Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.

Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!

If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.

Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 2 kingdom of God

Hammered indeed! Just to be clear, Cowles also relies heavily on "terminus a quo" to try to rule out the Roman Theory. I do not have a problem with the text making it clear that the 4th power would be judged or destroyed before the setting up of the kingdom of God. I also believe that. Where we disagree is when this takes place, at the time of Christ's 1st coming, or the end of the world.

What we will see as we go along is that the only interpretation left standing will have Rome being clearly revealed as the 4th kingdom. I only have a couple more points to make on Daniel 2 as it only sets the stage for later chapters.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Hammered

gramster wrote:

Hammered indeed! Just to be clear, Cowles also relies heavily on "terminus a quo" to try to rule out the Roman Theory. I do not have a problem with the text making it clear that the 4th power would be judged or destroyed before the setting up of the kingdom of God. I also believe that. Where we disagree is when this takes place, at the time of Christ's 1st coming, or the end of the world.

What we will see as we go along is that the only interpretation left standing will have Rome being clearly revealed as the 4th kingdom. I only have a couple more points to make on Daniel 2 as it only sets the stage for later chapters.

Before you get into "when the kingdom of Gos was set up" don't you have to get to if "the kingdom of God was set up"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel Chapter 2 - mix and mingle

There is one more point that doesn't seem to fit well with either the Grecian Theory, or the 2nd Century BC Theory.

Daniel 2:43 As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,  but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.

Sure there were intermarriages, but this seems to portray repeated, failed attempts in uniting the powers. This is not what I see very clearly in the Seleucid kingdom. It was very prevalent in the nations of early Europe.

I'm sure that you will be able to hammer this one in somehow, so I will go on to Chapter 7 which is much more detailed.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:There is one

gramster wrote:

There is one more point that doesn't seem to fit well with either the Grecian Theory, or the 2nd Century BC Theory.

Daniel 2:43 As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,  but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.

Sure there were intermarriages, but this seems to portray repeated, failed attempts in uniting the powers. This is not what I see very clearly in the Seleucid kingdom. It was very prevalent in the nations of early Europe.

I'm sure that you will be able to hammer this one in somehow, so I will go on to Chapter 7 which is much more detailed.

 

It also jumps Rome, doesn't it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jumps Rome?

I don't see how this "jumps Rome". The legs represent the mighty Roman Empire, and the feet and toes represent the what followed the break of this power. All this fits perfectly with the text.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I don't see

gramster wrote:

I don't see how this "jumps Rome". The legs represent the mighty Roman Empire, and the feet and toes represent the what followed the break of this power. All this fits perfectly with the text.

Except that the Roman empire existed for quite some time after the "break" you believe happened. The post-Alexandrian period also fits this.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel Chapter 7

First I would like to suggest that Daniel 7 is a closer look at the powers portrayed in Daniel 2. It also parallels the powers in chapter 8 with the exception that Babylon is left out in 8. Let's take a brief look.

Chapter 2 - Head of Gold - Babylon       

Chapter 7 - Lion w/eagles wings - Babylon

 

Chapter 2 - Chest and Arms - Media and Persia

Chapter 7 - Bear raised up on one side w/3 ribs in mouth - Media and Persia

Chapter 8 - Ram w/two horns, one larger - Media and Persia (as stated by the text)

 

Chapter 2 - Belly and Thighs - "Greece"

Chapter 7 - Leopard w/4 wings and 4 heads - "Greece"

Chapter 8 - Goat w/notable horn that was broken than 4 horns emerged - "Greece" (as stated by the text)

To this point there is general agreement among most scholars. There are some exceptions as JPTS previously pointed out. He proposed that the chest and arms in ch2, and the bear in ch7 referred to just Media.

Than that would make the belly and thighs in ch 2 Persia, and the Leopard in ch 7 Persia. The next power to come on the scene than would be the "Grecian kingdom", or Alexander the Great.

I already stated my reasons for rejecting this interpretation so I will be brief on this.

First, Media did not follow the fall of Babylon as a kingdom. They existed pretty much at the same time and ended about the same time.

Second, the author of Daniel appears to view "Medo-Persia" as a single inter related power. Not as two distinct powers.

Third, this view does not fit well into the symbolism of the beasts involved. Especially the leopard with 4 heads and 4 wings. The leopard is an obvious parallel to the goat in chapter 8 and a perfect match. It does not make sense to try to make it something else.

This does not however, rule out a 2nd century BC writer quite yet.

That brings us down to the powers that are in greatest dispute.

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Break up of kingdoms

Yes, history doesn't have a tendency to follow nice, clean, straight lines. What I don't see in the Post Alexandrian Period is a substantial amount of failed attempts to unite through intermarriage. There may be some remote examples, but not anything that would seem to match the description of the text.

The history of modern Europe is noted for these failed attempts.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:First I would

gramster wrote:

First I would like to suggest that Daniel 7 is a closer look at the powers portrayed in Daniel 2. It also parallels the powers in chapter 8 with the exception that Babylon is left out in 8. Let's take a brief look.

Chapter 2 - Head of Gold - Babylon       

Chapter 7 - Lion w/eagles wings - Babylon

 

Chapter 2 - Chest and Arms - Media and Persia

Chapter 7 - Bear raised up on one side w/3 ribs in mouth - Media and Persia

Chapter 8 - Ram w/two horns, one larger - Media and Persia (as stated by the text)

 

Chapter 2 - Belly and Thighs - "Greece"

Chapter 7 - Leopard w/4 wings and 4 heads - "Greece"

Chapter 8 - Goat w/notable horn that was broken than 4 horns emerged - "Greece" (as stated by the text)

To this point there is general agreement among most scholars. There are some exceptions as JPTS previously pointed out. He proposed that the chest and arms in ch2, and the bear in ch7 referred to just Media.

Than that would make the belly and thighs in ch 2 Persia, and the Leopard in ch 7 Persia. The next power to come on the scene than would be the "Grecian kingdom", or Alexander the Great.

I already stated my reasons for rejecting this interpretation so I will be brief on this.

First, Media did not follow the fall of Babylon as a kingdom. They existed pretty much at the same time and ended about the same time.

Second, the author of Daniel appears to view "Medo-Persia" as a single inter related power. Not as two distinct powers.

Third, this view does not fit well into the symbolism of the beasts involved. Especially the leopard with 4 heads and 4 wings. The leopard is an obvious parallel to the goat in chapter 8 and a perfect match. It does not make sense to try to make it something else.

This does not however, rule out a 2nd century BC writer quite yet.

That brings us down to the powers that are in greatest dispute.

 

The first power in dispute for us to examine is the 4th power mentioned in Daniel 2 and 7.

Daniel 7:7, "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns".

Daniel 2:40, "And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these".

This 4th power is described as dreadful and terrible and exceedingly strong. One would expect that it would be a greater power than the other beasts it is being compared to. One would look for a kingdom following the "Grecian Empire" that was greater and more powerful.

This fits the Mighty Roman Empire remarkably well. It does not do a very good job of describing the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria following the death of Alexander. Yes, they were substantial kingdoms, and lasted in some form for quite a few years, but they could hardly be seen as exceedingly great and powerful in comparison to the preceding kingdoms.

Even though this seems to be a pretty poor fit I will consider it a possibility remote, and move on.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Problem with the "Grecian Theory"

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

First I would like to suggest that Daniel 7 is a closer look at the powers portrayed in Daniel 2. It also parallels the powers in chapter 8 with the exception that Babylon is left out in 8. Let's take a brief look.

Chapter 2 - Head of Gold - Babylon       

Chapter 7 - Lion w/eagles wings - Babylon

 

Chapter 2 - Chest and Arms - Media and Persia

Chapter 7 - Bear raised up on one side w/3 ribs in mouth - Media and Persia

Chapter 8 - Ram w/two horns, one larger - Media and Persia (as stated by the text)

 

Chapter 2 - Belly and Thighs - "Greece"

Chapter 7 - Leopard w/4 wings and 4 heads - "Greece"

Chapter 8 - Goat w/notable horn that was broken than 4 horns emerged - "Greece" (as stated by the text)

To this point there is general agreement among most scholars. There are some exceptions as JPTS previously pointed out. He proposed that the chest and arms in ch2, and the bear in ch7 referred to just Media.

Than that would make the belly and thighs in ch 2 Persia, and the Leopard in ch 7 Persia. The next power to come on the scene than would be the "Grecian kingdom", or Alexander the Great.

I already stated my reasons for rejecting this interpretation so I will be brief on this.

First, Media did not follow the fall of Babylon as a kingdom. They existed pretty much at the same time and ended about the same time.

Second, the author of Daniel appears to view "Medo-Persia" as a single inter related power. Not as two distinct powers.

Third, this view does not fit well into the symbolism of the beasts involved. Especially the leopard with 4 heads and 4 wings. The leopard is an obvious parallel to the goat in chapter 8 and a perfect match. It does not make sense to try to make it something else.

This does not however, rule out a 2nd century BC writer quite yet.

That brings us down to the powers that are in greatest dispute.

 

The first power in dispute for us to examine is the 4th power mentioned in Daniel 2 and 7.

Daniel 7:7, "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns".

Daniel 2:40, "And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these".

