What is your opinion of Jesus?

[Ben Dhyan]

@Ben Dhyan

Your quote from Daniel 12 does not prove what you think. The HEADING placed at the beginning of the passage is NOT in the Hebrew text. It was added by English editors to try to help assist you in categorizing topics. But obviously they are inserting their OWN beliefs here, adding to the text.

Like I said, not everyone agrees that Daniel 12 is about end times.

The heading End Times to which you refer was obviously added, but please read the actual text, it refers to end times. In fact as another poster has informed you, there are many references to end times. How about the dream of the stature whose feet are made of miry clay and iron, what happens when the feet are smashed?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The heading End Times to which you refer was obviously added, but please read the actual text, it refers to end times.

You are very persistent, but still mistaken if you think that your own interpretation, that it is about end times, is the only one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Precisely, so when people see the word "soon" in scripture and take it literally as in the way we use the word in our daily conversations, what do you say to them?

I would say to them that there is no way 2000 years can be considered soon.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes I've read it ... along with any other verse people use to keep their position. But the idea is, that ALL of these verses point in the direction of a general context - like this one:
1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour (2000 years ago) and as you have heard that antichrist is coming (2000 years ago) so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. (Again 2000 years ago.)............................

1st John connects to 2nd Peter 2:1 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 which they knew - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30
The apostasy would start with the death of the apostles. Revelation 1:10 is the setting for our day or time frame.
So, yes, 2,000 yrs ago it was the last hour for the apostles to exist, or the 'apostolic period' as some say to end.
Since the end of the 1st century the apostasy has become in full bloom as today's world shows with many different teachers - 2nd Peter 2:1-3

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are very persistent, but still mistaken if you think that your own interpretation, that it is about end times, is the only one.

You too are very persistent but mistaken if you think that it is not about end times. In fact you are the first person I've ever heard imply that Chapter 12 of the Book of Daniel is not about end times! Anyone else here think Chapter 12 of the Book of Daniel is not about end times?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I would say to them that there is no way 2000 years can be considered soon.

But God can be patient with us because 1,000 yrs is as a day in God's eyes - Psalm 90:4; 2nd Peter 3:8
The passing of time has allowed for us to be born and think who we would like as Sovereign over us.
Time now for us to now choose to be a humble ' sheep ' or a haughty ' goat ' - Matthew 25:31-34,37

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Ben Dhyan

Okay, we are transitioning from Daniel 12:1-2 to a discussion about Daniel in general which is fine, but to which I have an entirely different set of points.

You probably view Daniel as a prophet who makes predictions about the future. Jews do not see Daniel as a Prophet. In our Tanakh, the book is grouped with the Writings, not the Prophets.

You probably also think that it was Daniel that wrote Daniel, and that it was written in Babylon. While Jews have a variety of opinions on this issue, my view is quite different from that.

I accept the view of most historians and textual experts that the Book of Daniel was written hundreds of years later. It is basically a book designed to promote the Maccabean war (when the Jews kicked the Greeks out of Judea). Thus, the "prophecies" are really just someone later in history looking back at the past, and using the apocalyptic genre to discuss it. For example, the four sections of the statue are the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks, all well known to anyone living in mid second century BCE.

As always, feel free to disagree.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would say to them that there is no way 2000 years can be considered soon.

See, you are interpreting the word 'soon' in scripture about the workings of the Lord in terms of what you consider the concept 'soon' or do not consider 'soon' means as a mortal.. "A thousand years is but a day to the lord"

 

[InChrist]

You too are very persistent but mistaken if you think that it is not about end times. In fact you are the first person I've ever heard imply that Chapter 12 of the Book of Daniel is not about end times! Anyone else here think Chapter 12 of the Book of Daniel is not about end times?

Sounds like it’s about the end times to me…

And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Daniel 12:9

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But God can be patient with us because 1,000 yrs is as a day in God's eyes - Psalm 90:4; 2nd Peter 3:8
The passing of time has allowed for us to be born and think who we would like as Sovereign over us.
Time now for us to now choose to be a humble ' sheep ' or a haughty ' goat ' - Matthew 25:31-34,37

You are entirely missing the point. "Soon" is an English word. It has a particular definition. In no one's universe can "soon" be said to be 2000 years.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

See, you are interpreting the word 'soon' in scripture about the workings of the Lord in terms of what you consider the concept 'soon' or do not consider 'soon' means. "A thousand years is but a day to the lord"

You apparently missed my original post in this topic where I explained that in no way is "A thousand years is but a day to the Lord" mean to be a formula for understanding time references in the Bible such as "soon." It is merely a figurative comment indicating that God does not experience time the same way humans do.

When Jesus says "I am coming back quickly," he is not talking to God, he is talking to human beings. Thus, the meaning of the word quickly is what his audience understands.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You are entirely missing the point. "Soon" is an English word. It has a particular definition. In no one's universe can "soon" be said to be 2000 years.

' soon ' Mark 13:28; Matthew 24:32
As when we see blossoms we know soon summer is near.
So, when we see the 'sign of the times' we know soon the kingdom (Daniel 2:44) is near - 2nd Timothy 3:1-5,13

 

[IndigoChild5559]

' soon ' Mark 13:28; Matthew 24:32
As when we see blossoms we know soon summer is near.

