Daniel`s 70 Weeks.

[Phoneman777]

Hi Kevin,

Nice to know your name, & thanks for sharing. You must not remember that I said I agreed that the Lord was king before His manifestation & Prince (commander) so no problem there. As to `Michael,` well there is never a sign of Deity when we read about him in God`s word. Now interesting that you bring up the JW`s. Just today I went for a walk along the boardwalk by the sea, as I am on holidays & saw some people with religious books - the JW`s. I always like to chat (not debate) as I am interested in their journey. They have been taught certain things & I like to find out how in their heart they think they are changing.....it makes them think especially the younger ones who are not so intrenched (! sp) in that doctrine. Well I took their little book so I can have another chat tomorrow & there lo & behold the 2 things you have been telling me -

1. Timeline of the 70 weeks with Jesus` baptism & last week connected.
2. Michael the Prince is Jesus.

So it seems you knew these things, however I cannot receive those teachings as you would have realised by now. So as we`ve both had our say I will leave it to the Holy Spirit to continue to guide us into all truth. Hope to discuss with you on other topics, bro.

All the best, Kevin,

Marilyn.

LOL I've been studying the tenets of other faiths for years. It's true that Prince Michael ("Who Is As God") was once widely believed by Christians to be Jesus but won't get into the Biblical arguments. You can read some of what the Reformers wrote about the subject, but suffice it to say that Michael is NOT an "angel" but the "archangel" which means "ruler of the angels". He was believed to be God "manifest as an Angel" - the "Angel of the Lord" and took the name "Michael" just as He took the name "Jesus" when He manifested as a man. It was when the JW began to "prove" by these arguments that Michael was merely an angel, and nothing more than a created being that Christianity began to distance themselves from this teaching. Looking forward to other topics as well.

Phoneman777

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I agree that the Bible interprets the Bible. However, the passages in Daniel are not just empty containers to be filled with various quotes and prophesies from the New Testament.

Daniel is end-time prophecy. It is a major foundation of any eschatology.

Other major portions which must be used, thought out, and interrelated to form a whole are: the book of Revelation, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and one of the most important, the Keystone passage that I know of: the Olivet Discourse.

Your typification and admonishments are without justification in my view: I will continue to integrate Daniel because it is part of the whole and it as well as those major parts of the Bible which contain end-time prophecy have a direct bearing on understanding God's Plan for us and the end of the rule of Man.

The whole point of Daniel is this: In the midst of captivity and Israel's sin, God is faithful and will protect and deliver those who are faithful to him.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. The theme of Daniel is God's sovereignty over kings and kingdoms. As such, He has a lot to say about the end-time ruler who rises up in opposition to Him throughout the latter chapters of the book of Daniel.

You want a clue as to what happens between his capture at Armageddon to his judgment before God which leads to him being thrown while yet alive in his flesh into Hell?

Here is what awaits the little horn, the beast of a man, the man of perdition, of lawlessness, the sixth head wounded with a sword, the prince who will come, the one who prevails a covenant with many for one 'seven', the desolator who has the false prophet set up the abomination in the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem; the anti-Christ:

Isaiah 14:13 "But you said in your heart,
'I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
14 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High. '
15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the pit.
16 "Those who see you will gaze at you,
They will ponder over you, saying,
'Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world like a wilderness
And overthrew its cities,
Who did not allow his prisoners to go home? '
18 "All the kings of the nations lie in glory,
Each in his own tomb.
19 "But you have been cast out of your tomb
Like a rejected branch,
Clothed with the slain who are pierced with a sword,
Who go down to the stones of the pit
Like a trampled corpse.
20 "You will not be united with them in burial,
Because you have ruined your country,
You have slain your people.
May the offspring of evildoers not be mentioned forever.
21 "Prepare for his sons a place of slaughter
Because of the iniquity of their fathers.
They must not arise and take possession of the earth
And fill the face of the world with cities."

 

[Wormwood]

The theme of Daniel is God's sovereignty over kings and kingdoms. As such, He has a lot to say about the end-time ruler who rises up in opposition to Him throughout the latter chapters of the book of Daniel.

