|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 21, 2022 12:30:16 GMT -8
Good day sir. back to the op Sure. If by " Good day," you mean " I'm exiting," then I am disappointed. I read the entire books of Daniel and Revelation and Matthew 21:26 this morning after my morning response to you in preparation for further conversation and to make sure I had not erred. Let me know if you change your mind and when you're willing to examine Daniel's beasts for what Daniel and the rest of scripture actually says about those beasts (and not what PNW tells you to believe). If your going to keep falsely accusing me, and refusing to discuss what I have actually said. And stop accusing me of listening to some one else (this happens to be my favorite subject next to History) and stop accusing me of not listening to scripture (when in fact that is what I am doing. Listening to scripture) then yes. Good day my friend. I have no time or desire to speak with someone who keep accusing me even after I have explained myself numerous times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2022 15:06:42 GMT -8
Sure. If by " Good day," you mean " I'm exiting," then I am disappointed. I read the entire books of Daniel and Revelation and Matthew 21:26 this morning after my morning response to you in preparation for further conversation and to make sure I had not erred. Let me know if you change your mind and when you're willing to examine Daniel's beasts for what Daniel and the rest of scripture actually says about those beasts (and not what PNW tells you to believe). If your going to keep falsely accusing me, and refusing to discuss what I have actually said. And stop accusing me of listening to someone else (this happens to be my favorite subject next to History) and stop accusing me of not listening to scripture (when in fact that is what I am doing. Listening to scripture) then yes. Good day my friend. I have no time or desire to speak with someone who keep accusing me even after I have explained myself numerous times. Still making it about you and me and not about the op. - The beasts of Daniel 4 are kings, not kingdoms.
- There are four kings, not five. Even if we treat the kings as representative of kingdoms there are only four of them, not five.
- None of the kings/kingdoms are identified as Rome. Maybe one of them is Rome, maybe not, but scripture never identifies any as Rome.
- There's absolutely nothing in the Daniel text stating the fourth king/kingdom is two distinct kingdoms separated by more than 2000 years.
- The kingdom God sets up is set up during the kings, not afterwards.
That is what Daniel states. I did, in fact, bring something to this op to discuss and I am trying to discuss it. There is a lot more but I'm trying to start small and build from a consensus, and agreement, with scripture. You say you've studied, and this is your next favorite subject, but I have yet to see any evidence of either. I can't even get you to say a plain, simple, and direct "Yes" to those five points just listed. What kind of resistance will I receive when I start posting more detailed matters from scripture?
I want you to think about scripture, and I want you to think about what you post because you said, "Up until this day, there has been no nation which has had ten kings, which has part of the power of Rome," because if Rome had ten kings and is the fourth kingdom then that prophecy from Daniel has been fulfilled and there's not reason to expect another fulfillment. At least none provided so far.
If you do not follow PNW, that's great but you are espousing some points of view consistent with their position and all you have to do is clarify your position and explain yourself. Protests do nothing to further discussion. I read in another thread where you don't believe premillennialism is a valid point of view. That's good too, but this thread does have God setting up His kingdom " when the final kingdom has been destroyed," and not during the days of the kings. Those are your words. Daniel says He sets up His kingdom " in the days" of those kings, not afterwards. I pointed this out three pages ago. I read something else in the other thread, too: " One immediate problem with premillennialism the bible pictures Christ return as the end of his reign when he hands the kingdom over to the father." Now aside from the fact that's an incomplete sentence and meaningless until its syntax is corrected, the fact of Daniel is that God sets up the additional kingdom during, not after the kings. So there's some inconsistency in your posts that warrants clarification. Daniel says God sets up His kingdom in the days of the kings, not afterwards. You say premillennialism is a problem because " the Bible pictures Christ return when he hands the kingdom over to the Father." Can you see the problem there? Let's go back to this question of the four kingdoms. I quoted Daniel. God stated, "Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces. In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay." It is a divided kingdom (singular), not one kingdom divided into two kingdoms, and nowhere does it say anything about being divided by 2000 years. In response to my citing what is plainly stated in Daniel 2, the response was, " Plainly states only 4?
