Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment

It's a shame that kbertsche hasn't posted more, because he is the only one of the believers who seems to have any detailed understanding of the theology.Peg and Buzsaw both take the first alternative identified in Message 30, and both clearly rely on the fact that the end did NOT come in the 2nd Century BC as their major argument. The fact that their claimed fulfillments do not fit well with the actual prophecy is ignored (i.e. they assume that their beliefs trump the Bible).While Double Fulfillment deals well with past fulfillments it still has problems with future fulfillments. For instance, do we have to have another Alexander ? Do we have to go through all the struggles in Daniel 11 over again ? Or is it just a matter of picking bits and pieces out of the prophecy, and ignoring even more than the other futurists do ?In hindsight Daniel might have been a poor choice. Isaiah 7 might have been better since Double Fulfillment of that is more necessary, theologically. Even then you have those who ignore the context and insist that it must be about Jesus.

quote:

---

Hi Paul........As per the PaulK version, secularistic self avowed absolute judge and guru of alleged truth?

---

As an honest person who cares about the truth. Did you actually bother to read kbertsche's posts ?

quote:

---

Who then is attempting to trump the Bible, particularly Daniel who's prophecy states that the messianic entity ends the ten horn global empire and END of Gentile rule forever i.e. Daniel's end of days.?

---

By which you mean that I put the idea that the BIble means what it says above the assumption that prophecies must be fulfilled.

quote:

---

Who then is attempting to throw under the rug the Roman empire in all of this before the end of days/fulfillment of prophecy comes?

---

There are very few references to Rome in Daniel, and those to Republican Rome.

quote:

---

Who then chooses to ignore the end of days rule of the saints of the most high as per the prophecy?

---

I don't know. Who ?

quote:

---

Who then refuses to admit that none of the above happened contemporaneously to the times of the prophecy as per Daniel the prophet?

---

Apparently you, for one. (Not that I believe that there was such a person).

quote:

---

The alleged double fulfillment requirement need not exist for futurist fulfillment advocates. It's nothing but an obfuscating obstacle obscuring to obscure the obvious.

---

As I said, the only ones who require a double fulfillment are those who wish to keep both ideas - of Daniel as accurate regarding the time of Antiochus AND an accurate prediction of the future end of the world. Your comment here simply doesn't address my point.

quote:

---

That's as absurd as insisting that we would need another Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, etc. As I have shown, Alexander is just another cog in the wheel of ultimate end time fulfillment relative to the cohesive prophecy at large.

---

Are you saying that Double Fulfillment can freely dispense with elements of the prophecy or are you completely failing to address the real question ? Come to that given that you appear to have no real knowledge of the veiws of proponents of Double Fulfillment, why are you even attempting to answer a question which would require such knowledge ?

quote:

---

In Daniel 8 the he goat, Alexander's empire, after Alexander's death, is divided into four kingdoms. I believe history attests to this.

​

Out of one of the kingdoms emerges eventully non-contemporaneously to the time of the prophecy a fierce one who will stand in the end times against the prince of princes, i.e. messiah and will be broken.

---

It also says that this will be in the "latter days" of those four kingdoms - i.e. while they still exist (8:23). It has been more than 2000 years since the last of Alexander's successors, Egypt, fell to Rome. This prophecy, therefore cannot accurately refer to our future.This tells us that your interpretation of "Prince of Princes" as meaning the Messiah cannot be correct. On the other hand, as we know, Antiochus is depicted as defying God, which would certainly fit.

quote:

---

I can understand why you would take this to refer to Antiochus, but the problem is that Daniel is told to shut up the vision.

---

As Jazz has pointed out this is not a problem for the mainstream interpretation. The instruction is to keep the actual text secret. Daniel was known in the Maccabean period, and we have no real evidence that the book was known before then. Thus the Maccabean period is the latest possible time that fits.

quote:

---

The this which will be in the "latter days" is the fierce one which, way out in the future, contends with the "prince of princes" who does not show up contemporaneously.

