mark of beast...my theory

[Starise]

32 minutes ago, 1to3 said:

The End Times Technologies .

2020 has been an advancement of the BEAST coming towards and building its infrastructure , he is redoing all of Washington D.C. The infrastructure is being laid everywhere.  MESH which is the BEAST , that is how they will be doing this surveillance,you wont be able to hide,  everything is connected, everything is -SMART- talking through each other, the internet of things is here.

Now through these Covid-19 vaccinations injections and other  into our bodies is called the internet of bodies, and now your body will be connected to the interned of things, and now you will never ever have privacy again, because you will be connected to the system, you will become part of the image of the BEAST. His image is this MESH, his image is this form that is being created across this earth like a glove: the Internet of Things. This is his eyes, those computer chips are his eyes, that is why he the Beast wants to be INSIDE your TEMPLE he wants to marry you with him, As Christians we are the bride of Christ we have been betrothed , we have been bought with a price , we have been set apart, we are what is holding the BEAST back. This is why he does not like us Christians. Because of who we represent. We as Christians are representatives of the kingdom of God, we are ambassadors, we are the bride, we have all the rights of Him, when they see us, they should SEE HIM,  the BEAST wants to remove that. The BEAST want to do away with that GOD gene, that goodness, that light that is inside you, your eyes, that purity that lives inside you ,the BEAST wants, he wants what is our from GOD,  he wants to drain your anointing from GOD, the BEAST wants to stop your ears from hearing the gospel,from hearing from heaven, the BEAST wants you to be his, to be clogged up, to be soulless, he want you to be married to him and to his images, the BEAST wants to take care of you like a bride, he wants to supply you, he wants to heal you , he wants to give you things, he wants you to be leaning on him when your in trouble,you go to him instead of GOD, the BEAST has got the physical answer right here in front of your eyes, he will whisper,:  God is up there and you cannot see him? I am right here, I have everything that you need to protect you, to live forever. The BEAST is the false hope and today the ruber has hit the road. People are having to make choices, life and death choices. People are moving, people are quitting their jobs, people are leaving their spouses, people are leaving the parents, people are leaving their children, this is how serious this is. And its because of the hour we are in. The BEAST is coming after us like the deal with Moses. When the new year comes, we as Christian need to be crossing those waters with the rod of faith, not knowing how HE is going to make the way, but trust in Him and His WORD rather than trusting in the BEAST system

Not sure if you remember Y2K? There was a huge stir it was going to lock up computers and cause major blackouts. Lots of people became fearful. I was pulled into it to such an extent I was trying to get my employer at the time to buy generators. 

In the end it wasn't nearly as alarming as we all thought it would be. The day came and went with nary anything happening.

It would appear you've been around the web reading various info in anticipation of some cataclysmic takeover of our ability to decide or have privacy. There is probably some partial truth to all of it but I'll bet 50% of it is hoopla that will never happen or won't happen in the way we think it will. Probably the most concerning part of this is that when it doesn't all happen people will accuse those crazy nutter Christians for believing all of it and trying to get everyone else to believe it. This substantiates their ideas that we are all crazy nut jobs who can't be believed.

God is in control. He has each of us in His hands. In my opinion we don't have enough proof about some of the intents for this technology to say that all of it is nefarious in some way.

I don't believe technology is our savior. It has many problems and it can be abused....still it isn't always bad and it can be used for good things. 

I guess I'm not ready to condemn all of it until I am sure about some of these claims made on the internet. Not only that, but the Bible, even though a very old book, is as relevant as ever. I think it should be our main source of information.

It's important to follow developments IMHO but with a careful evaluation and along with scriptures.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Starise

[Guest kingdombrat]

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

No, they asked one single question that had three related aspects or parts to it. Your statement is self-evidently incorrect for anyone who actually opens their Bible and reads what was asked. 

Matthew 24:3 KJV
"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Matthew 24:3 NAS
"As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?'"

Matthew 24:3 ESV
"As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?'”

Three of our most accurate word-for-word English translations agree: one question asked in three parts. It is exactly as I previously stated.

You have the "record" wrong. 

