The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics - see the evidence

[WPM]

You need to read the whole book.
2 Thes 2.9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Actually, they are the same prophecy. The book of Revelation is quoting the Zech 12.10 passage, but amending it to apply not just to Israel but to the many nations who find themselves in the same position as Israel. I believe those nations are backslidden former Christian nations.

Dan 7.13 has Jesus Coming down from Heaven to establish God's Kingdom. But immediately after stating this Jesus appears to turn around and visit a Meeting in Heaven. This would be a contradiction to the statement that he is Coming unless this Meeting is given as a kind of insertion by way of explanation, indicating where Jesus' authority to establish God's Kingdom is coming from.

The story of the Ascension in the Gospels makes no reference to Dan 7.13.

The passage in John 19.37 is just stating that Jesus was pierced. Unless he is pierced in history he cannot come back and be recognized by Israel as the one who was pierced.

Both elements are part of Zech 12.10--his piercing and his return to be recognized as such. But Rev 1 identifies it as completed at the 2nd Coming.

Typical! Explain away the clear, explicit and fuller NT revelation with your faulty opinion of the Old. That just about sums up Premil.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Romans 2
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,
9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the [c]Greek;

Well, the unbelieving Jews are hardened against Christ.

There is a big difference between those temporarily hardened by their pride and those so hardened that they reject for all time Christ's atonement! People who have hardened their heart, who later have their heart softened, can be saved. Those who harden their heart utterly to the Gospel of Salvation for all time will not be saved.

Nations are leavened by sin over time until the whole lump is leavened. Nations rise and fall--this is a fact of history.

Even with a few righteous remaining in a nation the nation that has apostacized will be judged, not at all meaning the whole nation will be damned. It's just that people by nature tend to compromise and allow themselves to be influenced by sinners until they need to either be corrected or eternally separated from the righteous.

When a whole nation falls, such as Israel fell, they have to go through a process of either total destruction or difficult correction. Yes, the Jewish People have been hardened, but I believe God is softening some of them until after final judgment a new corrected nation will emerge.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Again, you are presenting no historic evidence. That is the point of this thread. Where are your historic witnesses?

You've asked me to review a discussion you were having, and I commented on it (From "The Alexandria Christian School in Old Egypt and Amillennialism"). I have little interest in providing the kind of "historic evidence" you claim needs to be provided. I don't personally need it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Typical! Explain away the clear, explicit and fuller NT revelation with your faulty opinion of the Old. That just about sums up Premil.

You're entitled to believe what you want. But I'll let God be the judge with respect to my character.

 

[WPM]

You've asked me to review a discussion you were having, and I commented on it (From "The Alexandria Christian School in Old Egypt and Amillennialism"). I have little interest in providing the kind of "historic evidence" you claim needs to be provided. I don't personally need it.

I have no difficulty with you disagreeing with me. But it is needful for you too support your claims with hard evidence. I'm sure you would agree, personal opinion means nothing. Most Christians that comment on Church history just repeat erroneous claims that they have heard from others say or they articulate their own opinions. This is why there's so much confusion and misinformation out there on this subject. But facts are stubborn things. Real evidence is what matters.

 

[WPM]

You're entitled to believe what you want. But I'll let God be the judge with respect to my character.

There was no reason to take offense. I'm judging your mode of interpretation not your character. I disagree with your hermeneutics. I'm entitled to do that. So are you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have no difficulty with you disagreeing with me. But it is needful for you too support your claims with hard evidence. I'm sure you would agree, personal opinion means nothing. Most Christians that comment on Church history just repeat erroneous claims that they have heard from others say or they articulate their own opinions. This is why there's so much confusion and misinformation out there on this subject. But facts are stubborn things. Real evidence is what matters.

I agree. Some issues are historically tough to resolve, and may even be unresolvable. Premil vs Amil is one of those issues. I welcome your search for real evidence one way or the other. It isn't as important to me to find as many details as you wish to find.

But I wish you well on your search. I have enough seeming "facts" that I can form an opinion, whether I'm correct or not. I will summarize it for you, whether you think it is "weak" or not.

I personally think the Prophets of the Bible require that mortal humanity continue, even past the 2nd Coming, in order to bring about what I think God promised Abraham, a political victory for Israel and a restoration of all the nations God has called to be covenant nations.

