[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 16:58:28 +1000
Martin, I have not thought of or heard of the angel to Daniel being Jesus, but
it does sound quite natural to me. I have heard it said that the angel that
came to Lot and his family , and who made the sodomites blind, was in fact
Jesus. What is your opinion here.
Philip.
PS re the prophecies of Daniel and other Biblical prophecies, I have seen
comment that some represent dual times. They cleverly represent two or even
multiple events in history right up till the last. Much as how the real final
man of sin antichrist is prefigured in earlier historical persons. plm
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Selbrede
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 666
On May 29, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
Martin: All you've done here is prove my point. You've cited the very
verses that establish my position in minute detail.
WHAT...!?.....Unless your point was
1.There was a vision given in Ch10;
There was a prologue to the vision, and the Angel starts speaking to Daniel,
but doesn't finish his speech until the end of Chapter 12.
2.Ch 10 is not a prologue to the events that took place in ch11;
Not my point at all. Please read with care.
3.Ch 10 does discuss events that took place in the Future and latter days;
No it doesn't. It discusses what occurred to Daniel in the 3rd year of Cyrus.
Your argument takes a form something like this:
1. Jesus appeared to Daniel.
2. Jesus NEVER looks like this except after His ascension, as shown in Rev.
1:13-15
3. Therefore, although this being spoke to Daniel in the 3rd year of Cyrus,
speaking to Daniel by name, Daniel was not seeing the present but the future.
4. What the being alleged to be Jesus actually SAYS to Daniel is completely
irrelevant and nobody should pay any attention to it.
There is the gravest doubt about all four points.
1. For the few commentators that agree with you that Jesus appears in verses
4 through 8 (E. J. Young, C. F. Keil, M. Henry, etc.), they have to shoehorn a
different angelic being in at verse 9ff. because thereafter the being is
clearly NOT omnipotent by any stretch, but this strategy is grammatically
unsound based on the opening pronoun at verse 11, where the "he" is clearly the
same being as was seen in verse 4ff. (Young goes so far as to rearrange all
the thoughts of verse 21 to try to have his cake and eat it. Nobody has
adopted his translation that tries to dance around such insuperable
difficulties.) In all these cases, NONE of the 10% of commentators who think
Jesus is meant here agree with you that 11:1 was given in the first year of
Darius: they all agree with me that it is the continuation of the angelic
being's deliverance of the promised message to Daniel.
2. Precisely WHY cannot the second person of the Trinity have this appearance
several hundred years before being incarnated as a human being? Show me where
THAT limitation is declared in Scripture. This I'd like to see -- considering
how God reprehends those who "limited the holy one of Israel." The second
person of the trinity had not yet emptied Himself out and condescended to
tabernacle with us: he was still with the glory He had with the father. Such
glory as displayed in Daniel 10:4-8 (assuming it applies to Jesus, which is
unlikely) would be consistent with John 17:5 -- "And now, Father, glorify me
at your wide with the glory I had with you before the world was created."
Since when is Our Lord's glory somehow deficient in the days of Daniel? What
kind of theology is THAT?
3. As if Jesus had to apologize to Daniel and say, "Really, Danny, I don't
look anything like this right now. You're seeing what I'm gonna look like in
about a half millennium. I have no right to assume this appearance today.
You're seeing the future: I'm not really here right now, you see. Nobody
looking like this could actually be talking to you today here on the banks of
the Hiddekel River on the 24th day of Nisan in the 3rd year of Cyrus. Sorry
about scaring your men, who fled and hid at the sound of my voice. Good thing
they can't see me, or I'd have to explain to each of them that I really don't
look like this now, nor can I. I have to wait awhile before receiving my eyes
of fire, etc. Sorry if there's any confusion. By the way, ignore everything I'm
about to say about being sent to deliver a message to you. I'm not going to do
anything of the sort. Chapter break at 11:1, you know. Hope that's not
confusing. And don't feel bad that I'm not omnipotent and need help from
Michael or I'm in a world of hurt. That's just the way things are. Unless maybe
some scholars can alter my words farther down."