This 4th power is described as dreadful and terrible and exceedingly strong. One would expect that it would be a greater power than the other beasts it is being compared to. One would look for a kingdom following the "Grecian Empire" that was greater and more powerful.

This fits the Mighty Roman Empire remarkably well. It does not do a very good job of describing the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria following the death of Alexander. Yes, they were substantial kingdoms, and lasted in some form for quite a few years, but they could hardly be seen as exceedingly great and powerful in comparison to the preceding kingdoms.

Even though this seems to be a pretty poor fit I will consider it a possibility remote, and move on.

Now I will point out what seems to me to be a pretty significant problem with the "Grecian Theory". That is that the 4th beast represents Egypt and Syria after the death of Alexander.

The leopard with 4 heads already embodies these powers. Being a 4 headed beast it would best symbolize the four divisions of Alexanders empire.

The 4th beast in Daniel 7 breaks and stamps in pieces the leopard with four heads. Is this not than, if it is Egypt and Syria, a kingdom attacking and destroying itself? Hmmm. This seems to be a problem for Cowles, as well as for a 2nd century BC writer. A beast or kingdom can hardly be its own successor.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:There is one

gramster wrote:

There is one more point that doesn't seem to fit well with either the Grecian Theory, or the 2nd Century BC Theory.

Daniel 2:43 As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,  but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.

Sure there were intermarriages, but this seems to portray repeated, failed attempts in uniting the powers. This is not what I see very clearly in the Seleucid kingdom. It was very prevalent in the nations of early Europe.

I'm sure that you will be able to hammer this one in somehow, so I will go on to Chapter 7 which is much more detailed.

 

There was continous consistent intermarriage between the  kingdoms that comprised the former empire of Alexander in efforts to insure treaties, peace and goals. This was especially true of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms. See historians of the time period. Why do you say that political marriages did not occur, what is your source material?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Intermarriages

I did not say they did not occur. What I don't see is a pattern of repeatedly failed  attempts to unite the kingdoms through intermarriage. A clear pattern of this is obvious in early modern Europe.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

First I would like to suggest that Daniel 7 is a closer look at the powers portrayed in Daniel 2. It also parallels the powers in chapter 8 with the exception that Babylon is left out in 8. Let's take a brief look.

Chapter 2 - Head of Gold - Babylon       

Chapter 7 - Lion w/eagles wings - Babylon

 

Chapter 2 - Chest and Arms - Media and Persia

Chapter 7 - Bear raised up on one side w/3 ribs in mouth - Media and Persia

Chapter 8 - Ram w/two horns, one larger - Media and Persia (as stated by the text)

 

Chapter 2 - Belly and Thighs - "Greece"

Chapter 7 - Leopard w/4 wings and 4 heads - "Greece"

Chapter 8 - Goat w/notable horn that was broken than 4 horns emerged - "Greece" (as stated by the text)

To this point there is general agreement among most scholars. There are some exceptions as JPTS previously pointed out. He proposed that the chest and arms in ch2, and the bear in ch7 referred to just Media.

Than that would make the belly and thighs in ch 2 Persia, and the Leopard in ch 7 Persia. The next power to come on the scene than would be the "Grecian kingdom", or Alexander the Great.

I already stated my reasons for rejecting this interpretation so I will be brief on this.

First, Media did not follow the fall of Babylon as a kingdom. They existed pretty much at the same time and ended about the same time.

Second, the author of Daniel appears to view "Medo-Persia" as a single inter related power. Not as two distinct powers.

Third, this view does not fit well into the symbolism of the beasts involved. Especially the leopard with 4 heads and 4 wings. The leopard is an obvious parallel to the goat in chapter 8 and a perfect match. It does not make sense to try to make it something else.

This does not however, rule out a 2nd century BC writer quite yet.

That brings us down to the powers that are in greatest dispute.

 

The first power in dispute for us to examine is the 4th power mentioned in Daniel 2 and 7.

Daniel 7:7, "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns".

Daniel 2:40, "And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these".

This 4th power is described as dreadful and terrible and exceedingly strong. One would expect that it would be a greater power than the other beasts it is being compared to. One would look for a kingdom following the "Grecian Empire" that was greater and more powerful.

This fits the Mighty Roman Empire remarkably well. It does not do a very good job of describing the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria following the death of Alexander. Yes, they were substantial kingdoms, and lasted in some form for quite a few years, but they could hardly be seen as exceedingly great and powerful in comparison to the preceding kingdoms.

Even though this seems to be a pretty poor fit I will consider it a possibility remote, and move on.

Now I will point out what seems to me to be a pretty significant problem with the "Grecian Theory". That is that the 4th beast represents Egypt and Syria after the death of Alexander.

The leopard with 4 heads already embodies these powers. Being a 4 headed beast it would best symbolize the four divisions of Alexanders empire.

The 4th beast in Daniel 7 breaks and stamps in pieces the leopard with four heads. Is this not than, if it is Egypt and Syria, a kingdom attacking and destroying itself? Hmmm. This seems to be a problem for Cowles, as well as for a 2nd century BC writer. A beast or kingdom can hardly be its own successor.

The Leopard is Alexander's kingdom represented.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the 4th beast stamps in pieces the Leopard? 

Daniel 7 NIV -  7 “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns."

 

This does not indicate the 4th beast does this to the Leopard at all. Please explain yourself.

 

But then:

 

See Cowles pp342-343; Cowles makes it clear here that the 4th beast "is not seen as great and terrible relatively to the whole world, and certainly not relatively to the great European world, onward to the end of time, and quite apart from any bearing on the Jews while they were the visible church and kingdom of god; but is seen as terrible to the Jews mainly, and to them before the kingdom of god was taken from them and given to the gentiles...."

And - "This would make that power specifically formidable to the Jews..."

p 343 - Cowles takes the position here that v9-11 refer to the destruction of the 4th beast and his horns - "The general final judgment is not in place here." ..."Is not indicated by anything said in context..." an allusion to God's providential judgments upon guilty nations is in place here.." and '..individuals will be judged at the end of this world and punished or rewarded in the next; but nations can only be punished in time, only in this world, for the sufficient reason that they exist as nations only here."

Further views of Cowles are explained in meticulous detail on p 344-347 which are in major opposition to you and you have made absolutely no comment in their regard or merits. You make the statement only that Cowles has a problem in the regard to the 4th beast yet you sidestep all of his points by ignoring them all.

p344 - "Hence if this judgment falls on the 4th beast and his horns it must be in this world.." and "but further, the distinctive characteristics of the final judgment are not here."

So both Cowles view and the 2nd century writing still have no issue.

But here exposed is a major interpretation error on your part where you somehow think the 4th beast is destroying the Leopard in Daniel 7. I await your explanation.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I did not say

gramster wrote:

I did not say they did not occur. What I don't see is a pattern of repeatedly failed  attempts to unite the kingdoms through intermarriage. A clear pattern of this is obvious in early modern Europe.

What exactly do you mean by early modern Europe? The 16th century? The 19th century? The 20th?

Is the pattern clear to you because you have found many historical references that have survived the centuries, which is not surprising if you are discussing a period after the 16th century? And were these attempts in Europe really much different than ancient attempts to gain coexistance by marriage? 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
4 headed leopard

Yes, in a sense the leopard is Alexander the Great. But the 4 heads would not portray just Alexander very well. This symbol better represents Alexanders divided kingdom after his death. That would include Pergamum, Macedon, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, and the Seleucid Empire. All of which were pretty much over by 100 BC with a few fragments of some remaining for a short while.

All four of these kingdoms eventually fell under Roman control. Daniel 7:23, speaking of the 4th beast, "it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces". This is referred to as a 4th beast. Not a continuation of the third beast. It devours everything, including the leopard.

If the text had two of the heads becoming great, than the analogy would fit the Grecian Theory. But it didn't. The 4th beast is a 4th beast, not the third beast pt 2.  That just doesn't make sense. You are still having a beast succeed itself.

This is the kind of "puzzle fitting" one has to do to make this interpretation fit. And the pieces don't match.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Yes, in a

gramster wrote:

Yes, in a sense the leopard is Alexander the Great. But the 4 heads would not portray just Alexander very well. This symbol better represents Alexanders divided kingdom after his death. That would include Pergamum, Macedon, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, and the Seleucid Empire. All of which were pretty much over by 100 BC with a few fragments of some remaining for a short while.

All four of these kingdoms eventually fell under Roman control. Daniel 7:23, speaking of the 4th beast, "it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces". This is referred to as a 4th beast. Not a continuation of the third beast. It devours everything, including the leopard.

If the text had two of the heads becoming great, than the analogy would fit the Grecian Theory. But it didn't. The 4th beast is a 4th beast, not the third beast pt 2.  That just doesn't make sense. You are still having a beast succeed itself.

This is the kind of "puzzle fitting" one has to do to make this interpretation fit. And the pieces don't match.

No, your pieces don't match and neither does your disregard for what was in the text and what was not in the text.

Again see Cowles pp 353-372 who in meticulous detail explains why the 4th beast is the Seleucid Kingdom and why Antiochus IV is the little horn. He also dissects and destroys your Roman theory as well. You should actually read these pages and stop ignoring his points. All in all Cowles gives excellent reasons except of course his view Daniel in the 6th century wrote it and the KOG is brought in by the supposed Messiah Yahshua bar Joseph.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Am I a Jew?