I agree with the first part, which is why the focus of these prophecies is the coming Kingdom of God that was instituted at Christ's first coming. Yes, Revelation incorporates aspects of Daniel, but it uses those themes typologically and as a fore-shadowing of even greater fulfillments...it does not redefine or nullify what Daniel was sharing with his audience about the coming of the Messiah.

As for Isaiah 14, this originally was in reference to the king of Babylon:

“When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: “How the oppressor has ceased, the insolent fury ceased!” (Isaiah 14:3–4, ESV)

Many commentators and Christians throughout history has also seen this as typologically referring to Satan and his fall as well. Again, you are taking a passage out of its intended context and throwing everything 2-3,000 years divorced from the intended audience and the context in which this letter was actually written. The Bible wasnt written to you. It is a terrible error to ignore the author and audiences of the Bible and try to make everything apply to 21st century Israel and America. I find it to be quite arrogant. It is as those the people of history and the original audiences didnt matter at all...God was only concerned with us and some 7 year period at the end of time. The only way to understand the "last days" is if you understand the situations surrounding the Scriptures and God's promises to the intended audiences to which the authors were writing!

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

The only way to understand the "last days" is if you understand the situations surrounding the Scriptures and God's promises to the intended audiences to which the authors were writing!

No, that is not the only way to understand the "last days." That is the only way approved by you to do that.

When prophecy can have more than one application, as is the case with near-and-far prophetic fulfillment, we need not wear the straitjacket you set before your students.

In Israel's time, much of Isaiah was not understandable as to the Servant Messiah; the Jews "missed" Jesus even though they were on fire for the Messiah at His First Advent.
With Jeremiah, most of Israel disregarded his prophecies. Daniel studied Jeremiah, but to his intended audience, his fellow countrymen, he was persona non grata.
Much of Daniel concerns the end-times and so it was beyond the understanding of his audience, and the Jews today, still do not accept him as a prophet at all.
Parts of Exekiel still defy your ability to understand them since you reject a future interpretation.

So when you say what the prophet's intended audience was, you get one shot at putting your take on what was written.
Once you do that, you then have another shot at making it say what you want it to say when you apply a figurative or idealistic method of exegesis.

I have my sequence-of-events which allows me to see where obscure prophetic passages "fit." The anti-Christ is a seminal figure in the whole of human history - he is the only one who will actually "have" the whole world only to lose his soul. When I read Isaiah 14, I recognize this as to the depth of the fall this seminal figure is dragged through between his capture and his judgment.

 

[Wormwood]

When prophecy can have more than one application, as is the case with near-and-far prophetic fulfillment, we need not wear the straitjacket you set before your students.

When prophecy has more than one application, we rely on the inspired authors to inform us of that clearly. Biblical prophecy is not a game of darts where people like Jack Van Impe, you, and others start hurling newspaper clippings at Bible verses to see which will stick. Chances are, if Daniel, John or Paul would not have recognized how you are using their writing, then you arent reading it properly. The meaning of Scripture is based in its original intent and not the intent of those with charts and timelines arriving 2,000 years later.

In Israel's time, much of Isaiah was not understandable as to the Servant Messiah; the Jews "missed" Jesus even though they were on fire for the Messiah at His First Advent.

Not really accurate. Most of Israel recognized much of Isaiah as predictive of the coming Messiah. Jesus chided the Pharisees for not recognizing him and for rejecting his signs, words and the baptism of John. The NT is very clear that the issue of the Pharisees had nothing to do with their interpretation of Scripture, but was a problem of personal pride, greed and a lust for power. You make it sound like they missed it because God's Word was too complicated and they needed a dispensationalist to come along and explain it to them! Please...

With Jeremiah, most of Israel disregarded his prophecies. Daniel studied Jeremiah, but to his intended audience, his fellow countrymen, he was persona non grata.

Are you actually suggesting that people rejecting your views on Daniel and Revelation is similar to Israel rejecting their prophets and the Messiah? Really? Say it aint so, Marcus...

Parts of Exekiel still defy your ability to understand them since you reject a future interpretation.

Says who? Have you heard me say that I am unable to understand Ezekiel's prophecies?