4. The angel appears for the purpose of delivering a spoken message. You
apply a knife to the angel's message, treat the raw appearance of the angel as
the message about the future, and deny that the angel's words (which you
believe, on your theory, to be the words of Jesus Himself) have any relevance
or meaning: they can be dispensed with. Whatever "Jesus" says he's about to say
to Daniel: throw it out. It never happened. His mere appearance was the whole
message. Therefore, cut off Jesus's microphone at 11:1, in mid-sentence.
4.Ch10 was given in the 3rd year of Cyrus
Well, yes, I do hold that.
5.where Ch 11, &12 are not a sequential part to Ch 10 but rather evnets
that took place in the 1st year of Daruis who came before
Cyrus......Grammatically and textually imparitive
Grammatically and textually impossible.
I proved those..so I'm not sure what you are talking about.......... and I
am not convinced yet that you even understand your own points, if in fact I
have made yours for you.....???
Allen, again, no, you've not proven anything: you're only getting yourself
thicker into theological absurdities.
.
You stated "The 10th chapter NEVER discusses anything in the future,..I
proved you wrong
There was no such proof, unless you think you've proven the impossibility of
Christ Jesus having eyes of fire or legs of bronze prior to appearing to John
on Patmos. You'd have to overcome the force of John 17:5, which is the first
of many scripture texts at relentless war with these pointless chains you throw
on the Messiah.
You stated "the 10th chapter is a prologue to ch 11 ...I proved that it is
a vision unto itself 1.that was understood for precisely the reason that the
previous Visons of ch 2,7 8,11& 12 outlined a time frame for the kingdom where
Ch10 describes the king and demonstrated in revelation.....
See, I'm sympathetic to the issue that Christ is King: I think it's
important, even crucial. But you don't artificially inject that and run
roughshod over what the text says. Jesus makes clear that ends never justify
the means: evil means make the end evil. And distortion of Scripture, no matter
how noble the intention, has no place in Biblical scholarship. You never ever
justified cutting a speech into pieces. On your view, Daniel 11:1 is being
spoken by Jesus, the guy with eyes of fire. Who in their right mind would
cut-off such a person's speech in mid-sentence like that? If Jesus is the
person speaking to Daniel in Daniel 10, and His eyes are like torches of fire
and his voice like many waters, I'd hesitate before pulling the plug on his
message, like you continue to do.
2 your position directly contradicts Daniel ch 11:1 " in the first year of
Darius...." ..the Persian kings chronology that " I PROVED" precludes your
construct......
Nonsense. You're making my point here, that YOUR chronology is used to wreak
havoc on Daniel 11:1. Tail wagging the dog, as it were. Glad you put "I PROVED"
in quotes. It belongs in quotes. And you're right: your unbiblical approach
DOES preclude taking Daniel 11:1 in the correct sense. I suggest your theory
go, and we keep Daniel 11:1.
AS for 11's grammatical layout it is relayed as something that had taken
place in the past even if it were being told in the third year of
Cyrus.....Darius past Cyrus future...... my point not yours!......... & that
argument is even found within ch 10 & 11 grammatically.... and the Persian
kings Chronology is independently of those arguments....so even if the evesnt
of Ch 11 are bieng recored latter ......You still have no argument.. (the
evnets themselves took place earlier)......... I have already destroyed them
all........
Sounds like what I've been arguing for here: after all the sound and fury,
you then say it may signify nothing, but doesn't matter. I already SAID --
repeatedly -- that your chronology doesn't necessarily depend on your
persistent distortion of the meaning of Daniel 11:1, so it made no sense to me
why you kept defending an indefensible position. But I also pointed out that
"those who are faithful in little things can be entrusted with bigger things,"
so I was unwilling to let you turn Scripture into a pretzel without calling you
on it. But I think you're getting the event that took place in the first year
of Darius wrong. The angel (not Jesus, but at this point that question isn't
so important) says that the event that took place two years earlier was the
event of Daniel 10:21. The aside is finished at the close of 11:1, and the
angel's ACTUAL MESSAGE to Daniel begins at 11:2, which is referenced to the
PRESENT as Daniel perceived it standing there on the river bank on 24 Nisan,
3rd year of Cyrus.
Your comment that "I have already destroyed them all" comes off as pure
arrogance. I'm not sure that's called for in this dialogue, even if justified.
I believe it's neither justified nor called for. You're engaging what is known
as "moving too quickly to the argumentative kill."
Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.3/824 - Release Date: 29/05/2007
1:01 PM
Other related posts:
