'YES HE DID' is the answer supported by Revelation

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Thankyou Bill,

I'll be responding soon. It was a busy weekend.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

The tangible evidence is actual comments by early church fathers as to when it was written, (Polycarp, Iraneus, Eusibius, Justin Martry) who attested to it being written at the end of Domitian's reign. There is no valid reason to doubt that as accurate. It is only a "preterist" related view that drives an early date.

I see that you agree that many references of Jesus being king were in regard to "king-designate". I appreciate the acknowledgement. This tells us that references to his kingship must be taken with that possibility of application in mind.

The scriptures that you offer to prove a current and active kingship do not establish the actual receiving of the "kingship" of the world. The statements offered are no different than what Jesus said himself when he said that all authority had been given him in heaven and earth.

The reason those statements do not offer explicit reference to him having received the kingdom of the world is because everyone knows that even though Jesus has received full authority, there are certainly aspects of that authority which have not manifested themselves as of yet. Even Hebrews 2 tells us that all things were made subject to the Son, yet we do not yet see all things subjected to him. So simply because he has all authority at this time, it does not mean that he must be exercising that authority in every manner, and as Daniel 7, coupled with Rev. 12 point out, one manner in which that authority was to yet be realized was when he would receive the kingship of the world. None of these references can overturn the clear evidence as found in Daniel 7 as to the timing of when the Son of man received the kingship of the world. It was after the actions of the conspicuous horn, which can only logically be considered as after the Roman empire had passed off the scene, or at least far beyond 33 CE, and that is the point at this particular juncture.

Also, if one were to examine the closing portion of Daniel 11 and the opening portions of Daniel 12, and compare the references to the "disgusting thing causing desolation", and do a cautious comparing of these prophecis with the 7th and 8th chapters of Daniel along with the Olivet sermon's references to such as a sign of the parousia, and the fact that Michael, who is Jesus, stands up in the "time of the end" surrounding those events, it supplies another evidence of fact that Michael does not stand up (begin ruling) until far after 33 CE. But the details of that can be forthcoming if need be.

Regards,
Rotherham

[BillW]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Thankyou Bill,

If you are done responding for now, I will start preparing my response. Is that all for now?

Regards,
Rotherham

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

I'll always probably wait until your posting is complete before responding so that i can try and trim it down as much as possible when I answer. I've never been a fan of what I refer to as the hopskotch style of discussion. It's too confusing and laborious to follow. This is confusing and laborious enough without that factor.

So, if you are done for now, let me know.

Regards,
Rotherham

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

It's not optimal. The piecemeal (hopscotch/leapfrog) format is not as good as standard debate practice put in written format. I'm done with my comments on your initial presentation. I could stop here, and let you take over until you are ready for an additional round of responses, or summaries if we're ready. I can see that it might be easier for you to respond more efficiently if I would also give you my take on Daniel 7. I removed what I would have said on that subject but I see that you have made it integral, if not the "key" evidence.

So, let's say that I give you at least a short overview of my take on Daniel 7. I'll keep it to one post and then you may respond to any (or every) point you think might be useful.

I don't see a way to edit anything I've typed here. If you have that ability I trust you make edits to my posts if you think it's a good idea. For example: I forgot to call you "Rotherham" in a couple places in two separate posts, I think. If I accidentally used a different name, feel free to change it. Also, I intended put all quotes from your previous posts in the "quote" format AND the color "middle grey" (color=#808080). I see that I missed doing that at least once in my. Since I use standard black for my own quotes from the Bible or elsewhere, it would help distinguish new material from old material.

Regards,
Bill

[Rotherham]

OK Bill,

i'll wait for your last entry.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

Editing works.

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

Do you have any information yet in regards to the information offered in the article about Daniel the 7th chapter? You had stated that you would offer some comments yet there hasn't been anything for weeks. Do I conclude that you have nothing to overturn the evidence presented?

Regards,
Rotherham

[quote="Rotherham"]Hello Bill,

You had stated you would post something concerning Daniel. Is that still the plan?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

If my last post was confusing, you can safely ignore it. The primary question is when Christ received the "Kingdom of the World", which is in 33CE.

What I had noticed is that the Bible clearly spells out (as you indicated with your quotes) that Jesus was accepted before his death, not as King-designate, but as the "anointed/appointed King of Israel" at least from the time of his baptism which would have been between 1 and 3 years prior to 33CE.

Until his death, Jesus and his subjects were only commanded to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In 33 he received an even higher name - the anointed Messiah and King of Israel became King of Kings, "king of the rulers of the earth" -- above every principality and dominion.

Regards,
Bill

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

Sorry, I thought I would have more time than I have had lately so things are moving kind of slow on y end for a while. But I am still confused by your position, often.

[quote="BillW"]Hello Rotherham,

If my last post was confusing, you can safely ignore it. The primary question is when Christ received the "Kingdom of the World", which is in 33CE.

