The Mark and the Image

[Diaste]

7 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

It CAN be known in relationship to other events, such as Jesus telling Mary not to touch Him for He had not yet ascended. What can be known? That Jesus ascended in 33 AD but was not in heaven in 95 AD? Jesus is the one who gave the Revelation to John. He was clearly in heaven, in power and glorified. And in general it can be known because we know He died around 32 or 33 AD. It can be known in relation to the infant church. He Breathed on them and said "Receive the Holy Spirit" and they were born again at that instant. That is what the first seal is about: the infant church sent out to make disciples of every nation. Do you have any biblical proof the 1st seal is the church? 

 

Yes, John saw this vision around 95 AD according to church tradition. Jesus ascended around 32 AD. So this is a vision of the PAST.  The evidence is what is written:

1. Jesus was NOT AT the right hand of the Father in chapter 4, where He WOULD BE if it was 95 AD in the vision. Really?But then suddenly it is 95 AD in Ch 5 because the Lamb is there? This breeds confusion not clarity. And how do you know the Lamb was not there just because the Lamb was not mentioned? Do you realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? In other words, Just because we have no evidence of the existence of a multiple universes, does not mean they don't exist, by lack of evidence. The Lamb was obviously there in the midst of the throne in Ch 5. Your position is weak. Why would the vision be before 95 AD when Jesus was clearly in heaven and glorified, as Jesus was the one giving the Revelation? What you see in Rev Ch 4-5 is the throne room and the introduction of the 70th week. Along with this we see the worthiness of Jesus to administer the end of the age. You are adding and subtracting from the Revelation. You should stop.

2. The Holy Spirit WAS there in chapter 4  Where? Prove that, with scripture, instead of just making a claim. Do you understand how you have no credibility when you offer no biblical evidence?

2. NO MAN FOUND in the first search John watched that ended in failure.

[other one]

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

It is in 2 BC, but for the programs, they will say 1 BC because of no 0 year.  Yes, I found that exact picture. And it is in 2 BC. The stars will not lie to us.  I found it again: 09/01/1 BC at 1500 hours on Stellarium. I have not looked at others to see if they agree.

None of my 3 are even close

[iamlamad]

4 hours ago, other one said:

None of my 3 are even close

Remember, you have to look under 1 BC. I shut off the ground, as if it did not exist, and turn the clock to around 3 PM in Jerusalem.

[iamlamad]

5 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes, John saw this vision around 95 AD according to church tradition. Jesus ascended around 32 AD. So this is a vision of the PAST.  The evidence is what is written:

1. Jesus was NOT AT the right hand of the Father in chapter 4, where He WOULD BE if it was 95 AD in the vision. Really?But then suddenly it is 95 AD in Ch 5 because the Lamb is there? This breeds confusion not clarity. And how do you know the Lamb was not there just because the Lamb was not mentioned? Do you realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? In other words, Just because we have no evidence of the existence of a multiple universes, does not mean they don't exist, by lack of evidence. The Lamb was obviously there in the midst of the throne in Ch 5. Your position is weak. Why would the vision be before 95 AD when Jesus was clearly in heaven and glorified, as Jesus was the one giving the Revelation? What you see in Rev Ch 4-5 is the throne room and the introduction of the 70th week. Along with this we see the worthiness of Jesus to administer the end of the age. You are adding and subtracting from the Revelation. You should stop.

2. The Holy Spirit WAS there in chapter 4  Where? Prove that, with scripture, instead of just making a claim. Do you understand how you have no credibility when you offer no biblical evidence?

2. NO MAN FOUND in the first search John watched that ended in failure.
 

I think you are confused. It was around 95 AD when John saw this vision. But it was a vision from the time just before Christ rose from the dead, to the time He DID rise from the dead, showed Himself to Mary, then ascended. And Yes, Jesus was probably standing there with John in 95 AD while John was watching.  We are not so interested in the 95 AD aspect but more in what the vision was showing: Jesus NOT in the throne room, when one would expect Him to be there, NO MAN FOUND in the first search John watched - then WAS FOUND in the next search, to Jesus suddenly appearing in the throne room, appearing as if He had been slain. This is all telling us a story, and we can certainly SEE time moving.

