mark of beast...my theory

[Diaste]

21 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

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." 

Hours? Any direct evidence for the passage of time? 

"And as he sat on the Mount of Olives..." doesn't speak to time. It could have been hours...or the next day...or a week later.

It could have been about 30 minutes; the time it takes to walk from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives. Slightly longer if the Temple was in the City of David.

That is what the text states. Or more importantly, the text is silent on the passage of time in this instance.

That means no conclusion can be drawn from lack of evidence.

That means the prophecy of the Temple is likely not related in any way to the questions posed by the disciples on the Mount of Olives.

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 hours ago, Alive said:

A dispensational preterist?

I haven't heard that one.

:-)

Where I come from, a small farm community around 35,000 in total population, basically everyone knows everyone.   Everyone knows who is Baptists, Methodist, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, and then we have the odd ones like 4 square, Grace, Mormons, Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, etc.

 

Everyone knows everyone's Doctrines, point of views, and basically what you'll get by what Church you choose to attend any given Sunday.   

 

Grace College is set-up where Moody once held a congregation even though they are not related Doctrine wise.  Even the local businesses are set up by this company typically employs general atheist and majority of Protestants.   The major Corps are the worlds base center for Orthopedics and many of the families who own the different businesses from Depuy, Zimmers, Biomet, Med-Tronics, Othy, etc etc etc are families who are grounded in the local churches.   Ironically, Med-Tronics donates and provides grant monies and hires many Grace College and Grace Faith Believers.   It's just how it is and has been for 50 years +.

 

I wished I was making this up!   But sadly/unfortunately, the area is so small everyone knows everyone's business.   Much of why I live 1,600 miles away.  Being born and raised in such a Community led to many false truths and opinions I decided to leave behind.   But I stake my life on what I do know about Grace, those associated with Grace, and those who live from a preterist viewpoint.   I want no part of that.   The insanity is real within those who I personally know associated with like beliefs and Grace.

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

No, the truth is I posted the scripture and stood on what it states. You did not. The truth is Gentry left Grace and you didn't know that and judged the man wrongly. The truth is I gave you the facts and you refuse to accept my "viewpoint" even though my viewpoint is just the facts and nothing more. 

The truth of the matter is not a single individual would have understood the "mark" to be a vaccine, a computer chip, or the Roman Catholic Church. The truth of the matter is that interpreting the prophesy in any way that is meaningless to the original audience is a bad interpretation. The truth of the matter is there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible stating another temple will be built. The truth of the matter is all the verses appealed to in support of another temple never state any such thing. The truth of the matter is that all such verses are treated eisegetically with things simultaneously ignored and added to what is stated. The truth of the matter is all such verses occurred in the context of either a then-existing temple, or the temple of believers so there is no reason to infer, hypothesize, or speculate another temple. 

Those are the truths of the matter at hand. 

And for all your disagreement not a single statement I just made has yet been proven incorrect. Lots of protest. No proof.

OK!

 

I don't have to prove you wrong to know how you are interpreting Scripture.   We both read the same scripture and you read it pertaining to the 70 A.D. event.   I read same Scripture and see the 70 A.D. event but also clearly see Christ going onto another tangent where the 70 A.D. event is far removed from the prophecy Christ is explaining.

 

You see 1 event and a continuation of that event.   I see the {same event} and then Christ moving onto events past.

 

Example, Christ said we would see weather change, storm differences (I'm paraphrasing here).   Changing weather patterns would have NO CONNECTION to 70 A.D.   The weather pattern was not going to change drastically within 30 years like it has in 2,000 years [population + industry + fossil fuel] [which none of that was happening in 35 A.D. but would happen in the late 19th and current 20th centuries].

 

For you to think Earthquakes, storms, tornadoes, seasons to erratically change in a 30 year period {with no industrial revolution - no population burst - no blacktop roads - no use of fossil fuels - nothing that does relate to weather change} to fit your 70 A.D. theory seems to be far from logical.   Christ's usage of weather is a BIG CONNECTION for us to understand He is past speaking about 70 A.D. and now speaking about the {literal} End of Time.

Edited December 23, 2020 by kingdombrat

[Guest kingdombrat]

And btw, it does not take a genius to know here in the past 2 years the weather patterns have distinctively and erratically changed, just like Christ predicted!

 

No way was that ever going to happen from 35 A.D. to 70 A.D. and that is a key part to know Christ is not connecting End Times with 70 A.D.

[Guest kingdombrat]

Let's examine Matthew 24:

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

 

Rome destroyed Jerusalem 70 A.D.

 

How many Nations knew about Christ in 70 A.D.?   And still only the ONE NATION OF ROME attacked.

 

Today, just on Worthy News we have China killing Christians, All Muslim Nations killing Christians, Korea has killed Christians, etc..

 

Let's take a look at recent memory lane:

 

Since 2013:

Are there really 100,000 new Christian martyrs every year ...

www.bbc.com › news › magazine-24864587

 

Since 2015:

The Top 50 Countries Where It's Hardest to Be a Christian ...

www.christianitytoday.com › news › january › top-chri...