So when you say what the prophet's intended audience was, you get one shot at putting your take on what was written.
Once you do that, you then have another shot at making it say what you want it to say when you apply a figurative or idealistic method of exegesis.

No. It is called context. We look at the historical situation and then apply the prophet's words to that situation. For instance, look at this quote from Jesus.

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”” (Acts 1:8, ESV)

How do we understand what it means? Do we assume that "power" means tanks and helicopters? Do we assume "you" means me? Do we assume that Jesus was talking to Marcus and commanding him to wait in an upper room until you receive power so you can go preach in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth? No. Why? Because that verse is in a context. We dont rip it out of it's context and say, "This is talking to Marcus in the 21st century." No, we say, this is something Jesus was saying to his disciples and something that Luke was writing as an account for people in his day to read and understand the beginning of the Church.
So, if that is what we do with Acts 1:8, and most other passages in the Bible, why wouldnt we do the same with Daniel 9 or the book of Revelation? Why does apocalyptic literature give us license to suddenly ignore the writer, audience and context of the vision/prophecy and start injecting guns, bombs, helicopters, future temples, and Antichrists? I am not asking you to insert some new approach of mine to the Bible. I am simply asking you to read and interpret Daniel 9 the same way you read and interpret Acts 1...and pretty much every other passage that doesnt refer to eschatology.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Wormwood,

`When prophecy has more than one application, we rely on the inspired authors to inform us of that clearly. Biblical prophecy is not a game of darts where people like Jack Van Impe, you, and others start hurling newspaper clippings at Bible verses to see which will stick. Chances are, if Daniel, John or Paul would not have recognized how you are using their writing, then you arent reading it properly. The meaning of Scripture is based in its original intent and not the intent of those with charts and timelines arriving 2,000 years later.`

Just like to comment on what you said. Now we know from God`s word that God spoke to individuals, groups, nations, etc at various times & for the future. What God is saying to these different ones/groups are not just words just related to the audience, nor are these words related to everyone. It is not one or the other. Both do not make sense.

Scripture`s overriding purpose is to reveal Christ, His character & His purposes. When we realise this then all scripture comes into right perspective. Each part fits the whole. Some can be written to individuals or groups or nations, or kings or servants etc however they are incorporated in God`s word to reveal Christ to us & not just history of something at the time.

The purposes of God through Christ is a grand topic & encompasses all of God`s word. Each segment reveals more & more of God`s great plan, not only for redemption but for the eternal purposes for the three groups, the Body of Christ, Israel & the Nations, each of which will be in various areas of God`s great kingdom. Each will have rulership under Christ who is `far above all,`& God will be all in all.`

Blessings, Marilyn.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

When prophecy has more than one application, we rely on the inspired authors to inform us of that clearly.

Oh really??? (or in Latin: O'Reillius?)

I sure you can rely on Isaiah to to inform you of that clearly.

Isa 7:14 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven." 12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!" 13 Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

That was said to Ahaz, but it applies in the far term to Jesus.

That is one of the easiest examples of near/far prophecy which is not clearly stated to be about Jesus at all, is it? But it is the source for what the Apostles came to understand after the fact also concerned Jesus.

There are more, but I only need one to refute your premise.

If you want to deny near and far prophecy in the Bible, it is you who will stay in ignorance of what is written in Daniel 11 that can have significance in these latter times.

 

[Wormwood]

Just like to comment on what you said. Now we know from God`s word that God spoke to individuals, groups, nations, etc at various times & for the future. What God is saying to these different ones/groups are not just words just related to the audience, nor are these words related to everyone. It is not one or the other. Both do not make sense.

Marylin,

I disagree. Yes, the Bible speaks to all people of all ages. However, it's message is understood by seeing it in its original context. We can understand what the Bible means to us ONLY after we have understood what it meant to them. If we disregard the author, context and audience, then we can make the Bible say whatever we want. For instance, the OT commands us not to "cook a kid in its mother's milk." Does this verse become meaningless? No, it was a command to Israel to reject the idolatrous practices that were prevalent around them. This was an act done by the idolatrous Canaanites as an act of worship to false gods. So, we can understand what God is saying to Israel and apply that to ourselves with regards to rejecting the practices andn cultural currents of idolatry and false worship around us. If we dont view it this way, then the verse becomes nothing but nonsense...as none of us are tempted to cook babies goats in their mother's milk......and even if we did, it wouldnt be sinful because it wouldnt be an act of worshiping a false god. That is the point.