head of gold - babylon
chest and arms - media persia
belly and thighs - greece
legs of iron (4th kingdom) (i will play along and not say this is rome)
feet of iron and clay (4th kingdom reborn, or 5th kingdom) it is not the 4th kingdom. because the kingdom changed..
and I agree. that final kingdom will be in power when christ returns."But none of that is in Daniel. On one hand Daniel lists four kings and has God setting up a kingdom during those kings, not afterwards. Despite this, I read, " It is not the 4th kingdom." Daniel says there are four kingdoms; the OP says there are five. Daniel says the fourth kingdom is divided but there are still only four kingdoms. The posts defending this OP say the 5th kingdom is not the 4th kingdom. They say the 5th kingdom is not the 4th kingdom because the kingdom is changed but Daniel said the fourth kingdom was divided and was still the 4th kingdom. Can you see the problem? I understand why you say the 5th is not the 4th, but that doesn't change the facts of scripture. How is anyone going to discuss this with you if you won't acknowledge some of the most basic statement of scripture beginning with the fact there are only four kings, not five (or ten)? I am discussing this op. You are not.
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 21, 2022 16:37:06 GMT -8
If your going to keep falsely accusing me, and refusing to discuss what I have actually said. And stop accusing me of listening to someone else (this happens to be my favorite subject next to History) and stop accusing me of not listening to scripture (when in fact that is what I am doing. Listening to scripture) then yes. Good day my friend. I have no time or desire to speak with someone who keep accusing me even after I have explained myself numerous times. Still making it about you and me and not about the op. - The beasts of Daniel 4 are kings, not kingdoms.
- There are four kings, not five. Even if we treat the kings as representative of kingdoms there are only four of them, not five.
- None of the kings/kingdoms are identified as Rome. Maybe one of them is Rome, maybe not, but scripture never identifies any as Rome.
- There's absolutely nothing in the Daniel text stating the fourth king/kingdom is two distinct kingdoms separated by more than 2000 years.
- The kingdom God sets up is set up during the kings, not afterwards.
That is what Daniel states. I did, in fact, bring something to this op to discuss and I am trying to discuss it. There is a lot more but I'm trying to start small and build from a consensus, and agreement, with scripture. You say you've studied, and this is your next favorite subject, but I have yet to see any evidence of either. I can't even get you to say a plain, simple, and direct "Yes" to those five points just listed. What kind of resistance will I receive when I start posting more detailed matters from scripture?
I want you to think about scripture, and I want you to think about what you post because you said, "Up until this day, there has been no nation which has had ten kings, which has part of the power of Rome," because if Rome had ten kings and is the fourth kingdom then that prophecy from Daniel has been fulfilled and there's not reason to expect another fulfillment. At least none provided so far.
If you do not follow PNW, that's great but you are espousing some points of view consistent with their position and all you have to do is clarify your position and explain yourself. Protests do nothing to further discussion. I read in another thread where you don't believe premillennialism is a valid point of view. That's good too, but this thread does have God setting up His kingdom " when the final kingdom has been destroyed," and not during the days of the kings. Those are your words. Daniel says He sets up His kingdom " in the days" of those kings, not afterwards. I pointed this out three pages ago. I read something else in the other thread, too: " One immediate problem with premillennialism the bible pictures Christ return as the end of his reign when he hands the kingdom over to the father." Now aside from the fact that's an incomplete sentence and meaningless until its syntax is corrected, the fact of Daniel is that God sets up the additional kingdom during, not after the kings. So there's some inconsistency in your posts that warrants clarification. Daniel says God sets up His kingdom in the days of the kings, not afterwards. You say premillennialism is a problem because " the Bible pictures Christ return when he hands the kingdom over to the Father." Can you see the problem there? Let's go back to this question of the four kingdoms. I quoted Daniel. God stated, "Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces. In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay." It is a divided kingdom (singular), not one kingdom divided into two kingdoms, and nowhere does it say anything about being divided by 2000 years. In response to my citing what is plainly stated in Daniel 2, the response was, " Plainly states only 4?
