Do scars remain in Jesus' feet and hands?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

as epiphanic.

Quote:John317

Please explain how you are using "preterism" here.

Quote:jasd

From the Latin praeter/past. Believing and/or teaching that ‘end time events’ have already found their fulfillment – having already occurred.

>>What needs to be done to support your view is to show strong evidence that the events you allude to as "end time events" are indeed end time events.<<

I am not necessarily needful to support my view. I am not a proselytizer. Trusting that Gd was more serious than rhetorical re Isaiah’s “Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; ...” I am, at this point, more clinically interested in Writ - than in establishing another incorporated or associative body of like-minded.

Per my “alluding to” – I believe that should you reread my proffers – you’ll find that my reference to Daniel 12:4 is self-explanatory. How did your pioneers get to the Sabbath meetings? I hardly think they, along with ‘many’, were running to and fro during the 19th century – except, perhaps, by the proverbial mare’s shank or poor Dobbin – some few by other pedestrian means.

>>What events have not yet been fulfilled that have been described as having happened?<<

Almost the entire prophecies in the Book of Daniel?

>>You deny that these things have been fulfilled but you do not show a reason why this is the case.<<

My ability to deduce is not the greatest but – I can understand an imperative proscription from Gd – and I do think that I can distinguish between certain verb tenses. That alone suffices.

[John317]

....There could hardly be a more plainly spoken “Thus saith the word of Gd.” It is easily understood and noted that it is – Gd-speak.

Per the ...llys above – I notice.

>>Do you know of any commentator who has argued this point before and has written a defense of it? I would like to read it if anyone has.<<

Of course, it is Gd. “...shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”

Yes, a straightforward read of the word of Gd the commentator.

Most students of Daniel do not understand those words to signify what you make them out to mean.

Indeed they are straightforward and plain, but they do not mean that no one will understand them until "the last century."

Many of Daniel's prophecies were sealed because they would not be fulfilled for a very long time. By contrast, John was told not to seal up the book of Revelation, because as it states, the "time is near." Parts of Revelation had to do with things that would happen shortly after the time of John.

That is why the book of Daniel was sealed, and not because God would not allow anyone to understand it. It was because the events described or spoken of in many of the prophecies would not make sense to people during the time of Daniel.

The time of the end that is referred to in Daniel 12: 4 began at the end of the 1, 260 day prophetic period, which occurred in 1798. As I've mentioned before, it was about then that there was a great increase in the study of the prophecies of Daniel.

Virtually all commentators are agreed that the words, "running to and fro," have to do with studying the prophecies, turning every page, searching, etc. That is undoubtedly the primary meaning of the text. It's true that at the end times, there is also an dramatic increase in knowledge and human travel. But even if that were the primary meaning of Daniel 12: 4, it wouldn't support the notion that God wouldn't allow anyone to study and understand some parts of the book. That is simply not what the "sealing" of the book meant.

Again, the sealing meant that many of the prophecies in the book would not reach fulfillment until near the time of the end. There were other parts of the book that did come to pass, such as Daniel 1-5. These prophecies, such as in Daniel 5, were obviously intended to be understood in the time of Daniel. Other parts were to be understood in the first century (see reference in Matt. 24: 15; Mark 13: 14). Mark refers to the flight of the Christians to the hills of Judea in order to escape the Roman legions, and therefore it is obvious that Jesus intended for the first century Jewish Christians to study and understand that aspect of Daniel.

[jasd]

>>Show from the Bible that "sealing" the book of Daniel meant that no one would understand it until "this past century."<<

Good grief, John317, how could Gd have been more explicit?

>>Also, reason and evidence would need to be shown why Daniel's sealing 2, 600 years ago necessarily means everything that has been thought about it before 19-- ? must be wrong and rejected.<<

More and more, I begin to think that you read my responses slightly. Your semantics aside, I have repeatedly stated as much as to demonstrate that your assessment in the above is wrong.

[John317]

Actually I think that's a very good link. Thank you.

[jasd]

>>Most students of Daniel do not understand those words to signify what you make them out to mean.<<

Of course not; it is they, for the most part, who wrest Scripture – per the Book of Daniel. The blind, leading the blind, all fall into the ditch.

