Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

Hi Joe.

Daniel 11:33  And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.  To me, "they that understand" are the believing church.

Daniel 11:35  And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end:  To me, this refers to members of the believing church that stumble in the hardships of the tribulation; but whose strength is reinforced by grace.

See how it says that the persecution lasts until the time of the end? Yes; I see that.  Now the question then is, is this period of persecution that lasts many days the 1260 days?I believe it is; yes. I don't see any way around the fact that it has to be, given Dan. 12:4-12, but let's consider a few more verses from Dan. 11.

Daniel 11:36  And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Would you not agree that Paul in 2 Th. 2 borrows language from this verse when talking about the man of sin? Yes; I would agree.

Daniel 11:40  And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

If we try to say that vs. 40 occurs at the start of the 1260 days, then we have to say that vs. 40 jumps back in time to the start of the man of sin's reign, since he was already reigning in vs. 36. But it is far simpler to just accept the idea that the time of the end begins at the end of the 1260-day reign of the man of sin.  Again - a matter of semantics.  I would say the "end of time" begins at the end of the 1260 days; and that the time of the end is the 1260 days.

There are other issues too. Take for example 2 Th. 2, where Paul says that the idea that Christ's coming is imminent is a deception. Why does he say that? Because the man of sin must reign first. If the 1260 days were literal days, then there would really be no reason to denounce the idea of an imminent second coming, because anything that is 3 1/2 years away is essentially imminent. However, if the 1260 days are 1260 years,[This is where we differ. I believe that the 1260 days are literal days - the 2nd half of the 70th week of Daniel.] then Paul's statement makes sense, particularly in light of Daniel and Mat. 24. At the conclusion of the 1260 days, the time of the end begins, the events of Dan. 11:40-45 begin to unfold, and the heavenly signs take place that tell us that Christ's coming is at the door. I believe that the events of Dan. 11:40-45 occur before the the heavenly signs take place; and that Michael (Jesus?) foes not "stand up until after those events.  That's why Michael standing starts in Dan. 12:1. 

I've never seen this connection before. Paul says Christ's coming can't be near until the man of sin reigns. Jesus says that after we have seen all the heavenly signs after the tribulation, His coming is near. But it makes sense.

See my response in red embedded in the quote above.  I liked your post here, Pickle. It didn't feel like an argument; it felt like a respectful exchange of ideas.

[Pickle]

41 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

Of course.

Jewish scholars aren't the ones who have a problem with the facts.

They have been reluctant --in times past, and still cautious now-- to discuss the facts with Christians. To do so often meant losing one's head, literally.

But then why perpetuate a fiction? Why mislead fellow Jews by knowingly perpetuating fraudulent dates, just because some Christian somewhere might just possibly hear about it?

[Pickle]

43 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

See my response in red embedded in the quote above.  I liked your post here, Pickle. It didn't feel like an argument; it felt like a respectful exchange of ideas.

Joe, you state, "Again - a matter of semantics.  I would say the "end of time" begins at the end of the 1260 days; and that the time of the end is the 1260 days." However, I'm unsure why. If you believe the persecution of Dan. 11:33, 35 is the 1260 days and you agree that that persecution ends when the time of the end begins, which is what you said in your other comments in red, I don't understand why you would then say that the time of the end begins with the beginning of the 1260 days, which is how I understand your final clause above.

I too make a distinction between the end of time and the time of the end. However, I haven't said anything about the end of time. I've only been talking about the time of the end, which Dan. 11:33, 35 says begins at the end of the 1260 days.

"[This is where we differ. I believe that the 1260 days are literal days - the 2nd half of the 70th week of Daniel.]"

Yet my point about 2 Th. 2 shows how this cannot be, and you did not address my point.

"I believe that the events of Dan. 11:40-45 occur before the the heavenly signs take place; and that Michael (Jesus?) foes not "stand up until after those events.  That's why Michael standing starts in Dan. 12:1."

"Stands up" in Dan. 11 and elsewhere in Daniel means "to begin to reign." Christ is the one who does that in the end, so that is a point of agreement.

But again, the heavenly signs that occur after the tribulation show us that Christ's coming is near, not here. We can't preach that Christ's coming is near until the 1260 days have ended (2 Th. 2) and until we see those heavenly signs occur (Mat. 24). My guess is that this doesn't fit into your present understanding. Do you have a period of time between the heavenly signs and Christ's coming in which we can preach that Christ's coming is at hand?

