'YES HE DID' is the answer supported by Revelation

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

I'll start this afternoon, and I'll probably post by late this afternoon or tomorrow morning. I have a couple of meetings. I'll try to work between them on the post.

Regards,
Bill

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

OK Bill,

I've prepared my response to part two, so ready when you are for part three.

Regards,
Rotherham

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

In your first posted response I did not see anything that you offered to prove your position except Rev. 1:5 . It appears you are simply trying to neutralize the evidence I have presented rather than try and prove your view to be accurate, other than the Rev. 1:5 and a couple of other things which I will specifically address again below.

What I will focus upon then is evidence which I believe proves my points, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in harmony with Biblical precedent and pattern, evidence that I think you are missing. I believe, as I have shared before, that we should always and primarily rely upon Biblical precedent and pattern as a guide in our interpretations. Otherwise, we are simply prone to follow our own subjective views and preferences. The best way to allow God's spirit to guide us is by allowing God's spirit to guide us, and we both agree that the Bible is like congealed holy spirit in written form. What better guide for interpretation can there be? True, Biblical context or Biblical explicit statements elsewhere to the contrary, can alter the meaning of a word or phrase that might every where else be used differently, but the context or statement would have to be explicit and unmistakable in doing so. Without that, Biblical precedent and pattern should rule the day. I am not sure you agree with that, but frankly, you should, as should anyone who desires to get God's thoughts when it comes to anything that is written in scripture, in prophecy.

As far as the "Lord's day" referring to the first day of the week, to Sunday, there is no Biblical precedent or pattern to establish that and the context is far from explicit otherwise, in fact, the surrounding context surely lends itself to the application of it being the Lord's Day in connection with the revelation of Jesus Christ from heaven. For this reason, I reject your explanation as having any precedent or pattern for acceptance. Scripture should rule here, not extra-biblical references.

As far as there being no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, it is far more natural for there to be no mention of the destroyed Jerusalem if it was already past than if it was imminent and looming immediately in the future. The very fact that your view does not seem to include any reference to this imminent destruction, even when the prophecy is willing to talk about the supposed current courtyard, is highly inordinate and unnatural. There would be every reason to include the mention of this coming destruction.

In fact, it is the description of and the final outcome of Babylon the Great that stands against your own timing of the book and squarely against the preterist timing of the book. There is no way, except in the most strained manner, and even then it fails, to apply the description and the final outcome of Babylon to pre 70CE Jerusalem. The preterist explanation can not stand the test of logic or history when compared to the words used to describe Babylon.

You try to take the position that Babylon doesn't apply to Jerusalem. That's smart, but then you close the door on your own interpretation because if it was really written pre 70 CE, it would be highly inordinate for that prophecy not to mention the imminent destruction of Jerusalem. In fact, if your explanation of who the seven headed wild beast is, is to be taken seriously, it makes no sense at all that the imminent destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned, yet the destruction of Babylon, who RIDES the seven headed wild beast, IS explained.

Think about this as well, you claim that many things of Revelation is directly at Jews and directed at many things in direct connection with Jerusalem, yet there is no message to the church at Jerusalem? How odd is that?

Both positions do not line up with logic. The most logical view is it wasn't mentioned because it already happened and nothing in the prophetic signs that were presented had anything to do with the past. And the very fact that the Jerusalem that is mentioned is called NEW Jerusalem, bespeaks the fact that something had happened to the OLD Jerusalem.

Therefore, the most logical view is that Revelation was written POST 70 CE and that the signs mentioned in verse 1, were to take place in the future, just as it says in that verse and reiterated in 4:1. Therefore, based upon the above, I reject your interpretation that Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. It just doesn't add up with the nature of the prophecies.

You seem to think that John could not have been time shifted in the opening verses of Revelation because he doesn't mention being in the Lord's Day until verse 9. Surely you must know that just because he doesn't mention this time transfer until verse 9, in no way means that he could not have already experienced it in the preceding verses, especially when there is nothing in the preceding verse to nullify the idea but rather actually supports the idea beginning with verse 7. Verse 7 is an explicit parallel to the revelation of Jesus Christ and the subsequent result, mentioned in the Olivet Sermon, which is clearly referencing things far into the future, far past 70CE. It is an explicit reference to the parousia of Christ which you do not believe has happened yet. So it is clearly a futuristic reference. So even though this time transfer is not mentioned until verse 9, it in no way removes him from being there, even in verse 1. Regardless, verse 7 puts us in the time of the parousia, which is the Lord's Day. Every contextual indicator in this introduction establishes the Lord’s Day as in connection with the parousia of Christ.

I believe your treatment of the 24 elders and who they are is a glaringly wrong. You should know that according to every ancient manuscript, except ONE, verse 9 of chapter five, which is quoting the 24 elders, says "with your blood you redeemed US". Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to not view the 24 elders as those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, which explicitly establishes them as "former humans" who are now in heaven, and since there are NO humans in heaven prior to the parousia, the point I am making in regard to these 24 elders is irrevocably established. If they are being shown in the vision, then the vision is clearly after the commencement of the parousia, no matter how long you think it lasts.

Plus, angels are NEVER referred to as ELDERS, anywhere in the Bible. Therefore your view is unprecedented and unparalleled according to scripture and that is ample reason alone to reject it. That, along with the fact that your view is out of harmony with every ancient manuscript but one is also enough to reject it. To discredit the reading of "US" simply and only because it does not appear in the one single Codex of Alexandria, is most unreasonable and unjust to the weight of authority that it exhibits everywhere else.

As far as the meaning of parousia, there is no Biblical precedent or pattern except the one that establishes it as meaning "presence". And it is not a word that just appears a couple of times. There are a number of occurrences that are not in connection to the coming of Christ and they all mean presence. And advent is entirely in harmony with the idea of presence because you can't have an advent unless you're present. Advent does not refer to PRE-advent, but refers to the event. The disciples asked for signs of his ADVENT, not his PRE-advent, so the signs were signs not of the PRE-advent stage, but of the advent itself.

Nor do I think your handling of the word "sunteleia" is accurate. You claim that it is used interchangeably with telos, but I fail to see any evidence of that whatsoever.

There is a reference that is of particular value here and it is Hebrews 9:26 which says:
26 Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews here tells us that Jesus manifested himself at the conclusion of the system of things, which means it could have been as early as his birth but certainly no later than his baptism, and we know that the conclusion of the systems of things was STILL continuing and would continue to finalize until the destruction of Jerusalem. This tells us that the sunteleia is a time period LEADING to an end, just as Thayer's describe it as.

You claim you don't believe that the Granville Sharp rule has any bearing at Matthew 24:3, so show me a Biblical example otherwise and I will drop it. If not, then Biblical pattern and precedent stands explicitly against your non-acceptance.


When it comes to the sign that was asked for, Jesus clearly corrected the idea that it would not be a single thing that would be the sign, but it would be numerous things. He did not try and demonstrate that it was just one thing for the language throughout the Olivet Sermon denies such and idea. The very words of Jesus that says "When you see ALL these things occur" then you should know that his revelation from heaven is near which was described as the sign of the Son of Man that all nations would beat themselves in lamentations over. When Jesus said that when you see ALL these things, what were the ALL things he was talking about?

You can't take one account over the other and discard what is said in one account and treat it as inconsequential. You must take all the accounts of the same thing and include everything that was said to have the complete picture, not one or the other. Matthew clearly uses the preaching of the good news to all the nations as a sign for the end because he states THEN the end will come. Therefore, that was clearly one of the things included in ALL the things that would tell them the revelation of Jesus from heaven was about to happen. Luke mentions that Jesus said, after mentioned the great tribulation that when you see these THINGS, not this ONE THING, but THESE THING occur, lift your heads up because your deliverance is getting near. Since Matthew makes it clear that the composite included things BEFORE the mentioning of the great tribulation, there is no reason to discard the other things he spoke of in the very same breath.

