Fausto Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 If Jesus allows this freedom on something so important as the day He has commanded to remember, it would seem to be logical, to think for one's self in other matters is a given. And I would also suggest, to think for one's self does not mean that our thinking turns error into Truth just because we are free to think it does.
jasd Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Quote: Quote: Quote:jasd I take the Lion of Daniel 7 to represent today’s Kingdoms British Isles, America, and sundry other – basically, English-speaking peoples. Quote:John317 >>Why? Can you show from the Bible and history why the lion should be understood as representing the English speaking people?<< Quote:jasd Moreso, than one might show the lion symbolized Babylonia. >>Check out the pictures of lions used as symbols in ancient Babylon. Pictures of lions were all over the walls of that ancient city. It was a common symbol,<< I take your point. Certainly, the city Babylon seems to have been enamored with the figure of the lion; as any number of other kings, nations, states, etc – England, probably being the most notable – with mebbe, Egypt, with its Sphinx, also being a noteworthy example. >> From Sean Hannity's website describing his tour of ancient Babylon: "There were no fewer than 575 reliefs located throughout the ruins: of lions (symbols of Ishtar)..."<< It seems that Sean Hannity stumbled unto the mother of all mother lodes of lion symbols; sheesh, 575! That does give one pause. Which reminds me of a trip I took through the State of Iowa...: mile after mile; hour upon hour; towns, cities, barns and silos; seemingly, hundreds and hundreds of miles passing! with nothing but corn – soya bean fields and hogs added. One would have thought that the State of Iowa would most certainly have been represented by the ubiquitous Corn. However, that is not the case. The lowly wild rose represents the State of Iowa. Ubiquitousness, apparently, being no more than ubiquitous. >>...which is almost certainly why God chose to represent that empire by the lion.<< Dictum: “An apocalyptic commentary which explains everything is self-convicted of error.” --Dean Alford (Gr Test) >>The Babylonian Kingdom saw themselves as being properly symbolized by the lion.<< As must have – by the same criterion – the Assyrians before them, and preceding them – the Sumerians. Even the Egyptians have their Sphinx and their double lions... The lion seemed to be a transcending figure found almost throughout the entire world; however, be that as it may, to whom does Writ apply the lion as signifier/symbol? Eze 19:1 Moreover take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel, Eze 19:2 And say, What [is] thy mother? A lioness: she lay down among lions, she nourished her whelps among young lions. There are many texts that apply the lion symbol to the COI; that said, it might prove interesting to read of the lions which were incorporated into the First Temple (1 Kings 7 and 10). >>1) The ancient lion of Babylon on the Ishtar Gate was made of molded brick with polychrome glaze and appeared along the side of the 'Processional Way' in Babylon around 604-562 B.C.<< The above statement, though factual in some aspects, nevertheless errs... It is true that the Processional Way was decorated with lions; however, the very Ishtar Gate had upon it stylized Dragons and Bulls. >>2) "The Lion of Babylon, large and splendidly carved in basalt,<< One asks, “Was the ‘Lion of Babylon’ identified as such by an original reference or an inscription of sorts – or was it later dubbed the ‘Lion of Babylon’ by its discoverers?” Thanks, an interesting and very informative post.
jasd Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Quote: Quote:jasd was practically alone in its endeavour to secure the Biblical MSS, such as they were, for posterity – the same posterity includes you and me. Remember, that this time of privation included, famine, disease, extreme cold, migrations, societal collapse, etc >>I can hardly believe you'd make such a quote,<< I made the quote without exclusion of any other fact – noble, or despicable. >>I mentioned the deaths in their (chruch) dungeons, through the heaviest of persecution, through torture, burning at the stake, etc, etc. Do you really want to ignore the Catholic church's endeavours,<< You reference your aforementioned 50,000,000 deaths by the hands of the RCC, yes? Gibbons, right? My question is, “From what compilations of ‘facts’ contributed to that number? I mean, there may truly have been 50 mil saints who died by the hands of the church – but, were there, during those Dark times – censors abroad, taking headcount in Europe?” And, no – I am not unaware of the RCC’s terrible past. However, given the words of Jesus Christ in the following... Matt 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. what “nation”, given the historical facts, is in view? Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. Regardless, that it may have been Claudia (of the British Isles) who first brought the gospel to Rome – history bears out that, indeed, the gospel of the kingdom was taken to a nation bearing the fruits thereof. But what of the atrocities committed by the church!? Eze 16:47 Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as [if that were] a very little [thing], thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways. Eze 16:48 [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Eze 16:51 Neither hath Samaria (Samaria was the Northern Kingdom of Israel) committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done. Eze 16:52 Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters. Of course, Samaria was the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Judah did more abominably than either Samaria or Sodom; yet, Gd destroyed Sodom and divorced Israel – whilst cleaving to Judah. My observation is..., yes, the RCC has committed abominable acts; however, given that though Judah was more abominable than either Samaria or Sodom, Gd neither destroyed nor divorced Judah. How then are we more qualified to judge than Gd. Judgement is Jesus Christ’s. >>...what about Loyola who was he?<< An apologist for the church and founder of the Jesuits, I believe. >>You need to go and read the Fox's book of martyr's my friend, then you will start understanding what was behind the scenes.<< I’ve read the book. And yes, what is depicted is utterly disturbing and unforgivable. That said, it must be borne in mind that the church’s authority and obligations were secular/temporal as well as ecclesiastical. >>I owe nothing to the catholic church, except for the fact that I was thrown "holy" water on my head much to my disapproval I can show youthe photos, besides I could not voice my opinion then!<< The Bible you read and study was compiled by that same church. >>Besides all this, and I am no bible student...no...really! The lion being babylon...well Daniel himself interprets that for us, why should we forsake it?<< 1/ Gd forbade wresting the book prematurely (Dan 12:4) Anything premature is, prima facie, error. 2/ Historical facts bear out that the first year of Balshazzar’s reign was at the absolute expiration of the Babylonian Kingdom. The verb tense ‘shall arise’ precludes Babylonia, whether symbolized by lion, dragon, or bull. 3/ “And the ten horns out of this kingdom [are] ten kings [that] shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.” (Dan 7:24). Note: that prophecy requires the “diverse horn/king” to subdue three kings – he must do it – not a third party such as Justinian or Belisarius... 4/ etc
jasd Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Quote: Quote:jasd >>Let us just add the last 10 tribes, with the ones removed (3 are taken down by the little horn).<< --(Jon317) One wonders: why could not Maxwell, Smith, and Anderson agree upon the list of ten? >>Desmond Ford wrote, concerning the same topic, "We would offer a caveat regarding the interpretation of the ten horns. The number ten should no more be pressed in this context than in 1: 20. It is a round number frequently used in Scripture. The reality must, however, be more than five or six, or the round number four would have been used. What is represented may indeed rise to a dozen or fifteen and not transcend the symbolism. This precisely fits the situation after the fall of the Roman Empire. The resulting fragments were sometimes more, sometimes less, and rarely stable for long. Thus the lists usually used to illustrate the prophecy differ slightly one from another." (Daniel, Ford, pp. 148, 149.)<< “Good grief!” –Charlie Brown The above is directed at D & D Ford
Moderators John317 Posted August 3, 2008 Moderators Posted August 3, 2008 I enjoyed reading your post. My only point is that there does seem to be sufficient evidence of a connection between the symbol of the lion and Babylon. Most Bible commentators, however, do not have that as the main reason they believe Babylon is symbolized by the lion in Daniel 2. The fundamental reason is that the 4 kingdom of Daniel 7 seems very clearly to parallel that of Daniel 2 and 8. Also, most commentators believe that those animals had characteristics of the empires they symbolized. More on both these reason later. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 3, 2008 Moderators Posted August 3, 2008 ....And, no – I am not unaware of the RCC’s terrible past. However, given the words of Jesus Christ in the following... Matt 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. what “nation”, given the historical facts, is in view? Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. Regardless, that it may have been Claudia (of the British Isles) who first brought the gospel to Rome – history bears out that, indeed, the gospel of the kingdom was taken to a nation bearing the fruits thereof. What nation do you refer to? It appears that you are referring to Rome but do you mean, then, that God intended His Kingdom to be "given to" Rome? Quote: FAUSTO--- >>I owe nothing to the catholic church, except for the fact that I was thrown "holy" water on my head much to my disapproval I can show youthe photos, besides I could not voice my opinion then!<< Quote: JASD--- The Bible you read and study was compiled by that same church. The various manuscripts of the NT were circulated among all the individual early churches and congregations and were accepted by them as important sources of knowledge about Christ. Certain books, such certain letters of Paul, took on the same authority as the other Holy Writings. As persecution came upon the churches, believers were compelled to decide which writings were considered as too sacred or precious to surrender to the persecuting powers, which meant that they had to decide which writings they were willing to die for in order to protect. These writings were considered sacred by the believers long before any bishops made that decision. The leaders put out a list of books that the churches had already held as scripture. It was not as if the people simply submitted to a list of books that they