To give a short answer to Cowles claim that the final judgment is not in place, I will shortly show that the final judgment is indeed in place.

First, however, I will give answer to your previous question about "Spiritual Israel", as this is relevant to the latter prophecies in Daniel.

The answer to the question who is a Jew? can be answered in the following texts.

Luke 3:8, "don't say we have Abraham as our father, for I say to you, God is able to of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham". Here Jesus is making it plain that being a child of Abraham (Jew) is not merely a genetic heritage. It involves something more.

John 8:39, "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said unto them, if ye were Abraham's seed ye would do the works of Abraham". Here Jesus gives more "clues" of what it takes to be a true child of Abraham (Jew).

Gal 3:6,7, "Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham". Here Paul is expounding upon just what it takes to be a true Jew. It is not a "birthright", it is what is in the heart.

Gal 3:29, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise". Here Paul makes it plain that believing in the Jewish Messiah makes one a true Jew (spiritually speaking).

The Christian is therefore spiritually, according to the scriptures, a genuine Jew. I am just as much a Jew as was Daniel. I am according to the bible one of "his (Daniels) people".

Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the prophecies in the old testament (including Daniel), may refer to me and other Christians. This may include any time and any place depending on the context of the text.

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:To give a

gramster wrote:

To give a short answer to Cowles claim that the final judgment is not in place, I will shortly show that the final judgment is indeed in place.

When you do so please cite Cowles claim (at least the page) with your refutation.

gramster wrote:

First, however, I will give answer to your previous question about "Spiritual Israel", as this is relevant to the latter prophecies in Daniel.

The answer to the question who is a Jew? can be answered in the following texts.

Luke 3:8, "don't say we have Abraham as our father, for I say to you, God is able to of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham". Here Jesus is making it plain that being a child of Abraham (Jew) is not merely a genetic heritage. It involves something more.

I was hoping for something out of Hebrew scripture but instead you pick out one of the Sci-Fi NT gospels attributed by tradition to a guy named Luke. Luke who has some credibility issues I've mentioned which you should have recalled from our discussion in regard to Paul never met the character called Yahshua bar Joseph. Anything Luke claims is 3rd, 4th or 5th hand. Whether a guy named Yahshua actually said this or if it was a composite from multiple sources is subject to question. Are you sure you want to start such a disruptive side trip at this point in questioning the authenticity of Luke, whether he actually had crib notes from one of the disciples, whether there were disciples, whether Jesus existed, and whether Yahshua  said anything at all that was documented?

gramster wrote:

John 8:39, "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said unto them, if ye were Abraham's seed ye would do the works of Abraham". Here Jesus gives more "clues" of what it takes to be a true child of Abraham (Jew).

See my comments in regard to Luke. John, whoever he was, disciple or not wrote a very different version of events from the hand me down writing of the guy called Luke. Do you really want to go there now?

gramster wrote:

Gal 3:6,7, "Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham". Here Paul is expounding upon just what it takes to be a true Jew. It is not a "birthright", it is what is in the heart.

Gal 3:29, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise". Here Paul makes it plain that believing in the Jewish Messiah makes one a true Jew (spiritually speaking).

And then you present quotes from the supposed writing of Paul the Mythmaker. Did you somehow forget what I think of my namesake? I thought I was fairly clear on what I thought of him. Do you need another side trip on this as well?

gramster wrote:

The Christian is therefore spiritually, according to the scriptures, a genuine Jew. I am just as much a Jew as was Daniel. I am according to the bible one of "his (Daniels) people".

Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the prophecies in the old testament (including Daniel), may refer to me and other Christians. This may include any time and any place depending on the context of the text.

Since I don't accept any of your "scriptures" you referenced try again as it is not reasonable to make such a conclusion at all.

Google "what is a Jew" and see what you get.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ercatli
Theist
Posts: 51
Joined: 2008-07-11
User is offlineOffline
Hi fellow rationalists and

Hi fellow rationalists and friendly rational responders,

It's been a long time since I visited your site, but the friendly email said there were "a few theists worth responding to", so I thought I should drop in a and check them out. And so I found the Gramster.

 

 

To you atheistic rationalists, I thought I'd just let you know that I am another theist who agrees substantially with the Granster's propositions, e.g.

 

"Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible."

"myth #2. That faith is believing something without, or regardless of evidence. Faith is just the opposite. It is a loving, trust relationship built on evidence and experience."

To the rationalist Gramster: G'day bro'!

Having said that, please all carry on as you were. Best wishes.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Rehash old issues

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

To give a short answer to Cowles claim that the final judgment is not in place, I will shortly show that the final judgment is indeed in place.

When you do so please cite Cowles claim (at least the page) with your refutation.

gramster wrote:

First, however, I will give answer to your previous question about "Spiritual Israel", as this is relevant to the latter prophecies in Daniel.

The answer to the question who is a Jew? can be answered in the following texts.

Luke 3:8, "don't say we have Abraham as our father, for I say to you, God is able to of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham". Here Jesus is making it plain that being a child of Abraham (Jew) is not merely a genetic heritage. It involves something more.

I was hoping for something out of Hebrew scripture but instead you pick out one of the Sci-Fi NT gospels attributed by tradition to a guy named Luke. Luke who has some credibility issues I've mentioned which you should have recalled from our discussion in regard to Paul never met the character called Yahshua bar Joseph. Anything Luke claims is 3rd, 4th or 5th hand. Whether a guy named Yahshua actually said this or if it was a composite from multiple sources is subject to question. Are you sure you want to start such a disruptive side trip at this point in questioning the authenticity of Luke, whether he actually had crib notes from one of the disciples, whether there were disciples, whether Jesus existed, and whether Yahshua  said anything at all that was documented?

gramster wrote:

John 8:39, "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said unto them, if ye were Abraham's seed ye would do the works of Abraham". Here Jesus gives more "clues" of what it takes to be a true child of Abraham (Jew).

See my comments in regard to Luke. John, whoever he was, disciple or not wrote a very different version of events from the hand me down writing of the guy called Luke. Do you really want to go there now?

gramster wrote:

Gal 3:6,7, "Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham". Here Paul is expounding upon just what it takes to be a true Jew. It is not a "birthright", it is what is in the heart.

Gal 3:29, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise". Here Paul makes it plain that believing in the Jewish Messiah makes one a true Jew (spiritually speaking).

And then you present quotes from the supposed writing of Paul the Mythmaker. Did you somehow forget what I think of my namesake? I thought I was fairly clear on what I thought of him. Do you need another side trip on this as well?

gramster wrote:

The Christian is therefore spiritually, according to the scriptures, a genuine Jew. I am just as much a Jew as was Daniel. I am according to the bible one of "his (Daniels) people".

Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the prophecies in the old testament (including Daniel), may refer to me and other Christians. This may include any time and any place depending on the context of the text.

Since I don't accept any of your "scriptures" you referenced try again as it is not reasonable to make such a conclusion at all.

Google "what is a Jew" and see what you get.

 

 

I well realize that you do not accept hardly any of the NT, and buy into Maccoby the true myth maker. We have already gone over that. You also don't accept Daniel as authentic. Or for that matter much of the OT. So if we throw out the whole bible, than what do we have left. Oh, that's right we still have Google.

I am a Christian, and like Cowles, I accept the NT as inspired scripture in spite of all the speculation and "dust" thrown in the air trying to discredit it.

Therefore, like Cowles, I will use ALL scripture, and in so doing, in the end, will show a great deal of biblical unity and consistency, in spite of all the "perceived" inconsistencies previously alleged.

No, I do not intend to go back over that ground again at this time. Nice try.

Now let's get back to the topic at hand.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 7 - Examining Cowles.................

In regards to not reading or responding to Cowles comments on the "Roman Theory", that is what I will be doing now.

The first point we will look at is his claim that "the general final judgment is not in place here". p343.

Because -

a. Nations are judged only in time, therefore this can not be at the end of the world.

That is true in a sense. Yes, nations and powers are judged in time. However, at the end of the world, when all earthly kingdoms are judged or destroyed, that also is nations being judged in time. So this does not have to be before the time of Christ. Cowles argument is not valid if he is alleging that nations are judged in time only before Christ, and not at the end of the world.

b. The outcome is not right for the final judgment. "the assigning of the righteous and the wicked to their final  destinies.

Cowles makes a mistake common to atheists. He forgets what the focus or topic is all about here. This prophecy is not focusing on the destinies of individuals here. The theme of the whole book is about the destinies of nations, not individuals. It would not have  made sense here to suddenly shift the focus to the destinies of individuals. Good grief!

More later.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So, gramster, what have we

So, gramster, what have we established?

1. You disparage Maccoby without substantiation.

2. You disparage Cowles without substantiation.

3. You worship a book because you believe the main character in that book helped people write it..

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Old Issues will always come back- It's Your point Isn't It?

 

gramster wrote:

 

I well realize that you do not accept hardly any of the NT, and buy into Maccoby the true myth maker. We have already gone over that. You also don't accept Daniel as authentic. Or for that matter much of the OT. So if we throw out the whole bible, than what do we have left. Oh, that's right we still have Google.

