1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

A second look at Dr Peter Bolt's view of Jesus going TO the Ancient of Days

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by eclipsenow, Mar 21, 2022.

  1. sovereigngrace

    sovereigngrace Well-Known Member

    +3,375
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That is simply not true. Christ ushered in the kingdom of God when He came. Jesus said in Matthew 11:12, from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth (biazo) violence, and the (biastes) violent take it by force.”

    Jesus said, in Luke 16:16, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man (biazo) presseth into it.”

    We should immediately note: for men to be able to press into the kingdom and for it to suffer violence it must already exist. The Greek word biazo here means to force, to crowd oneself into, or to seize. The kingdom of God is shown here to be a present reality that the righteous enter upon salvation. This has been the case since John the Baptist. The spiritual kingdom Christ brought was very-much alive and active from the beginning of Christ’s earthly ministry.

    Sadly, the overwhelming majority of Jews missed their promised Messiah when He came. He just didn’t fit their expectation of who and what the Messiah was to be. Also, they had an erroneous political racial perception of what the kingdom was. They had a carnal earthly view of Messiah and His kingdom. They believed that the first thing He would do was subjugate all national Israel’s enemies, starting with the Romans. When Christ appeared at His first advent, the Jews imagined He would reinstate the now defunct earthly throne of Israel and reign victorious over the physical nation, restoring their ancient borders. The only problem was: they had a defective hyper-literalist understanding of Old Testament prophesies and a misconception of how the kingdom would look.

    The kingdom of God exists wherever the king – the Lord Jesus Christ – exercises His spiritual jurisdiction. His kingdom embodies all those who possess the indwelling Holy Spirit – those who are born-again of the Spirit of God. Christ’s kingdom is therefore found wherever there are citizens of that Kingdom.

    In John 3:3 Jesus declared: Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

    And in John 3:5 He says, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

    The penitent sinner spiritually enters into a spiritual kingdom upon conversion. Entering in to that spiritual kingdom in this life brings an immediate realization in the ‘here and now’ and on this earth of true “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Romans 14:17) and is decisively personal to the recipient. That means if you have given Christ kingship of your life then you are in the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is in you! The King in God’s kingdom is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. And since we got saved we are His subjects. The laws that govern Christ’s spiritual kingdom are found in this precious Book.

    That means if you have given Christ kingship of your life then you are in the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is in you!

    This is expressly a spiritual kingdom as it relates to the spiritual realm. The blessing and rewards of the kingdom are plainly spiritual in nature and pertain exclusively to the repentant sinner. It relates to the unseen realm where the people are governed by their mediator King. A kingdom must have a king to be considered a kingdom. Christ rules this kingdom, not by force, but love. Those that subject to His authority are administered by the Word of God and the Spirit of God. Premil denies Christ His current kingship over His spiritual domain with its constant future focus upon the kingship of Christ. Whilst there is a future aspect to Christ’s kingship, there is also the current reality.

    Colossians 1:12-14 tells us that God “Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”

    There are two spiritual kingdoms on this earth in constant conflict – the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of God. Every human being resides in one kingdom or the other.

    Entry into the kingdom of God is through faith in Christ and His shed blood at Calvary. When you got saved you were delivered from one kingdom to another: from darkness to light, from the devil to God, from defeat to victory.
     
  2. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +1,491
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Why do you believe that when the majority of the NT references to this concept of Kingdom of God are that it was near and arriving in the person of Jesus, reigning from heaven in 'eschatological tension' - the very 'now and not yet' tension you feel in your post above?

    We reign now with Christ, seated in the heavenly realms. The language in the OT saw the "Day of the Lord" often as one large combined event - the day of the Lord's salvation and grace, AND the day of the Lord's judgement. It's like they saw a tree from the distance. But when we got closer to the 'tree' we noticed two trucks - the Day of the Lord was split into the day of gospel salvation and the coming day of judgement. Indeed, some Covenant Theologians argue that even the judgement day of God was glimpsed in Jesus on the cross and then the resulting destruction of the temple.