were either unacquainted with or did not already accept as inspired. Therefore I do not accept the conclusion that we are indebted to the Roman Catholic's decision regarding the content of Scripture. This, from the wikipedia on the formation of the New Testament: Quote: The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed very slowly over many centuries. Thus, McDonald states: Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities. Similarly, from Patzia: It appears that the books that finally were canonized are those that enjoyed a special status and were utilized both frequently and universally by the church. Did Church councils have any part to play or influence? Certainly, but it is not true that the NT is a product primarily of the Roman Catholic Church or, as you put it, "The Bible you read and study was compiled by that same church." Was the Roman Catholic church important during those centuries? Yes, it certainly was. I do not think for a moment that it was all bad. I know that much good was done by it and much good is still done by it today. I don't think that has ever been in question by good students of the Christian church. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 3, 2008 Moderators Posted August 3, 2008 ....2/ Historical facts bear out that the first year of Balshazzar’s reign was at the absolute expiration of the Babylonian Kingdom. The verb tense ‘shall arise’ precludes Babylonia, whether symbolized by lion, dragon, or bull. What "historical facts" do you have reference to? The only historical facts regarding Balshazzar's reign are the following: The first year of Belshazzar's reign was in 553 BC. Neo-Babylon fell in 539 BC. Belshazzar was the son and co-regent of Nabonidus, the last ruler of Babylon. Nabonidus' first year as king was 556. He reigned until 539 BC. His son, Belshazzar, began to reign along with him in Nabonidus' third year, which was 553 BC. This from the wikipedia-- Quote: Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who after ruling only three years, went to the oasis of Tayma and devoted himself to the worship of the moon god, Sin. He made Belshazzar co-regent in 553 B.C., leaving him in charge of Babylon's defense. In the year 540 B.C. Nabonidus returned from Tayma, hoping to defend his kingdom from the Persians who were planning to advance on Babylon. In 539 B.C. Belshazzar was positioned in the city of Babylon to hold the capital, while Nabonidus, marched his troops north to meet Cyrus. On October 10, 539 B.C. Nabonidus surrendered and fled from Cyrus. Two days later, October 12, 539 B.C., the Persian armies overthrew the city of Babylon. Do these facts alter any of your thoughts concerning the prophecy of Daniel 7? It means without question that at the time of the prophecy, Babylon had about 14 years to go before it would cease to exist as an Empire. It was therefore still in process of "arising," not descending or disappearing. That much is obvious. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 3, 2008 Moderators Posted August 3, 2008 Quote: Quote:jasd >>Let us just add the last 10 tribes, with the ones removed (3 are taken down by the little horn).<< --(Jon317) One wonders: why could not Maxwell, Smith, and Anderson agree upon the list of ten? >>Desmond Ford wrote, concerning the same topic, "We would offer a caveat regarding the interpretation of the ten horns. The number ten should no more be pressed in this context than in 1: 20. It is a round number frequently used in Scripture. The reality must, however, be more than five or six, or the round number four would have been used. What is represented may indeed rise to a dozen or fifteen and not transcend the symbolism. This precisely fits the situation after the fall of the Roman Empire. The resulting fragments were sometimes more, sometimes less, and rarely stable for long. Thus the lists usually used to illustrate the prophecy differ slightly one from another." (Daniel, Ford, pp. 148, 149.)<< “Good grief!” –Charlie Brown The above is directed at D & D Ford I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the following information and explanation of the fact that Maxwell, Smith, and Anderson did not agree in every detail of their list of the 10 nations: They are in perfect agreement on the fact that Rome was the fourth beast and that Rome broke up into approximately 10 different kingdoms or nations. The divided nations went by different names at times, and there were also more than 10 tribes or peoples that were involved in the division of the Western Roman Empire, so it should not be surprising that some prefer one name over another. Maxwell: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Alemannians, Heruls, and the Sueves. (The Amazing Prophecies of Daniel, Mervyn Maxwell, pp. 71, 72). Roy Allen Anderson, (giving the list of nations as written by Elliott in his book, Horae Apocalypticae) Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Bavarians, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Alemanni, Heruli, and the Suevi. (Unveiling Daniel and Revelation, Roy Allen Anderson, p. 93.) Uriah Smith: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Bergundians, Lombards, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Huns, Heruli, and Suevi. (Daniel and Revelation, Uriah Smith, p. 58) (Also see Daniel, Desmond Ford, p. 158, where Ford compares the lists as given by Joseph Mede, Bishop Newton, Uriah Smith, Sir Issac Newton, and E.R. Thiele.) If you compare the above lists, you will see that they agree except in two instances, where Anderson has Bavarians whereas Maxwell and Smith have Lombards. Also, Smith gives Huns whereas Maxwell and Anderson have Alemanni, or Alemannians. Do you really think that the fact that these 3 students of prophecy did not agree in 2 instances throws serious doubt on the whole of their view? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 3, 2008 Moderators Posted August 3, 2008 Is there such a thing as a proxy? What is that? If I go out and do something for someone else, especially if it is a crime, and it is shown that the other person was an accomplice, that third party is considered to have done the act. That is also how the Bible sometimes portrays it. Because of the language used to describe the fall of the three original kingdoms (7:8, 20, 24), it is not necessary to conclude that the little horn power had to personally do the "subduing" or the "plucking out by the roots." The latter would require a military force, and any military force which is used to accomplish the task for the benefit of the little-horn power could for all intents and purposes be legitimately described as the little horn. The fact is that the pope has never had a military of his own but has always been dependent on the military of other states and powers to accomplish his goals. That has been true all through the history of the papacy. Yet the history books do not neglect to bring to our attention on occasion that what those troops did was virtually the same as the pope doing it. Do we say that the pope did not do certain things because the pope did not personally do them with his own hands? We can continue discussing this issue another time. I must now stop. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 3, 2008 Moderators Posted August 3, 2008 Could we absolutely guarantee that the antichrist does not include communism which is far more against Christ than the Papacy ever was. mel Let me know what you think after reading my response here: (I'd like to hear not only your conclusions but your argument, reasoning, and evidence, which show me how you arrived at your conclusion.) There is no doubt that communism is an antiChrist. Satan is really THE antiChrist. There are other powers and individuals that the Bible shows Satan uses, and all of these are antiChrist in spirit and attitude. See 1 John 2: 22; 2 John 7. The primary meaning of "antiChrist" is "in place of Christ," but secondarily it also can mean "against Christ." The antiChrist does not always say he is against Christ. The essence of Satan and of antiChrist is that of seeking to take the place of Christ. If the antiChrist power were to come right out in the open and announce to the whole world, "I am against Christ," no one would be fooled into accepting him. The antiChrist, remember, is also a liar. Satan is the father of lies. So neither he nor those he uses usually tell how they really feel about God and Christ. But the antiChrist power described in Revelation does not necessarily hate Jesus Christ. The Bible says that it causes people to get spiritually drunk on the wine of false beliefs so they are disoriented. He suppresses the truth about God's law and about Christ's plan of salvation. Daniel 8. He has a counterfeit gospel which he tries to substitute for the true gospel. But as for communism being "the antiChrist" of prophecy, no, that could not be, although communism is also a false gospel and is in opposition to Christ. It also attempts to take the place of Christ in people's hearts and lives. Yet the important point about communism is that it doesn't fulfill the prophetic characteristics of the antiChrist power which prophecy warns us about. Not all people or systems who are "antiChrists," or opposed to Christ, are the antiChrist power described in Daniel and Revelation. That power is also referred as the little horn power of Daniel 7 and 8, the man of sin, and the sea-beast power of Rev. 13. Also see Daniel 11 and the king of the North. I believe the characteristics that the Bible gives of the antiChrist power have been discussed at some length on other threads devoted to the subject. Maybe you took part in them. It's a fascinating subject for sure and one definitely worth studying. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Fausto Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Communism as I see it has had its time and it is not part of the end time prophecy. To me Daniel 2 is very clear, in fact self explanatory in that it does tell us each of the kingdom's the metal parts of the statue in the dream except of course for the 4th one, that however becomes obvious when you start putting all of the puzzle pieces together. The RCC did indeed reign from 538 A.D. till 1798 A.D. when Barthier took the pope prisioner who eventually died in exile, that is plain that it comes to 1260 years as prophecied. There is also no doubt that it was the only religious institution with absolute power during this time. 50,000,000 people dead is but a part of it and an estimate as there are no absolute records, just like there is no written records of the beliefs of the three kigdoms that were taken down by the RCC, it is recorded they were Arian by Arians had gnostic beliefs, to me it stands to reason (and yes I am definitelly speculating) that they believed in the bible as it were without the "changes" implemented by the RCC such as the change from Saturday to Sunday as the day of worship. How convenient to just get rid of them and all their records and then name them Arian! An apologist for the church and founder of the Jesuits, I believe.
