Do scars remain in Jesus' feet and hands?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

....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?<<

Yes, “given to” is the language Jesus Christ used. That said,

do you believe that should Gd give me grace that – there is none left for you? Is there a sense of limited exclusivity that prohibits Gd from giving the Kingdom of Gd to more than one nation? What’s the difference between the Kingdom of Gd and the Kingdom of Heaven? Anyway,

there was no other nation, which [immediately] began to proclaimed Jesus Christ, and Him crucified – and have done so continuously – for, going on, millennia. Other than smallish churches of the ekklesia and some few, purported, tribal units – there was none other. I would say that that argues for prima facie evidence – regardless the occasional moue from this, that, or another Protesting group.

(however loosely, it may correlate by aspects, to the parable of the talent being taken from the unproductive steward)

Quote:

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. [...]<<

That is good – as far as it goes; however, more specifically...

“Though collections of sacred writings, varying in extent, existed in the various local Churches of Christendom, the canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled by the Church toward the end of the fourth century—at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397, whence it was sent to Rome for confirmation in 419.”

In other words, no scriptoriums and no collation until the matter was singularly, taken up.

>>Therefore I do not accept the conclusion that we are indebted to the Roman Catholic's decision regarding the content of Scripture.<<

That said, and though, as I assume, you do not accept the Apocrypha – EGW suggests that the wise should study it, yes? [/paraphrased]

Go figure; EGW subscribes to the Apocrypha.

>>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.<<

One must remember that the succession of Popes began in the AD 70s, beginning with Pope St Cletus, followed by Pope St Clement I. The ‘church’ being referenced, by and large, is the Universal Church.

>>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.<<

As I said,

Quote:

Quote:John317

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." [ed.jasd]

...else we’d also have the Pseudepigrapha and other such – canonized.

[John317]

... you do not accept the Apocrypha

Quote:

Do you "accept" it in the same way that you accept the Hebrew Bible? I don't at all. Even the Catholic Church admits that much of the Apocrypha is false and undependable.

Neither the NT never refers to it nor quotes it. There is no evidence that either Jesus or the apostles or prophets accepted it as inspired.

Do I read it? Yes, I do. It provides some interesting information regarding the period between the Testaments.

That needs to looked at carefully and in context. Some time we ought to have a thread devoted to that subject where we could discuss it at some length.

It's important to keep in mind the fact that she never said that Christians should study the whole Apocrypha, nor did she indicate that she believed the books to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, I believe it is an exaggeration to say that Ellen White "subscribes to the Apocrypha," as if she were saying that we should believe it the way we do the Bible.

The fact is that she never again referred to it. Her silence about the Apocrypha during the remaining 50+ years of her life, and the fact that she referred to it only once, is telling indeed. Whatever else a person may think of it, it certainly does not rise to a general support of the Apocrypha as Scripture.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

....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.<<

This parallels the “historical facts” I reference. Some date the first year of Balshazzar at 551 BC – others, well...

(though I harbor strong misgivings re the Babylonian Talmud, the following may interest you)

“The chronology of the three Babylonian kings is given in the Talmud as follows: Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-five years, Evil-merodach twenty-three, and Belshazzar was monarch of Babylonia for two years, being killed at the beginning of the third year on the fatal night of the fall of Babylon (Meg. 11b).”

The events did happen, after all, a long, long time ago...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

... He made Belshazzar co-regent in 553 B.C., leaving him in charge of Babylon's defense.

[...] 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?

Quote:John317

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.

Two, three, an even dozen or fourteen years... what’s a coupla years between friends, eh?

>>It was therefore still in process of "arising," not descending or disappearing.<<

“still in process of arising”? So, you understand ‘the act of coming to a close, that is, termination, expiration’ – as, “still in process of arising”, yes? That certainly puts a new interpretation to

the future tense – “shall arise”!

Genesius’s Lexicon: to come forth, to exist Daniel 7:17

>>That much is obvious.<<

Well, if that is so – it seems that Gd adjured ”...seal the book” for nothing, yes?

[jasd]

>>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:

[...]