    But it isn't!
    It's clearly describing the heavenly throne room before the Ancient of Days with such rich imagery. Then there's the world kind of dragged in behind the Son of Man during his coronation ceremony.

    It's not clear that it is that to a whole bunch of theologians.

    And the language is COMPLETELY compatible with Jesus reigning from heaven through the church. Check it out.

    13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. ​

    (note: NOT EARTH!)

    14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; ​

    (New Testament verifies this is through the church)


    all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.​
    The church IS forever, a foretaste of that kingdom to come. It will not pass away.


    Not necessary at all - the little horn was Antiochus. We are discussing that in the Russian thread.

    This argument assumes futurism is correct, that there will be an antichrist, and then thrusts those futurist-goggles over Daniel 7's text when the text CLEARLY says the Son of Man is entering the heavenly throne room of the Ancient of Days. That is circular and not warranted by the original text.
     
  3. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,293
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Where does scripture teach that He ever would do that? He said His kingdom does not come with observation (Luke 17:20) and is not of this world (John 18:36). And, He never indicated that it ever would come with observation and be of this world, yet that's what you believe. So, it seems that you don't accept what He said about the nature of His kingdom.

    When He returns, He will deliver the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor 15:22-24) and at that point the kingdom will be in its fullness in the new heavens and new earth. But, never does scripture teach that the kingdom would be on the earth the way you're thinking of it.

    So, it's just an amazing coincidence that what Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:18-23 lines up perfectly with what it says in Daniel 7:13-14 and we shouldn't think those two passages are about the same thing? Sorry, I don't buy that.

    Just because similar wording is used in regards to Him coming with the clouds of heaven does not mean they're talking about the same event. He clearly came with the clouds of heaven TO heaven and He will come with the clouds of heaven FROM heaven as well. The idea that any mention of Him coming with the clouds of heaven has to be referring to His second coming doesn't make any sense since He clearly ascended to heaven with the clouds of heaven since that is where He came before the Ancient of Days.

    Right, so, in your view, it's apparently just an amazing coincidence that what Paul said in regards to His ascension matches up perfectly with what it says in Daniel 7:13-14 but they are somehow not talking about the same thing. Okay then.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2022
  4. jgr

    jgr Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,959
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The Reformers identified the little horn of Daniel 7 as the apostasized papacy.

    What recognized historian(s) over the span of church history prior to the Reformation identified the little horn of Daniel 7 as Antiochus?
     
  5. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +1,491
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Yes, I forgot to add that in!
    I should have put that in the opening post!
    Millennials over-emphasise what is lacking about the church now as God's kingdom, and for sure there are times when I feel the 'eschatological tension' and long for the 'now and not yet' period of history to be over. But - rather than see a lack - Paul seems to be rejoicing in the fullness of this kingdom!

    Ephesians 1:18-23
    18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
     
  6. RandyPNW

    RandyPNW Well-Known Member

    860
    +168
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    No, I accept what the Bible says about this. We just have different interpretations of the same material. Everything I said was clearly based on Scriptures. In the book of Revelation, and elsewhere, we see Jesus coming with his Kingdom. And we are told that Kingdom will be established here, upon the earth.

    That means the Kingdom in the end comes "with observation." When Jesus said the Kingdom does *not* come with observation, he was speaking of his own time, when men were blind to who he was. He was the King of the Kingdom, and yet they did not see the Kingdom drawing near in him!

    In fact, the book of Revelation begins with, "every eye will see him." This means he will come, in the end, "with observation!" He was only speaking of those who wish to determine things in advance apart from faith, and apart from moral obedience to God's laws. They will be so conflicted by their own self-justifications that they won't see the righteous judgment of God approaching.

    On the contrary, Jesus' Disciples were told he is coming back in exactly the same way he left. That is not a different way, but the same way. And we are told in the Psalms and elsewhere that the present earth is "forever." This means the earth will be changed, because sinful things upon the earth will be completely burned up, in preparation for God's rule upon the earth.