[JoeMo]

Hi Pickle,

I mis-spoke in my previous response to you.

19 hours ago, JoeMo said:

See how it says that the persecution lasts until the time of the end? Yes; I see that.  Now the question then is, is this period of persecution that lasts many days the 1260 days?I believe it is; yes.

I don't agree with the highlighted portion above, contrary to what I carelessly said above.  I believe that the persecution takes place during the time of (the end the 1260 days) and ends at the end of time.  My original statement above indeed contradicts itself.  Sorry.  See how easy it is to get mixed up between the "time of the end" and the "end of time" (at least for an old guy like me)?

18 hours ago, Pickle said:

[This is where we differ. I believe that the 1260 days are literal days - the 2nd half of the 70th week of Daniel.]"

Yet my point about 2 Th. 2 shows how this cannot be, and you did not address my point.

I can't address your point, because I don't understand what your point is.  I see nothing in 2Thess. 2 that contradicts my assertion. To me,  Paul says "don't believe that the Day of the Lord has already come or is imminent - It cannot come until the man of Lawlessness (be he the Pope, the Mahdi, or someone else)  fulfills his role ."  I believe that the 70th week of Daniel is cut off from the previous 69 weeks and occurs at the time of the end.  It seems to me that Paul is also cutting off the 70th week and sending it down to the future - beyond the time of the apostolic church.

18 hours ago, Pickle said:

"Stands up" in Dan. 11 and elsewhere in Daniel means "to begin to reign." Christ is the one who does that in the end, so that is a point of agreement.

First of all, that phrase is in Daniel 12; but you probably knew that.  I'm not saying that what I'm about to say is true; but some Commentators seem to believe the proper translation of "stands up" should be "stands aside".  These commentators believe that Michael - who has been the archangel preventing satan from destroying Israel - stands aside and lets satan "possess" the antichrist; and thus carry out His attempted end-time destruction of both physical/ethnic and spiritual Israel.  Of course, His attempt is thwarted by Jesus stepping back in at the 2nd Coming.  I'm not saying I believe this; I'm saying some pretty smart commentators (e.g., Marvin Rosenthal) say this.

As I've said before Pickle, I'm no theologian or expert in ancient languages.  I'm just a guy trying to figure stuff out.  I am unable to robustly address every issue that you raise.  All I can say is that I am not a lone ranger in my beliefs; they are backed up by several Christian (including Messianic Jewish) scholars.  Of course, that doesn't make them right; but they are far better studied in the matter than I am; and I find nothing significant on which to disagree with them.

[Pickle]

4 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Hi Pickle,

I mis-spoke in my previous response to you.

I don't agree with the highlighted portion above, contrary to what I carelessly said above.  I believe that the persecution takes place during the time of (the end the 1260 days) and ends at the end of time.  My original statement above indeed contradicts itself.  Sorry.  See how easy it is to get mixed up between the "time of the end" and the "end of time" (at least for an old guy like me)?

I can't address your point, because I don't understand what your point is.  I see nothing in 2Thess. 2 that contradicts my assertion. To me,  Paul says "don't believe that the Day of the Lord has already come or is imminent - It cannot come until the man of Lawlessness (be he the Pope, the Mahdi, or someone else)  fulfills his role ."  I believe that the 70th week of Daniel is cut off from the previous 69 weeks and occurs at the time of the end.  It seems to me that Paul is also cutting off the 70th week and sending it down to the future - beyond the time of the apostolic church.

First of all, that phrase is in Daniel 12; but you probably knew that.  I'm not saying that what I'm about to say is true; but some Commentators seem to believe the proper translation of "stands up" should be "stands aside".  These commentators believe that Michael - who has been the archangel preventing satan from destroying Israel - stands aside and lets satan "possess" the antichrist; and thus carry out His attempted end-time destruction of both physical/ethnic and spiritual Israel.  Of course, His attempt is thwarted by Jesus stepping back in at the 2nd Coming.  I'm not saying I believe this; I'm saying some pretty smart commentators (e.g., Marvin Rosenthal) say this.