 

Since 2018:

Double the number of Christians killed worldwide last year

www.thetablet.co.uk › news › double-the-number-of-c...

 

Since 2019:

Persecution of Christians 'coming close to genocide' in Middle ...

www.theguardian.com › world › may › persecution-dri...

 

Since 2020:

Persecuted Christians Are Not Given Much Hope In 2020

www.forbes.com › sites › ewelinaochab › 2020/02/18

 

 

I for one do not buy the Preterist view because it does not align with the persecution of Christians by ALL Nations, and it does not remotely fit the weather changes Christ points out in Matthew 24. 

[Alive]

Wow!

[Guest kingdombrat]

Tell me, when did this happen between 35 A.D. - 70 A.D.?

 

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

 

I read no famines, no pestilence, no major earthquakes reported between 35 A.D. - 70 A.D. historically.   There are no signs of multiple Nations rising against one another EXCEPT Israel rebelling against Rome.

 

Between 35 A.D. and 70 A.D. the MAJORITY of Matthew 24 {does not} apply in any literal sense to the 70 A.D. destruction.

[Guest kingdombrat]

5 minutes ago, Alive said:

Wow!

I was told I did not provide an argument or proof to my views.   I believe I just did.   And they are proofs that cannot be challenged because between 35 A.D. to 70 A.D. there are no reports from historical research indicating these things happened.

[Guest kingdombrat]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

Actually you do. That's how these things work. Truth is not negotiable.  

We can discuss or debate the meaning of what is stated but there cannot be any debate regarding what is stated. And none of the posters here expressing dissent stood on what scripture states. None of you. I did ask. I asked several times. I extended great patience, asking over and over again and again for scriptural support for the position asserted and not a single poster was able to provide a single of scripture stating there would be another temple. Everyone posted some form of inferential case to make scripture say something it clearly doesn't state  and can only say such things if treated with additions and neglect. Every one of you went on record with variations of that same theme. 

That's not how the interpretation of scripture works. 

If my statements are not proven incorrect then they remain correct. If your statements are proven incorrect then they remain incorrect. That's how it works. If there were gray areas we might agree to that effect or we might agree to disagree regaridng how the gray should be seen. That didn't happen and one of the reasons is because I know what to look for and I purposefully selected particular points I know you guys cannot prove. I can prove Daniel 9:25 states nothing about a future temple. I can prove through exegetical inference, not eisegetic inference, there was a temple standing. I can point to scripture that actually states what I said. I can point to scripture reporting a temple still standing during Daniel. I can point to scripture stating Jesus is the prophetic temple. I can point to scripture stating we are God's temple. I can point to scripture stating certain events were near to the first century audience. I can point to the comparison to how Daniel was instructed by God to handle the prophesies and how John was instructed to do so. I can do all that.....

 

.....and I did do it. 

 

You? Not so much. Don't be made at me. If you're gonna get mad then get made at your own performance and study harder so the next time we trade posts on eschatology you can make a better case for what you believe. That's all I ask of any poster. We should ALL agree to this one standard: the best any of us can do is to provide...

 

...a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture. 

 

Yes? 

I do hope we can all agree to that much. 

What you can "see" and what you can prove are often too entirely different things. 

lol. Got scripture for that? 

Have you got an actual statement in scripture stating time will end? 

Matthew 24 states "end of the age," (Gk.: "aionos"  age). Matthew 24:3 states "sunteleia tou aiōnos" which literally means, consummation, or completion of the age, a space of time or cycle. G165. Look it up. Similarly, Daniel 11 states "time of the end, " not "the end of time."

 

Reason should tell you that's a mistake because after some future tribulation there's a millennium (according to far-futurism). Then there's the judgment and after the judgment there is eternity with some spending the rest of their miserable existence in torment in a fiery lake. It is NOT the end of time. 

Reason is your friend. 

So is scripture. 

 

So, have you got scripture stating time will "{literally}" end? Your words. If no scripture then stop saying such things and believe what scripture states. Then, having believed it..... teach it. 

Agreed, end of time was a bad suggestion on my end.   But I used that term because Churches use that term for where we currently are in the viewpoint of our "Rapture."   At our "Rapture" it will signify the end of this world for us.   And my viewpoint is that Matthew 24 addresses this period.

[Guest kingdombrat]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

Changed from what? From other distinctive and erratic patterns over the last two thousand years? You got any proof of that? 

We could bring Science into the equation.   That would prove my position.

 

 

Today's Climate Change Is Worse Than Anything Earth Has ...

www.livescience.com › 66027-climate-change-different

Jul 25, 2019 — The global climate is changing faster now than it has at any point in the past 2,000 years. That's the conclusion of a trio of papers published July 24 in the journals Nature and Nature Geoscience that examined the global climate over the past two millennia.

 

The first sentence even states: The global climate is changing faster now than it has at any point in the past 2,000 years.

 

 

 

Current Warming Is Unparalleled in the Past 2,000 Years ...

www.scientificamerican.com › article › current-warmin...

Jul 25, 2019 — Current Warming Is Unparalleled in the Past 2,000 Years. Today's climate change is unique in its global scale compared to other historical