Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[Biblewriter]

Once again you miss the boat Biblewriter...because Paul is pointing out one thing here...that Jacob was chosen over Esau by God's sovereign choice! The apostle backs it up with this statement in Romans 9:11, 12
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Now...it is clear your assertion is not correct. Paul is asserting that God made the choice between those two (Jacob and Esau), for His purpose! THAT IS THE POINT. He hasn't even gotten to Israel yet!

The argument is that Messiah will come through Isaac not Ishmael (remember that God told Abraham that?), "in Isaac shall your SEED be"! Paul takes the argument further to Jacob and Esau because God makes another SOVEREIGN CHOICE! God's choice would bring Christ through Jacob and not Esau!

Now...It is Jacob whose name was changed to Israel! Israel comes from Jacob' and his 12 sons!!! They bring forth the nation! So when Paul said "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel"...he means what he said...which is those descended from Jacob (Israel), "according to the flesh" are NOT all the children of God!
Because the apostle is not done yet, he's just beginning to make his argument! Jacob and Esau are both of Abraham...but the promise (Jesus) comes through Jacob and his descendants BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY GOD WANTED IT!!!

You've missed the point again! What does Paul say about the SEED? He tells us In Galatians 3:15, 16, that "THE SEED IS CHRIST"...but I guess you forgot about that...so here it is:
15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

So THE SEED (or descendant), comes from Jacob (Israel), and bring forth who? THAT'S RIGHT...THE LORD JESUS...HE IS THE SEED!!! That now makes it a spiritual matter!!! Not a fleshly matter! Just as the apostle said when he started.

Once again...Galatians 3:15, 16...says you are wrong as well as Romans 9!

You are trying to avoid to avoid the unquestionable truth I pointed out by going to another passage which teaches another subject.


The truth I pointed out is found in the first verses of Romans 9, where, at the time this was written, “the covenants” and “the promises” still pertained to (or belonged to) Paul’s “countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.” (verse3) This was written long after Jesus had said, “your house is left to you desolate,” (Matthew 23:38 and Luke 13:35) long after Jesus had been crucified, long after that day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the church, and long after Stephen had been stoned, completing Israel’s rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. Yet “the covenants” and “the promises” still pertained to (or belonged to) the fleshly nation of Israel. This conclusively proves that the time Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, “the covenants” and “the promises” had not been transferred to the church. They still pertained to (or belonged to) the fleshly nation of Israel.

That is the entire stress and message of this section of the Bible. But since you can find no way to "get around" this, you try to derail this conversation by bring up other scriptures which you imagine back up your interpretations.

The fact that the seed (singular) of Abraham in one of the promises was Christ, and that those who are of faith are the seed of Abraham, does not in any negate the land promise given to Abraham and repeated again and again to Israel in later generations, down to the promise in Ezekiel 36:10 that in a future day absolutely all of the house of Israel would again inhabit "the Land of Israel," with its "mountains, hills, rivers, and valleys." (verse 6)

 

[Biblewriter]

Originally Posted by Biblewriter If you had even bothered to read the multi-part OP, they were all spelled out in great detail there. And it was not "a few." It was seven witnesses, four of which included details that conclusively prove that they were using different sources of informat



You really are putting me on!

I don't know what you mean by this. Did you even bother to read the proof I posted? or you just rejecting all of it out of hand as the work of liars?

The point of the OP was that historians accept the date of the Revelation as long after the destruction f Jerusalem because, without a single exception, every witness from before the sixth century that is considered reliable, and that made an unequivocal statement, put it in the time off Domatian. This is simple, undeniable, fact.

then you quoted me as saying, "Your preterist interpretations were never even invented until centuries after all this happened, when there were no longer many people that actually knew that it did not line up with the actual facts."

Now that I can say is a bold face lie.

If it is a lie, prove it. The "facts" used to "prove" preterism are seriously wanting in every respect.

If there were facts proving preterism false, they wouldn't be any preterists. Probably the reason Preterism came about later could be because the scriptures weren't readily available to everyone, especially since the "early church and church fathers" prohibited it.

Here you are seriously mistaken. the fact that the medieval church refused to allow teaching that contradicted their doctrines does not mean that the early church did the same. Many of the early church writings were devoted to exposing the errors of those that denied the truth. They were unable to keep them from publishing their lies, but they answered them.

But the universal nature of the futurist bent of all early church writers can best be seen in a statement published in the fifth century by Jerome, who said, "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

you then quoted me as saying, "I do not consider this rant even worth answering." to wiich you responded,

Why would you when you don't acknowledge the facts? [/quote]I [l plan to answer you when I get the time, but this is a three against one debate, and I cannot answer every error at once.

 

[ebedmelech]

You are trying to avoid to avoid the unquestionable truth I pointed out by going to another passage which teaches another subject.

Not at all Biblewriter! It is you who are trying to change what the passage teaches, because you stray from the very point Paul makes in Romans 9;6, 7:
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”
You go off topic...speaking to Abraham's "children of the flesh". This is what you said:

This was a clear reference to Isaac being chosen over all the other children of Abraham, exactly the same as the example before it, and similar to the example after it, which was Jacob being chosen over Esau.

That in fact...IS NOT...what the apostle argues he said "they are NOT ALL ISRAEL"!!! Israel is Jacob!!!! Jacob is descended from Abraham and IS GOD'S CHOICE. This is how it works:

*Abraham is the father of Isaac. God chose Isaac over Ishmael.

*Isaac is the Father of Jacob and Esau. God chose Jacob over Esau.

*Jacob is the father of 12 sons. Those 12 sons are the nation of Israel...and that is what the apostle is addressing. It has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about when you say "Isaac being chosen over all the other children of Abraham,". That is never the issue Biblewriter! The issue is those descended from ISRAEL, who is Jacob! All you have to do is read it!

The truth I pointed out is found in the first verses of Romans 9, where, at the time this was written, “the covenants” and “the promises” still pertained to (or belonged to) Paul’s “countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.” (verse3) This was written long after Jesus had said, “your house is left to you desolate,” (Matthew 23:38 and Luke 13:35) long after Jesus had been crucified, long after that day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the church, and long after Stephen had been stoned, completing Israel’s rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. Yet “the covenants” and “the promises” still pertained to (or belonged to) the fleshly nation of Israel. This conclusively proves that the time Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, “the covenants” and “the promises” had not been transferred to the church. They still pertained to (or belonged to) the fleshly nation of Israel.

You took "the truth you pointed out" in the wrong direction Biblewriter! What you say of "the covenants and promises" apply to Israel! When were those given Biblewriter? They were given at Mount Sinai!!!

So once again you go off in the wrong direction!

God did make a covenant to Abraham but what else did he tell him of "his people"? You find that in Genesis 15:13-16:
13 God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.
14 But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions.
15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.
16 Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.”
God has told Abram (Abraham) BEFORE he has made the covenant what would happen. Who was that "people" Biblewriter? It's pretty clear it's ISRAEL who are descended form Jacob!!!

What Paul is saying is undeniable when you hold to what Paul is speaking of Biblewriter...and you don't do that!

That is the entire stress and message of this section of the Bible. But since you can find no way to "get around" this, you try to derail this conversation by bring up other scriptures which you imagine back up your interpretations.

I think I've sufficiently shown it is you who are "getting around" what the passage is teaching. You make it about a choice of Isaac over Abraham's children...but that is NOT what Paul is saying it is about Jacob who also is a descendant of Abraham chosen by God to father the nation of Israel.

The fact that the seed (singular) of Abraham in one of the promises was Christ, and that those who are of faith are the seed of Abraham, does not in any negate the land promise given to Abraham and repeated again and again to Israel in later generations, down to the promise in Ezekiel 36:10 that in a future day absolutely all of the house of Israel would again inhabit "the Land of Israel," with its "mountains, hills, rivers, and valleys." (verse 6)

No. Once again you keep missing the boat. Now let's hear Paul again in Galatians 3;15, 16 where Paul (unlike you), remains consistent in his argument:
15 Brethren,I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

Are you noticing the consistency of Paul there? He says "THE PROMISES"...the very same term he uses in Romans 9:3, 4:
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,

This is about ISRAEL Biblewriter! Why are you erroneously trying to make it about God choosing Isaac? It's much more than that! Paul doesn't stop there! He goes to the next choice God made, which is Jacob over Esau...and from Jacob and his 12 sons comes Israel!!!

Now you can choose to keep your viewpoint...but it is a huge error. The point of Romans 9 is very clear...and you have missed the point!

Why do you refuse to understand the Old Covenant is no more? Because of erroneous learning and teaching!

Did you read how many times God prophesied Israel would break the covenant? Try Deuteronomy 31:14-18! God even told Moses to write a song of this in Deuteronomy 32! Do you need more passages?

 

[Biblewriter]

Not at all Biblewriter! It is you who are trying to change what the passage teaches, because you stray from the very point Paul makes in Romans 9;6, 7:
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”
You go off topic...speaking to Abraham's "children of the flesh". This is what you said:


That in fact...IS NOT...what the apostle argues he said "they are NOT ALL ISRAEL"!!! Israel is Jacob!!!! Jacob is descended from Abraham and IS GOD'S CHOICE. This is how it works:

*Abraham is the father of Isaac. God chose Isaac over Ishmael.

*Isaac is the Father of Jacob and Esau. God chose Jacob over Esau.

*Jacob is the father of 12 sons. Those 12 sons are the nation of Israel...and that is what the apostle is addressing. It has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about when you say "Isaac being chosen over all the other children of Abraham,". That is never the issue Biblewriter! The issue is those descended from ISRAEL, who is Jacob! All you have to do is read it!

You took "the truth you pointed out" in the wrong direction Biblewriter! What you say of "the covenants and promises" apply to Israel! When were those given Biblewriter? They were given at Mount Sinai!!!