I was raised Amil, but I became convinced that the "Millennium" will likely be a future period of mortal humanity strictly to fulfill the promises God made to Abraham. They are certainly not being fulfilled in our age, as I see it!

Thank you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There was no reason to take offense. I'm judging your mode of interpretation not your character. I disagree with your hermeneutics. I'm entitled to do that. So are you.

I apprreciate that. It did seem intended to insullt, but I'll take your word for it.

I've not claimed to have all the info you need to prove my position. I just heartily believe in the Premil position, right or wrong. And I've given you the reasons why I have the convictions I do, even without all of the evidence you personally require that I have.

I'm not offended by your position. I just disagree with it. And the questions you ask I think are legitimate and in some respects even praiseworthy. I'm just trying to avoid the typical "nastiness" associated with these kinds of discussions.

 

[Scott Downey]

I apprreciate that. It did seem intended to insullt, but I'll take your word for it.

I've not claimed to have all the info you need to prove my position. I just heartily believe in the Premil position, right or wrong. And I've given you the reasons why I have the convictions I do, even without all of the evidence you personally require that I have.

I'm not offended by your position. I just disagree with it. And the questions you ask I think are legitimate and in some respects even praiseworthy. I'm just trying to avoid the typical "nastiness" associated with these kinds of discussions.

Premil requires evangelism of unsaved people they call 'survivors' of the Day when Christ returns.
But where and who are they?
Because according the Christ and the Apostles doctrines, there are no unsaved survivors of that Day.
It is in truth the Last Day of this world when Christ returns, and mortality must become immortality and it says we shall all be changed.

The Last Day is the resurrection and the judgment.
It happens at His appearing and kingdom.

Note this because so many people do not believe what this is saying!
They do not believe there is such a last Day wherein is the resurrection and the judgment at His appearing
Because they believe this world continues on and on as it is remains full of unbelief, unrepentance and rebellion against Christ even after He returns.

2 Timothy 4:1
I charge you [a]therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead [b]at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.

1. John 6:39
   This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2. John 6:40
   And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
3. John 6:44
   No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
4. John 6:54
   Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
5. John 11:24
   Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
6. John 12:48
   He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him— the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

 

[WPM]

I apprreciate that. It did seem intended to insullt, but I'll take your word for it.

I've not claimed to have all the info you need to prove my position. I just heartily believe in the Premil position, right or wrong. And I've given you the reasons why I have the convictions I do, even without all of the evidence you personally require that I have.

I'm not offended by your position. I just disagree with it. And the questions you ask I think are legitimate and in some respects even praiseworthy. I'm just trying to avoid the typical "nastiness" associated with these kinds of discussions.

But these threads are presented to address the historic data or scriptural data on the table. So, it is understandable and profitable to see if you have real proof to support your position. From my perspective it seems you do not. I feel I am always refuting your opinions, not hard solid evidential facts.

 

[Randy Kluth]

But these threads are presented to address the historic data or scriptural data on the table. So, it is understandable and profitable to see if you have real proof to support your position. From my perspective it seems you do not. I feel I am always refuting your opinions, not hard solid evidential facts.

I gravitated over to the thread you suggested only because you asked me to--not to participate in your terms for the thread. As I said, my "proof" is not likely to produce any change in the Amil vs Premil debate. It certainly doesn't meet your standards. And my standard does not require as much as you require in order for me to form an opinion.

As you know, we've had these discussions before, and I believe we came to an impasse, and to some disagreement about what a particular Church Father said or didn't say? Anyway, I wish you well in your endeavor to bring more light to this subject.

 

[WPM]

I gravitated over to the thread you suggested only because you asked me to--not to participate in your terms for the thread. As I said, my "proof" is not likely to produce any change in the Amil vs Premil debate. It certainly doesn't meet your standards. And my standard does not require as much as you require in order for me to form an opinion.

As you know, we've had these discussions before, and I believe we came to an impasse, and to some disagreement about what a particular Church Father said or didn't say? Anyway, I wish you well in your endeavor to bring more light to this subject.

I was simply looking some historic evidence to back up your claims. After all, the first principle of evidence is: he who alleges must prove. But, alas, I got nothing

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You need to read the whole book.
2 Thes 2.9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Who said I didn't? How does this passage change what I said? Tell me exactly what unbelievers do not fit the description given in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 of Jesus coming to take vengeance on those who don't know God and those who don't obey the gospel of Christ? How do you get the idea of any surviving unbelievers who get another chance at salvation from that?

