BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
NP,
Ik vind deze video ook wel interessant. Ik heb tot nog toe niet veel tijd besteed aan het doorgronden van de archeologische vondsten omtrent de bijbel.
[youtube][/youtube]
Ik vind deze video ook wel interessant. Ik heb tot nog toe niet veel tijd besteed aan het doorgronden van de archeologische vondsten omtrent de bijbel.
[youtube][/youtube]
Sommigen leren idd een nieuwe-covenant sabbath, ik ben meer een aanhanger van de nieuwe-covenant theologie waarbij het sabbatsgebod is afgeschaft. Maar een nieuw-covenant sabbat is in ieder geval stukken beter dan de wettistische zda-sabbat. 
Wat doe je met deze tekst?
15 Want ziet, de HEERE zal met vuur komen, en Zijn wagenen als een wervelwind; om met grimmigheid Zijn toorn hiertoe te wenden, en Zijn schelding met vuurvlammen.
16 Want met vuur, en met Zijn zwaard zal de HEERE in het recht treden met alle vlees; en de verslagenen des HEEREN zullen vermenigvuldigd zijn.
17 Die zichzelven heiligen, en zichzelven reinigen in de hoven, achter een in het midden derzelve, die zwijnenvlees eten, en verfoeisel, en muizen; te zamen zullen zij verteerd worden, spreekt de HEERE.
18 Hun werken en hun gedachten! Het komt, dat Ik vergaderen zal alle heidenen en tongen, en zij zullen komen, en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid zien.
19 En Ik zal een teken aan hen zetten, en uit hen, die het ontkomen zullen zijn, zal Ik zenden tot de heidenen naar Tarsis, Pul, en Lud, de boogschutters, naar Tubal en Javan, tot de ver gelegen eilanden, die Mijn gerucht niet gehoord, noch Mijn heerlijkheid gezien hebben; en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid onder de heidenen verkondigen.
20 En zij zullen al uw broeders uit alle heidenen den HEERE ten spijsoffer brengen, op paarden, en op wagenen, en op rosbaren, en op muildieren, en op snelle lopers, naar Mijn heiligen berg toe, naar Jeruzalem, zegt de HEERE, gelijk als de kinderen Israëls het spijsoffer in een rein vat brengen ten huize des HEEREN.
21 En ook zal Ik uit dezelve enigen tot priesters en tot Levieten nemen, zegt de HEERE.
22 Want gelijk als die nieuwe hemel en die nieuwe aarde, die Ik maken zal, voor Mijn aangezicht zullen staan, spreekt de HEERE, alzo zal ook ulieder zaad en ulieder naam staan.
23 En het zal geschieden, dat van de ene nieuwe maan tot de andere, en van den enen sabbat tot den anderen, alle vlees komen zal om aan te bidden voor Mijn aangezicht, zegt de HEERE.
24 En zij zullen henen uitgaan, en zij zullen de dode lichamen der lieden zien, die tegen Mij overtreden hebben; want hun worm zal niet sterven, en hun vuur zal niet uitgeblust worden, en zij zullen allen vlees een afgrijzing wezen. Jesaja 66
Als we in de nieuwe hemel en nieuwe aarde sabbat vieren, waarom zou God vandaag de dag niet willen dat we het doen?
De kwestie is overigens niet of je alleen op de sabbat of 7 dagen per week de rust van Christus kan ervaren. Dat is 7 dagen per week.
Desondanks moeten we nog steeds ploeteren om brood op de plank te krijgen, de effecten van de zondeval zijn nog niet verdwenen. Zou God ons daar geen rust van willen geven om een feestdag te hebben met Hem en onze broers en zussen?
En leg nu voor eenmaal niet de focus op mij die een dag aan God wijdt, maar blijf bij het feit dat God een dag voor ons toegewijd heeft.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 01:08:51 ]
15 Want ziet, de HEERE zal met vuur komen, en Zijn wagenen als een wervelwind; om met grimmigheid Zijn toorn hiertoe te wenden, en Zijn schelding met vuurvlammen.
16 Want met vuur, en met Zijn zwaard zal de HEERE in het recht treden met alle vlees; en de verslagenen des HEEREN zullen vermenigvuldigd zijn.
17 Die zichzelven heiligen, en zichzelven reinigen in de hoven, achter een in het midden derzelve, die zwijnenvlees eten, en verfoeisel, en muizen; te zamen zullen zij verteerd worden, spreekt de HEERE.
18 Hun werken en hun gedachten! Het komt, dat Ik vergaderen zal alle heidenen en tongen, en zij zullen komen, en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid zien.
19 En Ik zal een teken aan hen zetten, en uit hen, die het ontkomen zullen zijn, zal Ik zenden tot de heidenen naar Tarsis, Pul, en Lud, de boogschutters, naar Tubal en Javan, tot de ver gelegen eilanden, die Mijn gerucht niet gehoord, noch Mijn heerlijkheid gezien hebben; en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid onder de heidenen verkondigen.
20 En zij zullen al uw broeders uit alle heidenen den HEERE ten spijsoffer brengen, op paarden, en op wagenen, en op rosbaren, en op muildieren, en op snelle lopers, naar Mijn heiligen berg toe, naar Jeruzalem, zegt de HEERE, gelijk als de kinderen Israëls het spijsoffer in een rein vat brengen ten huize des HEEREN.
21 En ook zal Ik uit dezelve enigen tot priesters en tot Levieten nemen, zegt de HEERE.
22 Want gelijk als die nieuwe hemel en die nieuwe aarde, die Ik maken zal, voor Mijn aangezicht zullen staan, spreekt de HEERE, alzo zal ook ulieder zaad en ulieder naam staan.
23 En het zal geschieden, dat van de ene nieuwe maan tot de andere, en van den enen sabbat tot den anderen, alle vlees komen zal om aan te bidden voor Mijn aangezicht, zegt de HEERE.
24 En zij zullen henen uitgaan, en zij zullen de dode lichamen der lieden zien, die tegen Mij overtreden hebben; want hun worm zal niet sterven, en hun vuur zal niet uitgeblust worden, en zij zullen allen vlees een afgrijzing wezen. Jesaja 66
Als we in de nieuwe hemel en nieuwe aarde sabbat vieren, waarom zou God vandaag de dag niet willen dat we het doen?
De kwestie is overigens niet of je alleen op de sabbat of 7 dagen per week de rust van Christus kan ervaren. Dat is 7 dagen per week.
Desondanks moeten we nog steeds ploeteren om brood op de plank te krijgen, de effecten van de zondeval zijn nog niet verdwenen. Zou God ons daar geen rust van willen geven om een feestdag te hebben met Hem en onze broers en zussen?
En leg nu voor eenmaal niet de focus op mij die een dag aan God wijdt, maar blijf bij het feit dat God een dag voor ons toegewijd heeft.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 01:08:51 ]
Isaiah, 66:22-23, does not indicate that New Covenant Christians will be keeping the Old Covenant 7th day Sabbath. Isaiah is an Old Covenant prophet describing things in Old Covenant terms that he and his immediate audience would easily understand. Thus he writes that in the New World the bondage of the past in Babylon will be forgotten. They will be full of joy. Babies will not die shortly after birth. Righteous adults will live long lives. They will no longer be slaves so that they will build homes and farm for themselves not harsh Babylonian masters. Their God will never abandon them as it seemed He did during the Babylonian Captivity. A great peace will envelop the people, and even the animals will live in peace with one another. Their God will be worshipped in Jerusalem by all people. This prophecy is not to be taken literally. Note that it is in earthly terms-Old Covenant terms. If we take this prophecy as literal we are presented with several problems concerning it vision of the New World.quote:Op woensdag 27 februari 2013 01:03 schreef Ali_Kannibali het volgende:
Wat doe je met deze tekst?
15 Want ziet, de HEERE zal met vuur komen, en Zijn wagenen als een wervelwind; om met grimmigheid Zijn toorn hiertoe te wenden, en Zijn schelding met vuurvlammen.
16 Want met vuur, en met Zijn zwaard zal de HEERE in het recht treden met alle vlees; en de verslagenen des HEEREN zullen vermenigvuldigd zijn.
17 Die zichzelven heiligen, en zichzelven reinigen in de hoven, achter een in het midden derzelve, die zwijnenvlees eten, en verfoeisel, en muizen; te zamen zullen zij verteerd worden, spreekt de HEERE.
18 Hun werken en hun gedachten! Het komt, dat Ik vergaderen zal alle heidenen en tongen, en zij zullen komen, en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid zien.
19 En Ik zal een teken aan hen zetten, en uit hen, die het ontkomen zullen zijn, zal Ik zenden tot de heidenen naar Tarsis, Pul, en Lud, de boogschutters, naar Tubal en Javan, tot de ver gelegen eilanden, die Mijn gerucht niet gehoord, noch Mijn heerlijkheid gezien hebben; en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid onder de heidenen verkondigen.
20 En zij zullen al uw broeders uit alle heidenen den HEERE ten spijsoffer brengen, op paarden, en op wagenen, en op rosbaren, en op muildieren, en op snelle lopers, naar Mijn heiligen berg toe, naar Jeruzalem, zegt de HEERE, gelijk als de kinderen Israëls het spijsoffer in een rein vat brengen ten huize des HEEREN.
21 En ook zal Ik uit dezelve enigen tot priesters en tot Levieten nemen, zegt de HEERE.
22 Want gelijk als die nieuwe hemel en die nieuwe aarde, die Ik maken zal, voor Mijn aangezicht zullen staan, spreekt de HEERE, alzo zal ook ulieder zaad en ulieder naam staan.
23 En het zal geschieden, dat van de ene nieuwe maan tot de andere, en van den enen sabbat tot den anderen, alle vlees komen zal om aan te bidden voor Mijn aangezicht, zegt de HEERE.
24 En zij zullen henen uitgaan, en zij zullen de dode lichamen der lieden zien, die tegen Mij overtreden hebben; want hun worm zal niet sterven, en hun vuur zal niet uitgeblust worden, en zij zullen allen vlees een afgrijzing wezen. Jesaja 66
Als we in de nieuwe hemel en nieuwe aarde sabbat vieren, waarom zou God vandaag de dag niet willen dat we het doen?
De kwestie is overigens niet of je alleen op de sabbat of 7 dagen per week de rust van Christus kan ervaren. Dat is 7 dagen per week.
Desondanks moeten we nog steeds ploeteren om brood op de plank te krijgen, de effecten van de zondeval zijn nog niet verdwenen. Zou God ons daar geen rust van willen geven om een feestdag te hebben met Hem en onze broers en zussen?
En leg nu voor eenmaal niet de focus op mij die een dag aan God wijdt, maar blijf bij het feit dat God een dag voor ons toegewijd heeft.
1) Women will continue to have babies (65:20, 23; cf. Matthew 22:30).
2) The righteous will still die (65:20; cf. Revelation 21:4).
3) The Levitical priesthood will be resurrected (66:21; cf. Hebrews 7:11-28; 8:13; 10:9-12).
4) New moons and Sabbaths will be celebrated (66:23; cf. Galatians 4:8-11; Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8:13; 10:9).
5) Corpses will decorate Isaiah’s New World (66:24).
Now let’s look at v. 23. “From one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind shall come to worship before me, says the Lord.” Firstly, even if we are to celebrate new moons and Sabbaths in the New World, it does not follow that we must celebrate them now. Secondly, is “Sabbath” only the 7th day Sabbath or all the Sabbaths of the Jews? Thirdly, if we are to literally keep the 7th day Sabbath, then to be honest we must also keep new moon feasts. Fourthly, this verse does not say that we will be keeping new moon feasts or Sabbath days. “From one new moon to another…” is a way of saying “continually”. This language points to a continual event not a periodic one. Let me give an example to illustrate this. If I said, “From one Saturday to another I wait for my favorite TV show.” Would that mean that I only waited on Saturday? Or would it mean that I waited continually all week long? Isaiah is saying that we will be worshipping the Lord continually not just on one day a week (see Revelation 4:6-11). Is this not what God wants? Doesn’t He want us to be with Him always?
Another Scripture that uses very similar language is Malachi 1:11. This passage sheds great light on the meaning of “from one Sabbath to another”. We read, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations…” (NASB). Does God mean that His name shall be great only when the sun is rising and then again later when it is setting? Of course not, this is a silly understanding of the passage and it is just as silly to interpret Isaiah 66:23 in a like manner. Both passages are obviously speaking of continual worship. The SDA has conveniently overlooked this passage while speaking of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
Supporting my belief in continual worship is the Book of Revelation. We must recall that under the Old Covenant Isaiah did not have the full revelation. This would only become available with the coming of Christ (see Hebrews 1:1-2). In Revelation we are given a vision of the New Heavens and the New Earth, but in a much fuller form than Isaiah was given. In this revelation we hear nothing about new moon feasts or of Sabbath-keeping in the New World (see ch.21). In this vision we are to be continually with our God. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God’”.
(21:3 NIV).
The plain truth is that the SDA church is simply misusing a passage in a vain attempt to support their false belief. As already shown they completely ignore all the things that Isaiah speaks of as being in the New World. Then they grasp at straws when Isaiah uses the word “Sabbath”. Then they, despite a complete lack of evidence, say that we must all keep the Sabbath day. Although Isaiah never explicitly says that all people must keep the Sabbath in the New World, the SDA says that he implies it. We do have a prophet that does explicitly say that all people must keep a Jewish feast day in the New World, but it is not the prophet Isaiah and it is not the Sabbath.
After God brings Jerusalem to victory over the nations the prophet Zechariah says, “Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths”
(Zechariah 14:16 NASB). Unlike the passage in Isaiah, Zechariah explicitly states that all peoples will be required to celebrate the feast of Booths also called Tabernacles. He further states that if they do not they will be punished by God with plagues (v. 18). “This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the feast of Booths” (v. 19 NASB). Of course the SDA ignores this explicit passage because it does not mention the Sabbath day. So we see that it is only an SDA out-of- context reading that can produce a Sabbath-keeping passage out of Isaiah 66:23.
Nee, ik heb het dan ook niet over de inhoud, maar de bron van die inhoud. Het is totaal niet rationeel of logisch om één dergelijke bron als antwoord op die vragen te gebruiken. Er zijn over de eeuwen heen diverse bronnen beschreven met evenveel onderbouwing als de bijbel.quote:
[..]
Laat ik het zo stellen, vanuit mijn optiek geeft de bijbel de meest logische antwoorden op alle levensvragen. Iedereen moet dat natuurlijk voor zichzelf uitzoeken of hij of zij ook zo denkt.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Goed, toegegeven deze passage kan je ook anders interpreteren.quote:
[..]
