??? Daniel chapter 7 "Oneness"??? - Page 5

mfblume · #41 07-10-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No Mike.First of all it does not say "the Son" it says "a son"

I heard this before, bro. But can we actually deny this is a parallel vision of Revelation 5? I mean we are talking about Daniel and Revelation. They are loaded with references to each other. And Daniel would not have recognized a vision of Christ going to God as any thing other than what he wrote and said. He had no idea that incarnation would ever occur in his future. How else would he describe this?

Seeing Christ, Whom he would not know was God incarnated, would be simply seeing a man go to God.

Both accounts speak of the church getting DOMINION. Both accounts show this in reference to the beast system that both books dealt with in detail.

Otherwise, we have to say there are parallels between Daniel and Revelation everywhere, but the two accounts of one going to the throne and acquiring dominion in which the saints are said in both places to therefore obtain dominion are not parallel visions.

Quote:

Second, as explained already, the text self interpreting and says this refers to the saints of the most high God

We both know what the text continues to read. But can you not see this explanation as an interpretation of the EFFECTS of Christ going to the throne as in Rev 5? What is so offkey about saying the vision is of Jesus, and Christ's approach to the throne and His reception of dominion meant that the saints, who are one body with Him, received that dominion? It screams about vicarious atonement all over the two chapters.

I already stated:

And when Daniel was given an interpretation he was told the saints shall take dominion. John saw the same truth when he wrote the saints were made kings and priests although the Lamb took the book. Daniel said the son of man was given dominion and the saints therefore had dominion. This is the basic concept of VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.

Ezekiel definitely saw Christ and simply called him a man.

Ezekiel 1:26-28 KJV And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. (27) And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. (28) As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

What is it about Dan 7 that prohibits us from saying it is one and the same event that John also saw in varying visionary emblems? Just because we read the saints take dominion, can that not mean Christ took it and HIS BODY, united to Him in Atonement, therefore took it? In vicarious concepts, is not Christ's position interpreted as the saints' position, anyway?

Praxeas · #42 07-10-2010, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I heard this before, bro. But can we actually deny this is a parallel vision of Revelation 5? I mean we are talking about Daniel and Revelation. They are loaded with references to each other. And Daniel would not have recognized a vision of Christ going to God as any thing other than what he wrote and said. He had no idea that incarnation would ever occur in his future. How else would he describe this?

Seeing Christ, Whom he would not know was God incarnated, would be simply seeing a man go to God.

Both accounts speak of the church getting DOMINION. Both accounts show this in reference to the beast system that both books dealt with in detail.

Otherwise, we have to say there are parallels between Daniel and Revelation everywhere, but the two accounts of one going to the throne and acquiring dominion in which the saints are said in both places to therefore obtain dominion are not parallel visions.

We both know what the text continues to read. But can you not see this explanation as an interpretation of the EFFECTS of Christ going to the throne as in Rev 5? What is so offkey about saying the vision is of Jesus, and Christ's approach to the throne and His reception of dominion meant that the saints, who are one body with Him, received that dominion? It screams about vicarious atonement all over the two chapters.

I already stated:

And when Daniel was given an interpretation he was told the saints shall take dominion. John saw the same truth when he wrote the saints were made kings and priests although the Lamb took the book. Daniel said the son of man was given dominion and the saints therefore had dominion. This is the basic concept of VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.

Ezekiel definitely saw Christ and simply called him a man.

Ezekiel 1:26-28 KJV And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. (27) And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. (28) As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

What is it about Dan 7 that prohibits us from saying it is one and the same event that John also saw in varying visionary emblems? Just because we read the saints take dominion, can that not mean Christ took it and HIS BODY, united to Him in Atonement, therefore took it? In vicarious concepts, is not Christ's position interpreted as the saints' position, anyway?

The text interprets itself.

mfblume · #43 07-10-2010, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The text interprets itself.

...as well as comparing Rev 5 with Dan 7. That is bible interpreting Bible.

Is there something about your view of prophecy that prohibits the view I propose in your mind? I ask this because it seems obvious, otherwise. It fits so perfectly.

mfblume · #44 07-10-2010, 10:00 PM

Daniel 7:13 KJV I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Coming in clouds is always associated with Christ as well.

Praxeas · #45 07-10-2010, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

...as well as comparing Rev 5 with Dan 7. That is bible interpreting Bible.

Is there something about your view of prophecy that prohibits the view I propose in your mind? I ask this because it seems obvious, otherwise. It fits so perfectly.

Scripture inteprets scripture. Rev 5 does not say "and daniel saw..."

The angel interprets it for us. In this case we have an intepretation given to us,why look elsewhere? Are you saying the angel was wrong? Or are you saying this verse was meant to have two different interpretations?

I

mfblume · #46 07-11-2010, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Scripture inteprets scripture. Rev 5 does not say "and daniel saw..."

The angel interprets it for us. In this case we have an intepretation given to us,why look elsewhere? Are you saying the angel was wrong? Or are you saying this verse was meant to have two different interpretations?

I

That is just it. The interpretation given in Daniel coincides exactly with the intended interpretation of Rev 5. The angel was not wrong. There are not two interpretations. Christ going to the throne is spiritually interpreted as the church gaining dominion. It's like saying, "What does it mean for Christ to gain dominion? The answer is it means the SAINTS have dominion, since they're His body."