I am a Christian, and like Cowles, I accept the NT as inspired scripture in spite of all the speculation and "dust" thrown in the air trying to discredit it.

Therefore, like Cowles, I will use ALL scripture, and in so doing, in the end, will show a great deal of biblical unity and consistency, in spite of all the "perceived" inconsistencies previously alleged.

No, I do not intend to go back over that ground again at this time. Nice try.

Now let's get back to the topic at hand.

 

No I don't accept the NT as a basis to argue that you are a "Jew" even as an analogy. What I see you doing is using the NT to prove the NT's claim when you use it as you did. If you used the OT to show how "all people" were Abraham's children somehow it would have been an acceptable method, not that I wouldn't have found something else to discredit.

I accept that once upon a time there was a kingdom of Israel and a kingdom of Judah. They had kings, wars, and sometimes cooperated with one another and sometimes didn't. Little more.

I'm an ex Evangelical, ex-Catholic relapsed heretic non-believer and don't accept any of the OT or NT as inspired by anyone other than mankind. I will use all of scripture to discredit itself.

And no, I really didn't want to go back over all of your misconceived interpretations and views either but I would have if you persisted in attempting to slide one past me.

Yes, please go back to your interpretations and evidence and stop injecting smoke into the discussion.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:In regards to

gramster wrote:

In regards to not reading or responding to Cowles comments on the "Roman Theory", that is what I will be doing now.

The first point we will look at is his claim that "the general final judgment is not in place here". p343.

Because -

a. Nations are judged only in time, therefore this can not be at the end of the world.

That is true in a sense. Yes, nations and powers are judged in time. However, at the end of the world, when all earthly kingdoms are judged or destroyed, that also is nations being judged in time. So this does not have to be before the time of Christ. Cowles argument is not valid if he is alleging that nations are judged in time only before Christ, and not at the end of the world.

So what support do you have for this opinion?

gramster wrote:

b. The outcome is not right for the final judgment. "the assigning of the righteous and the wicked to their final  destinies.

Cowles makes a mistake common to atheists. He forgets what the focus or topic is all about here. This prophecy is not focusing on the destinies of individuals here. The theme of the whole book is about the destinies of nations, not individuals. It would not have  made sense here to suddenly shift the focus to the destinies of individuals. Good grief!

More later.

Since you see the prophecies completely different than Cowles, he says it's about the 2nd century BCE and Antiochus and you say it's about the Romans and the descendent nations of Europe you are on different levels and talking past one another. This boils over into how you look at the nations discussed and leads you both in different directions. Cowles focus is that these prophecies are about the Jewish people in the 2nd century. Your focus is it goes beyond that.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Greetings

jcgadfly wrote:

So, gramster, what have we established?

1. You disparage Maccoby without substantiation.

2. You disparage Cowles without substantiation.

3. You worship a book because you believe the main character in that book helped people write it..

Dear Mr Gadfly.

1. I didn't disparage Maccoby without substantiation. If you recall, I refused to accept his unfounded theory due to lack of substantiation.

2. I am not disparaging Cowles without substantiation. I am simply noting the weaknesses in his reasoning, point by point.

Being a free thinker, and a skeptic, I can hardly accept something without a close evaluation. And if it does not add up, than that will come to light.

If you consider good sound logic to be a lack of substantiation, than there's nothing I can do about that.

As far as worshiping a book because I believe the main character helped write it, I have only one comment.

"If He is not able, Than why call Him God".

If I did not believe in God, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1. Except that it was

1. Except that it was substantiated and you offered no rebuttal of substance. Dismissing it out of hand is not the same thing. Did you read the material? Be honest.

2. You're noting that you think his reasoning is weak without saying why. No substantiation.

3. When you get around to using good, sound logic let me know.

4. Believing in God does not make him able to do anything. Or did you just admit that God needs worshippers more than they need God?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Sound Reasoning

I am not going to waste time going back over all that at this time.

First, Yes, I did read it.

Second, I found practically nothing there that was substantiated. To use your type of reasoning, there was no video tape of Paul admitting he just "made the whole thing up". There are no fingerprints on original documents. No DNA evidence. There are no surviving witnesses that claim they know first hand that the Maccoby Myth is true. Nothing!

To use more rational reasoning, I found the Maccoby Myth to be founded on nothing more than gross speculation. To you, I know that equates with "good sound logic". But as a skeptic, and rational thinker, I need more than speculation.

I did point out the speculation, and requested you point out something substantial or proven. Nothing! You had nothing.

As for the God jabs, one day when you meet Him face to face, all this will be settled.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Welcome

ercatli wrote:

Hi fellow rationalists and friendly rational responders,

It's been a long time since I visited your site, but the friendly email said there were "a few theists worth responding to", so I thought I should drop in a and check them out. And so I found the Gramster.

 

 

To you atheistic rationalists, I thought I'd just let you know that I am another theist who agrees substantially with the Granster's propositions, e.g.

 

"Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible."

"myth #2. That faith is believing something without, or regardless of evidence. Faith is just the opposite. It is a loving, trust relationship built on evidence and experience."

To the rationalist Gramster: G'day bro'!

Having said that, please all carry on as you were. Best wishes.

 

Welcome. As you know, it is a rare pleasure to be the recipient of a friendly or supportive comment on this site. 

Feel free to jump in with a comment anytime.

Thanks!

Grandpa

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Judgments

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

In regards to not reading or responding to Cowles comments on the "Roman Theory", that is what I will be doing now.

The first point we will look at is his claim that "the general final judgment is not in place here". p343.

Because -

a. Nations are judged only in time, therefore this can not be at the end of the world.

That is true in a sense. Yes, nations and powers are judged in time. However, at the end of the world, when all earthly kingdoms are judged or destroyed, that also is nations being judged in time. So this does not have to be before the time of Christ. Cowles argument is not valid if he is alleging that nations are judged in time only before Christ, and not at the end of the world.

So what support do you have for this opinion?

gramster wrote:

b. The outcome is not right for the final judgment. "the assigning of the righteous and the wicked to their final  destinies.

Cowles makes a mistake common to atheists. He forgets what the focus or topic is all about here. This prophecy is not focusing on the destinies of individuals here. The theme of the whole book is about the destinies of nations, not individuals. It would not have  made sense here to suddenly shift the focus to the destinies of individuals. Good grief!

More later.

Since you see the prophecies completely different than Cowles, he says it's about the 2nd century BCE and Antiochus and you say it's about the Romans and the descendent nations of Europe you are on different levels and talking past one another. This boils over into how you look at the nations discussed and leads you both in different directions. Cowles focus is that these prophecies are about the Jewish people in the 2nd century. Your focus is it goes beyond that.

First, I am simply agreeing with Cowles that Nations are judged only in time. What has not yet been defined is just what point in time this prophecy is referring to. My point is that "nations being only judged in time" does not rule out this being done at a later time (like the end of the world).

Most Christians believe in a final judgment and a final end to all of the earthly kingdoms of man.

Second, yes, Cowles and I see things differently. That is why we are examining these differences.

Third, Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:As you know,

gramster wrote:

As you know, it is a rare pleasure to be the recipient of a friendly or supportive comment on this site. 

From someone who agrees with everything you said ? No, that's not really rare. Not on this site or any other.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:As for the

gramster wrote:

As for the God jabs, one day when you meet Him face to face, all this will be settled.

What was that again about "more rational reasoning" ?


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Ancient of Days

gramster wrote:

In regards to not reading or responding to Cowles comments on the "Roman Theory", that is what I will be doing now.

The first point we will look at is his claim that "the general final judgment is not in place here". p343.

Because -

a. Nations are judged only in time, therefore this can not be at the end of the world.

That is true in a sense. Yes, nations and powers are judged in time. However, at the end of the world, when all earthly kingdoms are judged or destroyed, that also is nations being judged in time. So this does not have to be before the time of Christ. Cowles argument is not valid if he is alleging that nations are judged in time only before Christ, and not at the end of the world.

b. The outcome is not right for the final judgment. "the assigning of the righteous and the wicked to their final  destinies.

Cowles makes a mistake common to atheists. He forgets what the focus or topic is all about here. This prophecy is not focusing on the destinies of individuals here. The theme of the whole book is about the destinies of nations, not individuals. It would not have  made sense here to suddenly shift the focus to the destinies of individuals. Good grief!

More later.

Cowles reasons for the final judgment not being in place continued.

c. "In the final judgment, Jesus Christ is to be the Judge. In this, the Judge is "the ancient of days," the eternal Father.

In vs 9, we have the "ancient of days" taking His seat. This makes it clear He is in a position to observe and possibly take part in what is about to take place.

In vs 10, "the court sat in judgment and the books were opened", seems to portray some type of investigation going on. If a book is opened, it is usually read to reveal it's contents.

Next we have the little horn speaking great words again, and the beast is slain, and it's body is given over to be burned with fire. There is no reference here as to who it is that destroys the beast.

In vs 13, we have one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days and being presented before Him. Here He is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom.

That's interesting. I don't see the "Ancient of Days" taking any active role in this judgment at all. The text only shows Him to be present, or in a location to be able to see what is taking place. There is no point of speculating that He is there as the judge.