Actually, they are the same prophecy.

Absolutely not. The context is not the same. Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in a first coming context by Jesus Himself in John 19:37. You can't just ignore that. Also, the context is of people mourning Jesus's death, which is not the context of Revelation 1:7.

The book of Revelation is quoting the Zech 12.10 passage,

No, it is not.

but amending it to apply not just to Israel but to the many nations who find themselves in the same position as Israel. I believe those nations are backslidden former Christian nations.

You are ignoring my points and not addressing them, which is something I have found frustrating about you at times in the past. The context of Revelation 1:7 is not of many nations mourning Christ's death (the context of Zech 12:10 is in relation to mourning over His death), but rather is talking about individuals from all nations wailing in fear at seeing Jesus because of His wrath coming down on them, as described in Revelation 6:12-17 where it figuratively talks about them as rather having mountains and rocks fall on them and kill them than to face the wrath of the Lamb.

Dan 7.13 has Jesus Coming down from Heaven to establish God's Kingdom.

No, it does not. You are blatantly twisting the text to make it say what you want it to say. It has Jesus going up TO heaven and brought before God the Father. That's a fact. Why are you being so dishonest with the text? You should be better than this.
Daniel 7:13 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.

But immediately after stating this Jesus appears to turn around and visit a Meeting in Heaven.

After stating what? Daniel 7:13 never says anything about Jesus coming down from heaven.

This would be a contradiction to the statement that he is Coming unless this Meeting is given as a kind of insertion by way of explanation, indicating where Jesus' authority to establish God's Kingdom is coming from.

I can't make any sense of anything you're saying here.

The story of the Ascension in the Gospels makes no reference to Dan 7.13.

Goodness gracious. It specifically refers to the Son of man going TO the Ancient of Days (God the Father) and being brought before Him. You do know that Jesus, after His resurrection, ascended to heaven to the right hand of the Father, right? That verse is an obvious reference to His ascension.

The passage in John 19.37 is just stating that Jesus was pierced.

The dishonesty from you here is just unbelievable. Jesus is very clearly referencing Zechariah 12:10 there. How can you deny obvious things like this? Follow what Jesus said here...

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

So, first we see a description of Jesus being pierced in His side. Then John references two scriptures that prophesied about this event. The first one is referenced in verse 36 which is the scripture which says "A bone of him shall not be broken", which is a reference to Psalm 34:20. Then in verse 37 he referenced another scripture that prophesied about Jesus being pierced that says "They shall look on him whom they pierced", which is obviously a reference to Zechariah 12:10. So, saying that John 19:37 is just stating that Jesus was pierced is a less than honest statement from you. You're acting like it just says that while failing to mention that it is stated as being a fulfillment of the prophecy which says "They shall look on him whom they pierced", which is obviously Zechariah 12:10.

Unless he is pierced in history he cannot come back and be recognized by Israel as the one who was pierced.

Both elements are part of Zech 12.10--his piercing and his return to be recognized as such. But Rev 1 identifies it as completed at the 2nd Coming.

His return is not referenced in Zechariah 12:10 at all. That verse is talking about people seeing Him being pierced and mourning His death which happened long ago.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Who said I didn't? How does this passage change what I said? Tell me exactly what unbelievers do not fit the description given in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 of Jesus coming to take vengeance on those who don't know God and those who don't obey the gospel of Christ? How do you get the idea of any surviving unbelievers who get another chance at salvation from that?

It isn't difficult to figure out where I was coming from! Paul, in talking about those who, like Antichrist, are resistant to the end towards the Gospel of Christ are the ones who suffer the eternal destruction mentioned at the beginning of Paul's letter.

2 Thes 1.8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.

2 Thes 2.10 They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Absolutely not. The context is not the same. Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in a first coming context by Jesus Himself in John 19:37. You can't just ignore that. Also, the context is of people mourning Jesus's death, which is not the context of Revelation 1:7.

As I said, the Revelation expands the context of Zech 12.10--it doesn't give a new prophecy in nearly the exact same words!

Again, you've completely ignored and bypassed my argument about John 19.37. That is stating how, according to Zech 12.10 that Jesus is pierced! It is not denying that the one who is pierced will be recognized at his 2nd Coming.