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?<<

“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

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

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

>>Is there such a thing as a proxy? What is that?<<

I really cannot see any evidence for the concept of “proxy” in either the prophetic passage or in the events as they occurred. It might behoove us to remember that it was the Pope who

functioned as exarch over an exarchate – meaning, an ‘outlying province’ – that being, Rome. If anyone functioned as proxy – it would not have been the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire. It would have been the exarch Pope.

>>The fact is that the pope has never had a military of his own..<<

...as the Lombards demonstrated for the next coupla centuries.

[John317]

>>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:

[...]

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?<<

“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

But is this true? I have looked at the lists of most of the major writers on the subject, including historians such as Gibbon's. Writers on the prophecies do not give 65 different kingdoms.

Please provide documentation and evidence of the list of the 65 different kingdoms that have been put forward. Who are the scholars and Bible students who have put forward these lists?

There is very little variation among the lists. Most of the nations named are the ancestors of the current major nations of Western Europe and most of the names of those people are recognizable.

I have a dozen study Bibles edited and published by as many various Christian churches, and they all give the same basic information. These are not written or published by Adventists. Even my Catholic study Bible says in its notes that the first beast in Daniel 7 represents Babylon, and it says also that the fourth beast in Daniel 7 is Rome.

Could they be wrong? Certainly. Anyone could be wrong. I am not pointing to those Protestant or Catholic Bible's as authorities at all. But the point is that there is excellent evidence and reason for agreement among all of these scholars . We have to study the reasoning they give and their evidence.

There is a good reason why all those scholars and teachers and writers agree about this aspect of the prophecy. And that is the evidence leads to that conclusion.

What is the evidence?

It is that the four empires of Daniel 2 clearly parallel the four empires of Daniel 7 and the 3 (minus Babylon) in Daniel 8. Each gives four world empire, after which you have a divided Rome, and then the Judgement or the Second Coming. In Daniel 7 the judgment follows the fourth empire which is divided into 10 crowns (7: 22, 26, 27). In Daniel 8, the little horn, which grew exceedingly great out of the north is destroyed "without hand" (8:25). The last line parallels 2 Thess. 2:8.

Each chapter builds on and adds to the information given in the previous chapter about the various world powers.

[jasd]

>>They first gave up the idea that the Sabbath had any importance in terms of eschatology, or last-day events or issues.<<

And, it does? How so?

>>...before rejecting the Sabbath.<<

Thereupon I would disagree with a developed doctrine of the .Org. I believe The Sabbath is so important to Gd – that He removed it, as I’ve stated before, from its ongoing profanation by man – securing it until the millennial ministry. That is, however, not put forward in

a negatively critical sense.

I believe that should one obey Gd according to the prompting of his/her heart – it is good and no dishonor attaches.

>>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.<<

It is my opinion that the focus should lie more with a recalibration of doctrines that are held to be truths – rather than to fret about losses.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Then you must closely scrutinize the lexical significance of Daniel 12:4 and its correlation to those ‘early’ conjectures.

>>Show me your reasoning and how you use the evidence.<<

Again, but dwelling only upon the delivered injunction, “...seal the book.” A simple command, yes? Difficult to misunderstand, yes? One wonders at the early and seemingly deliberate attempt(s) to circumvent Gd. Okay,

one assumes the book was sealed. (Why? Most apparently, Gd had reason to secure the prophecies of Daniel until such time as ours – and for those who come after) So, what’s next? Note: “[even] to the time of the end.” What’s that!? That is,

“many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” Those are the temporal markers for the ‘unsealing’ of the prophecies in Daniel. “and” functions conjugally; therefor, the two clauses are concurrent and represent but one aspect of its temporality.

>>What do you see that cannot stand up under close scrutiny?<<

Almost the entirety of the prophecies, real and/or imagined – else – what was there to be sealed. Common-sensically, per the injunction, Gd only permitted the obvious, the provable – the histories of the book, as it were. All peripheral exegeses of the prophecies beforehand – can only be described as premature and wrested.