Now I am reluctant to do what's next but given the unnecessary rancor to which I have been exposed in this thread I'm going to ask you a very plain and simple question that could and should be answered directly just as plainly and simply without lengthy explanation or excuse: Will you bow to what the text of scripture actually states or will you persist in your own view that is demonstrably contrary to what is stated? 

Because if we can't agree on what is stated we won't get anywhere in consensus with the scriptures. 

Well since the single, three-part question the disciples asked is explicitly related to the word "these things," and "these things" have to do with the words Matthew records being spoken by Jesus prior to their inquiry we know the "these things" is related to 1) the judgment of the Pharisees and 2) the tearing down of he temple. That is the context of their inquiry. This is clearly seen in Jesus' words when only hours earlier he had stated, "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.... Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!" and "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." 

No other context is provided. Those two quotes are what is stated. Those are the impetus and the context for the disciples' single three-part inquiry. Note, they don't actually ask about Jesus' coming. They ask about the sign of his coming. 

When were the Pharisees judged? When did judgment come upon the desolate house of the Pharisees? When was the temple torn down? It is an indisputable fact of history those two events happened in 70 A.D. So you got that "record" wrong, too. Will you bow to what is stated?

 

Just try reading scripture as written without adding or subtracting anything from it, without reading into it anything not stated or implied by itself. Just try it. 

 

In your interpretation those 2 questions (the 2nd being A & B) are related because that's obvious how you want to view Matthew 24.   The first question is clearly separate from the 2nd 2 part question and Jesus answers them both separately, not in a conglomeration of 1 event.

[1to3]

The Beast "cure " will be killing millions and millions more than the cause.

[1to3]

About nanotechnology:

nano particles assembles inside your body, once it assembles it begins to grow and then it fuses to your tissue, to your ligaments, to your cells,it fuses to your bone and it grows. With a microgel chip (and DARPA has been working on this for over ten years), so with microgel you can never take it out as it becomes ONE with your body, You become ONE with artificial intelligence.

 

 

Nanomaterials:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/nanomaterials/en/l-2/4.htm

4.1 How do nanoparticles interact with proteins?

Living organisms contain many molecules which interact with nanoparticles. Most often, nanomaterials will become coated with protein molecules. This “corona” of proteins is a shifting population of different molecules. Some influence the body’s immune defence system. Others may help nanoparticles penetrate the tissuea.

There is evidence from laboratory studies that some nanoparticles can promote clumping of protein molecules, which speeds up formation of self-assembling fibrils of a kind linked with a number of medical conditions. In amyloid disease, these produce plaques which the cell has difficulty disposing of.

Experiments in vitro in the laboratory have shown that several different kinds of nanoparticles can increase formation of a nucleus for protein fibrils from the purified human blood protein beta-2 macroglobulin. It is not known if this can also happen in the organism.

There are also indications that nanoparticles can be transported from the upper lining of the nose into the brain. This is a concern because of the role of amyloid plaques in some brain diseases. More research is needed here.

 

 

4.2 How can nanomaterials be transported in the body?

Nanoparticles enter the body by crossing one of its outer layers, either the skin or the lining of the lungs or the intestine. How well they transfer from outside to inside will depend on the particular physical and chemical properties of the particle.

Once inside, the particles will move with the circulation into all the organs and tissues of the body. Nanoparticles injected into the bloodstream of laboratory animals are found in organs including the liver, spleen, heart and brain. Direct cell-to- cell transfer is unlikely as the junctions between cells have pores which are even smaller than nanoparticles (a nanometre or less). However, cell membranes admit some particles, and have transport mechanisms for others, depending on the cell type.

Research on nanoparticle transport in the body has often used colloidal gold nanoparticles, which are easy to detect and do not harm cells - they are potential carriers of drugs, imaging molecules, and perhaps genes and cancer therapy agents. There is also work with titanium dioxide, the common white pigment.

Experiments on rats show that the distribution of gold nanoparticles depends on their size, with the smallest particles - 10 nanometres - spreading to most organs, while those 100 nanometres or more were mainly held in the spleen and liver. The particles stay in the body longer if they are made of water-loving material, and carry a positive electric charge. For some particles, either the particles themselves or a chemical component of the particle can be detected in all organs tested, including the brain and the reproductive system. There is some evidence that very small nanoparticles can transfer from a pregnant rat to the fetus.

