Michael stands up - Daniel 12:1, Revelation 12:7-9

[grafted branch]

Show me, in Daniel Chapter 7, that Daniel did not tell us at what point in the succession of world powers, the kingdom was given to the son of man, and the Saints,

I agree that Daniel does show those things, that’s not the issue. What Daniel doesn’t tell us is that the kingdom will be taken from the chief priest and Pharisees that were alive during Christ’s ministry.

Now it’s your turn, since you apparently don’t think this, when did or will the chief priest and Pharisees possess the kingdom?

 

[DavidPT]

I agree that Daniel does show those things, that’s not the issue. What Daniel doesn’t tell us is that the kingdom will be taken from the chief priest and Pharisees that were alive during Christ’s ministry.

Now it’s your turn, since you apparently don’t think this, when did or will the chief priest and Pharisees possess the kingdom?

Some of us tend to think there are 2 aspects of the kingdom. One of them involves the here and now, the spiritual aspect, the unseen aspect. The other aspect involves it literally appearing when Christ returns, that the kingdom can now be seen outside of you rather than the kingdom still being within you. After all, it is ludicrous that once Christ bodily returns we continue to experience the kingdom in the same sense we are now experiencing it, spiritually, unseen, so on and so on.

What you keep bringing up is involving the here and now, not post Christ's future bodily return instead. What makes you so certain that Daniel 7:22 is involving the here and now rather than after Christ has bodily returned, in regards to, that the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom?

What then must be asked and have an answer for, in what sense do they possess the kingdom at that time? Spiritually, as in the here and now which has been involving the last 2000 years? Or literally, as in when Christ bodily returns in the end of this age?

For me this is not something difficult to answer, the fact Daniel 7:22, when the time comes that the saints possess the kingdom, that this is meaning after the time involving verse 21 and during/after the time involving verses 9-12. Therefore, Daniel 7:22 is not being applied to the here and now how you appear to be applying it, as in spiritually.

It is instead being applied to Christ's bodily return in the end of this age, that being when the time comes that the saints possess the kingdom. And since that time parallels the beginning of the thousand years, what does that tell you or anyone, as to when the thousand years are actually meaning?

It for sure can't logically be telling anyone that the thousand years are pertaining to the here and now if the time comes when the saints possess the kingdom, that it is meaning at the beginning of the thousand years, and that Daniel 7:22 is involving Christ's bodily return after the time involving verse 21, the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13.

 

[grafted branch]

Some of us tend to think there are 2 aspects of the kingdom. One of them involves the here and now, the spiritual aspect, the unseen aspect. The other aspect involves it literally appearing when Christ returns, that the kingdom can now be seen outside of you rather than the kingdom still being within you. After all, it is ludicrous that once Christ bodily returns we continue to experience the kingdom in the same sense we are now experiencing it, spiritually, unseen, so on and so on.

That’s a fair point you’re making. I can’t deny the possibility of a literal kingdom in the future but I don’t think that’s what the millennium is depicting.

Daniel 7:22 has judgment given to the saints and Revelation 20:4 has judgment given unto them. I would say judgement was given to the apostles after the cross. The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 for example, shows in verses 5-6 that a sect of the Pharisees had a question about circumcision and the apostles and elders considered it. This is the apostles judging, something they did not do prior to Christ’s resurrection. I believe this is what Matthew 19:28 is referring to.

It for sure can't logically be telling anyone that the thousand years are pertaining to the here and now if the time comes when the saints possess the kingdom, that it is meaning at the beginning of the thousand years, and that Daniel 7:22 is involving Christ's bodily return after the time involving verse 21, the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13.

I think the coming in Daniel 7:22 is not Christ returning to earth but has to do with the coming to the Ancient of days in heaven in Daniel 7:13.

 

[DavidPT]

I think the coming in Daniel 7:22 is not Christ returning to earth but has to do with the coming to the Ancient of days in heaven in Daniel 7:13.

IMO, the problem viewing it like that, if verse 22 is pertaining to the coming involving verse 13, that means verse 21 has to chronologically come to pass before verse 13 can come to pass. Which then means if verse 13 is involving the time of His initial ascending following His departure from the earth in Acts 1, we then have to place the era of time involving Daniel 7:21 prior to His departure in Acts 1, which makes zero sense that that is where Daniel 7:21 fits. Except Daniel 7:21 logically fits post His initial ascending no matter how you want to look at it.