>>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,<<

Referencing specifically, the Book of Daniel – everything not acutely delineated in text and developed prior to this last century – must be judged specious. If we cling to dogmas and doctrines withstanding Gd’s clearly understood injunction – we diminish Gd’s word.

>>...provided it is based on good Biblical exegetical principles and correct historical information.<<

What “good Biblical exegetical principles”? One simply cannot proclaim as doctrines an exegesis derived from a sealed book.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

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.<<

I suppose that this turns upon the definition of “absolute expiration” and just how absolute was absolute.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

(though I harbor strong misgivings re the Babylonian Talmud, the following may interest you)

“The chronology of the three Babylonian kings is given in the Talmud as follows: Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-five years, Evil-merodach twenty-three, and Belshazzar was monarch of Babylonia for two years, being killed at the beginning of the third year on the fatal night of the fall of Babylon (Meg. 11b).”

The events did happen, after all, a long, long time ago...

>>That being the undeniable case, it shows that "shall arise" did not preclude Babylon at all.<<

One must exercise extreme caution when dealing with premises.

>>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.<< [ed.jasd]

I suppose one might entertain a definition of “ascending” that somehow translates to “shall arise”; however, that would be different from how I construe the matter. Be that as it may,

I believe that – given its context – should one exegete clinically rather than denominationally, one arrives at the conclusion that “shall arise” connotes an event further future than an event described as ‘already ascending’.

>>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?<< [ed.jasd]

Naturally, I cannot agree with the assessment.

[John317]

I tried to send you a PM about the possibility of using the "quick quote." It would really simplify and quicken responding to your posts. Otherwise I find it necessary to first separate all of your statements from my own, and it absorbs so much time.

I enjoy "talking" with you very much, really, so I am wondering if you could use the quick quotes so we can communicate even better.

Send me a PM if I can help.

[jasd]

>>I tried to send you a PM about the possibility of using the "quick quote."<<

I’ve opted to stick with the old-fashioned manner of posting – being the dinosaur I am. I prefer my method as I see others using ‘stacked quotes’ and wondering, “who said what”?

>>It would really simplify and quicken responding to your posts.<<

What can be simpler than to note two arrows preceding the quote and two more ending the quote? Anyway,

anything that slows you down is a plus

>>Otherwise I find it necessary to first separate all of your statements from my own, and it absorbs so much time.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

What can be simpler than to note two arrows preceding the quote and two more ending the quote? Anyway,

anything that slows you down is a plus

>>I enjoy "talking" to you very much, really, so I am wondering if you could use the quick quotes so we can really communicate well.<<

Thanks, but I respectfully demur.

(you may have been having difficulty reading my immediately above post – as I was still ‘proofing’)

[jasd]

>>Communism as I see it has had its time and it is not part of the end time prophecy.<<

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Well, then, it’s certain you would not attach any significance to the color of the beast of Revelation 17; or, perhaps, you see the color red leading in another direction?

>>...except of course for the 4th one, that however becomes obvious when you start putting all of the puzzle pieces together.<< [ed.jasd]

That’s just it – how can anything sealed yield that which is purportedly – obvious?

>>The RCC did indeed reign from 538 A.D. till 1798 A.D.<<

Reign? Maybe, it turns upon degree? Where do the Lombards figure in the equation?

You may find the following interesting:

In “...AD 606, Emperor Phocas conferred the title of Pope on Boniface III, to the overthrow of the temporal power (1866-1870)...” – which brings into view a 1260 year period.

>>There is also no doubt that it was the only religious institution with absolute power during this time.<<

Right you are.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

An apologist for the church and founder of the Jesuits, I believe.

>>You believe that is all Loyola was? Really?<<

No, but then I wasn’t writing a biography of the man.

>>Do you perhaps know of the Jesuit history and their pursuits?<<

Are you referring to the hysteria that sometimes accompanies a discussion of the Society/order – or are you referencing such as: they invested inordinately in providing excellent education? And such...?

>>Do the names Ribera and Alcazar meen anything to you?<<

Aren’t they buzzwords?

