mark of beast...my theory

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

No, it is not possible. The book explicitly states those to whom it was written. 

In which case it would have been read aloud in the daily meetings in which the ekklesia engaged during the first century. It was common practice to have these read and the epistles got around so widely that even Peter commented on them. He compared them with "the other scriptures" thereby placing them on equal footing (2 Pet. 3). 

I choose the inspired John over the not-inspired Polycarp. 

You are, of course, at liberty to believe whatever you want to believe but don't expect anyone else to agree if what you believe is not firmly rooted in properly exegeted scripture (beginning with what is stated). 

 

And you still have not answered my questions. How would anything in your proevious post meet the standard(s) of what the scripture explicitly stipulates?

How would any of that be understood by the first century reader? 

How would any of that be the beast's name or a number indicating his name? 

These are valid and relevant questions. These are question every Christian should be asking him/herself when evaluating their own views! If a vaccine does not bear the name of the beast or its number then the mark is not a vaccine. If the chip doesn't bear the name or number then the chip is not the mark. Those things were written for our understanding. 

Nor speculation. 

You assume much!

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Non sequitur. 

 

Can you answer the questions asked, or not? You were the one who introduced modern meteorology into the conversation, asserting it proves a viable means of interpreting these prophesies. I am simply asking a few questions pertaining to those assertions. 

• When Jesus says the sun will stop giving off it's light do you think he is speaking meteorologically?
• Is the prophesy about a third of the stars falling meteorological? 
• Can meteorology tell when earthquakes happened in the past?
• Can meteorology tell when famines or pestilences happened in the past?

Fairly simple questions to answer, especially from anyone claiming to have some understanding of meteorology sufficient to tell others how and what to think. So can I get some actual answers to the questions asked, or not? 

 

You don't make the rules in how God chooses to work!

[Guest kingdombrat]

21 minutes ago, Josheb said:

• When Jesus says the sun will stop giving off it's light do you think he is speaking meteorologically?

Big difference when God is discussing the end of life vs what happens between a 30 year period from His ascension to the Destruction in 70 A.D.

Nothing relates to the question you ask and to what happened in that 30 year time frame.

It's ridiculous to even apply this question to that single event.

Quote

• Is the prophesy about a third of the stars falling meteorological? 

Astrology, but we know this reference is not the literal constellations we observe every night but of the Fallen Host of Heaven.

And still, that does not relate to the 30 year period between ascension and 70 A.D..

Quote

• Can meteorology tell when earthquakes happened in the past?

Geology can.

Quote

• Can meteorology tell when famines or pestilences happened in the past?

Ancient writers tell us everything we know.   fortunately for us, outside the Biblical writers, there were writers who kept track of these things who were never related to our God but it's what their civilizations did.

Edited December 25, 2020 by kingdombrat

[Diaste]

On 12/23/2020 at 11:06 AM, Josheb said:

Me, too. 

And with the occasional reference to verifiable history/culture I have done exactly that: cited the contexts scripture provides. 

There is no stated context of another temple. None. There is context of existing temple and the temple of Christ and 1 Cor. 3:16. Those are the temple contexts scripture designates. Stick to one of those tree and the scripture make much better sense (and that prevents false prognostication ). 

Then why ignore "sitteth in the temple showing himself to be god" in the context of the "...coming of our Lord Jesus and the gathering together of us to Him..."?

You do know the truth of the actual temple of God consisting of the body individual and corporate does not preclude, exclude or necessarily abrogate a stone temple ostensibly erected in homage to God? 

Christians do that everyday. They build steel and glass edifices housing garish crucifixes and false altars  and call them 'churches'.  I see no difference. 

You seem to think people will act accordingly knowing the truth. If that were true there would not be a single church building existing. It's all false. Yet you run this through a dogmatic sieve sized to your satisfaction and exult in the one seed caught in the mesh.

Time for a global set of perceptions. Your view is narrow.

 

[Diaste]

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

So when Jesus states the events he is describing will come upon "this generation" is that read literally or literalistically? 

I'm of the mind the concepts related in literal language are the goal of the information presented. This is what the scripture says,

"And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." - 2 Cor 3

Paul speaks here specific to the NC and is probably referring to the conflict of Law and Spirit. I find it a guide to all as,

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." - 2 Peter 1

In all cases these things are spiritually discerned. The word comes from God, God is a spirit, spiritual discernment is THE hermeneutic.

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

Literally, it means what it states. The Greek is conjugated in the near demonstrative, which necessarily makes it IMPOSSIBLE to interpret the two words to mean "that generation."