The concentration of nanoparticles in the spleen and liver aids their elimination, as both these organs are well supplied with cells, phagocytes, which ingest foreign matter.

Results from experiments in which gold or titanium dioxide particles are given by mouth or inhaled are broadly similar to those involving injection into the bloodstream, although fewer such studies involve the smallest particles. Smaller particles are more widely distributed, while the largest are more likely to remain in the digestive system, or the lungs, and so be eliminated more rapidly.

If humans inhale carbon nanoparticles, most remain in the lungs, with less than one per cent crossing into the blood circulation.

Nanoparticles which are not absorbed by the gut or the lungs eventually leave the body in the faeces - either directly or after they are moved up from the lungs by normal clearance of mucus and then swallowed. Even insoluble nanoparticles which reach the finely branched alveoli in the lungs can be removed by macrophage cells engulfing them and carrying them out to the mucus, but only 20 to 30 per cent of them are cleared in this way. Nanoparticles in the blood can also be filtered out by the kidneys and excreted in urine. Long-term results are scanty, but it is wise to assume that unexcreted nanoparticles will accumulate in organs they can reach if exposure continues over long periods.

4.3 What are the potential effects of carbon nanotubes?

Concern about possible health effects of carbon nanotubes centres on their partial resemblance to the type of long, thin asbestos microfibres which can cause the cancer mesothelioma. Carbon nanotubes are cylindrical molecular assemblies of pure carbon whose manufacture followed discovery of the new carbon structures known as fullerenes, and are usually a few nanometres across. They can be produced in many variations. There are results which indicate that the certain specifically prepared nanotubes - long and straight, and persistent - do produce the same effects on susceptible tissues as asbestos fibres. Any actual health risk would depend on whether they are ever inhaled.

However, most carbon nanotubes are tangles of tubes, more like a ball of string, rather than straight fibres. These can be harmful to the lungs, and cause inflammation, tissue alterations and vulnerability to infection.

The experimental results suggest that any manufacture of nanotubes should guard against lung exposure. It is likely that any other nanoparticles which are also long and thin, and persistent (are not metabilised), nanowires or nanorods, would also pose a hazard if they were more than 20 micrometers long.

 

4.4 Can nanomaterials have genetic effects?

Outside agents can affect the genes inside a cell either directly or by causing inflammation. Nanoparticles might also act in either of these ways. There is some evidence that they can pass into compartments inside the cell, including the nucleus which houses the vast majority of the genes. That means that they can interact directly with DNA, or affect by producing reactive oxygen species (often known as free radicals) in the vicinity of the genetic material. Acquiring a protein coat may help nanoparticles penetrate the tissues. The coating can help the particles cross the boundary membrane around a cell, or the nuclear membrane around the cell’s DNA. The latter effect has been demonstrated with gold nanoparticles bound to a specific nuclear protein.

Harmful genetic effects have been reported for some manufactured nanomaterials tested on cells in culture, mainly linked with production of free radicals. The damage may include DNA damage, chromosomal alterations, or gene mutations, detected by different assays. A few nanomaterials have registered positive in such tests for all three types of damage.

Some nanomaterials have been intensively studied for genetic effects, and results are frequently inconsistent - depending on the kind of test used, the cell lines and the precise conditions for delivery of the nanomaterials to the culture. This makes it harder to interpret their relevance to nanomaterials in use.

There are in theory additional potential harmful effects from nanomaterials, including mechanical interference with chromosome movements during cell division and other sources of damage to DNA such as metal release from nanoparticles.

4.5 Do nanoparticles have effects on the heart and blood vessels?

Earlier studies of air pollution, which may involve microparticulates approaching the nano scale, suggest that manufactured nanoparticles could affect the cardiovascular system, the heart and blood vessels, although the exact mechanisms are not well understood. However, there is no clear evidence yet that this risk arises with manufactured nanoparticles. More information if needed to understand this possibility better.

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by 1to3

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Fail. 

I did not "interpret" anything. Not a single letter of a single word of a single sentence. I posted the text and I posted about the text(s) as written without any interpretation. Please do not misrepresent my posts. 

lol! 

