwards as your wayward doctrine instructs you, take another careful look at these passages in their context paying particular attention to the Lord's reward for his obedience to his Father.
"Jesus will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David"
I am sure when the penny drops it will do so very hard....imagine learning everything you were taught as a child was false? To be honest I expect you to draw back rather than come nearer to the Word.
Let's see.
Insight
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 02:38:03
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (red = Jesus speaking)
"And he that sat upon the throne"....I will rest here a while to see if you can expound precisely the nature of this throne considering the substance of Rev 4:2.
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. Rev 4:2 - written in AD 95-96 (approx)
Ask a couple of open questions Lighthammer and see where they lead you? What might the first question be?
1.
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 04:36:02
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 02:38:03
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (red = Jesus speaking)
"And he that sat upon the throne"....I will rest here a while to see if you can expound precisely the nature of this throne considering the substance of Rev 4:2.
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. Rev 4:2 - written in AD 95-96 (approx)
Ask a couple of open questions Lighthammer and see where they lead you? What might the first question be?
1.
I know Yahweh's throne has been established in those heavens from time immemorial....so how
set? and
set where?
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 04:43:12
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 04:36:02
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 02:38:03
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (red = Jesus speaking)
"And he that sat upon the throne"....I will rest here a while to see if you can expound precisely the nature of this throne considering the substance of Rev 4:2.
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. Rev 4:2 - written in AD 95-96 (approx)
Ask a couple of open questions Lighthammer and see where they lead you? What might the first question be?
1.
I know Yahweh's throne has been established in those heavens from time immemorial....so how set? and set where?
Lets go with the Greek (κεῖμαι - set) on this one as to mean a throne "to be made" or "appointed".
But where?
A couple of clues LH...
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph,
of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God
will give to him the
throne of his father David,
::shrug::
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 04:53:08
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 04:43:12
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 04:36:02
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 02:38:03
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (red = Jesus speaking)
"And he that sat upon the throne"....I will rest here a while to see if you can expound precisely the nature of this throne considering the substance of Rev 4:2.
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. Rev 4:2 - written in AD 95-96 (approx)
Ask a couple of open questions Lighthammer and see where they lead you? What might the first question be?
1.
I know Yahweh's throne has been established in those heavens from time immemorial....so how set? and set where?
Lets go with the Greek (κεῖμαι - set) on this one as to mean a throne "to be made" or "appointed".
But where?
A couple of clues LH...
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
::shrug::
I hope you are still considering a number of open questions?
Bring to mind LH that Rev 4 & 21 are both wrtten in the context of Jesus being in heaven...John was told these things would be fulfilled
"hereafter" (Rev. 1:1; 4:1).
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants
things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:
Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. Rev 4:1
So Rev 4:2 is not yet a
set throne but one appointed for a future time.
What sayest thou? ::shrug::
The truth about Rev 4:2 & Rev 21:5 speaks to a beautifully hidden symbology which suggests a scene of national judgment in the political heaven such as is described in the similar language of Daniel 7:9-14.
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire.
A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld [even] till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.
With what you have learned please read these verses carefully.
Insight
: Insight Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 05:20:16
The truth about Rev 4:2 & Rev 21:5 speaks to a beautifully hidden symbology which suggests a scene of national judgment in the political heaven such as is described in the similar language of Daniel 7:9-14.
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire.
Trickly little passage this one LH.
As you see the A.V. reads:
"the thrones were cast down," but this is better rendered
"the thrones were placed, set, or fixed." The R.V. renders, "the thrones were placed." The metaphor of placing thrones is borrowed from the custom of earthly judicatories, and particularly that of the Great Sanhedrin, where the father of the consistory sat with his assessors seated on
either side of him, in the form of a semicircle, with the people standing before him (cp. Ps. 9:7; 122:5).
That is the picture presented in the chapter before us. The redeemed already are in glory (See 8-11; Rev. 5:9-10); the Lamb has "prevailed" in judging the nations (Rev.5:5); and the vision closes with praise being ascribed to the one upon the throne
an the part of all upon the earth (Rev.5:13-14).
The description of the one upon the throne (a combination of jasper and sardine stones) suggests Divine judgment through the glorified Son of Man (See. John 5:19-27).
Insight
"Said, Behold, I make all new"
At the conclusion of the 1000 years millenium reign of Christ, and his saints, a completely new order or constitution of things will be set up.
The perfected kingdom will be delivered to the Father (1 Cor 15:24).
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. (1 Corinthians 15:24)
"I make all new
Rev 21:6 "And he said unto me, It is done am. I Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end"
Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. There are twenty four letters in the Greek alphabet, answering to the twenty-four elders of Rev. 4:4 which represents perfectly the multitudinous (Jew & Gentile) in Christ.
And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. (Revelation 4:4)
It is appropriate that the Lord, who is described as "the word made flesh" should also bare this title. He is the "author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:2), and to him we should look for salvation. In this verse however, he speaks as the manifestation of God, the Almighty. His position is one of absolute power in Heaven and on Earth and is only subject to his Father and none else. 1 Corin 15:27
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (Yahweh) that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
See 1 John 3:1; Rom. 8:19; and compare with Isa. 44:6 with Isa. 41:4. To better understand how God manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His son.
Its important to acknowledge that we the saints are also in this title a multitude of believers in Jesus Christ who is our head.
"The beginning and the ending" All has now been accomplished in Christ.
"I (Jesus) will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely"—The water of life is not offered indiscriminately to all, but only to those who thirst for it (Isa. 55:1). How necessary it is for us to devolope that thirst? See John 4:13-14.
Insight
See 1 John 3:1; Rom. 8:19; and compare with Isa. 44:6 with Isa. 41:4. To better understand how God manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His son.
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. (1 John 3:1)
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)
Compare...
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:6)
Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. (Isaiah 41:4)
God manifested through Jesus Christ (singluar) and in the plural (saints).
Consider these truths against the following verses.
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:7-8)
Lets pause it here to reconsider an overview of Rev 21:1-6.
Revelation 21 is clearly based on Revelation Chapter 20 - especially the comprehension of verse 4
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4)
"They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years".
This is equivalent to saying that they lived again (see v. 5). The Greek is "and they lived, and they reigned with the Anointed
one, "thus implying a resurrection unto eternal life, followed by a reigning with Christ during the millenium (Rev. 5:9-10).
I dont know how LH puts this together but he would have a job on his hands to explain the following verse...
"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished"
At Christ's return, "the kingdoms of this world (will start to become- notice the grinding to powder of the image Dan 2) the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever" (Rev 11:15).
This is the Second (2nd) Heaven and Earth. The former age where sin is still present but restrained under the rulership and guidance of Christ and the Saints.
Then at the time of the end of this 1000 year reign God's will and desire will be completely and openly performed in this earth. Hence Jesus' command for us to pray:
"Thy kingdom come (that) Thy will be done in earth, as it is (now) in heaven" (Matt. 6:10). "kingdom of God" is a phrase interchangeable with "the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13:11 cp. Mark 4:11).
Christ looked forward to a time when God's Davidic Kingdom would have his beloved Son reigning in righteouness in the earth leading to a time when his Father's perfect will in heaven which is never questioned or broken will be on earth.
This is the Third Heaven (3rd) and Earth which shall never be replaced or destroyed.
We must remember God is not concerned with the Kingdoms of Men - His main focus is His Kingdom which began under Saul (the king they choose) but more so under David (The Lords anointed).
So the Kingdom of God is styled "Heaven and Earth" and it looks like this.
1. Kingdom of Israel (First Heaven and Earth)
2. Christ and the Saints 1000 years (Second Heaven and Earth)
3. God being "all in all" the Tabernacle of God is finally with man on earth. This is the final Heaven and Earth...where its rulers and peoples will lived eternally in Eden restored and what happens into eternity no one really knows. But I eagerly await this time.
Each of these phases is the great Bible Narrative which teaches how this humble little Kingdom of Israel will one day fill the entire earth.
Insight
Now Rev 20:7 is clear what is being taught.
"And when the thousand years are expired"
compared...
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. Rev 21:1
AND
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21:4)
Insight
Lighthammer,
After Christ and the saints have reigned over the earth we know sin will be allowed to have it's way in the earth once more.
After the completion of the millenium, there will follow a period during which the restraints of that time shall be relaxed, enabling every person to manifest the hidden motives of his or her heart by continued obedience or otherwise. No longer will the Redeemed openly oppose sin; no longer will be heard the voice of instruction commanding "this is the way walk ye in it" (Isa. 30:21).
(Hence why Rev 21:1-6 is so essential in its teaching)
Instead, each one will be permitted to exercise his own desire, and shall be self-judged by the way they react.
"And (sin) shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth"
With the relaxing of restrictions, human nature will assert itself once more. It will be found that people can please themselves without restraint, so that even "in the land of uprightness" people will begin to act unrighteously once more (Isa. 26:10).
So lets pop back over to Rev 21.
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
"But the fearful" Gr. deilos, "cowards." The truth demands both mental and moral courage. All cowards will be excluded from the Kingdom.
"And unbelieving" This was the cause of many in Israel failing to enter the land of promise (Heb 3:18). We honour God by respecting His Word which He has magnified above all His name (Psa 138:2). The word is apistos, and signifies "faithless." A person can "believe" a doctrine academically and yet be faithless. That was Israel's failure. Faith comes by generating confidence in Gods promises through study of the word (Rom. 10:17 Heb. 11:1,6).
"The abominable" Gr. Bdelussomai from bdeo, "to stink," to cause one to turn away in disgust. A kindred word in Luke 16:15 is used to describe that which is highly esteemed among men, but which is abhorrent in the sight of God.
"And murderers" A murderer, in a figurative sense, is described as one who hates his brother without cause (1 John 3:15).
"And whoremongers" The unfaithful who make friends with the world are described as adultresses (James 4:4).
"And sorcerers" Gr. pharmakeus. A related word is rendered "witchcraft" in Gal. 5:20. The root word implies the removing of an evil, or the inflicting of one, usually by use of a drug. Heretical doctrines can act as a drug, dulling the mind to the realities of life and of true religion.
"And idolators" Idolatry is refusing to heed the Word of God (1 Sam. 15:23), or of covetously serving self to the exclusion of the Truth (Col. 3:5).
"And all liars" Those that teach false doctrines are here named and counted as a liars. 1 John 2:4,22; 1 John 4:20; 1 John 5:10.
"Shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death"
These numerous people will share the fate of the world which they loved so much during their probation on earth.
You will note how Jesus expresses "death
Lighthammer - should the Lord remain away and you see the grave as a Roman Catholic you will not see the Millennium age, or the second death, but take part in the first death with all those who lived during the time of the gentiles.
The appearing of Jesus Christ will bring the end of the Gentile age and the beginning of the Second Heaven and Earth government upon the Earth.
Shake off your Romanist teachings and depart from false doctrine so you can take part in these verses with joy.
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: (1 Timothy 6:14)
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; (2 Timothy 4:1)
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 1:7)
I could write books on those things that shall come to pass at his appearing.
It is sad you deny these passages for Church dogma's.
Insight
Lighthammer must consider the relationship between Jerusalem and the Lamb.
As we have seen the first eight verses of Rev 21:1-8 took us beyond the millennium age 1000 year reign of Christ where his rulership eventuated in death being destroyed forever, and sin abolished from the earth.
From verse 9 onwards, a new vision commences.
I will explore the new vision while LH is either away or no longer engaging in this debate.
The Spirit takes John back to the commencement of Christ's earthly reign to trace the development of the New Jerusalem whose final glory he has been shown already in Rev 21:1-8.
I appreciate many are reading this debate and while I could spend this time doing other profitable things an indication from one to continue would be appreciated.
Here is a taste:
This is the final vision of The Revelation, which in the course of its unfolding has revealed the holy city comes under considerable persecution (Rev. 11:12); which occurs at the beginning of the millennium age (the vision now before us), and at the conclusion of it (Rev. 21:1-8). Now we are shown the significant that the symbology of the spiritual Temple-city now reveal and based on the details found in the literal Temple of Ezekiel in chapters 40-48.
Understanding the events that surround the 1000 year reign and its completion given considerable detail in the REvelation.
Ezekiel's Temple was never constructed and forms part of the work in the millennium age. This will be the temple which nations come up to year on year offer praise and to learn of Gods ways.
(http://oneyearbibleimages.com/ezekiels_temple.jpg)
Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
"And there came unto me one of the seven angels that had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues"
The introduction of this vision by one of the angels of the vials suggests that the time period of its fulfilment is at the return of Christ (Rev. 16:15). It will be during the period of the 7th vial that the new Jerusalem will be first revealed. It is also during the seventh vial that Jesus Christ returns to the earth. A great number of events take place in this seventh vial period, too many to mention here but to name a few:
• Marriage of the Lamb
• Preparation for war - Rev 10
• Arab Nations subdued
• Apostate Churches admonished
• Nations disciplined
• Judah refined and Israel regathered fully into the Land and much more.
We havnt time here to expound Rev 16 needless to say we are in the period of the seventh vial and Jesus Christ will return like a thief to his household. (Rev 16:15)
"And talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife"
This is new Jerusalem made up of a company of redeemed, the saints of the Most High God. See Rev. 19:7.
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; (Revelation 19:17)
Insight
: Insight Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 18:09:29
I wanted to test your undestanding of Rev 21 and whether you are able to draw back into the Old Testament to prove Yahweh has no need of destroying his Heavenly abode nor his earth as promised after the flood.
You cannot run from the literal return of Jesus Christ; this is why your apostacy has rob you of ever entering the Kingdom.
A true servant of Christ is eagerly waiting for the Master of the house to return:
Are your lamps trimmed and burning brightly? and a good supply of the oil of the Word in hand? Matt.24:42-44.
From our discussion I have determined you cannot speak to the Daniels prophecy or can you enter the Revelation with care.
"Therefore be ye also ready" (Roth.) "Wherefore ye also be getting ready". This is an exhortation to constant preparedness.
"ye think not" (Roth) "ye are not thinking".
You are like a sleeping man whose thoughts are constantly on dogmans so the very real danger that you will be found by my Lord in a state of unpreparedness is clear, not only have you lost your conception of the realities of the Kingdom but your vision of the glories to come you know not.