---

Who has to turn up in the "latter days" of the Diadochi Kingdoms (8:23). If he didn't show up then, the prophecy has failed.

quote:

---

1. Epiphames did what he did by his own military might. The one prophesied does it by a higher power. (8:24)

---

True, that part of the prophecy DID fail.

quote:

---

2. Epiphames did not contend with the messianic prince of princes.

---

As I have already pointed out, Antiochus IV Epiphanes did fulfill that part of the prophecy - it is your interpretation of it that is the problem

quote:

---

3. Nothing is known relative to Epiphames having special powers of "understanding dark sentences" and "cause craft to proser in his hand" i.e. mystery etc. 8:23-25

---

Perhaps you should try a more modern translation. Especially since you don't understand Jacobean English that well. (In this context "craft" probably means "deceit" - as in "crafty").

quote:

---

4. Fulfillment will be at a time when stars/host of heaven are cast to earth 8:10. Note that in the NT, Jesus in his Olivet Discourse synopsis accounts in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 aludes to stars of heaven falling to earth after tribulation of saints/elect and before resurrection of saints, and abomination standing in holy place i.e end times/end of ages. (see Matthew 24 for example, especially verses 3 (time of the end still future), 15 (abomination of desolation), and 29 (stars fall).

---

8:10 is part of the vision. In it the "little horn", grows into the sky and dislodges stars and stamps on them. Are you really going to take this literally ?

quote:

---

There's just too much corroboration/cohesion with Daniel's prophecies with Jesus and John's prophecies in the NT to sweep under the proverbial rug.

---

And I certainly don't intend to. Of course later writers reinterpreted Daniel's prophecies after they failed. Those reinterpretations, however, cannot stand against the evidence.The fact remains, that the prophecy of Daniel 8 culminates in the Hellenistic period - Daniel 8:23 is quite clear. And - to bring it back to the topic - this is a clear motivation to appeal to Double Fulfillment. If there is a single fulfillment, it must have occurred more than 2000 years ago. Only Double Fulfillment can allow a futurist reading, while remaining true to the text.

No,Buz. All you have shown is that you have a daft interpretation of Daniel which doesn't fit with the text. Or reality.

quote:

---

Until modern times there were no stars in the sky capable of falling. Lo and behold now this is one of corroborating factors relative to futuristic fufillment of Daniel which we observe today. Our modern sky is alive with lights of space craft, satelites and high flying jet planes capable of being cast to the earth. If one in Daniel's time visualized these lighted craft falling at night it would appear that stars were falling to earth. So yes, I take this literally.

---

So the "man" in question is a literal horn who literally grows into the sky and knocks down satellites. I'm sorry for underestimating just how crazy your ideas were.

quote:

---

By the same token, the prophet John prophesied that a all nations, tribes and tongues would see an event happening at one location on earth.

---

No, Buz he didn't. We've been over that already.

quote:

---

My Hebrew to English Interlinear says of the little horn, "And it became great, even to the stars of the heavens. And it made fall some of the host and of the stars to the ground and trampled them."

---

How else is a giant horn - so big it reaches the stars - going to to make those stars fall out of the sky ?

quote:

---

The words, satelites, space craft and jet planes (stars) and their passengers (host) could easily be substituted relative to modern air and space technology. There are already terrorist ambitions to develop tech to foul up the computers, etc of jets etc to cause them to "fall to the ground" as per the prophecy of Daniel.

---

But so far there are no reports of a giant horn leading a terrorist cell. The trampling would be a bit odd, too.

quote:

---

LOL. So says the looser of that debate, relative to Revelation 12

---

Er no. So says somebody who actually reads the Bible and knows what it says.

quote:

---

The prophecy does not say that the written scripture of Daniel would not be circulated and published etc after Daniel's time.

---

I think that I see the problem. Jazz is referring to 12:4 and you are referring to 12:9

quote:

---

The text clearly implies that there would be no further revelation until the end time revelation would be completed, i.e. the sealing.