The very fact that those signs were called the "beginning of pangs of distress" makes no sense in the overall historic view because they wouldn't be the beginning of anything unless they were somehow different in nature then the all the other historic earthquakes, famines, pestilences and wars. The fact that they are referred to as a BEGINNING of something shows they had to be different in nature or they would not be the beginning of anything, just more of the same. Frankly, there would have been no need to even mention those things if they were not significant to the sign, if they were not part of ALL those things which would tell them the revelation was near.


Jesus' warning was against the ones who would personally claim to be Christ and say the due time is near in the sense that they would know the day and the hour. The reason we know that to be true is because later Bible writers specifically said that the "due time has approached" or the "end of all things is near". Should we not listen to them because they said this? There is clearly a difference then between what his inspired writers were doing and what he said would be going on in that verse.


He surely couldn't mean that it would be wrong for all time for his followers to ever say, "the end is near" or the "time has approached" or both John and Peter should no longer be listened to.

(Revelation 22:10) He also tells me: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near.

(1 Peter 4:7) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. . . .

33 Likewise also YOU, when YOU see all these things, know that he is near at the doors.

Wouldn't it be pretty stupid for Christians to know he was NEAR at the doors and not say anything? Of course it would and would be remiss if we didn't. That is obviously not what Jesus was talking about in that verse in Luke.

There is no indication whatsoever that the signs he gave them, once he assured that them that it would not be singular event, like a war, were FALSE signs. there is absolutely nothing in the context that indicates that in the least. In fact, in Revelation, when Jesus takes his crown, it is immediately followed by global war and famine, in direct harmony with his words at the Olivet Sermon.

You continue to rant on about the wrongness of the identification of the 24 elders but the scriptures are as clear on that as they are anything else. They are REDEEMED by the BLOOD of CHRIST, so there is NO QUESTION as to who they are and there is NO QUESTION as to when they end up in heaven, AT his PAROUSIA. Therefore the visions of Revelation, which ALL take place passing in front of the backdrop of what was introduced in the 4th chapter, are ALL in the time of the PAROUSIA, no other time fits historically with the REDEEMED in heaven.

I am sure you know that just because some of the commentators I gave you agree with us about the identity of the man child, that in no way means I have to endorse everything else they believe. The point was singular. It was certainly not some far-fetched, JW spawned invention to fit their agenda. Far from it.

There is no reason to belabor the point about why God just doesn't come out and specifically spell things out in prophecy. As I said, just like parables, prophecy is generally full of symbolic language, and God uses symbolic language for a reason and the reason is consistent with the same reason why he used it in parables. I don't think you should have an issue with that.

I also think it quite obvious that God does not create prophecy for the purpose of private interpretation as I think we agree, but yes, there have been different interpretations of the same prophecy. That really isn't the point that there should have never been but one prophetic interpretation. The point is that the individual members of God's "ecclesia" should not be promoting private and numerous interpretations at the same time but should obviously agree upon a view until such time as they see the need to change it. What else could it mean except that God's ecclesia should present harmonious views of prophecy? But the whole point is, prophecy and parable are most often NOT explained and is therefore up to the ecclesia to interpret. That does not mean that the ecclesia would never adjust the interpretation as they come to understand things in a better light.

You claim that it could have been explained just like it was to his disciples but you will note that this was only for his disciples and they are rarely spelled out in detail in the scriptures. The ecclesia is left to the determination of those which are not spelled out. Otherwise, it would produce private interpretations from one person to the next, which is not what God wants. Actually, the way prophecy should be handled bespeaks the unity of God's ecclesia, not the disunity.

Prophetic interpretation and parabolic understanding then does become somewhat a matter of trust. It becomes a matter of trust in those you regard to be the ecclesia of God. As long as the constituents of a prophecy or parable do not contradict known logic, history or other scriptures, then the ecclesia should promote a singular view to the best of their ability and the individuals members should concur to that view rather than go around preaching and teaching different private views of prophecy. Otherwise there would be no reason why God would even care to assure us that prophecy was not born from private interpretation.

True, you and I would be considered as having different private interpretations compared to just ourselves, as could many others who take different views, but that again is not the point. Who do you think I trust as the ecclesia of God? Is it you or someone else? No, it isn't. In fact, do you even claim to be representing the ecclesia of God in some fashion? I can certainly see far more consistency with logic, history and Biblical pattern and precedent in their interpretations then the ones you and others have presented.

I believe I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the prophecies of Revelation are all parousiac prophecies because they are all back dropped by the presence of the 24 elders. I also believe I have presented beyond any reasonable doubt that the Olivet sermon was not a singular sign but was clearly composite with many aspects. I also believe that I have presented beyond any reasonable doubt that the little horn in question could not be Antiochus Epiphanes and could not have manifested itself until far after 33 CE. I do not believe that your explanations and interpretations fit with Biblical precedent, nor do they fit logically with the actual words of the prophecy when compared to history.

I also believe that I have presented beyond any reasonable doubt that a person, such as king David, could be called king by God himself long before he actually became king, because he was anointed to BECOME the king, he was the king-designate. There is absolutely no reason that the same could not happen to Jesus. In fact, as is often the case, David's journey to the throne in Jerusalem parallels Jesus journey to the same. David was called king by God when Samuel anointed him to be king in front of his father and brothers, but he was not the true king yet. Later, he became king JUST over the tribe of Judah and for the first seven years of being king he did not reign in Jerusalem. It wasn't until after the death of Mephibosheth that David actually became king over all Israel. Just like Jesus, who was anointed early on to be the king of God's kingdom, and could be called king because of that anointing, became the king first over just the Christian congregation, then later, he became king of the world.

You claim that our Danielic interpretation breaks down once we get to Rome, but frankly, I have not seen that demonstrated at all. The ten horns as ten kings from the Roman Empire and the fact that the little horn uproots three of them while they are still kings is a perfect fit with history. Even our view of the dream image in the second chapter of Daniel is a perfect fit with history and it parallels the prophecy in Daniel 7 without a flaw. Frankly, after that, it makes no difference when one would claim that the kingdom by Christ was established in those following verses of Daniel 7 because what it clearly establishes, from THAT context, is it could not happen in 33 CE, and that is the current main purpose of our discussion.

I was just wondering, is there any one who sees Jesus as King before his ascension to heaven? Or is that your idea alone? I think the most natural reading of Luke's parable is that he was not the king until he went to heaven. If he was already king at the time of the parable it would be odd to simply refer to him as a man of noble birth.

However, in other places, could he be referred to as a king in the same sense that David was, as king-designate? Yes, he could. That way, all the prophecies and parables make historic, logical and scriptural sense.


I can see from your responses that you miss the point of the difference between something being spoken of as under the feet of a king and something being presented as a footstool for the feet.

Even you have to admit that even though Jesus had all power and authority, his enemies had not yet been set under his feet as a stool for his feet. You also have to admit that not everything was UNDER his feet because he rules UNTIL all enemies are UNDER his feet, and that STILL hasn't happened. These are not synonymous references and not recognizing that is part of the problem.

The EARTH is spoken of as God's footstool because it is part of his domain, but that has no comparison to the things which are said to be UNDER his feet or to be put under his feet. Being brought under the feet of a king is a description of their destruction, not a description of mere domain over them. Something being placed as a stool for the king could sometimes even be a place of honor, but it clearly was different than destruction, it was an indication of domain as a king.

When it says that God invited Jesus to sit at his RIGHT HAND UNTIL he placed his enemies as a stool for his feet was not a reference to their destruction but was reference to his domain over them. Only later is their destruction referred to as being put UNDER his feet. They are placed under the kings domain and he can begin to subdue in the midst of those enemies, bringing them one by one UNDER his feet, to their destruction.