jasd Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 Quote: Quote: Quote:John317 >>I have heard Herbert W. Armstrong and the Radio Church of God teach something similar about English speaking people being in prophecy. Are you familiar with what he believed on that and do you agree with him?<< Quote:jasd Yes, and no, I do not agree with him except in general terms and in several particulars. I take issue with a man who encouraged marriages based on one or more divorced spouse(s) – to be sundered. After years imposing such a requirement upon his congregation, it seemed that his infatuation with his secretary led to – a ‘revelation’ which showed his previous views to have been error. Last I heard he married his secretary – which said marriage was itself later ‘sundered’. That is only one reason I cannot subscribe to such a ministry that might be thought cultish... >>I had the father in mind.<< The father is the subject of my post. >>I have heard things about his son who got into the trouble you're talking about. I used to watch the son on TV once in a while years ago.<< The son and the father had a falling out – seemingly, over the matter of the father ordaining a man (accountant/legal advisor) whom the son thought insufficiently versed in the dogmas and doctrines of the Worldwide Church of God – to have been ordained. Yes, scandal followed both the son and the father – as well, the newly ordained Stanley Radar. The son, Garner Ted Armstrong, ended-up in Arizona – excommunicated, from the Worldwide Church of God – but with a stipend of $50,000 per annum and a small ministry. The above is drawn from the Los Angeles Times and is extemporaneous – subject to the vagaries of my memory banks :-o >>They have some good things in their material, such as regarding what happens when a man dies and also about the Sabbath.<< Of course, those are two things which I perceive to have suffered from improper exegesis. >>They also have quite a few other things in common with SDAs.<< It may be that it results from being influenced by the Church of God (Senventh Day) – one of those that diverged from the Seventh-Day Adventist. >>I brought up Armstrong only because it seems obvious that you accept some of his interpretation of prophecy, particularly about the English speaking people being descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.<< Well, Armstrong and I have that somewhat in common – as well appreciation for good music – oh, and divorce
jasd Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 Quote: Quote: Quote:jasd I suppose one might say that there is wisdom in ‘waiting upon the Lord’; that is, not ‘running until sent’, as it were. When Gd seals a matter until such and such time, one must consider the presumptuousness of forcing it prematurely. When we do not respect the seal of Gd we declare that Gd simply engages in meaningless superfluity. Quote:John317 >>Explain what that has to do with understanding the meaning of the text today, in 2008?<< Quote:jasd It should have nothing to do with the text today. The ‘official’ expositors or ‘prophets’ of the several .orgs, should have recognized the import of Daniel 12:4; been aware of the restrictions – “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased”; determined its confluence and “hour of its visitation”, as it were; and submitted it to the lay people for study. >>Daniel 12: 4 says the book would be sealed until the "time of the end." For one thing that does not mean that God would not allow anyone to study it and understand at least some parts of it.<< [ed.jasd] I’ve never advanced that “at least some parts [of the book of Daniel]” could not be understood. >>Second, when the time of the end shall be is open to interpretation. Personally I believe that the "time of the end" occurred at the end of the 1,260 years, or in 1798.<< That belief might bear some credence; however, didn’t so much of those ‘prophetic’ affixes re Papacy predate AD 1798? y’know, the dogmas wrested from the Book of Daniel by the Protestors – ca the 15th century...? Present or post-1798 ‘interpretations’ re Daniel 2 and 7 are simply forwards of earlier ‘developed’ expositions. That would hardly argue for a “time of the end” concurrent with “men running to and fro” and “knowledge being increased”, does it? Dictum: “An apocalyptic commentary which explains everything is self-convicted of error.” --Dean Alford (Gr Test) >>What evidence do you have that the time of the end has yet occurred?<< Your meaning eludes me. >>How do you understand the meaning of "many shall run to and fro," and "knowledge shall increase"?<< I take it to mean literally – that men shall travel extensively and frequently, and that knowledge – such as to think to change literal times and laws – should be topical. I reject, though it is imaginative, such as – purports that the text means to define a ‘rolling back and forth/to and fro’ of a scroll – to reveal ‘a greater understanding/knowledge of the Book of Daniel. :-o
Moderators John317 Posted August 4, 2008 Moderators Posted August 4, 2008 ... JASD---After years imposing such a requirement upon his congregation, it seemed that his infatuation with his secretary led to – a ‘revelation’ which showed his previous views to have been error. Last I heard he married his secretary – which said marriage was itself later ‘sundered’. That is only one reason I cannot subscribe to such a ministry that might be thought cultish... Quote: JOHN3:17-->>I had the father in mind.<< Quote: JASD-- The father is the subject of my post. Ok, I knew the son was involved in some sort of problems like that, but I did not know that Herbert W. Armstrong Sr. was doing those sorts of things too. Sorry to hear that. I was aware that father and son had a falling out but thought it had to do with Garner Ted's life-style, not doctrinal. When did it become known that the father was doing those things? It must have been only a short time before his death, right? The majority of that group gave up the Sabbath not too many years ago, didn't they? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
jasd Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 Quote: Quote:jasd Today, in 2008 – the Bible student should be vigorously studying the Books Daniel and Revelation. Forcing, prematurely, interpretations from that which Gd has sealed is – purposefully willful. >>Do you believe it would have been wrong for Issac Newton, say, in 1700, to study the book of Daniel with the intention of discovering its meaning so far as he could?<< Absolutely not. He even attempted to address Writ as a cryptogram – the study of which would yield its cipher to a system of sequential letters of the Hebrew alphabet - as used in text. >>When would it have become all right for people to open it and study it?<< I already addressed that. Quote: Quote:jasd The books you reference as being written within the last half century – basically repeat the ‘theories’ of those in my library. >>If they are merely "repeats" of "theories" that cannot stand up under close scrutiny, I don't want anything to do with them.<< Then you must closely scrutinize the lexical significance of Daniel 12:4 and its correlation to those ‘early’ conjectures. >>I don't think the scholars I am referring to are simply following theories. They are as interested in finding truth as you and I are.