One thing I do find interesting is the reference to one like the son of man, coming to the Ancient of Days in the clouds of heaven, and receiving an eternal kingdom. Now why would a 2nd century BC Jewish author throw this in?

This looks more like a passage out of the NT than the OT. This is interesting indeed.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
1st or 2nd advent

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

In regards to not reading or responding to Cowles comments on the "Roman Theory", that is what I will be doing now.

The first point we will look at is his claim that "the general final judgment is not in place here". p343.

Because -

a. Nations are judged only in time, therefore this can not be at the end of the world.

That is true in a sense. Yes, nations and powers are judged in time. However, at the end of the world, when all earthly kingdoms are judged or destroyed, that also is nations being judged in time. So this does not have to be before the time of Christ. Cowles argument is not valid if he is alleging that nations are judged in time only before Christ, and not at the end of the world.

b. The outcome is not right for the final judgment. "the assigning of the righteous and the wicked to their final  destinies.

Cowles makes a mistake common to atheists. He forgets what the focus or topic is all about here. This prophecy is not focusing on the destinies of individuals here. The theme of the whole book is about the destinies of nations, not individuals. It would not have  made sense here to suddenly shift the focus to the destinies of individuals. Good grief!

More later.

Cowles reasons for the final judgment not being in place continued.

c. "In the final judgment, Jesus Christ is to be the Judge. In this, the Judge is "the ancient of days," the eternal Father.

In vs 9, we have the "ancient of days" taking His seat. This makes it clear He is in a position to observe and possibly take part in what is about to take place.

In vs 10, "the court sat in judgment and the books were opened", seems to portray some type of investigation going on. If a book is opened, it is usually read to reveal it's contents.

Next we have the little horn speaking great words again, and the beast is slain, and it's body is given over to be burned with fire. There is no reference here as to who it is that destroys the beast.

In vs 13, we have one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days and being presented before Him. Here He is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom.

That's interesting. I don't see the "Ancient of Days" taking any active role in this judgment at all. The text only shows Him to be present, or in a location to be able to see what is taking place. There is no point of speculating that He is there as the judge.

One thing I do find interesting is the reference to one like the son of man, coming to the Ancient of Days in the clouds of heaven, and receiving an eternal kingdom. Now why would a 2nd century BC Jewish author throw this in?

This looks more like a passage out of the NT than the OT. This is interesting indeed.

Cowles reasons for the final judgment not being in place here continued.

d. The final judgment follows Christ's second advent; this precedes his first advent.

Cowles proceeds to assert that vs, 13, and 14 describe Christ's ascension and inauguration as King closely following  his resurrection. So let's take a look.

Vs 13, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like the son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him".

Vs 14, "And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Here we have what appears to be Christ coming to the Ancient of Days and receiving dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom. There is no indication that this has to be his ascension just following the resurrection. Once again this is just assumed. It could just as well be the actual act of receiving his kingdom at the end of the world. Nothing here precludes this.

In vs 16, Daniel asks for an explanation. Vs 17, "These four beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth". Vs18, "But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever".

This is given as a brief interpretation of the above. Daniel still isn't satisfied and asks for more specific information.

In vs 26 the judgment scene is revisited. "But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away to be consumed and destroyed to the end".

Vs 27, And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them".

Here we have first judgment. Than we have the dominion of the beast taken away, consumed, and destroyed. Than we have the people of the Most High receiving the kingdom, and all dominions serving and obeying them.

Unless I missed something this is still in the future. This did not happen at Christ's first advent. Even now, the people of God are not ruling and being served. It seems as though the text indicates quite the opposite of the claims made by Cowles on this one.

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: Third, Have

gramster wrote:

 

Third, Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

 

 

 

Since I'm going for dinner at my daughter's house and her in-laws are religious conservative Republicans I'll save my energy for them and go into your posts later on.

 

You have a Happy Thanksgiving too. 

 

Now where did those kittens  get to for the barbeque?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

In regards to not reading or responding to Cowles comments on the "Roman Theory", that is what I will be doing now.

The first point we will look at is his claim that "the general final judgment is not in place here". p343.

Because -

a. Nations are judged only in time, therefore this can not be at the end of the world.

That is true in a sense. Yes, nations and powers are judged in time. However, at the end of the world, when all earthly kingdoms are judged or destroyed, that also is nations being judged in time. So this does not have to be before the time of Christ. Cowles argument is not valid if he is alleging that nations are judged in time only before Christ, and not at the end of the world.

b. The outcome is not right for the final judgment. "the assigning of the righteous and the wicked to their final  destinies.

Cowles makes a mistake common to atheists. He forgets what the focus or topic is all about here. This prophecy is not focusing on the destinies of individuals here. The theme of the whole book is about the destinies of nations, not individuals. It would not have  made sense here to suddenly shift the focus to the destinies of individuals. Good grief!

More later.

Cowles reasons for the final judgment not being in place continued.

c. "In the final judgment, Jesus Christ is to be the Judge. In this, the Judge is "the ancient of days," the eternal Father.

In vs 9, we have the "ancient of days" taking His seat. This makes it clear He is in a position to observe and possibly take part in what is about to take place.

In vs 10, "the court sat in judgment and the books were opened", seems to portray some type of investigation going on. If a book is opened, it is usually read to reveal it's contents.

Next we have the little horn speaking great words again, and the beast is slain, and it's body is given over to be burned with fire. There is no reference here as to who it is that destroys the beast.

In vs 13, we have one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days and being presented before Him. Here He is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom.

That's interesting. I don't see the "Ancient of Days" taking any active role in this judgment at all. The text only shows Him to be present, or in a location to be able to see what is taking place. There is no point of speculating that He is there as the judge.

One thing I do find interesting is the reference to one like the son of man, coming to the Ancient of Days in the clouds of heaven, and receiving an eternal kingdom. Now why would a 2nd century BC Jewish author throw this in?

This looks more like a passage out of the NT than the OT. This is interesting indeed.

Cowles reasons for the final judgment not being in place here continued.

d. The final judgment follows Christ's second advent; this precedes his first advent.

Cowles proceeds to assert that vs, 13, and 14 describe Christ's ascension and inauguration as King closely following  his resurrection. So let's take a look.

Vs 13, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like the son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him".

Vs 14, "And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Here we have what appears to be Christ coming to the Ancient of Days and receiving dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom. There is no indication that this has to be his ascension just following the resurrection. Once again this is just assumed. It could just as well be the actual act of receiving his kingdom at the end of the world. Nothing here precludes this.

In vs 16, Daniel asks for an explanation. Vs 17, "These four beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth". Vs18, "But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever".

This is given as a brief interpretation of the above. Daniel still isn't satisfied and asks for more specific information.

In vs 26 the judgment scene is revisited. "But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away to be consumed and destroyed to the end".

Vs 27, And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them".

Here we have first judgment. Than we have the dominion of the beast taken away, consumed, and destroyed. Than we have the people of the Most High receiving the kingdom, and all dominions serving and obeying them.

Unless I missed something this is still in the future. This did not happen at Christ's first advent. Even now, the people of God are not ruling and being served. It seems as though the text indicates quite the opposite of the claims made by Cowles on this one.

 

 

e. On pg 347, Cowles comments on "the rest of the beasts". He interprets this as a contrasting between how the 1st three kingdoms ended, and how the 4th and little horn met their demise.

I have no problem with this. My views are the same except for who the 4th beast and little horn is, and the time frame this is referring to.

f. Cowles mentions several times that the 4th beast is destroyed because of the actions of the little horn. He also asserts that this indicates that the little horn is reigning at the time of this destruction.

I find no problem with this one either.

g. Cowles alleges the results of the judgment is not transient, but eternal.

Again no problem.

h. Cowles also alleges that Christ's receiving the kingdom follows the destruction of the 4th beast and little horn.

I have no problem with this either.

Since I have no issues with these points I will not belabor them. You can take issue if you wish. I will now go on to some of Cowles other points of view.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Cowles continued

i. On pg 351, Cowles address the issue of kings vs kingdoms. He points out that Daniel 7:13 refers to the 4 great beasts as kings, but in vs 23 and 24 they are referred to as kingdoms. He asserts this, and the "whole course of Daniels visions in chapters 7 and 8 requires that beasts are kingdoms, and horns are kings. He also points out that a king embodies the kingdom.

I take only slight variance to this. I see beasts representing kingdoms or major powers, and horns being symbolic of either depending on the circumstances and reading of the text. I do not see a definite, clear cut rule here as to horns being limited only to kings. I think that a brief look at chapter 8 where the four horns are representative of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom, not individual kings disputes Cowles claim here, by his own definition.

j. On pg 352 Cowles states that the text implies the giving of the kingdom to the saints occurs very soon after the destruction of the little horn.

Again I have no problem with this. I will only point out again that the saints are still not in possession of the kingdom.

Than Cowles repeats his views on AE IV which we have already discussed. There doesn't seem to be much purpose in disputing this at this time. Chapter 8 will provide much better opportunity for this.

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Cowles continued

gramster wrote:

i. On pg 351, Cowles address the issue of kings vs kingdoms. He points out that Daniel 7:13 refers to the 4 great beasts as kings, but in vs 23 and 24 they are referred to as kingdoms. He asserts this, and the "whole course of Daniels visions in chapters 7 and 8 requires that beasts are kingdoms, and horns are kings. He also points out that a king embodies the kingdom.