Look at the references and the manner in which they refer to the expressions "UNDER his feet" as opposed to something presented as a footstool.

First of all we can see that the phrase which speaks of enemies being UNDER someone's feet is a phrase denoting their destruction:

(Psalm 18:38) . . .I shall break them in pieces so that they will not be able to rise up; They will fall under my feet.
(2 Samuel 22:39) . . .And they will fall under my feet.

(1 Kings 5:3) 3 “You yourself well know that David my father was not able to build a house to the name of Jehovah his God because of the warfare with which they surrounded him, until Jehovah put them under the soles of his feet.

(Psalm 47:3) 3 He will subdue peoples under us And national groups under our feet.

(Malachi 4:3) 3 “And YOU people will certainly tread down [the] wicked ones, for they will become as powder under the soles of YOUR feet in the day on which I am acting,” Jehovah of armies has said.

(Matthew 7:6) 6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw YOUR pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip YOU open.

(Romans 16:20) 20 For his part, the God who gives peace will crush Satan under YOUR feet shortly. . . .

(1 Corinthians 15:24-28) 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet.

Whenever we see "enemies" under the feet, it is a clear indication of their defeat, or defeet if you prefer.
That clearly reminds us of the first prophecy in the Bible where Satan is crushed in the head, likely under the foot of Jesus.

However, such is not the case when something is referred to as being one's footstool.

(1 Chronicles 28:2) . . .“Hear me, my brothers and my people. As for me, it was close to my heart to build a resting house for the ark of the covenant of Jehovah and as the footstool of our God, and I had made preparation to build.

Psalm 99:5) 5 Exalt Jehovah our God and bow down yourselves at his footstool; He is holy.

(Acts 7:49) 49 ‘The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. . . .

(Matthew 5:34-35) 34 However, I say to YOU: Do not swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God’s throne; 35 nor by earth, because it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King.

(Psalm 132:7) 7 Let us come into his grand tabernacle; Let us bow down at his footstool.

(Isaiah 66:1) 66 This is what Jehovah has said: “The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool. . . .

Being one's footstool did not signify destruction, but signified domain.

So what about the different references to Christ then and what exactly he was awaiting? When he went to heaven he was told to sit at God's right hand UNTIL his enemies were placed as a STOOL for his feet, not being an indication of their destruction but being part of his domain as KING. He was not told to sit at his right hand until they were put UNDER his feet as enemies. There is a difference. In fact, when Jesus is shown to be ruling as king in heaven in the book of Revelation, he is NO LONGER at God's RIGHT HAND but is sitting on the throne WITH his Father, or is spoken of as being in the "midst" of the throne, not at the right hand.


So while he is awaiting the enemies to be placed as a footstool, not destroyed, he is sitting at God's right hand. Never is the waiting said to be in reference to his enemies being brought UNDER his feet, but always in reference to them being placed as a footstool. This tells us that if he has to WAIT to have those enemies as a footstool, they are NOT YET under his domain to where he can start to go subduing in the midst of them. It is only after they become part of his domain does he go subduing and placing them UNDER his feet as destroyed.

This is clearly reflected in Revelation 6 when Jesus takes his throne and starts riding in conquest of his enemies, and I have already demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, that these visions are parousiac as to their timing.

Something had to happen to where Jesus was no longer at God's right hand but would be upon his throne with him, in the midst of his throne or God would BE his throne. Since there is a clear difference between something being one's footstool and someone being brought under foot as an enemy, there is a difference between the time referred to as when he would put all enemies under his feet and the time when he would be awaiting to have those enemies placed as his footstool. Yes, his authority over everything was established at his resurrection from heaven, but this is not the same thing as being king over the world. This is clearly pointed out from the scripture in Hebrews where it says all things have been subjected under his feet yet we do NOT YET SEE all things subjected to him. This subjection, including that of his enemies was PROGRESSIVE and not until all his enemies were under his feet as a footstool could he go conquering them. He may have had authority over the demons but he certainly was not destroying them under his feet. Until the point that all of his enemies were placed as a footstool, being under his domain, he was to sit at God's right hand. Once he would become king, he clearly sits upon God's throne WITH him to do so, but that would take time, it was not immediate for all the above reasons.

Satan was clearly under God's domain but he was not UNDER his FEET, not according to the way that phrase is used in reference to enemies. Jesus enemies would be placed as a footstool for his feet, they were being gathered as his DOMAIN, but this was not the same as being UNDER his feet as enemies, again, not according to the way the phrase is used.

When Jesus was shown to become king in Revelation six, immediately following that enthronement, the war horse was said to take peace away from the earth with a GREAT sword. World War I fits that description to a T. There was no significant war or wars after 33 CE that took place to the extent that it could be called a GREAT sword and that peace was taken away from the EARTH, which is a clear reference to GLOBAL warfare, not just a localized war between countries. World War I dwarfed any war before it in history in intensity and the deaths that it caused. That war horse was clearly not just a reference to "more of the same kind of wars that had always happened". A great sword that took away peace from the earth began riding when Jesus did. Death from democide through the last nearly 100 years looks like an aneurysm in time.

In the book of Daniel, not EVERYWHERE in scripture, but Daniel, when in reference to rulers, when they are said to "stand up" it most often means they begin to exercise kingly authority, generally in the sense of against something else. That's not Watchtower my friend, that's just scripture. The Watchtower merely repeated the truth. You'll note that I rarely quote Watchtower. My presentations are primarily about Biblical precedent and patterns. The Watchtower comes after the Bible. So you would be better off to remain dealing with the scriptures instead of cheap shots at the Watchtower.

For instance:

(Daniel 7:17) 17 “‘As for these huge beasts, because they are four, there are four kings that will stand up from the earth.

(Daniel 8:21-22) . . .. 22 And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from [his] nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

(Daniel 8:23-24) 23 “And in the final part of their kingdom, as the transgressors act to a completion, there will stand up a king fierce in countenance and understanding ambiguous sayings. 24 And his power must become mighty, but not by his own power. . . .

(Daniel 11:3) 3 “And a mighty king will certainly stand up and rule with extensive dominion and do according to his will.

So in Daniel 12, during the time of the end, Jesus stands up against something as king. That would be his enemies that have been made a footstool for his feet. When he begins his rule he is no pictured at God's right hand, but on his throne with him. If he was ruling fully as king when he was at his right hand, then what does it mean when he ends up on the throne with his Father? What's the difference?

And how you say that the closing verses of chapter 11 of Daniel could apply before 33 CE is truly beyond me. Would love to see an attempt at that, that doesn't deny history or logic. Right after this action as king, which is the first time in Daniel that Jesus is spoken as taking action as king in the closing prophecies about the king of the north and the south, the great tribulation follows and the resurrection of the dead commences. These are all events associated with the parousia.

Once again, Acts 2 or Peter says nothing about actually being placed on the throne, the "therefore" and the "because" merely identified the one who David referred to as the one who would. In fact, Gods' kings are NEVER spoken of as sitting on the right hand of someone else's throne. Even Solomon was said to sit ON Jehovah's throne, not at it's right hand. The right hand is a position of favor, not an indication of rulership. Rulership in relation to thrones is either spoken of as being ON the throne WITH God or Jesus, or actually sitting ON God's throne as was Solomon, not at the right hand. Peter knew what he was saying and what he was not saying, I am sure, and the exaltation was explicitly in reference to Lord and Savior and Christ. In fact, one could argue that it could be just as significant that KING was NOT mentioned at that time because Peter knew that Jesus was not sitting on God's throne, as was king Solomon at one time. The Davidic throne was "God's throne" according to scripture, not at the right hand of God's throne.

I didn't see anything else in your last response that I felt needed a specific comment that wasn't touched on in the above coverage. If you see something glaringly ignored, please mention it and I will address it immediately.

But as a recap I would like to list the following.