head of gold - babylon
chest and arms - media persia
belly and thighs - greece
legs of iron (4th kingdom) (i will play along and not say this is rome)
feet of iron and clay (4th kingdom reborn, or 5th kingdom) it is not the 4th kingdom. because the kingdom changed..
and I agree. that final kingdom will be in power when christ returns."But none of that is in Daniel. On one hand Daniel lists four kings and has God setting up a kingdom during those kings, not afterwards. Despite this, I read, " It is not the 4th kingdom." Daniel says there are four kingdoms; the OP says there are five. Daniel says the fourth kingdom is divided but there are still only four kingdoms. The posts defending this OP say the 5th kingdom is not the 4th kingdom. They say the 5th kingdom is not the 4th kingdom because the kingdom is changed but Daniel said the fourth kingdom was divided and was still the 4th kingdom. Can you see the problem? I understand why you say the 5th is not the 4th, but that doesn't change the facts of scripture. How is anyone going to discuss this with you if you won't acknowledge some of the most basic statement of scripture beginning with the fact there are only four kings, not five (or ten)? I am discussing this op. You are not. Once again,. Good day sir. I have ADMITTED THAT THE FOURTH KINGDOM IS ONE KINGDOM (rome) I have also showed you where while Nebachadnezzer was the king or head of Gold. BABYLON was the Kingdom!! Not only does history prove this. But the word of God shows it. (As I showed you in other passages of daniel) I am done playing your game. GOOD DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I refuse to be falsly accused in my own op! You want to continue, I will ignore everything you say. You want to actually discuss the word and stop with your nonsense and false accusations. I MAY give you another chance..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2022 18:18:33 GMT -8
Still making it about you and me and not about the op. - The beasts of Daniel 4 are kings, not kingdoms.
- There are four kings, not five. Even if we treat the kings as representative of kingdoms there are only four of them, not five.
- None of the kings/kingdoms are identified as Rome. Maybe one of them is Rome, maybe not, but scripture never identifies any as Rome.
- There's absolutely nothing in the Daniel text stating the fourth king/kingdom is two distinct kingdoms separated by more than 2000 years.
- The kingdom God sets up is set up during the kings, not afterwards.
That is what Daniel states. I did, in fact, bring something to this op to discuss and I am trying to discuss it. There is a lot more but I'm trying to start small and build from a consensus, and agreement, with scripture. You say you've studied, and this is your next favorite subject, but I have yet to see any evidence of either. I can't even get you to say a plain, simple, and direct "Yes" to those five points just listed. What kind of resistance will I receive when I start posting more detailed matters from scripture?
I want you to think about scripture, and I want you to think about what you post because you said, "Up until this day, there has been no nation which has had ten kings, which has part of the power of Rome," because if Rome had ten kings and is the fourth kingdom then that prophecy from Daniel has been fulfilled and there's not reason to expect another fulfillment. At least none provided so far.
If you do not follow PNW, that's great but you are espousing some points of view consistent with their position and all you have to do is clarify your position and explain yourself. Protests do nothing to further discussion. I read in another thread where you don't believe premillennialism is a valid point of view. That's good too, but this thread does have God setting up His kingdom " when the final kingdom has been destroyed," and not during the days of the kings. Those are your words. Daniel says He sets up His kingdom " in the days" of those kings, not afterwards. I pointed this out three pages ago. I read something else in the other thread, too: " One immediate problem with premillennialism the bible pictures Christ return as the end of his reign when he hands the kingdom over to the father." Now aside from the fact that's an incomplete sentence and meaningless until its syntax is corrected, the fact of Daniel is that God sets up the additional kingdom during, not after the kings. So there's some inconsistency in your posts that warrants clarification. Daniel says God sets up His kingdom in the days of the kings, not afterwards. You say premillennialism is a problem because " the Bible pictures Christ return when he hands the kingdom over to the Father." Can you see the problem there? Let's go back to this question of the four kingdoms. I quoted Daniel. God stated, "Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces. In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay." It is a divided kingdom (singular), not one kingdom divided into two kingdoms, and nowhere does it say anything about being divided by 2000 years. In response to my citing what is plainly stated in Daniel 2, the response was, " Plainly states only 4?
head of gold - babylon
chest and arms - media persia
belly and thighs - greece
legs of iron (4th kingdom) (i will play along and not say this is rome)
feet of iron and clay (4th kingdom reborn, or 5th kingdom) it is not the 4th kingdom. because the kingdom changed..
and I agree. that final kingdom will be in power when christ returns."But none of that is in Daniel. On one hand Daniel lists four kings and has God setting up a kingdom during those kings, not afterwards. Despite this, I read, " It is not the 4th kingdom." Daniel says there are four kingdoms; the OP says there are five. Daniel says the fourth kingdom is divided but there are still only four kingdoms. The posts defending this OP say the 5th kingdom is not the 4th kingdom. They say the 5th kingdom is not the 4th kingdom because the kingdom is changed but Daniel said the fourth kingdom was divided and was still the 4th kingdom. Can you see the problem? I understand why you say the 5th is not the 4th, but that doesn't change the facts of scripture. How is anyone going to discuss this with you if you won't acknowledge some of the most basic statement of scripture beginning with the fact there are only four kings, not five (or ten)? I am discussing this op. You are not. Once again,. Good day sir. I have ADMITTED THAT THE FOURTH KINGDOM IS ONE KINGDOM Still making it about the posters. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom. What hasn't happened is an explanation for the contradictory statement, " it is not the 4th kingdom. because the kingdom changed," or " So is in essence a 5th kingdom". Just admitting the fourth kingdom does not address or solve the problem of the contradictory statements. Was a mistake being admitted when admitting the fourth kingdom is one, because it does not address the entirety of what Daniel states. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom, but none of the other basic points originally brought up three pages ago have been acknowledged. Admitting one point out of five is not a discussion. If scripture states " four" and ANY POSTER says, " five," then it is not an accusation to say, " That 'five' contradicts the 'four' of scripture." It's not an accusation; it's a statement of scriptural fact, and if it feels like an accusation to the one claiming five that's not on me...... especially on any occasion when clarification was requested. Similarly, if someone claims to rely and be persuaded by scripture but makes claims that are clearly in contradiction with scripture the appraisal, " That contradicts what scripture states," is not an accusation; it is a statement of fact that can be objectively verified. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom, but neither the fourth king nor the admission are being discussed. I was asked if I wanted to discuss this OP and told you were willing. Is there a change of mind now that particulars in the op prove problematic? Plenty to work with has been provided and I am just getting started. - The beasts of Daniel 4 are kings, not kingdoms.
- There are four kings, not five. Even if we treat the kings as representative of kingdoms there are only four of them, not five.
- None of the kings/kingdoms are identified as Rome. Maybe one of them is Rome, maybe not, but scripture never identifies any as Rome.
- There's absolutely nothing in the Daniel text stating the fourth king/kingdom is two distinct kingdoms separated by more than 2000 years.
- The kingdom God sets up is set up during the kings, not afterwards.
As I said before: These are each and all clear facts of the Daniel text so there should not be any dispute among any Christian who relies on what scripture states. I asked for an acknowledgement of all five, not just #2, and I did so specifically in order to build consensus or agreement, not division, between us in unity with scripture. It does you and I no good if we agree with each other but there's no agreement with scripture. That agreement and consensus building is what every one of us should be doing. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom. Will I read and acknowledgment points 1, 3, 4, and 5 are also correct? And will those scriptural facts then be discussed in light of this OP?
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 22, 2022 4:35:39 GMT -8
Once again,. Good day sir. I have ADMITTED THAT THE FOURTH KINGDOM IS ONE KINGDOM Still making it about the posters. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom. What hasn't happened is an explanation for the contradictory statement, " it is not the 4th kingdom. because the kingdom changed," or " So is in essence a 5th kingdom". Just admitting the fourth kingdom does not address or solve the problem of the contradictory statements. Was a mistake being admitted when admitting the fourth kingdom is one, because it does not address the entirety of what Daniel states. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom, but none of the other basic points originally brought up three pages ago have been acknowledged. Admitting one point out of five is not a discussion. If scripture states " four" and ANY POSTER says, " five," then it is not an accusation to say, " That 'five' contradicts the 'four' of scripture." It's not an accusation; it's a statement of scriptural fact, and if it feels like an accusation to the one claiming five that's not on me...... especially on any occasion when clarification was requested. Similarly, if someone claims to rely and be persuaded by scripture but makes claims that are clearly in contradiction with scripture the appraisal, " That contradicts what scripture states," is not an accusation; it is a statement of fact that can be objectively verified. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom, but neither the fourth king nor the admission are being discussed. I was asked if I wanted to discuss this OP and told you were willing. Is there a change of mind now that particulars in the op prove problematic? Plenty to work with has been provided and I am just getting started. - The beasts of Daniel 4 are kings, not kingdoms.
- There are four kings, not five. Even if we treat the kings as representative of kingdoms there are only four of them, not five.
- None of the kings/kingdoms are identified as Rome. Maybe one of them is Rome, maybe not, but scripture never identifies any as Rome.
- There's absolutely nothing in the Daniel text stating the fourth king/kingdom is two distinct kingdoms separated by more than 2000 years.
- The kingdom God sets up is set up during the kings, not afterwards.
As I said before: These are each and all clear facts of the Daniel text so there should not be any dispute among any Christian who relies on what scripture states. I asked for an acknowledgement of all five, not just #2, and I did so specifically in order to build consensus or agreement, not division, between us in unity with scripture. It does you and I no good if we agree with each other but there's no agreement with scripture. That agreement and consensus building is what every one of us should be doing. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom. Will I read and acknowledgment points 1, 3, 4, and 5 are also correct? And will those scriptural facts then be discussed in light of this OP? My friend, If you look at every post I have made in this thread. I have more than proven my point. Instead of directing yourself to those posts from other passages of daniel. And the passages in revelation where it truthfully shows the 4th kingdom not only in the time of Jesus. But that it would do things which it has not yet done (meaning it is yet future) Then I can not help you. Again, I am not going to sit here and hash out the same stuff over and over again, You say I am unwilling, yet I have. Time to move on.. Thank you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 9:03:38 GMT -8
Still making it about the posters. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom. What hasn't happened is an explanation for the contradictory statement, " it is not the 4th kingdom. because the kingdom changed," or " So is in essence a 5th kingdom". Just admitting the fourth kingdom does not address or solve the problem of the contradictory statements. Was a mistake being admitted when admitting the fourth kingdom is one, because it does not address the entirety of what Daniel states. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom, but none of the other basic points originally brought up three pages ago have been acknowledged. Admitting one point out of five is not a discussion. If scripture states " four" and ANY POSTER says, " five," then it is not an accusation to say, " That 'five' contradicts the 'four' of scripture." It's not an accusation; it's a statement of scriptural fact, and if it feels like an accusation to the one claiming five that's not on me...... especially on any occasion when clarification was requested. Similarly, if someone claims to rely and be persuaded by scripture but makes claims that are clearly in contradiction with scripture the appraisal, " That contradicts what scripture states," is not an accusation; it is a statement of fact that can be objectively verified. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom, but neither the fourth king nor the admission are being discussed. I was asked if I wanted to discuss this OP and told of your willingness. Is there a change of mind now that particulars in the op prove problematic? Plenty to work with has been provided and I am just getting started. - The beasts of Daniel 4 are kings, not kingdoms.
- There are four kings, not five. Even if we treat the kings as representative of kingdoms there are only four of them, not five.
- None of the kings/kingdoms are identified as Rome. Maybe one of them is Rome, maybe not, but scripture never identifies any as Rome.
- There's absolutely nothing in the Daniel text stating the fourth king/kingdom is two distinct kingdoms separated by more than 2000 years.
- The kingdom God sets up is set up during the kings, not afterwards.
As I said before: These are each and all clear facts of the Daniel text so there should not be any dispute among any Christian who relies on what scripture states. I asked for an acknowledgement of all five, not just #2, and I did so specifically in order to build consensus or agreement, not division, between us in unity with scripture. It does us no good if we agree with each other but there's no agreement with scripture. That agreement and consensus building is what every one of us should be doing. Yes, it was admitted the fourth kingdom is one kingdom. Will I read and acknowledgment points 1, 3, 4, and 5 are also correct? And will those scriptural facts then be discussed in light of this OP? My friend, If you look at every post I have made in this thread. I have more than proven my point. Instead of directing yourself to those posts from other passages of daniel. And the passages in revelation where it truthfully shows the 4th kingdom not only in the time of Jesus. But that it would do things which it has not yet done (meaning it is yet future) Then I can not help you. Again, I am not going to sit here and hash out the same stuff over and over again, You say I am unwilling, yet I have. Time to move on.. Thank you I disagree. The point has not been proven and it has not been "more than proven." That is why I am replying to this op. My modus operandi is always to affirm that which bears consistency with scripture, inquire about that which is either unclear or I don't understand, and refute that which does not bear consistency with scripture. THAT is what I do. By way of affirmation, I have affirmed the rejection of premillennialism (yay! ) . I have asked questions for the sake of clarification and understanding. I have likewise pointed out several areas where scriptures states something other than the OP. Many will testify to what I just said about myself. It is what I do. Every poster in any forum on the planet can use that to their advantage or fall into defensiveness. I'll be fair. It's not personal. By way of making amends to you.... I read through the thread and I see PNW was not your resource. I confused you with another poster. I regret that mistake and will make an effort to be more careful. I will also correct something I said: I repeatedly said the beasts are kings and cited Daniel 4, but it is in Daniel 7, not 4, that we find the beasts are kings. I have corrected that in the list below. But that does not change the fect there are several errors in this OP and the posts supporting it. There are options: ignore my posts, in which case any errors that do exist won't be corrected, engage my posts for their actual content and not what they might be imagined to say and thereby learn from any facts and truths contained therein. If we do that then the next OP is improved and doesn't contain the previous mistakes. Use the exchange to improve your position AND the way the way it is presented! Because it's not personal unless you make it that way. A good place to start that review of this OP is by agreeing with me AND SCRIPTURE on the five points I made. Then I will KNOW that you do indeed rely on scripture AND that you have the capacity to discuss your own thoughts and positions, and this is not just one of thousands of OPs where one guy is simply trying to impose his beliefs on others when they don't reconcile with scripture. Do the work. I am your friend so believe all those niceties you've posted. So here they are: - The beasts of Daniel 7 are kings, not kingdoms (Dan. 7:17).
- There are four kings, not five. Even if we treat the kings as representative of kingdoms there are only four of them, not five (Dan. 2:40).
- None of the kings/kingdoms are identified as Rome. Maybe one of them is Rome, maybe not, but scripture never identifies any as Rome.
- There's absolutely nothing in the Daniel text stating the fourth king/kingdom is two distinct kingdoms separated by more than 2000 years (Dan. 2:40-43, 7:15-28).
- The kingdom God sets up is set up during the kings, not afterwards (Dan. 2:44)
I've provided the scriptures stating three of the five points. I will again make note of the fact people get their interpretation of these kingdoms from the headings in their Bibles but these headings are not scripture. The headings have been added AFTER these scriptures were written. So if someone is reading a Bible translation (like the NAS) that ha a heading that reads, "Media-Persia and Greece," or "Rome," it should be understood That is NOT scripture!!! In Daniel 5-6 we read about the Mede, Darius, taking over the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. We don't read about the Medes again in the Bible, btw. In Daniel 8, 10, and 11 we read about Greece, the " shaggy goat". Greece is mentioned only one other time in the prophecies of the Bible. Rome is not mentioned once in specific regard to any beast anywhere in the Bible. Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity! Proverbs 27:17-18 Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. He who tends the fig tree will eat its fruit, and he who cares for his master will be honored. Do the work, and if a little friction occurs remember: we can handle it; it's for the honor of our Master. It is good when divisions arise so those with God's approval may be recognized, sound doctrine proved and God's people equipped for good works.
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 29, 2022 5:28:27 GMT -8
Rev 19 Christ returns 1. Beast and worlds armies gather together to make war with the lamb
19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.
2. Christ defeats beast and worlds armies (so many bodies are left in this battle that birds feast on them for months) 3. Beast is captured, and thrown to the fire So we see from these two accounts, the following which is identical with the little horn and the beast.