Isaiah, 66:22-23, does not indicate that New Covenant Christians will be keeping the Old Covenant 7th day Sabbath. Isaiah is an Old Covenant prophet describing things in Old Covenant terms that he and his immediate audience would easily understand. Thus he writes that in the New World the bondage of the past in Babylon will be forgotten. They will be full of joy. Babies will not die shortly after birth. Righteous adults will live long lives. They will no longer be slaves so that they will build homes and farm for themselves not harsh Babylonian masters. Their God will never abandon them as it seemed He did during the Babylonian Captivity. A great peace will envelop the people, and even the animals will live in peace with one another. Their God will be worshipped in Jerusalem by all people. This prophecy is not to be taken literally. Note that it is in earthly terms-Old Covenant terms. If we take this prophecy as literal we are presented with several problems concerning it vision of the New World.
1) Women will continue to have babies (65:20, 23; cf. Matthew 22:30).
2) The righteous will still die (65:20; cf. Revelation 21:4).
3) The Levitical priesthood will be resurrected (66:21; cf. Hebrews 7:11-28; 8:13; 10:9-12).
4) New moons and Sabbaths will be celebrated (66:23; cf. Galatians 4:8-11; Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8:13; 10:9).
5) Corpses will decorate Isaiah’s New World (66:24).
Now let’s look at v. 23. “From one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind shall come to worship before me, says the Lord.” Firstly, even if we are to celebrate new moons and Sabbaths in the New World, it does not follow that we must celebrate them now. Secondly, is “Sabbath” only the 7th day Sabbath or all the Sabbaths of the Jews? Thirdly, if we are to literally keep the 7th day Sabbath, then to be honest we must also keep new moon feasts. Fourthly, this verse does not say that we will be keeping new moon feasts or Sabbath days. “From one new moon to another…” is a way of saying “continually”. This language points to a continual event not a periodic one. Let me give an example to illustrate this. If I said, “From one Saturday to another I wait for my favorite TV show.” Would that mean that I only waited on Saturday? Or would it mean that I waited continually all week long? Isaiah is saying that we will be worshipping the Lord continually not just on one day a week (see Revelation 4:6-11). Is this not what God wants? Doesn’t He want us to be with Him always?
Another Scripture that uses very similar language is Malachi 1:11. This passage sheds great light on the meaning of “from one Sabbath to another”. We read, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations…” (NASB). Does God mean that His name shall be great only when the sun is rising and then again later when it is setting? Of course not, this is a silly understanding of the passage and it is just as silly to interpret Isaiah 66:23 in a like manner. Both passages are obviously speaking of continual worship. The SDA has conveniently overlooked this passage while speaking of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
Supporting my belief in continual worship is the Book of Revelation. We must recall that under the Old Covenant Isaiah did not have the full revelation. This would only become available with the coming of Christ (see Hebrews 1:1-2). In Revelation we are given a vision of the New Heavens and the New Earth, but in a much fuller form than Isaiah was given. In this revelation we hear nothing about new moon feasts or of Sabbath-keeping in the New World (see ch.21). In this vision we are to be continually with our God. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God’”.
(21:3 NIV).
The plain truth is that the SDA church is simply misusing a passage in a vain attempt to support their false belief. As already shown they completely ignore all the things that Isaiah speaks of as being in the New World. Then they grasp at straws when Isaiah uses the word “Sabbath”. Then they, despite a complete lack of evidence, say that we must all keep the Sabbath day. Although Isaiah never explicitly says that all people must keep the Sabbath in the New World, the SDA says that he implies it. We do have a prophet that does explicitly say that all people must keep a Jewish feast day in the New World, but it is not the prophet Isaiah and it is not the Sabbath.
After God brings Jerusalem to victory over the nations the prophet Zechariah says, “Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths”
(Zechariah 14:16 NASB). Unlike the passage in Isaiah, Zechariah explicitly states that all peoples will be required to celebrate the feast of Booths also called Tabernacles. He further states that if they do not they will be punished by God with plagues (v. 18). “This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the feast of Booths” (v. 19 NASB). Of course the SDA ignores this explicit passage because it does not mention the Sabbath day. So we see that it is only an SDA out-of- context reading that can produce a Sabbath-keeping passage out of Isaiah 66:23.
Wat me steeds geneert in je literatuur is dat het vandaag nog steeds houden van de sabbat (tezamen met de rest van die tien geboden) steeds beschouwd wordt als een middel om rechtvaardig te worden terwijl dat geheel niet het geval is.
Of men zegt je MOET bewaren want je bent onder de wet. Dat is een mengelmoes van termen en concepten die een verkeerde indruk geven van hoe de zaken daadwerkelijk gezien worden.
En nee, ook ZDA zegt niet dat je door het houden van de wet gerechtvaardigd wordt.
It is the righteousness of Christ that makes the penitent sinner acceptable to God and works his justification. However sinful has been his life, if he believes in Jesus as his personal Saviour, he stands before God in the spotless robes of Christ's imputed righteousness.
The sinner so recently dead in trespasses and sins is quickened by faith in Christ. He sees by faith that Jesus is his Saviour, and alive forevermore, able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by him.
In the atonement made for him the believer sees such breadth, and length, and height, and depth of efficiency,--sees such completeness of salvation, purchased at such infinite cost, that his soul is filled with praise and thanksgiving. He sees as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and is changed into the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord. He sees the robe of Christ's righteousness, woven in the loom of heaven, wrought by his obedience, and imputed to the repenting soul through faith in his name. When the sinner has a view of the matchless charms of Jesus, sin no longer looks attractive to him; for he beholds the Chiefest among ten thousand, the One altogether lovely. He realizes by a personal experience the power of the gospel, whose vastness of design is equaled only by its preciousness of purpose.
We have a living Saviour. He is not in Joseph's new tomb; he is risen from the dead, and has ascended on high as a substitute and surety for every believing soul. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." The sinner is justified through the merits of Jesus, and this is God's acknowledgment of the perfection of the ransom paid for man. That Christ was obedient even unto the death of the cross is a pledge of the repenting sinner's acceptance with the Father. Then shall we permit ourselves to have a vacillating experience of doubting and believing, believing and doubting? Jesus is the pledge of our acceptance with God. We stand in favor before God, not because of any merit in ourselves, but because of our faith in "the Lord our righteousness." Ellen White, 1889 Signs of the Times
Wat men zegt is dat de wet, in plaats van in stenen tafelen buiten ons, nu via Gods Heilige Geest in het hart in ons binnenste wordt gegeven.
En dat is gebaseerd op meerdere teksten.
Zelfs indien je die wet 'de grote geboden' wilt noemen, bevat dat de tien geboden, aangezien de grote geboden samenvattingen zijn van de eerste 4 en laatste 6 geboden.
Wat mij betreft is de conclusie dus dat de mens in Christus niet onder de wet is, maar onder genade, en omdat hij onder genade is, leeft de wet in hem en wordt deel van zijn natuur, in plaats van een getuigenis tegen hem buiten hem die hem veroordeelt.
De wet was niet in staat te doen wat Jezus heeft gedaan, omdat de wet geen leven gaf. Maar dankzij Jezus ontvangen we de Heilige Geest, die ons leven geeft, en in staat is te doen wat de wet niet kon doen => ons conform Gods wil te maken in plaats van ons te veroordelen wegens onze ongehoorzaamheid.
God ging een verbond aan met Adam en Eva toen Hij zei: 15 En Ik zal vijandschap zetten tussen u en tussen deze vrouw, en tussen uw zaad en tussen haar zaad; datzelve zal u den kop vermorzelen, en gij zult het de verzenen vermorzelen.
En dit ging door via allen die trouw waren aan God door de tijd heen, van Enoch tot Noach to Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, hun nageslacht in de woestijn, totdat het zaad daadwerkelijk gekomen was. Toen werd Gods originele plan, om de mens te redden van de dood geiniteerd door de zonde van Adam, volbracht door Jezus' verzoenoffer.
De recreatie die daarop volgde, door de spirituele dood en wederopstanding van de gelovige, waarbij wederom Gods wil in het hart van de mens is zoals dat bij Adam en Eva het geval was, is het resultaat van Gods werk om de mens met zichzelf te verzoenen, ondanks de zonden van de mens.
Het eeuwige leven is zodoende vandaag voor iedereen beschikbaar die gelooft in Jezus Christus en zich bekeert van zijn zonden. God zal de gelovige door middel van de Heilige Geest een nieuw hart geven waarin Zijn wet geschreven staat, de vruchten van de geest producerend en de wet niet overtredend, wanneer hij sterft aan zijn zondige natuur, en leeft door de Geest.
De sabbat in het nieuwe verbond is naast een wekelijkse rustdag van aards dagelijks werk om ons geestelijk, lichamelijk en spiritueel welzijn te beschermen een viering van het feit dat we stoppen met onze eigen werken in spirituele zin omdat Christus het werk volbracht heeft en we door geloof gerechtvaardigd zijn in plaats van door onze eigen werken, een dag ter herinnering dat God onze schepper is en onze herschepper in Christus, ter herinnering dat God onze verlosser is van deze wereld en van de zonde en dood en we het leven aan Hem te danken hebben, en ter schaduw en voorproef op de eeuwige rust die we in de hemel zullen ervaren, en het houden ervan is om al deze redenen de stempel of het zichtbare teken van de autoriteit en suprematie van God in het leven van de gerechtvaardigde.
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
[ Bericht 15% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 13:31:14 ]
Of men zegt je MOET bewaren want je bent onder de wet. Dat is een mengelmoes van termen en concepten die een verkeerde indruk geven van hoe de zaken daadwerkelijk gezien worden.
En nee, ook ZDA zegt niet dat je door het houden van de wet gerechtvaardigd wordt.
It is the righteousness of Christ that makes the penitent sinner acceptable to God and works his justification. However sinful has been his life, if he believes in Jesus as his personal Saviour, he stands before God in the spotless robes of Christ's imputed righteousness.
The sinner so recently dead in trespasses and sins is quickened by faith in Christ. He sees by faith that Jesus is his Saviour, and alive forevermore, able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by him.
In the atonement made for him the believer sees such breadth, and length, and height, and depth of efficiency,--sees such completeness of salvation, purchased at such infinite cost, that his soul is filled with praise and thanksgiving. He sees as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and is changed into the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord. He sees the robe of Christ's righteousness, woven in the loom of heaven, wrought by his obedience, and imputed to the repenting soul through faith in his name. When the sinner has a view of the matchless charms of Jesus, sin no longer looks attractive to him; for he beholds the Chiefest among ten thousand, the One altogether lovely. He realizes by a personal experience the power of the gospel, whose vastness of design is equaled only by its preciousness of purpose.
We have a living Saviour. He is not in Joseph's new tomb; he is risen from the dead, and has ascended on high as a substitute and surety for every believing soul. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." The sinner is justified through the merits of Jesus, and this is God's acknowledgment of the perfection of the ransom paid for man. That Christ was obedient even unto the death of the cross is a pledge of the repenting sinner's acceptance with the Father. Then shall we permit ourselves to have a vacillating experience of doubting and believing, believing and doubting? Jesus is the pledge of our acceptance with God. We stand in favor before God, not because of any merit in ourselves, but because of our faith in "the Lord our righteousness." Ellen White, 1889 Signs of the Times
Wat men zegt is dat de wet, in plaats van in stenen tafelen buiten ons, nu via Gods Heilige Geest in het hart in ons binnenste wordt gegeven.
En dat is gebaseerd op meerdere teksten.
Zelfs indien je die wet 'de grote geboden' wilt noemen, bevat dat de tien geboden, aangezien de grote geboden samenvattingen zijn van de eerste 4 en laatste 6 geboden.
Wat mij betreft is de conclusie dus dat de mens in Christus niet onder de wet is, maar onder genade, en omdat hij onder genade is, leeft de wet in hem en wordt deel van zijn natuur, in plaats van een getuigenis tegen hem buiten hem die hem veroordeelt.
De wet was niet in staat te doen wat Jezus heeft gedaan, omdat de wet geen leven gaf. Maar dankzij Jezus ontvangen we de Heilige Geest, die ons leven geeft, en in staat is te doen wat de wet niet kon doen => ons conform Gods wil te maken in plaats van ons te veroordelen wegens onze ongehoorzaamheid.
God ging een verbond aan met Adam en Eva toen Hij zei: 15 En Ik zal vijandschap zetten tussen u en tussen deze vrouw, en tussen uw zaad en tussen haar zaad; datzelve zal u den kop vermorzelen, en gij zult het de verzenen vermorzelen.
En dit ging door via allen die trouw waren aan God door de tijd heen, van Enoch tot Noach to Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, hun nageslacht in de woestijn, totdat het zaad daadwerkelijk gekomen was. Toen werd Gods originele plan, om de mens te redden van de dood geiniteerd door de zonde van Adam, volbracht door Jezus' verzoenoffer.
De recreatie die daarop volgde, door de spirituele dood en wederopstanding van de gelovige, waarbij wederom Gods wil in het hart van de mens is zoals dat bij Adam en Eva het geval was, is het resultaat van Gods werk om de mens met zichzelf te verzoenen, ondanks de zonden van de mens.
Het eeuwige leven is zodoende vandaag voor iedereen beschikbaar die gelooft in Jezus Christus en zich bekeert van zijn zonden. God zal de gelovige door middel van de Heilige Geest een nieuw hart geven waarin Zijn wet geschreven staat, de vruchten van de geest producerend en de wet niet overtredend, wanneer hij sterft aan zijn zondige natuur, en leeft door de Geest.
De sabbat in het nieuwe verbond is naast een wekelijkse rustdag van aards dagelijks werk om ons geestelijk, lichamelijk en spiritueel welzijn te beschermen een viering van het feit dat we stoppen met onze eigen werken in spirituele zin omdat Christus het werk volbracht heeft en we door geloof gerechtvaardigd zijn in plaats van door onze eigen werken, een dag ter herinnering dat God onze schepper is en onze herschepper in Christus, ter herinnering dat God onze verlosser is van deze wereld en van de zonde en dood en we het leven aan Hem te danken hebben, en ter schaduw en voorproef op de eeuwige rust die we in de hemel zullen ervaren, en het houden ervan is om al deze redenen de stempel of het zichtbare teken van de autoriteit en suprematie van God in het leven van de gerechtvaardigde.
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
[ Bericht 15% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 13:31:14 ]
Ali de kerk leert dat je door werken gerechtvaardigd wordt in het onderzoekend oordeel. Dit is een feit. Ellen White had een dubbele schizofrene tong. Het ene moment zegt ze dat redding door geloof alleen plaatsvindt, het andere moment zegt ze dat je alleen naar de hemel gaat als je perfect zondeloos bent geworden als Jezus.
De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet. Als er in Genesis staat dat de zevende dag gezegend werd staat er niet dat het DIE zevende dag betreft.
Btw, Ali wat vind je van deze interpretatie van Daniel 7?
Daniel makes it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom". This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
Julius Caeser 49-44BC
Augustus 31BC-14AD
Tiberius (Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
Gaius (aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
Claudius (Acts 17) 41-54AD
Nero 54-68AD
Galba 68-69AD
Otho 69AD
Vitellius 69AD
Vespasian 69-79AD
Do Daniel's Prophecies Point to the Christian Era?