    The enemies of God will be defeated and destroyed. Same earth, however. The big change will be the donning of immortality by believers resurrected out of the present age.

    I'm not at all saying that Jesus doesn't go *to heaven.* He clearly approaches God in some kind of session or council. I think he obtains authorization for the time to defeat Antichrist and set up his Kingdom.

    But in the same passage, in Dan 7, the Son of Man comes *with the clouds.* So Jesus both goes into heaven and comes down from heaven, in the same general time frame. These are two distinct activities, and must be viewed in their context.

    Using similar language does not make them the same event. But Jesus' Coming obviously includes these two separate events, necessary in order to establish his Kingdom on earth. And yes, defeating Antichrist will make the Kingdom "observable."
     
  7. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +1,491
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Not so fast. I hope you enjoy this article - it's relevant to figuring out the setting in Rev 20.



    “Thrones” in Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate
    John could hardly have been more explicit concerning the location, and therefore the nature, of the millennial rule of the saints when he said that he saw “thrones” (thronous). Where are these thrones upon which the saints sit, which is also to ask, what is the nature of their millennial rule? Let’s begin with several observations about the use of the word “throne” (thronos) in the book of Revelation.
    The word thronos appears 62x in the New Testament, 47 of which are in the book of Revelation. Twice (Rev. 2:13; 13:2) it refers to Satan’s throne (being synonymous with his authority or power) and once to the throne of the beast (Rev. 16:10). On four occasions it refers to God’s throne on the new earth in consequence of its having come down from heaven (Rev. 21:3, 5; 22:1,3). In every other instance (40x) thronos refers to a throne in heaven, either that of God the Father, of Christ, of the 24 elders, etc.
    Why, then, does the Premillennialist argue that anastasis (“resurrection”) must mean physical resurrection, although it occurs nowhere in Revelation outside chapter 20, but ignores thronos which never in Revelation refers to anything other than a heavenly throne (and that, in 40 texts!)?
    Consider the use of thronos in the rest of the NT. Of the fifteen occurrences of thronos outside Revelation, seven are explicitly heavenly. In Luke 1:52 it refers figuratively to the power and authority of earthly rulers. In Col. 1:16 it refers to angelic (demonic?) beings. In Luke 1:32 the angel Gabriel refers to the “throne” of David on which the coming Messiah will sit in fulfillment of the divine promise, to which Peter makes explicit reference in Acts 2:30. In the verses which follow it is clear that Peter envisioned Christ’s resurrection and exaltation to have resulted in his enthronement at the right hand of the Father in fulfillment of Gabriel’s declaration.
    There are four additional usages of thronos (Matt. 19:28 [twice]; 25:31; and Luke 22:30), each of which falls in the same category as Rev. 20:4. In other words, whether the “thrones” in these texts are earthly or heavenly is the very point that stands to be proven. Therefore, one cannot appeal to these passages in support of either view. Otherwise one would be guilty of begging the question.
    In summary, when we look at all other relevant occurrences of thronos, whether inside or outside the book of Revelation, they are without exception heavenly. There is nothing to suggest that they pertain to a millennial earth, either in location or character.
    JUSTIN TAYLOR | OCTOBER 7, 2009
    "Thrones" in Revelation
     
  8. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,293
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Where are we told that? Please back up your claims with scripture. Otherwise, they mean nothing. I'm not aware of any scripture which teaches that Jesus would be reigning over His kingdom on the earth. Instead, scripture teaches that He reigns at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

    Not Christ's kingdom. He will deliver His kingdom that He said does not come with observation and is not of this world to the Father when He comes (1 Corinthians 15:22-24).

    That time is still going on today. The kingdom is still spiritual and is not something to be observed the way an earthly kingdom is.

    Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

    Look, I'm not saying He will never be seen or that the kingdom of God will never come in its fullness. But, when Jesus comes at the end of the age it will be on the new earth, not on this earth as we know it. And the kingdom will be delivered to the Father at that point (Matthew 13:36-43, 1 Corinthians 15:22-24).

    They were not told He is coming back to the earth as we know it. It says He would descend in the same manner that He ascended which was visibly and bodily. So many people think it says that He is coming back to the place He left, but it does not say that!

    Yes, that will be the new earth at which point "There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Rev 21:4).

    Scripture does not teach this anywhere. It's clearly a portrayal of His ascension and it matches what Paul said in Ephesians 1:18-23. It was after His resurrection and at His ascension that He sat "at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked" (Eph 1:20). How can you not see that this matches up exactly with what it says in Daniel 7:13-14?

    Same general time frame? Where are you getting that from? I feel like you are just making things up. That idea is not in the text anywhere.

    The one event was His ascension to heaven from earth and it happened long ago. He will descend from heaven in the future. I'm completely baffled by your view of this.
     
  9. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,813
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    All I see the text indicating is that that is something He does after He returns. Which could mean He does that in the beginning of His return or He does it at a much later time after He has returned. Either way, He doesn't do it until He has returned first. And He certainly isn't going to do it, and I'm certain you at least agree with this, before the great white throne judgment has concluded first.

    It is then a question of when the GWTJ is meaning and how much earth time that might involve. Assuming the thousand years don't follow the 2nd coming, it seems to me the logic would be, the last day can't involve more than 24 hours earth time, otherwise it can't be the literal last day of this age since a literal day doesn't involve more than 24 hours. Except it is unreasonable to think the GWTJ can involve 24 hours or less of earth time. If one instead insists this judgment happens outside of time, how can the literal last day of this age also happen outside of time and still be the literal last day of this age? That is a contradiction, the literal last day, IOW, the last 24 hour day, and outside of time.

    IOW, if Christ were to return at 12:02 PM on any given day, and that there is no thousand years that follow, this would mean everything has to be fulfilled before 12:02 PM the next day, otherwise it is no longer the literal last day of this age, it is a new day instead, another day. If He returned on Monday at 12:02 PM, but that the GWTJ had still not concluded by 12:02 PM the following day, it would now be Tuesday, another day, therefore making Monday no longer the last day of this age.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2022
  10. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +1,491
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Hint: when interpreting the bible, get your basics from the clearest verses possible first.
    THEN try and discern what the more symbolic stuff means.
     
  11. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,813
    United States
    Christian
    Married

    Are you saying that what is recorded in the verses in question in 1 Corinthians 15, that symbolic stuff is meant? It was 1 Cor 15:22-24 that I was going on about in that post.
     
  12. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +1,491
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    That's one of the clearer passages I would start with.
     
  13. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +504
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Christ ushered in the Kingdom at Mount Sinai. Even you said it already existed. Of course the kingdom was already placed into the hands of Israel when they left Egypt. Then it was taken away and given to all.

    So the post you quoted was true.
     
  14. sovereigngrace

    sovereigngrace Well-Known Member

    +3,375
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    When did I say "Christ ushered in the Kingdom at Mount Sinai"?
     
  15. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,293
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    There is no indication whatsoever in the text that there is a long period of time between His second coming and Him delivering His kingdom to the Father. Do you acknowledge that He is already King of His kingdom right now as scripture teaches? If so, why would He not deliver it to the Father when He returns?

    Do you believe that Jesus will return at the end of the age? If so, you should be able to recognize that the following passage indicates that He will deliver His kingdom to the Father when He returns at the end of the age.

    Matthew 13:40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

    Notice that Jesus refers to the kingdom as "the kingdom of their Father" when the end of the age arrives. Since He will return at the end of the age then this means He will have delivered the kingdom to the Father at that point which is why He said "the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" at that point.

    David, how many times do I have to explain this to you? I've already explained it many times.

