WHAT TIME DO YOU HAVE?

[Diaste]

20 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Here I go again on another rabbit trail—the role of the world's 2^nd most populated religion Islam, from the present to the Antichrist.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Beheadings have not been practiced in mass since the inquisitions, crusades, and the dark ages, except for Islam's current religion. I surmise the barbaric practice of beheadings will become the popular capital punishment choice for true Christians. The RCC and Islam are the two largest offenders of that practice. With the advent of Pope Francis, we are beginning to see an ecumenical movement termed Chrislam, are we not?

Some scholars have made excellent arguments the two legs of Nebuchadnezzar’s image are the two legs of the major branches of Islam (Shia-Sunni). I do not think so; I still hold to the traditional view the legs represent the eastern & western branches of the old Roman empire.

It is a very long historical story, but technically they are still with us today. The eastern leg of the old Roman empire outlasted the western by 1,000 years, and that leg is predominately all Muslim nations now. The leg of the west continued to present with the Holy Roman Empire (RCC).

Russia’s military consists of roughly 40% Muslim conscripts. Whenever that occurs, I think the Gog-Magog invasion that consists of all Muslim nations, 5/6 will be the death toll to Islam as they will be wholly crushed along with the home countries.

I am thinking with Islam out of the way, the void will be superseded with Antichrists one world religion? (speculation)

May well be. I don't know, I just try to listen. 

One thing I don't see is Rome. I see Islam in a few forms. Islam is still here after 1500 years and is a big a religious scourge as we have seen in history. Islam is infiltrating countries and groups right down to small towns. 

I have long thought that's the coming of the iron and clay in the feet and toes of the statue. 

You could be on to something. Time will tell.

[Diaste]

13 hours ago, Josheb said:

The only reason you and I are having this discussion and the reason it has lasted some many exchanges is because you don't do that. Much appreciated. However, old, standardized maladaptive methods are creeping in, like the jumping around from proof-texted verse to proof-texted verse, the appeals to extra-biblical sources and post-hoc arguments. 

I appreciate that. Ad homs only shame the person tossing them about. I may not be too smart but that kind of stuff shows core weakness.

I see you have a solid reasoned approach employing logic in most every post. I think that's great. 

I was thinking about something last night concerning this. Not all scriptural truth can be reasoned out. Much is on trust in promises which have no evidence on which to rely. The very foundation of salvation is hope and trust in the promises relying on the actions of Jesus to perform those promises. 

There's no evidence He takes away the sin of the world, we simply trust Him on a spiritual level by the Spirit of God. The only evidence we have is the scripture itself, no independent verification, and that is circular reasoning. Yet we trust it's fact.

In regular text the rules of interpretation or understanding would apply, but the texts are written in that format by mere mortals. Scripture is given by the immortal to the mortal and is governed by the purpose of a holy God of unlimited power, not bound by time or mortality.

So the interpretation of the living text of scripture cannot in every case be undertaken by standard methodology, nor understanding be reasoned out solely by logical presuppositions.

That being said the understanding in the end is either one of two conditions in my mind: logically sound and/or trust based apart from any tangible evidence. 

 

13 hours ago, Josheb said:

If we look at what is stated, as stated, and don't add interpretations unless the text itself indicates a warrant for doing so we won't have much if any disagreement. Any to Christians should be able to look at and agree upon what is stated. We ought also to be able to agree what scriptures the scriptures connects itself to, and not what an extra-biblical eschatological doctrine says is relevant. 

I look to extra biblical records as confirmation. Both archaeology and anthropology have provided confirmation of biblical truths; sometimes a fact mentioned only in scripture. It's not a reliance on, but a moment of joyful rediscovery of the continued proof of the veracity of scripture. 

It's a faith and trust builder, not a side track from the truth. 

That being said, I agree with your proposition as long as it's understood it's all truth and no single fact, or several, supersede any other fact or truth, or several. I run into that quite a bit and it's frustrating. 

 

[Diaste]

14 hours ago, Josheb said:

Little of that is scriptural. 

It's obvious and a necessary condition. "He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship"

If the above is fact it will happen just as stated and includes all gods, including the Black stone. 

14 hours ago, Josheb said:

For one, Psalm 110 explicitly states Jesus will remain seated at God's right hand until all his enemies are made a footstool. This psalm is referenced several times in the New Testament. NO interpretation of who does what when can be made to contradict what this and the other related passages plainly state. 

He's not coming back in the manner just asserted. The assertion plainly contradicts the..... time stamp provided by Psalm 110! 

It's a condition that will happen at some time but time isn't the limiter.