One reason Adventists have gotten confused over the meaning of Daniel's prophecies is that they have tried to stretch Daniel's prophecies out into the Christian era, interpretting the literal time periods in the book (1,260 days and 2,300 evenings-mornings) as long periods of years, stretching many centuries into the Christian era. The truth is that Daniel is a Jewish book, written by a Jew, written for the Jews, containing God's prophecies relating to His Covenantal people (Dan. 9:24). It is all about events that would directly impact the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. The last prophecy of Daniel, the 70-week prophecy, ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Except for a few brief comments about future events (Christ's kingdom filling the earth (Dan. 2:34-35), the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3)), the entire book of Daniel is focused on the Hebrew nation and its interaction with world powers from the time of Babylon up until the final destruction of Israel and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
Who is the Little Horn?
It is an established historical fact that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Nero. Consider the incredible correlations between Nero and the little horn of Daniel 7:
He will uproot "three of the first horns" (7:24) - Three Emperors, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were assassinated to make way for Nero, who was not in the line of succession.18
"He shall speak words against the Most High" (7:25) - Nero encouraged emperor worship and had a huge statue of himself erected in Rome. Inscriptions found in Ephesus called him "Almighty God" and "Saviour...." 19
He "shall wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25) - Nero was the first Roman Emporer to launch a persecution against Jews and Christians. Some of the saints slain during his persecution include the Missionary Paul and the Apostle Peter. Historians have described the persecution as "the most cruel that ever occurred."20
The saints "shall be given into his hand for time, times, and half a time (7:25) - Nero's persecution began in November of 64 AD, and ended with his death in June of AD 68, a period of exactly 42 months (1260 days).21
"His dominion shall be taken away" (7:26) - The Roman Senate eventually voted to put Nero to death, thus effectively taking away his dominion.
The kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Christ talked about the "kingdom" as being comtemporary (Matt. 12:28; 16:19; 23:13), not in the far distant future. Daniel talks about a kingdom that gradually fills the earth, and Jesus speaks of a Mustard seed which grew into a great tree. (Dan. 2:34-35; Matt. 13:31-33).22 Therefore, the giving of the kingdom (Rome) to the saints of the Most High began when Christ established his kingdom on this earth, and the kingdom continued to grow until one day Christianity would became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
Who is being Judged?
As noted earlier in this study, the Bible clearly indicates that the judgment of Daniel 7 is a judgment against the little horn and the beast power, not an investigative judgment of the saints. Did such an event occur in the first century? Notice carefully the words of Jesus:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
And when he [Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8,11)
Jesus said that the judgment of Satan was happening "now", during the final hours of His life on earth. He said that the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world that the prince of this world is judged. It was during the reign of the Roman Empire that judgment sat in heaven and passed sentence on the prince of this world and the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire, under the guidance of Satan, acting through a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, that crucified the Son of God. The judgment, although decided in heaven, was not instantly executed upon Rome when Jesus died, just as Jerusalem was not instantly punished. A generation of time was given to allow for Rome to manifest what it was going to do with Christ and Christianity. Jesus' death was as a mustard seed being planted in the earth. After His death the gospel sprouted and spread throughout the empire. Nero and later Caesars manifested a Satanic hatred towards Christianity. They thought to persecute it into non-existence, and Nero almost succeeded. However, he was killed, his perseuction halted and his dominion was taken away. The very persecution he started in an attempt to stamp out Christianity would later become the seed that fueled an even more explosive growth of Christianity. Eventually the dominion of Satan was broken in the Roman Empire and it became the dominion of the saints. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Every specification of Daniel 7 came to pass just as predicted. In fact, the fulfillment in the events of the Roman Empire were so dramatic that atheists and agnostics insisted the book of Daniel was written after Nero's death. These enemies of God were silenced in shame when parts of the book of Daniel were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were carbon-dated to 165 BC. Only God could have known about Nero and the Roman empire hundreds of years beforehand. Praise God!
De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet. Als er in Genesis staat dat de zevende dag gezegend werd staat er niet dat het DIE zevende dag betreft.
Btw, Ali wat vind je van deze interpretatie van Daniel 7?
Daniel makes it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom". This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
Julius Caeser 49-44BC
Augustus 31BC-14AD
Tiberius (Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
Gaius (aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
Claudius (Acts 17) 41-54AD
Nero 54-68AD
Galba 68-69AD
Otho 69AD
Vitellius 69AD
Vespasian 69-79AD
Do Daniel's Prophecies Point to the Christian Era?
One reason Adventists have gotten confused over the meaning of Daniel's prophecies is that they have tried to stretch Daniel's prophecies out into the Christian era, interpretting the literal time periods in the book (1,260 days and 2,300 evenings-mornings) as long periods of years, stretching many centuries into the Christian era. The truth is that Daniel is a Jewish book, written by a Jew, written for the Jews, containing God's prophecies relating to His Covenantal people (Dan. 9:24). It is all about events that would directly impact the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. The last prophecy of Daniel, the 70-week prophecy, ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Except for a few brief comments about future events (Christ's kingdom filling the earth (Dan. 2:34-35), the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3)), the entire book of Daniel is focused on the Hebrew nation and its interaction with world powers from the time of Babylon up until the final destruction of Israel and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
Who is the Little Horn?
It is an established historical fact that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Nero. Consider the incredible correlations between Nero and the little horn of Daniel 7:
He will uproot "three of the first horns" (7:24) - Three Emperors, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were assassinated to make way for Nero, who was not in the line of succession.18
"He shall speak words against the Most High" (7:25) - Nero encouraged emperor worship and had a huge statue of himself erected in Rome. Inscriptions found in Ephesus called him "Almighty God" and "Saviour...." 19
He "shall wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25) - Nero was the first Roman Emporer to launch a persecution against Jews and Christians. Some of the saints slain during his persecution include the Missionary Paul and the Apostle Peter. Historians have described the persecution as "the most cruel that ever occurred."20
The saints "shall be given into his hand for time, times, and half a time (7:25) - Nero's persecution began in November of 64 AD, and ended with his death in June of AD 68, a period of exactly 42 months (1260 days).21
"His dominion shall be taken away" (7:26) - The Roman Senate eventually voted to put Nero to death, thus effectively taking away his dominion.
The kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Christ talked about the "kingdom" as being comtemporary (Matt. 12:28; 16:19; 23:13), not in the far distant future. Daniel talks about a kingdom that gradually fills the earth, and Jesus speaks of a Mustard seed which grew into a great tree. (Dan. 2:34-35; Matt. 13:31-33).22 Therefore, the giving of the kingdom (Rome) to the saints of the Most High began when Christ established his kingdom on this earth, and the kingdom continued to grow until one day Christianity would became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
Who is being Judged?
As noted earlier in this study, the Bible clearly indicates that the judgment of Daniel 7 is a judgment against the little horn and the beast power, not an investigative judgment of the saints. Did such an event occur in the first century? Notice carefully the words of Jesus:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
And when he [Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8,11)
Jesus said that the judgment of Satan was happening "now", during the final hours of His life on earth. He said that the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world that the prince of this world is judged. It was during the reign of the Roman Empire that judgment sat in heaven and passed sentence on the prince of this world and the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire, under the guidance of Satan, acting through a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, that crucified the Son of God. The judgment, although decided in heaven, was not instantly executed upon Rome when Jesus died, just as Jerusalem was not instantly punished. A generation of time was given to allow for Rome to manifest what it was going to do with Christ and Christianity. Jesus' death was as a mustard seed being planted in the earth. After His death the gospel sprouted and spread throughout the empire. Nero and later Caesars manifested a Satanic hatred towards Christianity. They thought to persecute it into non-existence, and Nero almost succeeded. However, he was killed, his perseuction halted and his dominion was taken away. The very persecution he started in an attempt to stamp out Christianity would later become the seed that fueled an even more explosive growth of Christianity. Eventually the dominion of Satan was broken in the Roman Empire and it became the dominion of the saints. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Every specification of Daniel 7 came to pass just as predicted. In fact, the fulfillment in the events of the Roman Empire were so dramatic that atheists and agnostics insisted the book of Daniel was written after Nero's death. These enemies of God were silenced in shame when parts of the book of Daniel were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were carbon-dated to 165 BC. Only God could have known about Nero and the Roman empire hundreds of years beforehand. Praise God!
En hoe word je perfect zondenloos als Jezus?quote:
Ali de kerk leert dat je door werken gerechtvaardigd wordt in het onderzoekend oordeel. Dit is een feit. Ellen White had een dubbele schizofrene tong. Het ene moment zegt ze dat redding door geloof alleen plaatsvindt, het andere moment zegt ze dat je alleen naar de hemel gaat als je perfect zondeloos bent geworden als Jezus.
Voor mij is de sabbat duidelijk geworden. Ik heb geen zin meer om daar nog tijd aan te besteden. De conclusie die ik in mn vorige post heb getrokken is gebaseerd op alle argumenten die we langs hebben laten komen. Uiteindelijk bleek mijn conclusie dezelfde de te zijn als het fundamentele punt van de ZDA kerk. Het is ook het enige logische, consistente standpunt, wat zowel het schaduw-aspect als het genesis verhaal als Jezus' opmerkingen over de sabbat (en de gehele wet) integreert. Ik ga dus niet meer in op kwesties over de sabbat. Je constante negeren van belangrijke vragen die ik daarover gesteld heb getuigen wat mij betreft ook van de zwakheid van je argument en het weigeren om de zaken vanuit het perspectief te zien waarop ZDA het werkelijk ziet. In plaats daarvan houd je vast aan de verdraaide woorden van obscure websites en youtube filmpjes die vol fouten staan. Dat is jouw keuze en die respecteer ik, maar weet dat je huidige overtuiging over wat ZDA leert niet overeenkomt met het werkelijke standpunt van ZDA.quote:De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet. Als er in Genesis staat dat de zevende dag gezegend werd staat er niet dat het DIE zevende dag betreft.
[/quote]quote:Btw, Ali wat vind je van deze interpretatie van Daniel 7?
Daniel makes it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom". This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
Julius Caeser 49-44BC
Augustus 31BC-14AD
Tiberius (Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
Gaius (aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
Claudius (Acts 17) 41-54AD
Nero 54-68AD
Galba 68-69AD
Otho 69AD
Vitellius 69AD
Vespasian 69-79AD
Interessant. Een paar vragen:
Het 4e beest eet de hele aarde op en zal blijven tot het laatste oordeel (want de kleine hoorn blijft tot het laatste oordeel). In de bovenstaande interpretatie, wordt er niet een eindpunt aan rome gegeven?
Wie waren de 3 ontwortelde hoornen en hoezo?
Het is wat mij betreft een non-argument om te stellen dat Daniel voor de 'mensen onder het oude verbond was'. Dan kun je stellen dat het hele oude testament voor de mensen onder het oude verbond was. Maar wat zegt Jezus? Bestudeer de geschriften, want zij getuigen van mij. Het hele oude testament is gevuld met waarheid voor alle tijden, bijbelverhalen hebben doorgaans 3 lagen van betekenis, voor de tijd dan, voor de tijd van de messias, en voor de eindtijd. Alleen iemand met gelimiteerde kennis van de bijbel en geschiedenis kan zo'n openlijk misleidend argument wat mij betreft aannemen.quote:Do Daniel's Prophecies Point to the Christian Era?
One reason Adventists have gotten confused over the meaning of Daniel's prophecies is that they have tried to stretch Daniel's prophecies out into the Christian era, interpretting the literal time periods in the book (1,260 days and 2,300 evenings-mornings) as long periods of years, stretching many centuries into the Christian era. The truth is that Daniel is a Jewish book, written by a Jew, written for the Jews, containing God's prophecies relating to His Covenantal people (Dan. 9:24). It is all about events that would directly impact the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. The last prophecy of Daniel, the 70-week prophecy, ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Except for a few brief comments about future events (Christ's kingdom filling the earth (Dan. 2:34-35), the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3)), the entire book of Daniel is focused on the Hebrew nation and its interaction with world powers from the time of Babylon up until the final destruction of Israel and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
Enkele belangrijke punten worden hier weggelaten:quote:Who is the Little Horn?
It is an established historical fact that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Nero. Consider the incredible correlations between Nero and the little horn of Daniel 7:
He will uproot "three of the first horns" (7:24) - Three Emperors, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were assassinated to make way for Nero, who was not in the line of succession.18
"He shall speak words against the Most High" (7:25) - Nero encouraged emperor worship and had a huge statue of himself erected in Rome. Inscriptions found in Ephesus called him "Almighty God" and "Saviour...." 19
He "shall wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25) - Nero was the first Roman Emporer to launch a persecution against Jews and Christians. Some of the saints slain during his persecution include the Missionary Paul and the Apostle Peter. Historians have described the persecution as "the most cruel that ever occurred."20
The saints "shall be given into his hand for time, times, and half a time (7:25) - Nero's persecution began in November of 64 AD, and ended with his death in June of AD 68, a period of exactly 42 months (1260 days).21
"His dominion shall be taken away" (7:26) - The Roman Senate eventually voted to put Nero to death, thus effectively taking away his dominion.
The kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Christ talked about the "kingdom" as being comtemporary (Matt. 12:28; 16:19; 23:13), not in the far distant future. Daniel talks about a kingdom that gradually fills the earth, and Jesus speaks of a Mustard seed which grew into a great tree. (Dan. 2:34-35; Matt. 13:31-33).22 Therefore, the giving of the kingdom (Rome) to the saints of the Most High began when Christ established his kingdom on this earth, and the kingdom continued to grow until one day Christianity would became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
de kleine hoorn zou godslasteringen spreken. Godslastering is 1) zeggen dat je God bent 2) claimen dat je zonden kunt vergeven. Nero deed volgens heirboven 1 maar 2 niet. De RKK doet beide.
de kleine hoorn zou denken de wet en de tijden te kunnen veranderen. Welke wet? Gods wet uiteraard. Bij Nero is hier geen sprake van. De katholieke tien geboden zijn niet hetzelfde als de tien geboden in de bijbel.
de kleine hoorn zal definitief weggenomen worden bij het laatste oordeel, en niet daarvoor.
Als we parallelteksten over de antichrist nemen zien we dat dit wel degelijk om een christelijk-achtig iemand gaat:
3 Dat u niemand verleide op enigerlei wijze; want die komt niet, tenzij dat eerst de afval gekomen zij, en dat geopenbaard zij de mens der zonde, de zoon des verderfs;
4 Die zich tegenstelt, en verheft boven al wat God genaamd, of als God geëerd wordt, alzo dat hij in den tempel Gods als een God zal zitten, zichzelven vertonende, dat hij God is. 2 Thessalonicenzen 2
Voor Paulus is de tempel van God niet een gebouw noch de tempel in Jeruzalem maar het geheel van de gelovigen. Er zal dus iemand in het lichaam van Christus zijn die die rol van antichrist aanneemt. Dat kan geen Romeinse keizer zijn geweest. Behalve de Romeinse Keizer die zichzelf tevens hoofd van de kerk noemt.
