In your opinion.

Which specific verse or verses establish this?

Based on what?

How does Dr. Martin read it, and how does that differ from your reading?

1. How does this idea differ from "All paths lead to God?"
2. So when a Muslim man kills his daughter for dishonoring the family, because "it's the right thing to do," that's OK.

Not very well. She needs help.

Josh, here are my thoughts on your post. My comments are in red.




I could not agree more. Most theology suffers from that error.

Just an observation, dedication, but please consider this:

Based on these posts

it seems you wish to rely solely on Scripture.

Commendable.

But then you appeal to "the reformers" and, of all things, Wikipedia

The intent is not to start an argument or fight, but to point out that all of our closely held beliefs are based on something. In attempting to establish a strong argument, this "something" must be identified.

When offered "the reformers" as support, I would ask "Which reformer(s), in which documents?"

When offered Wikipedia as support, I would ask...well, let's just leave that one alone.

Conclusion:
When you post that you will only offer Scripture as support, then give me a generic "the reformers" and "Wikipedia", I cannot seriously accept your position as anything other than your opinion.

Therefore, since your argument is unsupported, I have to reject it.

What I wrote before is different from all roads leading to God for two reasons. First, Paul was specifically talking about gentiles that did not have the law. In other words, gentiles whose only knowledge of the one true God was their conscience and the things of nature. Those who have access to greater light but reject it are not included in that statement.

Second, the conscience is separate from false religions. Paul was not saying that gentiles would find God through any religion. He specifically talked only about the conscience and heart in those verses. For example, there is no excuse offered here for idolatry and the worship of lower creatures, as even simple reason argues against it.



The context for my statement was the part of the verse regarding gentiles who "do by nature the things contained in the law". In other words, who do the very things that they would do if they had the law and kept it.

The Holy Spirit speaks to us through our conscience. There are laws that should, by nature, be evident to all. Killing one's own child should be among the most abhorrent things that they could contemplate. It does not have to be explained before at least some people will see it as wrong because nature itself should protest this. What those people falsely call honor is really just pride. The killing happens because something they did caused shame. The people who do that are so absorbed in their own appearance, power, and pride that being embarrassed by the actions of a family member seems worse to them than to murder someone they should love the most. They even flatter themselves that they're actually doing the right thing and that their victim is the sinner. Sounds like Isaiah 5:20, and so many other verses, right?


I'll have to reply to the rest later.



But the Son of Man "came to the Ancient of Days" in Daniel 7:13. Unless it can be shown that this Ancient of Days, i.e. the Father, is on the Earth, then it does not follow that Jesus is coming to the Earth in this verse.

Wow, Josh, I'm impressed. Good point.



However...
Here is my understanding.

1. Daniel 7:1-14 describes a vision of Daniel.
2. In Daniel 7:15, 16 Daniel is troubled by the vision and asks "the meaning of all this." Therefore:
3. Daniel 7:16-26 is an explanation and re-statement of the vision.
4. Note Dan. 7:21, 22: Please note several things about this text:
a. The little horn is waging war against the saints. Unless shown otherwise, this war is on Earth.
b. It wages war until the Ancient of Days comes. Unless shown otherwise, he comes to the earth, where the war is.
c. The Ancient of Days pronounces judgement in favor of the saints. (cf Daniel 7:9, 10 a judgement scene) This judgement is on earth. (See a and b above.)
d. Note also verse 22 last part: "and the time came when they possessed the kingdom." This war, judgement, and "Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven" (cf vs. 13, 14) happens when the saints posses the kingdom. ie: the end of time.

Conclusion:

Therefore it has been established that "this Ancient of Days, i.e. the Father" IS on the earth, and it therefore follows that Jesus is coming to the earth in this [v.13,14] verse.

As we say in Canada, "The call on the ice stands."