1. Daniel 7 most naturally reads that the Son of Man received his kingship of the world sometime after the little horn which naturally falls in line with sometime after the Roman empire fell apart into ten sub kingdoms. Applications to Antiochus Epiphanus are most unnatural and destroy the natural sequence of events as they appear in the prophecy and history.

2. David was referred to as God's king long before he ever was on the throne at Jerusalem, Jehovah's throne. He first became king over one tribe and then later the entire nation. This parallels the kingship progression of Jesus Christ, whom David is a strong antitype. Jesus first became king over the ecclesia and then the world at a late time.

3. Revelation, where Christ is often spoken as receiving his kingship, is most naturally understood as a collection of prophecies which transpire during the parousia of Christ because the 24 elders are shown to be in heaven and they are those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ. We are also explicitly told that none of the holy ones are in heaven until the parousia.

4. God's kings are never spoken of as sitting at his right hand, but are shown to be ON God's throne.

5. There is a marked difference between something serving as a footstool and something being put under the feet as an enemy. One is domain, the other is destruction.

6. Revelation 6 where Jesus is said to begin his rule (receive his crown) is said to be followed by great warfare which takes away peace from the EARTH. That fits extremely well with the events of warfare starting circa the year 1914 and onward. No other century comes close to the amount of democide which has occured in this last 100 years, or nearly so. It far exceeds the ratio of populace as well when compared to the war/population ratios of the past. It is an aneurysm in history.

I believe the arguments presented are the strongest arguments available when logic, history and scriptural precedent and pattern serve as our guide.


Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Well, it's been a month Bill, without a peep. So what's happening?

Rotherham

[BillW]

[BillW]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

Are you done, or is there more?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

If you're done, I'm ready to submit my response.

Regards,
Rotherham

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

You had a few other points I hadn't responded to. I'll try to keep it short. I think I should make one more post.

Regards,
Bill

[BillW]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

So are you now done with your responses?

Regards,
Rotherham

[BillW]

Yes.

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

I feel a summary to this discussion ensuing rapidly. Your arguments, for the most part, have diminished to preference, conjecture and a few gymnastics along the way, so there is no reason to continue the back and forth if there is nothing new to offer. We'll see where we are after this exchange and decide if we can submit our summaries and be done. Frankly, I am not under obligation to show you anything except that the "kingdom of the world" was not established for Christ in the year 33 CE. The rest is all basically peripheral to that and as long as I can show that our interpretations of those peripheral issues are valid in reference to history, prophecy and logic, beyond reasonable doubt, then that is all that needs be done. So I think we are near to the end of this because I feel confident in what I have presented is the stronger and most precedented understanding overall.

Regarding 1 Peter 3:22 and Rev. 1:5

Having all authority does not mean that you have become king of the world. The designation of king refers to a special capacity of authority and a special capacity of rulership, that of the Davidic throne, where kings were said to sit ON Jehovah's throne, not at his right hand. Princes often sit at the right hand of the king, awaiting to be king, awaiting to sit on the king's throne, and whereas they might be higher than any other authority other than the king, they are still not the king. Evidence of this in the fact that Satan has never been referred to as the king of this world, yet he is called the PRINCE (archon) and "the god of this system", he is pictured as giving life to and in control of the governments of this world. He told Jesus he could give him all the kingdoms of the world. The whole world is said to lie in his power. If this wouldn't make him "KING" of the world based on your criteria, what would?

In fact, if you say Jesus became king of the world in 33 CE, what was Satan still doing as the GOD of this system, and what was the whole world still doing lying in his power? What this shows, Bill, is that one can possess all authority and still not be regarded as the KING of the world. As 1 Peter 3:22 says, he isn't on Jehovah's throne yet, he is still at his right hand, awaiting the time when he will take the throne. So he's not there yet, not if one wants to pay attention to Biblical precedent and pattern.

You claim that I ignore Biblical precedent but have never demonstrated such. It is the Bible itself, God himself, that called David king before he was king. And you yourself have admitted that Jesus was called king before the year 33 CE, even near to his birth. That's a precedent Bill, from the Bible itself, so please show me where I have violated Biblical precedent? It seems you might be confused over "precedent", "the lack thereof" and "frequency of use". If a word or phrase is used many times and in only a few or a couple of cases it is clearly and explicitly used in a different way, then a precedent for that use is still established. It may not be the most common meaning, but it still has some precedent to use it that way. Really, what presents a more powerful argument against something is not the fact that a word or phrase is outside its "common" usage, or limited precedent, but that fact that it would exist as an isolated case, with NO precedent. THEN you have trouble if you are vying for a meaning that has NO precedent. That is why you'll see me concentrate on the LACK of any precedent, not just a less common meaning or limited precedent. So please, tell me where I am ignoring Biblical precedent. That has never been demonstrated by you that I have done so, but see it happening more than once in the interpretation you are appealing to.

Of course, Rev. 1:5 fares no better than 1 Peter 3:22 for your purposes as there are, as mentioned, different ways to look at the title "Ruler of the kings of the earth". Another point I might mention is that "ruler", which is "archon", which means not only "ruler" but "authority" could stand in the same category of 1 Pet. 3:22, for as mentioned, "authority" even over all the world such as that possessed by Satan, does not mean that one is ruling as KING. As I mentioned earlier, a prince has more authority than anyone except the king, but he is still not the king. He has not yet received that official capacity until he takes the king's throne. It might not even change the amount of authority that he has, or maybe only slightly, but it changes his official position in the kingdom. Interestingly, the word "archon" is often rendered as "prince", but never as "king" that I could find. Was there a purposeful distinction being made? One could argue that there was.

Examples of archon on the LXX and the GNT. You'll see that archon never really seems to mean king anywhere, but rather "prince" or some authority less than the king.

Gen. 12:15, 14:7, 24:2; 25:16, etc. I found 598 occurrences of the word "archon" in the LXX and never once could I see (admittedly, I may have missed it) where it actually talked about one who was the king, but was in reference to someone of lesser capacity than the king. The same holds true in the NT Greek as well. If this is accurate, which I think it is, one could easily state another Biblical precedent here that "archon" is never used of one who is the "king". This makes perfect sense then with the fact that Jesus is sitting at the RIGHT HAND of the throne, not ON it. Kings don't sit at the RIGHT HAND of the throne, PRINCES do THAT. KINGS sit ON the throne. He wasn't the KING yet. Even if he had been given all authority BY the king, it did not make him the KING. So, in converse, we could say, if this is accurate, that there is no Biblical precedent for regarding the "archon" as the "king", but someone of lesser capacity. So statistically, Rev. 1:5 is no good for you and may even speak against him being the king at that time, which appears to me to be the case, which erases the need for any time shift application that bothered you so much anyway. And even if one can not claim an absolute precedent here, (providing I missed the reference) the statistical evidence does not favor the term being applied to the king, but what I found anyway, is an absolute precedent unless someone can show otherwise.

Regarding the Lord's Day and what it means.

As far as you Lord's Day arguments, I do not see them as overturning anything, in fact, some of them don’t help you at all. You use the following verses as support for your argument, and they are clearly not:

Acts 20:7: On the first day of the week [Sunday], when we were gathered together to break bread.----

Nothing in this text nor in other Bible verses indicates that this account was meant to be an example that was being followed by all Christians, there is nothing there that tells us that it was even a tradition or pattern and certainly not obligation.

1 Cor 16:2: ...just as I gave orders to the congregations of Ga•la´ti•a, do that way also yourselves. 2 Every first day of the week [Sunday] let each of YOU at his own house set something aside…----

This doesn’t even mention the congregation meeting on this day, it says to set aside some money for each HOUSEHOLD on this day.

John 20:19 Therefore, when it was late on that day, the first of the week, [Sunday] and, although the doors were locked where the disciples were...Jesus came and stood in their midst....”---

How does one see this as some sort of standard for the Christian congregation, which had not even been formed yet?