    What Amils believe is that Jesus returns on the last day and He will burn up the heavens and the earth at that time (2 Peter 3:10-12). At that point time will no longer exist. So, we don't believe that the GWTJ takes place within the realm of time. It takes place right after Jesus makes an end of time on the last day. So, the GWTJ takes place in eternity. Honestly, I find the idea of it taking place within the realm of time to be completely ludicrous. I can't even imagine how long it would take to judge billions of people in the realm of time.

    So, the amount of time it takes for the GWTJ is irrelevant since time won't even exist anymore at that point. As usual, you are making an argument according to YOUR understanding of things rather than addressing MY understanding of things.

    LOL. You waste so much time making straw man arguments. Amils do not claim that the GWTJ takes place within 24 hours. I've told you this many times, but here you are wasting your time arguing against something that no one even claims.
     
  16. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +504
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    I thought you were referring to:

    "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

    It was given to Israel on Mt. Sinai.
     
  17. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +504
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    There is no time indicated between the Cross and the Second Coming either.

    Yet it has been 1992 years and counting. It definitely has not been 1,000 years, nor even an indefinite "1,000 years". No one should deny any time at all, since there has been time, and there will be time yet again.

    Your argument would also have to ask, why not present the kingdom at the Cross as well? If you wait until the Second Coming, then why not wait until the end, after Jesus has reigned as Prince? No one is saying Jesus has not been reigning. Amil deny that Jesus can also reign on earth. Paul does not indicate any time, but there has been and will be.
     
  18. sovereigngrace

    sovereigngrace Well-Known Member

    +3,375
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    When did I say "Christ ushered in the Kingdom at Mount Sinai"?
     
  19. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +504
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    You quoted a verse that actually said since Abel. Then you disagreed with a poster over the timing. I am still waiting for you to say exactly when. It was not at the Cross, because that was when it was taken away from Israel and given to a different nation. I am just waiting for you to catch up with the poster you complained was in error. But you did say this:

    If it was already present with John the Baptist, that was years prior to the Cross. You refuted your own point.
     
  20. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,813
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Even though you and I have had this discussion before, maybe even more than once, I still don't get this logic in light of Matthew 25 and the sheep and goats judgment, for example, which means, if assuming your position, or at least if assuming the position of numerous Amils if this is not your position, the sheep and goats judgment precedes the NHNE since Amils like yourself take that judgment to be meaning the GWTJ and that most Amils conclude the NHNE are after that of the GWTJ, which then means this judgment is taking place on the old earth in this case, not the new earth instead, except of course, you have the earth literally engulfed in flames when Christ returns, therefore making it impossible for Him to sit upon His throne of glory on any earth to begin with, old or new, thus nowhere for Him to execute the sheep and goats judgment. More logic that I don't get.

    You typically argue that the text never says the sheep and goats judgment takes place on the earth. But this ignores the fact as to what is recorded in Matthew 25:31. Where do you think He is coming to if not the earth? Why would He be coming to the earth then having this judgment take place somewhere else instead? Unless you can show with Scripture where this other place would be if not the earth, this means you have no argument at all, just speculation which doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

    And no, it's not a valid argument, that because of your interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3, which has the entire planet literally engulfed in flames at the time, this alone proves that that judgment can't take place on the earth.

    What do you do with a passage like the following then, the point being, what is being depicted?

    Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

    This depicts death still occurring after He has returned and after some have been brought in front of Him. But I thought, according to your view of Revelation 19:21, that that is the end of all the lost once that happens? Luke 19:27 appears to be meaning after the fulfillment of that verse, though. And yes, I know Luke 19 is a parable, yet it still depicts ppl being brought before Him then slain. This verse has others doing the slaying for Him. In Revelation 19:21 it is He Himself doing the slaying.


    Way too many things don't add up if Amil is supposed to be the correct position. The same can likely be said about Premil as well, but that is beside the point. That still doesn't take away from the fact, that if Amil is the correct position, way too many things don't add up. You of course think otherwise, that there is nothing that doesn't add up about Amil.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2022
Loading...