What I had noticed is that the Bible clearly spells out (as you indicated with your quotes) that Jesus was accepted before his death, not as King-designate, but as the "anointed/appointed King of Israel" at least from the time of his baptism which would have been between 1 and 3 years prior to 33CE.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This paragraphs contradicts your first one and that's what is confusing me. If he was not king-designate but KING two or three years before 33 CE, then he did not receive the kingdom in 33 CE but received it earlier, so, which is it exactly?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Until his death, Jesus and his subjects were only commanded to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In 33 he received an even higher name - the anointed Messiah and King of Israel became King of Kings, "king of the rulers of the earth" -- above every principality and dominion.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
But this makes no sense with your reference in Acts as proving that Jesus received the kingdom of the world in 33 CE. The reference in Acts is speaking of the throne of David which would apply to your "Jewish" element, not the kingdom of the world.

Sorry, still confused by what you are trying to say and why.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

Yeh, that didn't help.

I still do not see any way for you to harmonize your position. I've read what you said a couple of times now and I still am not seeing it despite all the points about "anointing" and what it meant. The "anointing" was not the same as being placed on the throne as I am sure you know.

For you to say he was already the anointed king of Israel at his baptism completely skews your argument. If he was the anointed king of Israel then he had to already BE on the throne of David, for that is clearly what his serving as Israel's king would have to mean. What other throne would he be on but the throne of David if he were the king at his baptism?

If you use Acts to show that Jesus became the king of the world in 33 CE, that destroys any chance of Jesus being on the Davidic throne before that time. You can't have him on the throne before he is on the throne. It makes no sense.

Regards,
Rotherham

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

But Bill,

Don't you see that vieing for the position that Jesus was already the Davidic king before 33 CE completely dismantles Acts 2 as any kind of explicit reference to him becoming king upon his resurrection? By your doing this, you as much as concede that Acts 2 doesn't have to mean what you have stated it to explicitly mean.

Rotherham

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

I am surprised that you do not think that I should be confused by this, but regardless;

Just to clarify, here is what I see you saying.

At his baptism, Jesus became the Davidic king.

At his resurrection, he became the king of the world.

Right?

Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

OK, I'll wait.

Rotherham

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Thankyou Bill,

I will make a few adjustments and additions to my full response and hope to post shortly.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

Since we have no witnesses who otherwise state that the book of Revelation was written at the early suggested date, and we have a few who confirm the late date, the tangible evidence, which simply means the evidence that can actually be directly read and seen with the eye, presents no reason for doubt. The evidence against the late date is insinuated by circumstance, not by a visible statement that I have ever seen.

You presented a few possibilities and specualtions as to why the early date is better but it appears very circular to me. I would find it odd that so many would repeat the same mistake without someone somewhere along the line correcting the traditional view among those early writers. You would think that if the early date were the correct one, it would be at least mentioned somewhere or corrected over time. And the "ancient" argument really falls kind of flat. I fail to see how a difference of about 25 years in the writing of the book would establish one copy over another as "ancient". I don't know what Greek word was there used, but I have a suspicion that "ancient" may not be the only possible meaning. Maybe "older" or even "old", but ancient really doesn't fit with either date. Also, if it wasn't corrected back then, what makes us think we have figured out the proper date 2000 years later, far more removed from the period of origination than they were. It would be as if no one appeared to even know of an early date back then, but now suddenly we do. A little odd, don't you think?

Anyway, as I mentioned, the internal evidence of the book of Revelation time and again pulls it down to the timie of the parousia for application, starting in the very first verses of the book. I really don't see any way to overturn that reasoning.

John immediately mentions in connection with this "revelation" of Jesus Christ that "he is coming with the clouds and every eye will see him". That is an explicit reference to what Jesus said in the Olivet sermon and is unanimously agreed to be the indicator of Jesus parousia, or as most say, his coming. Every eye seeing him is what they say actually establishes the coming (parousia) of Christ. John immediatley plugs in the parousia to this Lord's day where he is found to be under inspiration. No where else in scripture do we see the Lord's day or day of the Lord to refer to a day of the week, but refers to the events of the parousia. So in the course of a couple of sentences we have reference to that which is referred to as the Lord's Day. First the parousia reference about coming with the clouds and then the actual words "Lord's Day". Since a day of the week is never referred to as the Lord's Day, if we allow scriptural precedent to be our guide, which we should always want to do, then there doesn't seem much choice but to see this book being applied in its visions to the time when "he comes with the clouds and every eye will see him", which, as I mentioned, is nearly universally agreed to the "coming" (parousia). Now unless you want to appeal to a FULL preterist view, (which by the way I think is disastrous) then the conclusion is really unmistakable. And as far as a full preterist view, under examination, I find their interpretations to be most unnatural, scripturally unprecedented and in the end, entirely untenable.