As I've said before Pickle, I'm no theologian or expert in ancient languages.  I'm just a guy trying to figure stuff out.  I am unable to robustly address every issue that you raise.  All I can say is that I am not a lone ranger in my beliefs; they are backed up by several Christian (including Messianic Jewish) scholars.  Of course, that doesn't make them right; but they are far better studied in the matter than I am; and I find nothing significant on which to disagree with them.

Joe,

First of all I think it helpful to stand back and consider that the papacy has had an agenda of trying to change Protestant views on prophecy since the Council of Trent, about 450 years ago. Thus, it is unwise to buy into futuristic interpretations uncritically, because that's buying into what Jesuit scholars have been pushing since the days of Francisco Ribera, even if the present Protestant form of Jesuit futurism is slightly different.

Consider that Protestants pretty much agreed that the papacy was the antichrist, but now as the papacy's deadly wound is healing, and all the world is wondering after the papacy, and even the president of the Mormon church was a guest speaker for a symposium on the family at the Vatican in 2014, Protestants have largely forgotten what their forefathers taught on this topic.

Now let's back up:

Daniel 11:35  And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end:

The text plainly says "even to." Above you are saying that you believe "even to" means "even during." Correct?

I think we should just stick with what the text says, and accept what it says, rather than try to force the text to fit our favored interpretation. I think this part of the discussion started days ago over the idea that the 1260 days were something in the future, just before the second coming. I pointed out that Dan. 11:33, 35, 40-45; 12:4-12 show that there has to be a gap of time called the time of the end between the end of the 1260 days and the second coming. I brought up the wording of Dan. 11:35 in that context. That's how I remember the progression of the conversation. If you or Rachel felt I was misreading Dan. 11:35, and that "even to" meant "even during," then all you had to do was show me that the KJV was wrong, or point me to someone who had made such a case. But to me, to stick with the idea that the time of the end is the 1260 days when Dan. 11:35 says that the persecution finishes at the point in time when the time of the end begins, it just isn't helpful.

I don't see how we can get the idea out of 2 Th. 2 that the 70th week is cut off from the other 69. It seems to me that that is reading into the passage something that it doesn't say, because of a preconceived theory.

I will try to reword my point on 2 Th. 2. A key point of typical Protestant futurism today is that the coming of Christ is imminent, and has been imminent for almost 2000 years. You agree with me that 2 Th. 2 says that we can't say that Christ's coming is imminent until the reign of the man of sin, though I'm saying that we can't say that until that reign has ended. My point is that this can only be so if the reign of the man of sin is 1260 years, not 1260 days, because a literal 3 1/2 year reign does not put off the second coming beyond the immediate future.

However, if you differ from the average futurist out there by saying that Christ's coming was never imminent and will not be imminent until the reign of the man of sin, then maybe my point is unpersuasive.

Lastly, thanks to the JW's, a lot of people oppose the idea that Michael is a name for Christ, and those who feel that way aren't necessarily going to notice that Michael "standing up" is the same Hebrew word as in Dan. 8 & 11 for kings beginning to reign.

Do these commentators give any reasons for why they interpret Dan. 12:1 differently than, say, Dan. 8:22, 23?

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

consider that the papacy has had an agenda of trying to change Protestant views on prophecy since the Council of Trent,

Consider that SDA's have been trying to change the mainstream Protestant and Catholic view on both prophecy and doctrine since the mid-1800's.

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

A key point of typical Protestant futurism today is that the coming of Christ is imminent, and has been imminent for almost 2000 years.

If I'm not mistaken, you are referring to the alleged "doctrine" of immanency:, which states that nothing pertaining to eschatology can happen prior to the pre-trib rapture (which pre-trib folks say could happen at any moment).  That "doctrine" assumes that the church will be taken to heaven before the tribulation.  I do not believe in a pre-trib rapture (mostly cuz it's totally unscriptural); therefore I do not subscribe to that "doctrine".  I am not a cookie-cutter mainstream Protestant futurist.