Therefore, one can't have verse 22 meaning chronologically after verse 21 then have verse 13 meaning chronologically before verse 21 if they are insisting verse 22 is involving the same coming verse 13 is involving. Keeping in mind, once He comes, pertaining to verse 13, He only needs to do that one time, thus He is no longer coming once verse 13 is fulfilled. What has to eventually follow that coming in verse 13 would obviously have to be a departure back to where He left from per Acts 1. IOW, these things are apparently hidden in Daniel 7 yet revealed in the NT, since the NT clearly, undeniably, reveals that 2 comings of Christ to the earth are involved.

But instead of some interpreters, thus not all interpreters, allowing the NT to interpret the OT in cases like this, they tend to simply disregard that the NT reveals 2 comings, thus unfortunately treat Daniel 7 as if only one coming is in view rather than two. IOW, verse 13 involves a coming to heaven after departing from the earth, while verse 22 involves a departure from heaven and a return back to the earth. After all, it's not like the NT doesn't reveal 2 comings are involved. It's not like it is a bad thing to interpret Scripture with Scripture when possible. It is not like that God is just not clever enough to hide 2 comings in Daniel 7 then reveal them in the NT.

 

[grafted branch]

Which then means if verse 13 is involving the time of His initial ascending following His departure from the earth in Acts 1, we then have to place the era of time involving Daniel 7:21 prior to His departure in Acts 1, which makes zero sense that that is where Daniel 7:21 fits. Except Daniel 7:21 logically fits post His initial ascending no matter how you want to look at it.

I would disagree, the saints (Jews) were “prevailed against” prior to Jesus being crucified. The Jews wouldn’t have crucified Jesus if they fully understood that He was the Messiah.
I think Jesus ascended just after he came out of the tomb, see John 20:17.

After all, it's not like the NT doesn't reveal 2 comings are involved. It's not like it is a bad thing to interpret Scripture with Scripture when possible. It is not like that God is just not clever enough to hide 2 comings in Daniel 7 then reveal them in the NT.

I completely agree that there is still a future coming of Christ, I just don’t think that coming is described in Daniel 7.

Look at Daniel 7:27 where it says the kingdom is given to the saints, now look at Daniel 7:28 hitherto is the end of the matter. This doesn’t mean all scripture is fulfilled at this point.

If you have the kingdom being given to the saints at the start of a future millennium then Daniel 7 doesn’t talk about Satans little season after the millennium, does it? And what about the GWT? Should we come to the conclusion that there will be no little season or GWT, or should we just say it’s not described in Daniel 7?

 

[DavidPT]

I would disagree, the saints (Jews) were “prevailed against” prior to Jesus being crucified. The Jews wouldn’t have crucified Jesus if they fully understood that He was the Messiah.

I grasp your point, yet don't see it fitting verse 21 the fact we have to also consider verse 21 in light of verse 25.

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.


Obviously, regardless that you might disagree, verse 25 is pertaining to verse 21, and that I therefore see it making zero sense to apply this to what you are applying verse 21 to----and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. IMO, none of that remotely fits what you are proposing fits verse 21.

a time and times and the dividing of time, is obviously involving more than just a mere few days. According to Revelation 12, it's involving 1260 days minimum. What do you propose 1260 days can fit with involving the Jews being prevailed against prior to Jesus being crucified?

I think Jesus ascended just after he came out of the tomb, see John 20:17.

That's indeed possible, and even if it was the case, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, what exactly would it be proving or disproving one way or the other? Would it prove that Daniel 7:13 is not initially meaning right after Acts 1:9-11 after all, but is meaning earlier instead? Maybe, maybe not. Even if it proved that, it still doesn't take away from the fact that verse 21 and verse 25 are meaning after when verse 13 is meaning, yet is meaning before verse 22 is meaning. Therefore, the coming involving verse 13 and the coming involving verse 22, these can't be the same coming.

You of course feel you have found a way around this by proposing that verse 21, which also involves verse 25 whether you agree with that or not, that this fits events prior to the coming involving verse 13, thus have verse 21 meaning prior to the coming recorded in both of those verses, verses 13 and verse 22. At least you are trying to be consistent about things, but even so, it's not working in this case since you can't apply verse 25 to what you are trying to apply to verse 21, keeping in mind both verses are involving the same events, the same era of time.


And I haven't even responded to the remainder of your post yet. This pretty much wore me out typing what I just did above, lol. If I respond to the remainder of your post, it will have to be at another time, I guess.

 

[grafted branch]

Obviously, regardless that you might disagree, verse 25 is pertaining to verse 21, and that I therefore see it making zero sense to apply this to what you are applying verse 21 to----and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. IMO, none of that remotely fits what you are proposing fits verse 21.

I was actually going to bring up the point that we should include verse 25 in the discussion but I didn’t want to make a lengthy post. So yes, I do agree verse 25 is pertaining to verse 21.

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

I associate this verse with the actions of the scribes and Pharisees. Here’s how I break it down…

He shall speak great words against the most High. In Luke 5:21 the scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy.

And shall wear out the saints of the most High. Matthew 23:4 the scribes and Pharisees bind heavy burdens grievous to be borne.

And think to change times and laws. Matthew 23:13 the scribes and Pharisees shut up the kingdom of heaven against men and neither suffer them that are entering to go in.

And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Matthew 23:2 the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. This seat or power was held until Matthew 28:28 where all power in heaven and earth was given to Jesus. I think the time, times, and dividing of time started when John the Baptist started his ministry.

Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

I would say based on all this it is possible that Daniel 7:21 and 25 took place prior to Daniel 7:13.

 

[DavidPT]

I associate this verse with the actions of the scribes and Pharisees. Here’s how I break it down…

He shall speak great words against the most High. In Luke 5:21 the scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy.

And shall wear out the saints of the most High. Matthew 23:4 the scribes and Pharisees bind heavy burdens grievous to be borne.

And think to change times and laws. Matthew 23:13 the scribes and Pharisees shut up the kingdom of heaven against men and neither suffer them that are entering to go in.

And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Matthew 23:2 the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. This seat or power was held until Matthew 28:28 where all power in heaven and earth was given to Jesus. I think the time, times, and dividing of time started when John the Baptist started his ministry.

Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

I would say based on all this it is possible that Daniel 7:21 and 25 took place prior to Daniel 7:13.

Though, there appears to be some logic to what you are proposing, but when one digs deeper I have to conclude you are applying these things to the wrong events, wrong era of time. One reason why, IMO Daniel 7:21 and verse 25, this is involving the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13, for one. We can know this by comparing the following, for example.


Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High , and shall wear out the saints of the most High , and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time .


Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies ; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months .
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven .
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them : and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.


If you perhaps agree that Daniel 7:21 and Daniel 7:25 are involving what I submitted per Revelation 13, but still insist Daniel 7:21 and Daniel 7:25 are involving what you proposed, it then makes no sense to me how you see that remotely making any sense of what is recorded in Revelation 13.

Let's not forget, Revelation 13 involves 2 beasts, and that the 2nd beast involves performing lying wonders, which was not the case while Jesus walked the earth. Any miracles and wonders being performed at the time, they were legit and of God. Therefore, Revelation 13, which is also involving Daniel 7:21 and Daniel 7:25, are involving events and an era of time during Christ's ascension, not before He ascended instead.

A lot of us apply Revelation 19:20 to that of something Christ does once He bodily returns in the end of this age. Which obviously means that the beast and false prophet have to be active in the final days of this age if they are to be taken alive and cast into the LOF when Christ returns. Therefore, the 42 month reign of the beast fits in the final days of this age, not in the first century instead.

 

[grafted branch]

Let's not forget, Revelation 13 involves 2 beasts, and that the 2nd beast involves performing lying wonders, which was not the case while Jesus walked the earth. Any miracles and wonders being performed at the time, they were legit and of God. Therefore, Revelation 13, which is also involving Daniel 7:21 and Daniel 7:25, are involving events and an era of time during Christ's ascension, not before He ascended instead.

The great wonder that the second beast does in Revelation 13:13 is to make fire come down from heaven. In Luke 10:18, after the seventy returned from casting out devils, Jesus said he beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. It’s plausible to equate casting out devils with fire coming down from heaven.

In Luke 9:49-50 there were others besides Jesus and the disciples casting out devils. In Matthew 12:27 the children of the Pharisees were casting out devils and Jesus asked the question by whom do your children cast them out.

It’s not an absolute that all miracles performed were legitimate during Jesus’s ministry. I would say Satan can and did cast out Satan because his kingdom didn’t stand (Matthew 12:26).