1. Paul, who was a prophet, tells us that we will judge the world and angels. 1Co 6:2-3

2. Jude references the fallen angels awaiting judgment under chains of darkness. Jude 6

3. John describes Satan, himself a fallen angel, chained for a thousand years. Rev 20:1-3

4. He then describes thrones of judgment and those sitting on them reigning for that thousand years. Rev 20:4-6

5. He further describes the wicked dead, who do not take part in the first resurrection, as being resurrected one thousand years later and experiencing the second death after their resurrection. Rev 20:5-6, 13-15

6. Before that resurrection, John describes a judgment scene and specifically says it's "the dead" that were judged. Rev 20:12


We have not already judged the world or angels and are not presently doing this, so it is therefore logical that it must happen in the future. The fallen angels and the wicked dead are awaiting judgment during the thousand years, which is future. The righteous are sitting on thrones of judgment during that time. The only dead at that point, and whose resurrection is shortly followed by the lake of fire, are the wicked dead. Therefore, the time for what Paul said about the righteous judging the world and angels is during the thousand years.




First, I think we both agree that the resurrection of the righteous, the first resurrection, is at the second coming. Now, for them to take part in this resurrection, in which they are declared "blessed and holy" (Rev 20:6), they must have already been judged as righteous prior to being resurrected.

Acts 3
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Peter places the time that the sins are blotted out as being future from his own time by saying "when the times of refreshing shall come..." We believe that this is the final work of Jesus before the second coming.

The completion of the atonement for sin happens when Jesus enters the most holy place in the temple in Heaven and presents His blood as the atonement for all the sins that were confessed on the sacrificial lamb, which was Himself. Absolutely everyone who will ever be redeemed is redeemed by His blood, and as our High Priest He must be in the most holy place to do this. This is the cleansing of the sanctuary, typified by the earthly day of atonement and earthly high priest. This cannot happen at the second coming, because at that time Jesus will be here and not in the temple in Heaven.




Also, the Pulpit Commentary notes in Daniel 7:9 that "It is not "the Ancient of days," but "one ancient in days," that is to say, the phrase is not appellative, but descriptive." The RSV (official revision of the KJV) renders the words as "one that was ancient of days did sit". In other words, the original text does not exclude the reading of there being two in this chapter who are ancient in days.

To give further support to the view that both the Father and Jesus could be, in this chapter, described as the Ancient of days, compare the description of the first Ancient of days in verse 9 with the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:13-16.

Jesus received the kingdom and judgment in 1844. Those who will ever after be called the saints are being determined and afterward, during the thousand years, also receive the kingdom and judgment. Not a favorable judgment upon themselves, as some translations do say, but the right to judge. Judgment is handed over to them.

This can be seen by comparing Daniel 7 on the saints receiving the kingdom with Revelation 20:4 in which the saints receive thrones, judgment, and reign for a thousand years. It's describing the same thing.

Further, as Peter said above in Acts 3:20, the Lord (the Father) "shall send Jesus Christ" to us. Notice that he said "send", meaning that the Father is in Heaven at the second coming and sends Jesus from there to here.

I disagree Nadi. That scene is not the Second Coming of Jesus. There is another coming of Jesus, and that is to the Heavenly Sanctuary. One place this is covered is in Malachi 2:17 to 3:3.

So, I understand there is much context to consider, but consider this; Even with the earthly sanctuary on the earth the Israelites knew God dwelt in Heaven. Jacob's dream about the ladder with angels moving up and down on it is one such Biblical proof of this point.

Very good -- glad you've been reading and studying.



Here of course I disagree.

Let's just look carefully at the passage itself.
Just because Christ is accompanied by "clouds" of angels does not necessarily mean it's the same event.

7:13 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.
7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.

The Son of Man came ... where?

He "came to the Ancient of Days".
It doesn't say He came to earth.
He "came to the Ancient of Days".

And they, (which I presume are the angels) brought Him (that is Christ, the Son of Man) near before Him (near to the Ancient of Days or God the Father).

The scene here described is not the second advent of Christ to this earth, unless the Ancient of days is on this earth; for it is a coming to the Ancient of days.

The Ancient of Days is God the Father as we saw in His description in the previous verse (7:9} "the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire." It is God Who sits on a fiery throne ( see Rev.4:5)

There, in the presence of the Ancient of days, a kingdom, dominion, and glory are given him. The Son of man receives his kingdom before his return to this earth. (See Luke 19:10-12 and onward.) This is a scene, therefore, which transpires in the heavenly temple, and is closely connected to the scene brought to view in verses 9 and 10.