I take only slight variance to this. I see beasts representing kingdoms or major powers, and horns being symbolic of either depending on the circumstances and reading of the text. I do not see a definite, clear cut rule here as to horns being limited only to kings. I think that a brief look at chapter 8 where the four horns are representative of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom, not individual kings disputes Cowles claim here, by his own definition.

j. On pg 352 Cowles states that the text implies the giving of the kingdom to the saints occurs very soon after the destruction of the little horn.

Again I have no problem with this. I will only point out again that the saints are still not in possession of the kingdom.

Than Cowles repeats his views on AE IV which we have already discussed. There doesn't seem to be much purpose in disputing this at this time. Chapter 8 will provide much better opportunity for this.

 

 

k. On pg 354 and 355 Cowles points out geographical and political issues, and asserts that Rome does not fit in because of this.

I will respond to this later at the appropriate time. For now we will let it ride.

l. On pg 356 Cowles discusses the passage "He shall wear out the saints of the Most High and think to change times and laws". He asserts that this can only refer to those of Jewish ritual services, and therefore must refer to Judaism. Therefore the "Saints of the Most High" could only be Jews.

It will become clear during the discussions of later chapters, that this is not the only valid interpretation to this. It is definitely a strong candidate, so we will not dispute this at this time. As for "wearing out the saints", this easily fits into both the Grecian and Roman theories, and of course the 2nd century BC one as well.

j. On pg 356 Cowles alleges the 4th beast that was so great and terrible was portrayed as such due to his hostility to the Jewish people.

I guess one could see it that way. We will let this one remain for now. The 4th beast "devouring the whole earth", however, is a much better description of Rome than of the Seleucid kings.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Cowles Chapter 7 Continued

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

i. On pg 351, Cowles address the issue of kings vs kingdoms. He points out that Daniel 7:13 refers to the 4 great beasts as kings, but in vs 23 and 24 they are referred to as kingdoms. He asserts this, and the "whole course of Daniels visions in chapters 7 and 8 requires that beasts are kingdoms, and horns are kings. He also points out that a king embodies the kingdom.

I take only slight variance to this. I see beasts representing kingdoms or major powers, and horns being symbolic of either depending on the circumstances and reading of the text. I do not see a definite, clear cut rule here as to horns being limited only to kings. I think that a brief look at chapter 8 where the four horns are representative of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom, not individual kings disputes Cowles claim here, by his own definition.

j. On pg 352 Cowles states that the text implies the giving of the kingdom to the saints occurs very soon after the destruction of the little horn.

Again I have no problem with this. I will only point out again that the saints are still not in possession of the kingdom.

Than Cowles repeats his views on AE IV which we have already discussed. There doesn't seem to be much purpose in disputing this at this time. Chapter 8 will provide much better opportunity for this.

 

 

k. On pg 354 and 355 Cowles points out geographical and political issues, and asserts that Rome does not fit in because of this.

I will respond to this later at the appropriate time. For now we will let it ride.

l. On pg 356 Cowles discusses the passage "He shall wear out the saints of the Most High and think to change times and laws". He asserts that this can only refer to those of Jewish ritual services, and therefore must refer to Judaism. Therefore the "Saints of the Most High" could only be Jews.

It will become clear during the discussions of later chapters, that this is not the only valid interpretation to this. It is definitely a strong candidate, so we will not dispute this at this time. As for "wearing out the saints", this easily fits into both the Grecian and Roman theories, and of course the 2nd century BC one as well.

j. On pg 356 Cowles alleges the 4th beast that was so great and terrible was portrayed as such due to his hostility to the Jewish people.

I guess one could see it that way. We will let this one remain for now. The 4th beast "devouring the whole earth", however, is a much better description of Rome than of the Seleucid kings.

 

k. On pg 358 Cowles again asserts that the 4th kingdom is actually two kingdoms, Syria and Egypt. 

I will briefly restate my problems with this theory.

First, this is two distinct, separate kingdoms, not one.

Second, these kingdoms are already represented by the four heads of the leopard. Cowles view would make kingdoms being portrayed as successive to themselves.

Third, these kingdoms don't fit the symbolism of a great and terrible beast devouring the whole earth. They would better fit a symbol portraying back and forth sparring for territories with each other and those around them. Rome however did devour pretty much everything in it's path. When it came on the scene it clearly dominated.

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

In regards to not reading or responding to Cowles comments on the "Roman Theory", that is what I will be doing now.

The first point we will look at is his claim that "the general final judgment is not in place here". p343.

Because -

a. Nations are judged only in time, therefore this can not be at the end of the world.

That is true in a sense. Yes, nations and powers are judged in time. However, at the end of the world, when all earthly kingdoms are judged or destroyed, that also is nations being judged in time. So this does not have to be before the time of Christ. Cowles argument is not valid if he is alleging that nations are judged in time only before Christ, and not at the end of the world.

So what support do you have for this opinion?

gramster wrote:

b. The outcome is not right for the final judgment. "the assigning of the righteous and the wicked to their final  destinies.

Cowles makes a mistake common to atheists. He forgets what the focus or topic is all about here. This prophecy is not focusing on the destinies of individuals here. The theme of the whole book is about the destinies of nations, not individuals. It would not have  made sense here to suddenly shift the focus to the destinies of individuals. Good grief!

More later.

Since you see the prophecies completely different than Cowles, he says it's about the 2nd century BCE and Antiochus and you say it's about the Romans and the descendant nations of Europe you are on different levels and talking past one another. This boils over into how you look at the nations discussed and leads you both in different directions. Cowles focus is that these prophecies are about the Jewish people in the 2nd century. Your focus is it goes beyond that.

First, I am simply agreeing with Cowles that Nations are judged only in time. What has not yet been defined is just what point in time this prophecy is referring to. My point is that "nations being only judged in time" does not rule out this being done at a later time (like the end of the world).

Most Christians believe in a final judgment and a final end to all of the earthly kingdoms of man.

Second, yes, Cowles and I see things differently. That is why we are examining these differences.

Third, Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

 

 

Cowles was fairly clear that in his opinion the individuals responsible would be judged for their actions at the end of the world or at the judgment day.

He was also clear that nations were held in time as they were part of reality in a time space dimension (my interpretation of what he said).

The end of the world or of  reality as all descriptions I have ever encountered of this scenario indicate reality has been suspended would be outside of time space, thus no time.

As what a nation from 2,000 years ago did to those it controlled loses meaning to those in the future as did their actions to those they subjugated,  eradication of the nation in question was thus it's ultimate end. Little thought is given to what a autocratic brutal dictator king did to his subjects from China, the Incas, or even tribes in the remote jungles of Africa. This does not mean that we don't study the actions and battle plans of the ancients such as Alexander or Attila, or even the effects they had on civilization. It's seems rather pointless to plan a judgment for a long dead civilization such as the Etruscans when their own actions brought about their judgment long ago. That judgment as in the case of the Seleucid kingdom was its end as a kingdom and parceling out of its holdings to many others. 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: Cowles

gramster wrote:

 

Cowles reasons for the final judgment not being in place continued.

c. "In the final judgment, Jesus Christ is to be the Judge. In this, the Judge is "the ancient of days," the eternal Father.

In vs 9, we have the "ancient of days" taking His seat. This makes it clear He is in a position to observe and possibly take part in what is about to take place.

In vs 10, "the court sat in judgment and the books were opened", seems to portray some type of investigation going on. If a book is opened, it is usually read to reveal it's contents.

Next we have the little horn speaking great words again, and the beast is slain, and it's body is given over to be burned with fire. There is no reference here as to who it is that destroys the beast.

In vs 13, we have one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days and being presented before Him. Here He is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom.

That's interesting. I don't see the "Ancient of Days" taking any active role in this judgment at all. The text only shows Him to be present, or in a location to be able to see what is taking place. There is no point of speculating that He is there as the judge.

One thing I do find interesting is the reference to one like the son of man, coming to the Ancient of Days in the clouds of heaven, and receiving an eternal kingdom. Now why would a 2nd century BC Jewish author throw this in?

This looks more like a passage out of the NT than the OT. This is interesting indeed.

A 2nd century BCE writer would have no idea a guy named Jesus was going to claim to be the judge nor would a prophetic writer in the 6th century BCE, thus "ancient of days" alludes to the god doing it in these verses. The books are opened is what Revelation claims as well, but what is different here as Cowles explained and you ignore is there was no resurrection for one. those who administer to him and are all about are his agents or angels not those being judged, see pp343-347 where Cowles in great detail explains why this was a "providential judgment" not the final one.

And as to the "son of man":

 

First off, this phrase "son of man" is  incorrectly interpreted in KJV.  Other translations such as NIV, NASB, and DRO have it as “A son of man”. The angel in v 27 says  to him "Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High......... not giving it to a specific guy called a messiah by you. 

The phase of "the son of man" is used repeatedly in the OT and does not have the connotation you are grasping at to allude to Jesus or the messiah, well over 100 times and the majority deal with Ezekiel. See Ezekiel 2:1,3,6,8,3:1,3,4,10,17,25,4:1,16,5:1,6:2,7:2,8:5,6,8,12,15,17,11:2

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

In regards to not reading or responding to Cowles comments on the "Roman Theory", that is what I will be doing now.