To claim that the church would no longer be bothered by Judaizers after 70 CE is really a non sequitor. What makes one think that there would still not be Jewish Christians around after 70 CE that still might carry that Mosaic Law sentiment? Judaizers weren't just Jews, they were Christianized Jews! Is someone under the mistaken notion that the destruction of Jerusalem was the destruction of every Jew or Jewish sentiment? Clearly not! And most clearly not among those Christians who used to be Jews.

There would be no need for the mention of the past destruction of Jerusalem because the prophecy was for the future and the past destruction had no bearing on the future, but only the past. The past destruction was simply not the focus of the prophecies. And to claim that Babylon the Great was actually a picture of the destruction of Jersualem on the way is a most disastrous interpretation. it is fraught with difficulty and contradiction all along the way. It is a most unnatural way to interpet what is actually said.

Ezekiel himself prophecied and spoke of the rebuilding of a magnificnet temple which was clearly prophetic of something future, because frankly, based on its parameters and description, it hasn't existed yet in history and may be a completely spiritualized prophecy. This would be no different than John giving descriptions of a spiritualized temple. Just as in Ezekiel's day the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed for the most part. No body complained about Ezekiel's vision of the new temple being neglectful of the one that was already destroyed.

The hour of test argument is also ineffective, The hour of test, likely a reference to the great tribulation, is not upon God's people, but is primarily upon false religion, that which is represented by apostate Jerusalem. If you recall, the Christians fled Jerusalem and the ensuing tribulation upon Jerusalem did not affect them, they were protected by fleeing.

Your particular application of Revelation to Daniel I find to be completely circular and unwarranted. The visions of Daniel strecth clear down to the time when the holy ones would take the kingdom, again connected with the parousia, and runs far past the first century in its application of the conspicuous horns in both the 7th and 8th chapters of Daniel. If anything, the book of Revelation, if it is this opening of the book of Daniel, it would apply to times far after the first century, just like the visions of Daniel do.

As far as the bulleted points that you summaraized, I find them entirely unconvincing. It appears you are going to have to adopt a completely full preterist view, which if you want to do, OK, but I think that you will see that such a view denies Biblical precedent and history doesn't match with the interpretations given when compared to the language used.

* The many "coming soon" and "at hand" passages (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6-20) only make sense if events matching the symbolism of Revelation were not too far in the future. The Jewish themes would make no sense after 70 A.D. - there was nothing left of the Jewish state.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ever hear of Masada? What makes anyone think that because Jerusalem was destroyed that there weren't still thousands of faithful Jews around? And what makes anyone think that the Christianized Jews, KNOWING that the natural nation was rejected for Christianity and therefore not surprised at the fall of Jerusalem, would still not carry some erroneous Jewish sentiment with them even to the time of John's writing of the book? It's not like the Hebrew scriptures became obsolete or anything. And what makes us think that the "seven" churches have to be just representative of seven literal churches in the district of Asia? Seven, consistently used as a number for completion, especially in the book of Revelation itself, could tell us that these messages to the churches were actually messages to the universal church, for Christians everywhere, or even especially for Christians in the Lord's day, lessons and warnings and commendaions drawn from examples in the past that demonstrate problems that could arise at any time in the church?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* The Beast (which most ...scholars agree represents Rome) was ruled by its 6th head ("head" = "king" see: 17:10) which was already in existence in John's day. Of the 7 heads (kings) only one was left - by 95 A.D. Rome was long past its 7th Caesar.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This completely ignores Biblical precedent as established by the unmistakable parallels with the beasts of Daniel and how they play out in history.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


* A 2nd Century manuscript of Revelation says it was written when Nero was Caesar (68 A.D.).

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Never seen this supported.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* There were still Judaizers in the church at that time (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) - impossible after 70A.D.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That's just plain silly.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* The temple is apparently still standing in chapter 11.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Irrelevant and not conclusive. See above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* If the temple had already been destroyed, one would expect at least one mention of it somewhere.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Not if the book was completely futuristic in the applications of the visions.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* Revelation 2:2 shows that there were other apostles around - yet it is believed that all but John were dead by 70 A.D.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Verse 2 refers to "false" apostles, not the real ones. That should have been readily apparent.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* Irenaeus' statement regarding Domitian's reign is difficult to interpret and based on a secondary source. In the same passage he also mentions "ancient copies" of Revelation in existence which makes little sense if they were only a few years old.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
See above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* Evidence for a massive persecution by Domitian (81-96 A.D.) is lacking.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Nothing about a "massive" persecution has anything to do with the time of the writing. However, there was always a consistent persecution of some kind going on in the first century. This is irrelevant.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


* The only time there were only 7 churches in Asia was the early 60's.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Unsupported and conjecture. If Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, and Philadelphia were current and existing hubs of Christianity just before 70 CE, why do they not even merit a mention from the Apostle Paul who apparently mentions other cities around them in regard to his travels and concerns? That could just as easily tell us that those churches did not exist yet at that time.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


* John was told he must prophesy again before kings (10:11) . . . he would have been over 90 if the late date is correct. Stories of his actions after being released from Patmos are difficult to reconcile with an aged man.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The original words used, especially "epi", does not necessitate him actually standing before nations or kings to prophesy. It could have been nothing more than a reference to the affect that the visions being presented to him were not done yet. He continued to prophesy in regards to nations and kings throughout the book after this was said.

Frankly Bill, if one believes that the parousia is yet future, as I think you have said that you do, then one would not have much choice to see the visions of the book of Revelation as future because nearly every vision contains reference to the "church" in heaven, and that maintains the consistent theme of a futuristic application since the church will not be in heaven until the parousia.

In nearly every vision it is more than apparent that the church is already represented as in heaven, either in part or in whole, by the twenty four older persons who are shown to be on thrones. This is nearly unanimously seen, regardless of who they specifically represent, as a vision of those who were once human but who are now in heaven, in other ones, holy ones, and since that does not happen until the parousia, every vision then has a backdrop setting, that being the parousia. Otherwise the reference to the "holy ones" in heaven is entirely anachronistic.

In your second entry you go to great lengths to show that there is no reason for us to think of the visions commencing with chapter 4 as future due to the statement that John was supposed to write about not just future things but the things that are. Interestingly, this fails as a point because you will note that the verse that states this, verse 18, ends with the two words in Greek, mete tauata, which is rendered rendered as "after this" or "hereafter". But you will notice that where the things termed as 'after this" or "hereafter"begin is clearly marked for us in chapter 4 verse 1.

That verse ends with the exact same two words as John is called up to heaven to see that which is to happen "hereafter". So the visions then are primarily "hereafter". Yes, there are references to things that existed in the past, it would be impossible to build a vision without them, but they are primarily about things that are "hereafter', which would be after the writing of the book, and as mentioned, this doubly fails when we keep in mind that each vision is shown with the "holy ones" already represented either in part or in whole, in heaven, which does not happen until the parousia. I really don't see any way to discount that. We have two clear references in the very beginning in regard to the Lord's Day, the coming on the clouds, which is a parousiac indicator, we have numerous visions which place the "holy ones" in heaven, which is also a parousiac indicator and the visions regarding the wild beast, when paralleled with Daniel's beasts, which it clearly parallel in a composite form, that too shows that the timing of the book INCLUDES the last days before the "stone crushes the image" of all those world powers.

Forcing this to be a book about the fall of Jerusalem simply makes no sense with anything that puts this book into a parousiac construct, nor does it make any sense with many of the phrases that are found there in relation to actual history.

The Lord's Day includes the parousia, the Revelation and all that follows. Parousia, Revelation and Lord's Day are not exactly synonymous in every way, but they clearly are closely related in time and in purpose. The "revelation" refers more to the actual "revealing" of the Son of Man toward the climax of the parousia, so I am not sure of what importance your comments about the differences between those terms has to do with this discussion, if there was a point in there I missed, please repeat it, otherwise, all that seemed inconsequential.

As far as the meaning of parousia, we should once again rely on Biblical precedent if there is one that is able to be established, not upon a meaning that is extra-biblical, unless of course there is simply no choice to look outside the Bible for a meaning to a word.

Parousia, never means anything but "presence" when used not in connection with the parousia of Christ. We have no Biblical precedent to render it or understand it otherwise. Besides, even if we take the advent meaning, it actually translates to the same thing. An advent is far more than just an arrival but involves what? A subsequent presence after the arrival. Parousia is not JUST the judgment day, but it surely will include it. There is actually no problems at all in extending the length of the parousia to include many years. Since the disciples grammatically referred to it as virutally the "same thing" as the "sunteleia", which can clearly be shown to include many years, there is every reason to think that it is a long event, not some momentary spurt of activity.

I did not see anything that you said about parousia to really overturn the idea that the holy ones do not go to heaven until the parousia. I think you actually agree, which solidifes the point about the timing of the revelation visions which were to be AFTER the writing of the book of Revelation especially starting with chapter 4 verse 1.

There really is no way to make sense of the parable of the wheat and the weeds unless one allows for a second sunteleia fulfillment. The weeds clearly grow together UNTIL the harvest, which is clearly not the same sunteleia that ended with the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, it is no surprise to find dual fulfillments between the early suntelaie and the late sunteleia. And since the disciples referred to the sunteleia and the parousia as virtually the same thing, that tells us that the sunteleia and the parousia are very long events.