>>The Jesuits were and are the "army" of the pope in fact they have their own "black pope" who at the time was Loyola, yes I believe he may have been portrayed as an apologist!<<

Yes, I am aware of the oath taken by Jesuits re the “black pope”.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The Bible you read and study was compiled by that same church.

>>I beg to disagree, according to the Wikipedia it does not seem like that statement is true:<<

Okay, I’m good with your position.

>>The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England.

[...]

By the first half of the 18th Century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the sole English translation in current use in Protestant churches.<<

It seems that you are addressing translation more than you are addressing compilation.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Gd forbade wresting the book prematurely (Dan 12:4) Anything premature is, prima facie, error.

>>Do you decide what is premature,<<

Yes, where I am concerned.

>>...we believe the scripture was "wrested" in +/- 1848 just after the great disappointment,<<

Then, of course, I’d have to say that whatever was “wrested” prematurely is – error. People were yet to ‘run to and fro’.

>>...by now I suggest you read "the great controversy"<<

I’ve done so.

>>...as I would not like to re-invent the wheel!<<

It may be that mankind would benefit greatly were you to actually reinvent the wheel, as, there are wheels and there are wheels. There are ‘wheels’ made with great care and precision, specifically crafted to be a part of an $80,000 Patek Philippe watch; virtual ‘wheels’ that may function gyroscopically – as part of actual wheels of crystalline alloy – to power flight through dimensions, space, and time and then there are wheels belonging on goat carts.

>>Although I do not wish to sound angry, at times I may seem so, but it is not so...I simply get excited when things seem so clear to me and are dubious to others.<<

Nothing wrong with excitement.

[John317]

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’.

Looks like you have studied astrology quite a bit.

I don't see astrology as being at all helpful in understanding any of the prophecies of the Bible.

That is different from astronomy. Maybe you are talking about astronomy. But astrology is about the effects of the stars on our lives, etc. God alone knows the future and communicates this to us through His word, and we shouldn't be trying to find those things out by studying astrology. Nor should we be studying astrological charts or the zodiac in order find out what decisions to make. We should pray and study God's word, asking for His guidance and wisdom.

From wikipedia on astrology:

Astrology can be defined as the study of the positions of celestial bodies in the belief that their movements either directly influence life on Earth or correspond somehow to events experienced on a human scale. Modern astrologers define astrology as a symbolic language, an art form, and a form of divination. Despite differences of definitions, a common assumption of astrology is the use of celestial placements in order to explain past and present events and predict the future.

[Fausto]

Nothing wrong with excitement.

[John317]

....Two, three, an even dozen or fourteen years... what’s a coupla years between friends, eh?

Where did you get the idea that the "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" ?

The difference between 1 year and 14 is very significant because your point is that when Daniel had the vision recorded in Daniel 7, the first beast could not represent Babylon since the vision was given at a time when Babylon was "at the absolute expiration."

But the facts show that Babylon was not "at the absolute expiration" as you say. Babylon was still very much in existence as a great empire at that time. It would be another 14 years before Babylon would fall.

That means that your thesis above is invalid, and it explains why virtually all Bible scholars and close students of Daniel agree that the first beast, the lion, represents Babylon. As I said earlier, in all of about 12 study Bibles that I have, published by Catholic and various protestant groups alike, they all say that this first beast represents Babylon, meaning that this first beast is the same power as the first power symbolized by the head of gold in Daniel 2.

We've also seen archeological and historical reasons for choosing the lion as a symbol of the empire and city: the lion was used as a symbol of the city by the Babylonian government. The Babylonian government had paintings and images of the lion all over the city, some of which images are on display in various museums around the world.

It also stands to reason, and follows good Biblical principles of interpretation, that the 4 empires of Daniel 7 parallel the 4 empires of Daniel 2 and Daniel 8. Those chapters describe 4 great empires, followed by the break up of Rome, and then the coming of God's kingdom. The little horn power is judged and destroyed "without [human] hand." It arises out of the fourth empire-- Rome-- and is still in existence at the time of the Second Coming of Christ. (See 2 Thess. 2: 4-10.)

Please review the following information in relationship to the prophecy given in Daniel 7: 1:

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.