Een ander punt dat aantoont dat dit argument niet consistent is is het feit dat de 42 maanden/1260 dagen/3,5 jaar terugkomen in Openbaringen 12 en openbaringen 13. Het gaat hier om het tweede beest dat zal sterven en weer opstaan en zal blijven tot het einde, het geven van het teken.
Dit beest is onderdeel van het beest in openbaringen 17, het is het 8e hoofd, de allerlaatste macht voor het laatste oordeel. Het zijn de koningen der aarde die deze macht gecontroleerd door de hoer zullen vernietigen. Was dat het geval met nero?
Maw je moet de rest van de bijbel negeren wil je dit kloppend maken.
Dit is ook compleet stupide nonsens.quote:Who is being Judged?
As noted earlier in this study, the Bible clearly indicates that the judgment of Daniel 7 is a judgment against the little horn and the beast power, not an investigative judgment of the saints. Did such an event occur in the first century? Notice carefully the words of Jesus:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
And when he [Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8,11)
Jesus said that the judgment of Satan was happening "now", during the final hours of His life on earth. He said that the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world that the prince of this world is judged. It was during the reign of the Roman Empire that judgment sat in heaven and passed sentence on the prince of this world and the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire, under the guidance of Satan, acting through a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, that crucified the Son of God. The judgment, although decided in heaven, was not instantly executed upon Rome when Jesus died, just as Jerusalem was not instantly punished. A generation of time was given to allow for Rome to manifest what it was going to do with Christ and Christianity. Jesus' death was as a mustard seed being planted in the earth. After His death the gospel sprouted and spread throughout the empire. Nero and later Caesars manifested a Satanic hatred towards Christianity. They thought to persecute it into non-existence, and Nero almost succeeded. However, he was killed, his perseuction halted and his dominion was taken away. The very persecution he started in an attempt to stamp out Christianity would later become the seed that fueled an even more explosive growth of Christianity. Eventually the dominion of Satan was broken in the Roman Empire and it became the dominion of the saints. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Every specification of Daniel 7 came to pass just as predicted. In fact, the fulfillment in the events of the Roman Empire were so dramatic that atheists and agnostics insisted the book of Daniel was written after Nero's death. These enemies of God were silenced in shame when parts of the book of Daniel were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were carbon-dated to 165 BC. Only God could have known about Nero and the Roman empire hundreds of years beforehand. Praise God!
Hoe kun je in hemelsnaam de woorden 'de prins van deze wereld is geoordeeld' gelijktrekken naar 'het Romeinse Rijk wordt ten onder gebracht en de staatsreligie van Rome wordt het Christelijke (in werkelijkheid Rooms Katholieke) geloof. Wat vervolgens de wereld gedurende 1000 jaar in een spirituele afgrond zou helpen.
Satan werd geoordeeld omdat hij niet in staat was geweest Jezus te laten zondigen en al zijn claims met betrekking tot God onwaar waren gebleken op het moment van de kruisiging (waaruit bleek dat God liefde en genadevol is, evenals rechtvaardig).
(West)Rome zou pas zo'n 500 jaar later werkelijk tot zijn einde komen. Toen Constantinus zogenaamd christen werd en de christelijke religie de staatsreligie was dat een strategische politieke zet en had niets met een hartsbekering van Constantinus te maken. De man was een oorlogsvoerder uit op politiek en economisch gewin, niet op een spirituele bekering van de wereld tot het koninkrijk van God en de leer van Jezus Christus.
De Rooms katholieke kerk die daar uiteindelijk uit voortkwam zou naast een religieuze een voornamelijk politieke en economische invloed uitoefenen en iedereen met eeuwig hellevuur intimideren om vooral veel geld te betalen aan het instituut kerk.
1 En er zijn ook valse profeten onder het volk geweest, gelijk ook onder u valse leraars zijn zullen, die verderfelijke ketterijen bedektelijk invoeren zullen, ook den Heere, Die hen gekocht heeft, verloochenende, en een haastig verderf over zichzelven brengende;
2 En velen zullen hun verderfenissen navolgen, door welke de weg der waarheid zal gelasterd worden.
3 En zij zullen door gierigheid, met gemaakte woorden, van u een koopmanschap maken; over welke het oordeel van over lang niet ledig is, en hun verderf sluimert niet. 2 Petrus 3
Hieruit zou ook de inquisitie voortkomen, ook zo'n fijn christelijk instituut.
Verder is het boek van Daniel door tekstkritiek gedateerd op de 6e eeuw voor christus en niet de 2e.
De duivel is dus wel geoordeeld maar nog lang niet op inactief gezet! Ik weet niet wat voor battles je zelf dagelijks voert maar ik weet dat de duivel hard aan het werk is om mensen op alle fronten tegen te werken. Van welke site heb je dit gehaald als ik vragen mag?
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 28-02-2013 10:09:09 ]
...Amen !quote:
[..]
Voor mij is de sabbat duidelijk geworden. Ik heb geen zin meer om daar nog tijd aan te besteden. De conclusie die ik in mn vorige post heb getrokken is gebaseerd op alle argumenten die we langs hebben laten komen. Uiteindelijk bleek mijn conclusie dezelfde de te zijn als het fundamentele punt van de ZDA kerk. Het is ook het enige logische, consistente standpunt, wat zowel het schaduw-aspect als het genesis verhaal als Jezus' opmerkingen over de sabbat (en de gehele wet) integreert. Ik ga dus niet meer in op kwesties over de sabbat. Je constante negeren van belangrijke vragen die ik daarover gesteld heb getuigen wat mij betreft ook van de zwakheid van je argument en het weigeren om de zaken vanuit het perspectief te zien waarop ZDA het werkelijk ziet. In plaats daarvan houdt je vast aan de verdraaide woorden van obscure websites en youtube filmpjes die vol fouten staan. Dat is jouw keuze en die respecteer ik, maar weet dat je huidige overtuiging over wat ZDA leert niet overeenkomt met het werkelijke standpunt van ZDA.
[..]
Precies...quote:
[..]
Voor Paulus is de tempel van God niet een gebouw noch de tempel in Jeruzalem maar het geheel van de gelovigen. Er zal dus iemand in het lichaam van Christus zijn die die rol van antichrist aanneemt. Dat kan geen Romeinse keizer zijn geweest. Behalve de Romeinse Keizer die zichzelf tevens hoofd van de kerk noemt.
Een ander punt dat aantoont dat dit argument niet consistent is is het feit dat de 42 maanden/1260 dagen/3,5 jaar terugkomen in Openbaringen 12 en openbaringen 13. Het gaat hier om het tweede beest dat zal sterven en weer opstaan en zal blijven tot het einde, het geven van het teken.
Dit beest is onderdeel van het beest in openbaringen 17, het is het 8e hoofd, de allerlaatste macht voor het laatste oordeel. Het zijn de koningen der aarde die deze macht gecontroleerd door de hoer zullen vernietigen. Was dat het geval met nero?
Maw je moet de rest van de bijbel negeren wil je dit kloppend maken.
De valse interpretaties en uitleg van de profetieen van Daniel en openbaringen zijn rond de 16e eeuw mede in de wereld geholpen door de Jezuiten Francisco Ribera & Louis del Alcazar, om de aandacht af te leiden van de Rooms Katholieke Kerk en om een tegengeluid te bieden aan het opkomend protestantisme die inzagen en ervan overtuigd waren dat de profetieen direct verwezen naar het katholieke systeem als zijnde Babylon, het Beest, de AntiChrist, etc.
Maar vandaag de dag overheerst binnen Protestantse kringen vreemd genoeg de theorie dat de Antichrist nog moet arriveren (futurisme) en dat een fysiek Israel en de bouw van een fysieke 3e tempel een belangrijke rol zullen gaan spelen in de vervulling van de laatste week van Daniel's 70 weken profetie.
Die in werkelijkheid dus al in vervulling is gegaan (...vanaf de doping van Jezus t/m de steniging van Stephanus, precies 7 jaar later en er precies halverwege deze 7-jaarsperiode dus de kruisiging plaats vond).
Bron:quote:The truly amazing part of all this is that the Futurist theory dominates Protestant teaching today. Almost all you hear or read about today is the yet to appear antichrist, who will be unveiled in the last 3.5 years of Daniel's 70th week, when he declares himself to be God in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. That scenario is directly traceable back to the pen of the Jesuit Francisco Ribera who manufactured this theory for the sole purpose of diverting attention from the papacy. Note what one Protestant writer had to say:
“It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that 'Futurism tends to obliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon Popery.' More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the Papal Antichrist seems to be making an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men's minds.” Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation, by Joseph Tanner, published in London by Hodder and Stoughton, 1898, pages 16, 17.
page 1 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com
page 2 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com/daniels70weeks.html
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door pappao op 28-02-2013 11:00:39 ]
Maar wie gaat nu wel naar de hemel, Wiseguy of Ali ? 
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Uiteindelijk zal satan zelf gestalte gaan geven aan de valse eindtijdtheorie (futurism) en zal hij deze misconceptie gebruiken om de mensen wereldwijd massaal te misleiden.
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreekt over: "The greatest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing in december 2012, aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en liever niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door pappao op 28-02-2013 15:45:13 ]
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreekt over: "The greatest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing in december 2012, aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en liever niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door pappao op 28-02-2013 15:45:13 ]
Hij is aangeklaagd wegens antisemitisme ja...quote:
Uiteindelijk zal satan zelf gestalte gaan geven aan de valse eindtijdtheorie (futurism) en zal hij deze misconceptie gebruiken om de mensen wereldwijd massaal te misleiden.
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreek over: "The greastest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
Terwijl belangrijke Duitse joden die de video hebben gezien er geen spoor van antisemitisme in hebben terug kunnen vinden en graag een praatje zouden willen maken met mr. Veith.
De strijd warmt op naarmate we dichter bij WO3 komen.
Volgens de bijbel word je zondeloos gerekend vanaf het moment dat je in Jezus gelooft. Volgens jouw sekte moet de Heilige Geest eerst met jouw zondige aard aan de slag om dan op wonderlijke wijze jou net zo zondeloos te maken als Jezus. De bijbel is heel duidelijk dat wij niet, zelfs niet met hulp van de Heilige Geest, zondeloos kunnen worden. De hele protestantse christelijke wereld is het erover eens dat Jezus rechtvaardigheid aan een persoon wordt toegerekend en dat deze rechtvaardigheid redt, alleen de ZDA-sekte in hun verwaande blindheid klampt zich vast aan een vals evangelie vanwege de satanische visioenen van Ellen White.
Voor jou is de sabbath duidelijk geworden?
Elk potentieel argument voor de sabbat is 1000x onder de tafel geveegd. De bijbel is duidelijk dat er geen enkele twijfel over bestaat, de sabbat was een rituele wet voor Joden die zijn vervulling vindt in Christus. Jij luistert niet naar de argumenten omdat je hart niet open staat voor bijbelse consistentie. JIj klampt je vast aan je verwrongen wereldbeeld en doet naar de buitenwereld toe alsof de ZDA kerk een normale christelijke kerk is maar dat is het niet!
Mbt tot Daniel 7 ik ben het eens dat er veel onduidelijkheden over bestaan. Echter wat jij doet is ook onzin, zomaar allerlei teksten bij elkaar knippen en plakken. Wanneer je Daniel 7 leest moet je eerst kijken of er vanuit dit hoofdstuk zelf een logische verklaring is te vinden.
Voor jou is de sabbath duidelijk geworden?
Elk potentieel argument voor de sabbat is 1000x onder de tafel geveegd. De bijbel is duidelijk dat er geen enkele twijfel over bestaat, de sabbat was een rituele wet voor Joden die zijn vervulling vindt in Christus. Jij luistert niet naar de argumenten omdat je hart niet open staat voor bijbelse consistentie. JIj klampt je vast aan je verwrongen wereldbeeld en doet naar de buitenwereld toe alsof de ZDA kerk een normale christelijke kerk is maar dat is het niet!Mbt tot Daniel 7 ik ben het eens dat er veel onduidelijkheden over bestaan. Echter wat jij doet is ook onzin, zomaar allerlei teksten bij elkaar knippen en plakken. Wanneer je Daniel 7 leest moet je eerst kijken of er vanuit dit hoofdstuk zelf een logische verklaring is te vinden.
Profetie is niet altijd puur historicistisch, puur preteristisch of puur futuristisch te interpreteren. Ik geloof ook in de historicistische methode, echter wat de ZDA doen is alles toespitsen op Rome, terwijl dit BS is. Daniel 8 gaat bijvoorbeeld over Antiochus, dit is zo ontzettend duidelijk, mja niet voor de ZDA natuurlijk.quote:
Maar vandaag de dag overheerst binnen Protestantse kringen vreemd genoeg de theorie dat de Antichrist nog moet arriveren (futurisme) en dat een fysiek Israel en de bouw van een fysieke 3e tempel een belangrijke rol zullen gaan spelen in de vervulling van de laatste week van Daniel's 70 weken profetie.Die in werkelijkheid dus al in vervulling is gegaan (...vanaf de doping van Jezus t/m de steniging van Stephanus
Walter Veith ziet ze vliegenquote:
Uiteindelijk zal satan zelf gestalte gaan geven aan de valse eindtijdtheorie (futurism) en zal hij deze misconceptie gebruiken om de mensen wereldwijd massaal te misleiden.
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreek over: "The greastest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing in december 2012, aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en liever niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
Dit is in feite het probleem met de ZDA interpretatie van Daniel 7:
Are the Ten Horns really Ten Tribes that defeat the Roman Empire? Daniel 7:24 makes it abundantly clear that the ten horns are not other nations:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise... (KJV)
The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom... (NKJV)
Its ten horns are ten kings that will rule that empire. (NLT)
The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. (NIV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (ESV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise... (NASB)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (RSV)
Notice some important truths from this passage that directly contradict SDA teachings:
The Bible clearly says the ten kings will arise from within the Roman Empire. None of the ten tribes arose from within or ruled over the Roman Empire. The ten tribes were outside powers who conquered parts of the Roman Empire and established new nations. They neither came from the Roman Empire nor ruled over it.
The Bible clearly says the ten horns are "kings". The Aramaic word used is melek which literally means "king" and is only translated "king" in the Old Testatment, never "nation" or "kingdom". The ten tribes were nations, not kings. In the very same passage, the word malkuw is used, meaning "kingdom". Notice:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom (malkuw) are ten kings (melek) that shall arise...
If this passage was referring to ten kingdoms that defeated the Roman Empire, then we would have expected Daniel to use the word malkuw (kingdom) instead of melek (king).
SDA's teach the horn on the head of the goat of Daniel 8 was a king (Alexander the Great) who ruled over the kingdom of Greece. If a horn on a head indicates a ruler over that empire in Daniel 8, then why not apply the same principle to Daniel 7?