The prophecy in Zech 12.10 has 2 elements to it--not just 1, and both points do not have to be realized at the same moment.
1) Jesus is pierced. This took place at his crucifixion.
2) Jesus is recognized at his 2nd Coming as the one who had been pierced at his crucifixion.

Both points are evident in the prophecy in Zech 12.10 without having to claim that the piercing and the recognition took place at the same time!

You are ignoring my points and not addressing them, which is something I have found frustrating about you at times in the past.

Ditto, I pointed above that there are 2 elements to the prophecy in Zech 12.10, and you just ignored it, assuming that the prophecy cannot include elements derived from 2 different time frames.

The context of Revelation 1:7 is not of many nations mourning Christ's death (the context of Zech 12:10 is in relation to mourning over His death), but rather is talking about individuals from all nations wailing in fear at seeing Jesus because of His wrath coming down on them, as described in Revelation 6:12-17 where it figuratively talks about them as rather having mountains and rocks fall on them and kill them than to face the wrath of the Lamb.

That is purely your interpretation, which I reject. There are indications of both fear and repentance in the book of Revelation.

Rev 11.13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

No, it does not. You are blatantly twisting the text to make it say what you want it to say. It has Jesus going up TO heaven and brought before God the Father. That's a fact. Why are you being so dishonest with the text? You should be better than this.

You are not facing the context which, if it is to be logical and consistent, must make sense. When it is obviously impossible for the Son of Man to descend from heaven and at the same time appear before the Ancient of Days in heaven, then we must draw the right conclusion. This is a couple of elements that do not fit into the exact same time frame. This also is what you've done with Zech 12.14, claiming that the piercing of Jesus and the recognition of Jesus at his Coming must take place at the same time.

Daniel 7:13 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.

Yes, you have to recognize what is being said in his "coming with the clouds of heaven." In the NT that is interpreted as a *revelation* from heaven, or a *descent* from heaven, as we see in 1 Thes 4.

1 Thes 4.16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven....

That is, coming with the clouds means "descending from heaven."

Matt 24.30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

If the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven, and people on earth see him, then he has "descended from heaven." That means, he did not pull a U turn and go back to heaven visiting the Ancient of Days in his throne room in heaven.

After stating what? Daniel 7:13 never says anything about Jesus coming down from heaven.

See above..

The dishonesty from you here is just unbelievable.

When you fall upon judgmentalism and personal attack we're done...

 

[WPM]

It isn't difficult to figure out where I was coming from! Paul, in talking about those who, like Antichrist, are resistant to the end towards the Gospel of Christ are the ones who suffer the eternal destruction mentioned at the beginning of Paul's letter.

2 Thes 1.8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.

2 Thes 2.10 They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

As I said, the Revelation expands the context of Zech 12.10--it doesn't give a new prophecy in nearly the exact same words!

Again, you've completely ignored and bypassed my argument about John 19.37. That is stating how, according to Zech 12.10 that Jesus is pierced! It is not denying that the one who is pierced will be recognized at his 2nd Coming.

The prophecy in Zech 12.10 has 2 elements to it--not just 1, and both points do not have to be realized at the same moment.
1) Jesus is pierced. This took place at his crucifixion.
2) Jesus is recognized at his 2nd Coming as the one who had been pierced at his crucifixion.

Both points are evident in the prophecy in Zech 12.10 without having to claim that the piercing and the recognition took place at the same time!

Ditto, I pointed above that there are 2 elements to the prophecy in Zech 12.10, and you just ignored it, assuming that the prophecy cannot include elements derived from 2 different time frames.

That is purely your interpretation, which I reject. There are indications of both fear and repentance in the book of Revelation.

Rev 11.13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

You are not facing the context which, if it is to be logical and consistent, must make sense. When it is obviously impossible for the Son of Man to descend from heaven and at the same time appear before the Ancient of Days in heaven, then we must draw the right conclusion. This is a couple of elements that do not fit into the exact same time frame. This also is what you've done with Zech 12.14, claiming that the piercing of Jesus and the recognition of Jesus at his Coming must take place at the same time.

Yes, you have to recognize what is being said in his "coming with the clouds of heaven." In the NT that is interpreted as a *revelation* from heaven, or a *descent* from heaven, as we see in 1 Thes 4.