then suddenly it is 95 AD in Ch 5 because the Lamb is there?  No, not even close! It is a continuous story starting from a time before Christ rose from the dead to be found worthy, up to the 5th seal. The history part of this vision ends with the 5th seal, where we find, for the first time since the start of chapter 4, a long time of waiting.  What you miss (or one of the things you are missing) is that the church has been between the 5th seal and the 6th seal for almost 2000 years.

how do you know the Lamb was not there just because the Lamb was not mentioned?  John described everything there in the throne room. If the Christ, the Son of God was there at the right hand of the Father, John would have seen Him there. But we also know because in the first search John watched end in failure, we know that Jesus had not yet risen from the dead. We also know because the Holy Spirit is there and not sent down until jesus ascended in chapter 5.  I also know because Jesus spoke these words to me. I will try to quote exactly:  "I ascended into heaven long before John was called up to heaven. when John looked into the throne room, I should have been there. There are a dozen verses that say that is where I went to be. Stephen SAW me there. So my first question: WHY did John not immediately see me at the right hand of the Father."  I was SLOW. I could not answer and my spirit man spoke: "I cannot answer this question."  (I think I was in the spirit: I could not talk. But my spirit man could.)

Do you realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?   There is plenty of evidence! But with preconceived glasses it may be difficult to see.  John is looking into the throne room of 32 AD at a time just before Christ rose from the dead. From these words, we see Christ risen and immediately found worthy, then ascended to heaven and get the book into His hands and begin breaking seals.

Why would the vision be before 95 AD when Jesus was clearly in heaven and glorified, as Jesus was the one giving the Revelation?  That one is easy: God wanted to show John this book. Why? It is a very important book and is probably the lease document to planet earth. It is what ends up causing Satan to lose all the kingdoms of the world and God to gain them. Adam's lease ran out!  So God chose to show John the beginning of this story; the book still in the hand of the Father. And this was so that WE can know this story.

What you see in Rev Ch 4-5 is the throne room and the introduction of the 70th week.   Absolutely not! We see the beginning of the church age. Perhaps you have not realized this, but if no one had ever been found worthy to break these seals, then Satan would remain forever as the god of this world.  It was CRITICAL that someone be found worthy to break the seals, so the rest of Revelation could take place: the trumpet judgments and then the vials.

The Lamb was obviously there in the midst of the throne in Ch 5.   He suddenly appeared there in chapter 5. He was NOT there a moment before, nor was He there (in the vision) in chapter 4 - and the moment He arrived the Holy Spirit was sent down.

Your position is weak.  on the contrary, every other theory is weak, because this follows the text exactly.  It is a vision of the past. Three points in the script tells us this - no, four. Will I need to spell each of the four out for you again?

Along with this we see the worthiness of Jesus to administer the end of the age. You are adding and subtracting from the Revelation. You should stop. My friend and brother in Christ, all I did was mediate on these scriptures and pray a LOT in the Spirit, and wait on God to reveal His intent in these scriptures. You can believe me or not. That is on you. Jesus asked me three questions and I could not answer one of them - UNTIL He sent me to chapter 12 to see a "history lesson." (His words not mine.) I am not adding, and I am not taking anything away from what is written: all I am doing is telling you the Author's INTENT of these scriptures. It is all there, written out. It is all there: Jesus NOT in the throne room, NO man found, the Holy Spirit still in the throne room, until something happened: Christ rose from the dead and was then found worthy, and then suddenly He appeared into the throne room. This is the CONTEXT of the first seal. This shows us that the first seal was opened around 32 AD, when the church was in infancy.

Where? Prove that, with scripture, instead of just making a claim. Do you understand how you have no credibility when you offer no biblical evidence?  Perhaps you overlooked Him. It is easy to do.

In front of the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. This is who we call the Holy Spirit. We see Him again in chapter 5:

Verse 6: ...The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spiritsof God sent out into all the earth.

Please note what Jesus Himself said: John 16:
⁷ But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

We see this taking place when Jesus ascended, the Holy Spirit was immediately sent down.

You can believe this or not. I am only sharing what God taught me. When God pushed me into studying Revelation, I DETERMINED to know nothing unless He taught me. I read it over and over, maybe a hundred times, not trying to understand anything; just depositing it in my spirit. And I prayed much in the Holy Spirit. And I mediated on these scriptures.