The fourth beast had ten horns growing out of its head. In Daniel chapter 8, Adventists teach that horns growing out of the head of a beast represent specific kings or rulers over that particular empire. In the vision of the Goat and the Ram, the Goat has a large horn growing on its head and Daniel 8:21 says:
And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. (NKJV)
Adventists agree that the horn growing on the head of the Goat represents Alexandar the Great. When that one large horn is later replaced by four smaller horns, Adventists likewise teach the Macedonian empire was ruled by Alexander's four generals. It is entirely inconsistent for Adventists to interpret the horns of Daniel 7 as nations that conquered that beast while at the same time teaching that the horns of Daniel 8 are kings of that nation! The Bible imagery throughout the book of Daniel, and also in the book of Revelation, consistently signifies that horns growing on the head of a beast represent the kings or leaders of that power. To teach that those horns are actually outside powers that invade and conquer the beast is totally inconsistent with the imagery and Biblical usage of the symbol.
Another symbol ignored by Seventh-day Adventists is the two iron legs of the image of Daniel 2. The Roman Empire clearly split into two parts: Western, head-quartered in Rome, and Eastern, ruled from Constantinople. The ten tribes only attacked and conquered the western part of the empire. The eastern part continued on for more than 1,000 years. This destroys the SDA image of the ten toes being synomomous with ten tribes, because that would mean five toes on each foot, and the Eastern Empire was not defeated by any of the ten tribes.
Another problem is that at least 20 tribes invaded the Roman Empire. Therefore, we can conclude:
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns arise from within that kingdom
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns are kings, not nations
The SDA teaching contradicts their own interpretation of horns, which is that horns are rulers of a particular Kindom (aka Alexander)
The SDA teaching contradicts history which says twenty tribes invaded the western Roman Empire, not ten
2. Did the Papacy uproot three tribes? As noted above, Uriah Smith and other Adventists teach that the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heuli were destroyed by the Pope of Rome. Such a revision of history is nothing less than pure fiction. None of these tribes were destroyed by the Pope. Any history textbook will explain that the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, the Vandals and Ostrogoths by the Byzantines. Now the Pope benefited to some degree by the defeat of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, but it is uncertain, what, if any, role the Pope played in their demise. More importantly, the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, who were Arians and avowed enemies of the Catholic Church. The Lombards were already identified as one of the other ten horns, and the defeat of the Heruli did not aid the Papacy in any meaningful way, so it makes no sense to claim the Papacy uprooted the Heruli.
In addition, two other tribes were uprooted during the same time period by the Byzantines: the Huns (455 AD) and the Alemanni (495 AD). Why do Adventists ignore these uprooted tribes? There is no reason to ignore them except for the fact that Adventists are trying to make the square pegs of history fit into the round holes of their prophetic jigsaw puzzle. They needed three tribes in order to make their theory fit into Daniel's writings, so they picked three out of the five and ignored the others.
3. Did the Papacy persecute the saints for 1,260 years? There is no doubt at all that Catholics persecuted others, but the 538 - 1798 timeframe of the persecutions does not fit very well with actual historical facts. Persecution actually started more than a century before 538 and finally ended nearly half a century after 1798 :
"Persecution of non-Catholics by Catholic authority began in the 4th Century, and culminated in the Codex Theodosianus (438), which punished all who did not embrace “that religion. . . now professed by the Pontiff.” At the opposite extreme, the Portuguese inquisition operated until 1821; the Spanish inquisition only concluded in 1834; the Roman inquisition in the Papal States also continued into the mid 19th century. Thus, the persecutory activities of Catholics exceed the limits of 538-1798 CE. The papacy does not fit the limits set by the prophecy."6
4. Did the Papacy change the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments? The Catholic Cathecism traces its roots back to Augustine, which was long before Adventists say the "little horn" power arose, and long before the papal power became established. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to pin the Cathecism's changing of the law on the Papacy.
Adventists claim that the papacy transfered Sabbath observance to Sunday during the dark ages. Prophet Ellen White saw in vision that the Pope changed the day of worship to Sunday:
"I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws."7
The "official" teaching of the Catholic Church is that the abolition of the Sabbath was confirmed by the early Church Fathers:
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished.8
The above quote has the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR which essentially means the quote is considered authentic, accurate, and official by the Catholic Church. So, the "official" Catholic Church teaching is that Sunday-keeping can be traced back to the generation following the Apostles. Adventists point to a series of articles that appeared in September of 1893 in the Catholic Mirror as proof that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship. Those articles do indeed brag that the Catholic Church made the change, but they do not carry either the NIHIL OBSTAT or the IMPRIMATUR. This means the articles are not an official church teaching and represent merely the opinion of the author.9
Seventh-day Adventist theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi had access to the Vatican vaults and researched the oldest material on Sabbath-keeping. His research led him to conclude Sunday-keeping was largely practiced long before the first pope came on the scene:
"I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A. D. 135."10
In the first centuries of Christianity there were varied opinions on the day of worship. Many Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day Sabbath. Some Christians observed both days, while others gathered for worship only on Sunday. There is evidence that Sunday-keeping was widely practiced by Christians by the generation following the Apostles, and perhaps even while some of the Apostles were still alive. The Didache is an ancient "church manual" dating from the first century. In it, the "Lord's Day", understood by comparison to other literature of that time period to mean "Sunday", is mentioned as the day that the Lord's Supper is celebrated:11
90 A.D. Didache - "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."12
Here are a couple of other early quotes indicating an early introduction of Sunday worship in the Christian Church:
100 A.D. Barnabas - "Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven."13
110 A.D. Ignatius - "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death".14
Therefore, Sunday observance started hundreds of years before the Roman bishop's rise to pre-eminence.
5. Did the Papacy have Supremecy for 1260 years? The SDA Prophet Ellen White wrote:
"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798."15
538 AD is the year when the Ostrogoths were driven out of Rome, but nothing of great importance happened to the papacy during this year. In fact, the Ostrogoths later recovered from their defeat, went on the offensive, and re-occupied Rome from 541 to 548 AD. The Ostrogoths were not finally eradicated until 561 AD. The papacy did not achieve temporal sovereignty until 756 when the pope acquired the territories of Central Italy. (The papacy controlled these territories until 1870 when the king of Sardinia took over the papal territories.) So why the 538 date? As noted above, the Catholic persecutions do not adhere to these dates. There is no reason for starting at 538 AD other than the fact that it provides a convenient starting point if counting backwards from 1798--the supposed date of the demise of the papal power.
So, what about the ending date of the 1260-day prophecy? Was the papacy abolished in 1798? Ellen White writes:
"The infliction of the deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798."16
While 1798 is a significant year for the papacy, it certainly does not indicate the "abolition" or even the downfall of the papacy. When Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner by the French General Berthier, the papacy suffered humiliation, but it would be a gross exaggeration to describe this event as the "downfall" of the papacy.
SDA Theologian Dr. Bacchiocchi explains what happened after the pope was captured in 1798:
"The imprisonment of Pope Paul VI was condemned by Russia and Austria. Both nations decided to join forces to restore the Pope to his Pontifical throne in Rome. When the French government was confronted with this new coalition and with popular uprisings, it decided to transfer the Pope to Valence, in France, where he died 40 days later, on August 29, 1799.
"The death of Pius VI can hardly be seen as the 'abolishment' or 'the downfall of the Papacy.' It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI was able to give directives for the election of his successor. Few months after his death, the Cardinals met in Venice on December 8, 1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of Pious VII, in deference to his predecessor.
"The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in 1802. These treatises restored to the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated the extent of the Papal authority in France.
"The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority, especially under the Pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. ...
"The crowning event of Pius IX's pontificate was the convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8, 1869. It had a remarkable large attendance from all over the Roman world and on July 18, 1870, the Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This dogma has greatly enhanced the authority of the Pope, and discredits any attempt to attribute to 1798 the downfall of the papacy."17
Thus, the dates of 538 and 1798 do not accurately mark the beginning and ending dates of the period of papal supremacy. The Bishop of Rome was gradually consolidating power for many centuries, and the papacy continued to grow and thrive even after the temporary setback of 1798. These dates were concocted by Adventists because they were convenient. These dates fit nicely into the prophetic jigsaw puzzle they were building. The dates were picked because they fit in the puzzle, not because they actually delineated the years of papal supremacy.
6. Does Daniel 7 Describe a Judgment of the Righteous? Notice the order of events presented in Daniel 7:
Little horn came up (v. 8)
Little horn spoke great things (v. 8)
The judgment was set (v. 10)
The beast was slain and burned (v. 11)
There is nothing said in this sequence of events about investigating the deeds of the righteous. The context is that the little horn spoke blasphemous words, and then judgment occurred, and the very next event after the judgment was the destruction of the beast. The only conclusion that can be arrived at from reading this passage is that the ones being judged are the little horn and the beast power. Now notice the sequence in the latter part of the chapter:
Little horn arises (v. 24)
Little horn speaks against Most High (v. 25)
Little horn persecutes saints for 1260 days (v. 25)
The judgment shall sit (v. 26)
The little horn's dominion is taken away (v. 26)
The little horn's kingdom is given to the saints (v. 27)
Once again, there is nothing said about a judgment of the saints. It is clearly the little horn who is judged unworthy of having dominion, and his kingdom is taken away and given to the saints.
Are the Ten Horns really Ten Tribes that defeat the Roman Empire? Daniel 7:24 makes it abundantly clear that the ten horns are not other nations:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise... (KJV)
The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom... (NKJV)
Its ten horns are ten kings that will rule that empire. (NLT)
The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. (NIV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (ESV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise... (NASB)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (RSV)
Notice some important truths from this passage that directly contradict SDA teachings:
The Bible clearly says the ten kings will arise from within the Roman Empire. None of the ten tribes arose from within or ruled over the Roman Empire. The ten tribes were outside powers who conquered parts of the Roman Empire and established new nations. They neither came from the Roman Empire nor ruled over it.
The Bible clearly says the ten horns are "kings". The Aramaic word used is melek which literally means "king" and is only translated "king" in the Old Testatment, never "nation" or "kingdom". The ten tribes were nations, not kings. In the very same passage, the word malkuw is used, meaning "kingdom". Notice:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom (malkuw) are ten kings (melek) that shall arise...
If this passage was referring to ten kingdoms that defeated the Roman Empire, then we would have expected Daniel to use the word malkuw (kingdom) instead of melek (king).
SDA's teach the horn on the head of the goat of Daniel 8 was a king (Alexander the Great) who ruled over the kingdom of Greece. If a horn on a head indicates a ruler over that empire in Daniel 8, then why not apply the same principle to Daniel 7?
The fourth beast had ten horns growing out of its head. In Daniel chapter 8, Adventists teach that horns growing out of the head of a beast represent specific kings or rulers over that particular empire. In the vision of the Goat and the Ram, the Goat has a large horn growing on its head and Daniel 8:21 says:
And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. (NKJV)
Adventists agree that the horn growing on the head of the Goat represents Alexandar the Great. When that one large horn is later replaced by four smaller horns, Adventists likewise teach the Macedonian empire was ruled by Alexander's four generals. It is entirely inconsistent for Adventists to interpret the horns of Daniel 7 as nations that conquered that beast while at the same time teaching that the horns of Daniel 8 are kings of that nation! The Bible imagery throughout the book of Daniel, and also in the book of Revelation, consistently signifies that horns growing on the head of a beast represent the kings or leaders of that power. To teach that those horns are actually outside powers that invade and conquer the beast is totally inconsistent with the imagery and Biblical usage of the symbol.
Another symbol ignored by Seventh-day Adventists is the two iron legs of the image of Daniel 2. The Roman Empire clearly split into two parts: Western, head-quartered in Rome, and Eastern, ruled from Constantinople. The ten tribes only attacked and conquered the western part of the empire. The eastern part continued on for more than 1,000 years. This destroys the SDA image of the ten toes being synomomous with ten tribes, because that would mean five toes on each foot, and the Eastern Empire was not defeated by any of the ten tribes.
Another problem is that at least 20 tribes invaded the Roman Empire. Therefore, we can conclude:
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns arise from within that kingdom
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns are kings, not nations
The SDA teaching contradicts their own interpretation of horns, which is that horns are rulers of a particular Kindom (aka Alexander)
The SDA teaching contradicts history which says twenty tribes invaded the western Roman Empire, not ten
2. Did the Papacy uproot three tribes? As noted above, Uriah Smith and other Adventists teach that the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heuli were destroyed by the Pope of Rome. Such a revision of history is nothing less than pure fiction. None of these tribes were destroyed by the Pope. Any history textbook will explain that the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, the Vandals and Ostrogoths by the Byzantines. Now the Pope benefited to some degree by the defeat of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, but it is uncertain, what, if any, role the Pope played in their demise. More importantly, the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, who were Arians and avowed enemies of the Catholic Church. The Lombards were already identified as one of the other ten horns, and the defeat of the Heruli did not aid the Papacy in any meaningful way, so it makes no sense to claim the Papacy uprooted the Heruli.
In addition, two other tribes were uprooted during the same time period by the Byzantines: the Huns (455 AD) and the Alemanni (495 AD). Why do Adventists ignore these uprooted tribes? There is no reason to ignore them except for the fact that Adventists are trying to make the square pegs of history fit into the round holes of their prophetic jigsaw puzzle. They needed three tribes in order to make their theory fit into Daniel's writings, so they picked three out of the five and ignored the others.
3. Did the Papacy persecute the saints for 1,260 years? There is no doubt at all that Catholics persecuted others, but the 538 - 1798 timeframe of the persecutions does not fit very well with actual historical facts. Persecution actually started more than a century before 538 and finally ended nearly half a century after 1798 :
"Persecution of non-Catholics by Catholic authority began in the 4th Century, and culminated in the Codex Theodosianus (438), which punished all who did not embrace “that religion. . . now professed by the Pontiff.” At the opposite extreme, the Portuguese inquisition operated until 1821; the Spanish inquisition only concluded in 1834; the Roman inquisition in the Papal States also continued into the mid 19th century. Thus, the persecutory activities of Catholics exceed the limits of 538-1798 CE. The papacy does not fit the limits set by the prophecy."6
4. Did the Papacy change the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments? The Catholic Cathecism traces its roots back to Augustine, which was long before Adventists say the "little horn" power arose, and long before the papal power became established. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to pin the Cathecism's changing of the law on the Papacy.
