The Recent Unsealing of Daniel

[TyRockwell]

All the various interpretations of the prophetic passages in Daniel were 'figured out' before Daniel was unsealed. No one was waiting for the unsealing of the book. I was. From as early as the age of thirteen I was asking people who were considered knowledgeable on the subject of Bible prophecy, "When was Daniel unsealed?" I asked my Sunday School teachers, parents, even our pastor, and others about the unsealing. Some assumed it was already unsealed, though they could not point to the time. A few others said that it would be unsealed some day. I later came to the conclusion that Daniel's unsealing would be necessary before The Revelation of Jesus Christ could be understood.
I always believed that Revelation was meant to be understood. I was interested to know and understand Revelation, and I knew that John was told, in Rev. 22: 10, "Seal not the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." Then verse 11 relates in very simular words what is also said in Dan. 12: 10, "Many will be purified, made spotless and refined,but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand." A few verses before that, verse 3, speaks of the wise, then in verse 4 Daniel was told, "close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."
See, Revelation did not need to be unsealed! The key to its understanding was already sealed in the sealed book of Daniel! Many of the fugures, the symbols, the mountains, the kings, the beasts and princes, are common to both books. God, from the garden of Eden has always wanted mankind to believe His word. But by not waiting for and expecting the unsealing, the experts were going beyond what was written, which the Bible tells us not to do.
Others have had an, "it will all pan out the way God wants it to," thinking, it doesn't matter if we don't understand Revelation. Why, then, was it written? To show us what will happen that we don't need to know, because God's will will be done whether we have anything to do with it or not? No, God was saving the best for last, the time of the end. He wants to "make all Jesus' enemies a footstool for his feet." It's the most repeated verse in the Bible. Jesus is waiting until it is done, before he can come back. It does not say that at a certain set time when God wants all Jesus' enemies made his foostool, he'll send Jesus to make it happen. No, God is going to do it through us. It has to be that way.
I will endevour to make clear what God has shown me in His word about these things. Many of you will have to say to God what I did, before I started to see, "Heavenly Father, I'd like to know and understand, and I'm willing to change my mind." So many of us have been taught a particular point of view by someone who impressed us, or that we trusted, even cared for, and we developed a loyalty to that paradigm. God wants us to be willing, as both John the Baptist said, and as Jesus said as he first began his three and a half year ministry, "Change your minds, the kingdom of God is at hand!" :teeth:
The historical passages of Daniel could always be understood. Chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 are history, His Story. Chapters 2, and 7 through 12 are mostly prophecy and were sealed, according to 12: 4. So, we know that the bulk of the sealed verses have to do with the Empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. It is important to know which parts of these have been fulfilled, so we can know what is to come.
The first real problems with traditional teaching is as to the time of the feet and toes. Most have thought that the feet and toes are in the future to us, but consider this, they were of iron mixed with baked clay. The iron is the same substance as the legs, symbolic of Rome. The clay, however is symbolic of Israel, the Jews, at the time of Rome! God had shown Jeremiah that Israel would be in captivity in Babylon for 70 years. God showed Jeremiah a potter at his wheel, making clay pots. The clay was to show that God would do with them what he willed, even mashing a nearly formed item back down into a lump of clay. Therefore the feet and toes were integrated. Most prophecy thought split off the toes from the feet and projected them into the future, even making assumptions about the 'ten toes.' But, the word, 'ten' is not in that passage. The only number is two, the two feet. The iron of Rome is dealing with clay of Israel at the same time, at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. Most often, the times of John the Baptist and Jesus has not been seen here, nor in the prophecies in chapter 7 and other places.
In Daniel 2: 44, "In the time of these kings" God would set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people." People have not usually thought of the fact that there were kings in Israel at the time John the Baptist came preaching, but there were tetrarchs, in Luke 3:1, types of kings over the divided kingdom. Three tetrarchs were mentioned. "In the time of these kings." Jesus said that "from the time of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it." NIV This fits in with the "God will set up a kingdom..." in Dan. 2: 44. The feet and toes do not refer to a future world empire, beast system, the U.N. or Eurpean Union nor even the antichrist.
Dan. 2: 44, "It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever." Jesus is the rock that was cut out without human hands, the capstone that the builders rejected, and struck the statue on its feet and broke the kingdoms of iron and clay, and bronze and the gold and the wind or breath or spirit, the Holy Spirit, swept them away, not leaving a trace, all authority in heaven and on earth won by Jesus who gave to the church his authority, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Rock became a huge mountain, Mount Zion, the kingdom of God, The Church, according to Hebrews 12: 22-23 and 28. It is a mountain that is growing to fill the whole earth, Dan.2: 35. The beasts of Dan. 7 cover muchly the same events, adding more details that I'll go into later. Its late, I'm going to bed, I hope you'll reply to discuss these things and ask questions. I've been writing a manuscript since 1995 that covers the whole gammut of Bible prophecy, but this only scratches the surface. TyRockwell

[Vigilante]

I'm afraid I can't add anything useful to this thread. I get lost on this topic. It would be nice to see a list of all scripture relating to end times, and see how each viewpoint interprets it in light of other passages. But I can't say as I've heard this position yet. Hopefully somebody will come here to discuss with you.

Peace

[TyRockwell]

Thanks, Vigilante, I realize that I left out the main rationale for my assertion that Daniel is now unsealed. I've been busy posting in the Dan 9, Ending Sacrifices thread.
Why do I say that Daniel is now unsealed? Look at the sealing in 12:4. It was to be sealed 'until' the time of the end, when "many will run to and fro, to increase knowledge," as the NIV renders it. Now, how would the angel of the Lord explain the Information Superhighway to someone in 516 BC? In this case, in figurative words. Picture cars passing forth and back as you would see standing back a ways and looking at a busy interstate. That's the 'running to and fro'! Then you can see that when you add the idea of, "to increase knowledge," put the two together, and there you have the conditions suitable to represent the time that the verse is depicting in pictueresque speech, the time of the Information Superhighway.
Now, what does unsealed mean? It does not mean that it could not be read before the time, but it has to mean it that it could not be understood until the time of the Internet, starting in the time when the term Information Superhighway was widely used to name it. The upshot of it all is that going back to the days of the early church there have been a lot of guesses taken in efforts to make sense of the prophesies. If 'sealed' is to mean anything it would have to be that the non-historical passages, could not possibly be right, and a fresh approach to the whole subject has to be made. It also requires a willing ness to loosen one's grip of loyalty to the mind-sets that have developed, especially in the times before this time now.

[GKC_fan]

Ty,

thanks for sharing this. I am not a huge student of end times prophecy and had never heard this before, but it sounds plausible. And I agree with you about our needing to have some understanding. After all, Jesus said that we are not in darkness that we should be caught unaware.