Then one day, just minding my own business, reading Daniel 9:27, when my eyes and my mind got to the word "midst" God spoke and I heard His voice:  "You could find that exact midpoint clearly marked in the book of Revelation." I was "in the spirit" and could not answer, but my spirit man then asked Him: "how would I find that?"

This was the start of an amazing time that went on for months; God teaching me from Revelation. I am certainly not going to apologize for God teaching me, either.  So it is up to the readers: they can believe or not.

[iamlamad]

Diaste wrote,

What can be known? That Jesus ascended in 33 AD but was not in heaven in 95 AD? Jesus is the one who gave the Revelation to John. He was clearly in heaven, in power and glorified.

I think you are as slow as I was! We KNOW Jesus ascended around 32 or 33 AD. That much is given.  Remember, it was Jesus that CALLED JOHN UP to heaven in 4:1 - so OF COURSE Jesus was there!

² At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.

John was INSTANTLY in a vision and the vision just happened to be a vision of the past. John DID NOT SEE Jesus when He was called up. The first think he saw was the throne room IN A VISION. But as I have shown you, it was a vision of the past. IN THE VISION Jesus was not in the throne room. OUT of the vision it was 95 AD and Jesus was at the right hand of the Father. But IN THE VISION, it was a vision of the past, before Christ rose and then just after He rose. He saw the Father (IN THE VISION) but Jesus was not at the Father's right hand (IN THE VISION."

But we know, while John was watching this vision, God was on the real throne, and Jesus was at His right hand.  Got it now?  You have to separate reality from the vision.

Yes, I agree, CLEARLY in heaven and clearly glorified. But IN THE VISION, John did not see Him until suddenly He appeared in chapter 5.

[iamlamad]

Diaste wrote,

Do you have any biblical proof the 1st seal is the church?  We have been covering biblical proof, showing that the context of the first seal was right when Christ ascended into heaven, around 32 AD.  The FIRST THING He did was take the book from the right hand of the FAther and begin breaking seals - as if it was the most important thing there was for Him to do. I believe it WAS that important. 

Did you know that john used the color white 17 other times in Revelation, each time to represent righteousness? Go and check it out. It would be silly to think John would use white (or the Holy Spirit to use white) 17 times to represent righteousness, and in this one verse to represent something else. In other words, we can be SURE this first seal is to represent something righteous. Then the Horse probably represents warfare.  So what was the ONLY righteous entity on earth in 32 AD? It can be nothing other than the infant Church. They all had the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus bestowed upon them.  Jesus commanded them to take the gospel to the world and make disciples of all nations. So far so good - but the nations were controlled by Satan! The kingdoms of the world were HIS because He usurped Adam's lease.

Would Satan just step aside and allow the gospel to enter new places? NOT without a fight! As the gospel has progressed, men have died.  Of course there would be conquering and overcoming.

Now, do you have any biblical proof the first seal is NOT the church? There is not one word in His description that would even give a hint of anything evil. It is just not there. yet millions believe this is the antichrist! In 32 AD! No, it is not the Antichrist. It is the church.

Have you studied the commentaries? I think there is ONE that tells us it is the church with the gospel.

 

[iamlamad]

8 hours ago, Diaste said:

Of course. But that Word from God was accompanied by power and physical signs. They didn't just say they heard a voice, and it was God, therefore what they said was the truth. God confirmed that word with two or three witnesses in the form of exercising His power on earth. In like manner, at this time, a word from the Lord must be confirmed in some manner. Generally from the study of scripture. Look at this. 2 Thess 2:2, " That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."  Paul is saying not to believe a spirit nor a personal word.  And v 3, " Let no man deceive you by any means..." Sooo... I guess there needs to be confirmation through the authority of scripture and the apostles concerning any word we hear from another person. Since your presentation lacks such scriptural evidence it is not to be taken seriously.

Lacks scriptural evidence? What a joke! All I have covered is what is written in scripture. The problem is, what I have written does not fit with your preconceptions.

Acts 9:17

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

What happened? Paul believed him and received his eyesight.

Acts 10:19

While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you.

Acts 11:12

The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house.