I am not the one who said this. the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Apostle Paul, was the one that said it. I only pointed out what He said in words to plain to misunderstand, if anyone just submits to what the Holy Spirit said.

You keep trying to bring up other scriptures that you imagine say differently. But the point here is Romans 9, not Galatians or Phillippians. They need to be dealt with in a separate thread. Here I will oy say that your errors there are similar to your errors here, giving more authority to your interpretation of the meaning of some of the words used by the Holy pirit than to the explicit statements of other of His words.

 

[precepts]

First, I never even suggested that there are no errors in the writings of Irenaeus, or of any other man.

When did I say you did?

I think his reasoning for saying that the Antichrist will be from the tribe of Dan will be very weak. The Jews know that their Messiah was to have been a sin of David. That makes it absolutely necessary for him to at least be able to persuade the Jews that he is from the tribe of Judah.

Which has nothing to do with the fact Irenaeus claims his teachings are the one and only true teachings handed down thru the apostles, which is a lie.

Second, I insist that the fact that Irenaeus made errors does not make him a liar if he says he got his doctrine from Polycarp,who got it from John himself. This makes what he says third hand at best, and everyone knows that even second hand information always contains errors.

Not according to Irenaeus himself.

Third, I also insist that no non-inspired person has ever produced an error-free document (of any significant length) about spiritual matters.

Your rightfully called early church fathers weren't inspired?!

And you will notice that I dd not call you a liar. I said that if I applied the same test to you that you applied to the early church writers, I would conclude that you are a liar. For what you said about Irenaeus was clearly incorrect.

Would me being mistaken also make me a liar? If I mistakenly took the author's word who quoted Irenaeus, and mstakenly quoted what the author interpreted Irenaeus as saying as Irenaeus' words, does that make me a liar? The quote that the author quoted from Irenaeus, that he interprets Irenaeus as saying Satan is the Beast in his human form, that I have found so far, seems to me to be saying Satan is the Antichrist in his human form, because he uses the word apostate only addressed to Satan throught the introductions, and calls the Antichrist "the Apostate." Irenaeus also mentions in the chapters about Christ being tempted by the "apostate," his being vanquished by Christ's voice, which is what's mentioned in 2 Thes. There's a verse I remeber reading where the author or Irenaeus implies the Greek lil horn is Satan in an earlier incarnation. I still searching for that one!

As we progress through the early writings of the church, we see a progressive departure from the truth. This departure was small at first, and grew steadily larger and larger as things went from bad to worse.

Early departure and changes, not in historically documented texts, but in "the" church practices, beliefs, and authoritive powers. A statement that makes me assume you're a protestant, an institutionalized, denominational christian, if not part of a church clergy. Am I correct?

Finally, at about the same time that the church even gave up the essential doctrine of salvation by faith alone, its great bulk also gave up even the beginnings of an understanding of Bible prophecy.

You're missing the point. Those who don't see "the Church" as going astray base "the Church's" teachings and doctrine on these interpretations of Irenaeus and others.

The first man to openly teach Amillennism was condemned as an heretic. But afterwards, that doctrine became established church doctrine.

I am not sure exactly when Preterism first raised its ugly head, but I do know that it did not appear (in any document that has been preserved) before centuries after the events in question had taken place, when there were very few that knew how far these events had to be wrested to fit the scriptural prophecies, even after the prophecies had been wrested to fit them.

I'm classified as a preterist because of interpreting scripture correctly. It's what I have discovered on my own that I'm classified as a preterist. You're mixing doctrines with what's written. What's written has nothing to do with historical sects and schools of thoughts.

For instance, some early writers made Nero the antichrist, but they did not say he was the antichrist, but that he would be resurrected as the coming antichrist.

Which has nothing to do with the facts I have provided. Dan 7 declares Rev's chronology, not fallible men.

I also know that preterism was not developed as a formal doctrine until after the dark ages.

Which, like I said before, was probably because the scriptures weren't readily available to the listening public.

As to my computer search of the writings of Irenaeus, many Bible programs contain many reference books and commentaries that can be accessed with the same program. I use Quickverse, which is no longer available, and sometimes its replacement, which is Wordsearch. Bth of them contain the entire set of the early "church fathers," as they are (in my opinion inappropriately) called.

Quickverse will help me word search Irenaeus' Against Heresies?

You need to remember that the great and most famous work of Irenaeus was "Against Heresies," which was an exposure of all the seriously heretical doctrines that were currant in his day. So he repeatedly said that certain doctrines were Satanic, or that certain "teachers" had been sent by Satan.

True, but many scholars thru out time have dismissed Irenaeus writings as false based on other historical facts. Irenaeus is a fraud. The setting up and establishment of the so-called Church is a fraud.

He clearly taught that the Antichrist would be working under the influence of Satan, but he never even so much as suggested that he would be anything other than an evil man.

