Daniel is out of chronological order.

[zone]

Ok I can't tell if the bold and colored parts are you inserting your thoughts, or you just emphasizing his thoughts.

Which is it?

the bold parts in brackets are HIM inserting his own interpretation into the text!
all i did was bold and make them red (he originally didn't bold and used a darker red....those are HIS inserts)

[Q UO TE=peterT;904011]A lot of chat, a lot of talk, a lot of bamboozling, but no scripture still. So if you just need a right heart towards God to be saved, but don’t have to confess Jesus with your mouth and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, then any men can be saved if they have a right heat towards God, a nice thought but you don’t have any scripture to say that now do you?

Well, according to Romans 2, that is true. Oh, I can give you lots of Scripture, but I also want you to think, not just regurgitate the traditional Pablum so beloved by the masses. Here is just one scriptural example. Afrter you have decided you don't want to believe it because it's not in keeping with generally accepted doctrine, we'll go on to another.

The following parable appears in all three synoptic Gospels, (in Mat 9, Mark 2 and Luke 5), where Jesus tells the Jews what the future holds for them and the Gentile Church. Many don't want to accept the Lord's parable at face value, nevertheless, this is what He said:

Luke 5:33-39, KJV "Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink? And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber (the coming Church) fast, while the bridegroom (Jesus) is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them (after the resurrection), and then shall they fast in those days. And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment (the New Testament Gospel) upon an old (The Levitical code); if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine (of the Gospel) into old bottles (of the Old Testament Jews); else the new wine (of the Gospel) will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the (Old Testament Jews) bottles shall perish. But new wine (of the Gospel) must be put into new bottles; and both (The Jewish People and the Church) are preserved."

Like I said, you won't want to believe it, but that's what Jesus said anyway: "But new wine (of the Gospel) must be put into new bottles; and both (The Jewish People and the Church) are preserved."


[/QUOTE]

^ his post unchanged ^^

 

[1still_waters]

Zone. So the stuff in the comment box below is completely therapon's and not yours?

"God found a way" to "save His people", "Old Testament Old Wineskin Jews"...a NEW soteriology (how people are saved).

and it doesn't involve the confessing with their mouths and believing in their hearts JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH of Scripture is THE WAY.

they're saved by NOT knowing His Name. if they did they'd explode, so Jesus preserved them in their unbelief.

 

[Ariel82]

Daniel 5:30 “In that night Belshazzar the Chaldean King was slain.”
Daniel 7:1 “In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon”
Daniel 8:1 “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar.”

Those are the scriptural givens. Daniel 7 and 8 were obviously written before chapter 5, so Daniel is unarguably out of chronological order. Now look at this . . .

Daniel 6:1 “It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps.”
Daniel 9:1 “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes.”

Daniel was “daily in the king’s court,” second ruler in the land, obviously a master of court protocol, so he would never have started writing about a king before telling the reader who that king was. In Daniel 9, Darius is introduced. In Daniel 6, the readers already know who Darius is, so Daniel 9 was written before Daniel 6.

In Daniel 12:4, God tells Daniel to “seal and conceal the words of this book.” in Daniel 12:9, we read, “these words are sealed and concealed until the time of the end.” Now Daniel could not rewrite what the Holy Spirit had inspired, but he had to do something to obey the command of 12:4. So it appears that Daniel put his visions out of chronological order. Here is their original chronological order . . .

1. Introduction, ch.1, in Hebrew.
2. The great image, ch.2, in Chaldee.
3. the fiery furnace, ch.3 in Chaldee.
4. Nebuchadnezzar goes insane, ch.4, in Chaldee
5. The four Beasts (now ch.7) in Chaldee.
6. The Two Beasts (now ch.8) in Chaldee.
7, Belshazzar dies., ch.5, in Chaldee.
8. The 70 weeks, ch.9, in Hebrew.
9. Daniel in the lion’s den, ch. 6, in Chaldee.
10. Two Empires, ch 10-12 in Hebrew.

That is from irrefutable scriptural evidence! When Daniel put his chapters out of order, as we now see in the Bible, Daniel accomplished two things:

First: he put the Hebrew chapters separate from the Chaldee chapters, clearly showing that Daniel indeed had two audiences: (1) the Gentile nations who would control the holy land into the distant future (2) the future of the Jewish people during that same. So Daniel is bifidic and his prophecies to Gentiles and Jews are primarily about same “the time of the Gentiles.”

