shturt678s said:
1. it's been awhile and my sometimers, but I do recall the O.T. "Sanctuary" also consisted of not only the Holy Place, but the Most Holy Place just like the N.T.
naos. That is, both sides of the curtain sir.
2a. If I was you I would change Commentaries quickly sir. I was more referring to IIThess.2:4, "....seats himself in the naos of God,..." This wretched humble posit may help you sir......
2b. Who's forcing this into the past...not me, ie, I'm an Amill. nowist sir...coming to pass right this moment. btw where did I place this specifically in the past?
3. Thank you for your response again my brother, doesn't look at you could discredit..however thank you for trying. Maybe you'll have better luck later???
4. My offer is still open: If anyone can find fault with any of the former...I'll recant all, and will have been successfully discredited.
1. What the heck is a "sometimers?" -- Stuttgart: you're playing word games. When the talking image of the anti-Christ is set IN the Temple, in the Holy Place, it is STILL IN the Temple even if the Temple encompasses more than just the Holy Place.
2a & 2b. The rest of my post was not meant for you but Wormwood. When you make two posts in a row, this message board combines them. I was not addressing you; it's not all about you. Sorry to hear about your Amillism; I hope you recover from it. What the heck is a "nowist?" (What we have here is a failure to communicate.)
3. I am not even trying to discredit you, so don't think yourself a champion of some contest. I think that you're not very good at being a translator either. I am always wary of people who make the Bible say what they want it to say. I am more wary of people who actually re-write it to suit themselves. Thanks for caring about me getting lucky; I did get lucky tonight but then that's just my good looks put into action.
4. I refuse to play by your fool's game, and I really don't care what you recant as long as it's your sins to the Holy Spirit.
Wormwood said:
In sum, I think the entire theology surrounding this Antichrist concept is completely shaky. Its based on a Daniel passage that was fulfilled with Antiochus Epiphanes IV, a 2 Thessalonians passage that (in my opinion) contextually makes no sense to a future man, the image of a "beast" in Revelation...which is pure guesswork, and finally uses the terminology of 1 John that has nothing at all to do with such a figure. I just think if the Lord wanted us to be aware of such a figure and look for his coming, he would have said something explicit about it rather than having us use his Word like a decoder puzzle.
Again, in reverse order:
10. The term 'anti-Christ' has everything to do with the wickedness which propels God to act. Even the term is apt considering he suffers a mortal wound (not necessarily a head wound - he
is the "head," the sixth "head" of the dragon nation-state) but does not die! This is a false death. He then recovers; this is a false resurrection! He opposes God and seeks to take His Place! This is a falsehood too!
False death; false resurrection; false God -- false Christ - hence: anti-Christ.
9. The fact that you find no reason has nothing to do with God having a reason for this man. Like all super-hero stories, it is the evildoer who advances the plot and the hero who rushes in to save the day. It is not unlike that in the Bible. At the apex of his power, the midpoint of the one 'seven,' when he has conquered Israel and is rewarded with a talking image of himself and he has the hubris to proclaim himself God inside the Holy Place - THAT is when his fall begins because God begins to act! (The first to arrive are God's Marines: the Two Witnesses.)
8. Your proposed exegesis methodology - which is not any systematic method of interpretation - allows you to literally put words in their mouths! If we are to go on the earliest readers - what did they think? Do we really know? The writings that survived from that period are scant, fragmented, and hardly indicative of the entire body of thought or even consistent within themselves! Scholars have a name for the earliest readers' eschatology: Historic Pre-Millennialism. That is a far cry from what you are proposing to do.
7. I do not think as you do. I think what we have in the Olivet Discourse, 2nd Th 2, and Rev 13 is quite understandable. Controversy is not a valid point. ALL eschatology is controversial. We're having a controversy right now. This whole board is controversial! STILL! There are valid, contradicting, and sundry eshatologies to be found and held. Hardly any two people share each others thinking on every point even if they agree on a single brand of eschatology. This is not a valid point for dismissing something you don't like.
6. Animal sacrifice in accordance with Levitical Law is not an abomination. Abomination in the Bible overwhelmingly refers to idol worship. It is the talking image of a man set up in the Temple which is an abomination! The worst abomination imaginable! Even Isaiah laughed at idols because they couldn't speak! Well this one does!
5. From something I wrote years ago:
“To seal up vision and prophecy,” the word seal has not changed much since Hebrew times. Coming from the word, chatham, a prime root, means to seal, affix a seal, or seal up (ECOTB). Professor Lewis of Harding Graduate School of Religion denotes the word chatham (or hatam) as:
“The basic meaning of this root is “to seal.”…Also an unintelligible prophecy is said in a simile to be sealed (Isa 29:11) Hence sealing designates that which is securely enclosed (Dan 12:9) by lying under a seal…Isaiah was to seal up his teaching in his disciples, that is, to keep it securely (Isa 8:16).”—TWOT p.334.
ISA 29:11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't; it is sealed."