The Antichrist is just an evil man? Isn't he the "angel" from the bottomless pit?

But just to make you happy, I will also do a word search on "apostate" and "apostasy," and will tell you what I find.

edit:

I have now made the search you requested, and found that Irenaeus applied both the words "apostate" and "apostasy" to Satan, to Satan's angels (those now known as demons,) to the heretics of his own day, to evil mankind in general, and to the Antichrist.

But nowhere did he even imply that the Antichrist would be Satan incarnate.

Check the context from when Satan is called the apostate during his temptation of Christ to Irenaeus mentioning of the Antichrist. He goes right in to the Antichrist as the apostate wanting to be God, and worshipped as God. As far as I can remember, he says this is/was Satan's original plans and desire, to be worshipped as God.

 

[ebedmelech]

I am not the one who said this. the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Apostle Paul, was the one that said it. I only pointed out what He said in words to plain to misunderstand, if anyone just submits to what the Holy Spirit said.

You took "what the Holy Spirit said" it in the wrong direction. It has been thoroughly refuted.

You keep trying to bring up other scriptures that you imagine say differently. But the point here is Romans 9, not Galatians or Phillippians. They need to be dealt with in a separate thread. Here I will oy say that your errors there are similar to your errors here, giving more authority to your interpretation of the meaning of some of the words used by the Holy pirit than to the explicit statements of other of His words.

The scriptures are a cohesive whole Biblewriter! The message is consistent! You yourself have referred to passages in other books to butress your agruments in several posts!

You cannot now (for the convenience of your argument), want to separate the writings of scripture and hold one over the other. The scriptures are consistent.

Now...you have been thoroughly refuted...not by me...but by what the scriptures say in Romans 9! The argument is ISRAEL who are descended from Jacob!

You said it was about "God choosing Isaac over all of Abraham's children". That is never the subject of Romans 9. The subject of Romans 9 is ISRAEL!

You're dodging the issue at this point, and I think others can see that!

 

[precepts]

Thank you for your effort, ie, you turned out O.K. after one gets to know you better - great! Let's see what the first four consecutive beasts are, ie, (Dan.7:1-7) in v. 17, represents four kings, and vs.23, 24 represent four kingdoms, scrutinizing the 4th beast with its 10 horns along with the so called 1th horn in v.8.

The 10 horns = ten kings or ten kingdoms (vs. 23, 24) Dan.7:8, "another horn, little one.." Now we can move to vs.19-22 where Daniel shed more light on the 4th beast and the little horn.

Where does it say the 10 horns/kings equal kingdoms? There's nowhere in scripture that says anything of the sort, but that they are kings. I provided the chronology of the first 3 beast kingdom kings. There's no gap between these kings, from Nebuchadnezzar to the 11th Roman horn of the 4th beast in Dan 7. NO GAPS! It's impossible for you to not comprehend that.

Getting to long so will cut through the chase to what I was heading to: Up to v.24, this does not picture ten consecutive kings or kingdoms that grew out of the Roman Empire. They present totality of power of the 4th empire as it appeared at any time after it was fully grown.

The little horn that grew into a great horn = Antichrist



Have to run, however thank you again,

Jack's opinion

Once again there's no verse that say's the Dan 7's 11th horn is the Antichrist. If he is the Antichrist, where's the False Prophet that's thrown into the lake of fire with him in Rev 19:20?

Dan 7:24 doesn't not mention and kingdoms because there's on four kingdoms that rule over Israel until the end of the world. The 10 horns are kings. These are the first scriptural Roman emperors starting from Augustus Caesar to Nerva who plucks up the scriptural 8th with his two sons, plucking up three horns as prophesied in Dan 7. The proof of Revelation's timeline, and the proof the 7 kings with the 8th who is the Antichrist are of the 10 kings in Rev 17:11.

 

[shturt678s]

You are trying to avoid to avoid the unquestionable truth I pointed out by going to another passage which teaches another subject.


The truth I pointed out is found in the first verses of Romans 9, where, at the time this was written, “the covenants” and “the promises” still pertained to (or belonged to) Paul’s “countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.” (verse3) This was written long after Jesus had said, “your house is left to you desolate,” (Matthew 23:38 and Luke 13:35) long after Jesus had been crucified, long after that day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the church, and long after Stephen had been stoned, completing Israel’s rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. Yet “the covenants” and “the promises” still pertained to (or belonged to) the fleshly nation of Israel. This conclusively proves that the time Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, “the covenants” and “the promises” had not been transferred to the church.

They still pertained to (or belonged to) the fleshly nation of Israel.

We're good till here, ie, at Acts2:2, etc, the Jews and Gentiles placed on the same level before Rom.9.

That is the entire stress and message of this section of the Bible. But since you can find no way to "get around" this, you try to derail this conversation by bring up other scriptures which you imagine back up your interpretations.

