Dan 7, Rev 13 & 17:3 separate beasts

[Jay Ross]

Luke 19:11-15KJV
11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

It is plain that the purpose of Jesus' parable was to correct misapprehension regarding the kingdom of God.

So all of the subsequent "kingdom" references in the parable refer back grammatically to the kingdom of God.

Thus the nobleman can only be Christ, as only Christ possesses the kingdom of God.

Satan does not.

When does God establish His Everlasting Kingdom on the Earth?

When Does God Give Christ dominion over the peoples of the Earth who should worship Him?

When Does God give Christ a kingdom?

When does Satan go away, to be imprisoned in the Bottomless Pit?

What does the nobleman, i.e., Satan, who goes away, claim that he will have when he returns?

When does Satan gain some influence over God's Everlasting Kingdom?

Does Satan keep his influence over God's Everlasting Kingdom?

See how you go answering the above questions.

 

[covenantee]

When does God establish His Everlasting Kingdom on the Earth?

When Does God Give Christ dominion over the peoples of the Earth who should worship Him?

When Does God give Christ a kingdom?

When does Satan go away, to be imprisoned in the Bottomless Pit?

What does the nobleman, i.e., Satan, who goes away, claim that he will have when he returns?

When does Satan gain some influence over God's Everlasting Kingdom?

Does Satan keep his influence over God's Everlasting Kingdom?

See how you go answering the above questions.

The first priority of interpretation is the application of the objective rules of grammar.

You haven't recognized how the expression "kingdom of God" is the objective grammatical referent of all occurrences of "kingdom" which follow in the parable.

 

[Truth7t7]

And I perceive that you are unable to accept my suggestion to simply agree to disagree about our respective understandings.

Correction:

Expose your false teaching, then agree to disagree

 

[Truth7t7]

When does God establish His Everlasting Kingdom on the Earth?

When Does God Give Christ dominion over the peoples of the Earth who should worship Him?

When Does God give Christ a kingdom?

When does Satan go away, to be imprisoned in the Bottomless Pit?

What does the nobleman, i.e., Satan, who goes away, claim that he will have when he returns?

When does Satan gain some influence over God's Everlasting Kingdom?

Does Satan keep his influence over God's Everlasting Kingdom?

See how you go answering the above questions.

When do your false teachings stop in light of presented truth?

 

[Jay Ross]

The first priority of interpretation is the application of the objective rules of grammar.

You haven't recognized how the expression "kingdom of God" is the objective grammatical referent of all occurrences of "kingdom" which follow in the parable.

So, what you are really saying is that you have no idea how to answer my questions, and you are presenting this red herring by claiming that I have not recognized how the expression "kingdom of God" is the objective grammatical reference of all occurrences of "kingdom" which follows in the parable.

Here is the Parable from the NKJV.

Luke 19:11-27: -- The Parable of the Minas​

​

11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’​

​

15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ 19 Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’​

​

20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’​

​

24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) 26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”​

Perhaps, instead of trying to find an excuse, it would be better for you to answer my questions.​

 

[Jay Ross]

Correction:

Expose your false teaching, then agree to disagree

Not this stupid false accusation claim, again from you. In the sight of God, I have nothing to defend.

 

[Jay Ross]

When do your false teachings stop in light of presented truth?

Whose presented truth are you actually representing? As I have just posted, In the sight of God, I have nothing to defend, or I need to respond to.

 

[Truth7t7]

Not this stupid false accusation claim, again from you. In the sight of God, I have nothing to defend.

I agree, your teaching is false, and nothing to defend

To claim The nobleman below is "Satan" is Blasphemy IMHO

The man who left to go to the far country is "Jesus Christ" your suggestion that this is Satan Is beyond words

Luke 19:11-15KJV
11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

John 14:1-3KJV
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

 

[Truth7t7]

Whose presented truth are you actually representing? As I have just posted, In the sight of God, I have nothing to defend, or I need to respond to.

False Teachings, The Nobleman Is "Jesus Christ" not Satan as you falsely claim

 

[covenantee]

So, what you are really saying is that you have no idea how to answer my questions, and you are presenting this red herring by claiming that I have not recognized how the expression "kingdom of God" is the objective grammatical reference of all occurrences of "kingdom" which follows in the parable.

Here is the Parable from the NKJV.

​

Luke 19:11-27: -- The Parable of the Minas​

​

11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’​

​

15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ 19 Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’​

​

20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’​

​

24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) 26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”​

Perhaps, instead of trying to find an excuse, it would be better for you to answer my questions.​

So what you are really saying is that grammar is completely irrelevant to Scriptural interpretation, and that interpretation is what you (and by logical extension, anyone else) think it should be.

AKA Judges 17:6,21:25.

AKA all pathways lead to God.

AKA universalism.

 

[Jay Ross]

So what you are really saying is that grammar is completely irrelevant to Scriptural interpretation, and that interpretation is what you (and by logical extension, anyone else) think it should be.

AKA Judges 17:6,21:25.

AKA all pathways lead to God.

AKA universalism.

No, that is what you are saying. It is not what I said. You are claiming that the kingdom being referenced in the parable is the same kingdom as the qualified kingdom referenced in verse 11.

Luke 19:11-27: -- The Parable of the Minas11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ 19 Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) 26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’​

​

Now if you can show me that the Kingdom of God is being referenced in verses 12 and 15, then your argument may hold up to examination, but I know, beyond any doubt, that the kingdoms mentioned in verses 12 and 15 are both not the same as "the Kingdom of God."

Work your way through the questions I asked above in Post #41 and we will see whether or not your understanding of the Parable of the Minia is actually relevant to this thread.
​

 

[Jay Ross]

I agree, your teaching is false, and nothing to defend

To claim The nobleman below is "Satan" is Blasphemy IMHO

False Teachings, The Nobleman Is "Jesus Christ" not Satan as you falsely claim

Your statements in the above two quoted posts have not evidence to sustain your accusations in these two posts.