I do, however, believe in a pre-wrath rapture - that soon after the cosmic disturbances of the 4th trumpet and before the 7 last plagues fall on the unrepentant, the church will be taken to heaven.  It's called "The Harvest" in Rev. 14.  Since the first seal of Revelation (the emergence of the antichrist) is not yet opened, this rapture is still at least 7 years away (maybe a little less - since the gospels say this time shall be cut short). Since we don't know when the antichrist will be revealed, we still cannot say the 2nd coming is immanent.   We know that from the time that the man of lawlessness sets up His throne in the yet-to-be-built Temple in Jerusalem, we have 1,260 days until the second coming.  Then we will know the day of His Coming.

[Pickle]

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Consider that SDA's have been trying to change the mainstream Protestant and Catholic view on both prophecy and doctrine since the mid-1800's.

In what way? If you are referring to the idea that Christ's coming is literal and premillennial, that is likely a point you agree with, and a point that had already been made by the Millerites before there were any Sabbath-keeping Adventists. To my knowledge, Seventh-day Adventist beliefs on prophecy are simply standard Protestant interpretations carried to their logical conclusions, but feel free to point out something I'm overlooking.

 

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I do, however, believe in a pre-wrath rapture - that soon after the cosmic disturbances of the 4th trumpet and before the 7 last plagues fall on the unrepentant, the church will be taken to heaven.  It's called "The Harvest" in Rev. 14.  Since the first seal of Revelation (the emergence of the antichrist) is not yet opened, this rapture is still at least 7 years away (maybe a little less - since the gospels say this time shall be cut short). Since we don't know when the antichrist will be revealed, we still cannot say the 2nd coming is immanent.   We know that from the time that the man of lawlessness sets up His throne in the yet-to-be-built Temple in Jerusalem, we have 1,260 days until the second coming.  Then we will know the day of His Coming.

I have seen where a pre-trib rapturist scholar stated that if one doesn't believe in a pre-trib rapture, there really is no reason to believe in a rapture at all. Something along those lines. So I think it would be good to explore whether there really is any Scriptural basis for separating off Dan. 9's 70th week. I think I've already pointed out how doing so prevents us from finding valid dates for the first 69 weeks.

When do you believe Christ returns as a thief? At a pre-wrath rapture, or at the second coming, or both? Or are you saying that the pre-wrath rapture is the second coming? I'm asking this because Jesus says in Rev. 16 at the end of the 6th plague, "Behold I come as a thief." That's in the middle of references to the Battle of Armageddon, at which in Rev. 19 the birds are called to eat the flesh of the wicked, the eating of which by the birds is referred to in Mat. 24 after references to the 2nd coming, and in Lk. 17 after Jesus says one shall be taken and the other left.

Think carefully about the texts I just referenced. Jesus must come as a thief at Armageddon, at the end of the 7 last plagues, and it is then when one shall be taken and the other left.

Lastly, consider how the 7 last plagues parallel the plagues upon Egypt. Consider that of the 10 plagues on Egypt, the 7 last ones only fell upon the Egyptians. Consider also that there was no "rapture," no exit or exodus, of the Israelites until after the plagues had finished. Consider again that God's people were spared the wrath of those plagues, and that thus God's people in the end can be spared the wrath of the 7 last plagues without being taken out of the world. We can be kept from the evil without being taken out of the world, just like Jesus prayed in Jn. 17.

[Pickle]

15 hours ago, JoeMo said:

We know that from the time that the man of lawlessness sets up His throne in the yet-to-be-built Temple in Jerusalem, we have 1,260 days until the second coming.

Joe, I missed this when I posted before. Doesn't the above contradict what you wrote earlier? Here's what you wrote earlier:

Me: See how it [Dan. 11:35] says that the persecution lasts until the time of the end?

You: Yes; I see that. 

Me: Now the question then is, is this period of persecution that lasts many days the 1260 days?

You: I believe it is; yes.

Maybe it doesn't contradict, since you backtracked on your first statement, though you have yet to explain how being persecuted "even to" the time of the end means "even during." But please, do explain how you get "even during" out of "even to," and/or please explain how you can fit Dan. 11:40-45 between the end of the 1260 days and the second coming if you have the 1260 days end with the second coming.

[8thdaypriest]

23 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I can't address your point, because I don't understand what your point is.  I see nothing in 2Thess. 2 that contradicts my assertion. To me,  Paul says "don't believe that the Day of the Lord has already come or is imminent - It cannot come until the man of Lawlessness (be he the Pope, the Mahdi, or someone else)  fulfills his role ."  I believe that the 70th week of Daniel is cut off from the previous 69 weeks and occurs at the time of the end.  It seems to me that Paul is also cutting off the 70th week and sending it down to the future - beyond the time of the apostolic church.