There are not two questions and when you speak of "2nd 2 part" you confirm what I posted and refute your own position. Big Fail. Not only have you just refuted your own position but you've interpreted the text! What we end up with is rival interpretations. That would be a red herring. There is no winning that contest unless and until there is some objective standard by which any "interpretation" can be measured. 

And you may not like it, but since I didn't "interpret" anything in Matthew 24:3 you lose. Why? Because what you've argued is a straw man. An interpretation cannot be argued against if no interpretation was asserted. 

The text states what the text states and I have stood firmly on what is stated, not what I or anyone else might make it say. This fact is self-evident in my post(s). I quoted the verse to prove my claims. Unlike you, I quoted the verse to prove my position. There's only one question that has three aspects or parts and that is the way all the English translations translate the text. Exegetically, not eisegetically, the aspects or part, are defined by what precedes the inquiry. I did not add or subtract a single letter, word, or statement to/from the text. 

You're gonna have to pick another argument if you hope to disprove what I've posted prove your case. I'm open to you doing just that but it's never gonna happen with straw men and red herrings. 

Most SCHOLARS agree Matthew 24 has a small portion concerning the 70 A.D. soon coming event but the rest of Matthew 24 is discussing something entirely different concerning the end of times before [the 1,000 year reign and Final Judgement].

 

But if you find Ken Gentry's {Grace Theological} (should've know he is member of Grace Seminar) views over more reputable viewpoints then we have nothing more to discuss.   Where I come from Grace Theology is known as the occult.   They even have a Grace College nearby.   I should have known!

[R. Hartono]

12 hours ago, 1to3 said:

About nanotechnology:

nano particles assembles inside your body, once it assembles it begins to grow and then it fuses to your tissue, to your ligaments, to your cells,it fuses to your bone and it grows. With a microgel chip (and DARPA has been working on this for over ten years), so with microgel you can never take it out as it becomes ONE with your body, You become ONE with artificial intelligence.

 

 

Nanomaterials:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/nanomaterials/en/l-2/4.htm

4.1 How do nanoparticles interact with proteins?

Living organisms contain many molecules which interact with nanoparticles. Most often, nanomaterials will become coated with protein molecules. This “corona” of proteins is a shifting population of different molecules. Some influence the body’s immune defence system. Others may help nanoparticles penetrate the tissuea.

There is evidence from laboratory studies that some nanoparticles can promote clumping of protein molecules, which speeds up formation of self-assembling fibrils of a kind linked with a number of medical conditions. In amyloid disease, these produce plaques which the cell has difficulty disposing of.

Experiments in vitro in the laboratory have shown that several different kinds of nanoparticles can increase formation of a nucleus for protein fibrils from the purified human blood protein beta-2 macroglobulin. It is not known if this can also happen in the organism.

There are also indications that nanoparticles can be transported from the upper lining of the nose into the brain. This is a concern because of the role of amyloid plaques in some brain diseases. More research is needed here.

 

 

4.2 How can nanomaterials be transported in the body?

Nanoparticles enter the body by crossing one of its outer layers, either the skin or the lining of the lungs or the intestine. How well they transfer from outside to inside will depend on the particular physical and chemical properties of the particle.

Once inside, the particles will move with the circulation into all the organs and tissues of the body. Nanoparticles injected into the bloodstream of laboratory animals are found in organs including the liver, spleen, heart and brain. Direct cell-to- cell transfer is unlikely as the junctions between cells have pores which are even smaller than nanoparticles (a nanometre or less). However, cell membranes admit some particles, and have transport mechanisms for others, depending on the cell type.

Research on nanoparticle transport in the body has often used colloidal gold nanoparticles, which are easy to detect and do not harm cells - they are potential carriers of drugs, imaging molecules, and perhaps genes and cancer therapy agents. There is also work with titanium dioxide, the common white pigment.

Experiments on rats show that the distribution of gold nanoparticles depends on their size, with the smallest particles - 10 nanometres - spreading to most organs, while those 100 nanometres or more were mainly held in the spleen and liver. The particles stay in the body longer if they are made of water-loving material, and carry a positive electric charge. For some particles, either the particles themselves or a chemical component of the particle can be detected in all organs tested, including the brain and the reproductive system. There is some evidence that very small nanoparticles can transfer from a pregnant rat to the fetus.

