Jump to content

Diaste

Royal Member
  • Posts

    6,593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Diaste last won the day on June 5 2018

Diaste had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,355 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    WY, USA
  • Interests

    The Coming of the Son of Man.
    Creation awaits.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,732 profile views
  1. Just as scripture says, 'four notable ones'. That is: Ptolemy, Cassander, Lysimachus and Seleucid. Those then would be our foundational evidence to begin the search for the identity of the beast, his kingdom and the other power brokers of the end of the age.
  2. The Diadochi followed Greece. The Roman empire in the 2nd century BC was barely existing, the Diadochi were the true power at that time.
  3. It's not Rome. Never was. The Diadochi succeeded Greece. That's where we should look.
  4. This would be based on the 65 AD origin of Revelation. I'm convinced the evidence is strong Revelation was given in 95 AD, or thereabouts.
  5. I would like to see the pictures you posted. Thank you.
  6. I don't know for sure what's going on in Luke 21:20-24 but it looks quite a bit like Matt 24:16-19 and Mark 13:15-17 Matt 24 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the housetop come down to retrieve anything from his house. 18And let no one in the field return for his cloak. 19How miserable those days will be for pregnant and nursing mothers! Mark 13 15Let no one on the housetop go back inside to retrieve anything from his house. 16And let no one in the field return for his cloak. 17How miserable those days will be for pregnant and nursing mothers! Luke 21 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country stay out of the city. 22For these are the days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23How miserable those days will be for pregnant and nursing mothers! This is the time when the abomination of desolation is standing where and when it should not be. So whatever it's going to look like it appears it's the time when the beast has risen. It's not destruction on Israel by other nations, it's the great tribulation and distress on the people of Jerusalem and the surrounding land, perhaps all of Israel, excluding the mountains. And it's internal, at the hand of the beast, not by other countries against Jerusalem and Israel. It's not armies surrounding Israel, it's armies surrounding Jerusalem.
  7. You should take your own advice. Hard to do, I know. How do you know what God thinks? You do an interview? Let Him have His way? Am I supposed to stop Him somehow, make Him do things I want? Of all the ridiculous stabs at manipulation....
  8. I see a lot of this melding of philosophies of opposite character. Evolution destroys any purpose behind the nature of existence; dehumanizing mankind to the point of the purely animalistic, reducing God's interest in mankind to indifference and absenteeism. This is the opposite of what God says in scripture about His desired relationship with all mankind and is a doctrine of deceivers.
  9. Since the gold, silver and bronze are known empires that replaced one another, I have to stay within that theme and consider the Iron replaced the bronze and the clay and iron mixed is a weaker iteration of the pure iron. I don't see the justification in evidence to move from what is a clear succession of empires to a captivity. I have to reject this interpretation. Yeah, but that's not really different, is it? Crushed, shattered, broken in pieces, all the same thing, they are no more. The mistake here is thinking the crushing of the feet is the only effect of the striking of the stone. When the feet are 'broken in pieces' then the whole statue is shattered. This is about the entire statue, not just the feet. "It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. 35Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were shattered" All destroyed together, at the same time. Not according to scripture: "It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. 35Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were shattered" Even if that were true, it's not, but if it was, it's not proof of any time stamp for any other prophecy. It's like saying a front end loader is equivalent to a car because both have 4 wheels. There are many other consideration that make them very different. I think this is where it's all thrown into doubt. The legs of iron and the feet of iron and clay are not Rome. Rome did not replace Greece. The Diadochi did, which is clear from Dan 8 and 11 That's not correct. The direct result of the stone striking the feet of iron and clay is; "It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. 35Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were shattered" It's not a release of anything from the feet and the feet alone, the entire structure is destroyed.
  10. I have no idea what this means. "As you watched, a stone was cut out,d but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them." I don't see a long time period between the stone being cut out and striking the statue. I think if there was some passing of time it would be between these two prophetic occurrences. "Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were shattered and became like chaff on the threshing floor in summer. " Upon striking the statue the entire statue is destroyed. Certainly there is no great time period between the striking and the destroying. "The wind carried them away, and not a trace of them could be found" If not a trace could be found the prophecy hasn't happened yet. We very obviously have traces of Babylon, [the city is out in the desert], the Persians [Iran is the biggest terror sponsor in the world, after the USA], and Greece [that country is in turmoil]. As shown a time gap would more likely exist between this "As you watched, a stone was cut out,d but not by human hands." and this, "It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them" And not between the striking of verse 34 and the destruction of verse 35.
  11. "As you watched, a stone was cut out,d but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. 35Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were shattered and became like chaff on the threshing floor in summer. The wind carried them away, and not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that had struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth." When the stone strikes the statue on the feet THEN...so 'after this'. The Hebrew is like 'thereupon this, now this'. Verse 35 is a direct result of verse 34. Verse 35 only happens because of verse 34 and the actions directly follow.
  12. "In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will shatter all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, but will itself stand forever." It's for the time when an eternal kingdom is set up. That would be the end of the age.
  13. Hmmm. Paul was writing letters from the foundation of known scripture. He was without doubt conveying scriptural truth and instructions from existing scripture, learning from the Apostles, and what he may have been told at the meeting on the road to Damascus. In my opinion what Peter is referring to is Paul's command and understanding of the scriptural truths Paul took from scripture and expounded upon. So Peter's reference here to the 'rest of the scriptures' is in light of the scriptures from which Paul was teaching, not that Paul was in the process of writing scripture in his letters. Jesus for example quoted OT facts again and again. When Jesus needed proof for others He quoted the only known scriptures at the time. So how do we define 'scripture'? Prophecy, for certain. When the text says, "The Word of the Lord came to me and said..." obviously. When the text tells us God spoke or commanded others to speak. Jesus' words. I don't see Paul's opinions as scripture.
  14. Exactly. Since Paul was writing to Timothy, and others, would Paul have considered his letter to Timothy, and others, as scripture? I don't think so. We consider it as part of the canon now but certainly Paul wasn't equating his letters with holy writ. So what was available and defined as scripture when Paul wrote that letter to Timothy? Prophetic utterance for certain, that's God breathed, men spoke as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we have prophecy. Any time God spoke saying something like "Go and give this word to the people." must be scripture. Or when we see written, "The Word of the Lord came to me and said..."
  15. What defines 'the scriptures'? "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness" What are these 'writings' and how do we know those particular writings are what is the 'all' that Paul tells Timothy is the guiding authority?
×
×
  • Create New...