I have nothing to answer for or have a need to present a rebuttal to your posts above. The are both a false accusation.

 

[covenantee]

No, that is what you are saying. It is not what I said.

It is the inescapable conclusion of what you said.

You are claiming that the kingdom being referenced in the parable is the same kingdom as the qualified kingdom referenced in verse 11.

It is the same kingdom, because the grammatical referent of "kingdom" in the parable is the "kingdom of God" in verse 11.

Now if you can show me that the Kingdom of God is being referenced in verses 12 and 15, then your argument may hold up to examination, but I know, beyond any doubt, that the kingdoms mentioned in verses 12 and 15 are both not the same as "the Kingdom of God."

I've shown you via the application of grammatical referents, which you ignore.

You know nothing until you've begun by applying the rules of grammar, which invalidate your interpretation.

And nowhere in the English language, or in any other language, are rules of grammar a "red herring" in intelligent discourse. That claim is beyond absurd.

 

[Truth7t7]

6

You are forgetting the Parables of the Minas and the Talents where the man who goes away for a time is actually Satan,

Your claim is false and suggestively evil IMHO

The man who left to go to the far country is "Jesus Christ" your suggestion that this is Satan Is beyond words

Luke 19:11-15KJV
11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

 

[Jay Ross]

It is the inescapable conclusion of what you said.

It is the same kingdom, because the grammatical referent of "kingdom" in the parable is the "kingdom of God" in verse 11.

I've shown you via the application of grammatical referents, which you ignore.

You know nothing until you've begun by applying the rules of grammar, which invalidate your interpretation.

And nowhere in the English language, or in any other language, are rules of grammar a "red herring" in intelligent discourse. That claim is beyond absurd.

Oh well if that is what you want to believe, then so be it, but please do not point your grubby finger at me and claim that I am wrong.

I have posted my opinion based on the evidence within these the two parables as to whether or not the man who goes away is entitled to the spoils of the harvest. The so termed wicked servant of Satan kept the mania coin safe and returned it to the owner in accordance with the Law. People often miss this because they believe that making loads of prophet is Godly, but the reality is that it is not so. Profiting from the work of our own hands is acceptable but the man who goes away does no work to justify his desire for the spoils gained during his absence.

It seems that we too should agree to disagree and let the passing of time to reveal the truth of the matter, whether it be yours or mine.

 

[Jay Ross]

Your claim is false and suggestively evil IMHO

The man who left to go to the far country is "Jesus Christ" your suggestion that this is Satan Is beyond words

You can claim whatever you want but without any evidence other than your personal opinion, your words are meaningless and simply abusive.

 

[covenantee]

Oh well if that is what you want to believe, then so be it, but please do not point your grubby finger at me and claim that I am wrong.

I have posted my opinion based on the evidence within these the two parables as to whether or not the man who goes away is entitled to the spoils of the harvest. The so termed wicked servant of Satan kept the mania coin safe and returned it to the owner in accordance with the Law. People often miss this because they believe that making loads of prophet is Godly, but the reality is that it is not so. Profiting from the work of our own hands is acceptable but the man who goes away does no work to justify his desire for the spoils gained during his absence.

It seems that we too should agree to disagree and let the passing of time to reveal the truth of the matter, whether it be yours or mine.

I'm certainly willing to agree to disagree, but we can't both be right, since the nobleman cannot be both Christ and Satan, and the kingdom cannot be the kingdom of both God and Satan.

If you can uncover anyone who agrees with you, in this forum, or in orthodox Christianity past or present, please provide evidence of his or her identity and persuasion.

 

[Jay Ross]

I'm certainly willing to agree to disagree, but we can't both be right, since the nobleman cannot be both Christ and Satan, and the kingdom cannot be the kingdom of both God and Satan.

If you can uncover anyone who agrees with you, in this forum, or in orthodox Christianity past or present, please provide evidence of his or her identity and persuasion.

So, in fact, you are not agreeing to disagree to discontinue this conversation. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[covenantee]

So, in fact, you are not agreeing to disagree to discontinue this conversation. You cannot have it both ways.

You missed the word "If".

"If" you don't want to uncover anyone, then don't.

 

[Always Believing]

The Future Human Man, The Antichrist Seen Below In (Daniel) 11:37 Will Be A Hebrew/Jew In Decent, His Fathers Worshipped The True Hebrew (God Of His Fathers)

(Daniel) 11:37KJV
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Examples: God Of His Fathers

(2 Kings) 21:22KJV
22 And he forsook the Lord God of his fathers, and walked not in the way of the Lord.

(2 Chronicles) 21:10KJV
10 So the Edomites revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day. The same time also did Libnah revolt from under his hand; because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers.

I agree. I also believe he could be Korah raised from the grave to live again in human flesh and blood, like a sort of evil Lazarus. He will literally be able to cast himself as the 2nd coming of Christ on earth risen from the dead.

He was the first listed type of false apostle and antichrist, as a leader of the rebellious Levites against God's rule by Moses and the law of God.

He will fit the returning Christ as close as possible, without actually being Him come again to earth. He will live celibate as Jesus, he will intimately know both the Lord of Moses and of Christ, in order to proselytize both Jews and Christians to his false gospel. He will have Satan entered into him, without committing suicide like Judas, and the dragon will give him a pouth and power to call down fire from heaven. He will also have his very on prophet speaking of him and his deity, even as John the Baptist for Jesus.

There will of course be one glaring deficiency that anyone caring for Scripture over appearance: He will come as a man from his hidden desert grave in mortal flesh, while the Lord will return in resurrected body through the sky in brightness of lightening.