>>Indeed they are straightforward and plain, but they do not mean that no one will understand them until "the last century."<<

Erratum: “this past century”

>>Many of Daniel's prophecies were sealed because they would not be fulfilled for a very long time. By contrast, John was told not to seal up the book of Revelation, because as it states, the "time is near." Parts of Revelation had to do with things that would happen shortly after the time of John.<<

Well and good. The thrust of the passage you may be referencing desires that we should receive a blessing: I received my blessing from Revelation in being apprised that my deceased mother is with the Lord in mind, soul, and spirit – to one day, at the Parousia, receive her glorified body. Blessing indeed.

>>That is why the book of Daniel was sealed, and not because God would not allow anyone to understand it.<<

The words are “shut” and “sealed” – period, full stop; with no indicia to justify a “That is why...”

>>It was because the events described or spoken of in many of the prophecies would not make sense to people during the time of Daniel.<<

That the people during the time of Daniel may not have been ready to ‘receive’ the prophecies may be true.

>>The time of the end that is referred to in Daniel 12: 4 began at the end of the 1, 260 day prophetic period, which occurred in 1798.<<

Indeed!? that was developed during the times when even the ‘prophet’ had to go to her meetings hitched behind poor ol’ Dobbin. That’s hardly a cross-Atlantic flight on the Concorde or otherwise “running to and fro” with others of the “many”.

>>As I've mentioned before, it was about then that there was a great increase in the study of the prophecies of Daniel.<<

You’re positing a ‘running back and forth through a scroll (or equivalent), are you not? That does not compute, as Daniel, who would have been the one to understand – could not: never mind, the piece-mealing of historic events.

>>Virtually all commentators are agreed that the words, "running to and fro," have to do with studying the prophecies, turning every page, searching, etc. That is undoubtedly the primary meaning of the text.<<

I thought you were leading to this sort of an exposition; however, were that the intent of Gd, He confounded Himself as – there is now less Biblical knowledge extant today than ante-; well, except for those few [/sotto voce] who were elected from before the foundation of the world, yes?

>>It's true that at the end times, there is also an dramatic increase in knowledge and human travel. But even if that were the primary meaning of Daniel 12: 4, it wouldn't support the notion that God wouldn't allow anyone to study and understand some parts of the book. That is simply not what the "sealing" of the book meant.<<

We have to adduce that certain parts are understandable. It is too obvious to, otherwise, gainsay. That said, were Gd intending to seal only the incidental – He certainly might have hired a better scribe and translator than Daniel – or, at least, have used language more precisely. [/hyperbole]

>>These prophecies, such as in Daniel 5, were obviously intended to be understood in the time of Daniel.<<

Then, why is it so misunderstood today?

>>Other parts were to be understood in the first century (see reference in Matt. 24: 15; Mark 13: 14). Mark refers to the flight of the Christians to the hills of Judea in order to escape the Roman legions, and therefore it is obvious that Jesus intended for the first century Jewish Christians to study and understand that aspect of Daniel.<<

So, Jesus Christ was referring to the first-century 'Jew' that He might make there ‘House’ less desolate? No, He spoke of a time future still.

[Fausto]

John

What is your take on this particular prophecy?

[John317]

JOHN3:17-->>These prophecies, such as in Daniel 5, were obviously intended to be understood in the time of Daniel.<<

Then, why is it so misunderstood today?

What part of Daniel 5 do you believe is misunderstood by so many?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

So, Jesus Christ was referring to the first-century Jew that He might make there ‘House’ less desolate? No, He spoke of a time future still.

Miscue:-o

Read: ‘their’ where there now exists a ‘there’. They’re, that’s fixed

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

These prophecies, such as in Daniel 5, were obviously intended to be understood in the time of Daniel.

Quote:jasd

Then, why is it so misunderstood today?

>>What part of Daniel 5 do you believe is misunderstood by so many?<<

What understanding do most ‘readings’ of “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin” tend to yield? Does a

particular, or direct, ‘understanding’ of a matter disallow other, perhaps more obscure, exposition(s)?

(I am not saying that the prophecy of Daniel 5 is understood entirely. What I do proffer – is that the time element decreed for the exposition of Daniel, chapter 5 included – is now)

[Fausto]

John I found another site, that has a fairly good explanation of the 1290 and the 1335 day prophecy, but it is using the Millerite version, well...makes some sense, but why is there two?