The fact that the seed (singular) of Abraham in one of the promises was Christ, and that those who are of faith are the seed of Abraham, does not in any negate the land promise given to Abraham and repeated again and again to Israel in later generations, down to the promise in Ezekiel 36:10 that in a future day absolutely all of the house of Israel would again inhabit "the Land of Israel," with its "mountains, hills, rivers, and valleys." (verse 6)

Old Jack

 

[precepts]

I don't know what you mean by this. Did you even bother to read the proof I posted? or you just rejecting all of it out of hand as the work of liars?

You could of pointed out I misread what you said instead of this cherade.

The point of the OP was that historians accept the date of the Revelation as long after the destruction f Jerusalem because, without a single exception, every witness from before the sixth century that is considered reliable, and that made an unequivocal statement, put it in the time off Domatian. This is simple, undeniable, fact.

That does not make 95 ad a fact.

If it is a lie, prove it. The "facts" used to "prove" preterism are seriously wanting in every respect.

I wonder why "use to."

Originally posted by precepts:
If there were facts proving preterism false, they wouldn't be any preterists. Probably the reason Preterism came about later could be because the scriptures weren't readily available to everyone, especially since the "early church and church fathers" prohibited it.

Here you are seriously mistaken. the fact that the medieval church refused to allow teaching that contradicted their doctrines does not mean that the early church did the same. Many of the early church writings were devoted to exposing the errors of those that denied the truth. They were unable to keep them from publishing their lies, but they answered them.

Like I said before if they were evidence proving Preterism wrong, there wouldn't be any Preterists around.

But the universal nature of the futurist bent of all early church writers can best be seen in a statement published in the fifth century by Jerome, who said, "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

Once again you're trusting fallible man's carnal interpretation. This happened during the reign of Nerva, the 11th Roman emporer, in heaven. The proof is Dan 7:9's setting up of God's throne in heaven, verified by Rev 4's account of the same event. These are facts you can't ignore no matter how you try.

Why would you when you don't acknowledge the facts?

I [l plan to answer you when I get the time, but this is a three against one debate, and I cannot answer every error at once.[/quote]

 

[Biblewriter]

Dan 7 (if you follow the chronology) proves the beasts were kings/men. Nebuchadnezzar and his two sons represented the lion with two wings; the goat was Cyrus and Darius, their descendants, the kings of united Persia/Media ,are recorded and prophesied about by Daniel; Alexander the great and his four generals represent the Ram with the horns of which the lil horn and his descendants are chronicled to the abomination of desolation perpetrator.

Danien 7 says nothing about the Abomination of Desoaltion. That is mentioned only in danoen 11 and 12. Your conclusion that Daniel 7 speaks of the perpetrator of the Abomination of Desolation is pure interpretation.

But aside from this, you are correct that this comes down to the Roman power.

Following this pattern, and Dan 7:17 mentioning of the 4 beast kingdoms representing 4 kings, we arrive at Romes first 10 kings as the 10 horns on the 4th beast in Dan 7 starting with Augustus Caesar.

Here is where your interpretations begin to go seriously awry. You have totally missed the fact that “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.” (Revelation 17:12)

You are making the ten kings successive, before the one called “the beast,” but the scriptures very clearly say that they are reign “with the beast,” not before him. This is typical of the imagined “fulfillments” cited by Preterist, Historicists, and Amils. They consistently ignore details which sjow that the alleged fulfillments were not fulfillments at all, but only events in which an approximate parallel can be found.

It's the "Year of the 4 Roman Emperors" that chronicles the 4 Roman emperors reigning between 68 to 69 a.d., within a yr span, that differs with scriptures calculation of the amount of kings/horns before the scriptural 11th king/horns appears. He's historically chronicled as the 12th.

Here we find that even you are aware that your scenario simply does not fit the scriptures. You dismiss this with the cavalier statement that “Its.. that differs with the scriptures calculation of the amount of kings/horns before the scriptural 11th king/horns appears.” In admitting that “He’s historically chronicled as the 12th,” you have destroyed your entire argument. Even you admit that your scenario does not fit the prophecies you are describing.

Base on the sequence and chronicles of kings between the 4 beast kingdoms, there's no gaps.

There's no circular logic required, only common sense.

Insisting that your interpretation is correct, even after admitting ot does not fit the prophecy you are applyng it to, does not even rise to the level of circular logic. It is simple nonsense.

The Revelation statement of "5 kings fallen, one is, and one is to come and continue a short space" is the factual historical "Year of the 4 Emperors" that proves Dan 7's 10 kings sequence of events as not having any gaps between the kings and kingdoms.

The Dan 7's 11th horn given to the flame in Dan 7:11 also has to be the false prophet and the 2nd beast in Revelation because of the chronlogy of events. There's no circular logic needed, only common sense, and the understanding of the fact that there are only 4 to 5 beast kingdoms that rule over Israel, without interruption, until the end of the world. Rome is the 4th and 5th beast kingdom in Dan 7, the 1st and 2nd beast in Revelation, based on these facts.