 

[David Kent]

The great wonder that the second beast does in Revelation 13:13 is to make fire come down from heaven. In Luke 10:18, after the seventy returned from casting out devils, Jesus said he beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. It’s plausible to equate casting out devils with fire coming down from heaven.

In Luke 9:49-50 there were others besides Jesus and the disciples casting out devils. In Matthew 12:27 the children of the Pharisees were casting out devils and Jesus asked the question by whom do your children cast them out.

It’s not an absolute that all miracles performed were legitimate during Jesus’s ministry. I would say Satan can and did cast out Satan because his kingdom didn’t stand (Matthew 12:26).

Satan is god of the world and his kingdom is still standing but it is curtailed since the resurrection. IMO.

 

[grafted branch]

Satan is god of the world and his kingdom is still standing but it is curtailed since the resurrection. IMO.

I’m not going to argue against your view, the topic of what the kingdom of Satan actually is, probably deserves its own thread.

If the word kingdom <932> is defined as authority then I would say Satans kingdom was over when Jesus said all power is given unto me in Matthew 28:18. If Satans kingdom is defined as something that can rule us, such as sin that can rule people, then yes, that kingdom is still here.

 

[CoreyD]

I agree that Daniel does show those things, that’s not the issue.

Thank you.
Since you agree with Daniel's timeline, there is no issue.

What Daniel doesn’t tell us is that the kingdom will be taken from the chief priest and Pharisees that were alive during Christ’s ministry.

Daniel does not tell us when the lawless one will be revealed 2 Thessalonians 2:8; when the harvest actually began Matthew 13:30; when the dead will be resurrected John5:28; and so forth.

We don't look in a Bible book, for an answer we are looking for, perhaps because we have an idea about it, and because we don't see the answer in that book, decide we are just going to ignore what the book says, in contradiction to our idea, and decide to run with our idea.
Do you agree with that?

It's important to note that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for placing their interpretations above scriptures?
The Pharisees had some great number of additions onto the Law, which were not the Law, but rather, their interpretations.
Jesus condemned that hypocrisy in his day, and surely does the same today.
Mark 7:7-9
7 They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’
8 You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”
9 And He was saying to them, "Neatly do you set aside the commandment of God, that you might keep your tradition.

Now it’s your turn, since you apparently don’t think this, when did or will the chief priest and Pharisees possess the kingdom?

You have not said when the chief priest and Pharisees possessed the kingdom.
That might actually help you to answer your question.

I can offer some assistance, if you like.
Please read the verses of Matthew 21:33-45.

Notice that in the illustration,

• the landowner planted a vineyard, and rented the vineyard to some tenants.
• The landowner sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
• The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. The landowner sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Lastly, the landowner sent his son to them. He reasoned, ‘They will respect my son,’
• When the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

Jesus' audience got the point.

Jesus asked, “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”​

His audience replied, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”​

Jesus then cements the point.

“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”​

The corrupt priests and Pharisees got the point also.

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them.​

How about you. Did you get the point?
If you know the scriptures, it gets easier. All you need to do, is work out a few things.

1. What does the vineyard represent?
2. When was the vineyard given to the tenants?
3. In what way was the vineyard taken away from those wretched tenants, and given to other cultivators, who would produce the fruit?

To help, here are some useful scriptures.
Exodus 19:3-6

3 Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”​

See Deuteronomy 7:6

Matthew 21:42, 43

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:​

​

“‘The stone the builders rejected​

has become the cornerstone;​

the Lord has done this,​

and it is marvelous in our eyes’?​

​

43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.​

1 Peter 2:4-10

4 As you come to him, the living Stone - rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him - 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:​

“See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”​

​

7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,​

“The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”​

​

8 and,​

“A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.”​

They stumble because they disobey the message - which is also what they were destined for.​

​

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.​

Revelation 5:9, 10

9 And they sang a new song, saying:​

“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.​

10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”​

Other useful scriptures:
Matthew 13:38, 39; John 1:11, 12; Romans 8:16; Romans 9:4-8; Romans 11:5-12; Ephesians 1:5
1 Kings 1:14; Isaiah 9:7; Luke 1:32, 33

Did you get the answer?

 

[Timtofly]

If you have the kingdom being given to the saints at the start of a future millennium then Daniel 7 doesn’t talk about Satans little season after the millennium, does it? And what about the GWT? Should we come to the conclusion that there will be no little season or GWT, or should we just say it’s not described in Daniel 7?

Satan may be given 2 little seasons. One in which he takes over from humans. The other in which he decieves humans.