John 20:26 26 Well, eight days later [Sunday] his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said: “May YOU have peace.”----

How does the fact that they were indoors on a Sunday, which was not the usual day for gathering for Jews anyway, surely not the Sabbath, which could truly be referred to as the Lord’s day, have anything to do with THIS being the Lord’s day?

Acts 2:1: Now while the day of the [festival of] Pentecost [Sunday] was in progress they were all together at the same place,---

What does this have to do with Christian meetings and events? This was under the Law Covenant anyway, which makes it entirley to be expected and irrelevant to your point. Plus, Penetcost did not fall on a Sunday that week. Jesus died on Nisan 14, resurrected Nisan 16,which was a Sunday, and 50 days later was to be the Pentecost observance. Fifty days from any Sunday does not end up on a Sunday, and this gathering had nothing to do with some "Lord's Day but had to do entirely with the day that Pentecost would fall on, which differed from year to year.


Bill:
Although "being in the spirit on the Lord's Day" can have other meanings besides receiving the vision on the first day of the week, it still does not in any way require or even imply that John was ever transferred INTO the future. This doesn't mean your hypothesis here is impossible, but even if it means he was transported in time, it doesn't mean that the expression gives us his point of reference for each and every vision. (In such a situation John may have understood himself to be only a few days or weeks into the future, not years.)


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Put in the context of "every eye will see him" and "coming with the clouds" and "all the earth beating themselves with grief" which were clearly parallel parousiac themes, gives us every reasons to believe this was the Lord's Day that he was transferred to.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

You ignore the Biblical precedent that shows that the "end of the system" was already close at hand, in all the rest of the NT. And these passages are NOT in reference only to the end of the Jewish system.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Something you need to prove because what you have below doesn’t even come close. The phrase "end of the system" as included in the parable of the wheat and the weeds clearly does NOT refer to the end of the Jewish system, but to an "end" that comes AFTER an apostasy and corruption of the church. So there IS precedent otherwise.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not: and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away" (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)----

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
That had no reference to a "sunteleia".
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Romans 13:11-13 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep:for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12. The night is far spent, the day is at hand:let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.----

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Nor does this. How are you deriving references to a "sunteleia" from these verses?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Before you start trying to tie all these other verses to 70 CE, note also that 1 John 2:
"8 Again, I am writing YOU a new commandment, a fact that is true in his case and in YOURS, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining."…---

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Same as above. No reference to a sunteleia here.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever. 18 even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour. …----

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
This was likely written after 70 CE anyway, same as Revelation. This isn't talking about a "sunteleia".
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not be shamed away from him at his presence."----

%%%%%%%%%
Point?
%%%%%%%%%

And it wouldn't hurt to also notice in verse 28 above that the Bible is still clear even after the initial parousia and manifestation of 70 CE that First John, written after that event, still points out that Jesus coming manifestation is at the time of the coming parousia. They refer to the same event according to John.----

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Not at all, Bill, not if the manifestation is PART of the overall presence, an event WITHIN.

Bill, none of these examples even use the phrase "end of the system" or "conclusion of the age" and apply to various things other than the context we are dealing with. I am not even sure what you think you are trying to prove here, if anything.

I think some of your problem lies in the area of where you seem to think that the parousia, manifestation and revelation are all synonmous events. I can’t figure why you insist on such a thing. The revelation or manifestation of Christ takes place DURING the parousia, and is in fact the highlight, so where is the problem in any of this? It's not the same event but PART of it. There is no problem. Those "themes" in the opening of Rev 1 of "coming with the clouds", "every eye seeing him" and all the earth beating themselves in grief", clearly establish the time period to be focused on the "parousia" because that is when those THEMES are said to unfold according to jesus when he said these words. Even Paul highlights that Jehovah's Day, or the Lord's Day has direct connection to the "parousia" of Christ by his juxtaposition of them in his letter to the Thessalonians. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2) 2 However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. There is ample evidence for us to see the Lord's Day here as exactly what it is consistently referred to elsewhere, and again, never once do we see any indication of any weight whatsoever that it was the first day of the week.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

You added some comments about preterist understandings that equate Babylon with Jerusalem. I have never equated them. We have discussed this in past years. Preterists find it interesting that there is almost NOTHING about Babylon the Great in Revelation that can't be matched to an OT reference to Jerusalem, but equating them was never the point. The point was to take all the traumatic memory of the destruction of Jerusalem and be able to use it as an image of destruction on not just the Jewish world, but the entire "world" - "system of things". That entire world system was represented or symbolized more easily by the Roman world, but I think Christians were supposed to see the curious parallels to Jerusalem.----

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The real fact is there are things said about Babylon the Great which simply can't match the Jerusalem of history. History destroys a preterist application of Babylon to Jerusalem.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Again, nothing changes for either date. If the beast references are so easily attached to Roman history, then the destruction of Jerusalem IS being mentioned as imminent, because the Roman world represented the entire inhabited world and the destruction of Jerusalem was tied to the destruction of the entire world (by Jesus). But the symbol of Rome in Revelation goes on to speak of a world destruction beyond just that of Jerusalem, and even beyond just that of Rome.---

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Biblical precedent nearly demands that we see the 7 headed wild beast of Revelation as a conglomorate of the Danielic beasts. To ignore those parallels is to ignore too much. Whether you want to believe it or not because of your anti_JW agenda is hardly the point. Careful Bill, you might just throw out something that you should pay attention to. There is AMPLE Biblical and historical precedent to see it as such. You seem to think that I have to PROVE this to you beyond any doubt whatsoever. That has ever been the case. Plain and simply, the evidence presented demonstrates that we have every good reason to see these things as we do as they are historically, prophetically, and logically consistent. Applying the little horn of Daniel seven to Antiochus is none of those.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

It's not odd at all if they followed Jesus command in the months before the destruction in 70. There would simply have not been a church at Jerusalem. Some would flee in 66, more in 68 and 69. If Revelation had been written in 69, there would simply be no church there.----

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
So "Get out of Babylon" can't possibly apply to Jerusalem then. Something definitely future from 70 CE.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

You also added: "And the very fact that the Jerusalem that is mentioned is called NEW Jerusalem, bespeaks the fact that something had happened to the OLD Jerusalem." This sounds like a good point, but every Christian had already known that the Old Jerusalem was going to pass away. Jesus had prophesied it, and of course it implied that something was going to happen to the old. But conjecture isn't necessary. Revelation 21, as we would expect, already ties the New Jerusalem to a time when the old "world" would have passed away. "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem."---

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Yes, New Jerusalem is the CHURCH in heaven, the Lamb's Bride, once again pulling this application to the parousia, just like it does elsewhere.

Regarding the 24 elders.

Understanding how the visions of Revelation unfold erases this problem as to how the 24 elders and the 144,000 can be the same group depicted differently and even in front of each other or present in the same vision. The initial vision explained by John with the throne, the four living creatures, the seven spirits/lamps that are intrinsically connected to the one who becomes the Lamb and the glassy sea are the constant backdrop as other visions unfold for John between this backdrop and him. It would not then be out of the ordinary if those who are in the backdrop, depending upon their role in the other visions, would be depicted as something else besides their initial description and in front of their counterpart for the sake of describing a specific aspect of their role in the outworking of these prophecies.