The circular logic is that, since you start with the assumption that his cannot speak of a time in the future, you force the historical record nto the prophecies, even after admitting that they do not fit.

 

[Biblewriter]

I wonder why "use to." I did not say "use to." I said that your alleged "facts" are seriously wanting, as I demonstrated in my last post.

Like I said before if they were evidence proving Preterism wrong, there wouldn't be any Preterists around.

Actually, this is a false concept. I have seen people in this forum repeatedly refuse to accept clear statements of scripture, even when they are presented. The actual fact is that people committed to denying the clear testimony of the word of God will not accept any amount of proof that what they are saying is incorrect.

Once again you're trusting fallible man's carnal interpretation. This happened during the reign of Nerva, the 11th Roman emporer, in heaven. The proof is Dan 7:9's setting up of God's throne in heaven, verified by Rev 4's account of the same event. These are facts you can't ignore no matter how you try.

You have already admitted that your scenario does not fit the prophecies. This shows that what you are saying is nothing but a carnal man's interpretation. For a spiritual man would not pretend that a historical record that he admits does not fit the prophecy is, nonetheless, a fulfillment of that same prophecy he pretends it is fulfilling.

 

[shturt678s]

Where does it say the 10 horns/kings equal kingdoms? There's nowhere in scripture that says anything of the sort, but that they are kings. I provided the chronology of the first 3 beast kingdom kings. There's no gap between these kings, from Nebuchadnezzar to the 11th Roman horn of the 4th beast in Dan 7. NO GAPS! It's impossible for you to not comprehend that.

I already said from Dan.7:24 thinking you already understood, ie, sorry about that. menah malekuthah, "from it, the kingdom," ie, "from this very kingdom." The 10 horns which the beast had signify 10 kings who shall arise out of that kingdom. Since the 10 horns all exist at the same time together on the head of the beast, the 10 kings that arise out of the 4th kingdom are to be regarded as contemporary. In this manner the division or dismemberment of this kingdom into 10 principalities or kingdoms is symbolized my friend. For the 10 contemporaneious kings imly the existence at the same time of 10 kingdoms. Ie, I think we have a 'gap' issue contextually my friend.

Once again there's no verse that say's the Dan 7's 11th horn is the Antichrist. If he is the Antichrist, where's the False Prophet that's thrown into the lake of fire with him in Rev 19:20?

Dan 7:24 doesn't not mention and kingdoms because there's on four kingdoms that rule over Israel until the end of the world. The 10 horns are kings. These are the first scriptural Roman emperors starting from Augustus Caesar to Nerva who plucks up the scriptural 8th with his two sons, plucking up three horns as prophesied in Dan 7. The proof of Revelation's timeline, and the proof the 7 kings with the 8th who is the Antichrist are of the 10 kings in Rev 17:11.

Have to run again, be back to address more, ie, thank you - you're a good ol' chap. Old Jack

 

[precepts]

Danien 7 says nothing about the Abomination of Desoaltion. That is mentioned only in danoen 11 and 12. Your conclusion that Daniel 7 speaks of the perpetrator of the Abomination of Desolation is pure interpretation.

I never said it did! The point I was giving is the chronology of the beast kingdoms and kings in Dan 7. I never mentioned anything about the abomination of desolation. Where did you get that from?

Here is where your interpretations begin to go seriously awry. You have totally missed the fact that “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.” (Revelation 17:12)

I missed the point, or you? Why do I even reply to your posts? I already explained the 10 horns in Dan 7 are the 10 horns in Rev's 1st beast because of the 11th horn being given to the flame in Dan 7:11 as the False Prophet and the 2nd beast in Rev. The 10 kings' thrones are cast down and God's throne being set up in Dan 7:9, which is Rev 4, because they recieved their kingdoms before the 11th horn was cast into the fire. It obvious you are ignoring the facts.

You are making the ten kings successive, before the one called “the beast,” but the scriptures very clearly say that they are reign “with the beast,” not before him. This is typical of the imagined “fulfillments” cited by Preterist, Historicists, and Amils. They consistently ignore details which sjow that the alleged fulfillments were not fulfillments at all, but only events in which an approximate parallel can be found.

That's Revelation's interpretation. The reason it says they recieve kingdoms "one hour" with the Beast is because it's their heavenly attack on the heavenly temple and Shalem with t"he kings of the earth" that they recieve their powers. That's when and why Dan 7:9 says their thrones were cast down and God's throne set up in heaven, also Rev 4.

Simple wordings make you ignore the rest of the facts presented. The 10 kings that recieve no kingdom consists of the 7 kings on the 7 heads/hills of the Beast, of which the Beast is the 8th king and is with the 7 kings, because their of the 10. This is what Dan 7's 4th beast, being Rome, proves. That there's only 2 Roman beasts; the two in Revelation; and the two in Daniel, the 4th and 5th beast kingdoms. There's no additional kingdoms, only the 4 to 5 kingdoms. Also the reason why there's only 4 to 5 horsemen in Revelation, and 4 (Euphrates angels) to 5 (the Beast) fallen angels in Revelation.