The entire thrust of the Olivet Sermon is about what to watch for to know that he is near at the doors. That the revelation of the Son of Man is about to happen. How any one can see phrases like

1."when you see these things start to occur, lift your heads up for your deliverance is getting near"

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

3. "this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur"

4 "these are a beginning of the pangs of distress"

and then say the point of the sermon was to tell them there was no sign but one, is truly beyond me. The entire point was that the sign was a composite one, not a singular event. The reference to lightning is not the suddenness of it, but the visibility of it, which he stresses by saying that it can be seen everywhere from the observer's viewpoint, not just in a particular location.

It is incorrect to say that the vision of chapter twelve has no parousiac indicator. The opposite is true as we can see at the very end of chapter eleven that the twenty four elders are there and active. That places the vision in the parousia. So your arguments concerning that fail.


You go to great lengths with a lot of complaining inbetween to try and prove that the male child is only Jesus, but frankly after reading through all that I saw no decisive point against at all. The book of Revelation itself makes the connection because the holy ones are said to rule with an iron rod just like Jesus. It represents the entire messianic kingdom, that is why the context can so readily switch between a single male child and the remaining ones of her seed. There is no contextual raeson or otherwise to think that the male chuild has to be only Jesus. I searched for something you were using as decisive in the issue but could not find it. many commentators agree that the 'male child" includes the holy ones for the same reason that we do. Maybe you should take it up with them as to how flawed their logic is.

Geneva Study Bible
{10} And she brought forth a man {11} child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

(10) The second history of this Church delivered of child: in which first the consideration of the child born, and of the mother, is described in two verses Re 12:6: secondly the battle of the dragon against the young child, and the victory obtained against him in the three verses following Re 12:7-9: last of all is sung a song of victory, to Re 12:10-12. Now John in consideration of the child born, notes two things: for he describes him, and his station or place in this verse.

(11) That is Christ the head of the Church joined with his Church (the beginning root and foundation of which is the same Christ) endued with kingly power and taken up into heaven out of the jaws of Satan (who as a serpent did bite him on the cross) that sitting on the heavenly throne, he might reign over all.

People's New Testament

12:5 And she brought forth a man child. If the reader will turn to Re 12:17, he will learn that the remnant of the woman's seed is those who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. The offspring of the woman, the woman's seed, then refers to the saints. The man child is a symbol of the faithful members of the Church.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

5. man-child-Greek, "a son, a male." On the deep significance of this term, see on [2714]Re 12:1, 2.

rule-Greek, "poimainein," "tend as a shepherd"; (see on [2715]Re 2:27).

rod of iron-A rod is for long-continued obstinacy until they submit themselves to obedience [Bengel]: Re 2:27; Ps 2:9, which passages prove the Lord Jesus to be meant. Any interpretation which ignores this must be wrong. The male son's birth cannot be the origin of the Christian state (Christianity triumphing over heathenism under Constantine), which was not a divine child of the woman, but had many impure worldly elements. In a secondary sense, the ascending of the witnesses up to heaven answers to Christ's own ascension, "caught up unto God, and unto His throne": as also His ruling the nations with a rod of iron is to be shared in by believers (Re 2:27). What took place primarily in the case of the divine Son of the woman, shall take place also in the case of those who are one with Him, the sealed of Israel (Re 7:1-8), and the elect of all nations, about to be translated and to reign with Him over the earth at His appearing.

Matthew Henry

II. The unsuccessfulness of these attempts against the church; for, 1. She was safely delivered of a man-child (v. 5), by which some understand Christ, others Constantine, but others, with greater propriety, a race of true believers, strong and united, resembling Christ, and designed, under him, to rule the nations with a rod of iron; that is, to judge the world by their doctrine and lives now, and as assessors with Christ at the great day. 2. Care was taken of this child: it was caught up to God, and to his throne; that is, taken into his special, powerful, and immediate protection. The Christian religion has been from its infancy the special care of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. 3. Care was taken of the mother as well as of the child, v. 6. She fled into the wilderness, a place prepared both for her safety and her sustenance. The church was in an obscure state, dispersed; and this proved her security, through the care of divine Providence. This her obscure and private state was for a limited time, not to continue always.

The rest of your points in this second entry have already been addressed since they simply repeat your prior arguments. However, if any of these treatments that I have given your words, if you see something that I have clearly missed and you would like a comment on it before you respond, please let me know and I will offer a response. After looking through it though, I really didn't see much that wouldn't at least have been covered by other points. So much is based on a premise or two, if one removes or negates the premise, the rest is really irrelevant, and the premise that Revelation visions were not necessarily placed in a parousiac backdrop has been dealt with and removed.

As far as the Daniel 7, you had the following things that I felt needed a response:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

But perhaps there is an obvious reason why there are so many interpretations. To avoid this problem, God could have predicted the very names, dates and meanings of all the symbols. Such details and explanations were provided in other prophetic passages. So, why even use symbols if we could have been told directly? In Daniel, some symbols are identified and some aren't. In Daniel 7, NONE of the symbolic beasts are identified, except to say that some represent kingdoms and some represent kings. It seems likely to me that the reason for this is as follows: The primary value of prophecy is to provide just enough information to comfort God's people about His future promises, without giving us so much information that we are tempted to center our lives around specific knowledge of the future. It's enough to know that God has set limits to the power of the earth's great empires so that His people don't have to become "faint out of fear, not knowing the way out".


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You clearly miss the intent of prophecy from God and the you miss the value of Biblical rpecedent and pattern when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Both are extremely important so as not to leave prophecy open to private interpretation, something that God is explicitly against.

You ask why not just spell it out? Funny, this is the same thing that Jesus' disciples asked him and he answered well:

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mat 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

That's why.

Also God specifically assures us that prophecy is never borne from private interpretation. That tells us that it is important for God for us to know that we can trust prophecy because it is not the result of someone's private idea. Now just how assuring would that be if on the other hand God specifically made prophecies so that they could be interpreted by anyone who wants to as long as they follow the basic skeleton of the components? That results in the same thing, can't you see that? It results in prophecy being created for the purpose of private interpretation, for if it can be privately interpreted that's the same result as if it were privately created. The very fact that God does not prefer a private interpretation of a prophecy tells us that we should primarily rely on Biblical precedent and pattern for interpretation and not some individual's favorite idea. If we rely on Biblical pattern and precedent, as I have shown before the many parallels and patterns between the different visions in both Daniel and Revelation, one arrives primarily at the interpretation that we have arrived at, at least in regard to the four beasts of Daniel 7 being who we say they are. Numerous commentators are in agreement. That's where Biblical precedent and pattern leads you. If you don't think so, prove otherwise, using Biblical precedent and pattern and you might have an argument. I do not think though, that you will attempt such a thing as I think you know that isn't available for your hodgepodge collection of possible interpretations. It's like you're presenting "mud" where we strive for clarity, as we should.

You said:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


"I'm not going into all the details of why I think Daniel 7's little horn is primarily solved by Antiochus Epiphanes. This have been explained by many others going as far back as Hippolytus. From the "Bible" books of Maccabees and "history" books of Josephus we have the ability to match up a very high percentage of details across Daniel 2,7,8 11,12 to see that the 4th beast most likely refers to Greek and Maccabean history. And Jesus said we could, with discernment, prepare to see these same symbols to apply to Rome in 70 CE. Then John, in Revelation, uses some of the same symbols from Daniel, probably also in reference to Rome, but possibly with respect to some future generation or generations that may meet up with similar symbols."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If you even made half of an attempt to make a coherent presentation out of the fourth beast being Greece, I am confident that I could take it apart rather quickly. It simply ignores all the patterns. It's a good thing that you don't try and defend the Antiochus Epiphanes application to the conspicuous horn because it turns out to be one of the most strained, stretched and inaccurate applications around.

Your view is typically preterist. The preterist attempt is to make the second beast Media and the third Persia and the fourth greece and therefore make the horn Antiochus. This is a terrible gARbling of history and denies the obviouS patterns between the7th and the 8th chapters of Daniel. Lacking historical support for their interpretation of the 2nd beast of Daniel 7, preterists have to fall back upon doing gymnastics with the symbols themselves. What has commonly been done here, such as we see in the Anchor Bible volume on Daniel is to actually change the text by transposing the phrase about the three ribs in the mouth of the bear forward so that the ribs end up in the mouth of the lion instead. In this way the bear receives the heart of a man and stands on his hind legs, not on one side. This then is supposed to refer to Darius the Mede.

In contrast to this garbling of history and garbling of the text the historical interpretation of these symbols is predominantly reasonable. The bear being raised up on one side can be seen quite naturally as a reference to the composite nature of the kingdom formed by a fusion of the Medes and Persians. When left in the bear's mouth, the three ribs reasonably are representing the three major conquests of the combined forces of the Medes and Persians, Lydia, Babylon and Egypt.

Support for this interpretation in Daniel 7 can be found in working back from the interpretation of the ram in Daniel 8. Its two disproportionate horns are specifically identified as the kings of Media and Persia (v. 20), expressing the same duality that is found in the prophet's view of the bear in chapter 7. The three-part nature of the ram's conquests also parallels the three ribs in the mouth of the bear since it expanded to the north (Lydia), to the west (Babylon), and to the south (Egypt). The parallels between these two beasts supports the interpretation of the former already arrived at from its context in Daniel 7, that the bear represents Medo-Persia. This means that the non-descript beast, the 4th in order there, must represent Rome and the little horn that came out of it cannot, therefore, represent Antiochus Epiphanes.

The Babylonian Empire of Daniel's day was overthrown by the Medo-Persian Empire, not simply by the Medes or the Persians alone (Dan. 7:5, 17, 8:20). And the Medo-Persian kingdom was, in turn, superseded by "Greece" (Dan. 8:21). Therefore, the empire of Alexander, who conquered Persia, was the third, not the fourth of the series. And the empire of Alexander and its fourfold divisions constituted one Grecian empire. Therefore the next world power, the one that took over the domain of Alexander's Macedonian empire, namely Rome, must be the fourth in actual sequence.

The fourth beast had ten horns (verses 7, 19, 20), but the Greek beast, to which Antiochus belonged, had four divisions, which are pictured in chapter 8 as four horns. Therefore there is a glaring discrepancy between the actual number of divisions that succeeded the original empire. it doesn't fit history.

Antiochus did not rise after ten kings (verse 24). He was only eighth in the Seleucid (Syrian) line. And besides, the prophecy calls for contemporaneous kings, not successive ones. Again, it doesn't fit history.

Also, there is nothing about him that made him "diverse" from his predecessors for he was not stouter than the rest and he was not the greatest of his line and it is impossible to find three out of ten kings who were "plucked up" or subdued before him. As before, it doesn't match history in any way.

Application to Antiochus is strained and frankly laughable when compared with biblical patterns and history, and is purely devised to feed a preterist agenda, one that you seem more and more fond of, by necessity.

In the rest of that particular response, I see nothing that I thought was of any concern or consequence after what I have presented above. If I missed something in a glaring way, please point it out, but there is more to consider before I close.

There are many more arguments to present that let us know that Jesus did not receive the kingdom in 33 CE or sometime before that. It clearly had to be after that via many other prophetic statements that are made.

Luke's account of the man of noble birth traveling to a far away land, in chapter 19, clearly shows that this man of noble birth did not receive his kingly power until he travelled away to the far away land, which is clearly heaven. Therefore, receiving kingly power before his ascension to heaven simply does not fit, so this tells us that ALL of those reference to him being "king" before that time were clearly in a "king-designate" terminology.

Also, if, as you say, ALL (without exception) authority had been given to him at this time, then there would simply be no "AWAITING' in regard to his enemies being supplied as footstool for him. The expression of something being one's footstool did not signify destruction, but domain or authority over that which was the footstool. The Bible clearly shows that there were enemies that were not yet positioned as his footstool, otherwise, there would be no waiting. Once they were all under his domain, he would go forth to "complete his conquest as he is shown doing in Rev. 6 via the white horse and the receiving of his crown, whihc is naturally a reference to him being made king. He went forth at that point to COMPLETE his conquest, but up until that time, he was AWAITING the time when these enemies would be put under his domain, which had not happened clear up until the writing of the book of Hebrews, once again disqualifying any notion that he was the king of the wolrd at this time. If he were king of the world, then all of his enemies would then be in his domain and under his kingly authority, they would be his footstool, which they clearly weren't yet in the first century. Before he could go forth to complete his conquest those enemies would first have to be serving as his footstool.

We also have Daniel the 12th chapter where Michael, who can really answer to no one other than Christ, is seen to "stand up", which means to start exercising kingly power, according to Danielic patterns of the same words. When exactly is Michael shown to stand up? It is not until the "time of the end" during the time when we see the king of the south and the king of the north engage in their final pushings and the king of the north comes all the way to his end, which would have surely been far after 33 CE.

Prophetically, nothing fits with such an early date for the enthronement of Christ as the king of the world until far after 33 CE. All you have are statements that can easily be seen as references to his king-designate position, including Acts 2 which doesn't actually mention anything about Jesus explicitly sitting on the throne at that time anyway. Understood as expressions of king-designate, everything fits with the rest of the prophecies in the Bible. Taken as actually being king sometime before 33 CE or even 33 CE, the prophecies lose their coherence in every way.

Your last entry was about Ephesians 1:19,20 and its explicit elemants in relation to Jesus kingship.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Again of course we need the context to see its relationship to Jesus' Kingship. And, of course, just as in Acts, all references to Christ and Lord are also references to Jesus' Kingship. In the NT context, Christ means Messiah which means Anointed One, which means King.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Bill, this is simply not correct and frankly would destroy your own position.

First, if "Christ" is synonymous with "king" then he was king long before his baptism.

Notice:

(Luke 2:8-11) . . .. 9 And suddenly Jehovah’s angel stood by them, and Jehovah’s glory gleamed around them, and they became very fearful. 10 But the angel said to them: “Have no fear, for, look! I am declaring to YOU good news of a great joy that all the people will have, 11 because there was born to YOU today a Savior, who is Christ [the] Lord, in David’s city.

(Luke 2:25-26) 25 And, look! there was a man in Jerusalem named Sim´e·on, and this man was righteous and reverent, waiting for Israel’s consolation, and holy spirit was upon him. 26 Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah.