Hmm...I'd have to look into it. It appears you may be blending here. I reject law of first mention out of hand, as I have said before.  

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

You have to have context? Great! The immediate context is the single three-part question he was asked. The context is those guys sitting on the mount of olives overlooking the temple across the saddle they'd just traversed after a long day of division between the Jewish leaders who'd decided to kill him.

If you are referring to Matt 24 I already said it cannot be determined when Jesus sat on the mount in relation to Him leaving the Temple. It could have been immediate. But why do you side with immediacy when the text is silent and there are various possibilities in relation to time?

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

 

The larger context is the shift in the parables as Jesus approached Jerusalem. They shift from salvation to judgment and culminate with his declaration judgment had come upon the Sadds and Phars and it would come upon... "this generation." Jesus used the term twice in the same day. Matthew and Luke record Jesus using the phrase more than a dozen times and on every single occasion "this generation," means the generation to whom he is looking at and speaking to when he said the words. Literally, the words, "this generation" mean this generation and there isn't a single example in either gospel where they mean anything other than what they state in their ordinary, normal usage. Layers of context! If you want an even larger context Jesus is constantly citing Old Testament prophets and (prophetic) history when he uses the phrase, thereby indicating what was previously prophesied is coming true in his day. More context. All of it collaborating with a literal reading of the phrase. 

Well, there is. I don't see your dogma allowing for it. 

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

So anyone who claims to read scripture literally and in context but denies the literal and stated contexts (plural) of "this generation" is neither literal or contextual. S/he is inconsistent. And then when attacking those who are literal, more consistently literal, that ad hominem becomes hypocrisy. 

I never found a wholly literal reading palatable. Literally conveying spiritually discerned truths, yes. Rigidly literal? That feels empty.

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

 

The same is true of the opening and closing bookends of Revelations explicit statement the events described were going to happen quickly because the time was near or at hand. The word "near" literally means near. Always. It is NEVER used by God to mean anything other than near. Appeals to Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 don't contain the word "near". That is a red herring. Peter is quoting from Psalm 90, using it to say God is faithful further stating "the present heavens and earth were reserved for fire." The word "present" means present. The word "near" literally means near. The word "present" literally means present, and anyone denying these facts is not reading scripture literally. 

Well that's a good lesson. If Peter was talking about the literal 'present' world then when was it destroyed by fire? 

And 'near' to what? Where's the kingdom of heaven? What about 'near' in a parable? "Near" could be 'close to a point in time' somewhere along the continuum; it does not have to be near to the speaker or the audience. Prophecy is a good example where 'near' is in relation to future events. 

Such proposed literalism weakens understanding.

 

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

Folks who read some passages literally and some passages literalistically while claiming to read literally are literally being inconsistent. People who claim to value context while denying the stated context(s) are also being inconsistent. 

The context as defined by whom? You? Are you the Commissar of Context? 

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

 

 

If and when we read the above texts literally we come away with an entirely different understanding of scripture, one that undeniably refutes modern pre-tribulational rapturism. 

Now with this I can agree even if the method is suspect.

 

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

 

One last example. This is more about context than literalness. Jesus said the events described would be like the days of Noah and he gave to examples, the first of two people working on a roof and one being taken and the other left behind. He then spoke of two people working in the field and one being taken away and the other being left behind. Rapturists interpret those words as evidence of a rapture wherein believers are removed from the planet to go be with Jesus. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? The problem is this: In the days of Noah the ones who were taken away were the ones destroyed by the flood and it was those who remained who lived on in a covenant relationship with God!!!!! And this would and should be self-evident to anyone who bothers to turn in their Bible to Genesis 6-9 and read what happened in the days of Noah. 

No rapture. 

LITERALLY no rapture.  

Weak. That conclusion is based on the premise no other evidence of a gathering exists. For you to ignore:

1 Thess 4

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord."

1 Cor 15

"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."

2 Thess 2

"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him,"

Pretrib rapture, NO. Rapture [gathering of the elect] YES!

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

 

 

So..... I am encouraged by statements valuing a literal reading of scripture and valuing context. That's good. Big, big hugs from me. 

I appreciate that but I'm pretty secure in my convictions. 

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

 

Now apply it. 

I do. And other concepts. You just don't agree with it.

 

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

 

Because Daniel 9:25 does not literally state another temple will be built. It does not remotely imply any such event. It does not even mention the word "temple." Literally. I literally does not mention the word . Neither does verse 27. 

Don't care about what Daniel 9 says. Not going there. Way off, as most are when it comes to Daniel 9. WilliamL does a good job with this.