The GWT existed from the beginning of creation. Evidently even preterist point out judgment coming from the GWT in 70AD. Why would books not be open then as well? The one book that was not open was the Lamb's book of life.

Even Satan's little season is after the Lamb's book of life is opened. There are multiple books. Multiple judgments throughout history regarding the GWT have occurred. And Satan has not been bound in the pit, as that binding is between Satan's little seasons where he has a say, that is not allowed while he is bound. If you claim he is bound now, that does not negate the binding that is to come. Daniel 7 does not indicate either of Satan's little seasons.

"I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame."

Why is this associated with Satan's little season and that beast in Revelation? This is just the end of the 4th beast. Certainly 70AD was not the end of the 4th beast nor any time of trouble mentioned in the OT. If indeed the 4th beast in Daniel 7 is Rome, then Rome was given to the burning flame several hundred years later. How was the rulership of the earth given to the church at any point in the first millennium after the Cross? The stone cut out in Daniel 2 did not even strike down human government until the 5th Kingdom, the ten toes. Then you have a 6th kingdom which we are in now. That kingdom is defunct, as there is no one world empire run by a single nation.

The Church is not any of the 7 kingdoms in prophecy. It would be the stone or mountain that fills the earth, but certainly not a kingdom that is tied to a beast. In Revelation the dragon, the beast of chapter 13 and the scarlet beast, are still these original kingdoms as stated in Daniel 2. Except now we see the 6th kingdom and Satan himself as the 8th kingdom, if the 8th kingdom is allowed as Satan's first little season, 42 months.

So the point of these verses:

"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

This could be talking about any time between the Reformation, the end of the 5th Kingdom and the 7th Trumpet. The church would either be wiped out with no gospel influence, or the church would prevail and change the world from the inside out of each individual. The church was not to govern the earth from a central location. It was to change the world in every local community.

Since the Reformation we have seen both the church defeated and the church with great influence. Nations will repent or have the truth until wickedness prevails, and the truth is all but extinguished. The 4th and 5th kingdoms kept trying to wipe out the kingdom of God, but that kingdom still prevailed and filled the earth as God promised. The church has possessed the kingdom many times and in many places. Yet wickedness also prevailed and dimmed the light of the church. No Scripture deals directly nor expressly regarding the 6th kingdom of mankind. Some think that the 4 latter beast in Daniel 7, are current world nations like England, Russia, the US, and the religion of Islam. But they are still regarding the 4th kingdom of Daniel 2. Daniel 8 going back to the 3rd kingdom of Daniel 2. Daniel 9 is about the Messiah, and the 500 years between Daniel and the Messiah in regards to Daniel's people.

Revelation takes us past the first 5 kingdoms. I don't see how any of Daniel talks about the 20th or 21st centuries. There are types and examples of the first 4 kingdoms, that can apply truth to future events. But none of the timing in Daniel should be used to circumnavigate what is expressed in Revelation. Nor should Revelation be associated with past events after chapter 4. The only thing is that this 7 headed beast mentioned 3 times is still the historical human government starting with Babylon. But only the last 2 heads or kingdoms apply in the book of Revelation. The defunct 6th kingdom and a possible 8th kingdom given to Satan as having full authority on earth. The 8th kingdom is Satan's short time, or as some want to call it a little season of 3.5 years, or 42 months, or 1260 days. Not to be confused with the little season after the millennium when Satan was bound in the pit. There is no 8th kingdom after the Millennium. Satan is allowed to decieve, but never given any authority to do anything else, after the Millennium.

 

[grafted branch]

We don't look in a Bible book, for an answer we are looking for, perhaps because we have an idea about it, and because we don't see the answer in that book, decide we are just going to ignore what the book says, in contradiction to our idea, and decide to run with our idea.
Do you agree with that?

Yes, I agree. For example we shouldn’t look in a Bible book such as Matthew, for an answer we are looking for, perhaps because we have an idea about it (from an interpretation of Daniel) and because we don't see the answer in that book, decide we are just going to ignore what the book says, in contradiction to our idea, and decide to run with our idea.

Did you get the answer?

Yes, the chief priest and Pharisees possessed the kingdom in the first century and they specifically had possession of it when the Matthew 23:33-46 parable was told to them by Jesus.

The kingdom was taken from them and given to a nation producing the fruits thereof. Galatians 5:22 tells us what the fruits of the spirit are and since Galatians was written somewhere in the late 40’s to early 50’s we know that the fruits were being produced then.