Jesus said....Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. (Revelation 16:15)
Of course we know why he is coming...
And they (saints) sung a new song, saying, Thou (Jesus) art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain (past tense), and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall (future tense) reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:9-10)
I will persist for a little while with Rev 21 so I can bed down the three phases of the Kingdom of God on earth - feel free to read along and enter once you have a handle on the symbology.
Enjoy
Insight
Sorry for the delay. Drill weekend.
You misunderstand. I believe wholeheartedly in a literal secoming of Christ. Looking forward to the Parousia. I just don't believe in any form of literal return until the last enemy of Christ has been destroyed and New Heaven and New Earth descend giving us New Jerusalem. Mainly because such contradicts the words of Sacred Scripture.
Btw.
If You see I haven't been online don't proceed to type up two pages of posts for me to play catch up with. Its silly and unnecessary. If I haven't replied yet there's a valid reason for it. Now I have to try and place two pages of your osts in context when you could have easily waited until I returned.
: Insight Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 04:03:12
Lighthammer must consider the relationship between Jerusalem and the Lamb.
As we have seen the first eight verses of Rev 21:1-8 took us beyond the millennium age 1000 year reign of Christ where his rulership eventuated in death being destroyed forever, and sin abolished from the earth.
From verse 9 onwards, a new vision commences.
I will explore the new vision while LH is either away or no longer engaging in this debate.
The Spirit takes John back to the commencement of Christ's earthly reign to trace the development of the New Jerusalem whose final glory he has been shown already in Rev 21:1-8.
I appreciate many are reading this debate and while I could spend this time doing other profitable things an indication from one to continue would be appreciated.
Here is a taste:
This is the final vision of The Revelation, which in the course of its unfolding has revealed the holy city comes under considerable persecution (Rev. 11:12); which occurs at the beginning of the millennium age (the vision now before us), and at the conclusion of it (Rev. 21:1-8). Now we are shown the significant that the symbology of the spiritual Temple-city now reveal and based on the details found in the literal Temple of Ezekiel in chapters 40-48.
Understanding the events that surround the 1000 year reign and its completion given considerable detail in the REvelation.
Ezekiel's Temple was never constructed and forms part of the work in the millennium age. This will be the temple which nations come up to year on year offer praise and to learn of Gods ways.
(http://oneyearbibleimages.com/ezekiels_temple.jpg)
Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
"And there came unto me one of the seven angels that had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues"
The introduction of this vision by one of the angels of the vials suggests that the time period of its fulfilment is at the return of Christ (Rev. 16:15). It will be during the period of the 7th vial that the new Jerusalem will be first revealed. It is also during the seventh vial that Jesus Christ returns to the earth. A great number of events take place in this seventh vial period, too many to mention here but to name a few:
• Marriage of the Lamb
• Preparation for war - Rev 10
• Arab Nations subdued
• Apostate Churches admonished
• Nations disciplined
• Judah refined and Israel regathered fully into the Land and much more.
We havnt time here to expound Rev 16 needless to say we are in the period of the seventh vial and Jesus Christ will return like a thief to his household. (Rev 16:15)
"And talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife"
This is new Jerusalem made up of a company of redeemed, the saints of the Most High God. See Rev. 19:7.
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; (Revelation 19:17)
Insight
Are you trying to be funny?
Like I'm curious if you're serious or if you're trying to make a joke?
I never onced denied. that New Jerusalem, New Heaven and New Earth were real places. I'm the one who introduced them into the discussion. If you forgot go back and reread. I was refuting your idea of a millennium reign where Christ resides on Earth while Satan in bound up.
I think you're purposelly acting confused because I have successfully debunked your idea of a Millennium Reign where Christ resides on Earth. Yes New Jerusalem, New Heaven and New Earth are real places but those have nothing to do with the Millennnium Reign. Those come after.
There's no way you genuinely got our discussion this jacked up. I was gone for two days. Don't waste my time Insight and don't try and switch my stances.
You know I never denied that New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem were real places to come. On the contrary I was the first to introuce that position into the thread. Your idea of Christ's second coming starting the Milliennium Reign where He resides on Earth has been proven wrong. Don't try and twist my position because yours has been shattered.
Christ's reigns at the Right Hand and will remain there until His enemies have been destroyed, the last of which is Death. Once Death is conquered THEN the old heaven and earth are disembodied and the New come about. Then Christ resides physically on the New Earth. Christ DOES NOT reside on Earth during the Millennium Reign because His enemies will not be destroyed at that time. Satan will only be bound up and Death won't be destroyed until later.
I can't believe you tried to get me like that. Trying to act like I denied New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem were literal future places; so unimpressive.
: LightHammer Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 10:30:54
: Insight Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 18:09:29
I wanted to test your undestanding of Rev 21 and whether you are able to draw back into the Old Testament to prove Yahweh has no need of destroying his Heavenly abode nor his earth as promised after the flood.
You cannot run from the literal return of Jesus Christ; this is why your apostacy has rob you of ever entering the Kingdom.
A true servant of Christ is eagerly waiting for the Master of the house to return:
Are your lamps trimmed and burning brightly? and a good supply of the oil of the Word in hand? Matt.24:42-44.
From our discussion I have determined you cannot speak to the Daniels prophecy or can you enter the Revelation with care.
"Therefore be ye also ready" (Roth.) "Wherefore ye also be getting ready". This is an exhortation to constant preparedness.
"ye think not" (Roth) "ye are not thinking".
You are like a sleeping man whose thoughts are constantly on dogmans so the very real danger that you will be found by my Lord in a state of unpreparedness is clear, not only have you lost your conception of the realities of the Kingdom but your vision of the glories to come you know not.
Jesus said....Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. (Revelation 16:15)
Of course we know why he is coming...
And they (saints) sung a new song, saying, Thou (Jesus) art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain (past tense), and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall (future tense) reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:9-10)
I will persist for a little while with Rev 21 so I can bed down the three phases of the Kingdom of God on earth - feel free to read along and enter once you have a handle on the symbology.
Enjoy
Insight
Sorry for the delay. Drill weekend.
You misunderstand. I believe wholeheartedly in a literal secoming of Christ. Looking forward to the Parousia. I just don't believe in any form of literal return until the last enemy of Christ has been destroyed and New Heaven and New Earth descend giving us New Jerusalem. Mainly because such contradicts the words of Sacred Scripture.
Btw.
If You see I haven't been online don't proceed to type up two pages of posts for me to play catch up with. Its silly and unnecessary. If I haven't replied yet there's a valid reason for it. Now I have to try and place two pages of your osts in context when you could have easily waited until I returned.
Welcome back LH.
A courtesy message would have been welcomed and not so difficult with the modern technology avaliable today.
I will give you a few days respond to the many posts that show Christs second coming; whereby his throne shall be set in Jerusalem.
Enjoy...others have!
Insight
: LightHammer Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 10:52:55
Like I'm curious if you're serious or if you're trying to make a joke?
I never onced denied. that New Jerusalem, New Heaven and New Earth were real places. I'm the one who introduced them into the discussion. If you forgot go back and reread. I was refuting your idea of a millennium reign where Christ resides on Earth while Satan in bound up.
Christ's return to Jerusalem is what makes it New.
Maybe you can explain your Satan being bound theory.
Should be interesting.
I think you're purposelly acting confused because I have successfully debunked your idea of a Millennium Reign where Christ resides on Earth. Yes New Jerusalem, New Heaven and New Earth are real places but those have nothing to do with the Millennnium Reign. Those come after.
There's no way you genuinely got our discussion this jacked up. I was gone for two days. Don't waste my time Insight and don't try and switch my stances.
You know I never denied that New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem were real places to come. On the contrary I was the first to introuce that position into the thread. Your idea of Christ's second coming starting the Milliennium Reign where He resides on Earth has been proven wrong. Don't try and twist my position because yours has been shattered.
Christ's reigns at the Right Hand and will remain there until His enemies have been destroyed, the last of which is Death. Once Death is conquered THEN the old heaven and earth are disembodied and the New come about. Then Christ resides physically on the New Earth. Christ DOES NOT reside on Earth during the Millennium Reign because His enemies will not be destroyed at that time. Satan will only be bound up and Death won't be destroyed until later.
I can't believe you tried to get me like that. Trying to act like I denied New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem were literal future places; so unimpressive.
A lot of whining here LH without any Scriptural substance...which I must say has been increasing of late.
At present you are swimming in a sea of Scripture that reveals a literal reign of Christ upon the earth for a period of 1000 years.
I will wait for your Satan teaching before going any further.
Insight
: Insight Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 15:31:14
: LightHammer Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 10:52:55
Like I'm curious if you're serious or if you're trying to make a joke?
I never onced denied. that New Jerusalem, New Heaven and New Earth were real places. I'm the one who introduced them into the discussion. If you forgot go back and reread. I was refuting your idea of a millennium reign where Christ resides on Earth while Satan in bound up.
Christ's return to Jerusalem is what makes it New.
Maybe you can explain your Satan being bound theory.
Should be interesting.
I think you're purposelly acting confused because I have successfully debunked your idea of a Millennium Reign where Christ resides on Earth. Yes New Jerusalem, New Heaven and New Earth are real places but those have nothing to do with the Millennnium Reign. Those come after.
There's no way you genuinely got our discussion this jacked up. I was gone for two days. Don't waste my time Insight and don't try and switch my stances.
You know I never denied that New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem were real places to come. On the contrary I was the first to introuce that position into the thread. Your idea of Christ's second coming starting the Milliennium Reign where He resides on Earth has been proven wrong. Don't try and twist my position because yours has been shattered.
Christ's reigns at the Right Hand and will remain there until His enemies have been destroyed, the last of which is Death. Once Death is conquered THEN the old heaven and earth are disembodied and the New come about. Then Christ resides physically on the New Earth. Christ DOES NOT reside on Earth during the Millennium Reign because His enemies will not be destroyed at that time. Satan will only be bound up and Death won't be destroyed until later.
I can't believe you tried to get me like that. Trying to act like I denied New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem were literal future places; so unimpressive.
A lot of whining here LH without any Scriptural substance...which I must say has been increasing of late.
At present you are swimming in a sea of Scripture that reveals a literal reign of Christ upon the earth for a period of 1000 years.
I will wait for your Satan teaching before going any further.
Insight
What are you talking about?
I never claimed that Christ wouldn't physically reign on the Earth. I said He wouldn't reign on the Earth during the Millennium Age. He is going to reign in the New Heaven and the New Earth from New Jerusalem. However the New Age is after the Millennium Age.
Are you trying to be funny? I'm not whining you simply have no idea what point you're arguing. The point we were arguing was YOUR claim that Christ is going to come down to Earth and reign from here during the Millennium Age. That was YOUR(as in you Insight) claim.
Now try to keep up.
I rebuttal and said no Christ is at the Right Hand and will not leave the Right Hand all of His enemies have been destroyed. His last enemy is death after who's demise the New Age comes. THEN Christ reigns physically upon the New Earth.
Do you understand the argument now? I can say it slowly if you need me to. We(LightHammer and Insight) were debating your(Insight) view on the Millennium Age. You(Insight) claim that Christ reigns from the Earth during this age. I (LightHammer) was disputing your(Insight) claim that Christ will reign from the Earth in the Millennium Age.
I say again do you understand the context of our debate. If you really are this confused. I am done with this conversation. I will not attorney to eebate someone who reading comprehension skills are so poor that they even follow a one on one discussion.
Take some time read my posts and then read yours. And then read mine again. Then when you actually have a clue how this conversation is going we can talk. Stop wasting my time, Insight.
Wait are claiming that the Millenium Age is the same ad the New Age?
Oh that's super easy to prove false.
Revelation 20:2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
After the thousand years Satan is released and this happens.
Revelation 20:7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Revelation 20:10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Satan is destroyed and after that this happens...
Revelation 20:11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
The crescendo.....
Revelation 20:14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
After the Millennium Age Satan is freed goes crazy is conquered. Then comes the Final Jugment where Death is destroyed and then this happens.....
Revelation 21: 1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
New Heaven New Earth and New Jerusalem don't come until after the Millennium Age. Theyre not the same thing.
Here is the proof that Christ does not reign on the Earth during the Millennium Age:
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Christ doesn't leave the Right Hand until His enemies are destroyed. The last enemy is death.
1 Corinthians 15:26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Death is destroyed after the Millennium Age and Christ doesn't leave the Right Hand until His enemies are destroyed. That means He does not reign on the Earth during the Millennium Age.
Like its ok Insight. Someone lied to you. I'm not sure who it was but they defibitely lied to you.
: LightHammer Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 16:12:00
: Insight Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 15:31:14
: LightHammer Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 10:52:55
Like I'm curious if you're serious or if you're trying to make a joke?
I never onced denied. that New Jerusalem, New Heaven and New Earth were real places. I'm the one who introduced them into the discussion. If you forgot go back and reread. I was refuting your idea of a millennium reign where Christ resides on Earth while Satan in bound up.
Christ's return to Jerusalem is what makes it New.
Maybe you can explain your Satan being bound theory.
Should be interesting.
I think you're purposelly acting confused because I have successfully debunked your idea of a Millennium Reign where Christ resides on Earth. Yes New Jerusalem, New Heaven and New Earth are real places but those have nothing to do with the Millennnium Reign. Those come after.
There's no way you genuinely got our discussion this jacked up. I was gone for two days. Don't waste my time Insight and don't try and switch my stances.
You know I never denied that New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem were real places to come. On the contrary I was the first to introuce that position into the thread. Your idea of Christ's second coming starting the Milliennium Reign where He resides on Earth has been proven wrong. Don't try and twist my position because yours has been shattered.
Christ's reigns at the Right Hand and will remain there until His enemies have been destroyed, the last of which is Death. Once Death is conquered THEN the old heaven and earth are disembodied and the New come about. Then Christ resides physically on the New Earth. Christ DOES NOT reside on Earth during the Millennium Reign because His enemies will not be destroyed at that time. Satan will only be bound up and Death won't be destroyed until later.
I can't believe you tried to get me like that. Trying to act like I denied New Heaven, New Earth and New Jerusalem were literal future places; so unimpressive.