Adventists claim that the papacy transfered Sabbath observance to Sunday during the dark ages. Prophet Ellen White saw in vision that the Pope changed the day of worship to Sunday:
"I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws."7
The "official" teaching of the Catholic Church is that the abolition of the Sabbath was confirmed by the early Church Fathers:
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished.8
The above quote has the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR which essentially means the quote is considered authentic, accurate, and official by the Catholic Church. So, the "official" Catholic Church teaching is that Sunday-keeping can be traced back to the generation following the Apostles. Adventists point to a series of articles that appeared in September of 1893 in the Catholic Mirror as proof that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship. Those articles do indeed brag that the Catholic Church made the change, but they do not carry either the NIHIL OBSTAT or the IMPRIMATUR. This means the articles are not an official church teaching and represent merely the opinion of the author.9
Seventh-day Adventist theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi had access to the Vatican vaults and researched the oldest material on Sabbath-keeping. His research led him to conclude Sunday-keeping was largely practiced long before the first pope came on the scene:
"I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A. D. 135."10
In the first centuries of Christianity there were varied opinions on the day of worship. Many Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day Sabbath. Some Christians observed both days, while others gathered for worship only on Sunday. There is evidence that Sunday-keeping was widely practiced by Christians by the generation following the Apostles, and perhaps even while some of the Apostles were still alive. The Didache is an ancient "church manual" dating from the first century. In it, the "Lord's Day", understood by comparison to other literature of that time period to mean "Sunday", is mentioned as the day that the Lord's Supper is celebrated:11
90 A.D. Didache - "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."12
Here are a couple of other early quotes indicating an early introduction of Sunday worship in the Christian Church:
100 A.D. Barnabas - "Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven."13
110 A.D. Ignatius - "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death".14
Therefore, Sunday observance started hundreds of years before the Roman bishop's rise to pre-eminence.
5. Did the Papacy have Supremecy for 1260 years? The SDA Prophet Ellen White wrote:
"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798."15
538 AD is the year when the Ostrogoths were driven out of Rome, but nothing of great importance happened to the papacy during this year. In fact, the Ostrogoths later recovered from their defeat, went on the offensive, and re-occupied Rome from 541 to 548 AD. The Ostrogoths were not finally eradicated until 561 AD. The papacy did not achieve temporal sovereignty until 756 when the pope acquired the territories of Central Italy. (The papacy controlled these territories until 1870 when the king of Sardinia took over the papal territories.) So why the 538 date? As noted above, the Catholic persecutions do not adhere to these dates. There is no reason for starting at 538 AD other than the fact that it provides a convenient starting point if counting backwards from 1798--the supposed date of the demise of the papal power.
So, what about the ending date of the 1260-day prophecy? Was the papacy abolished in 1798? Ellen White writes:
"The infliction of the deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798."16
While 1798 is a significant year for the papacy, it certainly does not indicate the "abolition" or even the downfall of the papacy. When Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner by the French General Berthier, the papacy suffered humiliation, but it would be a gross exaggeration to describe this event as the "downfall" of the papacy.
SDA Theologian Dr. Bacchiocchi explains what happened after the pope was captured in 1798:
"The imprisonment of Pope Paul VI was condemned by Russia and Austria. Both nations decided to join forces to restore the Pope to his Pontifical throne in Rome. When the French government was confronted with this new coalition and with popular uprisings, it decided to transfer the Pope to Valence, in France, where he died 40 days later, on August 29, 1799.
"The death of Pius VI can hardly be seen as the 'abolishment' or 'the downfall of the Papacy.' It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI was able to give directives for the election of his successor. Few months after his death, the Cardinals met in Venice on December 8, 1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of Pious VII, in deference to his predecessor.
"The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in 1802. These treatises restored to the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated the extent of the Papal authority in France.
"The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority, especially under the Pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. ...
"The crowning event of Pius IX's pontificate was the convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8, 1869. It had a remarkable large attendance from all over the Roman world and on July 18, 1870, the Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This dogma has greatly enhanced the authority of the Pope, and discredits any attempt to attribute to 1798 the downfall of the papacy."17
Thus, the dates of 538 and 1798 do not accurately mark the beginning and ending dates of the period of papal supremacy. The Bishop of Rome was gradually consolidating power for many centuries, and the papacy continued to grow and thrive even after the temporary setback of 1798. These dates were concocted by Adventists because they were convenient. These dates fit nicely into the prophetic jigsaw puzzle they were building. The dates were picked because they fit in the puzzle, not because they actually delineated the years of papal supremacy.
6. Does Daniel 7 Describe a Judgment of the Righteous? Notice the order of events presented in Daniel 7:
Little horn came up (v. 8)
Little horn spoke great things (v. 8)
The judgment was set (v. 10)
The beast was slain and burned (v. 11)
There is nothing said in this sequence of events about investigating the deeds of the righteous. The context is that the little horn spoke blasphemous words, and then judgment occurred, and the very next event after the judgment was the destruction of the beast. The only conclusion that can be arrived at from reading this passage is that the ones being judged are the little horn and the beast power. Now notice the sequence in the latter part of the chapter:
Little horn arises (v. 24)
Little horn speaks against Most High (v. 25)
Little horn persecutes saints for 1260 days (v. 25)
The judgment shall sit (v. 26)
The little horn's dominion is taken away (v. 26)
The little horn's kingdom is given to the saints (v. 27)
Once again, there is nothing said about a judgment of the saints. It is clearly the little horn who is judged unworthy of having dominion, and his kingdom is taken away and given to the saints.
Ik denk dat Daniel 7 gaat over Vespanianus:
Daniel 7:3-6
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
Few commentators, even Daniel "late daters," disagree as to the identification of Beast #1: This is clearly Babylon. Beast #2 is identified by liberals as Media, and Beast #3 as Persia. We argue in this piece that such an interpretation is off the mark, and that #2 is Medo-Persian, while #3 is Greece.
Daniel 7:7-8
It is with Beast #4 that things become relevant for our topic here:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Liberal commentators try to make this sound like the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus, but that won't work at all -- Rome is clearly in view here. The Seleucids were neither strong nor crushing; Rome was. But in terms of eschatology, this is where a division of opinion occurs. Dispensationalists (those who adhere to the standard "Left Behind" view) see in this beast a dual fulfillment part ancient Rome, but part fulfillment by an Antichrist figure in our future. But can this really be justified? If the whole of Daniel's words finds fulfillment in 70 AD, secondary fulfillments become possible, of course, but essentially superfluous in context.
My own findings on this subject may not be new. Indeed, my identification of the "little horn" in Daniel 7 has been proposed before; for example, though he identified the little horn differently, the Jewish commentator Rashi (1040-1105) thought of the ten horns in the same way I have. The reader will have to decide whether the connections made are plausible. Our questions for this passage are:
What's the empire? As noted, all on the conservative side agree that Rome is in view in some way. But is it just ancient Rome, or another as well? Or could it be said that Rome never really ended, since the modern nations of Europe essentially carry on the same dominion? The answer turns upon what follows.
Who are the ten horns, the three horns, and the little horn? The standard dispensational answer: These ten horns are ten kings to come, or else ten nations in a federation headed by the Antichrist figure. But does it bear out?
A sub-question here is whether we should expect ten literal entities, whether kings or nations. Miller [Daniel commentary, 203] notes that ten may merely symbolize completeness. The actual number of entities may be different; one might justly argue that the ten horns are programmatic, after the ten toes of Daniel's statue.
That may indeed be the case. But it is worth notice that the first century era provides us with an intriguing basis for total fulfillment of this passage.
The Roman historian Suetonius authored a biographical account entitled The Twelve Caesars [Penguin Books, 1989], which provided historical data about twelve Roman Caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian at the end of the first century:
Julius Caesar, 49-44 BC
Triumverate: Marc Anthony/Octavian (Augustus)/Lepidus 44-31 BC
Augustus, 31 BC-14 AD
Tiberius, 14-37
Caligula, 37-41
Claudius, 41-54
Nero, 54-68
Galba, 68-69
Otho, 69
Vitellius, 69
Vespasian, 69-79
Titus, 79-81
Domitian, 81-96
In the year 49 BC, Julius Caesar assumed the title of dictator of Rome. In 44 BC, he assumed the title of dictator perpetuus, or dictator for life. He was assassinated before he could enjoy it for long, but he laid the foundation for what would become a dynasty.
The Triumverate is not included in Suetonius' work. However, it consisted of two men who were relatives of Julius Caesar: Marc Anthony, who was a grandson of one of Julius' uncles, and Octavian, who later became Augustus and the first of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Lepidus was part of the triumverate but was not part of Julius' family.
Of particular interest to us, however, is the place of Vespasian in the list. He is 11th, just as the little horn is 11th in Daniel's order. Vespasian, and his son Titus, were of course responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Vespasian was Emperor, and originally the military leader, and Titus was the military commander who actually downed Jerusalem. Now the question: Does Vespasian fit the remaining descriptors of Daniel 7's little horn?
The little horn is given these primary characteristics in Daniel 7:
"Eyes like a man" -- Miller comments [202] that eyes in Scripture are "instruments of observation and learning and are therefore appropriately symbolic of intelligence, insight, and wisdom...This individual will be extremely intelligent and clever." Goldingay [Daniel commentary, 164] states that the eyes signify arrogance (see below). Tatford [Daniel commentary, 111] sees a reference to "intellectual shrewdness and perspicacity," or keen observation and insight.
Is Vespasian the Horn?
Does any of this fit Vespasian? Suetonius' description of Vespasian is of a man who was a survivor, a shrewd politician (he "behaved most generously to all classes", giving out plenty of money), and a patron of the arts. He lived an orderly and structured life, "was nearly always just as good-natured, cracking frequent jokes," had "a knack of apt quotation from the Greek classics..." Daniel's description is quite general; it would fit Vespasian's son Titus just as well (Titus had, according to Suetonius, a phenomenal memory, great artistic talent, and excellent skills as a forger!). But of course, for our thesis, it would have to at least fit Vespasian, and it arguably does.
"A mouth speaking great things" ("very great things", 7:20) -- the word for "great" (rabrab) is used only in Daniel in the OT and is used to refer to "great gifts" given by Nebuchadnezzar, and "great signs" given by God. Commentators take this as a description of arrogance [Miller, 202].
Was Vespasian arrogant? Suetonius has little bad to say about Vespasian, and does not indict him for this sin. As it happens, though, Dan. 7:25 tells us a bit more about the horn's sort of arrogance: "And he shall speak great words against the most High..." This would also not be surprising from any Roman, of course, since the Romans regarded Judaism as a foolish superstition. Yahweh was likely blasphemed by Romans on a daily basis across the Empire. Suetonius offers us some interesting tidbits that may be of relevance:
In Judaea, Vespasian consulted the oracle of the God of Carmel and was given a promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or desired, however lofty his ambitions. Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian's, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters, and who would then be Emperor.
Josephus himself has some interesting tidbits. Since Vespasian was his sponsor and actually reviewed his work, we would not expect him to recount cases where Vespasian spoke against God, if he did, but he does tell us (War 4.10.7):
...Vespasian's good fortune succeeded to his wishes everywhere, and the public affairs were, for the greatest part, already in his hands; upon which he considered that he had not arrived at the government without divine providence, but that a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power...
A righteous kind of fate? Not God? Credit where it is due -- who does Daniel know who has a problem doing that?
Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee [Nebuchadnezzar] from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
They took different tacks, but both Nebuchadnezzar and Vespasian clearly had problems knowing who ruled in the kingdom of men and gave out the power cards. Arrogant? Yes -- since it is a "righteous" fate that he thought brought him to power. It wasn't as bad as Nebuchadnezzar crediting himself, but in either case it is an arrogant insult to the Most High.
"Looked more imposing that the others" (7:20) -- the word for imposing is rab, a form of the word noted above. The word "look" (chezev) is also unique to Daniel and refers to appearances; it is the word used to refer to Daniel's "visions". The descriptor is actually of the horn of the vision itself, not the person it represents [Miller, 212], so there is no need to go into whether Vespasian himself looked more imposing than, say, Nero; from a Jewish perspective his role in destroying Judaea may have been enough to earn such a reckoning.
Vespasian certainly seems a plausible candidate for the little horn. (I referred to Rashi earlier; he also identified the horns with Rome's emperors, but made Titus the little horn.) This granted, we are left with two questions. First, what of the three horns that are uprooted? I believe the answer remains in our list of Emperors -- the three horns are to be identified with Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, military men who died in one year, 69 AD. The first and third were murdered by their troops; Otho was compelled to suicide.
Does this fit Daniel's words? Let's consider what actions are effected on these three horns throughout Daniel:
"Before who three were plucked up by the roots" -- the verb here is the same used to describe the hamstringing of horses (Josh. 11:6, 9). Miller [202] says that the word "denotes a violent overthrow and does not imply that an individual will merely succeed a previous king (or kings) to the throne..." or merely displace the previous kings.
"Before whom three fell" (7:20) -- the preposition here can mean, among other things, before, after, or because of. The verb behind "fell" is used only 11 times in the Bible, once in Ezra and 10 times in Daniel. It is used of Nebuchadnezzar falling on his face in worship (2:46), several times of people falling for worship before Nebuchadnezzar's gold idol, and once for a voice coming down from heaven (4:31).
"He shall subdue three kings" (7:24) -- the word subdue is taken within a dispensational paradigm to mean that the little horn king will himself demote three of the kings. But does the word require direct intervention? It is used in the OT only in Daniel, and is found in Dan. 5:19 referring to Nebuchadnezzar ("And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.") The word (shephal) means to abase or humble.
Does this work out with Vespasian and the three deposed emperors? Technically items 1 and 2 don't have to -- these are descriptions of the horn in the dream rather than of the king in question. Only the third entry actually describes an action of this king in relation to the other three. But as it happens this does fit well what happened anyway.
Did Vespasian in any sense "put down" or "debase" the three kings? He was not involved directly in any way with their overthrow or deaths that our sources record. Yet the year 68-9, the time of our three rapid Emperors, is known as the time of the Roman civil wars precisely because of this infighting that produced four different emperors in one year. Each of these fellows was a military man with troops that were (at least at some point) loyal to him.
By the rules of war, Vespasian was the winner -- and therefore can be said to have indeed humbled, or put down, the other three. He was the winner, in essence, of the Roman civil wars among four candidates for the highest post, and also the winner of the contest of honor that was ingrained with the conflict.
Daniel 7:9-12
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Daniel, by our view, is predicting the abrupt end of the Roman Empire. The other three kingdoms -- which we see as Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece -- are said to be given extra time to live, though stripped of their authority. This is seen as fulfilled, under any paradigm, in that these kingdoms continued to exist, albeit absorbed, by the power that conquered them. Rome, however, when it fell, didn't have that option.
(I do not see that it is necessary to suppose that the fall of Rome, to match this vision, would have had to occur at the time that Vespasian died; verse 11 gives no indication that the fate of the little horn was delivered at the same time that Beast #4 was slain. If dispensationalists wish to argue this, I may point out that it is certainly no less reasonable than their idea that there is a spread of at least 2000 years now in the life of the fourth beast!)
Daniel 7:13-14
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
With this passage we return to the main subject of our eschatology project. We know that the Son of Man envisioned here is Christ. What should be especially noted for our purposes is the Son of Man's mode of transportation, and the direction he is going in. The Son of Man is riding with "the clouds of heaven" (the LXX has the Son of Man actually "on" the clouds) and heading towards the Ancient of Days to be enthroned.