What happened? Did Peter question who this was or try in some way to test this voice? No, I submit He KNEW it was God.

 

Acts 13:2

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

 

Did they question who it was that spoke? Or did they just obey? I submit they KNEW it was the Holy Spirit.

 

Acts 21:11

Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

Did they doubt him? Did that ask him to try that spirit somehow? I submit they KNEW it was the Holy Spirit.

If I had come with some wild ideas outside of the word of God, of course all should doubt. But I have used nothing but the word of God. Everything I have written is found in Revelation chapters 4 & 5.  All I have done is write down the Author's intent: what God was trying to show us in these two chapters.

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by iamlamad

[other one]

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Remember, you have to look under 1 BC. I shut off the ground, as if it did not exist, and turn the clock to around 3 PM in Jerusalem.

What date?....   

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, other one said:

What date?....   

I found it at: 09/01/1 BC

[Diaste]

14 hours ago, iamlamad said:

I think you are confused. It was around 95 AD when John saw this vision. But it was a vision from the time just before Christ rose from the dead, to the time He DID rise from the dead, showed Himself to Mary, then ascended. And Yes, Jesus was probably standing there with John in 95 AD while John was watching. (First you say this.)  We are not so interested in the 95 AD aspect but more in what the vision was showing: Jesus NOT in the throne room, (Then you say this. So John and Jesus are both in the throne room, but Jesus isn't in the throne room. Are you sure you got this figured out?) when one would expect Him to be there, NO MAN FOUND in the first search John watched - then WAS FOUND in the next search,  What are you prating on about? This point is man is not worthy but Jesus prevailed. This isn't about some talent show. to Jesus suddenly appearing in the throne  room, appearing as if He had been slain. This is all telling us a story,You are creating a story, maybe not a very good one. This is a vision given by a superior being to a mortal. Just because the vision plays out in a certain form or order, does not mean the vision has a bearing on real time events. I know you will not understand that concept. It's like a movie. Images are flashed into the consciousness but it's not occurring in real time nor does affect real time. With a vision and prophecy it's a movie about real events that have not happened yet. God can and does introduce any character or event any time he chooses to accomplish His purpose in the vision and prophecy; and He can and does hide or obscure characters or events only revealing them to fit His purpose. These visions are not real as they are seen, they are only real at the time of fulfillment. Because one sees a representation of a character in a vision does not mean that character doesn't exist. It's an images created by an omnipotent being to convey a message or reveal something. and we can certainly SEE time moving.

then suddenly it is 95 AD in Ch 5 because the Lamb is there?  No, not even close! That wasn't the point but again you just don't see. It is a continuous story starting from a time before Christ rose from the dead to be found worthy, up to the 5th seal. Opinion only and not cogent.  The history part of this vision ends with the 5th seal, where we find, for the first time since the start of chapter 4, a long time of waiting.  What you miss (or one of the things you are missing) is that the church has been between the 5th seal and the 6th seal for almost 2000 years. Opinion again as you offer no biblical proof. That's chapter and verse since it seems you don't understand the idea.

how do you know the Lamb was not there just because the Lamb was not mentioned?  John described everything there in the throne room..You have no clue if this is true or not. No one knows what the throne room contains in it's entirety. To make such a claim is arrogant and misinformed. As proven by this: The altar is mentioned in Ch 6 and is not described in Ch 4-5. Maybe it was on back order or delivery was late?  Ch 9 describes the altar as having four horns and being before God. Why was this not mentioned in Ch 4-5 if John described "everything" in the throne room? Was this another back-ordered item? But that isn't all. In Ch 11 the ark is seen as well. That was  not described by John in Ch 4-5.  I will try to quote exactly:  "I ascended into heaven long before John was called up to heaven. when John looked into the throne room, I should have been there. There are a dozen verses that say that is where I went to be. Stephen SAW me there. So my first question: WHY did John not immediately see me at the right hand of the Father." You're telling me that Jesus spoke these exact words to you?  I think you're troubled. I was SLOW. Still are.  I could not answer and my spirit man spoke: "I cannot answer this question." Not a big surprise since there is no good answer to a leading question. (I think I was in the spirit: You couldn't tell? You seem unsure. I could not talk. But my spirit man could.)