Also notice in a similar chapter (Rev. 5) which is also a scene in heaven -- the heavenly host proclaim:
vs 12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.




Partly true, but the kingdom is first given to Christ, the Son of Man according to Daniel 7:14 and this takes place in heavenly court scene before all those angels when the books are opened, before any judgment on earth is executed.

7:13 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.
7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.

Before the "kingdom" can be given to the saints, it must be given to Christ. The scriptures often refer to Christ taking the "throne of David". (see Is. 9:7, Luke 1:32)
The Son of God rules the universe with God the Father, He is verily God, Creator of all things (John 1:3) why would He want, or even need, the "throne of David" -- what purpose is there in that?

When you can answer that question, you will realize that the kingdom must first be legally given to Christ, the Son of Man, (for He took upon Himself humanity) as He takes Adam's place at the head of the human race, (see Romans 5:15) and has won the kingdom back for mankind. As the "Son of Man" He stands as the representative of humanity before God there in Daniel 7:13-14.



All my responses are based on specific scripture as well.
That the judgment in Daniel 7 is at the time of the end is true enough, but that time begins BEFORE the second coming -- for He is brought before the Father to receive the kingdom and present before the Father and the angels the names of who will be citizens of His kingdom (see Rev. 3:5) before He comes to earth to claim what he has received.



But I do see that very thing in Daniel 7.

Reread Daniel 7:9-10

“I watched till thrones were put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;

10
A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court[b] was seated,
And the books were opened.


Notice -- there is movement here.
Thrones are set in place.
The Ancient of Days comes and takes His seat.
His throne is mobile -- it has WHEELS!

There is a definite sense of motion here.

Not only are the thrones first set in place,
and the Ancient of Days takes His seat.
But Jesus, the Son of Man is also seen moving.

vs. 13 And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him


So the Ancient of Days (God the Father) moves to a new position-- And Jesus moves (not to earth) but is brought before the Ancient of Days.
Lots of movement here!

And yes, there is a judgment in favor of the saints and against the horn BEFORE the time the saints actually enter their inheritance --

read verse 22

21 “I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.

How long was the horn making war against the saints before the judgment ?
That time is given in Daniel 7:25.
It adds up to 1260 years. (Daniel 7:25; Rev. 12:6,14)
The horns power was broke in 1798, and shortly thereafter the message began to sound, "the hour of His judgment has come" Rev. 14:7. Revelation shows the horn revives, (healed) and tries to gain dominion of the earth, but it's end is sure, the heavenly court settles the true inheritors of the eternal kingdom and it will be executed.

The last paragraph was summary -- this is already getting too long.






That is a leap on rather flimsy "scholarship" in my opinion, for it ignores some strong points in the verses and assumes a second coming, when the text says no such thing -- it says Christ is brought before the Ancient of Days.

There is definitely a court procedure going on in heaven prior to the time when the saints receive the kingdom and the usurpers are destroyed.

dedication,



This statement of yours just made a connection for me that I had not seen before. In Deuteronomy 33:4 it says that Moses gave us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. That law is specified in other places, but it is the law in which an Israelite's inheritance could be ransomed/redeemed/purchased_back by his closest living relative who was capable of paying off his debt.

I've done a fair amount of study on this law and it is the legal foundation for a substitute to pay off a debt a debtor could not pay himself. This is foundational to the plan of salvation for Christ came to ransom us back from he who is too strong for us, and as our substitute paid our debt. We are His inheritance since he bought us, and the legal giving of the kingdom to Christ is Him receiving from His Father His inheritance, as the COI are Christ's inheritance, and he is a Jew who is one inwardly. This, us being Christ's inheritance, is found, among many other places, in Exodus 34:9. Christ, in purchasing us back also bought back our dominion over the earth.

You just opened before me another window into this beautiful truth as I hadn't really realized before how it tied into end time prophecy. It is really obvious so I should have, but hadn't.