Second: it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Daniel actually does have 2 chiasms, the first a three-part in Chaldee to the Gentiles, second a two-part in Hebrew to the Jews. Neither would have been formed if Daniel had not been put out of order!

A ch.2, The Great Image 4 Gentile Empires
B ch.3, The Fiery Furnace God's People in Tribulation
C ch.4, Nebuchadnezzar Insane Gentile Rulers Judged
C ch.5, Belshazzar Killed Gentile Rulers Judged
B ch.6, The Lions Den God's People in Tribulation
A ch.7,The Four Beasts 4 Gentile Empires

The four empires in the great image are the same as the four empires of the four beasts, foretelling who would control the holy land during “the time of the Gentiles.” The fiery furnace and the lion’s den are both about God’s chosen people in tribulation during the “time of the Gentiles.” Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar being judged are still future, symbolic of God’s final judgment on those who desecrated his Temple Mount and made His people suffer.

And I think I’ll start a new thread with this, titled “Daniel’s 1st Chiasm.” If It does nothing else, it will keep Zone busy. <grin>

instead of out of order he could have sealed withwax those chapters andvpeople found them later and add the chapters at the end because they were prophecy and not history...

 

[zone]

Zone. So the stuff in the comment box below is completely therapon's and not yours?

not. that stuff in that box is MY post, summarizing HIS teachings.

the post to follow this exactly is HIS....

 

[Ariel82]

HIS PREMISE.................

Can u cite it?

 

[zone]

Zone. So the stuff in the comment box below is completely therapon's and not yours?

this is his stuff: all i did was bold and red his own inserts:

Well, according to Romans 2, that is true. Oh, I can give you lots of Scripture, but I also want you to think, not just regurgitate the traditional Pablum so beloved by the masses. Here is just one scriptural example. Afrter you have decided you don't want to believe it because it's not in keeping with generally accepted doctrine, we'll go on to another.

The following parable appears in all three synoptic Gospels, (in Mat 9, Mark 2 and Luke 5), where Jesus tells the Jews what the future holds for them and the Gentile Church. Many don't want to accept the Lord's parable at face value, nevertheless, this is what He said:

Luke 5:33-39, KJV "Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink? And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber (the coming Church) fast, while the bridegroom (Jesus) is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them (after the resurrection), and then shall they fast in those days. And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment (the New Testament Gospel) upon an old (The Levitical code); if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine (of the Gospel) into old bottles (of the Old Testament Jews); else the new wine (of the Gospel) will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the (Old Testament Jews) bottles shall perish. But new wine (of the Gospel) must be put into new bottles; and both (The Jewish People and the Church) are preserved."

Like I said, you won't want to believe it, but that's what Jesus said anyway: "But new wine (of the Gospel) must be put into new bottles; and both (The Jewish People and the Church) are preserved."

i'm finding the posts where he comes right out and says Jews TODAY do not have to acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth (even though they have heard of Him) - even in their rejection of Him, they ARE SAVED because they believe in some messiah, or something messianic.

he claims they can stay in Moses and be saved - the exact opposite of what Jesus said.

 

[Ariel82]

note from zone:


And no man putteth new wine (The New Covenant) into old bottles (The Old Covenant); else the new wine (The New Covenant) will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the (The Old Covenant) bottles shall perish.

"But new wine (The New Covenant) must be put into new bottles; and both (the New Wine and the New Bottles) are preserved."


this parable NEVER said Jesus preserved Old Testament Hard Wine Skin Jews by NOT pouring the Gospel into them!!
it said New Covenant believers are preserved.

The Old Covenant was passing away!

Therapon is teaching Dual Covenant, even though he denies it.

ummmn hate to disagree with u, but the post u quote does not say that....he says that the gospel is not given to the pharisees who think they arebsaved by the law but to the jews and gentiles who are born again
....just from reading what u quoted....

 

[zone]

ummmn hate to disagree with u, but the post u quote does not say that....he says that the gospel is not given to the pharisees who think they arebsaved by the law but to the jews and gentiles who are born again
....just from reading what u quoted....

ariel....the part you quoted was MY NOTE ON WHAT THAT PARABLE SAYS.

it was quoted Under and separate from his quote which says exactly what you said.

please go back and look.

i quoted him in a box with his name on it....then i said

note from zone:

 

[zone]

Can u cite it?

cite what?

this is HIS POST:

Connecting The Dots . . .