Miller [207] believes that the Son of Man rides from heaven to earth in this picture, but this is quite unlikely in view of the setting of God's heavenly court (7:10). Goldingay [164] acknowledges that the scene of God on a throne of fire, surrounded by attendants, "locate the scene in heaven"; but counters that where "it is specifically a matter of God judging...the scene is normally on earth." The verses he uses in support of this, however, could be said to fall to circular reasoning; for example, Jer. 49:38: "And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD." Did God literally set his throne in Elam? (Other passages, like Ps. 96:10-13, say God will come to judge the earth, but how does this equate with God being physically present on earth?)
The scene fits the placement in heaven better than it fits a placement on earth. Nor does it do to object that the scene must be on earth because of the earth and the sea seen by Daniel (7:3-4). Again, if we are thinking literal geography and envisioning here, then the Mormons must be right about God having a human body!
Casey [Case.SOM, 22, 24-9], for his own purposes, insists that the scene of the AoD is on the earth. He admits that "If the judgment is on earth, God will have to come to earth in order to carry it out" -- then adds that this is not stated explicitly, "because it is not an important aspect of what the author wanted to say!" This does not answer the problem, it merely tries to explain it away with silence!
We will return to this issue in our dealing with the Olivet discourse. For now, we need to round out our treatment of Daniel. Verses 7:15-20 only record Daniel's inquiry and repeat previous information. We may move to this:
Daniel 7:21-2
I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Did Vespasian "make war" with the saints and prevail against them? If by "saints" Daniel means Jews then the obvious answer is yes; but it is clear here that "Jews" cannot be intended, if we are to take this prophecy as correct, since the Jews did not in any sense come to possess a kingdom. On the other hand, as we shall argue, this does make sense if the saints are interpreted as the Christians.
But then the question is, "Was war made on the Christians? This was a war against the Jews!" It was indeed in the main -- but there is evidence that Christians were targeted here also. A fragment of Tacitus' Histories, now preserved for us only by Severus tells of deliberations by Titus as to whether to destroy the Jewish temple. In the end he decides to do so, because although the two religions were in conflict, "they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch is easily killed."
If this is right, then Christians were a real, albeit by far secondary, target of the Romans in the successful attack on Jerusalem. (Josephus reports this conversation as well, but does not mention the Christians -- War 6.4.3.)
We will talk more about the "kingdom" language in another essay. For now, more on Daniel. Verses 23 and 24 repeat earlier material; on to:
Daniel 7:25-6
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
The first part of verse 25 repeats what is said earlier, and adds this:
"Change times and laws" -- Miller [214] interprets this as referring to a desire to eliminate religious holidays and laws. As noted before, the Romans under Vespasian's ultimate command thought to destroy the Temple as a way of destroying Judaism. Their thinking was misplaced, but this was certainly in mind if we are to believe Tacitus.
The saints will be given over "for a time, times and half a time" -- most see this as referring to a period of three and a half years, and this is the case under any paradigm. The question is, when was this three and a half year period? Can it fit into events of 70 AD?
Yes, it can. The Jewish war lasted 7 years, from 66-73 AD. Jerusalem was destroyed in the middle of this period, in 70. The 3 1/2 years would correspond well with the period from 66-70, or perhaps from 70-73, though the latter is less likely since by this time Christians would have followed Jesus' instructions to flee, and the former fits in line with the statement from Tacitus that there was enmity against the Christians as a branch of Judaism.
His power "will be taken away and completely destroyed forever." Vespasian of course did not remain Emperor forever; he died in 79 AD. This statement could be made of any human leader and does not indicate any special sort of judgment. It is made in contrast to verse 27 and the everlasting kingdom therein.
Daniel 7:27
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
We believe that this refers to the established rule of Christ in 70 AD and will address this matter, again, in our Olivet study.
Daniel 7:3-6
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
Few commentators, even Daniel "late daters," disagree as to the identification of Beast #1: This is clearly Babylon. Beast #2 is identified by liberals as Media, and Beast #3 as Persia. We argue in this piece that such an interpretation is off the mark, and that #2 is Medo-Persian, while #3 is Greece.
Daniel 7:7-8
It is with Beast #4 that things become relevant for our topic here:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Liberal commentators try to make this sound like the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus, but that won't work at all -- Rome is clearly in view here. The Seleucids were neither strong nor crushing; Rome was. But in terms of eschatology, this is where a division of opinion occurs. Dispensationalists (those who adhere to the standard "Left Behind" view) see in this beast a dual fulfillment part ancient Rome, but part fulfillment by an Antichrist figure in our future. But can this really be justified? If the whole of Daniel's words finds fulfillment in 70 AD, secondary fulfillments become possible, of course, but essentially superfluous in context.
My own findings on this subject may not be new. Indeed, my identification of the "little horn" in Daniel 7 has been proposed before; for example, though he identified the little horn differently, the Jewish commentator Rashi (1040-1105) thought of the ten horns in the same way I have. The reader will have to decide whether the connections made are plausible. Our questions for this passage are:
What's the empire? As noted, all on the conservative side agree that Rome is in view in some way. But is it just ancient Rome, or another as well? Or could it be said that Rome never really ended, since the modern nations of Europe essentially carry on the same dominion? The answer turns upon what follows.
Who are the ten horns, the three horns, and the little horn? The standard dispensational answer: These ten horns are ten kings to come, or else ten nations in a federation headed by the Antichrist figure. But does it bear out?
A sub-question here is whether we should expect ten literal entities, whether kings or nations. Miller [Daniel commentary, 203] notes that ten may merely symbolize completeness. The actual number of entities may be different; one might justly argue that the ten horns are programmatic, after the ten toes of Daniel's statue.
That may indeed be the case. But it is worth notice that the first century era provides us with an intriguing basis for total fulfillment of this passage.
The Roman historian Suetonius authored a biographical account entitled The Twelve Caesars [Penguin Books, 1989], which provided historical data about twelve Roman Caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian at the end of the first century:
Julius Caesar, 49-44 BC
Triumverate: Marc Anthony/Octavian (Augustus)/Lepidus 44-31 BC
Augustus, 31 BC-14 AD
Tiberius, 14-37
Caligula, 37-41
Claudius, 41-54
Nero, 54-68
Galba, 68-69
Otho, 69
Vitellius, 69
Vespasian, 69-79
Titus, 79-81
Domitian, 81-96
In the year 49 BC, Julius Caesar assumed the title of dictator of Rome. In 44 BC, he assumed the title of dictator perpetuus, or dictator for life. He was assassinated before he could enjoy it for long, but he laid the foundation for what would become a dynasty.
The Triumverate is not included in Suetonius' work. However, it consisted of two men who were relatives of Julius Caesar: Marc Anthony, who was a grandson of one of Julius' uncles, and Octavian, who later became Augustus and the first of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Lepidus was part of the triumverate but was not part of Julius' family.
Of particular interest to us, however, is the place of Vespasian in the list. He is 11th, just as the little horn is 11th in Daniel's order. Vespasian, and his son Titus, were of course responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Vespasian was Emperor, and originally the military leader, and Titus was the military commander who actually downed Jerusalem. Now the question: Does Vespasian fit the remaining descriptors of Daniel 7's little horn?
The little horn is given these primary characteristics in Daniel 7:
"Eyes like a man" -- Miller comments [202] that eyes in Scripture are "instruments of observation and learning and are therefore appropriately symbolic of intelligence, insight, and wisdom...This individual will be extremely intelligent and clever." Goldingay [Daniel commentary, 164] states that the eyes signify arrogance (see below). Tatford [Daniel commentary, 111] sees a reference to "intellectual shrewdness and perspicacity," or keen observation and insight.
Is Vespasian the Horn?
Does any of this fit Vespasian? Suetonius' description of Vespasian is of a man who was a survivor, a shrewd politician (he "behaved most generously to all classes", giving out plenty of money), and a patron of the arts. He lived an orderly and structured life, "was nearly always just as good-natured, cracking frequent jokes," had "a knack of apt quotation from the Greek classics..." Daniel's description is quite general; it would fit Vespasian's son Titus just as well (Titus had, according to Suetonius, a phenomenal memory, great artistic talent, and excellent skills as a forger!). But of course, for our thesis, it would have to at least fit Vespasian, and it arguably does.
"A mouth speaking great things" ("very great things", 7:20) -- the word for "great" (rabrab) is used only in Daniel in the OT and is used to refer to "great gifts" given by Nebuchadnezzar, and "great signs" given by God. Commentators take this as a description of arrogance [Miller, 202].
Was Vespasian arrogant? Suetonius has little bad to say about Vespasian, and does not indict him for this sin. As it happens, though, Dan. 7:25 tells us a bit more about the horn's sort of arrogance: "And he shall speak great words against the most High..." This would also not be surprising from any Roman, of course, since the Romans regarded Judaism as a foolish superstition. Yahweh was likely blasphemed by Romans on a daily basis across the Empire. Suetonius offers us some interesting tidbits that may be of relevance:
In Judaea, Vespasian consulted the oracle of the God of Carmel and was given a promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or desired, however lofty his ambitions. Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian's, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters, and who would then be Emperor.
Josephus himself has some interesting tidbits. Since Vespasian was his sponsor and actually reviewed his work, we would not expect him to recount cases where Vespasian spoke against God, if he did, but he does tell us (War 4.10.7):
...Vespasian's good fortune succeeded to his wishes everywhere, and the public affairs were, for the greatest part, already in his hands; upon which he considered that he had not arrived at the government without divine providence, but that a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power...
A righteous kind of fate? Not God? Credit where it is due -- who does Daniel know who has a problem doing that?
Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee [Nebuchadnezzar] from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
They took different tacks, but both Nebuchadnezzar and Vespasian clearly had problems knowing who ruled in the kingdom of men and gave out the power cards. Arrogant? Yes -- since it is a "righteous" fate that he thought brought him to power. It wasn't as bad as Nebuchadnezzar crediting himself, but in either case it is an arrogant insult to the Most High.
"Looked more imposing that the others" (7:20) -- the word for imposing is rab, a form of the word noted above. The word "look" (chezev) is also unique to Daniel and refers to appearances; it is the word used to refer to Daniel's "visions". The descriptor is actually of the horn of the vision itself, not the person it represents [Miller, 212], so there is no need to go into whether Vespasian himself looked more imposing than, say, Nero; from a Jewish perspective his role in destroying Judaea may have been enough to earn such a reckoning.
Vespasian certainly seems a plausible candidate for the little horn. (I referred to Rashi earlier; he also identified the horns with Rome's emperors, but made Titus the little horn.) This granted, we are left with two questions. First, what of the three horns that are uprooted? I believe the answer remains in our list of Emperors -- the three horns are to be identified with Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, military men who died in one year, 69 AD. The first and third were murdered by their troops; Otho was compelled to suicide.
Does this fit Daniel's words? Let's consider what actions are effected on these three horns throughout Daniel:
"Before who three were plucked up by the roots" -- the verb here is the same used to describe the hamstringing of horses (Josh. 11:6, 9). Miller [202] says that the word "denotes a violent overthrow and does not imply that an individual will merely succeed a previous king (or kings) to the throne..." or merely displace the previous kings.
"Before whom three fell" (7:20) -- the preposition here can mean, among other things, before, after, or because of. The verb behind "fell" is used only 11 times in the Bible, once in Ezra and 10 times in Daniel. It is used of Nebuchadnezzar falling on his face in worship (2:46), several times of people falling for worship before Nebuchadnezzar's gold idol, and once for a voice coming down from heaven (4:31).
"He shall subdue three kings" (7:24) -- the word subdue is taken within a dispensational paradigm to mean that the little horn king will himself demote three of the kings. But does the word require direct intervention? It is used in the OT only in Daniel, and is found in Dan. 5:19 referring to Nebuchadnezzar ("And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.") The word (shephal) means to abase or humble.
Does this work out with Vespasian and the three deposed emperors? Technically items 1 and 2 don't have to -- these are descriptions of the horn in the dream rather than of the king in question. Only the third entry actually describes an action of this king in relation to the other three. But as it happens this does fit well what happened anyway.
Did Vespasian in any sense "put down" or "debase" the three kings? He was not involved directly in any way with their overthrow or deaths that our sources record. Yet the year 68-9, the time of our three rapid Emperors, is known as the time of the Roman civil wars precisely because of this infighting that produced four different emperors in one year. Each of these fellows was a military man with troops that were (at least at some point) loyal to him.
By the rules of war, Vespasian was the winner -- and therefore can be said to have indeed humbled, or put down, the other three. He was the winner, in essence, of the Roman civil wars among four candidates for the highest post, and also the winner of the contest of honor that was ingrained with the conflict.
Daniel 7:9-12
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Daniel, by our view, is predicting the abrupt end of the Roman Empire. The other three kingdoms -- which we see as Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece -- are said to be given extra time to live, though stripped of their authority. This is seen as fulfilled, under any paradigm, in that these kingdoms continued to exist, albeit absorbed, by the power that conquered them. Rome, however, when it fell, didn't have that option.
(I do not see that it is necessary to suppose that the fall of Rome, to match this vision, would have had to occur at the time that Vespasian died; verse 11 gives no indication that the fate of the little horn was delivered at the same time that Beast #4 was slain. If dispensationalists wish to argue this, I may point out that it is certainly no less reasonable than their idea that there is a spread of at least 2000 years now in the life of the fourth beast!)
Daniel 7:13-14
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
With this passage we return to the main subject of our eschatology project. We know that the Son of Man envisioned here is Christ. What should be especially noted for our purposes is the Son of Man's mode of transportation, and the direction he is going in. The Son of Man is riding with "the clouds of heaven" (the LXX has the Son of Man actually "on" the clouds) and heading towards the Ancient of Days to be enthroned.
Miller [207] believes that the Son of Man rides from heaven to earth in this picture, but this is quite unlikely in view of the setting of God's heavenly court (7:10). Goldingay [164] acknowledges that the scene of God on a throne of fire, surrounded by attendants, "locate the scene in heaven"; but counters that where "it is specifically a matter of God judging...the scene is normally on earth." The verses he uses in support of this, however, could be said to fall to circular reasoning; for example, Jer. 49:38: "And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD." Did God literally set his throne in Elam? (Other passages, like Ps. 96:10-13, say God will come to judge the earth, but how does this equate with God being physically present on earth?)
The scene fits the placement in heaven better than it fits a placement on earth. Nor does it do to object that the scene must be on earth because of the earth and the sea seen by Daniel (7:3-4). Again, if we are thinking literal geography and envisioning here, then the Mormons must be right about God having a human body!
Casey [Case.SOM, 22, 24-9], for his own purposes, insists that the scene of the AoD is on the earth. He admits that "If the judgment is on earth, God will have to come to earth in order to carry it out" -- then adds that this is not stated explicitly, "because it is not an important aspect of what the author wanted to say!" This does not answer the problem, it merely tries to explain it away with silence!