14 hours ago, Josheb said:

I also think a review of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in the Greek is in order because the Greek is not definitive about when the lawless man sets himself forth as God. It is not a causal relationship being established between his sitting down in the temple and his proclaiming his deity. They may be two separate events. The text allows for that. Furthermore, declaring one's own deity was a common practice in Biblical times and an intrinsic part of what the gospel means. A huge difference exists between being God as in the Creator God of the Bible, being a pre-exsting God-Man who defeated death, and an ordinary human promoted to deity that is defined as a promotion to the Elysian fields. The word "gospel" (Gk.: euangelion; G2098) was a term used by the Romans and Greeks. It was a term used when a Caesar or a general one a great victory and as a consequence of that victory was often deified, or made a god. A god is not God. Remember: the Thessalonian letter was written to a predominantly Gentile congregation, not a predominantly Hebrew one.  

Even though I earlier hypothesized the lawless man should be measured by the meaning of "law" scripture uses it is possible Paul use of "theon," is a god, not God. I say this because more than one person sat in the temple who were later deified. Most of the Roman generals over a 400 year time span fighting Jews were deified. 

If it were just that I might agree but it's not. The man of sin is, "whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival." So I don't care if a dozen Caesars and a hundred Jews from the line of David were defied while sitting it the Temple, if they were not slain by the breath of His mouth and destroyed by His arrival the prophecy was not fulfilled as spoken. 

14 hours ago, Josheb said:

The fact the Thessalonians knew the man limits the options. The fact scripture defines law limits the options. The fact the man was a man limits the options. Speculations and "inferences," valid and not so valid can run amuck but the text itself limits such things to the lifetime of the Thessalonians. Any OT prophecy mentioning the incarnation is limited to the incarnation era. Any claim of Jesus coming back to earth has to get around all the scriptures that speak to his sitting on his Father's throne until his enemies are defeated. And all the other audience affiliations, time stamps, and implicit urgency found throughout the NT. 

So where is the 'fact' the Thessalonians knew the man? There is no such limits when all the elements of the prophecy must also exist and be fulfilled. If whatever random selection shows anything less than a full and complete manifestation of all the relevant prophetic elements then it's not the one. 

 

14 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

Plenty to work with without appealing to extra-biblical sources. 

 

[Diaste]

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

In most such discussions, debates, or arguments over the secular historians most believers are not arguing what scripture states, but what their eschatological doctrines tell them about how the scriptures should be interpreted. 

I know. At best other sources provide a window on the truth, they aren't a source of truth. 

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

I don't do that. Not gonna do it here. I've absolutely no interest in someone asserting or defending doctrine over scripture. I did mention Josephus and Tacitus, but I explicitly stated I'm not relying on them, or asserting them as evidence for anything in this discussion. I have explicitly stated I'm not interested in extra-biblical sources to render scripture outside of what scripture says about itself, and I will be relying on what the scriptures themselves state and what the scriptures themselves say about its own statements. Whether or not Jo and Tac are sufficient is irrelevant. We're discussing scripture, not secular and extra-biblical sources. 

I trust you didn't mean that as bait, but for the sake of the lurkers I will reiterate: I'm not taking the bait of jumping around ad nauseam from proof-texted verse to proof-texted verse or appealing to arguments over interpretations of extra-biblical sources. 

Course not. The evidence is valid for confirmation. We would never say the archaeological evidence is wrong and dismiss it when dirt scientists unearth a city mentioned in the bible. Same with historians. We shouldn't rely on them for truth but confirmation. If they confirm, then great. 

My point is the proof it occurred. Jesus existence in Israel is confirmed by a dozen historians and we accept their record as confirmation.  

Is there any confirmation a man of sin in 1st century Israel was the guy "whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival."?

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

Jesus told the disciples they would see, hear, and experiences the events described. He explicitly stated they would be handed over to the tribulation. He was answering a very specific question based on events that had occurred earlier in that same day as Matthew reported them. Jesus explicitly stated no one knew the day or the hour but he also just as explicitly stated the events in question would happen in the near-demonstrative far-distant-in-the-future-precluding, "this generation." Paul, similarly, couched his words of the second Thessalonian epistle in his prior visit and things he'd told them at that time predicating his comments on their knowing "now" what was restraining the lawless man and since the man is a human the logic dictates he was alive back then. 

This is not what Paul said. It's a common mistake. Adjusting this will blow away the dispensational veil.