 

The idea that the 70th "seven" was "cut off" from the first 69 weeks, and brought forward to the last seven years of this age - that idea I'm not really comfortable with yet.  Of course it's possible, but it is also possible that the ENTIRE 70 "sevens" may be fulfilled at the end of this age. 

[JoeMo]

Hi Pickle,

People have been discussing these issues (rather contentiously at times) for over 200 years by a myriad of theologians.  There are strong arguments - both for and against any position - depending on how one interprets scripture and what verses have priority in the reader's mind.  All of these guys think their "enlightened" views are the correct views.  That's one of the reasons that there are over 50,000 Christian denominations in the world.  I don't have the time or energy to re-study everything that I have come to believe and post supporting scripture for everything.  It's not that I can't; it's just that it would simply generate more questions and challenges.  I'm not sure I'm right; and I'm not sure you're wrong.  My beliefs about many things have evolved over the years; and will continue to do so.  I appreciate your recent responses (they feel more like a dialog than an argument); but a few facts (at least from my POV) remain:

1. Very few of the issues we are discussing are salvational issues.

2. None of us really knows how prophecy will unfold until it unfolds.

3. Until the "sign of the times" change, I'm sticking with my views; and you will probably stick with yours.

My views are heavily influenced by what I see going on in the world at this time; and are NOT necessarily influenced by EGW's POV.  I have been a "seeker" all of my life.  I have been active (in order) as a Catholic, a hippie, a JW, a World-Wide Church of God guy, a Mormon, an SDA, and "no preferred denomination" (although I still prefer Adventism over other man-made denominations). I have also worshipped with traditional Jews, Messianic Jews, and charismatics.  I have learned valuable things from every group; and I have rejected stuff from every group.  My salvation lies in Jesus Christ - not a denomination.  For example, if, when I have my one-on-one performance appraisal in heaven, if Jesus tells me "that thing you believe about the HS not being a member of the Godhead - I don't agree with you".  I will suddenly see my mistake and become a Trinitarian.

Concerning the rapture, there will definitely be a rapture (or in SDA lingo - "translation").  It's just a question of when.  The dead in Christ will rise first and then we who remain and are alive will meet with them in the air - be it pre-trib (not likely),mid-trib (also not likely), pre-wrath (my view right now), or post-wrath (at 2nd Coming - my backup position).  My job is to persevere in the faith until I die or am raptured/translated.  If I am alive, I'm sure I'll know it has happened when it happens.

[JoeMo]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The idea that the 70th "seven" was "cut off" from the first 69 weeks, and brought forward to the last seven years of this age - that idea I'm not really comfortable with yet.  Of course it's possible, but it is also possible that the ENTIRE 70 "sevens" may be fulfilled at the end of this age. 

That's a great example of what I'm talking about!  It is indeed possible; but we don't "know".  We just "believe" based on our current knowledge base and our history.  I know you understand where I'm coming from.  You have been a seeker on your own path (i.e., studying independently of  denominational influence) for decades.  Your views have evolved; just like mine; and - knowing you - will continue to evolve because of your inquisitiveness and analytical skill..

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, Pickle said:

In what way? If you are referring to the idea that Christ's coming is literal and premillennial, that is likely a point you agree with, and a point that had already been made by the Millerites before there were any Sabbath-keeping Adventists. To my knowledge, Seventh-day Adventist beliefs on prophecy are simply standard Protestant interpretations carried to their logical conclusions, but feel free to point out something I'm overlooking.

I have seen where a pre-trib rapturist scholar stated that if one doesn't believe in a pre-trib rapture, there really is no reason to believe in a rapture at all. Something along those lines. So I think it would be good to explore whether there really is any Scriptural basis for separating off Dan. 9's 70th week. I think I've already pointed out how doing so prevents us from finding valid dates for the first 69 weeks.