We will return to this issue in our dealing with the Olivet discourse. For now, we need to round out our treatment of Daniel. Verses 7:15-20 only record Daniel's inquiry and repeat previous information. We may move to this:
Daniel 7:21-2
I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Did Vespasian "make war" with the saints and prevail against them? If by "saints" Daniel means Jews then the obvious answer is yes; but it is clear here that "Jews" cannot be intended, if we are to take this prophecy as correct, since the Jews did not in any sense come to possess a kingdom. On the other hand, as we shall argue, this does make sense if the saints are interpreted as the Christians.
But then the question is, "Was war made on the Christians? This was a war against the Jews!" It was indeed in the main -- but there is evidence that Christians were targeted here also. A fragment of Tacitus' Histories, now preserved for us only by Severus tells of deliberations by Titus as to whether to destroy the Jewish temple. In the end he decides to do so, because although the two religions were in conflict, "they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch is easily killed."
If this is right, then Christians were a real, albeit by far secondary, target of the Romans in the successful attack on Jerusalem. (Josephus reports this conversation as well, but does not mention the Christians -- War 6.4.3.)
We will talk more about the "kingdom" language in another essay. For now, more on Daniel. Verses 23 and 24 repeat earlier material; on to:
Daniel 7:25-6
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
The first part of verse 25 repeats what is said earlier, and adds this:
"Change times and laws" -- Miller [214] interprets this as referring to a desire to eliminate religious holidays and laws. As noted before, the Romans under Vespasian's ultimate command thought to destroy the Temple as a way of destroying Judaism. Their thinking was misplaced, but this was certainly in mind if we are to believe Tacitus.
The saints will be given over "for a time, times and half a time" -- most see this as referring to a period of three and a half years, and this is the case under any paradigm. The question is, when was this three and a half year period? Can it fit into events of 70 AD?
Yes, it can. The Jewish war lasted 7 years, from 66-73 AD. Jerusalem was destroyed in the middle of this period, in 70. The 3 1/2 years would correspond well with the period from 66-70, or perhaps from 70-73, though the latter is less likely since by this time Christians would have followed Jesus' instructions to flee, and the former fits in line with the statement from Tacitus that there was enmity against the Christians as a branch of Judaism.
His power "will be taken away and completely destroyed forever." Vespasian of course did not remain Emperor forever; he died in 79 AD. This statement could be made of any human leader and does not indicate any special sort of judgment. It is made in contrast to verse 27 and the everlasting kingdom therein.
Daniel 7:27
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
We believe that this refers to the established rule of Christ in 70 AD and will address this matter, again, in our Olivet study.
63BC-70AD: The 11 horns of Daniel's 4th Beast (The 11 "Kings" of Daniel's 4th idol-worshipping kingdom to possess Jerusalem)
"horn" = king, (national leader, primary personal representative)
"beast" = idol-worshipping Gentile nation that rules over (subjugates) God's Chosen People
Bible scholars living in the last days of old Jerusalem may have seen some very interesting things in this dream of Daniel 7.
Since this is a prophecy of the Jews, everything must be seen from the outlook of the Jews. Their zeal was for their mother city, Jerusalem, the home of their Temple, their whole reason for being, The biblical Jews would see as a "beast" any Gentile (idol-worshipping) kingdom (empire) that trampled upon Jerusalem, bringing her into subjection. They could count each "king" of such kingdoms as a "horn" on the "beast" since the time of Jerusalem's subjugation. Therefore, everything should be seen from the vantage point of Jerusalem, the mother city of the Jews, ("Israel" being their "fatherland").
"beast" = "idol-worshipping kingdom (empire) trampling upon (possessing) Jerusalem."
"kingdom" = "dominion, empire, extent of rule, totality of territory & peoples governed, reign, administration, etc."
"horn" = "king" = "supreme leader, chief ruler, monarch, emperor, caesar, kaiser, czar, pharoah, president, prime minister, etc."
In this sense the Roman Caesars and their precursor, Pompey the Great, may justly be regarded as "kings" over the Roman "kingdom."
The vision of Daniel 7 describes a destroying beast with ten horns and an eleventh horn that uproots three of those first ten horns. The eleventh horn to appear becomes the eighth horn that remains, (since three horns are removed in the process of its appearing). The "horns" are then explained to be "kings" (supreme leaders) of the fourth kingdom (empire) since the Babylonians to possess Jerusalem: 1-Babylonians, 2-Medo-Persians, 3-Greeks, 4-Romans. These eleven "horns," then, would be the eleven "kings" (supreme leaders) of the Romans from the time Rome subjugated Jerusalem to the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," 11-Vespasian.
The eight horns that remain after the three horns are removed would be: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," Vespasian, (now the 8th of the horns that actually remain). These are the "kings" (supreme leaders) of Rome that actually possessed Jerusalem during their reigns. The three "kings" who were removed were the ones who never possessed Jerusalem since Jerusalem was enjoying freedom through revolt during their reigns.
"Little horn that plucks up three of the ten horns" = 11-Vespasian who was "little" in the sense of his common birth but went on to become the consummate Roman general, a man of war, a soldier in service to Rome and its emperors his whole life, thus "diverse from the first ["ten kings"]. Vespasian made himself emperor by the campaigning of his zealous soldier-followers, usurping the last of the succession of 3 abrupted reigns since 7-Nero's death: 8-Galba, 9-Otho and 10-Vitellius in "69AD: The Year of the Four Emperors". As Emperor, Vespasian possessed the power to cease the war against the Jews but, instead, chose to pursue it to Jerusalem's 70AD destruction and beyond, not satisfied until the fall of Masada in 73AD and the wholesale slaughters of surviving Jews throughout the Roman Empire in massacres-for-display and celebrations. Old Jerusalem's subjugation to the Romans ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD. Vespasian made light of the Roman religious custom of deifying their emperors at death but took war-making deathly serious, as though serving "a god of fortresses," he conquered for himself both Rome and Jerusalem, prevailing over the most valiant of each, almost simultaneously. "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
Jerusalem's subjugation to beastly Rome ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD.
"horn" = king, (national leader, primary personal representative)
"beast" = idol-worshipping Gentile nation that rules over (subjugates) God's Chosen People
Bible scholars living in the last days of old Jerusalem may have seen some very interesting things in this dream of Daniel 7.
Since this is a prophecy of the Jews, everything must be seen from the outlook of the Jews. Their zeal was for their mother city, Jerusalem, the home of their Temple, their whole reason for being, The biblical Jews would see as a "beast" any Gentile (idol-worshipping) kingdom (empire) that trampled upon Jerusalem, bringing her into subjection. They could count each "king" of such kingdoms as a "horn" on the "beast" since the time of Jerusalem's subjugation. Therefore, everything should be seen from the vantage point of Jerusalem, the mother city of the Jews, ("Israel" being their "fatherland").
"beast" = "idol-worshipping kingdom (empire) trampling upon (possessing) Jerusalem."
"kingdom" = "dominion, empire, extent of rule, totality of territory & peoples governed, reign, administration, etc."
"horn" = "king" = "supreme leader, chief ruler, monarch, emperor, caesar, kaiser, czar, pharoah, president, prime minister, etc."
In this sense the Roman Caesars and their precursor, Pompey the Great, may justly be regarded as "kings" over the Roman "kingdom."
The vision of Daniel 7 describes a destroying beast with ten horns and an eleventh horn that uproots three of those first ten horns. The eleventh horn to appear becomes the eighth horn that remains, (since three horns are removed in the process of its appearing). The "horns" are then explained to be "kings" (supreme leaders) of the fourth kingdom (empire) since the Babylonians to possess Jerusalem: 1-Babylonians, 2-Medo-Persians, 3-Greeks, 4-Romans. These eleven "horns," then, would be the eleven "kings" (supreme leaders) of the Romans from the time Rome subjugated Jerusalem to the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," 11-Vespasian.
The eight horns that remain after the three horns are removed would be: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," Vespasian, (now the 8th of the horns that actually remain). These are the "kings" (supreme leaders) of Rome that actually possessed Jerusalem during their reigns. The three "kings" who were removed were the ones who never possessed Jerusalem since Jerusalem was enjoying freedom through revolt during their reigns.
"Little horn that plucks up three of the ten horns" = 11-Vespasian who was "little" in the sense of his common birth but went on to become the consummate Roman general, a man of war, a soldier in service to Rome and its emperors his whole life, thus "diverse from the first ["ten kings"]. Vespasian made himself emperor by the campaigning of his zealous soldier-followers, usurping the last of the succession of 3 abrupted reigns since 7-Nero's death: 8-Galba, 9-Otho and 10-Vitellius in "69AD: The Year of the Four Emperors". As Emperor, Vespasian possessed the power to cease the war against the Jews but, instead, chose to pursue it to Jerusalem's 70AD destruction and beyond, not satisfied until the fall of Masada in 73AD and the wholesale slaughters of surviving Jews throughout the Roman Empire in massacres-for-display and celebrations. Old Jerusalem's subjugation to the Romans ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD. Vespasian made light of the Roman religious custom of deifying their emperors at death but took war-making deathly serious, as though serving "a god of fortresses," he conquered for himself both Rome and Jerusalem, prevailing over the most valiant of each, almost simultaneously. "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
Jerusalem's subjugation to beastly Rome ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD.
ik hoop allebeiquote:
Maar wie gaat nu wel naar de hemel, Wiseguy of Ali ?
en jij ook
Ik snap je punt wel in dit opzicht. Echter er is nog een optie. Stel dat er idd een oordeel plaatsvond in de eerste eeuw waarin Satan veroordeeld werd en schuldig werd bevonden (maar nog geen straf had ontvangen). Tot dan toe was Satan in staat redelijk ongelimiteerd de aarde te controleren. Tegen Jezus zei hij immers dat hij autoriteit over de aarde had gekregen en dat hij het kon weggeven aan Jezus als Jezus hem zou aanbidden. Nou vanuit dit oogpunt bezien is het einde van het Romeinse Rijk dan geen fysiek einde maar een geestelijk einde. De duivel kon niet meer ongelimiteerd de aarde besturen, christendom kon niet uitgeroeid worden maar christenen kregen de sleutels van het hemelse koninkrijk. Dit koninkrijk werd al op aarde gevestigd. Jezus zei : het koninkrijk van God zit binnenin je. Merk ook op dat de eerste drie voorgaande rijken nog een tijdje te leven kregen maar het Romeinse Rijk niet. Daar kwam ineens een abrupt einde aan. Dit kan alleen verklaard worden als je er idd vanuit gaat dat na Vespinianus Jezus een koninkrijk op aarde oprichtte. Dit is echter een koninkrijk zonder grenzen en een spiritueel koninkrijk. Hoewel de duivel veroordeeld is heeft hij nog geen straf ontvangen, dit verklaard waarom hij nog steeds invloed uitoefent op de wereld maar Jezus' interventie verklaart waarom deze invloed beperkt is.quote:Hoe kun je in hemelsnaam de woorden 'de prins van deze wereld is geoordeeld' gelijktrekken naar 'het Romeinse Rijk wordt ten onder gebracht en de staatsreligie van Rome wordt het Christelijke (in werkelijkheid Rooms Katholieke) geloof. Wat vervolgens de wereld gedurende 1000 jaar in een spirituele afgrond zou helpen.
Satan werd geoordeeld omdat hij niet in staat was geweest Jezus te laten zondigen en al zijn claims met betrekking tot God onwaar waren gebleken op het moment van de kruisiging (waaruit bleek dat God liefde en genadevol is, evenals rechtvaardig).
(West)Rome zou pas zo'n 500 jaar later werkelijk tot zijn einde komen. Toen Constantinus zogenaamd christen werd en de christelijke religie de staatsreligie was dat een strategische politieke zet en had niets met een hartsbekering van Constantinus te maken. De man was een oorlogsvoerder uit op politiek en economisch gewin, niet op een spirituele bekering van de wereld tot het koninkrijk van God en de leer van Jezus Christus.
De Rooms katholieke kerk die daar uiteindelijk uit voortkwam zou naast een religieuze een voornamelijk politieke en economische invloed uitoefenen en iedereen met eeuwig hellevuur intimideren om vooral veel geld te betalen aan het instituut kerk.
1 En er zijn ook valse profeten onder het volk geweest, gelijk ook onder u valse leraars zijn zullen, die verderfelijke ketterijen bedektelijk invoeren zullen, ook den Heere, Die hen gekocht heeft, verloochenende, en een haastig verderf over zichzelven brengende;
2 En velen zullen hun verderfenissen navolgen, door welke de weg der waarheid zal gelasterd worden.
3 En zij zullen door gierigheid, met gemaakte woorden, van u een koopmanschap maken; over welke het oordeel van over lang niet ledig is, en hun verderf sluimert niet. 2 Petrus 3
Hieruit zou ook de inquisitie voortkomen, ook zo'n fijn christelijk instituut.
Verder is het boek van Daniel door tekstkritiek gedateerd op de 6e eeuw voor christus en niet de 2e.
De duivel is dus wel geoordeeld maar nog lang niet op inactief gezet! Ik weet niet wat voor battles je zelf dagelijks voert maar ik weet dat de duivel hard aan het werk is om mensen op alle fronten tegen te werken. Van welke site heb je dit gehaald als ik vragen mag?
Desalniettemin zijn we het beiden wel eens dat de RKK een anti-christelijk instituut is geworden (al hebben ze wel progressie gemaakt tav het evangelie). Maar je kan niet overal obsessief bij elke profetie stellen dat het om de RKK gaat.
Ik ben het ermee eens dat in kader van de contra-reformatie de Jezuieten preterisme op de voorgrond hebben geschoven mbt het boek openbaringen. Echter is het wel logisch te veronderstellen dat het boek van Daniel gaat over de toekomst van het Joodse volk tot en met de vernietiging van Jeruzalem.quote:
[..]
Precies...
De valse interpretaties en uitleg van de profetieen van Daniel en openbaringen zijn rond de 16e eeuw mede in de wereld geholpen door de Jezuiten Francisco Ribera & Louis del Alcazar, om de aandacht af te leiden van de Rooms Katholieke Kerk en om een tegengeluid te bieden aan het opkomend protestantisme die inzagen en ervan overtuigd waren dat de profetieen direct verwezen naar het katholieke systeem als zijnde Babylon, het Beest, de AntiChrist, etc.
Maar vandaag de dag overheerst binnen Protestantse kringen vreemd genoeg de theorie dat de Antichrist nog moet arriveren (futurisme) en dat een fysiek Israel en de bouw van een fysieke 3e tempel een belangrijke rol zullen gaan spelen in de vervulling van de laatste week van Daniel's 70 weken profetie.
Die in werkelijkheid dus al in vervulling is gegaan (...vanaf de doping van Jezus t/m de steniging van Stephanus, precies 7 jaar later en er precies halverwege deze 7-jaarsperiode dus de kruisiging plaats vond).
[..]
Bron:
page 1 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com
page 2 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com/daniels70weeks.html
|
|