As you note, Aaron, his sons and the high priests and porphets were all anointed and were not kings so the terms are not synonymous in any way. Even articles devoted to God and his temple were often anointed. Those itmes were surely not kings nor held any kind of office. They were simply solely devoted to the work of the Lord. That's all an anointing really has to mean.

To try and say that in relation to Jesus it also had to mean he was the king is simply not true. Jesus was far more than just a king, but was also the Prophet and the High Priest. His anointing was in regard to all three but nothing demands he had to become immediately upon his anointing. We know that the abnointing of David did not result in his immediate kingship but was in regard to his king-designate position. The reference in Daniel is easily rendered "leader" rather than specifically "ruler or king" so there is nothing for your positionthere either.

So onward to your exegesis of Ephesians 1 :19,20.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Ephesians 1:1-23

1 Paul, an apostle of King Jesus through God’s will, to the holy ones who are [in Eph´e·sus] and faithful ones in union with King Jesus:

I won't do that all the way through, of course, because it would affect almost every verse. But you should get the point.

9 ...he purposed in himself 10 for an administration {government} at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. [Yes,] in him, 11 in union with whom we were also assigned as heirs, ...18 ..., what the glorious riches are which he holds as an inheritance for the holy ones, 19 and what the surpassing greatness of his power is toward us believers. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. 22 He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.

Explicitly, we see that (the King) Jesus, when he was raised up from the dead, was seated at God's right hand, and was ALREADY AT THAT TIME:
* FAR ABOVE every government
* FAR ABOVE every authority
* FAR ABOVE every power
* FAR ABOVE every lordship
* FAR ABOVE every title given in this age
* FAR ABOVE every title given in the age to come.

With this kind of authority over every current King, every Governor, every magistrate, every Caesar, every Emperor - and every future King, Emperor, etc, this means that the congregation, Christs' own "body" has nothing to worry about in terms of the great treasure awaiting them as they are also heirs to this same kingdom.

We also see explicitly that "He also [already had] subjected all things under his feet." So we know that Jesus does not need to sit around waiting for all things to be made subject to him. What Jesus is waiting for (and the entire body of Christ, too) is the time when he will take final action according to God's purpose/plan. But the Congregation can already see that this is working out because they are the current beneficiaries of the power and spirit that has already been poured out on their behalf. Other actions by this existing kingdom, even toward the congregation will continue to unfold. Even though MOST of what will happen with the Congregation/Body is still future, the Kingship is currently in full power, and a token has already been given in advance of that future inheritance that Christians will share in that kingdom as it unfolds its purpose more fully over heaven and earth.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

This has really been covered before but I will mention it again. First, we know that God has all authority from the beginning of time yet there are times when his authority takes on a new aspect and it is spoken of as God becoming king. If that terminilogy can happen in regards ultimate authority and he can still be viewed as becoming king then it can surely happen in regard to the authority given Christ. Even if he has all authority he may not yet be king in the fullest sense of the word. And the phrase you said was explicit actually harms you more than helps you because hebrew tells us specifically that it is NOT explicit in the way you think it is.

You say he has explicitly had all things subjected under his feet so there is no wating for anything. Hebrews helps us to see how that phrase is also what you might call as future designated capacity that has not yet been achieved EVEN THOUGH it was spoken of as already achieved. This hAd to be in a POTENTIAL sense rather than a realized sense according to Hebrews which sheds light on how those "authority" statements should be understood.

Hebrews tells us:

(Hebrews 2:8) 8 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;

I believe this does you more harm than good because it clearly shows how everything could be stated as UNDER HIS FEET when that was clearly a POTENTIALITY rather than a realization.

All things considered there is nothing that explicitly states Jesus became king at 33 CE yet there is much prophetically, taken collectively, to explicitly establish that it was sometime far after that.

Regards,
Rotherham

[BillW]

Hello Rotherham,

Thanks for the response. Most of your response is easily overturned, but you did provide a few ideas that will take some additional time to research. Fortunately, these ideas don't have much bearing on the final outcome of the challenge.

Regards,
Bill

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

I am currently preparing a response to your first part, but I have a question that could help in that preparation.

Why would a highly prophetic book, which speaks of Gentiles trampling the city of Jerusalem, not mention the imminent and impending destruction of that same city and warnings for God's people to flee out of it?

Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Hello Bill,

I have the response to your first part ready but I will wait until you finish so I can post everything together. I would like some comment though on what I asked you above.

Why would a highly prophetic book, which speaks of Gentiles trampling the city of Jerusalem, not mention the imminent and impending destruction of that same city and warnings for God's people to flee out of it?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[BillW]

[Rotherham]

OK Bill,

Thankyou for the response. So if the book was written pre-70CE you would have to narrow the window to about 68-70 CE. I'll await the rest of your coverage of the remainder of my post before responding. Any idea when that might be?

Regards,
Rotherham

[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