Do you realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?   There is plenty of evidence! Then provide some!! But with preconceived glasses it may be difficult to see.  John is looking into the throne room of 32 AD at a time just before Christ rose from the dead. From these words, we see Christ risen and immediately found worthy, So Jesus was only found worthy after He was resurrected? That you do not understand that Jesus was worthy from the foundation of the world is telling.

John 17:24 " for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world"

1 Peter 1:20 "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,"

Rev 13:8 "of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." 

then ascended to heaven and get the book into His hands and begin breaking seals. But again you cannot see the point. Just because Jesus is not described by John at that moment, does not mean Jesus is not there. You said it yourself, "Jesus is not in the throne room in ch 4." This is the "absence of evidence part". No evidence Jesus is in the throne room. This does not mean he is absent, this is the "not evidence of absence part". You do realize you cannot prove a negative? 

 What you see in Rev Ch 4-5 is the throne room and the introduction of the 70th week.   Absolutely not! We see the beginning of the church age. Perhaps you have not realized this, but if no one had ever been found worthy to break these seals, then Satan would remain forever as the god of this world. What in the world are talking about?! Jesus was  found worthy from the beginning. This plan was in place when the earth was formed. God doesn't react. You're misinformed about the character of God. No wonder your exegesis is off. It was CRITICAL that someone be found worthy to break the seals, so the rest of Revelation could take place: the trumpet judgments and then the vials.

The Lamb was obviously there in the midst of the throne in Ch 5.   He suddenly appeared there in chapter 5. He was NOT there a moment before, nor was He there (in the vision) in chapter 4 - and the moment He arrived the Holy Spirit was sent down. .Your ears do not hear what you lips speak. You have contradicted yourself in this several times. Jesus is the Lamb. Jesus is clearly there as He is the one giving the Revelation as given to him by His Father. What you are seeing is a vision of the worthiness of Jesus, and the introduction to the end of the age and Jesus administration of that time. Your assertion that this is 32 AD and the first seal is the church age is unfounded and sans evidence.

Your position is weak.  on the contrary, every other theory is weak, because this follows the text exactly.  It is a vision of the past. Three points in the script tells us this - no, four. Will I need to spell each of the four out for you again? If you posted the exact chapter and verse you claim as evidence, even once, I would be impressed. All you do is say something like, "It's a vision of the past because I heard a voice tell me that."

Along with this we see the worthiness of Jesus to administer the end of the age. You are adding and subtracting from the Revelation. You should stop. My friend and brother in Christ, Now that's just insulting. I'm not a brother in Christ to anyone who misuses scripture. Neither am I a friend to a person who is their own witness and sets their own standard. all I did was mediate on these scriptures and pray a LOT in the Spirit, and wait on God to reveal His intent in these scriptures. You can believe me or not. That is on you. Jesus asked me three questions and I could not answer one of them - UNTIL He sent me to chapter 12 to see a "history lesson." (His words not mine.) I am not adding, and I am not taking anything away from what is written: all I am doing is telling you the Author's INTENT of these scriptures. .It is all there, written out. It is all there: Jesus NOT in the throne room, NO man found, the Holy Spirit still in the throne room, until something happened: Christ rose from the dead and was then found worthy, and then suddenly He appeared into the throne room. This is the CONTEXT of the first seal. This shows us that the first seal was opened around 32 AD, when the church was in infancy. Yeah well, just like most of your claims you are your own witness. Means you have no credibility. 

Where? Prove that, with scripture, instead of just making a claim. Do you understand how you have no credibility when you offer no biblical evidence?  Perhaps you overlooked Him. It is easy to do.

In front of the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. This is who we call the Holy Spirit. We see Him again in chapter 5:

Verse 6: ...The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Never seen the Spirit described this way. In fact the Spirit has no physical form that I have seen in scripture except for the form of a dove; but this is explicitly described. You are engaging in supposition as not every spirit is the Holy Spirit. These two verses are of 7 spirits, not the singular Holy Spirit. Additionally, Rev 5:6 describes the Lamb as having 7 horns and 7 eyes; the 7 spirits of God. With all that descriptive language how can you possibly conclude this is speaking of the Holy Spirit? It's rhetorical. So no answer needed.

Please do not respond in this topic in the future.