[eschaton]

I've been following Bible prophecy since I was a child in the 1950's, and what Ty says isn't so different from what futurists have been saying all along. The internet is a recent development, but other than that I think he has stated pretty standard ideas.

In Revelation it calls for wisdom to understand the beast and his number (13:18, 17:9) However, Paul said that there is man's wisdom and God's wisdom. God's wisdom is not about earthly rulers (1 Cor 2:5,6), and surely Revelation isn't about man's wisdom.

Jesus said He revealed in parables things hidden from the foundation of the world (Mat 13:35). What knowledge could be hidden? But just because something is revealed doesn't mean it is understood. Even the disciples had a hard time understanding what Jesus talked about sometimes (Mark 9:31,32). Jesus warned about looking to and fro (Mat 24:26), the kingdom is within you (Luke 17:21), so it seems to me we have been living in the end since the time of Jesus. Many today still look to and fro looking for God's kingdom to come.

The name of the last book in the Bible is Revelation. It is the Revealtion of Jesus Christ (1:1), not the hiding. Early Christians like Origen said it revealed the rest of scripture. Are we missing something today?

[TyRockwell]

You are right, echaton. What has been largely missed is a fresh look at Revelation, and Daniel, as many come to them with preconceptions. It is hard to see what God is revealing, when one is only looking to find what he has been told is there. I asked God to let me understand, telling Him I was willing to change my mind. Sometime later, I perceived Daniel was unsealed. I had been asking since I was a youth when was it unsealed. I saw it in a new way I had never seen before, then it carried over into seeing things much differently in Revelation than I had expected.

[TyRockwell]

Ty,

thanks for sharing this. I am not a huge student of end times prophecy and had never heard this before, but it sounds plausible. And I agree with you about our needing to have some understanding. After all, Jesus said that we are not in darkness that we should be caught unaware.
GKC_fan, It it God who is teaching us to believe His word. Same thing He tried to teach Adam and Eve, and everyone since then. How many people were waiting for Daniel to be unsealed? Did they not believe it was? Maybe we wouldn't have so many entrenched doctrines on the 'end times' if more people had waited for it.
I've heard some say my perspective is futurist. I was told by a pastor that I was talking about Historic Pre-millenialism. I don't think so. People who are my friends and family, if they were willing to put up with me, have been able to see with a new understanding what scripture says. I don't want people to believe my words, but God's.

[TyRockwell]

Where are the 'back' buttons?

[GKC_fan]

What exactly do you mean, " 'back' buttons" ?

[TyRockwell]

Nevermind, I was tunnel visioning.

[CrowsNest]

Well, I've certainly never believed that "Left Behind" series mumbo-jumbo last days stuff. What you are saying makes a lot of sense about us making Christ's enemies his footstool.
I'm new here, by the way, so you may have already talked about this but I haven't seen the thread. Who do you think the anti-christ is? Call it crazy, but I'm beginning to think that the anti-christ may not be a person at all.

[TyRockwell]

Hi, Crowsnest,
but I'm beginning to think that the anti-christ may not be a person at all.

Right. There is no one person who is 'the antichrist.' The Apostle John said that every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist." He also said, "already there are many antichrists," and "test the spirits to know whether they are of God."

'The antichrist' idea comes from an overblown fear. That's the same kind of thing that produced the whole 'left behind' scenario....'God wouldn't make us go through that.' Whew! Fear makes 'that' more than it is, meaning, it's 'not all that it's made out to be.'

[CrowsNest]

I once heard a man say that fear is faith in reverse. I find that to be very true. If we are busy fearing something going wrong then out faith isn't working for something to go right.
I think that the antichrist is a spirit that gets ahold of people. I think it is a spirit that tries to imitate the Holy Spirit. That's the world for you though, always imitating God, or at least trying too.
So, how extensive is your study in Daniel being unsealed? Interesting stuff.

[TyRockwell]

It is extensive. I'm writing a book. I see a lot of things in Daniel, that I had no one teach me but the Holy Spirit. It's not like new information, or adding to scripture. It's seeing something for the first time, that you read over and over, that was there all along, hidden in plain sight.

[CrowsNest]

Interesting.
Daniel, I admit, is a book that I do not fully understand yet find fascinating. But I Iike learning and enjoy studying. I've never been real big on prophecy because I think a lot of people out there really don't know what they are talking about. But then again, they are probably coming from a mentality of looking at Daniel as sealed so they might actually be on the right path. I think too many prophecy people go on what they were taught in Bible colleges.
People really need to look at prophetic scripture from an open mentality and not a preconceived idea of what something means before they read it. If Daniel is now unsealed, that would be a breath of fresh air on the prophetic community, I'd imagine.

[Heartablaze]

I have found Daniel and Revelation to be linked; it's easy to see the same type of imagery and the like. Of course, for both books, most simply goes over my head. It has some exciting parts in it, even without understanding.:hrm:

Of course, for a Christian, Daniel 7:13 -14 is awesome. That much, I think I understand. The Moshiach will get everything basically. :smile: It is a good thing that people will serve him, as the Ancient of Days himself will give him that authority(of course, this might seem redundant to some.) Whenever I last read Daniel this was the passage that gave me the most joy.

The abomination, frightful beasts, and the rest I can only get from teaching of others. I'm a history buff, but I don't know much about application of who did what. The interpretations in the scriptures themselves don't tell everything. And really, does anyone know? It is refreshing to get some new thought to it, though.

This thread has inspired me to read through the book again. Nothing gets me going like a challenge.:teeth:

[TyRockwell]

Of course, for a Christian, Daniel 7:13 -14is awesome. That much, I think I understand. The Moshiach will get everything basically. It is a good thing that people will serve him, as the Ancient of Days himself will give him that authority(of course, this might seem redundant to some.) Whenever I last read Daniel this was the passage that gave me the most joy.

The Daniel 7:9-14 passage is so interesting. So many people read that Jesus was "coming with the clouds," and miss where he was coming to. Read it carefully, and you see that it is the opposite direction than you first thought. Jesus approached the throne of God, and was led into His presence, verse 13. This is not his second coming, it was his ascension from the Mount of Olives when the clouds "received him out of their sight," Acts 1:9. The angels appeared and told the disciples, "This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:11

The Daniel 7:13, "coming with the clouds" and "led into his presence," scene is after his ascension, "as you have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:11 Do you see it?

[CrowsNest]

The Daniel 7:9-14 passage is so interesting. So many people read that Jesus was "coming with the clouds," and miss where he was coming to. Read it carefully, and you see that it is the opposite direction than you first thought. Jesus approached the throne of God, and was led into His presence, verse 13. This is not his second coming, it was his ascension from the Mount of Olives when the clouds "received him out of their sight," Acts 1:9. The angels appeared and told the disciples, "This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:11

The Daniel 7:13, "coming with the clouds" and "led into his presence," scene is after his ascension, "as you have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:11 Do you see it?

I never saw that before. That does make more sense.

[eschaton]

I never saw that before. That does make more sense.

I think this is describing 1 Cor 15:24.

1 Cor 15:24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection," it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him.
28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.
Compare Isa 9:7 Da 7:14,27 Mt 11:27 28:18 Lu 10:22 Joh 3:35 13:3 1Ti 6:15

[TyRockwell]

I think this is describing 1 Cor 15:24.

No, the Daniel 7:13 scene is taking place in the prophecies of the fourth beast, the Roman Empire. The huge mistake people make with Daniel is to not see the work of Jesus, in his life and ministry, during the Roman occupation of Israel. Look for it. The traditional ways of interpreting Daniel find nothing of Jesus' time of ministry, his death or resurrection.

[eschaton]

I think this is describing 1 Cor 15:24.

No, the Daniel 7:13 scene is taking place in the prophecies of the fourth beast, the Roman Empire. The huge mistake people make with Daniel is to not see the work of Jesus, in his life and ministry, during the Roman occupation of Israel. Look for it. The traditional ways of interpreting Daniel find nothing of Jesus' time of ministry, his death or resurrection.

Note that he comes with the clouds of heaven (Mat 24:30, Mat 26:40, Mark 13:26, Mark 14:62, Luke 21:24, Rev 1:7 Rev 14:14). He is not coming from earth, and he is not ascending into the clouds. He is coming with the clouds. To see this in context compare Dan 7:10-11 to Rev 20:10-15.


Dan7:10 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.
11 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.


Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

[TyRockwell]

I really think that you are not reading my posts! The direction of Jesus' coming in Daniel 7:13 is to heaven, to the Ancient of Days. I know you have your point of view, but I spent too much time on my posts for you not to read them, and simply rush into your argumentive mode.

The Revelation 20 beast is the end time's beast, and is not the same beast as is in Daniel 7:9-14, which was the fourth of the four listed starting in verse 3. These were Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. In Dan. 7:11, the beast, the demonic spirit principality of Rome was slain, after Jesus' crucifixion, before Jesus ascended to the Ancient of Days. The Roman beast was throne into the blazing fire.

The other three beasts who were allowed to live are the ones you find in Rev. 13. They are united as one beast. The beast of Rome is not present. The three beasts of Dan.7:12, united as one, were the one beast judged in Rev. 20, which is a whole different judgment than the one in Daniel 7.

Jesus had said, "NOW is the judgment of this world (age); NOW the prince (principality) of this world (age) will be cast out " in John 12:31. The Prince (principality) of Rome, equivalent to the prince (principality)of Persia, in Daniel 10:13 and the prince (principality) of Greece in Dan. 10:20. was slain, through the work of Jesus. The other three beasts are not yet slain, but the same work that caused the death of the beast in Daniel 7:11, caused the fatal wound that was healed, because those other three beasts were ALLOWED to live to be in the Rev. 20 judgment.

[eschaton]

I really think that you are not reading my posts! The direction of Jesus' coming in Daniel 7:13 is to heaven, to the Ancient of Days. I know you have your point of view, but I spent too much time on my posts for you not to read them, and simply rush into your argumentive mode.

The Revelation 20 beast is the end time's beast, and is not the same beast as is in Daniel 7:9-14, which was the fourth of the four listed starting in verse 3. These were Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. In Dan. 7:11, the beast, the demonic spirit principality of Rome was slain, after Jesus' crucifixion, before Jesus ascended to the Ancient of Days. The Roman beast was throne into the blazing fire.

The other three beasts who were allowed to live are the ones you find in Rev. 13. They are united as one beast. The beast of Rome is not present. The three beasts of Dan.7:12, united as one, were the one beast judged in Rev. 20, which is a whole different judgment than the one in Daniel 7.

Jesus had said, "NOW is the judgment of this world (age); NOW the prince (principality) of this world (age) will be cast out " in John 12:31. The Prince (principality) of Rome, equivalent to the prince (principality)of Persia, in Daniel 10:13 and the prince (principality) of Greece in Dan. 10:20. was slain, through the work of Jesus. The other three beasts are not yet slain, but the same work that caused the death of the beast in Daniel 7:11, caused the fatal wound that was healed, because those other three beasts were ALLOWED to live to be in the Rev. 20 judgment.


I read some of your posts, but I also tend to disagree with some of them. It does not say Jesus is coming to heaven in Dan 7:13. That is your interpretation, it is not what the text actually says. It says He is coming with the clouds of heaven, not ascending to the clouds of heaven.

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Jesus is ruling now, but he appears in the presence of God for us. That is the same as saying He comes near to the ancient of days.

There are only two places in the Bible where the books are opened for judgment (Dan 7:10, Rev 20:12). Unless you are a dispensationalist you should understand that this is the same judgment

Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” (Dan. 9:24–27) I find, therefore, that a temple does exist.

As I said in the other thread Barnabas, says the temple does exist, and is being built. If the temple weren't being built then then all who are to be saved would already be saved (2 Pet 3:9). He refers to Dan 9 in regards to the temple's existance and construction during troubolus times. He mentions an abomination that causes desolations in the midst of a week, but doesn't mention a temple being leveled as in 70 AD. Barnabas says the temple exists.

You said you agree with me in the interpretation thread. If you do then you should look for similarities more than differences. Please note that the Revelation Beast appears to be composed of Daniel's four beasts (Rev 13:2). Also note that it takes God's wisdom to identify the beast (Rev 13:18, Rev 17:9) It doesn't say it takes a history book. The wisdom of God is not about earthly rulers, but is a mystery hidden before the world (1 Cor 2:5-7). The Unbelievers knew who the Roman and Greek empires and rulers were, so the beasts would be no mystery if that's who they were. Jesus taught the mysterious wisdom of God (Mat 13:35). He didn't teach about historical empires and their rulers, therefore the mystery of the beasts cannot be historical empires.

Compare Rev 13:3 to Dan 7:11.

[TyRockwell]

Jesus is ruling now, but he appears in the presence of God for us. That is the same as saying He comes near to the ancient of days.

I hope you realize that you just agreed with what I said about Jesus being led into the presence of the Ancient of Days! God's throne is in Heaven, to which Jesus was 'going with the clouds' when he ascended from the Mount of Olives. If you are in heaven, the perspective that Daniel was seeing, his ascension to heaven would be seen as "coming with the clouds." The disciples on earth with the angels would be seeing, "just as you have seen him go," at the same time as his entering heaven, 'going with the clouds.'

There are only two places in the Bible where the books are opened for judgment (Dan 7:10,Rev 20:12). Unless you are a dispensationalist you should understand that this is the same judgment

I know for a fact that the two places are not the same judgment, and I am not a dispensationalist anymore, not for a long, long time! I fully understand the dyspy few, and mine is not in it. Dan. 7:10 was at the time of Jesus' ascension. Let me ask you this question. Do you find in Daniel, any mention of Jesus' ministry, sacrifice and resurrection? I do, by the revelation of Daniel's unsealing. I find it in Dan. 2, in Dan. 7, and in Dan. 11.


Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” (Dan. 9:24–27) I find, therefore, that a temple does exist.

Bear in mind that a temple did not exist in the first part of Daniel 9. It was rebuilt, in troublesome times, after the Jews were allowed to return to their land, in 516 BC, from exile. The 'troublesome times' are detailed in Ezra and Nehemiah. The work on the temple was even stopped for a time, until the decree of Cyrus, king of Persia was found. The decree was first mentioned, before the fact in Dan. 9: 25. It is then referenced in part in Ezra 1:1-4 and in Ezra 6:3-12 it is copied entirely. After they found that Cyrus had indeed made that decree, then the building was allowed to resume. Much of the story of the "troublesome times" of its' rebuilding is told in Nehemiah 4:1-6:14.

The fact that the temple was to be rebuilt, during the first 69 of the seventy weeks, and before the 70th week, is found in Dan. 9:25 The next prince to be mention, in Daniel 9:26, is the evil spirit principality of Rome, then after that spirit's death (Dan.7:11, but go back to 9:26) that spirit's PEOPLE, not the spirit, who was dead, would destroy the temple, per Jesus' decrees (9:26, "desolations are determined"). Next is Jesus' sacrifice to end all sacrifice, in the middle of the 70th week, in the middle of 9:27.

Nothing I see in your quote of Barnabas prevents any of what I've just posted, one handed, flipping forth and back through the passages I cited, covering at least an hour to do so. Keep in mind that Paul was writing before 70 AD, and Barnabas, his contempory, and sometimes fellow traveler may have written before 70 AD. If he wrote after 70 AD, it still doesn't change anythingwhat I've proferred. The spiritual temple does now exist, but the one in Daniel was the physical temple

Please note that the Revelation Beast appears to be composed of Daniel's four beasts (Rev 13:2). Also note that it takes God's wisdom to identify the beast (Rev 13:18,Rev 17:9)

No, read it again. The Revelation 13:3 beast is made up of only the three beasts that were allowed to live, the lion, the bear, and the leopard; Babylon, Persia, and Greece. You DO see "allowed to live, for a season and a time," in Dan. 7:12, don't you? And don't you know that God stripped them of their dominion, also in 7:12, and he, Jesus, was given dominion, by God, in Dan. 7:14? Then Jesus was able to say, before his ascension, in Matthew 28:18, "All dominion in heaven and in earth has been given to me."

This is how you rightly Compare Rev 13:3to Dan 7:11.

[eschaton]

I hope you realize that you just agreed with what I said about Jesus being led into the presence of the Ancient of Days! God's throne is in Heaven, to which Jesus was 'going with the clouds' when he ascended from the Mount of Olives. If you are in heaven, the perspective that Daniel was seeing, his ascension to heaven would be seen as "coming with the clouds." The disciples on earth with the angels would be seeing, "just as you have seen him go," at the same time as his entering heaven, 'going with the clouds.'

I don't agree with you at all. Jesus has a cloud of wittnesses with Him right now (Heb 12:1).


I know for a fact that the two places are not the same judgment, and I am not a dispensationalist anymore, not for a long, long time! I fully understand the dyspy few, and mine is not in it. Dan. 7:10 was at the time of Jesus' ascension. Let me ask you this question. Do you find in Daniel, any mention of Jesus' ministry, sacrifice and resurrection? I do, by the revelation of Daniel's unsealing. I find it in Dan. 2, in Dan. 7, and in Dan. 11.

I find Jesus ministry, sacrifice and resurrection in the entire Bible, because that's what Jesus said it is about. (John 5:39)


Bear in mind that a temple did not exist in the first part of Daniel 9. It was rebuilt, in troublesome times, after the Jews were allowed to return to their land, in 516 BC, from exile. The 'troublesome times' are detailed in Ezra and Nehemiah. The work on the temple was even stopped for a time, until the decree of Cyrus, king of Persia was found. The decree was first mentioned, before the fact in Dan. 9: 25. It is then referenced in part in Ezra 1:1-4 and in Ezra 6:3-12 it is copied entirely. After they found that Cyrus had indeed made that decree, then the building was allowed to resume. Much of the story of the "troublesome times" of its' rebuilding is told in Nehemiah 4:1-6:14.

The fact that the temple was to be rebuilt, during the first 69 of the seventy weeks, and before the 70th week, is found in Dan. 9:25 The next prince to be mention, in Daniel 9:26, is the evil spirit principality of Rome, then after that spirit's death (Dan.7:11, but go back to 9:26) that spirit's PEOPLE, not the spirit, who was dead, would destroy the temple, per Jesus' decrees (9:26, "desolations are determined"). Next is Jesus' sacrifice to end all sacrifice, in the middle of the 70th week, in the middle of 9:27.

Nothing I see in your quote of Barnabas prevents any of what I've just posted, one handed, flipping forth and back through the passages I cited, covering at least an hour to do so. Keep in mind that Paul was writing before 70 AD, and Barnabas, his contempory, and sometimes fellow traveler may have written before 70 AD. If he wrote after 70 AD, it still doesn't change anythingwhat I've proferred. The spiritual temple does now exist, but the one in Daniel was the physical temple .

The spiritual temple is the true temple of God, not one made with human hands.

No, read it again. The Revelation 13:3 beast is made up of only the three beasts that were allowed to live, the lion, the bear, and the leopard; Babylon, Persia, and Greece. You DO see "allowed to live, for a season and a time," in Dan. 7:12, don't you? And don't you know that God stripped them of their dominion, also in 7:12, and he, Jesus, was given dominion, by God, in Dan. 7:14? Then Jesus was able to say, before his ascension, in Matthew 28:18, "All dominion in heaven and in earth has been given to me.".

Compare Rev 13:1 to Dan 7 again. Count the heads and the horns. The beasts of Daniel seven have seven heads and ten horns. All of the horns are on the fourth beast.

[eschaton]

BTW, the head is healed in 13:3, so I don't know why you we say it doesn't include Rome, if that is your interpretation of the fourth kingdom. Paul said these things weren't about secular powers anyway though.