A lot of whining here LH without any Scriptural substance...which I must say has been increasing of late.
At present you are swimming in a sea of Scripture that reveals a literal reign of Christ upon the earth for a period of 1000 years.
I will wait for your Satan teaching before going any further.
Insight
What are you talking about?
I never claimed that Christ wouldn't physically reign on the Earth. I said He wouldn't reign on the Earth during the Millennium Age. He is going to reign in the New Heaven and the New Earth from New Jerusalem. However the New Age is after the Millennium Age.
Are you trying to be funny? I'm not whining you simply have no idea what point you're arguing. The point we were arguing was YOUR claim that Christ is going to come down to Earth and reign from here during the Millennium Age. That was YOUR(as in you Insight) claim.
Now try to keep up.
I rebuttal and said no Christ is at the Right Hand and will not leave the Right Hand all of His enemies have been destroyed. His last enemy is death after who's demise the New Age comes. THEN Christ reigns physically upon the New Earth.
Do you understand the argument now? I can say it slowly if you need me to. We(LightHammer and Insight) were debating your(Insight) view on the Millennium Age. You(Insight) claim that Christ reigns from the Earth during this age. I (LightHammer) was disputing your(Insight) claim that Christ will reign from the Earth in the Millennium Age.
I say again do you understand the context of our debate. If you really are this confused. I am done with this conversation. I will not attorney to eebate someone who reading comprehension skills are so poor that they even follow a one on one discussion.
Take some time read my posts and then read yours. And then read mine again. Then when you actually have a clue how this conversation is going we can talk. Stop wasting my time, Insight.
LH - go to page 8 and use the "find" function and search "1000" or "Millennium".
Why don't you quit with your verbal gymnastics and enter the Word of God. All those reading this will be seeing one who is confounded with post after post proving conclusively a Christ reigning throughout the 1000 year reign on earth.
By the way the answer is 5 (1000) times and 7 (Millenium) times!
I think this is the 3rd or 4th time you have sought a the exit door in this debate, which again shows your lack of staying power; it is also disapointing on all fronts as you invited me to this debate only to wimper away with your tail between your legs.
The reign of Christ on earth has been proven from Daniel and Revelation without any meaningful rebuttle.
Insight
: Insight Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 05:50:11
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: (1 Timothy 6:14)
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; (2 Timothy 4:1)
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 1:7)
It is enough.
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:12).
"He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations, and he shall rule them" (Rev. 2:26).
"The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever" (Dan. 7:18, 27).
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom" (Matt. 25:34).
All future -- post resurrection
: Insight Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 21:32:55
: Insight Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 05:50:11
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: (1 Timothy 6:14)
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; (2 Timothy 4:1)
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 1:7)
It is enough.
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:12).
"He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations, and he shall rule them" (Rev. 2:26).
"The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever" (Dan. 7:18, 27).
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom" (Matt. 25:34).
All future -- post resurrection
Yes they refer to the New Age. Christ will reign on the New Earth.
I don't get it. I thought we were addressing the Millennium Age? Your claim that Christ was going to reign on the Earth during the Millennium Age.
Why are you shifting to the New Age?
"And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and Jesus will teach us of HIS WAYS, and we will walk in HIS PATHS for OUT OF ZION SHALL GO FORTH THE LAW, AND THE WORD OF THE LORD FROM JERUSALEM. And Jesus shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more"
The return of Jesus Christ will begin to fulfil these words from Isaiah 2.
Again we draw back to your incorrect view of Daniels Prophecy which speaks to this above time when Christ will personally grind the kingdoms of men to powder and replace it with his own...not from Heaven where the ungodly cannot see or believe but here on earth.
And
"And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up FROM YEAR TO YEAR to worship the King (Christ), the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that who will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, even upon them shall be no rain."
Compare...
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)
1000 year reign begins with the physical return of Christ and concludes with him offering up a perfected glorified Kingdom to his Father.
Insight
: LightHammer Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 17:15:47
Wait are claiming that the Millenium Age is the same ad the New Age?
Oh that's super easy to prove false.
Revelation 20:2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
After the thousand years Satan is released and this happens.
Which is he, the Devil or Satan? Can you explain the symbolism? Clearly something is bound - but what? BTW do you believe in dragons also?
Lets entertain your supernatural notions for a little amusement shall we?
Explain the following from Rev 20:2
• How did Jesus lay hold of this supernatural dragon?
• Why are we told it is the old Serpent from the Garden of Eden? (hint hint)
• Where is the bottomless pit and how did he seal this pit?
• In what way did this supernatural creature deceive the nations?
• What is the reason for letting it go?
Look forward to you answering these questions with Bible verses.
Insight
# Little do you know but you have quoted the very verse whcih proves Jesus is on the earth at the beginning of the thousand year reign...I am left wondering why you cannot see it.
: Insight Tue Feb 14, 2012 - 03:06:28
: LightHammer Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 17:15:47
Wait are claiming that the Millennium Age is the same ad the New Age?
Oh that's super easy to prove false.
Revelation 20:2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
After the thousand years Satan is released and this happens.
Which is he, the Devil or Satan? Can you explain the symbolism? Clearly something is bound - but what? BTW do you believe in dragons also?
Let's entertain your supernatural notions for a little amusement shall we?
Explain the following from Rev 20:2
• How did Jesus lay hold of this supernatural dragon?
• Why are we told it is the old Serpent from the Garden of Eden? (hint hint)
• Where is the bottomless pit and how did he seal this pit?
• In what way did this supernatural creature deceive the nations?
• What is the reason for letting it go?
Look forward to you answering these questions with Bible verses.
Insight
# Little do you know but you have quoted the very verse which proves Jesus is on the earth at the beginning of the thousand year reign...I am left wondering why you cannot see it.
The He in Rev 20:2 is clearly speaking of the work of Yahweh through his Son on earth.
Putting the apparent symbology to one side lets consider the evidence.
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan,The Old Serpent in the Garden represented what? And was on earth.
and bound him a thousand years Thousand years is always referring to an earthly realm.
And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, Again a pit is not in heaven but one earth and again putting the symbology of the pit to one side the reference is clearly earthly in nature.
that he should deceive the nations no more, Oh dear LH - again Nations are earthly centralized political organisations on earth.
till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little seasonAgain the thousand years is relating to nations, pit, peoples and kindred's, political powers all EARTHLY in their symbol.
I wonder if this has not also helped you with better understanding the symbolisms of the Satan and Devil?
Insight
Which is he, the Devil or Satan?
He's both they are just different titles. Proven here.
Revelation 20:2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent,
which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Can you explain the symbolism?
I can give my views but the point was not to focus there but simply on the chronology. Christ at Right Hand until His enemies are destroyed. Death is the last enemy to be destroyed. The destruction of Death takes place after the Millinneium Age so Christ does not leave the Right Hand to reign on the Earth during the Millennium Age. I am not entirely sure what is your issue with this. Could you explain it to me?
Clearly something is bound - but what?
Yes something is bound. His name is Satan among others.
BTW do you believe in dragons also?
No more than I believe in seven-honred lambs who can live after being slain. No more than I believe in seven-headed, ten-honred, leopard-body, lion-mouth, bear-feet sea monsters who rise out of the Aegean.
I don't understand the sarcasm. I don't believe Satan is a dragon only that he was symbollically described as a dragon. I do not believe that Christ has ever assumed the form of a seven-horned lamb holding a book of seven seals but I believe He was described as such.
The symbollic usage of the seven-horned lamb does not mean that Jesus Christ is really only a metaphoric construct to embody an idea and neither does the symbollic description of a dragon negate the existence of a real creature known as Lucifer.
Lets entertain your supernatural notions for a little amusement shall we?
I'd rather we focus on the fundamentals that are being looked over here.
# Little do you know but you have quoted the very verse whcih proves Jesus is on the earth at the beginning of the thousand year reign...I am left wondering why you cannot see it.
That doesn't add up Insight. You claim that the supernatural dragon is symbolic for something else but the person carrying the chians is literally descending from Heaven? It seems as if you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either the selection is using symbollism to present a point or its not. You can't believe in a literal descension and a symbollic dragon. A literal figure with literal chains binding a symbollic dragon is simply distortion.
IMHO the verse is entirely symbollic. A power originating from Heaven conquers binds and subdues the Deciever for a thousand years(which I am a bit skeptical if a thousand is meant to be 1000 but thats neither here nor there).
We know Christ doesn't reign from anywhere but the Right Hand until His enemies have been destroyed. Death is the last enemy to be destroyed and that doesn't occur until after this Millennium period. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
: LightHammer Tue Feb 14, 2012 - 20:43:21
Which is he, the Devil or Satan?
He's both they are just different titles. Proven here.
Revelation 20:2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Proven you say.
How so? Can you show me what supports your inference? You have prescribed a great deal of meaning to a word two words which mean "Adversary
Proven you say.
How so? Can you show me what supports your inference? You have prescribed a great deal of meaning to a word two words which mean "Adversary
: LightHammer Wed Feb 15, 2012 - 17:28:55
Proven you say.
How so? Can you show me what supports your inference? You have prescribed a great deal of meaning to a word two words which mean "Adversary
And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an satan against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. (Num 22:22)
Now is God a Satan?
What sayest thou?
1. You inserted purposelly quoted the verse then on your own inserted the word satan. That was low even for an Arian. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows that only titles are translated like that.
2. The verse did not call God an adversay it called the angel He put in the way an adversary. Which only further proves that Satan is name and adversary is a description. You are not very good at this.
In other words, you are saying, I am happy to continue to place an unbiblical inference on the word Satan and Devil symbolism because:
1. I cannot think for myself
2. I cannot support your belief
3. Not open-minded to consider an alternative truth / understanding
I understand.
Nope I simply like to discuss one point at a time. You are the only one with preconceived notion here. Its a fairly young and western construct which is typical but its not that hard to refute.
Once we close the door on these open subtopics we will address this one. I don't how long that will be exactly seeing how you can't seem to stay focused.
Nice try LH...When the Stone smites the earthly image (nations) what does that entail?
Take me to an Old Testament passage showing the battle and the return of Jesus Christ.
I doubt you are able.
The Old Testament and its prophecy didn't point to Christ's second coming at all. It referred to His first coming. Thats kind of the point.
Read it again, and again, and then read it without your preconceived notions and then if you still don't get that the Stone is Christ and the Image standing is representation of the Kingdoms of Men, which is to be replaced with another divine Kingdom on earth with a literal King and literal subjects and Saints reigning as per...
Yes the Church. We have already covered that. The first comind established the Church. That's what St. Daniel saw.
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall (future tense) reign on the earth. (Rev 5:10)
As per Jesus words in... That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luk 22:30)
Revelation 5:10 is fulfilled in its latter half by Revelation 21. Thats the New Age. Again I have no problem with that. We were discussing the Millennium Age.
The Apostles ascend their chairs along time ago. They are seen in Revelation sitting as the twnety four elders. Kind of hard to miss that one. 12 patriarchs of the tribes of Israle plus 12 judges.
12 + 12 +24?
No I am the only who caught that basic addition?
He (Christ) shall (future tense) be great, and shall be called (future tense) the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall (future tense) give unto him the throne of his father David: (Luk 1:32)
I mean what are you still waiting for?
Matthew 28:18And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, `Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth; I mean whats left to talk about?
Matthew 27:54And the centurion, and those with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake, and the things that were done, were exceedingly afraid, saying, `Truly this was God's Son.' You are so late to the party and whats even more funny its almost over.
: LightHammer Wed Feb 15, 2012 - 21:01:20
And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an satan against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. (Num 22:22)
Now is God a Satan?
What sayest thou?
1. You inserted purposely quoted the verse then on your own inserted the word satan. That was low even for an Arian. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows that only titles are translated like that.
Not so my Catholic foe, but to prove a point which your response had aptly confirmed. The word adversary has been translated with regard to the inference being placed upon it. Here we see clearly an obedient Angel described as a satan (or adversary as the Word is interpreted).
Allow me to show forth your poor understanding of Scripture in the word "satan
Allow me to show forth your poor understanding of Scripture in the word "satan
Nothing of value here LH.
Brother, the last three pages of your evasion have had nothing of value.
This is too ridiculous to even comprehend...no wonder you are in such darkness. The Woman and her wine has you inebriated.
LH you have just shot yourself in the foot with that one.
And on and on with the dramatics. Save it for Oprah.
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Dan 2:44)
Maybe you would like to explain the "stand for ever
: LightHammer Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 11:21:21
Allow me to show forth your poor understanding of Scripture in the word "satan
: LightHammer Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 15:45:29
Nothing of value here LH.
Brother, the last three pages of your evasion have had nothing of value.
This is too ridiculous to even comprehend...no wonder you are in such darkness. The Woman and her wine has you inebriated.
LH you have just shot yourself in the foot with that one.
And on and on with the dramatics. Save it for Oprah.
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Dan 2:44)
Maybe you would like to explain the "stand for ever
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1Ch 21:1) And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. (1Ch 21:2)
AND
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2Sa 24:1)
Who stood up against Israel?
Satan the devil. He was able to do so because God was angry with Israel.
Its not the first time something like this has happened.
Satan was able to attack St. Job because of an allowance of God.
: LightHammer Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 16:12:41
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1Ch 21:1) And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. (1Ch 21:2)
AND
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2Sa 24:1)
Who stood up against Israel?
Satan the devil. He was able to do so because God was angry with Israel.
Its not the first time something like this has happened.
Satan was able to attack St. Job because of an allowance of God.
Go back and actually read the accounts.
Who stood against Israel in both accounts?
And the Adversary stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1Ch 21:1) And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. (1Ch 21:2)
AND
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2Sa 24:1)
Maybe this might help you?
: Insight Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 16:16:22
: LightHammer Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 16:12:41
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1Ch 21:1) And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. (1Ch 21:2)
AND
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2Sa 24:1)
Who stood up against Israel?
Satan the devil. He was able to do so because God was angry with Israel.
Its not the first time something like this has happened.
Satan was able to attack St. Job because of an allowance of God.
Go back and actually read the accounts.
Who stood against Israel in both accounts?
: Insight Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 16:23:18
You heard me the first time.
And the Adversary stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1Ch 21:1) And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. (1Ch 21:2)
AND
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2Sa 24:1)
Maybe this might help you?
You thought quoting a different translation would matter and it doesn't. Its still a title. An entity we see many times throughout the Bible. Arguing with God over St. Job. Standing against St. Joshua. Tempting Jesus Christ. This Satan is a real person whether you want to accept that or not is really irrelevant at this point in time.
You are in denial LH holding error firmly and shrinking into blindness....
While you are pondering God being the adversary who moved David to number Israel.
Here is another.
And the LORD stirred up an adversary (same word Satan) unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom. (1Ki 11:14)
Now Hadad was not a supernatural demonic being to which God stirred up...just a fleshly sinful man who was adverse to Solomon.
I wonder if you have learnt anything yet! ::shrug::
Once again the point has been made clear by the Word of God.
1. God is spoken of as being a Satan in Him being an adversary against Israel in 2 Sam. 24:1 cf. 1 Chron. 21:1. Your teaching of God and some Demonic being working with one mind and purpose against His people is totally absurd and only shows how juvenile you are in the Scriptures.
2. The Angel of the Lord was also a Satan though an obedient Angel in Num 22:22
3 Hadad the Edomite is also considered a Satan in 1 Kings 11:14
4. Peter is called a Satan in Matt 16:23 because he spoke those things out of a carnal fleshly mind and not the things of God.
And there are many more instances whereby a person, nation or its governments are considered Satan's in the Bible. So how does this cause us to approach Rev 20:2?
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, (Rev 20:2)
Well we know the "old" serpent is long dead as are all the animals which God has made, so who or what is symbolised by:
-Dragon
-Old Serpent
-Devil
-Satan
And why is it bound for a thousand years which happens to be the same duration as Christ reigning on earth (hint hint)?
Insight
Back on topic...
"That he (personified) should deceive the nations no more" Rev 20:2
We know LH in past ages, nations have been deceived by political aspirations that have led them to oppose the principles of God
(See Micah 4:12; Ezek. 43:7-8).
Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion. But they know not the thoughts of the LORD, neither understand they his counsel: for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor. (Mic 4:12)
And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places. In their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger. (Eze 43:8)
Rev 20:2 reveals this will no longer be permitted. Whilst the nations retain their individual identity during Christ's millenial reign, they will be all subjected to his authority: "their dominion will be taken away, but their lives prolonged for a season and time" (Dan. 7:12).
LH - do you believe the nations today have had thier dominion taken away?
Soon Lighthammer...soon.
Insight
: Insight Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 16:39:25
You are in denial LH holding error firmly and shrinking into blindness....
While you are pondering God being the adversary who moved David to number Israel.
Here is another.
And the LORD stirred up an adversary (same word Satan) unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom. (1Ki 11:14)
Now Hadad was not a supernatural demonic being to which God stirred up...just a fleshly sinful man who was adverse to Solomon.
I wonder if you have learnt anything yet! ::shrug::
Again its called context. You're not proving anything you're simply making my point for me. I appreciate it actually. The adversay God put against St. Solomon was named Hadad not Adversary. Hadad was a satan his name was not Satan.
It was an adjective not a title. A basic sense of literature is all you need to distinguish the difference.
For example, Hadad means "mighty". The word "mighty" is used several times throughout the Bible, sometimes applied to Godly people sometimes to unGodly people, and even sometimes to God Himself. That doesn't change the fact that Hadad was a realm son of Ishmael Edomite.
Another more modern example to help you out. My name is Donovan. In the Gaelic dialect it means "dark-brown". There are billions of human beings on the planet who are donovan but they are not Donovan.
In the eastern dialects Donovan is closely defined as "strong fighter/warrior". The man who fought the battle of Jericho was a donovan but he was St. Joshua. The man who defended God's people was a donovan but he was St. Gideon. The man who tore a lion apart was the most powerful donovan but he was Samson.
You're a grown man I shouldn't have to take real time to give you a lesson in grammar you should know the difference between an adjective and a title.
Once again the point has been made clear by the Word of God.
I agree God's written word is pretty clear on this topic. You should conform to it.
1. God is spoken of as being a Satan in Him being an adversary against Israel in 2 Sam. 24:1 cf. 1 Chron. 21:1. Your teaching of God and some Demonic being working with one mind and purpose against His people is totally absurd and only shows how juvenile you are in the Scriptures.
No God is spoken of being a satan, which means adversary. You don't capitalize adjectives unless they're titles and God never applied that word to Himself as a title.
You did that to support your false views.
2. The Angel of the Lord was also a Satan though an obedient Angel in Num 22:22
No the Angel of the Lord was also a satan, which means adversary. You don't capitalize adjectives unless they're titles and God never applied that word His angel as a title only a description of the role it was to play.
You did that support your false views.
3 Hadad the Edomite is also considered a Satan in 1 Kings 11:14
No Hadad the Edomite was also considered a satan, which means adversary. You don't capitalize adjectives unless they're titles and God's written word never applied that word to Hadad as a title only an adjective.
You did that to support your false views.
4. Peter is called a Satan in Matt 16:23 because he spoke those things out of a carnal fleshly mind and not the things of God.
No Christ was rebuking the actual Satan trying to stand against Christ's coming passion by playing on the love St. Peter had for Christ and Christ had for him.
Its not that hard to comprehend. Christ loved His Apostles after all. As a soldier I understand well the strategics involved. When you duty calls the most hindering and nerve-wrecking obstacle in the way is the face of fear and the tears of sorrow on a loved one who doesn't want to see you hurt. In several soldiers to day and throughout history there are times when the impression of a loved one is enough to abandon your sworn duty so I'm not shocked to see Satan trying to throw Christ off through the love of His closest Apostle.
He has done it before. Satan got to Adam by first going through Eve. Christ was after all the new Adam. His wife the church and St. Peter the leader closest to Him at the time. Its not that hard to se the inherent pattern.
: LightHammer Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 15:10:12
Once again the point has been made clear by the Word of God.
I agree God's written word is pretty clear on this topic. You should conform to it.
Thank you for the encouragement.
1. God is spoken of as being a Satan in Him being an adversary against Israel in 2 Sam. 24:1 cf. 1 Chron. 21:1. Your teaching of God and some Demonic being working with one mind and purpose against His people is totally absurd and only shows how juvenile you are in the Scriptures.
No God is spoken of being a satan, which means adversary. You don't capitalize adjectives unless they're titles and God never applied that word to Himself as a title.
That's strange LH. If we took your limited approach to the Word we find the translators have capitalized "S" for God as being "S"atan.
I think this passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1 caught you off guard, so to speak. This is the problem is one applies a blanket approach to the Word without looking into the context and meaning of the record.
When you see the word Satan or satan or Devil or devil your mind conjure's up all sorts of unscriptural imagery. The kind one might find in a Hollywood movie.
What do you know about 1Ch 21:1?
Firstly, David is moved to number Israel, this has been shown to parallel the record with 2 Sa 24 (See verses 1-7). If you were wise you would consolidate the tow records comparing spiritual with spiritual before allowing your imaginations to run wild.
Secondly, David recognizes he has sinned in verse 8
Then, David has to choose between three curses from God (See 9-13) He chooses the sword of the angel of the Lord who slays many in Jerusalem, stopping over the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (See 14-17);
Finally David buys the threshing floor and sets up an altar, because the plague is stayed (See verses 18-30).
Of course in none of these matters are we presented with some make believe demonic being unless your Satan and your God are in cahoots working together in admonishing Israel. Of course you would then need to explain how your beloved Satan has control of over Yahweh's angels?
In all this you become a fool as none of this threatens your demonic beliefs – simply understanding the record for what is teaches is enough. Yes God is given the Capital "S" of Satan in 1 Chron 21 however it does not imply as you wrongly state a title or name of some demonic creature of darkness, but rather the adversary work of Yahweh against His wayward children.
In other words the Satan activity here is positive full of goodness and not evil as you imply. ::frown:: This is to your shame LH.
If you admitted this truth you would gain more credibility in this discussion than you have at present.
If you come back with more obstinate reasoning's please provide a detail account of the two passages and reconcile how Satan and God are working together and how he has control of Yahweh's angel.
I would prefer to swallow your pride, admit you have wrested this record and lets move back to Rev 20 to find out who the adversary is there presented.
Insight
: Insight Sun Feb 19, 2012 - 15:37:04
: LightHammer Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 15:10:12
Once again the point has been made clear by the Word of God.
I agree God's written word is pretty clear on this topic. You should conform to it.
Thank you for the encouragement.
1. God is spoken of as being a Satan in Him being an adversary against Israel in 2 Sam. 24:1 cf. 1 Chron. 21:1. Your teaching of God and some Demonic being working with one mind and purpose against His people is totally absurd and only shows how juvenile you are in the Scriptures.
No God is spoken of being a satan, which means adversary. You don't capitalize adjectives unless they're titles and God never applied that word to Himself as a title.
That's strange LH. If we took your limited approach to the Word we find the translators have capitalized "S" for God as being "S"atan.
I think this passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1 caught you off guard, so to speak. This is the problem is one applies a blanket approach to the Word without looking into the context and meaning of the record.
When you see the word Satan or satan or Devil or devil your mind conjure's up all sorts of unscriptural imagery. The kind one might find in a Hollywood movie.
What do you know about 1Ch 21:1?
Firstly, David is moved to number Israel, this has been shown to parallel the record with 2 Sa 24 (See verses 1-7). If you were wise you would consolidate the tow records comparing spiritual with spiritual before allowing your imaginations to run wild.
Secondly, David recognizes he has sinned in verse 8
Then, David has to choose between three curses from God (See 9-13) He chooses the sword of the angel of the Lord who slays many in Jerusalem, stopping over the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (See 14-17);
Finally David buys the threshing floor and sets up an altar, because the plague is stayed (See verses 18-30).
Of course in none of these matters are we presented with some make believe demonic being unless your Satan and your God are in cahoots working together in admonishing Israel. Of course you would then need to explain how your beloved Satan has control of over Yahweh's angels?
In all this you become a fool as none of this threatens your demonic beliefs – simply understanding the record for what is teaches is enough. Yes God is given the Capital "S" of Satan in 1 Chron 21 however it does not imply as you wrongly state a title or name of some demonic creature of darkness, but rather the adversary work of Yahweh against His wayward children.
In other words the Satan activity here is positive full of goodness and not evil as you imply. ::frown:: This is to your shame LH.
If you admitted this truth you would gain more credibility in this discussion than you have at present.
If you come back with more obstinate reasoning's please provide a detail account of the two passages and reconcile how Satan and God are working together and how he has control of Yahweh's angel.
I would prefer to swallow your pride, admit you have wrested this record and lets move back to Rev 20 to find out who the adversary is there presented.
Insight
God is never referred to as Satan which makes all of the above moot. Disappointing really. I was kind of excited to see if you come with something more biblically sound but I guess I hoped too much from an Arian.
Num 22:22
The translators could quite easily given the Satan here as a title to the Angel however the focus here is given on the adversary or opposing nature of the angel being in the way i.e.
And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way,So what you are learning is the idea that Satan is actually a word given to describe one being adverse to another it does not always clear who that might be.
Some passages one might need to work a little harder to discover the true nature of the Satan.
I spent some time with Gospel and Thankful going through the Job adversary and clearly they were confounded not answering any of the questions posed.
Maybe you could go where no Christian has gone thus far?
To be frank with you LH the first three chapters of Job is the only place you can hang your demonic hat and it's very shaky – both Gospel and Thankful failed miserably and I doubt you will even go near it also.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/non-traditional-theology/job-chastening-and-perfecting-a-son-of-god/
: JohnDB Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 19:47:32
So far as the discussion rages on Insight has made many more scripture references than every one else combined and has had more of a case built.
And this whole time he is proving a negative...not a positive.
And yet everyone else cannot seem to muster up any substantive proof that Satan does indeed exist as is commonly believed.
So please use some proofs to substantiate yawl's claims that Satan does indeed exist and exactly how and where and why he is capable of what he does do.
Insight is making more sense than the others in the NON-traditional forum than those from the Traditional Theology forum...
Soooo
Maybe a little less flaming posts and a lot more scholarship is needed...otherwise Insight is going to prove his case and everyone else is going to get modded into silence.
The problem for you LH is this:
If I did refute your Satan-ology with real Bible proofs, how would that affect your understanding of the prophetic books? Of what is the true enemy of God and how he overcame that enemy?
You are not yet silence but it drawing nearer by the post.
Insight
: LightHammer Sun Feb 19, 2012 - 15:51:28
: Insight Sun Feb 19, 2012 - 15:37:04
: LightHammer Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 15:10:12
Once again the point has been made clear by the Word of God.
I agree God's written word is pretty clear on this topic. You should conform to it.
Thank you for the encouragement.
1. God is spoken of as being a Satan in Him being an adversary against Israel in 2 Sam. 24:1 cf. 1 Chron. 21:1. Your teaching of God and some Demonic being working with one mind and purpose against His people is totally absurd and only shows how juvenile you are in the Scriptures.
No God is spoken of being a satan, which means adversary. You don't capitalize adjectives unless they're titles and God never applied that word to Himself as a title.
That's strange LH. If we took your limited approach to the Word we find the translators have capitalized "S" for God as being "S"atan.
I think this passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1 caught you off guard, so to speak. This is the problem is one applies a blanket approach to the Word without looking into the context and meaning of the record.
When you see the word Satan or satan or Devil or devil your mind conjure's up all sorts of unscriptural imagery. The kind one might find in a Hollywood movie.
What do you know about 1Ch 21:1?
Firstly, David is moved to number Israel, this has been shown to parallel the record with 2 Sa 24 (See verses 1-7). If you were wise you would consolidate the tow records comparing spiritual with spiritual before allowing your imaginations to run wild.
Secondly, David recognizes he has sinned in verse 8
Then, David has to choose between three curses from God (See 9-13) He chooses the sword of the angel of the Lord who slays many in Jerusalem, stopping over the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (See 14-17);
Finally David buys the threshing floor and sets up an altar, because the plague is stayed (See verses 18-30).
Of course in none of these matters are we presented with some make believe demonic being unless your Satan and your God are in cahoots working together in admonishing Israel. Of course you would then need to explain how your beloved Satan has control of over Yahweh's angels?
In all this you become a fool as none of this threatens your demonic beliefs – simply understanding the record for what is teaches is enough. Yes God is given the Capital "S" of Satan in 1 Chron 21 however it does not imply as you wrongly state a title or name of some demonic creature of darkness, but rather the adversary work of Yahweh against His wayward children.
In other words the Satan activity here is positive full of goodness and not evil as you imply. ::frown:: This is to your shame LH.
If you admitted this truth you would gain more credibility in this discussion than you have at present.
If you come back with more obstinate reasoning's please provide a detail account of the two passages and reconcile how Satan and God are working together and how he has control of Yahweh's angel.
I would prefer to swallow your pride, admit you have wrested this record and lets move back to Rev 20 to find out who the adversary is there presented.
Insight
God is never referred to as Satan which makes all of the above moot. Disappointing really. I was kind of excited to see if you come with something more biblically sound but I guess I hoped too much from an Arian.
The 13 poeple reading this discussion are scratching their heads ::headscratch::
Insight provided Scripture to support his understanding and even asked of LH...
If you come back with more obstinate reasoning's please provide a detail account of the two passages and reconcile how Satan and God are working together and how he has control of Yahweh's angel.
But all he could present is this:
God is never referred to as Satan which makes all of the above moot. Disappointing really. I was kind of excited to see if you come with something more biblically sound but I guess I hoped too much from an Arian.
::shrug::
Maybe your silence is closer than first thought.
We have narrrowed our discussion to the word adversary and how its applied in the Old and New Testament.
Have you also considered how devil or false accuser is used?
Look up Judas @ John 6:70.
Also the Women @ 1 Timothy 3:11 cf. Titus 2:3.
and the Men @ 2 Timothy 3:3.
Of course the Devil is also given its title to "Sin in the flesh" as per Heb. 2:14 cf. Heb. 9:26 and Rom. 5:21; 6:23 (to show that "devil" is synonymous with "sin") and then See Rom. 7:17, 18.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Heb 2:14)
Children are partakers of flesh and blood.
Jesus took part in the same nature
Through death ::shrug:: he destroyed the devil
Which had the power of death
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Rom 5:12) ::pondering::
Hmmmmm "by one man sin entered the world"
I wonder what the true devil really is? rofl
: LightHammer Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 15:10:12
4. Peter is called a Satan in Matt 16:23 because he spoke those things out of a carnal fleshly mind and not the things of God.
No Christ was rebuking the actual Satan trying to stand against Christ's coming passion by playing on the love St. Peter had for Christ and Christ had for him.
Again your understanding of how the word adversary is used in the Scriptures is once again in question.
When Christ said to
Peter "GET BEHIND ME" it is clear Peter was standing in front of Jesus, as though to stop him from going any further.
Peter was responding out of his great love of Christ though here misguided and well-intended, he was nevertheless attempting to destroy the mission his Christ with his saying!
LH - if you entered the record rather than commenting from your lofty cathedrals you would see Jesus is saying "Don't hinder me; help me!
Lighhammer,
If I may provide a little more perspective on this deviation.
Have you noticed more times than not the adversary is in human form? While we know the work of God is to stand in the way of those He loves.
You should be more inquisitive as to why this Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel (1 Chron. 21: 1).
You see David numbered Israel, not for the mere sake of ascertaining the number of the people like that of a census, but for the purpose of pride: for the purpose of measuring his strength, in this he forgot the God of his strength.
From all the passages here quoted, it becomes perfectly apparent that the word Satan, so far as its use in the Old Testament is concerned, instead of meaning an invisible, supernatural being, means an adversary, and this adversary, a human being in a state of opposition.
In this manner of opposition you could be considered a Satan, in that you are teaching falsehood and causing others not to behold the simplicity of the truth.
Insight
Num 22:22
The translators could quite easily given the Satan here as a title to the Angel however the focus here is given on the adversary or opposing nature of the angel being in the way i.e. And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way,
So what you are learning is the idea that Satan is actually a word given to describe one being adverse to another it does not always clear who that might be.
Some passages one might need to work a little harder to discover the true nature of the Satan.
I spent some time with Gospel and Thankful going through the Job adversary and clearly they were confounded not answering any of the questions posed.
Maybe you could go where no Christian has gone thus far?
To be frank with you LH the first three chapters of Job is the only place you can hang your demonic hat and it's very shaky – both Gospel and Thankful failed miserably and I doubt you will even go near it also.
No they could not because the Angel probably already has a title by which God calls Him, for instances there's St. Gabriel and St. Raphael. You don't seem to grasp the difference between an adjective and a title.
In your own world you may think you are arguing a valid point but you are simply choosing to look at the meaning of one Biblical person's name and then apply that eytmological meaning to other places in the Bible to remove the personal character from said Biblical being.
As I have demonstrated, and you beautifully ignored, I could do the same with every person in the Bible given a name even God Himself. I could take their names, break them down to their root meaning, identify every occurance where that root meaning is used in the Bible and argue that they where the word is used as a name or title it does not imply any real being just an emphasized idea.
I have also done so with my own name, which you also ignored. I could do so with your name and every other name on the planet, which I'm confident you would follow in your pattern and ignore.
Your method is flawed because every single name has a base meaning and the base meaning of those names appear multiple times throughout Sacred Scripture as not being names but adjectives. This doesn't serve to rob the person named of his/her personal being.
Now of course I don't expect you to particulary address the inherent flaw in your method. I just thought you should realize that its not a very impressive error to try and use in public. Honestly it makes you look like you have poor reading comprehension.
The problem for you LH is this:
If I did refute your Satan-ology with real Bible proofs, how would that affect your understanding of the prophetic books? Of what is the true enemy of God and how he overcame that enemy?
You are not yet silence but it drawing nearer by the post.
Insight
It is drawing nearer by the post? Are you trying to be funny? I have yet to even begin to deal with the isues forming this thread. You have only evaded and evaded from the convicting points of Sacred Scripture which is how we got to this subtopic in the first place. I appreciate the confidence but it would at least make the conversation something to look forward to if you had a better follow through. You talk big but your positions are weak and lack a further study of the written word. And you think I'm becoming silent? ::giggle::
Refute my "Satanology"? Battle have you read your responses? Your entire position rests solely on inserting your preconceived thoughts with parathensis into the Bible and taking titles and applying them as adjectives. I shouldn't laugh but you think that's "real Bible proofs"?
Arian you have served me well. Every debate I have against your poorly formatted dialectic, I gain more and more confidence and pride in my beliefs.
: Insight Sun Feb 19, 2012 - 16:05:30
: LightHammer Sun Feb 19, 2012 - 15:51:28
: Insight Sun Feb 19, 2012 - 15:37:04
: LightHammer Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 15:10:12
Once again the point has been made clear by the Word of God.
I agree God's written word is pretty clear on this topic. You should conform to it.
Thank you for the encouragement.
1. God is spoken of as being a Satan in Him being an adversary against Israel in 2 Sam. 24:1 cf. 1 Chron. 21:1. Your teaching of God and some Demonic being working with one mind and purpose against His people is totally absurd and only shows how juvenile you are in the Scriptures.
No God is spoken of being a satan, which means adversary. You don't capitalize adjectives unless they're titles and God never applied that word to Himself as a title.
That's strange LH. If we took your limited approach to the Word we find the translators have capitalized "S" for God as being "S"atan.
I think this passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1 caught you off guard, so to speak. This is the problem is one applies a blanket approach to the Word without looking into the context and meaning of the record.
When you see the word Satan or satan or Devil or devil your mind conjure's up all sorts of unscriptural imagery. The kind one might find in a Hollywood movie.
What do you know about 1Ch 21:1?
Firstly, David is moved to number Israel, this has been shown to parallel the record with 2 Sa 24 (See verses 1-7). If you were wise you would consolidate the tow records comparing spiritual with spiritual before allowing your imaginations to run wild.
Secondly, David recognizes he has sinned in verse 8
Then, David has to choose between three curses from God (See 9-13) He chooses the sword of the angel of the Lord who slays many in Jerusalem, stopping over the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (See 14-17);
Finally David buys the threshing floor and sets up an altar, because the plague is stayed (See verses 18-30).
Of course in none of these matters are we presented with some make believe demonic being unless your Satan and your God are in cahoots working together in admonishing Israel. Of course you would then need to explain how your beloved Satan has control of over Yahweh's angels?
In all this you become a fool as none of this threatens your demonic beliefs – simply understanding the record for what is teaches is enough. Yes God is given the Capital "S" of Satan in 1 Chron 21 however it does not imply as you wrongly state a title or name of some demonic creature of darkness, but rather the adversary work of Yahweh against His wayward children.
In other words the Satan activity here is positive full of goodness and not evil as you imply. ::frown:: This is to your shame LH.
If you admitted this truth you would gain more credibility in this discussion than you have at present.
If you come back with more obstinate reasoning's please provide a detail account of the two passages and reconcile how Satan and God are working together and how he has control of Yahweh's angel.
I would prefer to swallow your pride, admit you have wrested this record and lets move back to Rev 20 to find out who the adversary is there presented.
Insight
God is never referred to as Satan which makes all of the above moot. Disappointing really. I was kind of excited to see if you come with something more biblically sound but I guess I hoped too much from an Arian.
The 13 poeple reading this discussion are scratching their heads ::headscratch::
Insight provided Scripture to support his understanding and even asked of LH...
If you come back with more obstinate reasoning's please provide a detail account of the two passages and reconcile how Satan and God are working together and how he has control of Yahweh's angel.
But all he could present is this:
God is never referred to as Satan which makes all of the above moot. Disappointing really. I was kind of excited to see if you come with something more biblically sound but I guess I hoped too much from an Arian.
::shrug::
Maybe your silence is closer than first thought.
Why would they scratch their heads?
God and Satan weren't working together at all. Haven't you been reading the Bible? Satan is allowed to move against God's people because either God is allowing a test of the people or God is angry with the people.
In the story of St. Job God wanted to validate the faithfulness of St. Job and that's how Satan was allowed to plague him. Satan wanted to destroy St. Job's faithfulness and God used what Satan meant for great evil as a way to strengthen His servant.
It's not the first time God has done such. St. Joseph's brothers literally tried to take him out when they sold him into slavery but God used the evil intentions of St. Joseph's brothers for good the same way God used Satan's evil intention against St. Job as a means of testing him.
St. Job could have borrowed St. Joseph's words to his brothers and said them to Satan.
Genesis 50:20But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good,....We see Satan alloted the opportunity to persecute Israel because of her apostacy.
Hosea 13:6According to their pasture, so were they filled; they were filled, and their heart was exalted; therefore have they forgotten me.
7Therefore I will be unto them as a lion: as a leopard by the way will I observe them:
8I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them. Here we see God's wrath against apostate Israel causing this wild beast like a lion, leopard and bear to destroy. We have seen this symbollic Beast and know its not God or His friend but the empire that was allowed to envelope Israel because of her unfaithfulness.
Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. Her Satan and his imperial Beast not working with God but allowed to work because of God's wrath against Israel.
To paint a picture, Israel like St. Job, had God's protective hedge around them. Once Israel became apostate God gave her time to repent but she refused and therefore He removed that protective hedge in His wrath. Because God in His wrath no longer guarded Israel Satan was allowed to devour her by means of his imperial Beast.
Not hard to put two and two together.
: LightHammer Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 11:53:04
Why would they scratch their heads?
God and Satan weren't working together at all. Haven't you been reading the Bible? Satan is allowed to move against God's people because either God is allowing a test of the people or God is angry with the people.
Read that again LH.
On one hand you say "they are not working together
: LightHammer Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 11:30:51
No they could not because the Angel probably already has a title by which God calls Him, for instances there's St. Gabriel and St. Raphael. You don't seem to grasp the difference between an adjective and a title.
I grasp it well however you allow gramma to dictate your understanding. Look behind the word Satan and see its application and don't be governed by grammatical correctness.
In your own world you may think you are arguing a valid point but you are simply choosing to look at the meaning of one Biblical person's name and then apply that eytmological meaning to other places in the Bible to remove the personal character from said Biblical being.
As I have demonstrated, and you beautifully ignored, I could do the same with every person in the Bible given a name even God Himself. I could take their names, break them down to their root meaning, identify every occurance where that root meaning is used in the Bible and argue that they where the word is used as a name or title it does not imply any real being just an emphasized idea.
Correct, however you cannot provide a single Scripture from Genesis chapter 1-3 or anywhere in the Bible of the person "Satan
Read that again LH.
On one hand you say "they are not working together
Your last post did nothing at all in proving a "supernatural" evil adversary?
Try again.
::shrug::
: LightHammer Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 16:12:49
Not at all.
Here Satan prompts God to take away all that St. Job has in the anticipation of his renouncing God.
Job 1:11But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
THIS is what God says in reply to Satan's challenge.
Yes but who actually acted against Job?
The Bible states clearly it was Yahweh and you can show no passage in the book of Job that Satan was responsible for these acts nor can you define the adversary who could possibly be one of the following:
1. An envious brother or body of people
2. An angel
3. A fallen angel
The Adversary said: Job 1:11 Stretch out Your (God's) hand and touch (2:5)
Job: Job 1:21 The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away. (2:10)
Job 6:4 The arrows of the Almighty are within me.
Job 9:17 He crushes me multiplies my wounds without cause.
Job 10:8 Your hands made me yet You would destroy me.
Job 19:6 Know then that
God has wronged me.
Job 27:2 As
God lives, who has taken away my justice.
Friends: Job 5:17 Do not despise the chastening of the Almighty.
Job 8:4 He (God) has cast your sons away for their transgression.
Job 11:6
God exacts from you less than your iniquity deserves.
God: Job 2:3 You incited
Me against him, to destroy him without cause.
Job 42:11 All the adversity (evil) that the
LORD had brought upon himNow if your interest has been aroused as to why all of Job's afflictions were controlled by God with great precision?
It may be worth asking yourself who could actually be able to hold such a personal grudge against his brother? And how would God go about using that adversary to prove his Righteousness while still trying to redeem them, like that of God to Cain and Jesus to Judas.