20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.
so we see in conclusion
1. A power of ten kingdoms will unite and form a kingdom which has come out of Rome (Dan 2: 41, Dan 7: 7, 24, Rev 17: 12-13) 2. A little horn, or beast, will come out from among these ten (Dan 7:8, Rev 17: 12) 3. Will gain control of the whole earth (Dan 7: 23, Rev 7: 7) 4. Will be given power for 3 ½ years (Dan 7: 25, Rev 13:5) 5. Will speak blasphemies (Dan 7: 25, Rev 13: 5) 6. Will make war with the saints of God, and given permission by God to do so (Dan 7: 21, Rev 13: 7) 7. God puts and end to his reign by defeating him (Dan 2: 45, Dan 7: 11, 22, 26, Rev 19: 20) 8. Will is cast into fire (Dan 7: 11, Rev 19: 20)
We can also find other things in these passages, and use other passages in scripture to show what is done by him, and when this will be.
In dan 2, we are told he will “intend to change times and laws” The Aramaic word for time can mean to make an agreement for a specific period of time. In Dan 9, we are told of a future prince of Rome who will confirm a covenant for 1 week. (Time) In Rev, we are told this beast will change a law, for the first time in the history of the world, the world’s economy will be empowered by one man (cannot buy or sell unless they have the mark of the beast)
In dan 7, we are told he will blaspheme the tabernacle, In dan 9, we are told he will commit the abomination of desolation, as also mentioned of as going to happen by Christ himself in matt 24, right before the great tribulation starts.
In all accounts, we are told he will be personally defeated by Christ himself, In matt 24 we are told why, Unless Christ himself comes. NO FLESH will survive this causes him to return to earth with his armies, and personally defeat the beast, putting an end to the “time or age of the
And finally, in all accounts, After this defeat of the gentile kingdoms, Christ sets up his kingdom on earth, which will be an everlasting kingdom which will never be destroyed. We are told in rev, during this time, Satan will be bound for 1000 years. At the end, he will make one final attempt to defeat the lamb, but will be destroyed before it even gets off its feet, and then the heavens and earth will be destroyed, and a new one established, after all evil is judged (great white throne) and all God’s children are given a new heaven and earth.
As I mentioned earlier. All of these accounts show a "prophetic gap" which is inferred between the end of the 4th beast (Rome) and the re-establishment of the 4th beast in latter times. (some call this the 5th beast. or Rome 2)
More proofs of the final Rome not past tense.
1. World dominion (over every tribe, language and nation) no world power up to this date has ever held dominion over every nation tribe and language 2. Holds power over worlds finances, again, no world power has ever held, nor have the ever held the capacity to hold power over the financial markets of the entire world so that he can say who is able to purchase or sell goods, meaning all forms of money (gold and silver, paper money, are made obsolite) in fact, until recently with the advent of computers has this even been possible 3. Military might with destructive power capable of destroying all life (flesh) on earth, Again, until the past 100 years, this was not even possible) 4. The restoration of the woman (Isreal) and the temple in Isreal. Rev tells us this world leader, and these events (which I just proved could not have even been possible until the past 100 years, and has not happened yet) would go after the woman (Israel) but that she will be protected supernaturally By God, and causes him to turn after her offspring (the church) Thus Israel would have to have been re-established as a nation. It also tells us he will blaspheme God and his tabernacle by committing the abomination of desolation, which means not only will the nation have to be re-established, but the temple rebuilt. OT Scripture makes it clear, one day God will restore Israel to her land and give life to it (dry bones Ez 37 and many otherts) that during this time, there will be a time of Great trouble (Jacobs trouble Jer 30 or great tribulation matt 24) such as never been seen before or after (will make AD70, WW2 and other great wars and tribulations look like a walk in the park) and God will use these events to put and end to the age of the gentiles, at which time, "All Israel will be saved" (romans 11) as they repent and turn to their true God, and renounce all the false God they have been worshiping. Again, up until recent history, no nation has suffered total military defeat, her people spread throughout the world so no resemblance of them is found, and then been restored to her land, Israel is the first nation in the history of mankind to have this happen but the end is not yet. There is still alot to happen before the end..
|
|