There's nowhere in scripture that states the 10 horns are kingdoms, only your early church fathers' false interpretations to mislead the world from recognizing the true events and meaning behind Christ's temple destruction prophecies.

Here we find that even you are aware that your scenario simply does not fit the scriptures. You dismiss this with the cavalier statement that “Its.. that differs with the scriptures calculation of the amount of kings/horns before the scriptural 11th king/horns appears.” In admitting that “He’s historically chronicled as the 12th,” you have destroyed your entire argument. Even you admit that your scenario does not fit the prophecies you are describing.

You're the one that want's to have scripture spoon fed. Just because scripture does say specifically something, you try to ignore all the other facts that point to the true interpretation. This is exactly why Paul and Christ was emphasizing what was to come and befall all those who didn't believe on Christ. They would be caught up and killed by who they believed:

Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

The context, once again, is to his generation. A message to those present, not 2,000 yrs later. Having history conflicting with scriptural fact is the work of fallible men, Satan's ministers. There's too much evidence to dismiss the facts on a simple technicality.

Insisting that your interpretation is correct, even after admitting ot does not fit the prophecy you are applyng it to, does not even rise to the level of circular logic. It is simple nonsense.

It is nonsense that you can't seem the remember all the facts proving there's no gaps between the kingdoms and the lines of kings. Why can't you understand that?! It's nonsense that you would ignore all the facts for one little technicality. The scriptures aren't perfect, nor is the world. All the facts remain, including Dan 7:9 being Rev 4.

The circular logic is that, since you start with the assumption that his cannot speak of a time in the future, you force the historical record nto the prophecies, even after admitting that they do not fit.

Please, I know you're smarter than that. All roads leads to Rome. THERE'S NO GAPS BETWEEN THE BEAST KINGDOMS AND THE SUCCESSION OF THEIR KINGS PROVING THE 10 HORNS IN DAN 7 ARE ROME'S FIRST 10 KINGS/EMPERORS.

 

[precepts]

I wonder why "use to." I did not say "use to." I said that your alleged "facts" are seriously wanting, as I demonstrated in my last post.



Actually, this is a false concept. I have seen people in this forum repeatedly refuse to accept clear statements of scripture, even when they are presented. The actual fact is that people committed to denying the clear testimony of the word of God will not accept any amount of proof that what they are saying is incorrect.

That would make them hypocrites.

[You have already admitted that your scenario does not fit the prophecies.

You're proving yourself to be false. I never said anything of the sort.

[This shows that what you are saying is nothing but a carnal man's interpretation. For a spiritual man would not pretend that a historical record that he admits does not fit the prophecy is, nonetheless, a fulfillment of that same prophecy he pretends it is fulfilling.

Once again like I said, your amnesia ignores all the other facts i provided. Why do you ignore all the other undisputable facts to spue nonsense? What other things have I provided that you can quote other than the fact I tried to explain why history has numbered who they considered to be emporers different from God in their documentation of the Roman era of "The Year of the Four Emperors?" Your true colors are showing.

 

[precepts]

I already said from Dan.7:24 thinking you already understood, ie, sorry about that. menah malekuthah, "from it, the kingdom," ie, "from this very kingdom." The 10 horns which the beast had signify 10 kings who shall arise out of that kingdom. Since the 10 horns all exist at the same time together on the head of the beast, the 10 kings that arise out of the 4th kingdom are to be regarded as contemporary. In this manner the division or dismemberment of this kingdom into 10 principalities or kingdoms is symbolized my friend. For the 10 contemporaneious kings imly the existence at the same time of 10 kingdoms. Ie, I think we have a 'gap' issue contextually my friend.

Yeah! So why does Revelation's 1st beast have ten horns also?

Originally posted by precepts:
Once again there's no verse that say's the Dan 7's 11th horn is the Antichrist. If he is the Antichrist, where's the False Prophet that's thrown into the lake of fire with him in Rev 19:20?

Dan 7:24 doesn't not mention and kingdoms because there's on four kingdoms that rule over Israel until the end of the world. The 10 horns are kings. These are the first scriptural Roman emperors starting from Augustus Caesar to Nerva who plucks up the scriptural 8th with his two sons, plucking up three horns as prophesied in Dan 7. The proof of Revelation's timeline, and the proof the 7 kings with the 8th who is the Antichrist are of the 10 kings in Rev 17:11.

Have to run again, be back to address more, ie, thank you - you're a good ol' chap. Old Jack

You can't be pulling stunts like this an be interested in the truth, friend.

 

[Biblewriter]

I never said it did! The point I was giving is the chronology of the beast kingdoms and kings in Dan 7. I never mentioned anything about the abomination of desolation. Where did you get that from?

You said that Daniel 7 leads up to the perpetrator of the Abomination of Desolation.