1 Thes 4.16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven....

That is, coming with the clouds means "descending from heaven."

Matt 24.30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

If the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven, and people on earth see him, then he has "descended from heaven." That means, he did not pull a U turn and go back to heaven visiting the Ancient of Days in his throne room in heaven.

See above..

When you fall upon judgmentalism and personal attack we're done...

You do not address the counter-arguments of others, you just talk around them. The previous post that you replied to actually refutes your claims here.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You do not address the counter-arguments of others, you just talk around them. The previous post that you replied to actually refutes your claims here.

I address things to my own satisfaction, thank you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, you have to recognize what is being said in his "coming with the clouds of heaven." In the NT that is interpreted as a *revelation* from heaven, or a *descent* from heaven, as we see in 1 Thes 4.

Daniel 7:13 EXPLICITLY says that the clouds of heaven (angels) brought Him TO the Ancient of Days (God the Father), who is in heaven. You are blatantly contradicting that with your interpretation. That's clearly in relation to His ascension to heaven. In the future, He will be accompanied by the clouds of heaven (His angels) after He descends from heaven. His descent from heaven is not described at all in Daniel 7:13. His ascension to heaven IS described. Just because of seeing similar wording in two verses doesn't make them directly relate to each other.

1 Thes 4.16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven....

That is, coming with the clouds means "descending from heaven."

No, it does not! Daniel 7:13 EXPLICITLY has Him coming with the clouds of heaven TO heaven to be brought before the Ancient of Days (God the Father). This is unacceptable how you are twisting the text! You're better than this!

Daniel 7:13 “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.

This CLEARLY indicates that He came with the clouds of heaven TO the Ancient of Days IN HEAVEN and was brought "near before Him". To try to say "coming with the clouds means "descending from heaven."" BLATANTLY contradicts what Daniel 7:13 EXPLICITLY says.

Matt 24.30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

If the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven, and people on earth see him, then he has "descended from heaven." That means, he did not pull a U turn and go back to heaven visiting the Ancient of Days in his throne room in heaven.

See above..

When you fall upon judgmentalism and personal attack we're done...

I can't sugarcoat how I feel about seeing someone blatantly twisting scripture the way you're doing here. There is no excuse for it and I make no apologies for calling it out.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Daniel 7:13 EXPLICITLY says that the clouds of heaven (angels) brought Him TO the Ancient of Days (God the Father), who is in heaven. You are blatantly contradicting that with your interpretation. That's clearly in relation to His ascension to heaven. In the future, He will be accompanied by the clouds of heaven (His angels) after He descends from heaven. His descent from heaven is not described at all in Daniel 7:13. His ascension to heaven IS described. Just because of seeing similar wording in two verses doesn't make them directly relate to each other.


No, it does not! Daniel 7:13 EXPLICITLY has Him coming with the clouds of heaven TO heaven to be brought before the Ancient of Days (God the Father). This is unacceptable how you are twisting the text! You're better than this!

Daniel 7:13 “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.

This CLEARLY indicates that He came with the clouds of heaven TO the Ancient of Days IN HEAVEN and was brought "near before Him". To try to say "coming with the clouds means "descending from heaven."" BLATANTLY contradicts what Daniel 7:13 EXPLICITLY says.


I can't sugarcoat how I feel about seeing someone blatantly twisting scripture the way you're doing here. There is no excuse for it and I make no apologies for calling it out.

And I'm calling you out for your judgmentalism. You *should be* better than that!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And I'm calling you out for your judgmentalism. You *should be* better than that!

How am I judging you? I'm pointing out the truth about how you are trying to change the text of Daniel 7:13 to be talking about Jesus coming FROM heaven when, in reality, it explicitly refers to Him coming TO heaven and being brought by the clouds of heaven (the angels) before the Ancient of Days (God the Father).

 

[Randy Kluth]

How am I judging you? I'm pointing out the truth about how you are trying to change the text of Daniel 7:13 to be talking about Jesus coming FROM heaven when, in reality, it explicitly refers to Him coming TO heaven and being brought by the clouds of heaven (the angels) before the Ancient of Days (God the Father).

Heaven knows I have no wish to continue a conversation with someone who accuses me of deliberately sabataging a biblical text! But you ask, and I'll give you this one chance to hear.