DA 12:9 He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.
ISA 8:16 Bind up the testimony
and seal up the law among my disciples.
Likewise to seal up can also be to contain as in to signify “that which is closed up”—(ibid p.334) and marries our present day usage in sealing a vessel, making it complete by making it tight. So, one aspect of sealing is the visions and prophecies are then to be securely enclosed in the time described within the verse. Another can be said that this verse was not to be understood plainly to those before the coming of Christ; it was part of the mystery of God revealed in Christ Jesus. But as prophecy continues until His return so the sealing here must continue until Christ’s reign in the Millennium. This then would close up the timeframe when visions and prophecy will be necessary.
To close up the words as the Man in Linen says in Daniel 12:9 not only implies that the words should be kept safely until the time when they were needed, but also that it put God’s indelible stamp on it. Seals were imprinted with an impression to authenticate the authorship of the document. So the fact that Daniel’s prophecy is sealed has the double sense of preserving the message and authenticating it.
Another aspect to sealing up has to do with the principle of prophecy itself: there will be a day when it is not necessary. Two main sections in the Bible discuss the Millennial Period: Revelations and the last part of Ezekiel starting in verse 43:10. After the end-times, prophecy as conveyed from God will not exist (ZEC 13:1-6). Thus, Christ’s return results in deep ramifications. A contention here is that a new paradigm will exist with Christ’s earthly return in the Millennium. One particular result will be that prophecy will no longer be necessary after the end times. However, it is for the end times that Daniel’s prophecy is intended as stated by the Man in Linen in Daniel 12:9.
The last phrase, “to anoint the most holy” occurs after the seal or the visions of end times contained in Daniel. Holy in the noun form qodesh connotes the concept of “holiness,” i.e. the essential nature of that which belongs to the sphere of the sacred and which is thus distinct from the common or profane.”—TWOT Vol. II page 787. “The verb mashah with its derivatives occurs about 140 times…in the prophets it is found as a verb only twice with its religious connotation of sacred anointing (Isa 61:1; Dan 9:24).”—TWOT Vol. I page 530. So we have a religious anointing rather than a physical anointing and the object or subject is the embodiment of holy.
With the last reference having a holy basis, it could be likened to the anointing of the Messiah after the period covered by the prophecy which has been sealed and would come at the conclusion of the seventy ‘sevens.’ So while (only) the NASB adds the word “place” to “holy,” qodesh may not refer to a place. This would be in line with the celebration of the Lamb after the defeat of the world and the rule of man described in end time prophecies.
4. Jesus did come after the sixty-two 'sevens' and He was cut off (
karat) after that. He did not "confirm" (
gabar) a covenant with many for one 'seven!' Jesus' covenant, which He made at the Last Supper and completed with the shedding of His Blood is for the whole Church Age. The last three and a half years are given a conclusion in Daniel 9:27 - the desolations poured out as enumerated in Revelation chapters 15-16 upon the desolator - a man. (God's Wrath is never pointed at a condition; only beings.) The Great Tribulation is not seven years long - but only starts at the midpoint of the one 'seven' and it is abruptly cut short by the sudden and otherwise unexpected arrival of the Day of the Lord.
3. Nero may have been one of the previous five "heads" of the dragon nation-state. HOWEVER! He is not the one because he DID NOT DO what Paul says the anti-Christ, the man of perdition,
will do! Only after that does Jesus come!
2. I think my counting of "heads" is sufficiently valid for an interpretation model. If you want to dismiss it before hearing it in total, then you can say what you say, but you will say it out of your ignorance. Contempt prior to investigation will only lock you into your own mindset. I take a literal view of Revelation, not discounting its figurative language - which I surmise reveals a deeper truth about the subject being described. Furthermore, how you approach the book of Revelation is most important. I have discerned a pattern based on a solid rule for partitioning it into various parallel accounts.
1. Again, the whole point of Paul's explanation to the Thessalonians is future-oriented. While the participles he uses are in the present tense, the meaning is forward-looking, i.e., they need not fear because these events, exalts, opposes; have not yet come to be. However, the Greek logic naturally allows that they will follow at some time when the "one" is removed.
__________________________________________________________
So, there is ample evidence in the Bible to support a view which includes the anti-Christ as a single man.
-- Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the jumping off point of "Dual Focus" for Daniel to switch from the near-term to the far-term future.
-- Paul's order of events compliments the Olivet Discourse and Revelation concerning the anti-Christ.
-- The beast of a man in Revelation is an apt description in figurative speech for the person found in Isaiah 14:3-21.
-- John acknowledges the person of the anti-Christ, yet warns the earliest readers of anti-Christs all around. We still have all kinds of anti-Christs today!
-- The Lord DID say something about this man - and the admonishment is IN the Bible for the reader to understand Daniel's writings! Furthermore, Jesus revealed even more to John about this man in Revelation chapter 13. So to say Jesus did not say something explicit is to miss the point altogether, and hence, no wonder you do not see it - because you don't see it at all.