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

....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?<<

Yes, “given to” is the language Jesus Christ used.

Christ doesn't "give His Kingdom" to anyone or to any city or empire. It is still Christ's Kingdom. He allows people to enter into His Kingdom if they meet certain conditions. For instance, John 3: 3, 5; 1 Cor. 6: 9-11; Rev. 22: 14 (KJV or NASB).

But there is nothing in the Bible indicating that God gave the kingdom to the Roman church any more than to any other congregation.

[John317]

Quote:

One must remember that the succession of Popes began in the AD 70s, beginning with Pope St Cletus, followed by Pope St Clement I. The ‘church’ being referenced, by and large, is the Universal Church.

Could you relate that to the topic of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation?

What church do you have in mind by the term "Universal Church"? The Roman Catholic Church refers to itself under that term. But for me, the universal church is the same as what people often call "the invisible church," which includes all the saved throughout the ages, in all nations of the world.

In the first century there was only the Christian church, period. So the simple fact that you confessed Christ as Lord meant that you belonged in the whole church; you weren't only associated with a particular portion of it.

This changed about the time that Rome fell, in 476 AD.

Did you know that a number of prominent, early Christian leaders believed that the Antichrist power would not be manifested until the collapse of the Roman Empire? They referred to the prophecies and to the preaching of Paul for this information.

[John317]

JOHN3:17-->>They first gave up the idea that the Sabbath had any importance in terms of eschatology, or last-day events or issues.<<

And, it does? How so?

The Sea-beast and the second Beast of Rev. 13 will attempt to compel people of the whole world to disobey God's commandments. It will be the same power that "intended to change the times and the law" referred to in Daniel 7: 25. The only part of the law of God having to do with time is the Sabbath commandment of the Ten Commandments.

It is the little horn power of Daniel 7 and 8 who takes away Christ's sanctuary and casts down the truth [of God] to the ground (8: 11, 12).

At the end of time, the Bible teaches that the world will be divided into two groups: the vast majority will obey the two beasts of Rev. 13, and then there will be a small group, "a remnant," who by God's grace and power will keep all of God's commandments, which includes the Sabbath commandment (Rev. 12: 17; 14: 13).

All people will be faced with a decision just like the young men faced in Daniel 3, whether to obey man or whether to obey God. Today is the day to decide what we will do at that time.

We'll study those things in greater detail and have an opportunity to talk about them as we keep discussing Daniel and Revelation.

See The Great Controversy, p. 605.

[John317]

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- The first year of Belshazzar's reign was in 553 BC.

Neo-Babylon fell in 539 BC.<<

Do you have the name of the historian or the reference? I am going by all the Bible dictionaries (Unger's Bible Dictionary and also Davis' and the SDA BC Dictionary-- all giving the same year, 553 BC)-- as well as by the wikipedia and other sources online.

What historian or book or source gives the first year of Belshazzar's reign as 551 BC?

Quote:

JASD-- (though I harbor strong misgivings re the Babylonian Talmud, the following may interest you)

“The chronology of the three Babylonian kings is given in the Talmud as follows: Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-five years, Evil-merodach twenty-three, and Belshazzar was monarch of Babylonia for two years, being killed at the beginning of the third year on the fatal night of the fall of Babylon (Meg. 11b).”

The events did happen, after all, a long, long time ago...

Yes, you're right, they did. But the simple fact that they occurred a long time ago does not prevent us from knowing when those events happened because they were recorded in ancient records and are described in the histories regarding the fall of Babylon and the rise of the Medo-Persian Empire.

One of the ancient historical records about it is called the Nabunaid Chronicle. It is frequently referred to in the various history books and in the Bible dictionaries. It substantiates the truth of the book of Daniel. I find that very exciting indeed. I'm sure you feel the same way.

[John317]

.......Thereupon I would disagree with a developed doctrine of the .Org. I believe The Sabbath is so important to Gd – that He removed it, as I’ve stated before, from its ongoing profanation by man – securing it until the millennial ministry. That is, however, not put forward in

a negatively critical sense.

I believe that should one obey Gd according to the prompting of his/her heart – it is good and no dishonor attaches.