Western Christians have a really bad problem with taking the Bible and just ignoring its history and context and only caring about "what it means to me." Thus they make the Bible say whatever they want because it isnt based on any sound hermeneutics, but solely on personal whims, cultural events and imagination. It is a dangerous way to view the Bible.

 

[Wormwood]

Isa 7:14 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven." 12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!" 13 Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

That was said to Ahaz, but it applies in the far term to Jesus.

Yes, as we know that because Scripture tells us so and God's inspired authors connect those dots. Moreover, the OT is full of typology pointing us to Jesus. This isnt license for us to start throwing whatever ideas we want into various OT or NT verses. If you understand the typology of the OT and how the early Christians understood their Scriptures in relation to Jesus, this would make more sense. I recommend you read "Commentary on the Old Testament use of the New Testament" by GK Beale. I assure you, the NT authors were not just playing guessing games with their Scriptures.

 

[Marilyn C]

Marylin,

I disagree. Yes, the Bible speaks to all people of all ages. However, it's message is understood by seeing it in its original context. We can understand what the Bible means to us ONLY after we have understood what it meant to them. If we disregard the author, context and audience, then we can make the Bible say whatever we want. For instance, the OT commands us not to "cook a kid in its mother's milk." Does this verse become meaningless? No, it was a command to Israel to reject the idolatrous practices that were prevalent around them. This was an act done by the idolatrous Canaanites as an act of worship to false gods. So, we can understand what God is saying to Israel and apply that to ourselves with regards to rejecting the practices andn cultural currents of idolatry and false worship around us. If we dont view it this way, then the verse becomes nothing but nonsense...as none of us are tempted to cook babies goats in their mother's milk......and even if we did, it wouldnt be sinful because it wouldnt be an act of worshiping a false god. That is the point.

Western Christians have a really bad problem with taking the Bible and just ignoring its history and context and only caring about "what it means to me." Thus they make the Bible say whatever they want because it isnt based on any sound hermeneutics, but solely on personal whims, cultural events and imagination. It is a dangerous way to view the Bible.

Hi Wormwood,

I so agree with you bro. It is one of the biggest errors today - all about me...... However what I am also saying is that after we have seen the passage in its setting & sometimes there are lessons for us, then we are to view it in the whole context of God`s word in relation to Christ being revealed (pre & post manifestation) & God`s purposes through Him. Otherwise it is just a collection of writings (from God) concerning certain people in different times, that may have a lesson for us.

To understand that Christ is central to the whole of God`s world brings about a cohesiveness & overall purpose which not only enlightens the mind but enlarges the heart.

Marilyn.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Yes, as we know that because Scripture tells us so and God's inspired authors connect those dots.

You said the prophet would let us know.

It's true meaning was only revealed centuries later.

Who are you to say that Isaiah 14 doesn't apply to the arch villain himself: the King of the New Babylon when his whole reign has yet to be revealed.

 

[Phoneman777]

Daniel is Revelation concealed and Revelation is Daniel revealed - the prophecies of the one cannot be properly interpreted without the other. Revelation 13 declares that after its "deadly wound" was healed, "all the world would wonder after the beast."

I have presented many Protestant Historicism arguments here against what are regarded as "foundational" for the establishment of Jesuit Futurism, to which those who subscribe are unwilling to acknowledge has its origin in the Jesuit Order, yet not one has been able to offer a reasonable refutation to the either plausibility or plain established fact of these arguments, some of which are:

- the complete absence of a Biblical precedent-setting "gap" insertion into a numerically specific time prophecy as is claimed has been done to the "70 Weeks"

-the historic ECF and Reformation era claim of Pagan Rome as the Restrainer, the fall of which links the rise of Antichrist to the distant past, not future, and the complete absence of church belief of a "agent of holiness" Restrainer anywhere in the historical record