For instance, you claim that the Lamb is not even there at the same time as the 24 elders but such is not the case if one pays close attention. You will note that it is Jesus who HAS the seven spirits, which are later described as his eyes, who are there from the beginning, so he IS there from the beginning but veiled no doubt for purpose of dramatizing and emphasizing his introduction.. This is shown even further when in front of the Lamb, who then remains in the backdrop vision, we have Jesus riding on the white horse, and the angel in the opening of chapter 8 is seen by many to be Jesus himself as the high priest since this angel performs duties only allowed to the high priest, and the same is true of the angel depicted in chapter 10, and YOU yourself think the male child is a depiction of the Lamb who is already in heaven as part of the constant backdrop vision. So frankly, these kind of things are not a problem.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The 24 elders are identified as bringing the prayers of the “holy ones” directly to God’s throne (as if) they were bowls of incense. This is more in line with services elsewhere associated with angelic creatures, not “former humans.”----

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
They are simply shown as HAVING bowls of incense which are the prayers of the holy ones, which could merely be their own prayers before God
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Remember that all of this is mentioned at a time when the LAMB is still nowhere to be seen. The passage explicitly goes on to say “Neither in heaven nor upon earth nor underneath the earth was there a single one able to open the scroll” (5:3). There was therefore a time when Jesus was NOT yet the Lamb UNTIL explains: “One of the [24] ELDERS says to me: ‘Stop weeping. Look! The LION has conquered…And I saw standing in the MIDST of the throne and of the FOUR Living Creatures and in the MIDST of the ELDERS, a LAMB as though…slaughtered (Rev 5:5). The Lamb is also now identified with the SEVEN Spirits of God we had just seen in 4:5.----

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Surely you don't think that Jesus did not exist anywhere at the timing of this vision. First off, he was there but unseen via the seven spirits, which are his eyes. This is clearly hyperbole for the purpose of a theatrical introduction of the Lamb who conquered.

Your manuscript argument doesn't do a thing to overturn the fact that the weight of the manuscript evidence is clearly supporting US. To claim the NWT always defaults to the Alexandrinus Codex is simply a falsehood. Mark 9:44,46 and the long conclusion of Mark and the beginning of John 8 are just a few prime examples. Their rendering of "persons" at this verse I think is rather unfortunate but so be it. (no lightining struck when I typed this) In reality, nothing can deny that the weight of the manuscript evidence that supports US, which leaves the 24 elders to be human.

There are of course other clues to this group and who they are. They are depicted as wearing white robes and golden crowns, which means they are kings LIKE Jesus who is also shown to be wearing a golden crown. Never are angels depicted with such adornment or office, only humans, and as I mentioned before, angels are never referred to as "elders". As well, the number 24 finds precedent in the fact that there were 24 divisions within the priesthood of Israel. There is absolutely every good reason for us to see these 24 elders as redeemed humans and as a symbol of those ones who are the kings and priests of Christ's kingdom.

Also the verse in questions says it was by means of his blood that they were redeemed. That only applies to humans, regardless of how you may want to stretch the concept of redemption elsewhere. I've read through your very strained attempt to make angels "elders" and frankly, besides conjecture and gymnastics, there is nothing here at all to overturn the fact that the SCRIPTURES never speak of angels as ELDERS. It doesn’t matter how many strained parallels you draw to show that they might be considered elders, the fact is, the scriptures never call them that.

Keep in mind that "angel" simply means messenger so it is easily attributed to men as it is many times, but never is the converse true where a heavenly angel is referred to as a "presbyteros". Jehovah being called the Ancient One is totally irrelevant. The word there is "palaios" anyway, not presbyteros. There is no Biblical reason at all to go with these elders as heavenly angels. They parallel the bride of Christ perfectly in their descriptions. Golden crowns, 24 in number (to represent the priestly divisions), redeemed by the blood of Christ (manuscript evidence) all fit with the bride of Christ. On the other hand, angels are never depicted with crowns, never referred to as presbyteros and not redeemed by the blood of Christ. Beleive what you wish but the preponderance of the evidence is with our understanding of who these ones are.

Any application to humans before Christ is also preposterous. The Apostle John told us at the writing of his book that no man had ascended to heaven except Jesus and Peter on Pentecost told us that David did not go to heaven. So this wont work either. The Biblical precedent and description and manuscript evidence is clearly in favor of the 24 elder being former humans that don't get to heaven until the parousia.

As far as me now having to accept the four living creatures are now also former humans, there a three possible ways to accept the grammar there. The plural US can refer to the four living creatures alone, since they posses plurality. It could refer to both the four living creatures and the 24 elders since they all posses plurality, or it could refer to just the 24 elders since they also possess plurality. Grammar would allow for either of those so no one is under compulsion grammatically to accept any particular view. Context and Biblical parallel would rule out the four living from being in included in the US that was redeemed by Christ’s blood, but at least ONE of those two groups had to be the US grammatically. If it wasn’t the four living creatures, it had to be the 24 elders.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

If one were to make a connection to Antiochus Epiphanes, for example, you would claim that there were not exactly 10 horns as 10 kings, that a little horn didn't literally uproot 3 of them while they are still kings, and claim then that it isn't a perfect fit with history. But then you decide to make the 10 kings -- in your own view -- something different from exactly 10 literal kings. And while you pick one who uproots 3 others while they are still kings, you really have the same problems. For one thing you use the word "king" to mean "kingdom" even if not the most likely meaning. You choose 3 arbitrary naval powers as the 3 kings uprooted, yet they are not truly uprooted, only temporarily weakened. You make a decision that only European powers are the outgrowths of Rome. You add the USA as soon as it becomes convenient. If the Watchtower had been promoting a different view while I proposed this same view you currently believe in, it would be ridiculed by you for some of the same reasons you currently dismiss other views.---

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The fact is despite your objections, our interpretation fits with history and keeps the chronological order that is maintained from the beginning of the prophecy and parallels the other march of kingdom powers represented elsewhere in the book without a flaw. That's what you call Biblical precedent and pattern. Applying it to Antiochus is not only an anachronistic stretch of the imagination, it also doesn't find an adequate fit in history in regards the actions taken by Antiochus and disrupts the natural parallels to the other world power prophecies in the same book.

There is Biblical precedent for those horns to be taken as both kings and/or kingdoms. The fact that the English navy defeated those three mentioned navies is surely fitting enough to be called uprooted. Their dominance of the seas were truly uprooted. Nothing in those words demands their annihilation.

Our interpretation fits with history, with chronology and with the prophetic patterns of Daniel. I have seen no reason whatsoever to think that such an interpretation is not superior to what you and others have offered and stands squarely against the idea that Jesus received the kingdom of the world in 33 CE. It takes a good deal of conjecture and gymnastics to arrive at where you and others want it to arrive at. No one can deny that it has the best statistical data to support it

Luke 22 does not present anything new to your argument that you have not offered before. I have already covered in detail why sitting at the right hand of God’s throne, does not make you the King, it makes you at best the Prince and even though the Prince is second in power to the king, he has not yet become king until such time as the king bestows him with that position. Even though he would have authority over everything that the King has, he is still not the King and that is the way that Jesus is portrayed consistently until the parousia unfolds. Proof of this is the fact that Satan, often referred to as a Prince and even “god” of this world, was said to have the whole world lying in his power and this in no way ever earned him the title of KING.

I am not interested in extra biblical representations and or meanings given to the idea of what it means to be one’s footstool. I am interested in how the scriptures themselves present this and there is plenty of data to make a determination as to how one should view it in relation to Biblical precedent. You have not demonstrated in any fashion how having enemies as a footstool meant destroying those enemies. We only see that kind of destruction in regard to being put under one’s feet as an enemy. One indicates a crushing of the enemy by the feet which surely does not take place with your feet on a footstool. Your enemies as your footstool not only indicates the ability to destroy them but also your tolerance of them for a purpose, that purpose being their own chance for salvation. Once they are put under his domain, then he can go subduing them, putting them UNDER his feet and not in the sense of resting one’s feet upon them but in the sense of destroying them, starting with Satan and his demons being ousted from heaven and then turning his attention to the earth after Satan is given a short time before his abyssal and after all of his earthly enemies have been given ample opportunity to repent. This sequence of events is easily seen in the Psalms that speaks of this kingship.

