[phareztamar]

OK. well that was a lot of homework. enjoyed your teaching about matt. 24 speaking of Jesus coming into his kingdom, as opposed to the 2nd coming.

for the record, I've never been an advocate of the modern day "rapture". It never seemed to be in God's character, or have precedent in the scriptures. so assuming me to holding "the error of thinking there is a rapture involved" is a little unfair. that is why I framed my statements with "it appears then" and "if true". maybe i'm not a good communicator, as Benincasa also misunderstood me:

So everyman is right in his own eyes?

Jesus and Paul taught that everything else is left up to opinion?

Where does the Bible teach us that there would only be 7,000 years of human history? If you can freely give out such information, then why didn’t Christ? Why didn’t Paul? I understand you are saying it is your opinion. But you insert it as it should be doctrine. So, why didn’t any Bible writer bring up any thoughts to a 7,000 year wrap up of history?

again i'm just stating what I understand the scriptures to say. And I share it here to hear other opinions, hoping to refine my understanding. never have understood why folks on this forum insist on acerbic digs (so this war in the heavenlies is not angelic beings fighting in the fifth dimension or outer space...) but it is what it is.

that being said, I have a couple of questions about your thread "the identity of the son of man" that will help me answer your response to my thread.

when, in the history of humanity, do these four beasts appear? the lion, the bear, and the eagle have their lives prolonged after the fourth beast is slain, and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame. their dominion is taken away, but their lives are prolonged for a season and a time. i'm assuming that these four beasts appear sometime between Daniel's life and vision, and the final judgment. you state that this is a vision of divine judgment against Israel's enemies by God, but "the judgment was set, and the books were opened" seems to suggest the final judgment at the great white throne.

your statement that the son of man figure is identified as the saints of the most high is based upon both possessing the kingdom forever. but an overview of the prophets and john's vision seems to suggest that Jesus, in the victory of his resurrection and glorification, is the son of man who receives dominion, and glory, and a kingdom. following that victory, these very same things are given to the overcoming saints of the most high.

"to him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my father in his throne"

the overcomers are also given power over the nations, to:

"rule them with a rod of iron...even as I received of my father."

in these and other scriptures, doesn't the theme suggest that there is a victorious giver (the son of man), and an overcoming receiver (the saints of the most high) of those same things given to the son of man?

thank you Esaias. always enjoy reading your posts.