The concentration of nanoparticles in the spleen and liver aids their elimination, as both these organs are well supplied with cells, phagocytes, which ingest foreign matter.

Results from experiments in which gold or titanium dioxide particles are given by mouth or inhaled are broadly similar to those involving injection into the bloodstream, although fewer such studies involve the smallest particles. Smaller particles are more widely distributed, while the largest are more likely to remain in the digestive system, or the lungs, and so be eliminated more rapidly.

If humans inhale carbon nanoparticles, most remain in the lungs, with less than one per cent crossing into the blood circulation.

Nanoparticles which are not absorbed by the gut or the lungs eventually leave the body in the faeces - either directly or after they are moved up from the lungs by normal clearance of mucus and then swallowed. Even insoluble nanoparticles which reach the finely branched alveoli in the lungs can be removed by macrophage cells engulfing them and carrying them out to the mucus, but only 20 to 30 per cent of them are cleared in this way. Nanoparticles in the blood can also be filtered out by the kidneys and excreted in urine. Long-term results are scanty, but it is wise to assume that unexcreted nanoparticles will accumulate in organs they can reach if exposure continues over long periods.

4.3 What are the potential effects of carbon nanotubes?

Concern about possible health effects of carbon nanotubes centres on their partial resemblance to the type of long, thin asbestos microfibres which can cause the cancer mesothelioma. Carbon nanotubes are cylindrical molecular assemblies of pure carbon whose manufacture followed discovery of the new carbon structures known as fullerenes, and are usually a few nanometres across. They can be produced in many variations. There are results which indicate that the certain specifically prepared nanotubes - long and straight, and persistent - do produce the same effects on susceptible tissues as asbestos fibres. Any actual health risk would depend on whether they are ever inhaled.

However, most carbon nanotubes are tangles of tubes, more like a ball of string, rather than straight fibres. These can be harmful to the lungs, and cause inflammation, tissue alterations and vulnerability to infection.

The experimental results suggest that any manufacture of nanotubes should guard against lung exposure. It is likely that any other nanoparticles which are also long and thin, and persistent (are not metabilised), nanowires or nanorods, would also pose a hazard if they were more than 20 micrometers long.

 

4.4 Can nanomaterials have genetic effects?

Outside agents can affect the genes inside a cell either directly or by causing inflammation. Nanoparticles might also act in either of these ways. There is some evidence that they can pass into compartments inside the cell, including the nucleus which houses the vast majority of the genes. That means that they can interact directly with DNA, or affect by producing reactive oxygen species (often known as free radicals) in the vicinity of the genetic material. Acquiring a protein coat may help nanoparticles penetrate the tissues. The coating can help the particles cross the boundary membrane around a cell, or the nuclear membrane around the cell’s DNA. The latter effect has been demonstrated with gold nanoparticles bound to a specific nuclear protein.

Harmful genetic effects have been reported for some manufactured nanomaterials tested on cells in culture, mainly linked with production of free radicals. The damage may include DNA damage, chromosomal alterations, or gene mutations, detected by different assays. A few nanomaterials have registered positive in such tests for all three types of damage.

Some nanomaterials have been intensively studied for genetic effects, and results are frequently inconsistent - depending on the kind of test used, the cell lines and the precise conditions for delivery of the nanomaterials to the culture. This makes it harder to interpret their relevance to nanomaterials in use.

There are in theory additional potential harmful effects from nanomaterials, including mechanical interference with chromosome movements during cell division and other sources of damage to DNA such as metal release from nanoparticles.

4.5 Do nanoparticles have effects on the heart and blood vessels?

Earlier studies of air pollution, which may involve microparticulates approaching the nano scale, suggest that manufactured nanoparticles could affect the cardiovascular system, the heart and blood vessels, although the exact mechanisms are not well understood. However, there is no clear evidence yet that this risk arises with manufactured nanoparticles. More information if needed to understand this possibility better.

 

 

 

Its important for people to know this, cud u make a special post ? So i can mark it.

