The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)

[iamlamad]

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

No, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck then it's a duck. And what you've described is text book pre-trib Premillennialism. 

The reason is simple: the BIBLE is pre-trib Premillennial. 

[iamlamad]

12 hours ago, dhchristian said:

If Revelation was written in 90-95 AD then it would not be a prophecy at all.... All the prognostication just lacks simple common sense.

OF COURSE it would still be prophecy because everything in the book from the 6th seal on is future.

[Justin Adams]

Irenaeus said Yeshua died at 50+ years of age. He is not to be trusted in his accounts. @dhchristian Should be aware of this discrepancy, and @Josheb It is a fact and well known and talked about in scholarly circles.

A skeptic who goeth by the name of "skepticbud" ("Bud" from here on) has recently debated J. P. Holding regarding the authorship of Matthew. In that debate, Bud brought up the issue of Irenaeus' claims regarding the age of Jesus, and in the context of the debate, this was done for the sole purpose of showing both Irenaeus and "tradition" in general to be of dubious reliability. Though I make it a habit of simply ignoring such skeptics, Bud actually did bring up an issue which deserves our attention. I say this not because he had a good point in his argument, but rather because the issue is capable of a more general application. And that issue is this: did Irenaeus teach that, according to the gospels and apostolic tradition, Jesus was in his fifties when he died? And, furthermore, what do Irenaeus statements regarding Jesus' age do to the basic credibility of Irenaeus' as an historical witness? Because of my above mentioned avoidance of low-brow atheist apologetics such as Bud, I was unaware that they used Irenaeus' testimony as a sort of free pass to avoid any and every claim made by historical Christianity insofar as it is convenient. On the other hand, I have seen Irenaeus' testimony used in a more general sense as a free pass against "tradition" in whatever form. Some Christians, mostly Catholic from what I've seen, have attempted to explain away what Irenaeus says, as though the entire notion of "tradition" would be proven wrong if they couldn't. My goal in this essay is two-fold: to analyze the passage in question from Irenaeus' Against Heresies within its theological context, and to apply these findings to the various stances mentioned above.

http://tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Give "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry a read. 

I Have read all the arguments used by preterists in my time doing this and they all fall flat in this regard, Nero never had a false prophet giving credence to his rulership. He was a tyrant that ruled with a heavy hand of Roman military might. You are unable to respond to this criticism of your theory so you distract and misdirect to external works. This is the nail in the coffin of preterist and post mill eschatology "who was Nero's false Prophet sending fire down to earth to kill?" He had none, nor can you answer this question because there was none. 

common sense tells me therefore this theory is faulty. John's writing of Revelation in 90ad verifies this, He also wrote his gospel around the same time and when one does a careful study of the difference between this and the synoptic gospels which were written before the fall of Jerusalem you can see the lack of reference to the Kingdom of heaven in John's Gospel, and is the only Gospel that speaks of the New Birth authoritatively. This Proves John was around after the fall of Jerusalem and writing and ministering in the gentile churches. 

You and scholars like Gentry can only bloviate and speculate on these things, We as Christians with the Holy Ghost have His confirmation that we are NOT living in the millennial kingdom now, but rather in the kingdoms ruled by the god of this world (Satan, 2 Cor. 4:4) who still holds the deed to this earth until the second coming of Christ (at the very least partial preterists acknowledge this but not full preterists).

Not to mention the restoration of Israel which occurred in 1947/48 exactly as foretold in scripture which you also ignore which lends creedence to the dispensationalist premill views of events as well as pointing to the fact that the fulness of the gentiles has not come in yet.... You should take the time to carefully read Ephesians as this will verify this, especially ephesians 4, as the fulness of the Christ must come upon the gentiles before Christ can return and restore Israel not to mention Romans 9-11 which foretells of these events as well.

In Fact, this is the very thing Satan wants to prevent, the unity of the Spirit as spoken of in Ephesians 4. Instead he wants to bring in a false ecumenism that tolerates error and heresy and is based on making man the head of the church, whether that be a pope or a man made institution and hierarchy, but that is the very thing Ephesians warns against, that we need to Make Christ Jesus the Head, and the All in all of the church, that the shepherds, prophets, and teachers are there for the perfecting of the saints, But that unity of the spirit comes not from their leadership, but the leadership of the Holy Ghost in the believers.

What you are seeing here is an eschatology that gives creedence to a false ecumenism wrapped in kingdom now and dominionism which is the false unity that will be ushered in by the False Prophet around a man, the man of sin. This is why for centuries many have surmised that the Pope is the antichrist, I am not of that opinion but do see him as perhaps having a role in the false prophet of end times. But even this is incomplete in that the False prophet has two horns like a lamb, meaning two spiritual towers that he uses. One is legalistic, and the other lawless (Hyper grace, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness) Thus the false prophet is a religions and "Christian" figure head, not a Jewish or Pagan prophet.  