Question:
After the first three chapters of Job can you show anywhere in the record where Job or the friends speak about this supernatural evil satan?Show me just one verse LH
Insight
I grasp it well however you allow gramma to dictate your understanding. Look behind the word Satan and see its application and don't be governed by grammatical correctness.
If I did that with the titles applied to God, He would be undone as living being as well. You are simply choosing the title Satan because you have a personal ax to grind. I have no such grind. None of my views would be altered whether Satan is person or simply the allegoric expression of an idea. Its just that the Bible gives too much personality to something you wish to call an idea. Futhermore for the most where the Bible gives titles to something there is a very tangible reality therein being described, not just an idea.
Correct, however you cannot provide a single Scripture from Genesis chapter 1-3 or anywhere in the Bible of the person "Satan
: Insight Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 16:30:21
Your last post did nothing at all in proving a "supernatural" evil adversary?
Try again.
::shrug::
Typical evasion.
Interesting LH
Job 1:12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
• Why does Satan need approval from God?
• It appears from the record your Satan is powerless to do anything other than what God allows?
• Explain how absolute evil and pure goodness can come together in Heaven for a meeting of minds?
• Explain why the Satan is only interested in Jobs possessions and his relationship with God?
• Explain how God is able to trust Satan in not taking his life?
• Explain how and why God would allow this evil demonic being to go forth from his presence?
In all these provide chapter and verse to supprt your answers.
Insight
: LightHammer Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 16:42:58
I grasp it well however you allow gramma to dictate your understanding. Look behind the word Satan and see its application and don't be governed by grammatical correctness.
If I did that with the titles applied to God, He would be undone as living being as well. You are simply choosing the title Satan because you have a personal ax to grind. I have no such grind. None of my views would be altered whether Satan is person or simply the allegoric expression of an idea. Its just that the Bible gives too much personality to something you wish to call an idea. Futhermore for the most where the Bible gives titles to something there is a very tangible reality therein being described, not just an idea.
Correct, however you cannot provide a single Scripture from Genesis chapter 1-3 or anywhere in the Bible of the person "Satan
: Insight Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 16:47:10
Interesting LH
Job 1:12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
• Why does Satan need approval from God?
• It appears from the record your Satan is powerless to do anything other than what God allows?
• Explain how absolute evil and pure goodness can come together in Heaven for a meeting of minds?
• Explain why the Satan is only interested in Jobs possessions and his relationship with God?
• Explain how God is able to trust Satan in not taking his life?
• Explain how and why God would allow this evil demonic being to go forth from his presence?
In all these provide chapter and verse to supprt your answers.
Insight
Now you're asking the right questions! I knew you wouldn't let me down my Arian brother and/or friend.
• Why does Satan need approval from God?
8And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Hast thou set thy heart against My servant Job because there is none like him in the land, a man perfect and upright, fearing God, and turning aside from evil?' Did you catch that? You asked why Satan needed God' approval to afflict St. Job. St. Job was a servant of God; a highly favoured servant in fact. Because St. Job was a servant of God, he had this;
10Hast not Thou made a hedge for him, and for his house, and for all that he hath -- round about? St. Job had a protective hedge around him. God is infinitely more powerful than Satan so Satan needed God to remove His hedge in order to try and break St. Job.
• It appears from the record your Satan is powerless to do anything other than what God allows?
Yes of course.
• Explain how absolute evil and pure goodness can come together in Heaven for a meeting of minds?
I don't recall the chapter saying they met in Heaven?
It says that Satan came upon th midst of a group of beings called "the sons of God" who were oriented toward God. The presence of the Lord doesn't necessarily mean they were in Heaven only that God was present for their conversation. St. Moses and God at the burning bush for example. We read throughout the old Testament where God speaks to people from Heaven.
If the sons of God are angels spiritually over the Earth then its possible that God could have been visiting the Earth.
For example we see a being commanding St. Gabriel in Daniel 8 but this being who commands even archangels is not speaking from Heaven but from the direction Ulai.
Daniel 8:16And I hear a voice of man between [the banks of] Ulai, and he calleth and saith: Gabriel, cause this [one] to understand the appearance. I'm not exactly sure where God, His "sons" and Satan were having this conversation but I doubt it was Heaven. In Heaven the presence of God is Biblically in His full glory, unrestrained and not humbled. St. Isaiah feared to even be in the presence therein because of His sin, so I doubt that any adversary of God could dwell within His unrestrained presence. Such an adversary would be destroyed by the sheer presence God.
Seems kind of like darkness trying to dwell in light or something ya know.
• Explain why the Satan is only interested in Jobs possessions and his relationship with God?
I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you why is Satan only concerned with St. Job's possessions?
Satan didn't introduce St. Job into the conversation, God did. God was sort of bragging a little bit. St. Job made God eceptionally proud and so He was bragging to Satan about such. Satan then rebuttals saying that St. Job was only such a proud servant because God was spoiling him within the safety of the protective hedge. Satan claimed that if St. Job was tried, he would falter.
God proudly exhibits faith in His servant, which is kind of weird if you ask me and lets Satan test him. The original condition as stated in the chapter was that Satan could only harm St. Job's posessions. After loosing such St. Job didn't break and so Satan claimed that St. Job needed only be tried more harshly and God allowed Satan to do so.
• Explain how God is able to trust Satan in not taking his life?
You assume that God even made it possible for Satan to take St. Job's life but the Bible refutes that here.
Job 1:12And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Lo, all that he hath [is] in thy hand, only unto him put not forth thy hand.' And the Adversary goeth out from the presence of Jehovah. Here God only offers the possessions of St. Job to be tred upon by Satan which He was fully capable of doing. St. Job was God's servant meaning everything St. Job had and was belonged ultimately to God, even St. Job's body and life. God allowed the possessions in St. Job's stewardship to tred upon to test St. Job. God did not give St. Job's life to the challenge and therefore Satan didn't even have to option of taking St. Job's life because Satan can never overpower God and take anything from Him.
• Explain how and why God would allow this evil demonic being to go forth from his presence?
To test St. Job and validate the faithfulness of His servant therein.
The story of St. Job is truly a remarkable story indeed when you think about. Here we see a different theme than traditonal Bible talk. Instead of man placing absolute faith in God all the time God is demonstarting how much love and trust He has in us to stay true to Him. Its all about fellowship. We trust God and God trust us to trust Him.
Thats pretty cool love.
: Insight Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 16:53:10
: LightHammer Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 16:42:58
I grasp it well however you allow gramma to dictate your understanding. Look behind the word Satan and see its application and don't be governed by grammatical correctness.
If I did that with the titles applied to God, He would be undone as living being as well. You are simply choosing the title Satan because you have a personal ax to grind. I have no such grind. None of my views would be altered whether Satan is person or simply the allegoric expression of an idea. Its just that the Bible gives too much personality to something you wish to call an idea. Futhermore for the most where the Bible gives titles to something there is a very tangible reality therein being described, not just an idea.
Correct, however you cannot provide a single Scripture from Genesis chapter 1-3 or anywhere in the Bible of the person "Satan
: LightHammer Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 17:35:57
: Insight Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 16:47:10
Interesting LH
Job 1:12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
• Why does Satan need approval from God?
• It appears from the record your Satan is powerless to do anything other than what God allows?
• Explain how absolute evil and pure goodness can come together in Heaven for a meeting of minds?
• Explain why the Satan is only interested in Jobs possessions and his relationship with God?
• Explain how God is able to trust Satan in not taking his life?
• Explain how and why God would allow this evil demonic being to go forth from his presence?
In all these provide chapter and verse to supprt your answers.
Insight
Now you're asking the right questions! I knew you wouldn't let me down my Arian brother and/or friend.
They are right because you think you have an understanding – let see shall we?
• Why does Satan need approval from God?
8And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Hast thou set thy heart against My servant Job because there is none like him in the land, a man perfect and upright, fearing God, and turning aside from evil?'
Did you catch that? You asked why Satan needed God' approval to afflict St. Job. St. Job
You are still not comprehending the record LH.
The adversary carried a grievance against Job. Now I am pleased with your answer concerning the sons of God presenting themselves to God on earth and one of them being a Satan was among them.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan (adversary) also came among them. (Job 1:6)
Now the true nature of the adversary unlike that of God in 1 Chron 21 or the Angel, Peter etc is unknown in all the Job record. To this you must agree, for thus far you have presented no evidence to prove it's true identity.
We are not told.
However we can explore its adverse characteristics that show us its adverse mindset.
Now you seem to not want to read the record as to who bought the evil upon Job.
The Adversary said:
Job 1:11 Stretch out Your (God's) hand and touch
Job:
Job 1:21 The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away.
Job 6:4 The arrows of the Almighty are within me.
Job 9:17 He crushes me multiplies my wounds without cause.
Job 10:8 Your hands made me yet You would destroy me.
Job 19:6 Know then that God has wronged me.
Job 27:2 As God lives, who has taken away my justice.
Friends:
Job 5:17 Do not despise the chastening of the Almighty.
Job 8:4 He (God) has cast your sons away for their transgression.
Job 11:6 God exacts from you less than your iniquity deserves.
God:
Job 2:3 You incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.
Job 42:11 All the adversity (evil) that the LORD had brought upon him
Now if your interest has been aroused as to why all of Job's afflictions were controlled by God with great precision?
It may be worth asking yourself who could actually be able to hold such a personal grudge against his brother? And how would God go about using that adversary to prove his Righteousness while still trying to redeem them, like that of God to Cain and Jesus to Judas.
Question:
After the first three chapters of Job can you show anywhere in the record where Job or the friends speak about this supernatural evil satan?
Show me just one verse LH.
I appreciate you are unable to show me one example hence the reason for asking. So your statement below is totally incorrect as per the record.
Your reluctance to acknowledge the absence of the adversary after chapter three and that God was the one who initiated the evil upon Job is worthy of consideration.
So this comment is incorrect as per the evidence presented.
Did you catch that? You asked why Satan needed God' approval to afflict St. Job. St. Job
The answer is that Satan or the adversary did not need approval at all as Yahweh is in total control of his relationship with Job and He decided to chasten his son to prove His righteousness through an obedient son. The adversary, whomever it is irrelevant to the story, hence it is out of the record after chapter three having critiqued Job's integrity bringing into question his motives for serving Yahweh he is long forgotten and enters not into any of the friends dialogue which presents you with all sorts of issues to overcome.
was a servant of God; a highly favoured servant in fact.
True
Because St. Job was a servant of God, he had this;
10Hast not Thou made a hedge for him, and for his house, and for all that he hath -- round about?
Correct, God had blessed his substance with great wealth both spiritually and physically.
The hedge here relates only to the physical wealth for his spiritual hedge remained and was tested by God through many trials.
Hence the one who opposed Job was in my view one who held physical wealth in high regard. A demonic being would not be concerned with a few sheep, goats and some camels!
So while you will endeavour to force and push fantacy into the record the reality is this person or persons, one like Cain or Judas became jealous and envious at his substance:
The Adversary could took offence to his family and his possessions:
7 Sons (7= complete/perfection, Gen 2:2-3)
3 Daughters (3= new life, Gen 22:4; 1Cor 15:4)
7,000 sheep
3,000 camels
500 yoke of oxen (5= God's grace and favor)
500 female donkeys
The greatest man of all the peoples of the East
St. Job had a protective hedge around him.
Yes it is listed above.
God is infinitely more powerful than Satan so Satan needed God to remove His hedge in order to try and break St. Job.
Yes, you are correct, whether it was a supernatural being, or one like Cain who killed his brother God Himself removed the hedge and did so with complete control.
What is lovely about this LH if your mind is open are the deep lessons hidden here for Job.
God wanted Job to discern God's hand was working in his life:
1. The Sabeans attack [Man] 3. The Chaldeans attack [Man]
2. The lighting strikes [God] 4. The tornado strikes [God]
Four times—"I alone have escaped to tell you.
You are still not comprehending the record LH.
The adversary carried a grievance against Job. Now I am pleased with your answer concerning the sons of God presenting themselves to God on earth and one of them being a Satan was among them.
1. God back and reread the conversation Satan doesn't even mention St. Job. God does. Satan didn't voice any initial grievance with St. Job God was bragging on St. Job's faithfulness.
2. No that is a distortion. The verse does not say the being was "a Satan" the verse says the being was simply "Satan" is title not a simple noun. If you want to altar what the Bible says then maybe you aren't a sincere student.
3. You have included yet another distortion. I am not a moron Insight I can infact read. The chapter does not say Satan was one of the sons of God. The verse clearly says that a group completely seperate from Satan were the "sons of God" that stationed to meet Him. Satan simply walked up into their midsts.
Please stop trying to insult my intelligence. I have very capable reading comprehension skills.
Now if your interest has been aroused as to why all of Job's afflictions were controlled by God with great precision?
Why are you so reluctant to actually stay within the context of the story. God wasn't afflicting St. Job, Satan was. God only allowed it in order to test St. Job. St. Job had no knowledge of what transpired between God and Satan and as such in his limited knowledge mistook the power of his affliction as coming from God. It was only natural seeing how St. Job had accreditted all the good in his life to God's direct actions. The same mentality would be applied to St. Job's thinking when considering the bad things happening.
People do it everyday.
We know from earlier verses that is was by the power of Satan that St. Job was tried and by the allotment of God that Satan was able to do so.
It would seem that you are unable to face that Truth. I wonder why.
The answer is that Satan or the adversary did not need approval at all as Yahweh is in total control of his relationship with Job and He decided to chasten his son to prove His righteousness through an obedient son. The adversary, whomever it is irrelevant to the story, hence it is out of the record after chapter three having critiqued Job's integrity bringing into question his motives for serving Yahweh he is long forgotten and enters not into any of the friends dialogue which presents you with all sorts of issues to overcome.
That is simply unbiblical. I am not sure how else to put it. I have quoted the verses where God plainly permits Satan to afflict St. Job proving that Satan is the one doing the afflicting and God is simply allowing.
I don't know why you simply must evade away from the Bible but I guess its only to be expected.
Correct, God had blessed his substance with great wealth both spiritually and physically.
The hedge here relates only to the physical wealth for his spiritual hedge remained and was tested by God through many trials.
Hence the one who opposed Job was in my view one who held physical wealth in high regard. A demonic being would not be concerned with a few sheep, goats and some camels!