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

No need for Josephus or Tacitus, nor any other extra-biblical source. We may have to look outside the canon to understand the exact nature of what happened but know it happened in the first century does not require anything other than scripture. AND any extra-biblical source should be understood in terms of what scripture states and states about itself, and not in a manner whereby the extra-biblical source is authoritative over God's word. The latter is the cart before the horse. Scripture defines Josephus, not the other way around. The 21st century newscast does NOT define scripture. We submit history to scripture, not the other way around. 

Exactly. But history can't contradict scripture either. So history should mirror the truth of scripture.  History is written by the light of scripture and confirms the truth in a tangible manner. Look at Dan 8. The predictions came to pass exactly as stated and history confirms this. That historical record exists isn't a problem, it's a boon and well worth the time and effort as it relates to prophetic fulfillment.

[Diaste]

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

C'mon man, personal incredulity is not an argument for anything.  

Why would someone who knew the answer speculate? I'm sure they did ask themselves, "What is holding him back?". The important point is the "they". They knew, and they probably wondered but they wondered and did not speculate because they somehow knew. Anyone who reads a clear statement explicitly stating they knew the explanation and then stops reading and says, "They probably speculated," is NOT accepting what is clearly, plainly stated in the epistle. 

That's not what you said. You unequivocally said they would not speculate and speculation concerning the truth of some spirit or letter saying the day of Christ had come is the very battle Paul was fighting. Not only would they speculate, they did, in a big way.

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

2 Thessalonians 2:6
And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

Did they know or not know? According to Paul they knew. C'mon man, they wouldn't have speculated? Whatever speculation we might possibly speculate occurs in the face of what is plainly stated. Whatever imagined speculation they might have done occurred within the context of their knowing. Besides, we have more testimony from scripture. They were awaiting his revealing. The "mystery of lawlessness" was already at work in their era, at the time when Paul wrote that letter. 

As I said, this isn't accurate. The man of sin isn't being restrained, his revealing is the restraining event proximal to Christ's return.

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

2 Thessalonians 2:7
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

So the mystery of lawlessness was already at work at that time. Nothing indicating the 21st century. Paul then goes on to speak about why the coming deception occurs, 

And it was at work before that. And it is at work now. You don't think the mystery of lawlessness is not working, do you? Look out the window, watch the news. 

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

2 Thessalonians 2:10
...and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 

Notice this is past tense language. Paul did not write, "...because they will not receive... so they will not be saved." A normal ordinary reading of that clause indicates they'd either not been preach to (past tense) or they'd heard the gospel (past tense) and did not receive it. Because of that past tense condition, God would in the future send a "deluding influence" (vs 11).  When Jesus is speaking about past events or conditions he uses past-tense language and when he is speaking about events or conditions in the future he uses future-tense language. So does Paul. 
 

This is based on a misreading of 2 Thess 2; a dispensational boondoggle of twisted interpretation. 

[Diaste]

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-10
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.  Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?  And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.  For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.  Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;  that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,  and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

The word "now" means now. The "him" was being restrained "now". Their knowledge of the restraining cause was "now". Not "You will know..." You know what now restrains him. And the him is a man. The word "man" means man. The Greek is anthropos, or human. Could be a woman, but I think our English translations are correct; it's a male human. Whether male or female it is human. That restraint of the human existed then, the "now" of the first century. 

And saying "Incorrect grammatically and logically" does not make it so. 

I have a "now." No one has a "then in the 21st century." THAT is speculation. bad grammar and illogic. Prove otherwise

Most everyone gets it wrong and I blame the premill dispensationalists. That might be unfair but it's where I heard it first. In the above you left out the thesis and therefore the context.

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him,"

This is the context and thesis. Not the man of sin. The man of sin is but a marker.

"we ask you, brothers, 2not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come."

Here Paul is opposing the speculation born of false reports the day had already come; The coming of Christ, not the coming of the man of sin.

" 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come..."

The only possible reference for 'it' here is the coming of Christ and the gathering; it is the direct antecedent and can be none other. It's not the mentioned consternation, alarm, letter or spirit, it's not the allegations or reports, it can only be the Day of Lord.

"for it will not come until..."

Here we must ask, "the Day of the Lord will not come until, what?"

"until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed."

Paul sans ambiguity clearly says the Day will not happen until the rebellion and the man of sin is revealed.

So the order is rebellion and man of sin revealed, then the Day of the Lord and the gathering. Paul states what happens first, rebellion and revealing, then what comes after, coming of Jesus and the gathering. This order does not and cannot change or Paul contradicts himself in the same paragraph within 4 sentences. 

4He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

Parenthetical description unrelated to the order of events.