1. The 10 tribes of Israel were taken captive by Shalmaneser the Assyrian in 725-722 B. C. and dispersed into the Caucasus Mountains region.

Deuteronomy 4:27 “And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.”

Amos 9:8-9 “Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are upon the sinful kingdom (Israel), and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the LORD. For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations (so the ten tribes were dispersed among the Gentiles), like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.” (But none of them will be lost)

2. Just analyzed documents from the former USSR indicates that in the following centuries, a large unidentified body of light-skinned blue-eyed people migrated from South of the Caucuses into Kingdom of Khazaria.

3. During the Islamic expansion of the 8th century, a Moslem army under Abdel Rahman tried to invade Europe through a pass in the Caucasus, but Khazarian armies defeated him. Were it not for the bulwark of Khazaria, Christian Europe could have fallen to Islam from the East.

4. Not wanting religious wars to divide his country, the King of the Khazars ordered three missionaries to appear before his court: a Christian monk, a Jewish priest and a Moslem Imam.

5. After carefully listening to the arguments of each, the King of the Khazars chose Judaism to be the state religion!

6. Later, the people in Khazaria clinging to Judaism emigrated to Europe, where they became known as Ashkenazi Jews.

Leviticus 26:33 “And I will . . . draw out a sword after you.”

7. Then came Hitler and the Holocaust, in which the Nazis in their death camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau, Buchenwald, Treblinka, and in over 1000 ghettos, tried but failed to exterminate the Ashkenazi Jews.

Deuteronomy 4:30-31 “When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.”

8. After the Holocaust, what was left of the Ashkenazi Jews fled Europe and immigrated to the holy land.

Jeremiah 29:14 “And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.”

9. In 1948 A.D., the new sovereign nation of Israel was established by what were primarily Ashkenazi Jews. Then in 1967, by those same ten “lost” tribes, Jerusalem was finally freed of Gentile control for the first time in 2573 years!

 

[Ariel82]

Could be wrong but i was giving him the benefit of doubt...therapon question without hook.....who are the newwine ski n in the parable and will the oldwineskins be saved even if they are not filled with newwine? Sorry typo on tablet

 

[zone]

ummmn hate to disagree with u, but the post u quote does not say that....he says that the gospel is not given to the pharisees who think they arebsaved by the law but to the jews and gentiles who are born again
....just from reading what u quoted....

here Ariel: this was how it was posted.

Originally Posted by Therapon
Well, according to Romans 2, that is true. Oh, I can give you lots of Scripture, but I also want you to think, not just regurgitate the traditional Pablum so beloved by the masses. Here is just one scriptural example. Afrter you have decided you don't want to believe it because it's not in keeping with generally accepted doctrine, we'll go on to another.

The following parable appears in all three synoptic Gospels, (in Mat 9, Mark 2 and Luke 5), where Jesus tells the Jews what the future holds for them and the Gentile Church. Many don't want to accept the Lord's parable at face value, nevertheless, this is what He said:

Luke 5:33-39, KJV "Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink? And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber (the coming Church) fast, while the bridegroom (Jesus) is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them (after the resurrection), and then shall they fast in those days. And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment (the New Testament Gospel) upon an old (The Levitical code); if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine (of the Gospel) into old bottles (of the Old Testament Jews); else the new wine (of the Gospel) will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the (Old Testament Jews) bottles shall perish. But new wine (of the Gospel) must be put into new bottles; and both (The Jewish People and the Church) are preserved."

Like I said, you won't want to believe it, but that's what Jesus said anyway: "But new wine (of the Gospel) must be put into new bottles; and both (The Jewish People and the Church) are preserved."



end Therapon

.....................................................................


note from zone:

And no man putteth new wine (The New Covenant) into old bottles (The Old Covenant); else the new wine (The New Covenant) will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the (The Old Covenant) bottles shall perish.

"But new wine (The New Covenant) must be put into new bottles; and both (the New Wine and the New Bottles) are preserved."

this parable NEVER said Jesus preserved Old Testament Hard Wine Skin Jews by NOT pouring the Gospel into them!!
it said New Covenant believers are preserved.

The Old Covenant was passing away!

Therapon is teaching Dual Covenant, even though he denies it.

 

[1still_waters]

i'm finding the posts where he comes right out and says Jews TODAY do not have to acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth (even though they have heard of Him) - even in their rejection of Him, they ARE SAVED because they believe in some messiah, or something messianic.