---

The question comes down, then to whether John could be the "unsealing". 12:4 rules that out. 12:4 cannot refer to a lack of further revelation - as it is an instruction to Daniel. 12:4 must refer to keeping the Book of Daniel (or at least that part of it) secret to the "end times". And as Jazz and I have both pointed out, the Book of Daniel was definitely known by the Maccabean period. 12:4. therefore indicates the "time of the end" occurring in the Maccabean period or shortly before, in agreement with Daniel 8:23.

quote:

---

There you go again, Paul, quote mining little single phrases out of the prophecy at large. You keep on waiving off all of the rest of Daniel's referrals to what the last days/times are relative to messianic fulfillment.

---

By which you mean that I'm NOT ignoring the bits of the Bible you don't like.

quote:

---

I asked Jazzns who the "prince of princes" and the "ruling saints" who end up with the world class kingdom (after suffering severe persecution/tribulation) the end of all Gentile world class empires, i.e. the end times are. I'm still waiting for Jazzns answer to that. Perhaps you want to take a crack at it

---

The "Prince of Princes" is God (as I already told you) and the "ruling saints" would be the Jews who remain loyal to their faith.

quote:

---

Furthermore, all of the other major prophets refer to the end time events relative to Israel and messianic rule. As well, Jesus in two of the Olivet Discourse accounts prophesied relative to the end times/end of the age including Gentile occupation of Israel, etc.

---

OT references to the Messiah just refer to the restoration of Israel and Davidic rule. Daniel doesn't really go into that.

quote:

---

You two are acting like novices who are totally unaware of these Biblical facts.

---

Come off it Buz. You;re not even up to novice level at understanding Daniel. There's more real BIble study in my last post than you typically manage over an entire thread. You can't even manage to make arguments consistent with your own position (hint: do you really think that the "end times" refers to the time Revelation was written ?).The real facts are that we do NOT have to assume that the NT references are anything more than an after-the-fact reinterpretation of Daniel (which is, of course, all that they are). And there's no need for Daniel to even be consistent with other OT references, let alone Christian interpretations of OT references.What is far more important - and which YOU are far too willing to set aside is the actual text of Daniel. Even a novice would know that.

quote:

---

...you both need to do some reading up on the prophets; all of them, rather than this quote mining little tid-bits from a couple of chapters in Daniel, insisting that this is substantiating your flimsy argument.

---

By which you mean that we should stop reading Daniel for what it says and start twisting it to fit in with your beliefs. Sorry Buz, but why would I want to start misrepresenting the BIble just to prop up your false beliefs ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I beleive that they are trully being led by Gods spirit. I have seen the things that they've accomplished and how they have cleaned the pagan ideas out of their teaching and how they live in accord with Gods laws.

---

In other words you worship the Watchtower Society. That is why you feel that you can dismiss evidence of deception on the part of the Watchtower society by making baseless accusations against critics. That is why your idea of "looking at all the evidence" means "looking only at the evidence that the Watchtower Society would like you to see".
(see Message 93)I submit that this obvious aversion to the truth is clear evidence that God has less to do with it than you say.

Make light of it if you will, but would God want you to willingly follow deceivers ? Even to the point of "defending" their deception with false accusations ? I cannot believe that any Christian would endorse that.

That is an odd statement, because you are certainly not here in this thread to discuss the topic. In fact you seem to be here mainly to argue against the view that Daniel can be read as referring to the period of the Maccabean revolt.But since the whole topic is grounded in the reasons to accept a particular interpretation, I would say that your faith in the Watchtower Society - who provide the doctrines that you follow seems to be clearly related to the topic.Now in Message 93 you claimed that you were "not bothered" by the evidence against the Watchtower Society's claims simply because you falsely accused the author of the article of being "absolutely against the idea that scriptural prophecies are true" - without examining the evidence he presented at all. Yet in the same post you suggested that we should look at ALL the evidence.Of course, if the Watchtower Society were really guided by God, why would they have to engage in deception ? And if you believed that they were guided by God, why would you seek to cover up the evidence of their deception- in a very dishonest way - instead of - at the least - disowning the article in question ?