"Do you not remember that I told you these things while I was still with you? "

He already gave them the order of events. This is true as all we have seen to this point is the order. The Day will not occur before the  rebellion and revealing.

"6And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time."

And here is where the dispensationalist goes off the rails and switches the order. An extreme case of twisting and suspension of logic and comprehension.

It's still the same order. First the rebellion and revealing, then the Coming and gathering. So the proper understanding here is the man of sin restrains the coming of Christ. Or Paul has committed the sin of contradiction. He didn't. 

Nothing in the first 5 verses suggests the man of sin is held back but it is unequivocal the day of the Lord doesn't happen UNTIL the rebellion and revealing. So why the change in order? It helps to prove pretrib or an historical man of sin.

There's more but I gotta go. Looking forward to the rebuttal. Maybe should make this a topic. But it does relate to "What time do you have?" if obliquely.

 

 

[Last Daze]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

So the interpretation of the living text of scripture cannot in every case be undertaken by standard methodology, nor understanding be reasoned out solely by logical presuppositions.

I've come to the same conclusion myself.  The way that human beings in general go about determining  truth (logical reasoning, experience, emotions, etc.) is inherently flawed.  In our society, we tend to equate high intellect with truth but if that were the case, we'd have no need for the Holy Spirit's guidance, just a few from MENSA. 

When it comes to rightly dividing the word of truth, spiritual discernment is a must, and it's a process.  Yes, our human faculties are engaged in the process but the Spirit of truth is integral to our understanding the word of truth.  It's not solely a logical exercise as you pointed out.

[Dennis1209]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

I have long thought that's the coming of the iron and clay in the feet and toes of the statue. 

With the passage of time and events, I have had to change my thoughts on the ten toes and what iron and clay represent. Daniel gives us a puzzling verse I've studied.

Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

The question is, who is "they?" The Greek word meaning and use of "seed of men" elsewhere in scripture is very telling. Most traditional thought suggests the iron represents Rome (two symbolic legs of iron). Could very well be? 

Given that all of Nebuchadnezzar's image Daniel interpreted represents kingdoms, the two feet, and ten toes also reflect a yet future kingdom.  

In short:

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

What distinguishes Noah's day from any other time in history? I submit Genesis 6:1-4 and the reason to destroy everything with the breath of life, save eight. 

It appears during the Tribulation the paranormal becomes the new normal. Lying signs and wonders, miracles, calling fire down from heaven, demon locusts, flying angel, Antichrists resurrection, etc. 

In other words, I now have suspicions of human hybrids. Are hybrids being developed at present? Our own government has made no secret about creating transhumanist super soldiers.

 

 

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

What distinguishes Noah's day from any other time in history? I submit Genesis 6:1-4 and the reason to destroy everything with the breath of life, save eight. 

It appears during the Tribulation the paranormal becomes the new normal. Lying signs and wonders, miracles, calling fire down from heaven, demon locusts, flying angel, Antichrists resurrection, etc. 

In other words, I now have suspicions of human hybrids. Are hybrids being developed at present? Our own government has made no secret about creating transhumanist super soldiers.

Indeed. There are people here I respect that posit it will be 'worse'. Not sure how one quantifies that.

I think along the same lines, the supernatural and paranormal is the natural and normal order of the day making the time "...unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again." not necessarily more deadly, just no equivalent.

I'll admit videos are no proof of anything but some of the things I've seen boggle the mind. Not everyone video is faked even as many are. Sometimes I get a good chuckle, other times I'm shocked. But yes, there are some Frankenstein-ish things going on. 

Surely we don't know the half of it.

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, Last Daze said:

I've come to the same conclusion myself.  The way that human beings in general go about determining  truth (logical reasoning, experience, emotions, etc.) is inherently flawed.  In our society, we tend to equate high intellect with truth but if that were the case, we'd have no need for the Holy Spirit's guidance, just a few from MENSA. 

When it comes to rightly dividing the word of truth, spiritual discernment is a must, and it's a process.  Yes, our human faculties are engaged in the process but the Spirit of truth is integral to our understanding the word of truth.  It's not solely a logical exercise as you pointed out.

Yes. The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. 

Logic and reasoning are good tools and skills that should be developed but there are limits to their effectiveness and times when logical rules can be broken or are invalid.

I wonder what Daniel's contemporaries thought when they read the prophecy in Ch. 8?

"The Macedonians are going to defeat the Persians? Yeah, right."

And then it happened. 

And what about the intuition of a woman? It works. They don't apply logic or reasoning; they know it without knowing  it. Man is a fool to discount this strange ability.