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

One of the rules that has been mentioned enough is this: handle Old Testament prophesy the way the New Testament writers handled it!!! 

Why is that important? 

Because they did NOT handle OT prophesy literally!!!!! They are constantly quoting or directly citing or indirectly alluding to OT prophesy and rarely if ever do they read it literally! The reveal in the NT what was veiled in the OT. There are over 340 references to the OT in the book of Revelation and not a single one of them treats the OT prophesies literally.

Why then should we do so?

Your rule. Prophecy must come to pass as spoken or it isn't prophecy. That's it's fundamental nature and the only way in which prophecy can be fully understood. Prophecy must have a time/space fulfillment. I think it funny the same people that say prophecy isn't literal will accept the literal prophecies of Christ's atoning work.

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

Because John Darby said to do so? pffffft! 

I don't care what Darby said. The last Darbyist I believed was proven wrong by my research in the late 80's. I have been done with what mankind has to say about scripture since the early 90's. If scripture interprets scripture then it's God that interprets scripture by the Holy Spirit. I'm good with what's in those pages.

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

Darby was wrong. He did not do as the apostles did. He claimed we should read prophesy literally and then didn't. This inconsistency is objectively and demonstrably provable. The  when folks quote articles about full-preterism and act as if that article appplies in any way to partial-preterism when Darbyism is the newer and more radically different hermeneutic it is the pot calling the kettle black. "No, I'm not a heretic, you are!"

Why do you care what others have to say if your foundation is sure and your convictions strong? 

On 12/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Josheb said:

Just read what is stated and believe it as written. Then and only then reason through it to what can and cannot be said, based on what is stated within the inherently stated contexts. And don't hate me when I do the same. 

Please...I don't hate you. Some of the things you say I don't agree with. I don't agree with what seem to be arbitrary axioms, and I reject some dogma and conclusions. That doesn't mean I hate. 

[doubleplay425]

Josheb,

I understand that you believe that the mark of the beast had to be something that the original authors would understand.  

The thing I don't understand is what you believe was the fulfillment of the mark.  Perhaps I glossed over it...but I have been reading the thread and still don't know what historical event satisfied it.

[1to3]

 

Its all a game of Hegelian dialectic that they both Republican and Democrat are playing on the public. ( divide and conquer) Both parties are working for One Boss: the Illuminati= Lucifer's clan

Biden saying trump is doing nothing, all the while Trump is very busy signing executive orders and laws like yesterday he signed so many things that just will enable Biden to continue with. Like for instance yesterday Trump amongst a whole bunch of things signed. :

AI is adavancing,  Trunp sined 35 laws yesterday 2021-01-05

H.R. 5253 : "The Securing of American ports"

 The Securing America's Ports Act

This bill requires the department of homeland security to develop a plan to increasing on hundred percent the rate of scanning of commercial and passenger vehicles and freight rail traffic entering the united States  using large scale non intrusive inspections systems.

So basically they want everything chipped and connected to AI for control and surveillance. That will include humans getting ID mesh into their bodies that also will connect them to AI for security and surveillance amongst other things.

 

The chipping of everything has commence and will be enforced from plant -food source- to animal, to things to humans. The BEAST System A! wants everything connected to it

 

https://youtu.be/EKZXCLBatmI

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by 1to3

[doubleplay425]

There is a news story that says the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world (which is India) caught fire.

To be honest, this has made me wonder about my original position on the matter which was that the vaccine could not be the mark of the beast. 

Could it be just a coincidence? Yes

Could it be under God's providence as a sign? Yes

Just wanted to share this with all of you. 

[luigi]

Currently many of the world's economies are in somewhat of a free fall. Even here in the U.S., the economic situation is a little more dire than is being publicly stated. Therefore, during these beginning of sorrows, in the day of the Lord, as things economically continue to fall apart, where eventually hundreds of millions to billions of people will not be able to pay their bills; a new sort of welfare system will then be necessary and initiated. Thus the mark of the beast. Just my theory, anyway.

Edited January 22, 2021 by luigi

[Gary Loger]

I have a theory. 

The Mark of the Beast doesn't come from the Beast, it comes from God. The "Strong Delusion" is when the Mark is given. I believe it's given for the benefit of the angels who are unable to make judgments regarding ones salvation. With the Mark they know instantly whether someone is a child of God or not. 

There's a bit more to unpack so I'll leave it here for now.

And please remember, this is not a doctrine. It's just a random thought I had while reading Thessalonians. 

Anyway...