When do you believe Christ returns as a thief? At a pre-wrath rapture, or at the second coming, or both? Or are you saying that the pre-wrath rapture is the second coming? I'm asking this because Jesus says in Rev. 16 at the end of the 6th plague, "Behold I come as a thief." That's in the middle of references to the Battle of Armageddon, at which in Rev. 19 the birds are called to eat the flesh of the wicked, the eating of which by the birds is referred to in Mat. 24 after references to the 2nd coming, and in Lk. 17 after Jesus says one shall be taken and the other left.

Rachel:  Yes - I'm saying that the "saints" will be "raptured" (translated) AT the Second Coming.  The term "rapture" only describes how the saints will FEEL - rapturous. I do NOT believe in a "secret rapture" 7 years before the Second Coming, as Darby taught.

Think carefully about the texts I just referenced. Jesus must come as a thief at Armageddon, at the end of the 7 last plagues, and it is then when one shall be taken and the other left.

Lastly, consider how the 7 last plagues parallel the plagues upon Egypt. Consider that of the 10 plagues on Egypt, the 7 last ones only fell upon the Egyptians. Consider also that there was no "rapture," no exit or exodus, of the Israelites until after the plagues had finished. Consider again that God's people were spared the wrath of those plagues, and that thus God's people in the end can be spared the wrath of the 7 last plagues without being taken out of the world. We can be kept from the evil without being taken out of the world, just like Jesus prayed in Jn. 17. 

The "saints" will endure several trumpet plagues "without being taken out of the world". 

The 7 last VAIL PLAGUES will fall only upon the wicked (Egyptians). 

The redeemed are translated when the 7th TRUMPET sounds.  Paul said he expected this for himself.  

Revelation 11:15-18  "Then the seventh angel sounded.  . . . "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ" . . . v 18 Your wrath has come, the time has come to judge the dead, and to reward your servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, small and great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth." 

The wrath plagues FOLLOW. 

When the 7th trumpet sounds - THE TIME HAS COME - 1.  to judge  2. to destroy those who destroy the earth  3.  to reward the saints

Sounds like the Second Coming - to me.

 

[Pickle]

5 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

1. Very few of the issues we are discussing are salvational issues.

Based on Rev. 14:9-12, knowing who the beast is and what is mark is is definitely salvational. At some point in time this is true for every person alive on planet earth.

7 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

2. None of us really knows how prophecy will unfold until it unfolds.

Yet "we" used to know. It's the only point of doctrine, seemingly, that Protestants agreed on.

8 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

People have been discussing these issues (rather contentiously at times) for over 200 years by a myriad of theologians.

This isn't quite true. Futurism didn't start making inroads into Protestantism until the around the 1830's, and at that point in time it wouldn't have been getting much traction. As far as the idea that the 70th week was future, we can't really look before John Darby for discussions by Protestant theologians. So if we're looking for discussions, we're going to be looking for small ones at first after 1830, and not ones in the United States.

Imagine some one in Noah's day saying that his prediction of a coming flood 1) was not salvational, 2) no one really knows for sure, and 3) people have been discussing these things for 120 years.

Note that for my point regarding Dan. 11:35, I cited the Bible, not Ellen White. And if you show me something different, I will change my view.

18 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I appreciate your recent responses (they feel more like a dialog than an argument); ....

And frankly, I find this dialog pretty frustrating, and seemingly pointless. It shouldn't take days and days to respond to my point about Dan. 11:35. Does the text say "even to" or "even during"?

I am a Protestant. And one thing that means is that the Bible is my final authority. My final authority is not the newspapers or my own personal opinions and theories. Thus, if you show me something different from the Bible, I will ponder it closely, and will change my view if what you showed me is valid.

And thus I don't understand why the reticence to come to grips with the wording of Dan. 11:35. I don't understand why the restating of the same point, proven erroneous by Dan. 11:35.

[JoeMo]

14 minutes ago, Pickle said:

And frankly, I find this dialog pretty frustrating, and seemingly pointless.

OK; let's quit talking about it.

15 minutes ago, Pickle said:

It shouldn't take days and days to respond to my point about Dan. 11:35. Does the text say "even to" or "even during"?