Could you explain what you mean? How did God remove the Sabbath? Is there any clear evidence of this in the Bible?

What if the promptings of our heart are contrary to Scripture? Shouldn't our promptings be conformed to the word of God? The promptings of my heart used to tell me that evil was good. I found out evil wasn't good after all, by comparing my heart's promptings to the Bible testimony. My heart was wrong; the word of God was and is right.

Some people have told me that they know the Bible teaches the seventh-day Sabbath but they are waiting for God to speak personally to them about it before they will keep it.

They are going by their heart, not by the Bible. I think that can be dangerous, don't you? For instance, what if my heart tells me that it's OK to sin? Should I go ahead and follow my heart and sin? I ask this because I had to make up my mind about it. I decided I would obey the Bible and say no to my heart, which in this case told me that it was right for me to live in open sin.

The problem was that I was spiritually drunk or disoriented. It took the Bible to help me see straight.

Bottom line: our hearts can mislead us, do often mislead us. The Bible never does mislead us. Our hearts lie to us because they often tell us what we want to hear rather than what is right. Listen to the Word. I'm so glad I did!!

[John317]

Quote:

JASD-- 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.

Quote:

JASD-- I suppose that this turns upon the definition of “absolute expiration” and just how absolute was absolute.

Please give documentary evidence showing that any historian has said that in 553 BC, Babylon was near "absolute expiration".

What is the evidence for such a statement concerning the time of the vision given in Daniel 7: 4?

If such evidence exists, please show it.

[John317]

Let's simply lay out what the Bible says about the little horn power and then look at history and see if there is anyone who fulfills the identifying marks.

Please feel free to object or question at any point. My only request is that you have a reason and evidence for objecting and that you state these.

1) Arise out of pagan Rome. Roman roots. Daniel 7: 7, 8, 23, 24.

2) Come up after pagan Rome fell in AD 476. Daniel 7: 24.

3) Come up in Europe. Daniel 7: 8.

4) Overthrow three kingdoms. The third kingdom of the original ten was overthrown in AD 538. This is when the little horn came to power. Daniel 7:8, 20, 24.

5) Reign for 1, 260 years from A.D. 538 to 1798 and then lose its world power. In the last days it regains it world power. Daniel 7:25; Rev. 13:5.

6) Make war with and persecute Christians during the 1,260 years. Daniel 7: 21, 25; Rev. 13:7.

7) Have a man at its head who speaks and sees for it. Daniel 7:8.

8) Speak words of blasphemy: claiming to be God on earth and having the power to forgive sin. Daniel 7: 25; Revelation 13:5; John 10:33; Luke 5: 21.

9) Be diverse from the other nations of Europe: a religious and political power. Daniel 7: 24; Rev. 13: 4, 8.

10) Be universal and world-wide. Having no national boundaries, it will permeate all nations. Revelation 13: 3, 7-8.

This is what the Bible says. All we need to do is go to history to find who fulfills these ten points.

Is there more then one power that fulfills ALL the points? Let's see.

[Fausto]

Let's simply lay out what the Bible says about the little horn power and then look at history and see if there is anyone who fulfills the identifying marks.

[John317]

Quote:

To me both preterism and futurism strectch the imagination to no end, John used 10 points some people use 13,can you still deny it after that?

You're right, Fausto. There are actually about 13 identifying marks to help us know who this power is, but I have only given the first 10 here because they are in the part of Daniel we're examining here.

Now that you've mentioned them, could you give those other 3 identifying marks along with their references?

[Fausto]

Now that you've mentioned them, could you give those other 3 identifying marks along with their references?

I'll give it a bash John!

11) It was wounded to death then healed (rev 13:3;12) wounded to death - Pope captured by Berthier and taken captive (1798), healed - papacy restored by Mussolinin (1929)

12) It will be on earth till the second coming (Dan 7:21,22)

13) It will think to change times and laws (Dan 7:25), LAWS - observance of 4th commandment changed from Sabbath to Sunday, changes to calendar (Gregorian - currently used)

I think it is these three hopefully I did not repeat yours!