-that Dispensationalism, too, has its roots in post-Reformation acceptance of Jesuit ideas which is found no where supported in proper contextual interpretation of the Scriptures, but the father of which, John Nelson Darby, was an adamant proponent of the same Jesuit ideas so popular today - ideas which were once crushed and buried over for 300 years by the solid Scriptural arguments of the giants of the Protestant Reformation before Darby, Scofield, and the rest of those afflicted with spiritual amnesia helped resurrect them what seems as just yesterday

-that the pre-trib "thief in the night secret rapture" cannot possibly supported by Scripture as evidenced by the testimony of both OT and NT of the utter destruction and era of darkness and desolation which will prevail before the "earth made new", which Jesuit Futurism wholly ignores with its description of continual earthly human activity throughout its warped prophetic timeline

-that God would in no way refer to a blasphemous, abominable, national "f - You and Your Messiah" re-establishment of Jewish temple sacrificial services in a rebuilt temple (Gr. "naos") in Jerusalem as His "temple of God" and that Paul used the Greek "naos" found in 2 Thess. 2 to refer to the church as the "temple of God", which services could only honor who Jesus referred to as the father of the Jews - "the devil".

- that Artaxerxes' decree of 457 B.C is the only one comprehensively adequate to fulfill Gabriel's "restore and build Jerusalem" description

-that Artaxerxes' 444 B.C. decree was nothing more than the lifting of the moratorium of his original 457 B.C. decree, put in place due to Daniel's prediction of "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" at the hands of Israel's enemies.

-that 69 Weeks from 457 B.C. brings us to a baptismal date for Jesus as 27 A.D., in light of Dr. Luke's almost certain use of the Syro-Macedonian calendar in his calculation of "the fifteenth year reign of Tiberius...", which completely eliminates the possible consideration of 444 B.C. as the decree date or a post-31 A.D. crucifixion.

-the complete disregard for "chiastic structure" of Hebrew writing which is destroyed by the false interpretations of Jesuit Futurism/Jesuit Preterism, but preserved intact by Protestant Historicism (I'll not labor an expose' here seeing that Protestantism no longer has the slightest idea or cares what "chiastic structure" means or its relevance)

The Beast was identified by the Reformers as the Papacy. Yet, many here are unwilling to acknowledge the conspiracy fact (not "theory" as is so contemptuously suggested by those who are ignorant of the issues of the Protestant Reformation and church history at large) as demonstrated by the Papacy's very own Imprimatur-bearing encyclicals declaring their object of world dominance of every single aspect of humanity, including all things spiritual, and the political intrigue that is covered over by those in politics, the media, academia, and organized religion who are servants of the god of this world, guilty by their associations to various secret society "think tanks" whose object is to bring about the NWO found in Revelation 18:1-4 KJV
By its failure to adhere to the lessons of the past, non-Catholics can no longer be referred to as "Protestants" because they have ceased to protest the errors of the Papacy and teach the foundational beliefs of Protestantism, preferring to embrace the more PC label "evangelical" which makes me want to vomit. It is sad but true that Protestantism will join in with the rest of the world as "all the world wondered after the Beast" and the fact that the Papacy has co-epted the 2017 Five Hundren year anniversary of that memorable day of a German hammer and nails, with jubilent excitement and expectaition among Protestants, is proof positive that the long sought goal of the Papacy to destroy Protestantism has all but been realized. Well played, Rome, well played. SMH

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Phoneman777,

The days of one position countering the other are over brother, for it is time to get out God`s word & actually discuss scripture NOT POSITIONS.
I have many more topics to share so you may want to discuss scripture & not retreat behind a certain position thinking you have all the arsenal to knock the others down.

Marilyn.

 

[StanJ]

Hi Phoneman777,
The days of one position countering the other are over brother, for it is time to get out God`s word & actually discuss scripture NOT POSITIONS.
I have many more topics to share so you may want to discuss scripture & not retreat behind a certain position thinking you have all the arsenal to knock the others down.
Marilyn.