The first point we will look at is his claim that "the general final judgment is not in place here". p343.

Because -

a. Nations are judged only in time, therefore this can not be at the end of the world.

That is true in a sense. Yes, nations and powers are judged in time. However, at the end of the world, when all earthly kingdoms are judged or destroyed, that also is nations being judged in time. So this does not have to be before the time of Christ. Cowles argument is not valid if he is alleging that nations are judged in time only before Christ, and not at the end of the world.

b. The outcome is not right for the final judgment. "the assigning of the righteous and the wicked to their final  destinies.

Cowles makes a mistake common to atheists. He forgets what the focus or topic is all about here. This prophecy is not focusing on the destinies of individuals here. The theme of the whole book is about the destinies of nations, not individuals. It would not have  made sense here to suddenly shift the focus to the destinies of individuals. Good grief!

More later.

Cowles reasons for the final judgment not being in place continued.

c. "In the final judgment, Jesus Christ is to be the Judge. In this, the Judge is "the ancient of days," the eternal Father.

In vs 9, we have the "ancient of days" taking His seat. This makes it clear He is in a position to observe and possibly take part in what is about to take place.

In vs 10, "the court sat in judgment and the books were opened", seems to portray some type of investigation going on. If a book is opened, it is usually read to reveal it's contents.

Next we have the little horn speaking great words again, and the beast is slain, and it's body is given over to be burned with fire. There is no reference here as to who it is that destroys the beast.

In vs 13, we have one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days and being presented before Him. Here He is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom.

That's interesting. I don't see the "Ancient of Days" taking any active role in this judgment at all. The text only shows Him to be present, or in a location to be able to see what is taking place. There is no point of speculating that He is there as the judge.

One thing I do find interesting is the reference to one like the son of man, coming to the Ancient of Days in the clouds of heaven, and receiving an eternal kingdom. Now why would a 2nd century BC Jewish author throw this in?

This looks more like a passage out of the NT than the OT. This is interesting indeed.

Cowles reasons for the final judgment not being in place here continued.

d. The final judgment follows Christ's second advent; this precedes his first advent.

Cowles proceeds to assert that vs, 13, and 14 describe Christ's ascension and inauguration as King closely following  his resurrection. So let's take a look.

Vs 13, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like the son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him".

Vs 14, "And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Here we have what appears to be Christ coming to the Ancient of Days and receiving dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom. There is no indication that this has to be his ascension just following the resurrection. Once again this is just assumed. It could just as well be the actual act of receiving his kingdom at the end of the world. Nothing here precludes this.

In vs 16, Daniel asks for an explanation. Vs 17, "These four beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth". Vs18, "But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever".

This is given as a brief interpretation of the above. Daniel still isn't satisfied and asks for more specific information.

In vs 26 the judgment scene is revisited. "But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away to be consumed and destroyed to the end".

Vs 27, And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them".

Here we have first judgment. Than we have the dominion of the beast taken away, consumed, and destroyed. Than we have the people of the Most High receiving the kingdom, and all dominions serving and obeying them.

Unless I missed something this is still in the future. This did not happen at Christ's first advent. Even now, the people of God are not ruling and being served. It seems as though the text indicates quite the opposite of the claims made by Cowles on this one.

 

In my last post you saw where I disagreed that "a son of man" is Jesus. I pointed out the angel's explanation does not refer to a single person but is "the people of the most high", namely the Jews. Soon after Antiochus the Jews do end up with an indepedent kingdom of Judea, though it didn't last. As the Jews clearly don't rule the world it obvously never happened to the extent claimed, the writer can dream can't he?

As to your differences with Cowles it shows why Christians have dozens of viewpoints and denominations and leads to the question why any of it is what you think. You all have reinterpretated Jewish beliefs to your own liking, some more than others. Cowles much like the RCC sees Daniel as a 6th century prophet who forsaw Antiochus and his persecution of "the people of the most high", or the Jews. That you want it to be something else is your choice and you are showing your predisposition to your beliefs. Though even with Cowles view you still get to where you want but without the scapegoat of the RCC and the popes. 

As I have disagreement with both Cowles and you in regard to the character Jesus and don't really care either way in regard to your attempt to justify that which was not in Daniel you have done a great job in showing that 2 believers can reach very different conclusions. Both of you have missed the overall point of what Jews expected in regards to their messiah and thereby end up going in a direction never intended. But that is for another day.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I combined your posts for a

I combined your posts for a single reply.

gramster wrote:

e. On pg 347, Cowles comments on "the rest of the beasts". He interprets this as a contrasting between how the 1st three kingdoms ended, and how the 4th and little horn met their demise.

I have no problem with this. My views are the same except for who the 4th beast and little horn is, and the time frame this is referring to.

f. Cowles mentions several times that the 4th beast is destroyed because of the actions of the little horn. He also asserts that this indicates that the little horn is reigning at the time of this destruction.

I find no problem with this one either.

g. Cowles alleges the results of the judgment is not transient, but eternal.

Again no problem.

h. Cowles also alleges that Christ's receiving the kingdom follows the destruction of the 4th beast and little horn.

I have no problem with this either.

Since I have no issues with these points I will not belabor them. You can take issue if you wish. I will now go on to some of Cowles other points of view.

On e) and f) - Here I generally agree with Cowles interpretation including the 4th beast and the little horn.

That you see the 4th beast as Rome and the little horn as either the RCC or the papal dictators is something you still need to show in contrast to both Cowles and my views. You will need to show why the RCC and Europe is of concern to Jews in either the 6th or 2nd century and relationships to them for all of the 10 horns etc. Or you have to show why the Jews are of no concern and it refers to the Jesus believers and do so with something more than assertion.

On g) - As Antiochus and his kingdom were toast in the end, eternal pretty much covers it.

On h) - As I disagree a guy named Christ was anything like alleged in the gospel legends I beg to differ here. 

 

From your Post #636

 

gramster wrote:

i. On pg 351, Cowles address the issue of kings vs kingdoms. He points out that Daniel 7:13 refers to the 4 great beasts as kings, but in vs 23 and 24 they are referred to as kingdoms. He asserts this, and the "whole course of Daniels visions in chapters 7 and 8 requires that beasts are kingdoms, and horns are kings. He also points out that a king embodies the kingdom.

I take only slight variance to this. I see beasts representing kingdoms or major powers, and horns being symbolic of either depending on the circumstances and reading of the text. I do not see a definite, clear cut rule here as to horns being limited only to kings. I think that a brief look at chapter 8 where the four horns are representative of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom, not individual kings disputes Cowles claim here, by his own definition.

j. On pg 352 Cowles states that the text implies the giving of the kingdom to the saints occurs very soon after the destruction of the little horn.

Again I have no problem with this. I will only point out again that the saints are still not in possession of the kingdom.

Than Cowles repeats his views on AE IV which we have already discussed. There doesn't seem to be much purpose in disputing this at this time. Chapter 8 will provide much better opportunity for this.

 

In regard to the kings vs kingdoms I see Cowles logic and generally agree that for his interpretation to hold,  the horns must always be kings, especially in regard to the 10 horns and the little horn.

As to the kingdom being given to the saints or as I say the Jews, this did occur soon after Antiochus bit the big one, with full Independence by 143 BCE which is about 20 years after Antiochus death.The Jewish Temple was restored in December 163 BCE and though conflicts continue the Hasmoneans are in major control of Judea after this point.  The Seleucid kingdom collapsed in 127 BCE ending it forever as well.

From your Post 637:

 

gramster wrote:

 

k. On pg 354 and 355 Cowles points out geographical and political issues, and asserts that Rome does not fit in because of this.

I will respond to this later at the appropriate time. For now we will let it ride.

l. On pg 356 Cowles discusses the passage "He shall wear out the saints of the Most High and think to change times and laws". He asserts that this can only refer to those of Jewish ritual services, and therefore must refer to Judaism. Therefore the "Saints of the Most High" could only be Jews.

It will become clear during the discussions of later chapters, that this is not the only valid interpretation to this. It is definitely a strong candidate, so we will not dispute this at this time. As for "wearing out the saints", this easily fits into both the Grecian and Roman theories, and of course the 2nd century BC one as well.

j. On pg 356 Cowles alleges the 4th beast that was so great and terrible was portrayed as such due to his hostility to the Jewish people.

I guess one could see it that way. We will let this one remain for now. The 4th beast "devouring the whole earth", however, is a much better description of Rome than of the Seleucid kings.

 

k) - You skip Cowles argument why Rome does not fit on pp 354-355 and say you will discuss it later on. OK.

l) - Cowles does an excellent presentation on why the saints of the most high are the Jews and no one else. History including Josephus show this as does 1 & 2 Maccabees.

Again you have decided to wait to show your comparison to Rome and critic this claim by Cowles later on.

j) - Cowles and I both agree the 4th beast was portrayed as so terrible due to the cruelness especially by Antiochus to the Jews. And once more you delay your comparison and critic.

 

From your Post #638:

 

gramster wrote:

 

k. On pg 358 Cowles again asserts that the 4th kingdom is actually two kingdoms, Syria and Egypt. 