I'm not going to change my theology over a nit on a single verse od scripture.  Looking at Daniel 11:33-35, all I read into it is that believers will witness to the fallen; some "lookie-loos" and sympathizers will join the believers' cause for a while during the persecution (and some will leave); and this will go on until the end - as long as the church is on earth.  Period! That's all I read into this single passage of scripture. Period!  Looking at scripture as a whole, I'm sticking with my point.  If my inability to come over to your way of thinking is frustrating you, then we can be done talking about this.  I'm done discussing if it is "pretty frustrating and seemingly pointless".  Adios.

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

I'm not going to change my theology over a nit on a single verse od scripture.  Looking at Daniel 11:33-35, all I read into it is that believers will witness to the fallen; some "lookie-loos" and sympathizers will join the believers' cause for a while during the persecution (and some will leave); and this will go on until the end - as long as the church is on earth.  Period! That's all I read into this single passage of scripture. Period!  Looking at scripture as a whole, I'm sticking with my point.  If my inability to come over to your way of thinking is frustrating you, then we can be done talking about this.  I'm done discussing if it is "pretty frustrating and seemingly pointless".  Adios.

But you haven't been discussing it, without clearly disclosing that you had no intention of discussing it. I don't think that's fair or courteous.

"That's all I read into this single passage of scripture."

In contrast, I wasn't reading anything into it. I was just taking it as it reads. It says what it says. It plainly says that the "time of the end" begins at the end of the persecution, since the persecution lasts "even to the time of the end." And by this point in time, I'm fairly certain that you know that this is what it says.

"If my inability to come over to your way of thinking is frustrating you, ..."

That has nothing at all to do with it. Your refusal to discuss what the text says, and agree with what it says, that's the problem. It's what the Bible says, not my thinking, that is important.

Disagreeing with me, big deal! Disagreeing with what God has said in His holy Word, that is a very big deal.

Note: What I specifically referred to in my "frustrating comment" was "It shouldn't take days and days to respond to my point about Dan. 11:35. Does the text say 'even to' or 'even during'?" And in your response above, did you finally address my simple question? No! And you have every right to dig in your heels and refuse to address the point. But it makes no sense to simultaneously claim one wants to dialogue or discuss, and it makes no sense to continue making the same points proven false by the Bible text one refuses to discuss.

I would have no grounds to say these things if you had produced a text from anywhere that as clearly says that the time of the end begins at the beginning of the 1260 days. But you never did that, and neither did Rachel. "Time of the end" is found in Dan. 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4. Thus, to define "time of the end," we have to look at the only passages that use the term, and we must accept what those passages say about the time of the end. To refuse to do that makes no sense at all.

[Pickle]

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Rachel:  Yes - I'm saying that the "saints" will be "raptured" (translated) AT the Second Coming.  The term "rapture" only describes how the saints will FEEL - rapturous. I do NOT believe in a "secret rapture" 7 years before the Second Coming, as Darby taught.

Check out https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Arapture. Click "Translations, word origin, and more definitions." Or check out https://books.google.com/books?id=zbExAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA579&lpg=PA579&dq=rapture. I think the idea of "ecstasy" comes from the meaning of "seizing and carrying off." So it doesn't appear that "rapture" of the saints has to do with a feeling.

 

20 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The redeemed are translated when the 7th TRUMPET sounds.  Paul said he expected this for himself.  

Revelation 11:15-18  "Then the seventh angel sounded.  . . . "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ" . . . v 18 Your wrath has come, the time has come to judge the dead, and to reward your servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, small and great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth." 

The wrath plagues FOLLOW. 

When the 7th trumpet sounds - THE TIME HAS COME - 1.  to judge  2. to destroy those who destroy the earth  3.  to reward the saints

Sounds like the Second Coming - to me.

Either Paul's reference to "the last trump" is the seventh trumpet, or it is an eighth that sounds after the seventh. Certainly "the last trump" sounds at the second coming. Whether the seventh trump is "the last trump" depends on whether the seventh trump begins sounding before the second coming, and whether it sounds for a period of time.

Revelation 11:19  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

From what I can tell, the "lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail" are phenomena in the book of Revelation that occur at the second coming. Would you say that this verse is part of the 7th trumpet? That's how I see it. And I connect the seeing of the ark of the covenant with the Day of Atonement.

Revelation 3:7-8  And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith ... he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; ... behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it.