<< Many “theories” utilize foundations of – incorrect hypotheses. That said, should they have been as interested as you or me, they would not have disregarded the fact that Gd sealed the book – and thence, refrained from advancing “theories” ahead of the unsealing of the Book. >>I study the writings of any serious Bible student, including Catholic and Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses. I am totally open to the best historical and Biblical evidence and analysis, irrespective of when or by whom it was written.<< How, then, is the restrictive in Daniel gotten ‘round? I would stipulate – that it is gotten ‘round – only when the concurrent events of Daniel 12:4 find their fulfillment. Until then, the complete understanding of the Book remained or remains sealed. >>Have you studied Desmond Ford's commentary on Daniel?<< No. That said, and per the following... Quote: Quote:John317 >>Desmond Ford wrote, concerning the same topic, "We would offer a caveat regarding the interpretation of the ten horns. The number ten should no more be pressed in this context than in 1: 20. It is a round number frequently used in Scripture. The reality must, however, be more than five or six, or the round number four would have been used. What is represented may indeed rise to a dozen or fifteen and not transcend the symbolism. This precisely fits the situation after the fall of the Roman Empire. The resulting fragments were sometimes more, sometimes less, and rarely stable for long. Thus the lists usually used to illustrate the prophecy differ slightly one from another." (Daniel, Ford, pp. 148, 149.)<< [underlined ed.jasd] and I ask this without hubris – is the rest of what he writes re Daniel more of the same? “There is no presumption against finding in past times a partial accomplishment of such a prophecy, but the fact that twenty-eight different lists, including sixty-five ‘kingdoms,’ have been put forward in the controversy ...” -- Sir Robert Anderson >>Another good writer and professor, Ranko Stefanovic, recently wrote separate commentaries on Daniel and Revelation. Have you read them? These do not simply repeat what anyone else says but are rigorous studies that meet the highest standards of historical research and Biblical analysis and commentary.<< No, I’ve not read anything by Stefanovich; however, I note: “recently wrote”. If his writing reflects recent study – I’d be interested. Quote: Quote: Quote:JOHN317 >>When do you believe the messages of Daniel were "unsealed"?<< Quote:jasd It is a continuing process; however, that noted: this past century, when men began to run to and fro and when knowledge was increased – confluently. Especially, now. >>When did men begin to run to fro?<< This past century. >>And what does the Bible mean by "run to and fro"? Are you sure it means travel?<< Absolutely. There is no indication of metaphorical usage. >>What is the increase of knowledge? Does that mean general knowledge? Or does it mean that at the time of the end, people would have an interest in studying and gaining knowledge of the prophecies of Daniel?<< Both.
jasd Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 >>When did it become known that the father was doing those things? It must have been only a short time before his death, right?<< One assumes there were certain aspects to the incidences related – of which the Los Angeles Times was not privy – therefor, I am also limited. I do give the man his due, he reached many people with truths as he perceived them (and to a very large extent, he was spot-on). Sometimes, that is all anyone can do. And, I also give him allowance re his secretary (whom he married), he was very old – and probably craved the close relationship a marriage would have been expected to provide. Who can fault such needs? >>The majority of that group gave up the Sabbath not too many years ago, didn't they?<< Yes. The Worldwide Church of God is example of fracture. I believe it was Tkach who led the studies on the Sabbath question. Have you studied their position re the Sabbath? (I suppose I ought to acquaint myself with their position – and will make it a point to do so)
Fausto Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 All, here are the WWCG opinion on the Sabbath, as I see it they did not completelly abolish it but rather theorized it somehow. Just did not feel like reading more though! Worldwide Church of God - Sabbath
Moderators John317 Posted August 4, 2008 Moderators Posted August 4, 2008 >>When did it become known that the father was doing those things? It must have been only a short time before his death, right?<< One assumes there were certain aspects to the incidences related – of which the Los Angeles Times was not privy – therefor, I am also limited. I do give the man his due, he reached many people with truths as he perceived them (and to a very large extent, he was spot-on). Sometimes, that is all anyone can do. And, I also give him allowance re his secretary (whom he married), he was very old – and probably craved the close relationship a marriage would have been expected to provide. Who can fault such needs? >>The majority of that group gave up the Sabbath not too many years ago, didn't they?<< Yes. The Worldwide Church of God is example of fracture. I believe it was Tkach who led the studies on the Sabbath question. Have you studied their position re the Sabbath? (I suppose I ought to acquaint myself with their position – and will make it a point to do so) They first gave up the idea that the Sabbath had any importance in terms of eschatology, or last-day events or issues. They studied the writings of a former SDA pastor, Dale Ratzlaff, as well as Robert Brinsmead, both of whom began by rejecting the Investigative Judgment before rejecting the Sabbath. I see a close connection between those two doctrines. If the Investigative Judgment doctrine is believed to be untrue, as well as the writings of Ellen White, then the seventh-day Sabbath quickly loses its importance. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 4, 2008 Moderators Posted August 4, 2008 All, here are the WWCG opinion on the Sabbath, as I see it they did not completelly abolish it but rather theorized it somehow. Just did not feel like reading more though! Worldwide Church of God - Sabbath Their ultimate rejection of the Sabbath began with subtle changes in their theology about the Sabbath in relation to the New Covenant. At first, the Sabbath was still viewed as having application but just simply not in a legalistic way. Then before you knew it, they stopped keeping the Sabbath altogether. Now most of the former Sabbath-keeping members of the Radio Church of God no longer keep the Sabbath. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Fausto Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 Quote: I study the writings of any serious Bible student, including Catholic and Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses. I am totally open to the best historical and Biblical evidence and analysis, irrespective of when or by whom it was written. Don't know if you made this statement quoted above, if so I believe this is part of the problem, Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses have incorrect doctrines to start with and so they will only lead down the wrong path. Why would one waste time with people that believe Christ was basically just another prophet?