I will briefly restate my problems with this theory.

First, this is two distinct, separate kingdoms, not one.

Second, these kingdoms are already represented by the four heads of the leopard. Cowles view would make kingdoms being portrayed as successive to themselves.

Third, these kingdoms don't fit the symbolism of a great and terrible beast devouring the whole earth. They would better fit a symbol portraying back and forth sparring for territories with each other and those around them. Rome however did devour pretty much everything in it's path. When it came on the scene it clearly dominated.

  

What Cowles said on p 358 was out of Alexander's conquests came 2 powerful kingdoms, Egypt and Syria. Of the 2 Syria was the most powerful and terrible to the Jews. He didn't assert at all the 4th kingdom was 2 kingdoms, read it again. Seleucus Nicator was by far the greatest of the successors to Alexander called the conqueror. He ruled from India to Greece. Which was the same territory of the 3 previous dynasties discussed by Daniel.

I think you should go back and reread what Cowles actually said on pp 358-59. 

And try as Rome did, it never conquered the territories to the East that were the former empires of the previous dynasties mentioned in Daniel. Even Caesar knew he was not in the same league with Alexander as to conquests.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


es35 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
no burning in hell?

Is Gramster making up his own, new religion that does not have a hell?  Well, I guess that is some improvement but what about all the suffering in this life that Gramster's god allows?  Abuse, cancer, disease, tsunamis, tyrants?  How does that fit in with his all loving god??  Simpel, it doesnt.


es35 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
faith is loving and trusting??

This is not supported by the fact that faith leads many theists to harass, abuse or even kill nonbelievers or adherents of different faiths. 


es35 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
evidence for faith?

There is so much that is untrue, distorted or simply fabricated in this that it's difficult to briefly respond  (biblical predictions correct?  absurd!; evolution false? absurd; and on and on and on).


es35 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
predicitons

And what about all the times jesus was supposed to return and the world end?  Didn't happen Gramster.  Are you open to evidence or reason at all??


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

i. On pg 351, Cowles address the issue of kings vs kingdoms. He points out that Daniel 7:13 refers to the 4 great beasts as kings, but in vs 23 and 24 they are referred to as kingdoms. He asserts this, and the "whole course of Daniels visions in chapters 7 and 8 requires that beasts are kingdoms, and horns are kings. He also points out that a king embodies the kingdom.

I take only slight variance to this. I see beasts representing kingdoms or major powers, and horns being symbolic of either depending on the circumstances and reading of the text. I do not see a definite, clear cut rule here as to horns being limited only to kings. I think that a brief look at chapter 8 where the four horns are representative of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom, not individual kings disputes Cowles claim here, by his own definition.

j. On pg 352 Cowles states that the text implies the giving of the kingdom to the saints occurs very soon after the destruction of the little horn.

Again I have no problem with this. I will only point out again that the saints are still not in possession of the kingdom.

Than Cowles repeats his views on AE IV which we have already discussed. There doesn't seem to be much purpose in disputing this at this time. Chapter 8 will provide much better opportunity for this.

 

 

k. On pg 354 and 355 Cowles points out geographical and political issues, and asserts that Rome does not fit in because of this.

I will respond to this later at the appropriate time. For now we will let it ride.

l. On pg 356 Cowles discusses the passage "He shall wear out the saints of the Most High and think to change times and laws". He asserts that this can only refer to those of Jewish ritual services, and therefore must refer to Judaism. Therefore the "Saints of the Most High" could only be Jews.

It will become clear during the discussions of later chapters, that this is not the only valid interpretation to this. It is definitely a strong candidate, so we will not dispute this at this time. As for "wearing out the saints", this easily fits into both the Grecian and Roman theories, and of course the 2nd century BC one as well.

j. On pg 356 Cowles alleges the 4th beast that was so great and terrible was portrayed as such due to his hostility to the Jewish people.

I guess one could see it that way. We will let this one remain for now. The 4th beast "devouring the whole earth", however, is a much better description of Rome than of the Seleucid kings.

 

k. On pg 358 Cowles again asserts that the 4th kingdom is actually two kingdoms, Syria and Egypt. 

I will briefly restate my problems with this theory.

First, this is two distinct, separate kingdoms, not one.

Second, these kingdoms are already represented by the four heads of the leopard. Cowles view would make kingdoms being portrayed as successive to themselves.

Third, these kingdoms don't fit the symbolism of a great and terrible beast devouring the whole earth. They would better fit a symbol portraying back and forth sparring for territories with each other and those around them. Rome however did devour pretty much everything in it's path. When it came on the scene it clearly dominated.

 

 

l. On pg 359 Cowles tries to make the case that the 10 horns must necessarily be kings and not kingdoms. However as he pointed out on pg 351, the terms are used interchangeably. He also pointed out that a kingdom is often embodied or represented by it's king. I do not find that any solid case has been made precluding these 10 horns from being kingdoms.

Cowles than spends several pages trying to make these prophecies fit AE IV. He does a pretty good job of making most of the points fit for now so we will not dispute this until further chapters shine further light on to this.

Than starting on pg 368 Cowles gives a summary of reasons he rejects the Roman Theory. We will look at any points here we may have missed.

Cowles claims Pagan Rome is out of analogy because it is not a proper successor kingdom.

If Rome did not succeed the Egyptian and Syrian kingdoms, than who did? History makes it clear that both these sections of Alexanders kingdom fell into Roman hands.

Yes, Rome consisted of more than just this, and parts of Alexanders kingdom did not fall into Roman hands. But the areas that most affected the Jews did. And more importantly it was under Roman dominion that Christ was crucified.

more later.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: l. On pg

gramster wrote:

 

l. On pg 359 Cowles tries to make the case that the 10 horns must necessarily be kings and not kingdoms. However as he pointed out on pg 351, the terms are used interchangeably. He also pointed out that a kingdom is often embodied or represented by it's king. I do not find that any solid case has been made precluding these 10 horns from being kingdoms.

Cowles than spends several pages trying to make these prophecies fit AE IV. He does a pretty good job of making most of the points fit for now so we will not dispute this until further chapters shine further light on to this.

Than starting on pg 368 Cowles gives a summary of reasons he rejects the Roman Theory. We will look at any points here we may have missed.

Cowles claims Pagan Rome is out of analogy because it is not a proper successor kingdom.

If Rome did not succeed the Egyptian and Syrian kingdoms, than who did? History makes it clear that both these sections of Alexanders kingdom fell into Roman hands.

Yes, Rome consisted of more than just this, and parts of Alexanders kingdom did not fall into Roman hands. But the areas that most affected the Jews did. And more importantly it was under Roman dominion that Christ was crucified.

more later.

On l) - As kings, these horns perfectly fit the kings in the succession of the Seleucid Kingdom without resorting to any guess work. Cowles comments on page 351 explained why they were used interchangeably and that "the more full and precise statements must prevail over the one that is brief and general..." and "the king finds his type in the horn, for the horn is the executive power of the beast, but has no power apart from the beast. And so of the king." Cowles is very clear why this analogy supports kings not kingdoms, that you wish to see it otherwise is obviously to support your Roman theory.

Cowles does a great job of showing how Daniel 7 fits Antiochus 4 which when you get to your theory we can do a side by side comparison.

Cowles opens his argument on p 368 why Roman theory does not fit, and its based on primarily it does not fit the analogy because Pagan Rome would have involved a huge chasm of 400 years and over 600 years for Papal Rome. In addition he claims that they  are  not standing in the same political relationship to the Jews. With Rome, it disregards the relationship of the visions to the Jews "and his special circumstances as patron, protector and father." It disregards that the war with the saints of the most high is between the little horn and the Jews. Cowles has much more, but so far you haven't presented your side so until you do, it's not clear exactly which position you are taking with what you consider to fit with your Roman view. More comments on this once I see what you are going to actually present.

You are missing the entire points Cowles made in regard to what was a "proper successor kingdom." If the Syrian kingdom was the 4th beast it does not matter if the Ming dynasty came next as the prophecy was already completed with the Seleucids and Antiochus 4 as the little horn. Since you saw things differently and are not seeing the 4th beast as the Syrian kingdom, you can't get there from where you are as you have taken a different road.

Since you previously gave a general idea of your views and interpretations I do know where you are going, but I'll hold comments until I see you construct it with supporting arguments.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum,

Welcome to the forum, es35.

If you make more posts, we hope that you will sign up and verify your email address. Anonymous posts cannot be seen until they are approved by a moderator.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
es35 wrote:Is Gramster

es35 wrote:

Is Gramster making up his own, new religion that does not have a hell?  Well, I guess that is some improvement but what about all the suffering in this life that Gramster's god allows?  Abuse, cancer, disease, tsunamis, tyrants?  How does that fit in with his all loving god??  Simpel, it doesnt.

Just some general comments on the one-at-a-time posts from es35. 

no hell is not a new religion concept.  It is a logical conclusion from the Bible be it that the Bible never states specifically of a "hell" especially one as described by world religions of Christianity today of fire and brimestone.   All "hell" as translated in some Bibles if you look up the origins are not hell but hades (a place where all the dead go) simply the grave.  or a field of idol sacrifice as referenced in the gospels.