You have to account for all the heads and horns. There are seven and ten in Dan ch 7, and 7 and 10 found in Revelation.

[TyRockwell]

Compare Rev 13:1to Dan 7again. Count the heads and the horns. The beasts of Daniel seven have seven heads and ten horns. All of the horns are on the fourth beast.

You just said that the Daniel 7 beasts had 7 heads and ten horns. But the Roman beast had teeth and a blaspheming mouth and feet of iron. It had a combination of the heads that had gone before, it had no heads of its own. When the Roman beast was slain at Jesus ascension, that eliminated the blaspheming little horn, the iron teeth and legs and feet, but not the ten horns, or the seven heads, which were borne by the Greek, Persian, and Babylonian beasts, the same three that were allowed to live on into Revelation 13, but without their dominion, which was stripped away in the same deadly blow that killed the Roman beast.

When you read that the dragon gave the beast "his power, his throne, and great authority," in Rev. 13:2 and see from Rev. 12:3, that the dragon, satan, had seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns, before the cross, repesenting satan's influence on human governments, then you are to realize that the dragon, satan, actually has no authority to give to the Rev. 13 beast, this side of the cross, but it is a representation that satan still can exercise power wherever he is not overcome by those on whom Jesus, Possessor of all authority, confired his kingdom and authority.

[eschaton]

Compare Rev 13:1to Dan 7again. Count the heads and the horns. The beasts of Daniel seven have seven heads and ten horns. All of the horns are on the fourth beast.

You just said that the Daniel 7 beasts had 7 heads and ten horns. But the Roman beast had teeth and a blaspheming mouth and feet of iron. It had a combination of the heads that had gone before, it had no heads of its own. When the Roman beast was slain at Jesus ascension, that eliminated the blaspheming little horn, the iron teeth and legs and feet, but not the ten horns, or the seven heads, which were borne by the Greek, Persian, and Babylonian beasts, the same three that were allowed to live on into Revelation 13, but without their dominion, which was stripped away in the same deadly blow that killed the Roman beast.

When you read that the dragon gave the beast "his power, his throne, and great authority," in Rev. 13:2 and see from Rev. 12:3, that the dragon, satan, had seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns, before the cross, repesenting satan's influence on human governments, then you are to realize that the dragon, satan, actually has no authority to give to the Rev. 13 beast, this side of the cross, but it is a representation that satan still can exercise power wherever he is not overcome by those on whom Jesus, Possessor of all authority, confired his kingdom and authority.

The Roman beast had no head of its own? Hmm... Then where did he hang his hat? Just kidding.

First of all, don't I remember you saying that Rome was found in Daniel, but not in the Book of Revelation? Then what do you mean about the combination of heads before it? Let's count them up in Daniel 7.

First beast, lion, one head, no horns (Babylonian?)
Second beast, bear, one head, no horns (Persian?)
Third beast, leopard, four heads, no horns (Greek?)
Fourth beast, ???, one head, ten horns (Roman?)

Total - seven heads, ten horns

I think it's safe to assume that each beast has one head unless otherwise specified. Is there a natural creature on earth that we would assume has more than one head, or as you assert, no head? Now let's look at Revelation 13.

13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

The beast in Rev 13 is clearly a combination of all the beasts in Dan 7. If Daniel's fourth beast is Rome, something I don't advocate, then Rev. 13 also has to include Rome.

The Rev. is a composition of all the beasts in Dan 7, showing parts from all the beasts. There is no indication that any of the beasts in either book is headless. I don't find the word "headless" in my Bible. Don't get the Bible confused with The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Just kidding. Since the Revelation beast has seven heads it has to include a head from Daniel's fourth beast.

I think your whole theory fails on this, unless 1+1+4+1 does not equal seven.

Now about the blasphemy that you say was eliminated with Rome:

Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Sounds the same as Daniel 7 to me. I think you're digging yourself into a deeper hole.

[TyRockwell]

First beast, lion, one head, no horns (Babylonian?)
Second beast, bear, one head, no horns (Persian?)
Third beast, leopard, four heads, no horns (Greek?)
Fourth beast, ???, one head, ten horns (Roman?)

Total - seven heads, ten horns

Okay, I didn't explain one head right. Besides, we have to keep strait the difference between heads and principalities, that is, beasts. What I should have said, was that Rome's beast-prince, its principality was slain, not its head. It no longer had a demonic principality, though it did still have a person as its leader, a head, Caesar.

The Daniel 7 beasts represent the principalities, the demonic capital 'p' Princes, before the cross, as in "Prince of Persia," and "Prince of Greece," from Daniel 10. After the cross, with Jesus having all dominion, they were reduced to lower case 'princes' such as , 'prince of Babylon,' and 'prince of Persia' and 'prince of Greece.'

The point is the Prince of Rome, the beast was slain, but not its horn in Daniel 7:11-12. the other three beast-princes of Greece, Persia, and Babylon were allowed to live, and are seen in Rev. 13:2. So, Rome's horn still existed, but not its' principality,' not its' 'BEAST, after the ascension of Jesus.'

[eschaton]

First beast, lion, one head, no horns (Babylonian?)
Second beast, bear, one head, no horns (Persian?)
Third beast, leopard, four heads, no horns (Greek?)
Fourth beast, ???, one head, ten horns (Roman?)

Total - seven heads, ten horns

Okay, I didn't explain one head right. Besides, we have to keep strait the difference between heads and principalities, that is, beasts. What I should have said, was that Rome's beast-prince, its principality was slain, not its head. It no longer had a demonic principality, though it did still have a person as its leader, a head, Caesar.

The Daniel 7 beasts represent the principalities, the demonic capital 'p' Princes, before the cross, as in "Prince of Persia," and "Prince of Greece," from Daniel 10. After the cross, with Jesus having all dominion, they were reduced to lower case 'princes' such as , 'prince of Babylon,' and 'prince of Persia' and 'prince of Greece.'

The point is the Prince of Rome, the beast was slain, but not its horn in Daniel 7:11-12. the other three beast-princes of Greece, Persia, and Babylon were allowed to live, and are seen in Rev. 13:2. So, Rome's horn still existed, but not its' principality,' not its' 'BEAST, after the ascension of Jesus.'