Moderators John317 Posted August 4, 2008 Moderators Posted August 4, 2008 Quote: I study the writings of any serious Bible student, including Catholic and Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses. I am totally open to the best historical and Biblical evidence and analysis, irrespective of when or by whom it was written. Don't know if you made this statement quoted above, if so I believe this is part of the problem, Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses have incorrect doctrines to start with and so they will only lead down the wrong path. Why would one waste time with people that believe Christ was basically just another prophet? No, that is actually something I said. Yes, they definitely do have many incorrect doctrines. I'm not suggesting that everyone study cults and their writings. My major in college was religious studies so I am interested in what religious beliefs people have. Mormons believe that Jesus is a God in some ways similar to "Jehovah's Witnesses." The latter believe that Jesus was created as "a god" strictly for the purpose of being a sacrifice of the exact same value as Adam. They believe Jesus was the Son of God on the earth but that after His crucifixion, He was raised as a spirit being. They believe that He returned in the spirit in 1914. Mormons believe that Jesus is one of the "Gods," and that Jesus and the Father were both once babies and that they became "Gods" by obedience to their own father. By some Adventists working with both these groups, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, many of them have left those false doctrines, have learned the truth and joined the Adventist movement. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 4, 2008 Moderators Posted August 4, 2008 Quote: John 3:17-->>They (the Radio Church of God) had some good things in their material, such as regarding what happens when a man dies and also about the Sabbath.<< Of course, those are two things which I perceive to have suffered from improper exegesis. WE could open threads some time on these subjects and look carefully at all or most of the Bible texts on them. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 4, 2008 Moderators Posted August 4, 2008 JASD-- The books you reference as being written within the last half century – basically repeat the ‘theories’ of those in my library. Quote: JOHN3:17-->>If they are merely "repeats" of "theories" that cannot stand up under close scrutiny, I don't want anything to do with them.<< Quote: JASD---Then you must closely scrutinize the lexical significance of Daniel 12:4 and its correlation to those ‘early’ conjectures. Could you help me out here? What do you see? Show me your reasoning and how you use the evidence. What do you see that cannot stand up under close scrutiny? I don't believe something ought to be thrown out just on account of its age or because it was believed a long time ago, provided it is based on good Biblical exegetical principles and correct historical information. Recently you said: Quote: Historical facts bear out that the first year of Balshazzar’s reign was at the absolute expiration of the Babylonian Kingdom. The verb tense ‘shall arise’ precludes Babylonia, whether symbolized by lion, dragon, or bull. As you realize now, however, the historical facts are that Babylon existed for another 14 years after that vision given in Daniel 7. That being the undeniable case, it shows that "shall arise" did not preclude Babylon at all. Contrarily, Babylon was by all accounts at that time still in process of ascending, certainly not yet descending or having already disappeared off the pages of history. Could you address that issue? How does such an important change in the "facts" of the case affect your understanding of the vision and its meaning? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 4, 2008 Moderators Posted August 4, 2008 Quote: JOHN3:17-- Today, in 2008 – the Bible student should be vigorously studying the Books Daniel and Revelation. JASD-- Forcing, prematurely, interpretations from that which Gd has sealed is – purposefully willful. What interpretations do you believe were forced prematurely? Quote: JOHN3:17-->>Do you believe it would have been wrong for Isaac Newton, say, in 1700, to study the book of Daniel with the intention of discovering its meaning so far as he could?<< Quote: JASD--Absolutely not. He even attempted to address Writ as a cryptogram – the study of which would yield its cipher to a system of sequential letters of the Hebrew alphabet - as used in text. If it was not wrong for Isaac Newton to study Daniel and attempt to understand it in 1700, why would it be wrong for those who followed him by more than 130 years to also study the same book with the desire that God would help them understand it? Isn't it possible, in your judgment, for those studying it in 1820 or 1860 and later, to also have some good understandings of it? Quote: JOHN3:17-->>When would it have become all right for people to open it and study it?