I've had him on ignore for a long time and I won't read what he actually wrote, but you may find it best to ignore certain people here, as they are unteachable.
In fact Daniel is what God gave to Daniel and Revelation is what Jesus gave to John. Note it is his LAST revelation. Of course soon is relative given that God does not look at time the same way that we do, and Peter confirms to us that God is not governed by time in the same way we are. Suffice it to say that there was a great deal of anticipation in John regarding what was being revealed to him but as such, 2000 years later, we know it was not meant to be soon in the connotation we look at it in.

 

[Phoneman777]

Hi Phoneman777,

The days of one position countering the other are over brother, for it is time to get out God`s word & actually discuss scripture NOT POSITIONS.
I have many more topics to share so you may want to discuss scripture & not retreat behind a certain position thinking you have all the arsenal to knock the others down.

Marilyn.

Marilyn,
I find that remark somewhat condescending, for it suggests that the Scriptures are still up on the shelf. Do you really think the Jesuits Alcazar and Ribera attempted to establish their positions upon anecdote or prejudice alone, or that the Protestant Reformers did the same? No, they ALL claim to be founded on the unquestionable authority of the Bible, even those who claim the word of their Pope is higher than that of the Word of God.

The truth is that while everyone, including yourself, claims to desire to cultivate an atmosphere of open-mindedness, it is only the different variations of Jesuit Futurism which are given consideration, to the exemption of Protestant Historicism, which is NEVER given consideration as evidenced by the complete lack of even the slightest understanding of it by those who proudly proclaim the loudest of their "objectivity". Jesuit Futurists are most arrogant in there callous dismissal of Protestant Historicism in that they relegate the thinking of some of the most God-fearing, self-sacrificing men - giants of the faith who risked life and limb to do the will of the God that raised them up after century upon century of Papal darkness and superstition - to the realm of obscurity. Unless we are willing to prayerfully consider all ideas concerning eschatology, especially those which up until just over a hundred years ago dominated the entire Protestant world, we will never approach the Bible with anything but the same subjectivity that the Jesuits approached it in their efforts to overthrow the claims of Protestantism and the Reformation at large.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Phoneman777,

Sorry if it seemed condescending but my heart was to say the reality. If any of the past positions were the full truth then by now we would have been led into the whole counsel of God as the early Christians knew. As we well know & the Apostle Paul warned his disciples, that savage wolves would come in amongst the believers & spread heresy. This we have seen for two centuries yet we also know that Jesus said His Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. Thus we realise over many centuries much truth has been restored across the Body of Christ even amid great error.

And the joy is that the Holy Spirit will lead the Body of Christ into the unity of faith (not outward) & that means we still has some clarification to come. Thus NO position has the full truth & we all need each other to discuss God`s word & NOT POSITIONS.

And I would rather talk to YOU, regarding scripture & NOT to positions held.

Marilyn.

 

[Wormwood]

However what I am also saying is that after we have seen the passage in its setting & sometimes there are lessons for us, then we are to view it in the whole context of God`s word in relation to Christ being revealed (pre & post manifestation) & God`s purposes through Him. Otherwise it is just a collection of writings (from God) concerning certain people in different times, that may have a lesson for us.

To understand that Christ is central to the whole of God`s world brings about a cohesiveness & overall purpose which not only enlightens the mind but enlarges the heart.

Marilyn.

Marilyn,

I agree with you. That has been my point. Yes, we can take the application of a text and apply it to our lives today. However, we must find the meaning before we can draw applications. The meaning is found through the author's original intent. The original intent of Daniel with the 70 weeks was not to point to a 7 week tribulation and Antichrist. Nor was the original intent of John's vision to apply only to the church in the final 7 years of history and predict tanks and helicopters. That has been my point. Daniels' vision was to point to the first coming of the Christ and John's vision was a letter of encouragement/rebuke to early Christians in 7 first century churches who were struggling to remain faithful to Jesus Christ.

You said the prophet would let us know.
It's true meaning was only revealed centuries later.
Who are you to say that Isaiah 14 doesn't apply to the arch villain himself: the King of the New Babylon when his whole reign has yet to be revealed.