Sure. Several months can be said to be soon. 2000 years can't.

So, when we see the 'sign of the times' we know soon the kingdom (Daniel 2:44) is near - 2nd Timothy 3:1-5,13

Except that it DIDN'T happen soon.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You apparently missed my original post in this topic where I explained that in no way is "A thousand years is but a day to the Lord" mean to be a formula for understanding time references in the Bible such as "soon." It is merely a figurative comment indicating that God does not experience time the same way humans do.

When Jesus says "I am coming back quickly," he is not talking to God, he is talking to human beings. Thus, the meaning of the word quickly is what his audience understands.

But Christ is referred to as the Lord, it is the Lord who returns at end times. It is the Lord who experiences time as in a day is but a thousand years. The prologue to revelation says the time of the end is 'soon' or 'near', and so it obviously now to which the time of the Lord's return refers as all the events referred to have unfolded, the crop is ripe for the harvest.

 

[Quester]

1st John connects to 2nd Peter 2:1 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 which they knew - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30
The apostasy would start with the death of the apostles. Revelation 1:10 is the setting for our day or time frame.
So, yes, 2,000 yrs ago it was the last hour for the apostles to exist, or the 'apostolic period' as some say to end.
Since the end of the 1st century the apostasy has become in full bloom as today's world shows with many different teachers - 2nd Peter 2:1-3

What was coming was the end of everything. Like the discussions between the people:
2 Peter 3
4 … Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things
continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

It was over for everyone ... hence you had better get your act straight or - bye bye.

1 Pet. 4:17
17 For the time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God. And if it
first begin with us, what shall the end be of those who obey not the Gospel of God?

Mark 9:1 says:
And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste
death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Only problem was ... it never happened, and people have been stretching this picture out ever since.

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But Christ is referred to as the Lord, it is the Lord who returns at end times. It is the Lord who experiences time as in a day is but a thousand years. The prologue to revelation says the time of the end is 'soon' or 'near', and so it obviously now to which the time of the Lord's return refers as all the events referred to have unfolded, the crop is ripe for the harvest.

Oh good grief. Maybe you just are not familiar with me. I'm not a Christain. I'm Jewish. Your New Testament has absolutely ZERO authority for me. My SOLE purpose in this discussion is to remind everyone that no way is 2000 years "soon," and that the fact that Jesus did NOT return soon is a definite problem that Christians needs to address. Anything deeper than that is simply not interesting to me.

I do not care for the book of Revelation even as literature, simply because I detest the apocalyptic genre. However, given that this topic comes up quite often in Religion forums, I am somewhat familiar with the different approaches to Revelation. Of the four different views, the one that makes the most sense to me is called Preterism, which basically says that Revelation is NOT about end times, but is about the Jewish Roman war that ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The author of this book, whoever he was, believed that Jesus would come back soon. But he was very obviously wrong, since 2000 years have passed, and still no Jesus.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do consider that Jesus never promised the Kingdom here on this world, in fact he made it clear the kingdom of God is not of this world. John 18:36

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh good grief. Maybe you just are not familiar with me. I'm not a Christain. I'm Jewish. Your New Testament has absolutely ZERO authority for me. My SOLE purpose in this discussion is to remind everyone that no way is 2000 years "soon," and that the fact that Jesus did NOT return soon is a definite problem that Christians needs to address. Anything deeper than that is simply not interesting to me.

I do not care for the book of Revelation even as literature, simply because I detest the apocalyptic genre. However, given that this topic comes up quite often in Religion forums, I am somewhat familiar with the different approaches to Revelation. Of the four different views, the one that makes the most sense to me is called Preterism, which basically says that Revelation is NOT about end times, but is about the Jewish Roman war that ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The author of this book, whoever he was, believed that Jesus would come back soon. But he was very obviously wrong, since 2000 years have passed, and still no Jesus.

So why are you involving yourself with a discussion concerning the Lord's return?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do consider that Jesus never promised the Kingdom here on this world, in fact he made it clear the kingdom of God is not of this world. John 18:36

1. I have no idea what Jesus actually did or said, given that the gospels are unreliable collections of legends, and it is nearly impossible to know which parts are historical and which are fiction.
2. Whatever Jesus might have said is of no concern to me. He was not messiah or God or even a prophet. He was just brother J, a fellow Jew, just like me.

I'm not sure why you switched gears and said something unrelated to our conversation. It looks very much like you are making the effort to simply preach the gospel to me. If that is the case let me inform you that not only is it irritating, but also destined to failure. I'm really very happy being a Jew.

My religion, Judaism, is very much concerned with THIS life, not the afterlife. It's all about right behavior, obeying God, and repairing the world. If there is any "Kingdom of God," I would say that it exists wherever God is obeyed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

1. I have no idea what Jesus actually did or said, given that the gospels are unreliable collections of legends, and it is nearly impossible to know which parts are historical and which are fiction.
2. Whatever Jesus might have said is of no concern to me. He was not messiah or God or even a prophet. He was just brother J, a fellow Jew, just like me.

I'm not sure why you switched gears and said something unrelated to our conversation. It looks very much like you are making the effort to simply preach the gospel to me. If that is the case let me inform you that not only is it irritating, but also destined to failure. I'm really very happy being a Jew.

You responded to a post that was in response to one from Quester.