(Psalm 2:1-12) 2 Why have the nations been in tumult And the national groups themselves kept muttering an empty thing? 2 The kings of earth take their stand And high officials themselves have massed together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one, 3 [Saying:] “Let us tear their bands apart And cast their cords away from us!” 4 The very One sitting in the heavens will laugh; Jehovah himself will hold them in derision. 5 At that time he will speak to them in his anger And in his hot displeasure he will disturb them, 6 [Saying:] “I, even I, have installed my king Upon Zion, my holy mountain.” 7 Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father. 8 Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance And the ends of the earth as your own possession. 9 You will break them with an iron scepter, As though a potter’s vessel you will dash them to pieces.” 10 And now, O kings, exercise insight; Let yourselves be corrected, O judges of the earth. 11 Serve Jehovah with fear And be joyful with trembling. 12 Kiss the son, that He may not become incensed And YOU may not perish [from] the way, For his anger flares up easily. Happy are all those taking refuge in him.

In other words Jehovah says to his Prince, the king-designate who sits at his right hand UNTIL his enemies are placed under his domain. Then, once all of his enemies are placed under that domain he sits upon the throne of Jehovah himself and goes about destroying those enemies, all along holding out salvation to them and the opportunity to “kiss” the Son.

This all a very natural process and fits with the language used throughout the Bible in regard to Christ. A prince naturally has “authority” over everything that the KING has authority over, but the PRINCE is not the King, not yet. A Prince sits at the right hand of the King. The domain of the kingdom is under the feet as a footstool for the KING, not the Prince. That footstool represents absolute rulership and control over that domain, not destruction It is only when the Prince actually takes the throne and BECOMES KING that the King’s domain becomes the Prince’s domain as KING. And the Prince, until such time as he becomes King, as indicated elsewhere in the Bible in regard to David, one of the primary antitypes of Jesus, can still be called King as King-designate because they have already been anointed and marked and destined to become such. It is once he receives the domain of the King that he then goes forth to put them UNDER his foot.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1 Cor 15:25 said he was ruling as King all this time while God was putting enemies under his feet, and would continue to rule as King until God had put ALL enemies under his feet. Are you now saying that Jesus never rules as King until the last enemy "death" has been brought to nothing. In your books, this is most literally understood at the END of the thousand years.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
You need to look again at this. It matches perfectly with what I have been saying. You also claim something that it doesn’t say.

(1 Corinthians 15:25-28) 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing.

Verse 25 and 26 matches exactly what I have been saying. This uses the expression UNDER HIS FEET as enemies, which means their destruction, not mere domain over them. Jesus DOES rule as king until he destroys all enemies. This in no way contradicts what I have said but rather confirms it.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


Sitting at God's right hand is clearly a reference to RULING. Acts 2, again, shows that Jesus went to SIT at God's right in fulfillment of God's oath to David that God would "SIT one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne" (Acts 2:30) Whatever the state of ALL his enemies at that time, he was already ruling in their midst. He only had to wait until ALL enemies were subjugated. You actually have it a bit backwards that these enemies are part of his domain BEFORE he goes subduing them. A king subdues enemies to make them part of his domain. You can only subjugate after you subdue.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
You seem to forget something here. Those enemies are PLACED BY GOD as stool for his feet. The earth is already God’s footstool of domain. He simply turns it over to Christ for him to go and subjugate his enemies. Nothing about conquering is indicated by something serving as a foot stool.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


The difference in sitting at God's right hand and being in the midst of his throne is again an unscriptural distinction, if you are using it to indicate that Jesus was not a king while sitting at God's right hand. Refer again to Acts 2. Being brought into the midst of God's throne was the same as sitting at God's right hand, the position of highest favor. The position of a co-ruler.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
You have no evidence to call it an unscriptural distinction at all. What would serve as evidence is to demonstrate where a king upon David’s throne was referred to as sitting at the right hand of the Majesty. They weren’t, Solomon was said to sit upon Jehovah’s throne. Jesus is said to sit on the throne WITH his Father. The right hand is the natural position of the PRINCE, not the KING. Its not a matter of authority as much it is a matter of position in relation to that authority. Even as Prince, one is NOT the King. Biblical precedent and example stands in favor of that understanding, not against it. You are the one without precedent.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


Also, your position is tied to literal distinctions between being "underfoot" or "under a footstool." That being the case, you can't really use Hebrews 2, or even 1 Cor 15:27 to support you're distinction. 1 Cor 15 says: "For [God] 'subjected all things under his feet.'" God has not just made a footstool but already speaks as if everything is subjected "under his feet". Now there are obvious reasons to believe as you stated above that this is about a process and therefore the tension with the verb tenses. But this same passage obviously goes against your supposed distinctions about the difference in a footstool and "under his feet". Also, let's go ahead and say that Jesus really was the reference in Hebrews 2 when it says "'All things you subjected under his feet.' For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; 9 but we behold Jesus, ..., crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death..." This would mean that the distinction about footstools was forgotten again. Under his feet would refer to domain it seems, dominion. Not a problem in my view, but a direct conflict with yours, which requires "under his foot" to refer to destruction (for some reason). The idea that we don't SEE it all yet, is not that it hasn't been accomplished, just that, as you say, it's an ongoing process of subjugation of enemies. Hebrews in fact goes on to show precisely this in the next few verses: "14: through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil; 15 and [that] he might emancipate all those who for fear of death were subject to slavery all through their lives."


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Bill, what you are forgetting is that that there has to be a difference here between the “all things” which are subjected under the feet to Christ and the putting of his enemies under his feet. Verse 26 proves that the expression UNDER HIS FEET in relation to his enemies refers to their destruction. However, beginning with verse 27, the expression can’t possibly refer to destruction. All things SUBJECTED UNDER THE FEET to Christ is not just about ENEMIES, its about EVERYTHING, otherwise, Paul would not have to make special note to exclude God the Father. Yes, the VERY REASON that Christ can eventually destroy his enemies UNDER HIS FEET, the last one being death, is because ALL THINGS, good and bad have been subjected to him EVENTUALLY, as the verb tense proves, as the Prince sitting at God’s right hand. But the “UNDER THE FEET” in relation to his enemies is NOT synonymous here with “subjected under his feet”. Remember from the start of this point I said that this has to do with the expression used in relation to ENEMIES, not just the expression under the feet in relation to everything. Keeping this in mind is important and erases any supposed contradiction that you think you saw.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


Also take a note that Hebrews makes a special reference to the fact that we behold Jesus CROWNED in the first century.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The crowning is qualified by the words glory and honor. Not quite the same thing as being crowned as King. Remember, in the Psalms, those words, including being subjected underfoot, were applied to earthling man too. This clearly has nothing to do then with what you are thinking.