Your interpretation seems totally arbitrary and forced to me. It isn't clear whether you're talking about heads, pricipalities, beasts, princes, Caesars, demons or horns. And as far as I know, none of it can be confirmed by history. Since you are using the names of long gone nations and people, I suppose I should be able to confirm at least part of what you say in history books, and If what you are saying is real history, I should be able to find all of it. Modern nations don't correspond in a real way to the ancient ones. Earlier in the The Four Euphratean Angels thread you said:

Rome is not in Revelation in the way that it has been taught. The other beasts in Revelation 13,Babylon, Persia, and Greece had been allowed to live in Dan. 7:11-12,but Rome's beast, its principality, meaning its spirit, i.e. the 'Prince of Rome' did not survive Jesus' resurrection. The other three principalities were stripped of their authority, but allowed to live. We see them together as one in Rev. 13:2.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=104193


Historically, Babylon, Persia and Greece had all fallen and been mostly absorbed by Rome. So I don't know what you're talking about from a historical perspective. I think it would be hard to prove whatever happened in the "principality" area, but we could make up anything we wanted to. I guess I understand what you're saying in your interpretation here, but unless there is some concrete way to confirm it, it is just another one of the endless prophecy speculations we see nowadays.

[TyRockwell]

You pasted in Rev. 13:5-7. But I'm going to add verses 1 through 4 back in:

Rev. 13:1"And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blashemous name.
Rev. 13:2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear, and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power, his throne, and great authority.
Rev.13:3 I saw one of the heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.
Rev.13:4So they worshipped the dragon, who had given authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

[color=blue]Rev. 13:1"And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blashemous name.
This description is exactly like that of the dragon, satan, in Rev.12:3. Chapter twelve ended with the dragon, satan, after the cross, whom Michael and his angels had cast down to the earth, because satan no longer had the standing to accuse men before God, and his first century persuit of the Jews, through whom Christ came, his failure to wipe them out, then going off to make war with Christians. The Roman empire was in decline. After satan had entered Caesar, at the time of the 66-70 AD revealing of the man of sin, possessed by satan, he only had what had worked for him before, he had and used the principle of the powers of human governments to persecute God's people, Christians, but he had lost his most effective beast-principality, Rome's, who confired on the Caesars a god-like status. But satan would continue to try to elevate successive world leaders to that kind of status. This is portayed as 'each horn had a blasphemous name.' And this is a distinct difference from the one horn of Dan.7.

Rev. 13:2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear, and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power, his throne, and great authority.
Notice that there is are no iron feet, legs or teeth. There is no beast of Rome. The 'prince of this age,' the principality of Rome, had been judged and cast out. John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11Also, the order is reversed from lion, bear, and leopard; from Babylon, Persia, and Greece, to Greece, Persia and Babylon.

Rev.13:3 I saw one of the heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.

I repeat, the only death-wound associated with the lion, the bear, and the leopard was the death of the fourth beast in Dan. 7:11. Of the other three beasts, the lion related to the head of gold in Daniel 2:32. The same events that resulted in Rome's beast's death would have killed Babylon, Persia and Greece, too, only they were allowed to live. Since Babylon was the head, relative to the other two beasts, the fact that they were allowed to live, caused Babylon to look as if it had been slain.

"All the world marveled," means that all the world was 'taken in by the glory' that Rome once had, and looked for and hoped for another empire to arise and rule the earth with that same degree of respect, and awe (worship) that people had for the Romans. No such empire has arisen. They worship a legend, but want another beast like it. The world does this, not the children of God's kingdom.

Rev.13:4So they worshipped the dragon, who had given authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"

The world's desire for an earthly king to worship is to desire satan and his realm's ways, rather than the Lordship of Jesus. They think such an empire would bring unity and an end to wars.

Rev 13:5 And there had been given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

The kind of king the world wants is like the Caesar who was in power during the 42 month, three and a half year siege of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction, when Caesar demanded worship as a god, and persecuted both Jews and Christians who refused to acknowledge him as God. This was speaking blaspemies.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

To blaspheme God and his name is to speak lies and accusations against them who are his dwelling place, Christians, and those who dwell in heaven. God's dwelling place is in his people on earth, and not only with those who are in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations

It is satan's mode of operation to use governments to persecute, kill and outlaw Christians, but since it is satan who is giving the power, Christians can and should overcome him because he actually has no authority. Christians must use Jesus' authority, in his name to overcome. We can and we should, and we need to learn how.

[TyRockwell]

Historically, Babylon, Persia and Greece had all fallen and been mostly absorbed by Rome. So I don't know what you're talking about from a historical perspective. I think it would be hard to prove whatever happened in the "principality" area, but we could make up anything we wanted to. I guess I understand what you're saying in your interpretation here, but unless there is some concrete way to confirm it, it is just another one of the endless prophecy speculations we see nowadays.

I don't know why you don't know that a 'beast,' is a principality, a demonic territorial spirit. Michael and the messenger angel, speaking to Daniel, in chapter 10 had to fight through the Prince of Persia to get to and from Daniel. He said that later the Prince of Greece would come.

You don't think these princes were human royalty, do you?

Horns represent human kings. Caesar was the little horn that spoke boastfully, and blasphemed.

Again, Rome's beast, the same thing as a prince was slain, when Jesus ascended. Same thing I said in the Four Euphratean Angels thread. That is why there is no description of Rome's beast in Rev. 13:2

[eschaton]

This description is exactly like that of the dragon, satan, in Rev.12:3. Chapter twelve ended with the dragon, satan, after the cross, whom Michael and his angels had cast down to the earth, because satan no longer had the standing to accuse men before God, and his first century persuit of the Jews, through whom Christ came, his failure to wipe them out, then going off to make war with Christians. The Roman empire was in decline. After satan had entered Caesar, at the time of the 66-70 AD revealing of the man of sin, possessed by satan, he only had what had worked for him before, he had and used the principle of the powers of human governments to persecute God's people, Christians, but he had lost his most effective beast-principality, Rome's, who confired on the Caesars a god-like status. But satan would continue to try to elevate successive world leaders to that kind of status. This is portayed as 'each horn had a blasphemous name.' And this is a distinct difference from the one horn of Dan.7.

I don't agree with any of your interpretation here. And what one horn of Dan 7 are you talking about. There are eleven horns in Dan 7, the ten horns and then the little horn.

I repeat, the only death-wound associated with the lion, the bear, and the leopard was the death of the fourth beast in Dan. 7:11. Of the other three beasts, the lion related to the head of gold in Daniel 2:32. The same events that resulted in Rome's beast's death would have killed Babylon, Persia and Greece, too, only they were allowed to live. Since Babylon was the head, relative to the other two beasts, the fact that they were allowed to live, caused Babylon to look as if it had been slain.

"All the world marveled," means that all the world was 'taken in by the glory' that Rome once had, and looked for and hoped for another empire to arise and rule the earth with that same degree of respect, and awe (worship) that people had for the Romans. No such empire has arisen. They worship a legend, but want another beast like it. The world does this, not the children of God's kingdom.

The world's desire for an earthly king to worship is to desire satan and his realm's ways, rather than the Lordship of Jesus. They think such an empire would bring unity and an end to wars.

The kind of king the world wants is like the Caesar who was in power during the 42 month, three and a half year siege of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction, when Caesar demanded worship as a god, and persecuted both Jews and Christians who refused to acknowledge him as God. This was speaking blaspemies.

To blaspheme God and his name is to speak lies and accusations against them who are his dwelling place, Christians, and those who dwell in heaven. God's dwelling place is in his people on earth, and not only with those who are in heaven.

It is satan's mode of operation to use governments to persecute, kill and outlaw Christians, but since it is satan who is giving the power, Christians can and should overcome him because he actually has no authority. Christians must use Jesus' authority, in his name to overcome. We can and we should, and we need to learn how.


It isn't clear whether you're talking about heads, pricipalities, beasts, princes, Caesars, demons or horns. You're talking about the Roman empire and caesars in Rev 13 where you previously said you were only talking about "principalities." Sounds totally confused to me.

[eschaton]

I don't know why you don't know that a 'beast,' is a principality, a demonic territorial spirit. Michael and the messenger angel, speaking to Daniel, in chapter 10 had to fight through the Prince of Persia to get to and from Daniel. He said that later the Prince of Greece would come.

You don't think these princes were human royalty, do you?

Horns represent human kings. Caesar was the little horn that spoke boastfully, and blasphemed.

Again, Rome's beast, the same thing as a prince was slain, when Jesus ascended. Same thing I said in the Four Euphratean Angels thread. That is why there is no description of Rome's beast in Rev. 13:2

Where does it say a prince is a beast?

I do not think they are human royalty.

A king is not the same thing as a Caesar, and the two aren't used interchangably in the NT. We don't know for sure that these are earthly kings, but they are not caesars. A caesar is an emperor.

In your previous post your were talking about the Roman empire and caesar in Rev 13.

[TyRockwell]

Where does it say a prince is a beast?

It doesn't say it in a dictionary definition way. You are supposed to be able to know it, because of the circumstances of Daniel 10. Daniel was praying, and had a vision (Dan 10:8). The messenger that arrived had the same appearance as the description of Jesus in Rev. 1:13-16. Daniel's vision is happening in the third year of Cyrus, King of Persia, 500+years B.C., so it's the angel of the Lord, or the Lord, himself, pre-incarnate. He said that the Prince of Persia "withstood me 21 days, and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia."

Daniel and his people knew that Michael is what we call an archangel, "one of the chief princes." So, an archangel, a chief prince, came to fight the Prince of Persia, he must be fighting an evil spirit, a chief prince spirit being of the kingdom of darkness, a controlling, territorial demonic entity, that apparently wanted to try to influence the kings of Persia. These things you can glean, by the Spirit, from this context.

Beyond that, you would need to talk with someone more expert in Hebrew teaching.

I do not think they are human royalty.
What did you think?

A king is not the same thing as a Caesar, and the two aren't used interchangably in the NT. We don't know for sure that these are earthly kings, but they are not caesars. A caesar is an emperor.

The main difference seems to be that a caesar is voted into office, by a Roman senate; not a matter of bloodline, but a king is a descendant, or a relative of a preceeding king. A caesar might have held office at the discretion of the senate, but when they 'voted' him into a god, it was as if it was a 'divine right of kings' scenario, or worse. A caesar ruled an empire, like King Nebuchadnezzar ruled an empire. So, horns are earthly, human rulers, not enough difference to quibble about between a king and a caesar.

In your previous post your were talking about the Roman empire and caesar in Rev 13

No, I was talking about the Roman empire and caesar in Dan.7, having to do with the iron teeth and iron feet and the horns; the little horn being caesar, a blaspeming boaster, claiming to be god, on the level of the One True God of Israel. I have repeatedly said that the Rev. 13 beast is composed of the OTHER three beasts from Dan. 7, and that Rome's prince did not survive Jesus' ascension, Daniel 7:13.

[eschaton]

It doesn't say it in a dictionary definition way. You are supposed to be able to know it, because of the circumstances of Daniel 10. Daniel was praying, and had a vision (Dan 10:8). The messenger that arrived had the same appearance as the description of Jesus in Rev. 1:13-16. Daniel's vision is happening in the third year of Cyrus, King of Persia, 500+years B.C., so it's the angel of the Lord, or the Lord, himself, pre-incarnate. He said that the Prince of Persia "withstood me 21 days, and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia."

Daniel and his people knew that Michael is what we call an archangel, "one of the chief princes." So, an archangel, a chief prince, came to fight the Prince of Persia, he must be fighting an evil spirit, a chief prince spirit being of the kingdom of darkness, a controlling, territorial demonic entity, that apparently wanted to try to influence the kings of Persia. These things you can glean, by the Spirit, from this context.

Beyond that, you would need to talk with someone more expert in Hebrew teaching.

I don't see what this has to do with the beasts in Daniel. My whole problem with what you are saying is that sometimes you say the visions are talking about angelic powers, and sometimes you say they are talking about empires and earthly kings. You switch back and forth, and I can't tell which you are talking about. I thought I understood earlier that Dan 7 was supposed to be about earthly empires and kings, and Rev 12, 13 was about angelic powers. If that is true we should at least be able to confirm Dan 7 with history.


What did you think?

Spiritual principles.

The main difference seems to be that a caesar is voted into office, by a Roman senate; not a matter of bloodline, but a king is a descendant, or a relative of a preceeding king. A caesar might have held office at the discretion of the senate, but when they 'voted' him into a god, it was as if it was a 'divine right of kings' scenario, or worse. A caesar ruled an empire, like King Nebuchadnezzar ruled an empire. So, horns are earthly, human rulers, not enough difference to quibble about between a king and a caesar.

If it is an earthly caesar then the text should say that.


No, I was talking about the Roman empire and caesar in Dan.7, having to do with the iron teeth and iron feet and the horns; the little horn being caesar, a blaspeming boaster, claiming to be god, on the level of the One True God of Israel. I have repeatedly said that the Rev. 13 beast is composed of the OTHER three beasts from Dan. 7, and that Rome's prince did not survive Jesus' ascension, Daniel 7:13.

In the post I responded to you quote Rev 13:1-7 twice. You don't quote Dan 7, but you mention it a couple of times. In that post you seem to be talking about the Roman empire and caesar. I don't see you mention angelic princes.

[TyRockwell]

I thought I understood earlier that Dan 7was supposed to be about earthly empires and kings, and Rev 12, 13was about angelic powers. If that is true we should at least be able to confirm Dan 7with history.

Dan. 7 does follow history, just as in Dan. 2. In both chapters you have the historically known order of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.

In Dan. 7 the empires are depicted as 'beasts.' Its not a description of anything tangible about these empires. The beasts show an intangible, such as a personality, or a spirit derived nature. So, beasts are empires, on the physical plane. At the same time they are, or have, 'ways' about them that originate in the unseen realm, by influence of a principality, a demonic spirit, a.k.a., a prince.

In the post I responded to you quote Rev 13:1-7twice. You don't quote Dan 7,but you mention it a couple of times. In that post you seem to be talking about the Roman empire and caesar. I don't see you mention angelic princes.

Ok. I mention Dan. 7 in regard to Rev. 13, because that is where you get the three parts of the Rev. 13 beast, the leopard, the bear, and the lion. In Dan 7 the leopard is Greece, the bear is Persia, and the lion is Babylon. In Dan.7 they are listed in reverse order of Rev. 13, Babylon, Persia, then Greece.

The Rev. 13 beast has none of the component parts of Rome!

That is because, in Jesus triumph over the kingdom of darkness by his resurrection and ascension, Rome's principality was slain and thrown into hell (Dan.7:11). The actual empire slowly died.

You have to get out of your thinking any idea that Rev. 13 refers to the time of the Roman empire in the time of Jesus, or while it was dying. You'll never 'get' Revelation with that way of thinking. Revelation can only be understood by the unsealing of Daniel, which tells you that only three of the beasts of Dan. 7 were allowed to live, though stripped of their former dominion. The same triumph of Jesus would have killed all four of the Dan 7 beasts, but three were allowed to live on, but wounded.

The idea of a deadly wound on the Rev. 13 beast does not re-introduce a Roman empire, nor its prince. They are still dead. The deadly wound is borne by the beast in Rev 13 made up of the beasts of Greece, Persia and Babylon. Remember, their natures, their ways, are influenced by principalities, demon spirits.

Their 'ways' are known to us from a knowledge of history. Greece contributed the idea of democracy. Persia gave us the rule of law. And Babylon had a strong 'head of state.' These three components make up the modern day beast/empire of Rev.13. I Hope this helps.

BTW, I've just delivered my second post to the Wrestling Ring debate thread on "this generation" in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34.

[eschaton]

Dan. 7 does follow history, just as in Dan. 2. In both chapters you have the historically known order of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.

In Dan. 7 the empires are depicted as 'beasts.' Its not a description of anything tangible about these empires. The beasts show an intangible, such as a personality, or a spirit derived nature. So, beasts are empires, on the physical plane. At the same time they are, or have, 'ways' about them that originate in the unseen realm, by influence of a principality, a demonic spirit, a.k.a., a prince.

Does this mean the historically known order isn't tangible?
Do you consider history tangible.
If it isn't a description of anything tangible, then how can we verify whether it is correct or not?
By the spirit?
What if the spirit tells me something different than it tells you?


Ok. I mention Dan. 7 in regard to Rev. 13, because that is where you get the three parts of the Rev. 13 beast, the leopard, the bear, and the lion. In Dan 7 the leopard is Greece, the bear is Persia, and the lion is Babylon. In Dan.7 they are listed in reverse order of Rev. 13, Babylon, Persia, then Greece.

The Rev. 13 beast has none of the component parts of Rome!

Then where do the ten horns and seventh head come from. In Dan 7 the fourth beast, which you say is Rome, has the seventh head and ten horns.


That is because, in Jesus triumph over the kingdom of darkness by his resurrection and ascension, Rome's principality was slain and thrown into hell (Dan.7:11). The actual empire slowly died.

How can we verify that the fourth beast is Rome and was thrown into hell? Is there nothing tangible? If there isn't anything tangible how can I verify what you're saying?


You have to get out of your thinking any idea that Rev. 13 refers to the time of the Roman empire in the time of Jesus, or while it was dying. You'll never 'get' Revelation with that way of thinking. Revelation can only be understood by the unsealing of Daniel, which tells you that only three of the beasts of Dan. 7 were allowed to live, though stripped of their former dominion. The same triumph of Jesus would have killed all four of the Dan 7 beasts, but three were allowed to live on, but wounded.

The idea of a deadly wound on the Rev. 13 beast does not re-introduce a Roman empire, nor its prince. They are still dead. The deadly wound is borne by the beast in Rev 13 made up of the beasts of Greece, Persia and Babylon. Remember, their natures, their ways, are influenced by principalities, demon spirits.

Their 'ways' are known to us from a knowledge of history. Greece contributed the idea of democracy. Persia gave us the rule of law. And Babylon had a strong 'head of state.' These three components make up the modern day beast/empire of Rev.13. I Hope this helps.

BTW, I've just delivered my second post to the Wrestling Ring debate thread on "this generation" in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34.

If I can't verify anything you're saying about Dan 7, because it isn't tangible, then how can I know if any thing you're saying about Rev 13 is true? I would like to be a little more objective. Objectivity tells me that the number of heads and horns is the same in Rev 13 and dan 7, therfore it likely represents the same thing or something very similar. The "intangibles" are not objective nor similar.

I would like to say that your idea about the beasts equaling princes is very interesting to me. I'm studying that. However, I can't say I fully support your ideas in the debate, even though I might like to.

[TyRockwell]

You are being obtuse. goodbye.

[TyRockwell]

If I can't verify anything you're saying about Dan 7,because it isn't tangible, then how can I know if any thing you're saying about Rev 13is true?

Sorry I called you obtuse. I was thinking you were 'unknowing' intentionally.

You are talking about beasts, four beasts in Dan. 7, but only three in Rev. 13. Beasts are somewhat tangible, in the sense that they represented actual empires, or kingdoms. The princes are intangible, in that they are demonic, invisible spirits.

In Dan 7, he was seeing into the future, to the time of Rome. Rome's beast/prince was slain, Dan 7:11.

That is why, 2000 years after Rome, there are only three beasts, in Rev. 13, the same three which had been "stripped of their authority, but allowed to live," 2000 years prior. Since we know there is no modern-day Babylonian Empire, or Persian or Greek, then we know that the Rev. 13 beasts are princes, as in principalities.

I would like to be a little more objective. Objectivity tells me that the number of heads and horns is the same in Rev 13and dan 7, therfore it likely represents the same thing or something very similar. The "intangibles" are not objective nor similar.

That's not exactly right. In Daniel 7:7-8, there was one head with ten horns, all having to do with the beast of Rome. In Rev. 13, there are seven heads and ten horns, none of them having anything to do with Rome, but the other three beasts, seen in Rev. 13:2. Like I said, its 2000 years after Rome was slain. On top of that, where there were three surviving beasts in Dan. 7:12, we find only ONE beast, composed of the three surviving princes.