[Diaste]

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

I completely agree but... you left one precept out, got one wrong, and have them in the wrong order.

Literalness, not literalism. 

Maybe. I have to have context. Literal approach first is great but for me it's context and concept. It's the only means by which I understand. 

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

The first basic precept of proper exegesis is to read what is stated in the normal ordinary usage of the words as written. I completely agree with you if this is what you believe we should do. The problem is few here have done this, few here do this, few here have done this.

After we read the text as written we look for indications in the text for reasons not to read the text literally. The presence of figurative language, for example, might be an indication what we're reading should not be read literally. Literal statements should be read literally and figurative statements should be read figuratively and neither should be read...

Yes. Such figurative language is always noted or apparent. I don't know of any example in scripture where we would have to rely on assumption the text is prophecy, allegory, poetry, et.al.

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

...outside of the context of 1) the immediately surrounding text, 2) the book in which the text occurs, and 3) the scriptures as a whole, and 4) the original audience to whom the text was written or spoken. Every single passage has at least four contexts and all four can be umbrellaed under Christ incarnate, dead, and resurrected as the perfect sacrifice. Everything in scripture is related to that single reality. Context is the third necessity of proper exegesis. 

I'm inclined to let scripture designate context. 

Original audience is not applicable in every instance. In prophecy it cannot be original audience as many prophecies come to pass after the original audience is long dead and gone. There is no way John's understanding of the visons in Revelation can still apply centuries later. John even uses language such as, "Like unto..." He didn't even understand what he was seeing. The Revelation is uniquely fit for any generation in which the prophecy comes to pass. 

I like consistency, even rigid adherence in many areas. It pays to be flexible under a proven and reliable mentor, however.

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

Which brings me to the fourth precept: the single best interpreter of scripture is scripture. Not history after the fact. Not sectarian doctrine after the fact. Not the daily newscast. 

Agree. 

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

He believed and he taught prophesy should be read literally even though the NT authors clearly did not practice that rule. 

Oh, come on! Prophecy must be literally fulfilled or it's not prophecy. I suppose Jude saying,

"Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed,"

Is not literal? 

 

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

It may irritate folks to read me say this but objective comparison easily shows I have applied these principles more often, more uniformly, and more pervasively than most and definitely more so that those who disagree with my position(s). The mark cannot be a vaccine or a computer chip because both those ideas violate lots of hermeneutical and exegetical practices, beginning with the practice of completely ignoring how the original readers of the "mark" prophesy would have understood it. They could not and would not have understood it as either a vaccine or a computer chip.

It's not that the conclusion violates man's approach to interpretation and understanding; it violates clear language of the scriptures. That it flies in the face of another approach is a byproduct. 

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

Whatever the mark may be it must be something comprehendible by the first century believer to whom the prophesy was first written and in literal, ordinary, everyday usage a "mark," is just that: a mark. 

Hmm...I don't see the logic here. The understanding of what the mark is can only apply to those faced with the mark and it's consequences. This is where rigidity dooms wisdom and understanding. If it can be proven the mark as prophesied occurred in the generation of the penner I will adjust. If not, then a resounding No!

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

Adjust thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly .

 I hope I didn't lead anyone to think I believe the vaccine or a chip is the mark. If I did, that was wrong.

It's a mark. Most likely applied to the individual by the individual or those close. It can be applied to the flesh or worn; in the manner prophesied.  

 

[Diaste]

On 12/22/2020 at 7:19 AM, Josheb said:

No other temple is forecast to be built but the one God Himself built through His Son, the Son of David. That's it. Stop looking for another temple. Hold to a premil view if you like but do so without an expectation of another temple. 

Then clarify 2 Thess 2 where Paul clearly states the man of sin, the son of perdition, will sit in the naos and exalt himself above all gods and proclaim himself to be God. 

What naos would that be then? In your understanding it would have to be, "the one God Himself built through His Son, the Son of David."

It's fine you say there is no stone temple coming. What then is the interpretation of  2 Thess 2:4?

I might abandon the idea of a temple except for the scriptural evidence coupled with the temporal impetus of various groups. 

Time will tell.

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Diaste

[Guest kingdombrat]

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

What does the Bible state? 