I missed the point, or you? Why do I even reply to your posts? I already explained the 10 horns in Dan 7 are the 10 horns in Rev's 1st beast because of the 11th horn being given to the flame in Dan 7:11 as the False Prophet and the 2nd beast in Rev. The 10 kings' thrones are cast down and God's throne being set up in Dan 7:9, which is Rev 4, because they recieved their kingdoms before the 11th horn was cast into the fire. It obvious you are ignoring the facts.



That's Revelation's interpretation.

"Revelation's interpretation" is the interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

I gave conclusive proof that your scenario only approximately matches the prophecy. That is not hoe Bible prophecy works. When a prophecy of God is fulfilled, every detail pf the prophecy is precisely fulfilled, exactly as it was given by God. In the case of Daniel 11:5-32, the fulfillment was so precisely acc\curate that unbelievers claim its very accuracy proves it could not have been written before the events took place.

The reason it says they recieve kingdoms "one hour" with the Beast is because it's their heavenly attack on the heavenly temple and Shalem with t"he kings of the earth" that they recieve their powers.

Revelation 17:13 says that "These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast." (Revelation 17:13)

There is no way to even pretend that the ten successive emperors had "one mind," or that they "gave" their power to the eleventh. Thereare just too many details that just don't fit. The only way to make them fit is to start with the assumption that these prophecies are about this time, and just ignore the details that don't fit.

That's when and why Dan 7:9 says their thrones were cast down and God's throne set up in heaven, also Rev 4.

Simple wordings make you ignore the rest of the facts presented.

No, the simple wordings of scripture are the facts that you are refusing to pay any attention to.

 

[Biblewriter]

That would make them hypocrites.

Yes indeed, that is exactly what it demonstrates them to be.

You're proving yourself to be false. I never said anything of the sort.

You specifically excepted the four kings of "the year of the four emperors" from your calculations, because they did not fit.

Once again like I said, your amnesia ignores all the other facts i provided. Why do you ignore all the other undisputable facts to spue nonsense? What other things have I provided that you can quote other than the fact I tried to explain why history has numbered who they considered to be emporers different from God in their documentation of the Roman era of "The Year of the Four Emperors?" Your true colors are showing.

I ignore facts that approximately match the prophecies because, and specifically because facts that only approximately match the prophecies are not fulfillments of the prophecies. If the event in question does not completely match the prophecy, the prophecy has not been fulfilled.

 

[Biblewriter]

Yeah! So why does Revelation's 1st beast have ten horns also?

Because both refer to a time in the future when ten kings will voluntarily unite giving their power to "the beast," who will be the end tme ruler of the roman empire.

Your "approximate" fulfillments of prophecy simply do nt fit the prophecies, and there is no way to make them fit.

But in addition to these failures, you entire system of interpretation simply ignores the vast bulk of Bible prophecy, such as the statement in Ezekiel 36 that absolutely all of "the house of Israel" would once again inhabit "the land of Israel," with its "Mountains, hills, rivers, and valleys." Or the precise definition of the future borders of the land, as spelled out in detail in Ezekiel 47. Or the precise description of the path that Isaiah 10 says that "the Assyrian" will follow as he attacks Jerusalem.

 

[shturt678s]

Yeah! So why does Revelation's 1st beast have ten horns also?



You can't be pulling stunts like this an be interested in the truth, friend.

Sorry your words reflect this, ie, I thought we were both seeking the Kingdom first?

Anyway, Rev.13:1 the "10 horns" bearing the "10 diadems" can only be unveiled by understanding the symbolical numbers "7" & "10."

Old Jack

 

[Interplanner]

I've just read most of EbedM & BW #205 to #226 and have this observation. The thing that BW is protecting is not physical descent, it's the land. You kind of wouldn't want to 'protect' physical descent in Rom 9 because the "3 strikes" rule (there are 3 exceptions right off). But what matters to BW is the land promise.

I have to say, this is the weakest place to protect the land promise from. It is also BW's favorite dismissive target, the error of circular reasoning. The most you can 'protect' from Rom 9-11 about ancient promises is that all of those in Israel who believe that a Redeemer would come to Zion and take away the debt of sins would be saved from those sins. (I'm saying this in a way to allow for this Israel--the one in 11:26--to be the ethnos, although it is not.) Given the climate, the times, the things going on in Judea, I don't think Paul thought any thing from the land would be saved, and there seemed to be reports already that it was totalled. (Has anyone else ever noticed that while the Thess thought they heard the day of the Lord had already happened, Paul, for his part, already reports that the complete wrath of God had come on Israel? No internet back then.)

Rom 9-11 explains why more Jews don't believe in a sort of automatic way, given their heritage and background. Paul says it is a problem right to the end of time by using the expression 'kai houtos' in 11:26. "in this manner": with this partial unbelief continuing on in the ethnos Israel (BW says 2/3 won't believe all the pressure of the wrath of God in the GT anyway), the real Israel will always believe the debt of their sins was handled by the Redeemer who came, historically, (past tense) to Zion.