[dhchristian]

Just now, Josheb said:

No, I simply don't waste my time and effort with those who openly state they are unmovable. I take you at your word. If and when a change occurs 1) let me know and 2) post in a manner that evidences that change and we'll talk. In the interim give Gentry's book a read, let the scriptures, facts and reason speak for themselves. 

You have no answer and are simply wrong.... that is why you refuse to respond. 

[Alive]

These last few weeks have been interesting, to say the least--I have been following these conversations in a couple few threads.

I am not convinced by a long shot of this postmillennial theory or Preterism of one stripe or another....the truth, is that I just don't know, as it has never been my bailiwick.

The one thing that I do know very well is that an argument can be made in a very rational and logical manner and still be dead wrong.

As I have read scripture and observed the world around me, I see the world moving closer to the result of entropy rather than utopia, before our Lord returns to make things right.

[dhchristian]

Just now, Alive said:

These last few weeks have been interesting, to say the least--I have been following these conversations in a couple few threads.

I am not convinced by a long shot of this postmillennial theory or Preterism of one stripe or another....the truth, is that I just don't know, as it has never been my bailiwick.

The one thing that I do know very well is that an argument can be made in a very rational and logical manner and still be dead wrong.

As I have read scripture and observed the world around me, I see the world moving closer to the result of entropy rather than utopia, before our Lord returns to make things right.

You can argue that 2+2 = 5 and even believe this to be true, But it is not true. Orwell understood this dynamic and this was the very heart of the re-education we are seeing in this day and age. Post modernism. It has wound itself into the church as well like a serpent coiled around the neck and is choking the life out of the church.

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thess. 2:9-12)

The very end time call to action here is the Love for the Truth, if one comes honestly searching for the truth they will find it, but some come wanting to dictate 2+2=5 and to dismay of those who love the Truth many follow the lie by choice. If my theory has a contradiction it is my theory that is at fault, if someone points out a simple commonsense error in something I am teaching I will re-evaluate that theory, cast it asunder as false if proven so, because it is not true. I have raised a contradiction and an unexplainable error in the preterist viewpoint, will this person see their error and re-evaluate their case? I highly doubt it. What does this show of the character of that person? 

Simplicity and common sense always trump complexity.... Occam's razor. Matthew 11:25, I cor. 3;18ff all point to this fact. 

[Don19]

30 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You can argue that 2+2 = 5 and even believe this to be true, But it is not true. Orwell understood this dynamic and this was the very heart of the re-education we are seeing in this day and age. Post modernism. It has wound itself into the church as well like a serpent coiled around the neck and is choking the life out of the church.

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thess. 2:9-12)

The very end time call to action here is the Love for the Truth, if one comes honestly searching for the truth they will find it, but some come wanting to dictate 2+2=5 and to dismay of those who love the Truth many follow the lie by choice. If my theory has a contradiction it is my theory that is at fault, if someone points out a simple commonsense error in something I am teaching I will re-evaluate that theory, cast it asunder as false if proven so, because it is not true. I have raised a contradiction and an unexplainable error in the preterist viewpoint, will this person see their error and re-evaluate their case? I highly doubt it. What does this show of the character of that person? 

Simplicity and common sense always trump complexity.... Occam's razor. Matthew 11:25, I cor. 3;18ff all point to this fact. 

2 Thess 2:3-12 is about the man of sin. Here's were futurism errs most egregiously. Those who should know better cannot see the man of sin being the pope, because they're expecting a future man of sin. But the prophecy fits the papacy perfectly ("man of sin" being a collective noun much like "man of God"). The "truth" here is the gospel of Jesus Christ (compare to Eph 1:13, Jas 1:18, John 8:32), which Rome has perverted, and preaches a false gospel which is no gospel at all. So "truth" here is more specific than just truthful or untruthful propositions pertaining to other matters of the faith--which true believers may disagree over, such as eschatology. The papacy has already been consumed with the spirit of the Lord's mouth (2 Thess 2:8), as the gospel has undermined Rome (which they tried to suppress). And when Jesus Christ returns, He will destroy the pope, as the prophecy says. Maranatha!

[iamlamad]

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

Which says absolutely nothing about the UN or the 21st century. This is an abuse of God's word and a betrayal of the standard you set for this discussion. The passage clearly states Paul is speaking to the first century Christians in Thessalonica about conditions they would experience. The "you" in that text is the first century Christian, not the 21st century Christian.

 

Matthew 24:9 and 29-31, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 say otherwise. There is in fact no statement in scripture stating a pre-trib removal of Christians from the earth; It is is always a matter solely of inference. 

You just have to ask yourself: do YOU feel it is a time of peace and safety? If Yes, then you should be looking UP, for His coming may well be tonight! 

It is OK if you can't see pretrib in Paul's and John's writing. I can, and so do millions of others. It is not "inference." It is scripture. 

Paul shows us a paradigm: bringing two groups up before us and showing us clearly that in ONE MOMENT OF TIME two different groups get two different results: those "in Christ" get caught up, but those not in Christ are left behind and are caught in sudden destruction. It happens to both groups at the same moment. For some it is an escape from wrath, for the other, God set appointments for them with His wrath. (the flip side of the coin.) 