Nope not at all.
The word hedge in Thayer's Lexicon refers to a fence or guard gate. It in no way correlates to the blessings of property but of the protection of God. I am kind of loosing interest with this simple stuff. I had hoped you would come with a more indepth and sound stance but it seems like distorting the words of the Bible is the Arian's only defense mechanism.
Yes it is listed above.
No those properties were not the protective hedge that guarded St. Job from Satan.
This is a unique answer LH. Many Satanist's believe he does have influence and power but of course the Job account speaks against such a belief.
Do not call me a Satanist? Are you crazy? Brother don't get silly with me. You know that title has a home in a cult of those who reverence Satan don't apply that title to me as if it means people who simply believe Satan exist.
Wha's wrong with you?
While this is true – it is ashame you cannot at least be likened to Jobs wife! She didn't event a supernatural demonic being but foolishly spoke out against God.
You speak as if the woman was even capable of being aware of Satan. I think you have a weird view of who I think Satan even is. I keep getting silly questions like "Do you believe in dragons" and "Why didn't the people see this demon?"
Its kind of silly.
So you believe God needs Satan to test his sons?
Again with the distortions. Did I say God needs Satan to test people or did I say God allowed Satan to test? There is major difference.
Forgive me LH but when I read "satan
: LightHammer Tue Feb 21, 2012 - 14:45:50
You are still not comprehending the record LH.
The adversary carried a grievance against Job. Now I am pleased with your answer concerning the sons of God presenting themselves to God on earth and one of them being a Satan was among them.
1. Go back and reread the conversation Satan doesn't even mention St. Job. God does. Satan didn't voice any initial grievance with St. Job God was bragging on St. Job's faithfulness.
Firstly God does not brag – let's get this straight. Secondly, the adversary question Jobs faithfulness being that it was based on the hedge of wealth surrounding him.
This is crystal clear.
2. No that is a distortion. The verse does not say the being was "a Satan" the verse says the being was simply "Satan" is title not a simple noun. If you want to altar what the Bible says then maybe you aren't a sincere student.
Again, you appear to struggle with the idea that a title can apply to anyone, a person, a group of people could be represented by this title.
This is the point! You cannot prove from Job a demonic supernatural being – post after post you I keep asking but you keep falling short.
Plausible Possibilities of Satan (or Adversary)
1 One of his congregation who held an envious spirit toward Job – wishing ill of him because of his many possessions.
2 Two – which you alluded to above is that an Angel could have presented these "ideas
Firstly God does not brag – let's get this straight. Secondly, the adversary question Jobs faithfulness being that it was based on the hedge of wealth surrounding him.
This is crystal clear.
Please God brags all the time. When one of His children makes Him proud He always voices His pride.
Satan only questions St. Job's faithfulness because God brings St. Job.
Read it again.
Again, you appear to struggle with the idea that a title can apply to anyone, a person, a group of people could be represented by this title.
This is the point! You cannot prove from Job a demonic supernatural being – post after post you I keep asking but you keep falling short.
Plausible Possibilities of Satan (or Adversary)
1 One of his congregation who held an envious spirit toward Job – wishing ill of him because of his many possessions.
2 Two – which you alluded to above is that an Angel could have presented these "ideas
SIDEBAR
This will be my last night online until after the Lent season Brother and/or Friend. I won't be checking in at all either just so you know but I will be back after April 5th.
: LightHammer Tue Feb 21, 2012 - 17:57:08
SIDEBAR
This will be my last night online until after the Lent season Brother and/or Friend. I won't be checking in at all either just so you know but I will be back after April 5th.
I will wait until your return.
God Bless
Insight
: Insight Tue Feb 21, 2012 - 18:16:10
: LightHammer Tue Feb 21, 2012 - 17:57:08
SIDEBAR
This will be my last night online until after the Lent season Brother and/or Friend. I won't be checking in at all either just so you know but I will be back after April 5th.
I will wait until your return.
God Bless
Insight
Alright then.
Peace. Knowledge. Faith and True Love, Insight.
So far I have presented you one aspect of Job's adversary showing forth an understanding of his evil intent.
If you read over your thoughts you will see very clearly they (potentially) can be attributed to an Angel or a Human.
I hoped you would introduce something to prove an evil supernatural being, however thus far my hands are lifted ::shrug::
The question any real Bible Student needs to ask in relation to Job's adversary is determining the motive and intent behind his thoughts.
Is there a wicked or sinful mind behind the adversaries words? See Job 1:9-11; 2:5
As you rightly suggest God presented his servant to the adversary. We do not know whether the adversary had Job in mind prior although his knowledge of his wealth and possession shows he was close to Job in some way.
The reality Lighthammer is they CAN be read that way (as I have shown), but they do not HAVE to be read that way. ::pondering::
Although "angels of God" are immortal, they can be limited both in their personal knowledge and in their personal powers.
(Consider the following passages as proof texts Mat 24:36; 1Pe 1:12; Dan 10:13; 8:13; Gen 22:12; 32:24-28; Exo 31:1,7 compared with Exo 23:12).
So it is possible to read the words of this angelic "satan" as expressing his assessment of the life of Job... distorted somewhat by his own limited knowledge.
We know Angels desire to look into things they have no or little knowledge about...which reveals God wisdom is something to "seek" and uncover not freely given.
I am conscious we have not entered into Revelation as we had hoped although I see the need to overcome this fallen angel theology which is a plight on Christianity and clouding your vision as the understanding of the true Bible adversary.
Do you have any other more compelling passages to prove your Fallen Angel belief? Maybe something from Genesis Chapter 1-3? Which is the foundation book upon which the whole house is constructed. ::pondering::
If not lets press forward with Job for a while...
For example:
Does God give to His "angel" or "human" the testing of Job?
"Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand" (Job 1:12).
Now compare verse 12 with verse 21..
"The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."
Who was it that took away Job's health, wealth, and family?
The logical and Scritpual answer is God Himself.
For even Job states....Job 2:10: "Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?"
The issue you have is Job not once identifies with your demonic being.
And also with Job 19:21, where Job says: "Have pity on me, have pity on me, O you my friends, for the hand of God has touched me!"
Doesn't this equate the "satan" with "the hand of God"? ::rolling::
Here again you have a huge problem in reconciling the Satan with God Himself.
And so, all through Job 2, "Satan" continues to hold out for his own assessment of things, while God agrees to bring more and yet more trial upon Job... until, eventually, it may be assumed, "Satan" is finally satisfied with the integrity of Job.
Is this fair? Is this the way God acts?
Of course!!!
The NT is filled with discussions of the trials brought by God on His faithful ones, to perfect or purify their faith.
I believe you need to put to one side you narrow unbiblical view (of a fallen angel) and begin from the beginning i.e Genesis
If your beginning is in error the rest is worthless.
Maybe its time for you to consider the Scriptures are telling you an entirley different message than you have been taught.
Take this passage for instance...please note 1 Peter 1:6-12:
"In this you rejoice (Lighthammer), though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(Note the revelation of Jesus Christ?)
Without having seen him (Jesus) you love him; though you do not now see him you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your lives. The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit (mind) of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look."
Where is the demonic being spoken here in terms of suffering and sin?
I would again be interested where exactly you base your firm belief in a fallen angel and please provide greater detail in its existence.
1 Peter 1 when when compared with Job we find that severe trials by which the faith of the believer is purified.
The prophets (including those OT writers) saw, faintly perhaps, the sufferings of Christ mirrored in the lives of OT men (as Job no doubt did).
These sufferings were followed by subsequent glory.
Did you notice precisely what it is that angels desire to look into?
"into these things (i.e. sufferings, trials, perfecting of faith etc) [/b]
ANGELS LONGED TO LOOK!"
Of course this only further support one of two plausible interpretations.
1. Angel making unenlightened assessment of Jobs faith
2. A human adversary jealous of the hedge and blessing Job received of God.
In my view, both have their merit and both lead us to the same conclusion in Job 42.
Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted Job over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and everyone an earring of gold. KJV
And come unto him do all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all his former acquaintances, and they eat bread with him in his house, and bemoan him, and comfort him concerning all the evil that Yahweh had brought upon him, and they gave to him each one kesitah, and each one ring of gold. YLT
Then all his brothers and all his sisters and all who had known him before came to him, and they ate bread with him in his house; and they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him. And each one gave him one piece of money, and each a ring of gold.
All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
Then all his brothers, sisters, and former friends came and feasted with him in his home. And they consoled him and comforted him because of all the trials the LORD had brought against him. And each of them brought him a gift of money and a gold ring.
Again many reading this post will ask where is your demonic being if all the trials, evil, adversities, and trouble were God's doing?
What room is there here for a make believe demonic being?
I will wait for you to prove from Job or anywhere in the Bible this fallen angel/demonic being actually exists.
Insight
I hoped you would introduce something to prove an evil supernatural being, however thus far my hands are lifted ::shrug::
You mean apart from two conversations between God and the Devil?
God (a real being) was having a conversation with the Devil (an idea personified only in allegory)? Ok if you insist.
I will wait for you to prove from Job or anywhere in the Bible this fallen angel/demonic being actually exists.
Insight
Please forgive me but I'd rather not watse more server space with this one. What exactly constitutes "proof" to you? I have God (a real being) actually talking to the Devil but you claim the Devil is not a real person? I have St. Joshua (a real person) becoming High Priest with Satan resisting him but you claim that Satan is not real? I have Jesus Christ (a real person) having an entire conversation with Satan but you claim that Satan is not real?
I have St. Job afflicted, yet you want to claim it is by God.
Do me this little favor and tell me what I have to show you in order to prove that the Satan is a real being?
: LightHammer Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 13:13:00
You mean apart from two conversations between God and the Devil?
Correction.
You mean apart from two conversations between God and the adversary (satan); I do believe (and correct me if I am wrong) the word "Devil" is not found at all in the Hebrew OT.
You might consider why that is.
God (a real being) was having a conversation with the Devil (an idea personified only in allegory)? Ok if you insist.
In relation to Job you cannot prove the identity of the adversary - impossible on both sides of our conversation. You can infer a evil supernatural being while I can infer either a holy divine supernatural being or a human.
As I have proven both these options are Biblically plausible.
Please forgive me but I'd rather not watse more server space with this one. What exactly constitutes "proof" to you? I have God (a real being) actually talking to the Devil but you claim the Devil is not a real person? I have St. Joshua (a real person) becoming High Priest with Satan resisting him but you claim that Satan is not real? I have Jesus Christ (a real person) having an entire conversation with Satan but you claim that Satan is not real?
I have St. Job afflicted, yet you want to claim it is by God.
Do me this little favor and tell me what I have to show you in order to prove that the Satan is a real being?
While I appreciate you have a strong grasp of the English language and need not any to teach you of "inference" and its meaning. Throughout our discussion and even in your statement above you infer something which you have drawn a conclusion that hasn't been directly stated from given information in Scripture.
You see I have asked many questions on the account of Job many of which you have either conveniently avoided or maybe a little laziness on your part, I know not only you know.
We have explored the "adversary" of Job and found no evidence of a fallen angel or evil demonic being as you teach. Should we move on to your example of Joshua the High Priest?
And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. (Zec 3:1)
And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? (Zec 3:2)
Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. (Zec 3:3)Firstly I will allow you to teach your supernatural being from the context of this passage. I am seeking from you the details based upon the historical context of this account. If you are able to also prove the prophetical application of this passage once again with real evidence to the character and person of your evil supernatural being that would be of interest.
Of course you would appreciate I would not ask such things if I myself could not show a Scriptural understanding to who precisely the adversary was to Joshua during his day; of course I can also prove precisely who the adversary was in the day of the Lords probation.
Insight
Correction.
You mean apart from two conversations between God and the adversary (satan); I do believe (and correct me if I am wrong) the word "Devil" is not found at all in the Hebrew OT.
You might consider why that is.
Correction.
You apart from the two conversations between God and Satan. Capitalized name not lower cased adjective. You may want to consider that.
In relation to Job you cannot prove the identity of the adversary - impossible on both sides of our conversation. You can infer a evil supernatural being while I can infer either a holy divine supernatural being or a human.
As I have proven both these options are Biblically plausible.
I can when Satan is called the Devil who I also called by other evil names throughout the Bible. The simple fact is that if you cut the book of St. Job out of the Bible then you would have a point. Satan's identity would be unverifiable.
However that of course no man can do because God assured that His Word would endure as a whole. ]
You bury yourself Insight. You admit that Satan in the book of Job is a real being but in sticking to Job he is unverifiable. If you look up all the other places were Satan is described in more detail with different names we know he is a fallen heavnely host.
: LightHammer Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 17:51:09
Correction.
You apart from the two conversations between God and Satan. Capitalized name not lower cased adjective. You may want to consider that.
I am fine with the Capital as I understand the person or persons behind the title.
I believe you are yet to consider that, but rather assume or infer an understanding which is still unproven on your part.
I can when Satan is called the Devil who I also called by other evil names throughout the Bible. The simple fact is that if you cut the book of St. Job out of the Bible then you would have a point. Satan's identity would be unverifiable.
Again, you show inference to be the basis of your exposition. No need to cut anything out Lighthammer - best you deal with what is written and endeavour to open the Word rather than prescribe certian unfounded notions which I have stated and restate is your practice to date.
You bury yourself Insight. You admit that Satan in the book of Job is a real being but in sticking to Job he is unverifiable. If you look up all the other places were Satan is described in more detail with different names we know he is a fallen heavenly host.
Ok. So you desire to not consider Joshua or his adversary...seems like a rerun of our Job discussion ::shrug::
I admit Satan is an adversary in the book of Job - could be a very good Satan or evil as the account does not provide us sufficient information to draw a valid conclusion. At least I am willing to admit this on my part.
The fact the adversary falls quickly away from the record after chapter 3 shows how insignificant he is on the overall theme of the book.
So you ask me to look up others passages in the Bible to verify the identity of the adversary? Yes? And then you say this single evil being is described in more detail with different names and is fallen from the heavenly host? Yes?
And yet you follow-up this statement with what ::headscratch::
Because your EFC said so and becuase you have adotped their way of forming doctrine?
We are to accept the word of Lighthammer as truth?
