Our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy have changed. We think you'll like them better this way.

God's Time, Angel's Time vs. Man's Time-Calculating Daniel

  • Broadcast in Religion
  • 0 comments
Art Bulla

Art Bulla

×  

Follow This Show

If you liked this show, you should follow Art Bulla.
h:3513
s:5525221
archived
Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist, spent more time "calculating" Daniel than anything else, including "Principia" and "Optics" and the invention of Calculus! Numbers in Daniel explained, which successfully predicted Alexander the Great, the date of the birth of Jesus and the date of his crucifiction and speaks of "the beast" wearing out "the saints of the Most High" until the "Ancient of Days" would sit (Daniel 7). This, of course, is the redemption of Zion. Angel's time, God's time, Man's time.
 
Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days," or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of the dispensations that are to be revealed. "Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself; that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him." (Ephesians 1:9-10.)  (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.167)

Comments

 comments