(Psalm 8:4-6) 4 What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, And the son of earthling man that you take care of him? 5 You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones, And with glory and splendor you then crowned him. 6 You make him dominate over the works of your hands; Everything you have put under his feet:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%



Satan was already in the process of being brought to nothing, and his "hold" over humans was disintegrating, already destroyed in fact for many Christians.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
No, it simply was not destroyed in any way, in no more way than what it was before Christ. He was still the ruler and the god of this system and he could still persecute, tempt, kill and cause trouble for Christians just like he did for Job. God always had some restraint on the actions of the Devil, even before Christ. In fact there are more references to the meddling of Satan after Christ than before.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

There was something about the significance of what happened in the generation of 33 CE (66 - 73 especially) that dwarfed what happened in WWI. It effected God's chosen saints, and this was "touching the apple of his eye". WW I was terrible, but there was a reason that the hyperbole of Matthew 24 dwarfs it with what happened around 70 CE.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The great tribulation upon Jerusalem doesn’t even come close to matching the description of the great sword in Revelation 6. This was a GREAT sword which took away peace from the earth, not just the city of Jerusalem. Apples and oranges.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


Note also, that when we discuss this subject, the subtext is always about the defense of one of the most unique and suspicious chronologies being taught today in the name of religion. It was put forth by the Watchtower and therefore the Watchtower's credibility on all things chronological and prophetic is very much an appropriate subject for this discussion.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
No, that’s what you want to turn it into but the article doesn’t even address the topic as to WHEN the Bible would indicate the kingdom would begin. It simply demonstrates that it had to be AFTER 33CE. That’s what we need to primarily stick to. Otherwise this will never end. We can always discuss the WT and its interpretation of things later here or elsewhere.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

This one is in line with your idea -- which I still agree with -- that standing up refers to some definitive action. But it still has nothing to do with whether the power or king existed previously, or had the title of "king" previously. He could be ruling "fully" as king and then stand up to rule an extended dominion.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The point is that this standing up, which means to take an action against his enemies, SUBDUING, which you say was 33 CE doesn’t fit with that. This standing up, this taking action, is placed at the very end of a very long prophecy that takes us clear down to the parousia AND THE RESURRECTION. For your idea to be correct, this standing up of Michael should have taken place at the spot where he was resurrected in that prophecy or in the first century, not at the spot indicated here in Daniel. Once again, your interpretation becomes anachronistic gymnastics
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


It actually does. "30 Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne, 31 he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ...Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand." Sorry you keep missing that by trying to construe the logic away from the obvious.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Bill, there’s simply nothing to miss here. The very sitting at the right hand was enough to show that the one who sat at that right hand would be the one to fulfill the promise. It in no way shows that the promise had to have reached complete fulfillment by what is said there. You’re constantly trying to read more into it than what it actually says.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


Your statement about no human King being at God's right hand can be misleading. Because you could just as easily say that the ONLY person to whom it was ever said to sit at God's right hand, "the right hand of the throne of Majesty" was ONLY for someone who had just been exalted to God's right hand above every other dominion, and who was the only case known was of someone who was referred to as Ruler of the Kings of the Earth. Not even to any of the angels had this position been granted, except to one who was both King and Priest according to the manner of Melchizedek. (Book of Hebrews) The only one ever to sit in this place was called the "the head of all government and authority" in Colossians, where it also happens to say: 13 He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love (Kingdom of his beloved Son), 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
But this changes nothing. Simply because Jesus is the only one to have been stated as sitting at God’s right hand AWAITING something, does not change in any way the fact that the king on David’s throne was NOT spoken of as at the right hand, but ON the throne. Jesus reference to himself in Revelation as sitting on God’s throne with him shows that this is not just in reference to any earthly rulership but when he was in heaven as well. And remember, I could find no place in the Bible at all where “Ruler” (archon) was used in reference to the King, but rather in reference to one with authority, but below the king, such as the prince.

There were some things that didn’t need addressed because I think everything you mentioned was covered by what I have included here, either directly or indirectly. If not repeat it

Biblical precedent is clearly in our corner for this one Bill, at least in regard to not having happened in 33CE.

The natural and paralleled reading of Daniel 7 denies 33 CE historically and chronologically. Antiochus doesn’t fit at all with Daniel 7. The identity of the 24 elders is nearly absolute when one stays with manuscript evidence and the parallel imagery and terminology found elsewhere. That places the visions to be centered around a parousiac scenario in heaven. The kings of David’s throne were said to sit ON Jehovah’s throne, not at a right hand position to God. Jesus said he would sit ON God’s throne in heaven, not at his right side. In fact, no king is spoken of as sitting at the right side of a greater throne. The right hand seat was normally the position of a Prince, not a King. The Greek word of “archon” did not exhibit any incidences where it actually referred to the King of a land, but referred to Princes, who naturally sat at the right hand of the king. Satan himself is referred to as the Prince and the god of this world, yet never is he called king. It’s not a matter of authority, but of a particular position in relation to that authority.

Anytime you’re ready for a summary, I am.

Regards,
Rotherham

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

Yes, I agree. I believe we should be ready for summaries by now.

If you don't mind, please go first. I won't have time to summarize for a few days.

Regards,
Bill

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

Sounds like the right way to do it. This has been a hectic 6 months with a lot of business travel, personal travel and two family funerals. I looked over the previous postings and I realize that these many issues took a toll on the flow of the discussion. I learned a lot while presenting my arguments, and realize that there is much more to learn. I haven't even touched the real differences between my beliefs on Daniel's beasts and how these tie in to Revelation's beasts. I found two excellent books on the subject, both of which I need to read fully to be able to respond even to my own questions more competently.

I also never took the time to truly understand your own (Watchtower) view of the Daniel beasts. I dismissed it when I noticed it had problems so similar to all the other interpretations. Therefore I never really did a full study of its comparative merits. Even if this becomes an exercise in which of these two weak interpretations has a little more merit than the other one, I need to see why you pinned so much of your argument on the supposed "perfect fit" between your interpretation of Daniel and Revelation. I never saw it. My own interpretation is merely the best I can do at removing the problems I see in all the major interpretations I'm aware of.

I also realized that I had never followed through on a track that must be very important to this discussion. A discussion of the entire subject of kingdom, reign, rulership, regal authority, worshipful authority -- and the entire reason for using the regal imagery of power -- kings, princes -- rather than just the authority of judgment, justice, righteousness. This requires some study of the kingdom parables, kingdom sayings, etc.

You have highlighted a potential problem with the difference in a Prince and a King, for example. This is a new subject of inquiry for me.

Before any summaries, could you do me a favor? I'd like to know that I'm working with the latest versions of your Daniel interpretations. Is it possible to provide text here that explains the entire chapter of Daniel 7 in your view? I'm referring to the meanings of the symbols and the times or periods in history that you believe are being referenced. I was working primarily from my memory of information you provided nearly two years ago on another forum, but I don't even know if that discussion was complete -- or if my memory of it is correct. I don't need to know WHY you choose the particular meanings, just the actual meanings you choose to believe -- and when in history those symbols/meanings are referring to.

If you think that a summary of your views of Daniel 2 image, and Daniel 8 is important to this, then you can include that, too, if you would.

Regards,
Bill

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

I have no problem presenting the interpretation found in Watchtower publications. I wanted you to have the opportunity to present your own Watchtower-based beliefs as a courtesy to you.

I believe I have access to all the relevant books and magazines, but I would present these views interspersed with my criticism, and I would likely make a few mistakes in my presentation, which you would probably wish to correct.

I can easily look up an interpretation, but I am not so conversant with any updates that might have shown up in magazines since I don't try to keep up on a regular basis. I won't know if your summer conventions or more recent magazines would have added anything to this discussion. And I might mix beliefs that JWs held in the 30's and 40's with beliefs you hold today. (Historically, I find the beliefs held in the 30's and 40's to be the most interesting from the political perspective of the times and these are the easiest to recall after reading.)

As far as your reasons for accepting various interpretations I am sometimes at a loss. You would know these very well since you have accepted them as YOUR reasons, but in this area I would probably tend to mix up those reasons with the general Euro-centric views held at the time when Adventists and various end-time prophetic commentators since the 1800's first presented some of these same explanations you accept today.

I will present what I believe is your view on Daniel 7 next. (Not just the interpretations, which are simple, but the reasoning behind them.) I will try NOT to complicate it with reasoning from Daniel 8, but I do believe Daniel 2 provides a relevant foundation.

Regards,
Bill

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

Yes, this would have to be a continuation of the discussion, before we can be ready for the overall argument summaries.

Regards,
Bill

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

My apologies for the delay. Manager in Hong Kong for a month. I should be available to post again on Sept 7.

Regards,
Bill

[Rotherham]

Due to inactivity, this discussion has concluded, until such time as BillW reappears.

Regards,
Rotherham