You support your teaching with what Lighthammer ::shrug:: with what ::shrug::
Insight
Ok. So you desire to not consider Joshua or his adversary...seems like a rerun of our Job discussion
I admit Satan is an adversary in the book of Job - could be a very good Satan or evil as the account does not provide us sufficient information to draw a valid conclusion. At least I am willing to admit this on my part.
The fact the adversary falls quickly away from the record after chapter 3 shows how insignificant he is on the overall theme of the book.
So you ask me to look up others passages in the Bible to verify the identity of the adversary? Yes? And then you say this single evil being is described in more detail with different names and is fallen from the heavenly host? Yes?
And yet you follow-up this statement with what
Because your EFC said so and becuase you have adotped their way of forming doctrine?
We are to accept the word of Lighthammer as truth?
You support your teaching with what Lighthammer with what
Insight
Seriously? ::lookaround::
Insight you're acting as though the Satan in Joshua is a different Satan from the one in Job.
Or the one in 1 Chronicle 21:1, or Zechariah, or the four gospels, or Revelation 12:9.
That's the point. Your opposition only works if we treat the Book of St. Job as an isolated text or if we treat Satan as an adjective rather that a name that reoccurs throughout the other Bible.
You can pretend as though Satan is unidentifiable but I tend to stick to the Bible as a whole.
: LightHammer Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 18:20:58
Ok. So you desire to not consider Joshua or his adversary...seems like a rerun of our Job discussion
I admit Satan is an adversary in the book of Job - could be a very good Satan or evil as the account does not provide us sufficient information to draw a valid conclusion. At least I am willing to admit this on my part.
The fact the adversary falls quickly away from the record after chapter 3 shows how insignificant he is on the overall theme of the book.
So you ask me to look up others passages in the Bible to verify the identity of the adversary? Yes? And then you say this single evil being is described in more detail with different names and is fallen from the heavenly host? Yes?
And yet you follow-up this statement with what
Because your EFC said so and becuase you have adotped their way of forming doctrine?
We are to accept the word of Lighthammer as truth?
You support your teaching with what Lighthammer with what
Insight
Seriously? ::lookaround::
C'on Lighthammer you can rise above this!
Insight you're acting as though the Satan in Joshua is a different Satan from the one in Job.
No acting Lighthammer.
Or are the one acting here ::headscratch::
Or the one in 1 Chronicle 21:1, or Zechariah, or the four gospels, or Revelation 12:9.
So you cannot prove they are the same adversary but are willing to assume like you have done with Job's adversary?
That's the point. Your opposition only works if we treat the Book of St. Job as an isolated text or if we treat Satan as an adjective rather that a name that reoccurs throughout the other Bible.
And I invited you to consider the isolated incident of Joshua and his adversary but so far you have declined.
You can pretend as though Satan is unidentifiable but I tend to stick to the Bible as a whole.
Well, you say a whole but you do not treat it as such.
Again I invite you to teach us about the adversary in Zechariah
What if we consider everywhere the word Satan is used and you discovered the context was different in each passage and spoke to something entirely unknown to you?
Would your mind be open to learn or would you prefer to blanket the whole Scripture with error?
The choice is yours.
Quote
Insight you're acting as though the Satan in Joshua is a different Satan from the one in Job.
No acting Lighthammer.
Or are the one acting here
Quote
Or the one in 1 Chronicle 21:1, or Zechariah, or the four gospels, or Revelation 12:9.
So you cannot prove they are the same adversary but are willing to assume like you have done with Job's adversary?
What do you mean prove they are the same. His NAME was Satan. What is wrong with you? That's the being's NAME, its his name.
Show me one other place in the Bible two non humans share the same name. Just show me one time.
It appears you are having trouble with context Lighthammer.
Lets simplify things a little shall we.
When Paul wrote the below verse what exactly was he teaching?
To deliver such an one unto Satan (adversary) for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Co 5:5)
What is the practical outworking of Pauls advice and explain in what way the flesh is destroyed by handing a person over to this evil supernatural being, can you explain how I might do this; am I able to summons him and ask him to take this person so as to destroy their physical body? And once their flesh is destroyed how do I go about recovering this person as per 2 Co 2:6-8.
Help me to understand how sending a person while they are alive to be given to this evil being is going to save them if with your conventional understanding of the evil one is as you say "evil".
Insight
p.s you might like to consider the context to determine the true nature of the Satan here? a small tip! I am interested also in why the flesh needs destroying? What has this evil being to do with our flesh?
While you are consulting your archives:
How about this one:
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8
James was kind enough to provide us with the nature of this false accuser being an "adversary" but notice how he/it is defined?
"as a roaring lion"
Maybe you can show how we can take this literally as I am yet to see this being roar, or roam as one who devours people openly - have seen this lion lately?
Maybe you could take me to 2 Timothy 4:17 and define precisely who the roaring lion was for Paul?
Lets see if you can be lead my Catholic foe.
Insight
: Insight Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 18:42:03
It appears you are having trouble with context Lighthammer.
Lets simplify things a little shall we.
When Paul wrote the below verse what exactly was he teaching?
To deliver such an one unto Satan (adversary) for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Co 5:5)
What is the practical outworking of Pauls advice and explain in what way the flesh is destroyed by handing a person over to this evil supernatural being, can you explain how I might do this; am I able to summons him and ask him to take this person so as to destroy their physical body? And once their flesh is destroyed how do I go about recovering this person as per 2 Co 2:6-8.
Help me to understand how sending a person while they are alive to be given to this evil being is going to save them if with your conventional understanding of the evil one is as you say "evil".
Insight
p.s you might like to consider the context to determine the true nature of the Satan here? a small tip! I am interested also in why the flesh needs destroying? What has this evil being to do with our flesh?
Oh goodness it was allegorical. St. Paul was telling the church in Corinth to excommunicate the fornicators while they were still sinning so that they would not pose a threat to the community. In their exile they were to see the eroor their ways and eventually return to the right path.
Kind of like the prodigal son.
The use of Satan here does nto mean to literally hand them to Satan but it doesn't remove the personal existence of Satan.
The Bible does the same thing with God several hundred times.
You have to be able to do better than that.
: LightHammer Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 19:13:16
: Insight Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 18:42:03
It appears you are having trouble with context Lighthammer.
Lets simplify things a little shall we.
When Paul wrote the below verse what exactly was he teaching?
To deliver such an one unto Satan (adversary) for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Co 5:5)
What is the practical outworking of Pauls advice and explain in what way the flesh is destroyed by handing a person over to this evil supernatural being, can you explain how I might do this; am I able to summons him and ask him to take this person so as to destroy their physical body? And once their flesh is destroyed how do I go about recovering this person as per 2 Co 2:6-8.
Help me to understand how sending a person while they are alive to be given to this evil being is going to save them if with your conventional understanding of the evil one is as you say "evil".
Insight
p.s you might like to consider the context to determine the true nature of the Satan here? a small tip! I am interested also in why the flesh needs destroying? What has this evil being to do with our flesh?
Oh goodness it was allegorical. St. Paul was telling the church in Corinth to excommunicate the fornicators while they were still sinning so that they would not pose a threat to the community. In their exile they were to see the error their ways and eventually return to the right path.
Kind of like the prodigal son.
The use of Satan here does nto mean to literally hand them to Satan but it doesn't remove the personal existence of Satan.
The Bible does the same thing with God several hundred times.
You have to be able to do better than that.
Ah - so the term Satan here does not mean handing them to a literal evil supernatural being but rather as you say "excommunicate the fornicators " by sending them into the world (Satan) to suffer the estrangement of their excommunication" in the hope they will put these fleshly passions (fornication as you say) to death; with the view of recovery.
Ok so we have you on record to say the term Satan here is not a literal being but rather a title given to the world.
I Understand and agree...and this of course then leads us to the definition of this adversary in...
For
all that is in the
world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,
is not of the Father, but is of the
world. (1Jn 2:16)
Ok so no mention he of an evil demonic being or anything like it but rather as you say this person is sent out into the "world" where they can either continue to experience the lusts of the flesh or return having put these passions to death by crucifying them as expressed in...
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (Gal 5:24)
So you cannot prove your beings identy from Corinthians... ::pondering::
Where to now?
: Insight Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 19:31:30
: LightHammer Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 19:13:16
: Insight Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 18:42:03
It appears you are having trouble with context Lighthammer.
Lets simplify things a little shall we.
When Paul wrote the below verse what exactly was he teaching?
To deliver such an one unto Satan (adversary) for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Co 5:5)
What is the practical outworking of Pauls advice and explain in what way the flesh is destroyed by handing a person over to this evil supernatural being, can you explain how I might do this; am I able to summons him and ask him to take this person so as to destroy their physical body? And once their flesh is destroyed how do I go about recovering this person as per 2 Co 2:6-8.
Help me to understand how sending a person while they are alive to be given to this evil being is going to save them if with your conventional understanding of the evil one is as you say "evil".
Insight
p.s you might like to consider the context to determine the true nature of the Satan here? a small tip! I am interested also in why the flesh needs destroying? What has this evil being to do with our flesh?
Oh goodness it was allegorical. St. Paul was telling the church in Corinth to excommunicate the fornicators while they were still sinning so that they would not pose a threat to the community. In their exile they were to see the error their ways and eventually return to the right path.
Kind of like the prodigal son.
The use of Satan here does nto mean to literally hand them to Satan but it doesn't remove the personal existence of Satan.
The Bible does the same thing with God several hundred times.
You have to be able to do better than that.
Ah - so the term Satan here does not mean handing them to a literal evil supernatural being but rather as you say "excommunicate the fornicators " by sending them into the world (Satan) to suffer the estrangement of their excommunication" in the hope they will put these fleshly passions (fornication as you say) to death; with the view of recovery.
Ok so we have you on record to say the term Satan here is not a literal being but rather a title given to the world.
I Understand and agree...and this of course then leads us to the definition of this adversary in...
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1Jn 2:16)
Ok so no mention he of an evil demonic being or anything like it but rather as you say this person is sent out into the "world" where they can either continue to experience the lusts of the flesh or return having put these passions to death by crucifying them as expressed in...
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (Gal 5:24)
So you cannot prove your beings identy from Corinthians... ::pondering::
Where to now?
Nope that's not what LightHammer said. Try again.
In order to save server space and precious I'm going to wait for you to respond to what I actually say.
: LightHammer Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 19:38:07
: Insight Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 19:31:30
: LightHammer Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 19:13:16
: Insight Tue Apr 10, 2012 - 18:42:03
It appears you are having trouble with context Lighthammer.
Lets simplify things a little shall we.
When Paul wrote the below verse what exactly was he teaching?
To deliver such an one unto Satan (adversary) for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Co 5:5)
What is the practical outworking of Pauls advice and explain in what way the flesh is destroyed by handing a person over to this evil supernatural being, can you explain how I might do this; am I able to summons him and ask him to take this person so as to destroy their physical body? And once their flesh is destroyed how do I go about recovering this person as per 2 Co 2:6-8.
Help me to understand how sending a person while they are alive to be given to this evil being is going to save them if with your conventional understanding of the evil one is as you say "evil".
Insight
p.s you might like to consider the context to determine the true nature of the Satan here? a small tip! I am interested also in why the flesh needs destroying? What has this evil being to do with our flesh?
Oh goodness it was allegorical. St. Paul was telling the church in Corinth to excommunicate the fornicators while they were still sinning so that they would not pose a threat to the community. In their exile they were to see the error their ways and eventually return to the right path.
Kind of like the prodigal son.
The use of Satan here does nto mean to literally hand them to Satan but it doesn't remove the personal existence of Satan.
The Bible does the same thing with God several hundred times.
You have to be able to do better than that.
Ah - so the term Satan here does not mean handing them to a literal evil supernatural being but rather as you say "excommunicate the fornicators " by sending them into the world (Satan) to suffer the estrangement of their excommunication" in the hope they will put these fleshly passions (fornication as you say) to death; with the view of recovery.
Ok so we have you on record to say the term Satan here is not a literal being but rather a title given to the world.
I Understand and agree...and this of course then leads us to the definition of this adversary in...
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1Jn 2:16)
Ok so no mention he of an evil demonic being or anything like it but rather as you say this person is sent out into the "world" where they can either continue to experience the lusts of the flesh or return having put these passions to death by crucifying them as expressed in...
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (Gal 5:24)
So you cannot prove your beings identy from Corinthians... ::pondering::
Where to now?
Nope that's not what LightHammer said. Try again.
In order to save server space and precious I'm going to wait for you to respond to what I actually say.
No Lighthammer
You said
The use of Satan here does nto mean to literally hand them to Satan but it doesn't remove the personal existence of Satan
You infer of course that this passage is not speaking to a literal being but as you said...
excommunicate the fornicators...
So what you said and what I concluded is true.
You cannot expect anyone reading this verse to assume a literal evil being because as you know it cannot work. Now I could press you hard and say "Ah, but the use of the capital "S" means it must be your actual personal Satan; and what response could you take after having posted that the capital "S" always speaks to the person of Satan.
All I needed to demonstrate here was the capital Satan here relates to the world and their banishment into the world, is what Paul had in mind and nothing at all to do with any supernatural evil being, at all! The fact you testified to its allegorical properties only emphasised my point (thankyou ::nodding::).
And what's with the server nonsense - if you felt so strongly about using memory why dont you close the "theology section" with all the rot that is purported over there? Hypocrisy in my humble view.
So like I said - where to now to prove your supernatural monster? As I am comfortable we both have a sound understanding of 1 Corithians 5:5 in terms of your words
The use of Satan here doesnt mean to literally hand them to Satan but it doesn't remove the personal existence of Satan.
And by this you also mean it doesnt prove its existence either.
Agreed.
I must make this clear observation if I may.
Why are you having such difficulties in identifying and proving your supernatural devil?
: Insight Sun Apr 22, 2012 - 17:17:49
I must make this clear observation if I may.
Why are you having such difficulties in identifying and proving your supernatural devil?
No issue at all. I have adequately done all of that.
If you want to twist words around to suit your fancy then be my guest but when you're ready to start taking things seriously we can continue. Me personally I have gotten everything of interest out of you.
Not so much as a goodbye?
Sad really - I was looking forward to discussing the Revelation.