I have shown what the Bible states. the comment about "Most SCHOLARS" is incorrect. Maybe most scholars you read but far-futurism is a minority view. It is a very popular and extremely well-marketed view but both normatively and statistically it is a minority view. There are five main views beside the Dispensational view (Historical Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Idealism) and they are  ALL in agreement: the Dispensational model is false. They have much more in common both eschatologically and exegetically than pre-tribulational rapturism. Four-fifths of Christendom disagrees with the pre-trib rapture theory!

So don't be telling me about most scholars because that just wrong. 

And for every theologian you can cite saying one thing I can cite another saying the opposite. Of the writing of many books there is no end. But there's only one Bible. And I showed what the Bible states!!! What it states will either be accepted or not as written. We can accept what it states and subject or thinking to it and form doctrine and practice in a consistent manner..... or not. Ragging on Gentry does not change that fact. 

I'd like all the readers to note what is happening. I quoted the scripture. I have been personally denigrated, digressions were attempted, appeals to authority, and more ad hominem ensued. 

 

kb, if we cannot stay couched in scripture we don't have anything to discuss and we won't find any consensus with each other or scripture. It's not personal. I ask this of everyone and expect everyone to hold me accountable to the same standard. This is one of the reasons I don't post affirmative cases for what I believe in topics where I don't know the answer. I post where I know scripture. Where I do not know I lurk and I learn. Matthew 24:3 shows the disciples asking a single, three-part question. Your prior statement is incorrect and that fact is not being acknowledged. The error should be corrected, not ignored. Jesus' words have a "bookend" in them. He speaks in the beginning of the tribulation and he speaks near the end of the tribulation and it is only after his commentary that he shifts to what happens thereafter. He teaches literally for awhile and then segues into a series of parables and then speaks of THE judgment. Matthew 24 is not a chapter that sits in isolation apart from its preceding and subsequent chapters. THAT'S A GROSS EXEGETICAL ERROR!!!!!  Demonstrably incorrect. The Matthew 24 narrative is just one chapter in a much, much longer narrative Matthew provides that begins at Matthew 21:18 and proceeds to cover one single day and a series of related interactions that concludes in Matthew 26:5. Matthew 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. That's the better part of five chapters and no single part will ever be correctly understoodif the whole is not first read and then understood as a whole. 

Go read those chapters and see for yourself. Verify what I just wrote. Examine what it states. 

And any "scholar" who doesn't teach in a manner consistent with the facts of scripture is not an actual scholar. S/he's an ideologue. 

You should check your facts. Gentry was once a Dispensationalist. He left Grace Theological Seminary (GTS) before completing his graduate degree because it taught Dispensationalism! He left Dispensationalism. He left pre-tribulational rapture theology. He moved to the Reformed Theological Seminary, and then on to Whitefield. If Grace Theological Seminary is thought to be a cult then 1) you ought to give Gentry a read because he completely agrees with you and 2) you've just indicted your own view because GTS teaches pre-trib rapturism!!! 

Uber-Fail! 

Nice face plant. The attempt to besmirch Gentry isn't just petty; it's logically fallacious and factually incorrect. It is also a big fat red herring. Matthew 24:3 states what it states. It does NOT state what was claimed it says. Ragging Gentry doesn't change that fact any more than ragging on me does. 

Matthew 24:3 is a single three-part question. If you can agree with what is stated in scripture then we can discuss that fact. The preceding verses inform that question. If you can agree with what is stated in scripture to that effect then we can discuss that fact. And if we don't have any such agreement we don't have anything to discuss and you're on record disagreeing with what is plainly stated in scripture. 

 

And for the record: there's no mention of the beast or its mark in Matthew 24. 

 

 

.

Truth of the matter is, I don't accept any viewpoint you present.   As far as KG is concerned, most of Grace is preterist so either way, he did not walk away from that.  And your Biblical views are the same as Gentry points out.

[Alive]

9 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Truth of the matter is, I don't accept any viewpoint you present.   As far as KG is concerned, most of Grace is preterist so either way, he did not walk away from that.  And your Biblical views are the same as Gentry points out.

A dispensational preterist?

I haven't heard that one.

:-)