Marcus,

Prophecy is mostly prescriptive, not predictive. There are predictive elements but that is not its primary purpose. Who am I to say Isaiah 14 doesnt apply to the Antichrist? Well, I am just reading the text..... and it says God is speaking to the king of Babylon. So, I think that is how we should read it. Could there possibly be a foreshadowing here of a future king? Yes, that is possible. However, that is not the primary meaning and I think forcing this text to be a predictive text about the Antichrist is unwarranted. Perhaps we could say that it could be a layered prophecy that points to future evil leaders, but we dont have any inspired author teaching as much as so we need to chalk that up as merely a hypothetical....which is now how you stated it. You make it sound like these texts are so clearly predictive of a future Antichrist that failure to see it is a rejection of the obvious. Far from it.

 

[Phoneman777]

Hi Phoneman777,

Sorry if it seemed condescending but my heart was to say the reality.

Hey, condescend away LOL, for what are we if we aren't passionate for the truth as revealed to us, especially spiritual truth which has eternal implications in our lives and the lives of the brethren?

If any of the past positions were the full truth then by now we would have been led into the whole counsel of God as the early Christians knew.

God ordained the Reformation to do just that, and for a while Christians followed the Holy Spirit's lead out of error and into truth, but today Protestants have given up and are now galloping headlong back home to Mother Church, just as prophecy predicted: “Mystery Babylon the Great (the Papacy), the mother of harlots (apostate Protestantism which teaches Jesuit Futurism as well as a host of other Papal dogma)”.

As we well know & the Apostle Paul warned his disciples, that savage wolves would come in amongst the believers & spread heresy. This we have seen for two centuries yet we also know that Jesus said His Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth.

No, no, Paul's warning applied to events immediately “after my departing”, which was waaaaaay back then, not the last two centuries. The great “falling away” Paul spoke of took place back when John's counsel to “keep yourselves from idols” was disregarded, back when the Papal power dragged every stripe and type of paganism into Christianity. Your claim that the past two centuries were heretical is false. Only the last century did heresy enter in among our ranks, chief of which is Jesuit Futurism. The prior three centuries was God's attempt to lead His people out of error and into all truth, but sadly most of us have returned to Mother.

Thus we realise over many centuries much truth has been restored across the Body of Christ even amid great error.

Yes, but why can't you see that the truth about prophecy which was restored is exactly what the majority of non-Catholics like yourself are in full retreat from? Why can't you see that a “gap” in the 70 Weeks is JESUIT DECEPTION, and not the truth which arose out of the God ordained Protestant Reformation?

And the joy is that the Holy Spirit will lead the Body of Christ into the unity of faith (not outward) & that means we still has some clarification to come. Thus NO position has the full truth & we all need each other to discuss God`s word & NOT POSITIONS.

We know that through the Ecumenical Movement, the Emergent Church Movement, the Interfaith Movement, the WCC and many other such religious unity movements, the world even now is undergoing a polarization into one of two camps: those who are with Rome and those who oppose Rome. As long as the Body of Christ insists on incorporating Jesuit errors in their quest for truth and unity, how can the unity it seeks ever be with Him?

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Wormwood,

Glad we have some agreement. Now you said -

`I agree with you. That has been my point. Yes, we can take the application of a text and apply it to our lives today. However, we must find the meaning before we can draw applications. The meaning is found through the author's original intent. The original intent of Daniel with the 70 weeks was not to point to a 7 week tribulation and Antichrist. Nor was the original intent of John's vision to apply only to the church in the final 7 years of history and predict tanks and helicopters. That has been my point. Daniels' vision was to point to the first coming of the Christ and John's vision was a letter of encouragement/rebuke to early Christians in 7 first century churches who were struggling to remain faithful to Jesus Christ.`

I don`t think you quite understand when I say `Christ is the centre of God`s word.` I don`t just mean it is telling of His manifestation or a letter to early Christians, those are still in the historic context, (which is important). However for Christ to be the centre then those parts need to be also seen in relationship to God`s overall purposes, otherwise they are just interesting bits of information.

Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Phoneman777,

I am not here to discuss historic or contemporary positions - Jesuit errors, Jehovah`s Witnesses, etc but to discuss scripture. If you want to do that then I am here.

God bless, Marilyn.