Am I to believe there is no clear interpretation of this message? That is may only be clearer later on in time?

Ulrike Unruh's 1260, 1290, 1335 Day/Years, Prophetic Meaning

[jasd]

QR frame:

This does not address Ulrike – as I admire and respect her efforts and her wisdom – having followed much of her contributions to different forums...

The above stated: Firstly, and lastly, the Book of Daniel is time-stamped. End of story.

Again, I am put to mind an incomplete set of legos from which one might construct all manners of interesting objects but – in the end – it remains an incomplete set of leggos with its several ‘interesting’, though questionable, constructs. Or, in the matter at hand – narratives.

One might understand the emotional need of an emergent association to develop a mark, uniqueness, or peculiarity that distinguishes; however,

how does one harmonize the need of a self-stylized ‘remnant’ with the

seeming disregard for the proscriptive language of Daniel 12, however good-intentioned or however obstinate that need proves?

[jasd]

The following is taken from my archived [?] "potpourri" thread, post #24226

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin*

Why did Gd elect to write 'those' words when, being the linguist He obviously is, He might have simply written, to effect, “Listen-up, goodfella, tonight you will, justifiably, lose both your life and the kingdom”, or some other equally well-expressed sentiment.

Were Gd to have written, “Mene, Tekel, Upharsin”, with an implicit meaning in the Aramaic, ‘number(ed), weigh(ed), division(s)’, --would that have sufficed? --without the redundant "Mene"? to convey

what Gd intended that it should convey --to both Belshazzar and --to those for whom the book of Daniel would eventually be unsealed? In other words,

how is the intent of the message better served by repeating “Number(ed), Number(ed),…”? that is, “Mene, Mene,…”? unless…

Aramaic

Mene

Mene

Tekel

Upharsin

Hebrew

Minah = 1000 gerahs

Minah = 1000 gerahs

Shekel = 20 gerahs -- (shekel, a fiftieth part of a thousand)

Peres = 500 gerahs -- (peres, a half part of a thousand)

_______________________________

'seven times' = 2520

The ‘coinage’ in the two columns above and the redundancy of "Mene" (without which there would have been only a configuration, in the Hebrew, of 1520 --best defined as meaningless) suggests to me the use of a form [Hebrew] within a form [Aramaic] by Gd; its meaning readily apparent to Daniel. Also,

given what I have suggested in the above, Gd apparently, took some care in composing the message, which was written on the wall at the feast of Belshazzar… Otherwise,

if Gd had employed straightforward language, much of what [i take] to have been concealed (per Dan 12:4 …shut up the words, and seal the book…) should have been readily understood, without need of sending for Daniel to interpret the writing.

(It might be of interest to those unawares, that the Babylonians used a sexagesimal number system, that is, their base [number] was 60; whereas; we tend use a decimal system. That may have been why

they could not decipher the ‘numbers’, which appeared on the wall) Anyway,

note that Belshazzar asked Daniel for an interpretation -- not a translation. Daniel acceded and provided Belshazzar with the sense of the writing. That being said,

Daniel interpreted (paraphrased) the writing utilizing, according to the KJV, twenty-nine words where there had been but four upon the wall. Though we have had the ‘sense’ of the writing on the wall per Daniel 5:25-28, we’ve really not had what might be a literal translation (or transliteration) of the writing on the wall…

Is the meaning of Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin/Peres important?

*two minas, a shekel, and a half-mina: There are some who suggest that Upharsin and Farsi [meaning Persia(ns)] are etymologically related. That may be so, but I’m not inclined to agree. I mention it only in passing, as someone might be interested.

[ed.jasd]

[Fausto]

the Book of Daniel is time-stamped. End of story

I'd say that is very much your opinion, I openly and respectfully disagree!

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

the Book of Daniel is time-stamped. End of story

>>I'd say that is very much your opinion, I openly and respectfully disagree!<<

No, that is Gd's prerogative to have time-stamped the Book - which He did. Contrary opinions to that fact are unsustainable; however,

it is your right to disagree with either myself - or Gd.

I was wondering how it was that my mention of Claudia drew no interest.

[Fausto]

I was wondering how it was that my mention of Claudia drew no interest.

Sorry not with you here! Don't know who is Claudia. Waht is the relevance?

[jasd]

>>...who is Claudia. Waht is the relevance?<<

Exactly. Who was Claudia? And was/is she relevant to the thread?

[John317]

Tell us about Claudia, please.

[jasd]

I mentioned St Claudia in conjunction with the statement by Jesus Christ that the Gospel of the Kingdom was to be taken to a nation bearing the fruits thereof. I combined that with the commission given St Paul by Jesus Christ.

When St Paul arrived in Rome the ‘church of Rome’ had already been established for several years, and it was to that church that St Paul journeyed. [/extemporaneously]

I surmised that you had already checked out St Claudia and would like to contribute what you’ve encountered.

[John317]

No, I hadn't studied that. Could you explain that and tell how this relates to Jesus' statement?

Where do you find references to St. Claudia?

I will Google and probably find out, but what I am interested in is your personal understanding of it.

OK, I think I am beginning to see the significance you view St. Claudia in. She is of British descent, according to some traditions. I think I see where you take this: to the nation of Britain and the English speaking peoples?

[John317]

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=20128&st=0&p=196322&#entry196322

[John317]

Testimony by prominent Christian leaders of many denominations on the subject:

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (author of the well-recognized commentary on Romans, published by Zondervan) in his sermon preached in Westminster Chapel on January 29, 1961 and printed in The Westminster Record, May, 1963, states:

"This system (Romanism) is altogether more dangerous than is Communism itself, because this is a counterfeit, this does it in the name of Christ. This is ‘the scarlet woman,' this is the most horrible, foul deception of all, because it uses His name."

"Let me warn you very solemnly that if you rejoice in these approaches to Rome you are denying the blood of the martyrs."

"There is no difficulty about this; this is a counterfeit, a sham; this is prostitution of the worst and most diabolical kind. It is indeed a form of the antichrist, and it is to be rejected, it is to be denounced; but above all, it is to be countered."

A. B. Simpson, (founder of the "Christian and Missionary Alliance," with headquarters at Nyack, N.Y.) states very clearly in his book, "The Fourfold Gospel," page 84, the following:

"The predicted ‘falling away,' has long ago begun, and the man of sin has set in God's temple already the full time of the prophetic cycle, and the process has begun which is to ‘consume and destroy unto the end.' The Papacy has fulfilled almost all the lineaments of its marvelous portrait."

Again, in "The Christian and Missionary Alliance" magazine, editorial page, August 1, 1903, we read:

"The death of the Pope after a protracted illness and a prolonged career of successful administration of the great religious body over which he presided, marked an epoch of great importance. While all bitter controversial spirit may well be hushed in the presence of death, ....yet we cannot but utter a humble protest against the reckless and indiscriminate way in which many Christians and Christian journals seem to forget notwithstanding the highest personal qualities, that this man was the head of and front for the most pernicious and dangerous system of religion on earth today, the very antichrist of prophecy and the unchanged enemy of Christ and His most holy faith."

Certainly there is no mistaking the intent of dear Brother Simpson's words in this editorial for which I give thanks to our dear Lord for recording such a witness for later generations. Hallelujah!

J.C. Ryle, in his book, "Warnings to the Churches," (Published by The Banner of Truth Trust, page 163) states:

"Surely, when the mind of God about idolatry is so plainly revealed to us in His Word, it seems the height of infatuation in any one to join a church so steeped in idolatries as the Church of Rome. To enter into communion with her, when God is saying, ‘Come out of her, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues' (Rev. 18:4), to seek her when the Lord is warning us to leave her -- to become her subjects when the Lord's voice is crying, ‘Escape for thy life, flee from the wrath to come;' all this is mental blindness."

Again on page 166, we read:

"When Rome has repealed the decrees of Trent, and her additions to the creed , -- when Rome has recanted her false and unscriptural doctrines, -- when Rome has formally renounced image-worship, Mary-worship, and trans-substantiation, -- then, and not till then, it will be time to talk of reunion with her. Till then there is a gulf between us which cannot be honestly bridged. Till then I call on all Churchmen to resist to the death this idea of reunion with Rome. Till then let our watch-words be ‘No peace with Rome! No communion with idolaters!' Well says the admirable Bishop Jewell, in his Apology, "We do not decline concord and peace with men; but we will not continue in a state of war with God that we might have peace with men! -- If the Pope does indeed desire we should be reconciled to him, he ought first to reconcile himself to God.'"

John Wesley in his "Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament," Revelation 13:1, Proposition 5, Page 697:

"The beast is the Romish papacy. This manifestly follows from the third and fourth propositions: the beast has a strict connection with the city of Rome; and the beast is now existing. Therefore, either there is some other power more strictly connected with that city, or the Pope is the beast."

Albert Barnes in his one volume commentary on the New Testament, published by Kregel, also declares without any hesitation, that Rome is Babylon (see Revelation 13 and 17). My copy is on loan at the present time.

Henry H. Halley in the famous "Halley's Bible Handbook," published by Zondervan, contrasts the Roman Papacy with the Beast of Revelation 13 and in Revelation 17, Page 732, he states:

"The horrors of the Inquisition, ordered and maintained by the Popes, over a period of five hundred years, in which unnumbered millions were tortured and burned, constitute the MOST BRUTAL BEASTLY AND DEVILISH PICTURE in all history. It is inconceivable that any Ecclesiastical Organization, in its mania for power, could have distorted and desecrated and corrupted, for its own exaltation, the beautiful and holy religion of Jesus, as the Papacy has done. But Facts are Facts. And, most amazing of all, it seems exactly pre-figured in Revelation. No wonder John's vision made him sick at heart (10:10)."

Matthew Henry, commenting on II Thessalonians 2:4:

"...to whom can this better apply than to the Bishops of Rome...?"

Bishop Ellicott has this to say concerning Revelation 17:

"Is it then, the question must be asked, Papal Rome? The answer is: In so far as Papal Rome has wielded tyrant power, turned persecutor, stood between the spirits of men and Christ, depraved men's consciences, withheld the truth, connived at visiousness, sought aggrandizement, and been a political machine rather than a witness for the righteous King, she has inherited the features of Babylon. The recognition of these features led Dante to apply this very passage in the Apocalypse to Rome under the rule of worldly and tyrant Popes..."

William Smith, in his "Smith's Bible Dictionary," published by Holman, (Four Thousand Questions and Answers), page 405:

"59. What was the fourth beast like? -- It was terrible and strong, and had iron teeth and ten horns.

61. Who is the representative of that fourth or final power now? -- The Pope of Rome. The popish system, as far as it has any remaining power."

These are his comments on Daniel.

Walter Criswell, pastor of the famed First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas commenting on Revelation 17:

"...the worship of mother and child spread throughout the whole world, from Babylon to Assyria, to Phoenicia, to Pergamos, and finally to Rome itself. There the Roman Emperor was elected Pontifex Maximus... and when the Roman Emperor passed away, that title of the rites and mysteries of the cult of mother and child, the Babylon mystery of idolatry, was assumed by the Bishop of Rome."

Dr. H. Ward Beecher, "The Papal Conspiracy Exposed," pages 176-177:

"The system, as a system, is false and pernicious."

Dean Alford, "Letters From Abroad," pages 66-67:

"Rome...is the worst city in the civilized world."

John Albert Bengel, "New Testament Word Studies," Volume II, page 895 (Published by Kregel):

"5. The Beast is the Roman Papacy."

Wycliffe, Luther, Melanchthon, Knox, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, etc., also spoke of the Roman Church being Babylon and the Papacy being the Anti-christ.

[Fausto]

Excellent quotations John, I shall keep these in mind for my next sermon.

People should take cognaissance of the fact that the Roman church is the only one using apostasy of the worst kind to fulfil its purposes, the other churches are but a sample...this is the Harlot mentioned in the bible, the scarlet woman mounting on the beast.

Anyone doubting that has not properly studied and analized prophecy!

[jasd]

Whew, quite the archival compilation there.

You'll have to help me out - as I admit to having little familiarity with some of those quoted above.

Which of those aforementioned are Sabbatarians? I ask because I tend to the supposition that they, all, are Sunday worshippers, yes?

So, I guess my question would be, "Are we indulging in a bit of 'picking and choosing' here?"

(I don't mean to imply that I begin to see a pattern emerging re the .Org, but you see my predicament, yes?)

I mean, why would one avail oneself of only this quote or that; this belief of theirs held or that?

Umm, they are right except where they are wrong?