Yeah a more concrete post of him outright saying that would be better to establish what you're trying to assert.

The part before seemed open to interpretation in my opinion.

 

[Ariel82]

Webpage u got it from...

 

[zone]

Yeah a more concrete post of him outright saying that would be better to establish what you're trying to assert.

The part before seemed open to interpretation in my opinion.

ya...i'll get them...they're all over the place.

if he just answered the QUESTION, we would have had this resolved.

 

[zone]

Webpage u got it from...

it came from HERE! click the link.
it goes here:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/57042-connecting-dots.html

 

[zone]

Yeah a more concrete post of him outright saying that would be better to establish what you're trying to assert.

The part before seemed open to interpretation in my opinion.

Are you suggesting that Jews of the Christian era are not elect , i.e. saved, unless they become freinds of the gospel? That's not what that verse says in Greek or in English. Look art the tense of the verb, "they are (present tense) enemies of the Gospel, but elect.The the next verse clinches it . . .

Romans 11:29 "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance," in Greek, ametamelatos, which means irrevocable.

So if the Jews were ever called of God, they still are, even if they do not recognize Jesus as their Messiah.

.....................................

 

[1still_waters]

Zone, so just to clarify.
Everything in the box below is from Therapon?

Are you suggesting that Jews of the Christian era are not elect , i.e. saved, unless they become freinds of the gospel? That's not what that verse says in Greek or in English. Look art the tense of the verb, "they are(present tense) enemies of the Gospel, but elect.The the next verse clinches it . . .

Romans 11:29 "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance," in Greek, ametamelatos, which means irrevocable.

So if the Jews were ever called of God, they still are, even if they do not recognize Jesus as their Messiah.

If so, can you please provide the direct link to that direct post? It'll be on the right side with a # to the left of it. Simply click the #, then copy and paste in the url to it.

 

[zone]

Zone, so just to clarify.
Everything in the box below is from Therapon?



If so, can you please provide the direct link to that direct post? It'll be on the right side with a # to the left of it. Simply click the #, then copy and paste in the url to it.

Are you suggesting that Jews of the Christian era are not elect , i.e. saved, unless they become freinds of the gospel? That's not what that verse says in Greek or in English. Look art the tense of the verb, "they are (present tense) enemies of the Gospel, but elect.The the next verse clinches it . . .

Romans 11:29 "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance," in Greek, ametamelatos, which means irrevocable.

So if the Jews were ever called of God, they still are, even if they do not recognize Jesus as their Messiah. How so? Well look ar Romans 11:8 . . .

"According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear" (the Gospel). And Romans 4:15 is the mechanism by which they can still be saved . . .

"for where no law is, there is no transgression."

So if God sends His chosen people to hell after He sovereignly blinded them to the Gospel, then God is unjust!

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/57042-connecting-dots-2.html#post903399 < click post #30

 

[SarahM777]

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...velations-42-months-1260-days.html#post930304

Very end of that post


The Two Witnesses during the Christian era are the Jewish people and the Gentile church!

The rest should be downhill if we just accept Romans 2:28, Romans 4:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:11, Romans 11:24-29 at face value. Would one of God’s Two Witnesses to an unsaved world during the Christian era be lost? Of course not, and I have only shown here and in various other threads, a smattering of the biblical evidence showing that a devout Jew of our own time could be saved without recognizing Yeshua as his Messiah.

You see, brother, the Church today teaches a doctrinal salvation . . . that you need to have your doctrine right to be saved. I believe that to be false doctrine. All over the Bible we read that God is far more concerned with the condition of the heart then He is with doctrinal accuracy. To paraphrase 1 Samuel 16:7, “Man looketh upon the doctrine, but the Lord looketh upon the heart.”

 

[Therapon]

Could be wrong but i was giving him the benefit of doubt...therapon question without hook.....who are the newwine skins in the parable and will the oldwineskins be saved even if they are not filled with newwine? Sorry typo on tablet

that's okay, I understand the question. The new wineskins are of course the Gentile believers, the old wineskins are of course the Jewish people. From here on, I trust the Scripture for the answer:

"No man putteth a piece of undressed cloth upon an old garment; for that which should fill it up taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made. Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved."

It is possible that Jesus is only speaking of the Gentile church in the phrase "both are preserved," but since Jesus in the whole passage is talking about both the Jewish people and the Gentile church, IMHO, it is probable that the phrase "both are preserved" is about both peoples Jesus was talking about.