Daniels' Seventy Sevens

[Mellontes]

Thanks Steve! I think I was reacting to another posters, "It is these kinds of faulty analysis..." rant in which he seemed to be suggesting my analysis was faulty. I reacted poorly regarding what most of the Bible scholars I have read have said on the subject. As I mentioned it takes "two to tango." Is telling another their analysis is "faulty" in keeping with the general love, kindness and mutual respect that this forum is known for?

Please don't misunderstand me, I appreciate your cite very much and will try to mind my P&Q's.

Please do not misunderstand that what I said had anything SPECIFICALLY referring to you. And by the way, thank you ever so much for calling what I said "a rant." That is too funny! You just made the "seeming" name calling even more one-sided... I hope you feel better now... A few months back and I might have reacted in the same way, but I have gotten used to it. It seems that only Christians eat their own these days...

I called it faulty analysis on this basis. I am afraid that if the shoe fits, then it must be worn. What I said applies to all of us. Here is the basis:

When we step outside of Scripture to form our opinions, even if from predominant scholars or well-defined creeds, we do error. Majority opinion is not the monitor of truth. We either accept Truth as our authority, or authority as our truth - most take the latter definition. Lucifer is mentioned just once in the entire Bible and the context demands that it be pointing to the king of Babylon. There is no comparison to be made because there are no other times when Lucifer applies to anything else, unless it is "eisegetically inserted" into the text. The same exact procedure is done to the antichrist of 1st and 2nd John. And yes, a person can be considered to be antichrist in character or nature, but there is nothing in Scripture that points to THE antichrist especially as a political/religious leader. If this is a truth, then it should be a simple matter to point out the Scripture(s) where this is so. I must be so because thousands of people believe this, right? So let's have the Scripture(s) that proves this simple little task and be done with it. I do not mind in the least if I am proven wrong. I have been wrong before. That is one way I am able to grow in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus. BUT THE PROOF MUST COME FROM "HOLY" PUDDING - THE SCRIPTURES! Surely that is not too much to ask...

[RND]

Please do not misunderstand that what I said had anything SPECIFICALLY referring to you. And by the way, thank you ever so much for calling what I said "a rant." That is too funny! You just made the "seeming" name calling even more one-sided... I hope you feel better now... A few months back and I might have reacted in the same way, but I have gotten used to it. It seems that only Christians eat their own these days...

Rant wasn't meant as derogatory. It seemed appropriate with respect to the tone of your post. No worries. If you feel that was an incorrect assumption on my part my apologies.

Yours is gratefully accepted in advance!

I called it faulty analysis on this basis. I am afraid that if the shoe fits, then it must be worn. What I said applies to all of us. Here is the basis:

When we step outside of Scripture to form our opinions, even if from predominant scholars or well-defined creeds, we do error. Majority opinion is not the monitor of truth. We either accept Truth as our authority, or authority as our truth - most take the latter definition. Lucifer is mentioned just once in the entire Bible and the context demands that it be pointing to the king of Babylon. There is no comparison to be made because there are no other times when Lucifer applies to anything else, unless it is "eisegetically inserted" into the text. The same exact procedure is done to the antichrist of 1st and 2nd John. And yes, a person can be considered to be antichrist in character or nature, but there is nothing in Scripture that points to THE antichrist especially as a political/religious leader. If this is a truth, then it should be a simple matter to point out the Scripture(s) where this is so. I must be so because thousands of people believe this, right? So let's have the Scripture(s) that proves this simple little task and be done with it. I do not mind in the least if I am proven wrong. I have been wrong before. That is one way I am able to grow in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus. BUT THE PROOF MUST COME FROM "HOLY" PUDDING - THE SCRIPTURES! Surely that is not too much to ask...

I think you are making a mistake here. Not oly that, but your take on the "Antichrist" just doesn't fit with scripture. A person is considered to be Antichrist based solely on character or nature. Politicians are people. Religious leaders are people. Therefore Scripture that points out the Antichrist can definitely be a political/religious leader. Couple that with a false church and religious system based on these falsehoods and you have "a woman riding a beast" i.e. the church running the state.





A "pure woman" in Bible prophecy always represents the true church (Jeremiah 6:2; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:23-27 ) and "corrupt woman" always represents the Apostate church (Ezk. 16:15-58; 23:2-21; Hos. 2:5; 3:1; Rev. 14:4) and a "beast" always represents a "temporal/political" power (Dan. 7:17, 23).