I guess now I should come to the conclusion that we are both in agreement on this?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Interesting. I never heard anyone express that they thought God was keeping meetings with the angels in the third heaven. Very interesting. It would be interesting to hear why you think that.

Because of this passage (I did reference Job in my post):

Job 1:6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

Where else besides the third heaven could be the location of what is described here? The Lord is in the third heaven, right? So, where else could the angels have presented themselves before the Lord?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Just because the fullness of the Gentiles has already come doesn’t mean Gentiles can’t be saved. If this was the case then you would have to have a millennium where no new born Gentiles have any hope of being saved.

I believe the fullness of the Gentiles in Romans 11:25 has to do with the covenants, look at Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. That’s the new covenant and we know the old covenant vanished in 70AD. Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The blindness in part is the veil of the old covenant, 2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Do you think that the new covenant was not in effect until 70 AD? It was put into effect by the blood of Christ which also made it so that the old covenant was no longer in effect.

What do you think the fullness of the Gentiles means if you think it already came in 70 AD?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

In my view, there is only one Israel, and that currently it is comprised of believing Israel and unbelieving Israel, and that believing Israel, this is what believing Gentiles are grafted into. It is then believing Israel, which is comprised of both Jew and Gentile believers, being that which will remain a nation before God forever. There is not going to be 2 Israels in the future post the 2nd coming where one consists of believing Jews and the other consists of unbelieving Jews.

I don't understand some of what you said here since it seems like you contradicted yourself. You first said "there is only one Israel" and then you proceeded to describe 2 Israels with one being "comprised of believing and unbelieving Israel" and one being "comprised of both Jew and Gentile believers". So, what you call "believing Israel, which is comprised of both Jew and Gentile believers" is different than the Israel that you say is "comprised of believing and unbelieving Israel", right? Which means you actually believe in two Israels, right? Please clarify that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Mathew 24. The signs of the last days were future. They are specific to a time period called the last days.
The last days did not begin in the first century. 2 Timothy 3:1-5

It doesn't look like Peter agrees with you:

Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Peter indicated that they were already in the last days on the day of Pentecost long ago. And the last days continue up until the future second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4).

 

[grafted branch]

Do you think that the new covenant was not in effect until 70 AD? It was put into effect by the blood of Christ which also made it so that the old covenant was no longer in effect.

No, I think the new covenant was in full force just after the cross. However the old covenant did not vanish until 70AD. Everyone in both the new and old covenant are saved by the blood of the Lamb. The old covenant looked forward to when Jesus would die as the Lamb of God. Once this happened and was in the past the old covenant became old and decaying, yet it was still allowed to exist, God was long suffering that not any should perish.

What do you think the fullness of the Gentiles means if you think it already came in 70 AD?

I think, from the book of Daniel, that Babylon is the start of the times of the Gentiles. These times are marked by the different beast kingdoms which are seen in the statue in Daniel 2. The times of the Gentiles ends or fullness happens when the Daniel 2 statue gets destroyed. This coincides with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD where Luke 21:22 says that all things which are written may be fulfilled and vs 24 says until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No, I think the new covenant was in full force just after the cross. However the old covenant did not vanish until 70AD.

What do you mean by that exactly that "the old covenant did not vanish until 70 AD"?

Everyone in both the new and old covenant are saved by the blood of the Lamb. The old covenant looked forward to when Jesus would die as the Lamb of God. Once this happened and was in the past the old covenant became old and decaying, yet it was still allowed to exist, God was long suffering that not any should perish.

What do you mean "it was still allowed to exist"? Scripture says it was made obsolete well before 70 AD. To be made obsolete means to be rendered useless and no longer in effect. So, in what sense do you think it still existed up until 70 AD? Only traces of it like the temple buildings existed until then, but the old covenant itself was no longer in effect at all after Christ's death on the cross.

I think, from the book of Daniel, that Babylon is the start of the times of the Gentiles. These times are marked by the different beast kingdoms which are seen in the statue in Daniel 2. The times of the Gentiles ends or fullness happens when the Daniel 2 statue gets destroyed. This coincides with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD where Luke 21:22 says that all things which are written may be fulfilled and vs 24 says until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The times of the Gentiles would continue as long as Jerusalem was being "trodden down of the Gentiles". How was Jerusalem no longer being "trodden down of the Gentiles" after 70 AD?