If I just change the text I'm guilty as charged. But if I read it differently than you, and whether you agree or not it makes sense to me, then I'm not guilty as charged.

In this case, I already explained to you how I read this logically, which means that I'm not guilty of altering the text. I read it as follows.

Dan 7.8 “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 human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.

I read this Little Horn as the Antichrist, and the context describing Heaven's verdict on his reign. So the context involves the terminal point of the reign of Antichrist which, of course, is when the Son of Man descends from heaven.

Dan 7.9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.

This is the exact same context as we see in the book of Revelation, where the Son of Man has hair white like wool, and where he is coming with the clouds. This most certainly is well *after* the Ascension of Jesus! The vision, therefore, to me takes place as viewed in the book of Revelation, *after* the Ascension has already taken place and pertaining to the detruction of Antichrist and the inception of the Kingdom of God.

Rev 1.7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”
So shall it be! Amen.....
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow.

So, we have the Son of Man being revealed to John in his vision, and like Dan 7 he has white hair and is proceeding with the clouds in an apparent fiery judgment.

Dan 7.12 I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire....
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He 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."

So, the Son of Man, as in Rev 1, is coming with the clouds of heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth. The difficult part, as you suggest, is when we see the Son of Man approach the Ancient of Days. This appears to be very similar to the Heavenly throne room scene in Rev 4-5, which is establishing the authority given to the Son of Man to bring an end to Antichrist's Reign and to establish God's Kingdom on the earth.

Therefore, I will explain to you once again that to me this is not suggesting that Christ's descent from the clouds in heaven is being interrupted in Dan 7.13. Rather, the throne room scene is *paranthetical,* explaining the fact this entering into God's throne room to obtain his mandate was part of the process of carrying out his mission. He was obtaining authority to do what must be done.

There is obviously no effort to create an itinerary to reconcile these two events--the coming with the clouds and the throne room scene. There is only an explanation as to the fact the Son of Man had in fact obtained authority to carry out his mission.

The fact the entry into the throne room was mentioned *after* the coming with the clouds is purely a convention of explaining, after the fact, that he had done this. In other words, it was a kind of "flashback" explanation, indicating that he had obtained this authority before. It's just that it is presented in the form of a vision following, to show how it had been done.

So as far as I know, Jesus may have obtained his authority at the Ascension. Or, he may be reviewing his commission right before he returns, or pursue an additional mandate to destroy the Antichrist and to establish God's Kingdom on the earth. But it is clear to me, from Dan 7, that the Son of Man is coming with the clouds with the authority obtained at the time he was to destroy the Antichrist, and not before. If he obtained this authority at the Ascension he is here reviewing his authority and putting it into effect with documentary authority.

In other words, there is no explicit chronology between the vision of the coming of the Son of Man with the clouds and the vision of his entrance into God's throne room. They are two distinct visions, the throne room vision appearing last not due to chronological sequence, but rather, due to the convention of explaining an activity after it has already been portrayed.

This is not an unusual rendition or way of describing things. I could say I headed straight for the library, and then explain how I had received an assignment earlier requiring I go to the library. The explanation clearly can follow the initial event being described, namely heading straight for the library.

In this case, the Son of Man coming with the clouds is the main event described 1st. Then, it is followed by an explanatory vision showing how he had 1st obtained a mandate to return from heaven. There is a complete lack of any attempt to establish a timing sequence between visions in this prophecy.

Whether you agree or not, I hope you can understand how I see this? I'm not altering anything. I have a different understanding of the same text you read. Your view is sequential. Mine is parenthetical. You have a vested interest in not reading this out of order, and you've become judgmental.

The book of Revelation is much like this, as well. Some see the visions as given in the chronological sequence of their fulfillment. I do not. I see the visions as separate, sometimees looking back, and sometimnes looking forward--also repeating the same time periods in different ways. Those who disagree with me are sometimes judgmental--sometimes not.

Many times those who have a vested interest in seeing their preferred interpretation as sequential judge me for viewing the visions separately. That's sad.

John, in the book of Revelation, saw his visions on the "day of the Lord." This suggests to me that he received heavenly visions with no interest in forming exact historical time sequences, whether within visions or as the visions relate to one another. Visions are sort of timeless and symbolic, and we should read them as such, in my view.