[Mellontes]

Please do not misunderstand that what I said had anything SPECIFICALLY referring to you. And by the way, thank you ever so much for calling what I said "a rant." That is too funny! You just made the "seeming" name calling even more one-sided... I hope you feel better now... A few months back and I might have reacted in the same way, but I have gotten used to it. It seems that only Christians eat their own these days...

Rant wasn't meant as derogatory. It seemed appropriate with respect to the tone of your post. No worries. If you feel that was an incorrect assumption on my part my apologies.

Yours is gratefully accepted in advance!

I called it faulty analysis on this basis. I am afraid that if the shoe fits, then it must be worn. What I said applies to all of us. Here is the basis:

When we step outside of Scripture to form our opinions, even if from predominant scholars or well-defined creeds, we do error. Majority opinion is not the monitor of truth. We either accept Truth as our authority, or authority as our truth - most take the latter definition. Lucifer is mentioned just once in the entire Bible and the context demands that it be pointing to the king of Babylon. There is no comparison to be made because there are no other times when Lucifer applies to anything else, unless it is "eisegetically inserted" into the text. The same exact procedure is done to the antichrist of 1st and 2nd John. And yes, a person can be considered to be antichrist in character or nature, but there is nothing in Scripture that points to THE antichrist especially as a political/religious leader. If this is a truth, then it should be a simple matter to point out the Scripture(s) where this is so. I must be so because thousands of people believe this, right? So let's have the Scripture(s) that proves this simple little task and be done with it. I do not mind in the least if I am proven wrong. I have been wrong before. That is one way I am able to grow in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus. BUT THE PROOF MUST COME FROM "HOLY" PUDDING - THE SCRIPTURES! Surely that is not too much to ask...

I think you are making a mistake here. Not oly that, but your take on the "Antichrist" just doesn't fit with scripture. A person is considered to be Antichrist based solely on character or nature. Politicians are people. Religious leaders are people. Therefore Scripture that points out the Antichrist can definitely be a political/religious leader. Couple that with a false church and religious system based on these falsehoods and you have "a woman riding a beast" i.e. the church running the state.





A "pure woman" in Bible prophecy always represents the true church (Jeremiah 6:2; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:23-27 ) and "corrupt woman" always represents the Apostate church (Ezk. 16:15-58; 23:2-21; Hos. 2:5; 3:1; Rev. 14:4) and a "beast" always represents a "temporal/political" power (Dan. 7:17, 23).

How long should I wait for those Scriptures that point to THE ANTICHRIST of your theology?

And I think it much more appropriate to associate the harlot, the Babylon, with apostate Judaism than with the church, the body of Christ. This was the group responsible with killing the prophets, crucifying the Lord Jesus, and persecuting the apostles and the church! The great city in Revelation, compared to Sodom and Egypt, is none other than Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8).

[mtymousie]

And I think it much more appropriate to associate the harlot, the Babylon, with apostate Judaism than with the church, the body of Christ. This was the group responsible with killing the prophets, crucifying the Lord Jesus, and persecuting the apostles and the church! The great city in Revelation, compared to Sodom and Egypt, is none other than Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8).

Well said! On another very relevant note, the ancient city of Jerusalem was known as the seven hilled city for centuries before Rome ever came into existence!

preteristmouse

[RND]

How long should I wait for those Scriptures that point to THE ANTICHRIST of your theology?

How long should you wait? No comprende. I think both Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, 14 17 and 18 do a great job in revealing the church/state power that currently runs the world.

And I think it much more appropriate to associate the harlot, the Babylon, with apostate Judaism than with the church, the body of Christ.

Some might. Many dispensationalist do. But let's take a look at the mother of all harlots (false worship entities) and decide what the scripture actually points us to and who has stood up and claim this mantle for themselves!

Here's some short videos on Revelation 17 that should do well in explaining the truth as I see it. One thing is for sure Jerusalem has nothing on Rome!

Revelation 17 Whore Babylon Antichrist - Part 1
Revelation 17 Whore Babylon Antichrist - Part 2







Do any of these symbols remind one of Jerusalem?

This was the group responsible with killing the prophets, crucifying the Lord Jesus, and persecuting the apostles and the church!

John's Revelation was written after this, thus describing prophecies that would have to be accomplished in the latter days. The same spirit that accomplished this in the days of Jesus, and the day of Paul, is at work even today. Evil doesn't take a break.

The great city in Revelation, compared to Sodom and Egypt, is none other than Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8).

Four points to consider regarding Revelation 11. 1) Reveals the history of the French Revolution, 2) The 2 witnesses represent the Old and New Testaments, 3)The 1260 days represented the 1260 years of Papal persecution - from 538-1798 AD, and 4) The seventh trumpet represents 1844 and afterwards.

[RND]

Well said! On another very relevant note, the ancient city of Jerusalem was known as the seven hilled city for centuries before Rome ever came into existence!

And for years Rome was actually called "New Babylon."

Augustine of Hippo, in his City of God, in several places mentions that Rome is comparable to Babylon. Augustine makes the comparison from a historical standpoint, given that both cities were conquerors.

Here, in book 16 of City of God is the first such statement:

"In Assyria, therefore, the dominion of the impious city had the pre-eminence. Its head was Babylon, an earth born city, most fitly named, for it means confusion. There Ninus reigned after the death of his father Belus, who first had reigned there sixty-five years. His son Ninus, who, on his father's death, succeeded to the kingdom, reigned fifty-two years, and had been king forty-three years when Abraham was born, which was about the 1200th year before Rome was founded, as it were another Babylon in the west."

In book 18 of City of God is another such statement:

"But since Grecian affairs are much better known to us than Assyrian, and those who have diligently investigated the antiquity of the Roman nation's origin have followed the order of time through the Greeks to the Latins, and from them to the Romans, who themselves are Latins, we ought on this account, where it is needful, to mention the Assyrian kings, that it may appear how Babylon, like a first Rome, ran its course along with the city of God, which is a stranger in this world. But the things proper for insertion in this work in comparing the two cities, that is, the earthly and heavenly, ought to be taken mostly from the Greek and Latin kingdoms, where Rome herself is like a second Babylon. "

In book 18 of City of God, Chapter 22, is another such statement:

"To be brief, the city of Rome was founded, like another Babylon, and as it were the daughter of the former Babylon, by which God was pleased to conquer the whole world, and subdue it far and wide by bringing it into one fellowship of government and laws."

It is clear that other church fathers considered that Peter's statement referred to Rome. Consider Jerome, in his De viris illustribus, in section 8, Mark, indicates that Peter is speaking of Rome when he mentions Babylon.

Catholic Historians openly admit that Babylon was a symbol of Rome. Cardinal Gibbons in his book, Faith of our Fathers in the 1917 edition on page 106 says,

"The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known that Rome was called the New Babylon."

History provides another suggestion that Rome is a symbol for Babylon. In 586 B.C, Babylon destroyed both Jerusalem and the temple. In 70 A.D, the Romans did exactly the same thing to both Jerusalem and the rebuilt temple. They were quite thorough too. Jesus in Matthew 24 speaking about the future of the Jewish Temple; said "not one stone would be left upon another." History records that the Roman army burned temple, and the fire melted the gold in the temple. After the fire was out, the Romans discovered that the gold had melted and run down between the cracks of the rocks. Therefore, they pulled up all the stones to get at the gold.

http://www.666man.net/BabylonSymbolForRome.html

[Mellontes]

I am still waiting for the Scripture(s) that specifically identifies THE ANTICHRIST according to your theology. The scriptures you referenced didn't even refer to any antichrist, let alone THE ANTICHRIST...

Four points to consider regarding Revelation 11. 1) Reveals the history of the French Revolution, 2) The 2 witnesses represent the Old and New Testaments, 3)The 1260 days represented the 1260 years of Papal persecution - from 538-1798 AD, and 4) The seventh trumpet represents 1844 and afterwards.

Amazing! May I also have the Scriptures that reveals these insights. I even left spaces for you...

1) Reveals the history of the French Revolution,

2) The 2 witnesses represent the Old and New Testaments,

3)The 1260 days represented the 1260 years of Papal persecution - from 538-1798 AD

4) The seventh trumpet represents 1844 and afterwards

[Mellontes]

Well said! On another very relevant note, the ancient city of Jerusalem was known as the seven hilled city for centuries before Rome ever came into existence!

And for years Rome was actually called "New Babylon."

Augustine of Hippo, in his City of God, in several places mentions that Rome is comparable to Babylon. Augustine makes the comparison from a historical standpoint, given that both cities were conquerors.

Here, in book 16 of City of God is the first such statement:

"In Assyria, therefore, the dominion of the impious city had the pre-eminence. Its head was Babylon, an earth born city, most fitly named, for it means confusion. There Ninus reigned after the death of his father Belus, who first had reigned there sixty-five years. His son Ninus, who, on his father's death, succeeded to the kingdom, reigned fifty-two years, and had been king forty-three years when Abraham was born, which was about the 1200th year before Rome was founded, as it were another Babylon in the west."

In book 18 of City of God is another such statement:

"But since Grecian affairs are much better known to us than Assyrian, and those who have diligently investigated the antiquity of the Roman nation's origin have followed the order of time through the Greeks to the Latins, and from them to the Romans, who themselves are Latins, we ought on this account, where it is needful, to mention the Assyrian kings, that it may appear how Babylon, like a first Rome, ran its course along with the city of God, which is a stranger in this world. But the things proper for insertion in this work in comparing the two cities, that is, the earthly and heavenly, ought to be taken mostly from the Greek and Latin kingdoms, where Rome herself is like a second Babylon. "

In book 18 of City of God, Chapter 22, is another such statement:

"To be brief, the city of Rome was founded, like another Babylon, and as it were the daughter of the former Babylon, by which God was pleased to conquer the whole world, and subdue it far and wide by bringing it into one fellowship of government and laws."

It is clear that other church fathers considered that Peter's statement referred to Rome. Consider Jerome, in his De viris illustribus, in section 8, Mark, indicates that Peter is speaking of Rome when he mentions Babylon.

Catholic Historians openly admit that Babylon was a symbol of Rome. Cardinal Gibbons in his book, Faith of our Fathers in the 1917 edition on page 106 says,

"The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known that Rome was called the New Babylon."

History provides another suggestion that Rome is a symbol for Babylon. In 586 B.C, Babylon destroyed both Jerusalem and the temple. In 70 A.D, the Romans did exactly the same thing to both Jerusalem and the rebuilt temple. They were quite thorough too. Jesus in Matthew 24 speaking about the future of the Jewish Temple; said "not one stone would be left upon another." History records that the Roman army burned temple, and the fire melted the gold in the temple. After the fire was out, the Romans discovered that the gold had melted and run down between the cracks of the rocks. Therefore, they pulled up all the stones to get at the gold.

http://www.666man.net/BabylonSymbolForRome.html

RND, it seems you prefer other books and historians as authoritative over the pure written word of God. Where are the Scriptures that develop your theories? I don't want man's opinion. I am looking for the divine source - the Bible. These historians may be right, but it is not their words that make it right. Now if you can just produce the SCRIPTURES that agree with these men's opinions that would be fine. But why waste time on the "enticing words of man's wisdom" if the appropriate Scriptures are not supplied? I can't address anything other than Scripture, and I won't.

[RND]

RND, it seems you prefer other books and historians as authoritative over the pure written word of God.

Yes, I prefer the "historical" view of scripture as the authoritative view of scripture. Beats reading Tim LaHaye novels or Hank Hanegraaff novels.

Where are the Scriptures that develop your theories?

I have posted a number in posts on this thread as well as providing two videos chalked full of scriptural references. It is a deep and exhaustive subject therefore I prefer to post things that will allow you to view and study them on your own time. Did you watch the videos? How about the pictures of the coins I referenced? Anything at all like that coming from Jerusalem? Or, have you failed to notice that the RCC has a "stranglehold" on every site of significance in Jerusalem and Bethlehem? Israel? Jerusalem? Not a chance. It's Rome. The early reformers knew this all too well.

I don't want man's opinion. I am looking for the divine source - the Bible.

Watch the videos, do a little homework. Dig for yourself then. The more and more and more you look the more and more and more Rome turns up.

Here's a question I'll ask you from Daniel 7:25, I have asked this before and I don't know that I have received an answer. Here goes. What "times and laws" has Jerusalem changed?

These historians may be right, but it is not their words that make it right. Now if you can just produce the SCRIPTURES that agree with these men's opinions that would be fine.

Watch the videos.

But why waste time on the "enticing words of man's wisdom" if the appropriate Scriptures are not supplied? I can't address anything other than Scripture, and I won't.

I have provided a boatload of evidence that points to Rome and the false religious system of the RCC that has had ruler ship over the entire Christian world (by force) for close to 2 millennium now and all I can do is point you in the right direction. It ain't Jerusalem, it's Rome. It ain't the Jews, bankers, or reptilians. It's Rome.

[Mellontes]

And I think it much more appropriate to associate the harlot, the Babylon, with apostate Judaism than with the church, the body of Christ.

Some might. Many dispensationalist do. But let's take a look at the mother of all harlots (false worship entities) and decide what the scripture actually points us to and who has stood up and claim this mantle for themselves!

Many dispensationalists do??? I don't believe so. They are more inclined to the Papal way of seeing things. May I ask you to supply a quote by one these dispensationalists to support your assertion? Thank you.