<< Quote: JASD-- I already addressed that. ......How, then, is the restrictive in Daniel gotten ‘round? I would stipulate – that it is gotten ‘round – only when the concurrent events of Daniel 12:4 find their fulfillment. Until then, the complete understanding of the Book remained or remains sealed. My understanding is that the book of Daniel is no longer a sealed book. It was unsealed at the time of the end, a time which I believe commenced at the end of 1,260 day prophecy. That period ended in 1798. However, just because the book was unsealed at that time did not mean that it would be completely understood by either the people of that time or by us. There are still unfulfilled prophecies, for instance, in Daniel 11: 41-45, the exact meaning of which we cannot be certain. The book of Revelation was never sealed, yet there are many things in it that we do not understand. It seems to me this is a demonstration of the fact that Daniel's being unsealed does not necessarily mean we can expect to have an immediate understanding of everything it contains. Some things in prophecy are so clear that God's knew ahead of time that certain things were going to happen. For instance, the early Christians knew that the Antichrist power would come onto the world stage once the Roman Empire was taken out of the way. Yet until prophecy is fulfilled, we cannot usually know the details. Once the events prophesied come to pass, then we can look back and by comparing them to the Bible, we can see that they were what the Bible said would happen. Quote: JOHN317--- >>When do you believe the messages of Daniel were "unsealed"?<< Quote: JASD-- It is a continuing process; however, that noted: this past century, when men began to run to and fro and when knowledge was increased – confluently. Especially, now. Quote: JOHN3:17-- >>When did men begin to run to fro?<< Quote: JASD-- This past century. Quote: JOHN3:17-- >>And what does the Bible mean by "run to and fro"? Are you sure it means travel?<< Quote: JASD-- Absolutely. There is no indication of metaphorical usage. Most Bible commentators argue that there is good evidence from the language itself that the text means people would be studying the book to understand it. That is clearly the context, because the statement that "knowledge shall increase" directly follows the statement that the book would be sealed until the time of the end. I do believe the reference to "knowledge" is a general one, to the effect that knowledge of all kinds of things would increase; but that has happened since the Fifteenth and Sixteenth centuries. However, the knowledge explosion really took off in the early 1800s and it has been increasing by leaps and bounds ever since. By the same token, it's interesting to see the increase in the number of books published about Daniel's prophecies, starting about the late 18th century and how the skyrocketed in the 19th and 20th century. In contrast, between the 1st century AD and 1700, there was very little interest, relatively speaking, in the book of Daniel. Martin Luther and the Reformers really did not study it that much. That changed dramatically about the beginning of the 1800s. Quote: JOHN3:17-- >>What is the increase of knowledge? Does that mean general knowledge? Or does it mean that at the time of the end, people would have an interest in studying and gaining knowledge of the prophecies of Daniel?<< Quote: JASD-- Both. I agree. But that means we cannot discount knowledge of the meaning of Daniel just simply because it was something that people thought 100 or even 150 years ago. The only way we can tell is by testing their views through careful study and the right application of correct hermeneutical principles as well as accurate historical information. Let's suppose that we study the book of Daniel and after applying good rules of hermeneutics and accurate historical information, we discover that the people living in 1820 or 1830 had a good deal of truth. Should we reject those truths just because those people believed it? I think you'd agree with me that doing this wouldn't be either wise or reasonable. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
jasd Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 I recall you questioning whether I posted addressing Daniel 8 ‘astronomically’ or ‘astrologically’... (I’ve not been able to access the ‘Search’ function for awhile, now... so, am unable to respond – pointedly) That said, yes, I posted addressing Daniel 8 as associated with astrological ‘signs’. Lest that elicits the automatic, “Stone the astrologer!” – let me remind: it is Gd who introduced Mazzaroth to Holy Writ – it being the astrological Zodiac – though not used strictly in an astrological sense. Curiously, the astrological signs of the Mazzaroth/Zodiac parallels the narrative of the fall of man through his ultimate redemption. Example: the sun sign Virgo is associated with the Virgin; the Zodiacal sun sign of Sagittarius coincides with the same dual nature of the Redeemer; etc. Though the Zodiacal cycle employs Aries the Ram as its fist sign and ends with Pisces the Fishes – its Mazzarothic parallel apparently begins with Virgo the Virgin (facing the constellation Virgo) and ends with Leo the Lion (whose hinder parts point towards the constellation Leo), to wit, the Sphinx of Egypt. Without expanding upon the twelve sun signs, its ‘houses’, and decans -- one, already, begins to see the parallels existing... The above is the briefest synopsis.
Recommended Posts