Revelation 3:12  Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out:

Revelation 4:1-5  After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. ... and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

So Revelation 3:7 alludes to two doors, and the immediate context mentions the temple of God. Then a door is opened in heaven, and John sees the antitypical 7-branched candlestick. In Rev. 8:3 he sees the antitypical altar of incense, and an angel offering incense at that altar. That's something the high priest or the priests were supposed to do each day throughout the year. So I see the door that is opened in Rev. 4:1 as the first door of the heavenly temple, the one into the Holy Place.

Then in Rev. 11:19 the temple is opened and the antitypical ark is seen. Since the ark could not be seen except once a year on the Day of Atonement, we must switch from the antitypical daily service to the antitypical yearly service in 11:19. If that antitypical yearly service takes any period of time at all, then the 7th trumpet must take a little while at least, or else Rev. 11:19 must not be part of the 7th trumpet. At any rate, I see the opening of the temple in 11:19 as being the opening of the second door of the heavenly temple, the one into the Most Holy Place.

Rev. 11:19 is not the only place where we see the antitypical yearly service alluded to.

Revelation 8:3-5  And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand. And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.

Note that he doesn't use the censer at first. He uses the altar, something done every morning and evening throughout the year in the typical service. Then he takes coals of fire from the altar and puts them in the censer, something the high priest did in Lev. 16, one of the first events of the Day of Atonement. So we see here a transition from the antitypical daily service to the antitypical yearly service. Then he casts the censer down, which certainly sounds like the cessation of mediation, the close of probation, to me. Then comes the phenomena that Revelation associates with the second coming. Certainly you would agree that these same phenomena in Rev. 16:18, 21 are associated with the second coming.

Do you see any problems with any of the above reasoning?

[Samie]

If there really will be rapture of the saints PRIOR to the 2nd Coming, then how can it harmonize with Jesus' own statement that when He comes again, He will reward every man according to what each has done? I mean, it would look like the righteous will be rewarded way ahead of the wicked.

 

^NAS Matthew 16:27 "For the ^aSon of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds.

 

^NAS Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

Reading Paul, seems like he was saying the rewarding according to what each has done, will be done on the day of the righteous revelation of God’s judgment, which when coupled with Jesus’ statement will be on the 2^nd Coming.

 

Romans 2:5-6   ⁵ But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,  ⁶who will render to every man according to his deeds

 

[Martn]

[Martn]

[JoeMo]

15 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

The problem Jews have with Jesus is that, according to Christian scripture itself, he was not the heir of David. Not through the proper lineage, as was promised to King David that the Messiah would come, saying that the Messiah would come through that line (through David's own seed --Y DNA) and not be passed over in favor of another line instead, regardless of disobedience. The Y DNA (the male seed) cannot be passed through a woman. David's Y DNA cannot be inherited by any woman or adopted son. For Jews who know the prophecy, there can be no getting around this.

How could David's Y DNA be passed through His Father, except miraculously though the Holy Spirit?  God was Jesus' Father - not some human being.

" “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 1:20)

" But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. ³¹ You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. ³² He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, ³³ and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”  “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”  ³⁵ The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you... For no word from God will ever fail.”.(Luke 1:30-37).

These are quotes directly from God's chief messenger angel, preserved in God's Holy Book.  If Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, how could Jesus' genealogy ever come directly from David?  Jesus' Y DNA came directly from God.  If God says (through His angel Gabriel) that Jesus in the "Son of the most High", that settles it for me, regardless of how the Jews interpret the OT.  If God wants to call David Jesus' Father, I'm not going to argue with Him regardless of how orthodox Jews view it.  God's Word trumps Jewish commentary.  God's love and mercy trump His judgments.

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, MCBGM said:

Which precisely is why he could not be the Messiah.

Then why does scripture call Him the Messiah so many times?  See Matt. 1:1, 16, 17, 17; 11:12; 16:20; 22:40-42;

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

¹⁴ They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

¹⁵ “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

¹⁶ Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

¹⁷ Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matt:16:13-16)

And that is just in Matthew.  There are over 60 other NT verses that refer to Jesus an the Messiah.  Is the NT wrong?  Did Jesus lie when He admitted to being the Messiah or Son of God?  Did God the Father lie when He revealed that Jesus was the Messiah to Peter? Or was the Father simply mistaken?  Or is the word "Messiah" just mistranslated from the Greek over 70 times in the NT?