Then John saw the great crowd, too large to number, THE CHURCH, in heaven before the 70th week begins. That to me is PRE...

Imagine, maybe 50 generations of believers in one place at one time: it will be BILLIONS of believers - by far the largest group shown in Revelation - FAR surpassing the martyrs of the 70th week. I know, many people don't believe this group is the raptured church. All I can say is, they are wrong. The rapture will happen JUST before wrath - and wrath will begin at the 6th seal. It makes sense then that the church would be seen in heaven shortly thereafter. 

I guess if you believe Paul's rapture happened way back then and every writer missed it (we have no record of it) then you ave nothing to look forward too but days of GT. You have no "blessed Hope." Always remember, Luke tells us of God's escape plan. Are you praying for it?

[Don19]

22 hours ago, Josheb said:

The op, Jag, has provided several short lists of very good resources for understanding the Postmil and partial-preterist povs. I recommend starting with "Before Jerusalem Fell," by Ken Gentry and then, oddly enough read Kim Riddlebarger's "The Case for Amillennialism," because his exegesis of all the Bible texts he covers is just excellent. 

Already covered that terrain, Don. If you'll go back and review those passages you'll see they are all tied to conditional clauses. When X happens then Y is near. You'll find all the Messianic nears are tied to the incarnation or advent of the Messiah. When the anointed one comes then their days will not be prolonged. When My servant comes then Babylon will be judged. 

When did the Messiah come? In the first century. When is the near applicable? When the Messiah came. The only discrepancy the New Testament provides is the division between the last days (plural) and the last day (singular). If you go back and review the passages with this in mind the conditional clauses will be noted and an observable area of exegetical neglect in Dispensational Premillennialism is readily observed. 

You understand the article starts out with a red herring, yes? Hymenaeus and Phyletus were not preterists. There's no evidence they argued the prophesies of Matthew 24 and Revelation were fulfilled.  Even from the perspective of an early-date schema it's not likely either man had any access to Revelation because it hadn't yet been written and from a late-date perspective John's Revelation was a good thirty years after Paul wrote to Timothy.  Furthermore, the definition of preterism provided by that website is that of full-preterism, not partial-preterism. This op, JAG, and I have explicitly repudiated full-preterism. Full-preterism is a minority view within preterism, both normatively and statistically. SO when the website tries to pass full-preterism off as regular preterism, the commonly held position of preterism, or representative of preterism as a whole it is being false. If it does so knowingly then it is being deceptive and lying. 

The site is odd. It confuses hermeneutics with exegesis. Its list of hermeneutics (exegesis) is good but I listened to some of the sermons and the pastor does not practice his own exegetic precepts!. For example, one of the items on the list is "Context Must Be Followed" but in the sermon titled "Preterism 1" he hopes around randomly from verse to verse and ignores context after context of each verse to which he appeals. Most egregiously pertaining to this op, when he turns to the opening of Revelation (about the 6 minute mark) he completely ignores verses 1 and 3 and speaks only to verse 2. In other words, he ignores the explicitly stated context found in verses 1 and 3 and thereby breaks his own websites rules of exegesis!  

 

So I do not recommend you rely in any way on a website that asserts red herrings, straw men, and neglects the chronology of writing. I looked around and there is plenty of good content. Their reformed Baptist pov is something I could commend. But if you're interested in learning about Postmillennialism and partial-preterism - which is the subject of this op - then that website is not even close to being a good source.  Instead, check out some of the books JAG has recommended.

I have to go back on my earlier endorsement of partial-preterism in relation to Revelation. In comparing to Daniel, I don't think that position is tenable. The whore is Roman Catholicism. The pope is the antichrist (even the name "vicar of Christ" means antichrist as "anti" in Greek also means "in place of" - which is what "vicar" means). Daniel prophesied that it would prevail against the saints and the saints would be given unto his hand for a time, and times, and the dividing of time. That = 42 months = 1260 days (or years), which is about as long as popery reigned with impunity (Rev 12:6, 12:14, 13:5) - also called the "Dark Ages." Some say it ended in 1798. But, however the exact dates would be reckoned, as Paul said in 2 Thess 2:8, the Lord will consume the man of sin (the pope) with the spirit of His mouth, which is the gospel. And the gospel has done that to the papacy. The pope only remains to be destroyed by Jesus when He returns.

Revelation 18 and 19 also mention the marriage supper of the Lamb, which rather puts it beyond 70 AD.

As for the Church of Greenville, whose website it is that I posted, I have benefited quite a lot from them. Actually, it was by reading their sermon "the Gospel Millennium" that persuaded me that premillennialism is false: https://letgodbetrue.com/sermons/index/year-2006/gospel-millennium/ (Though, as to the wording of the thesis: John the Baptist didn't establish Christ's kingdom - see Mat 11:11.) Nevertheless, I don't agree with them on everything.