Author Topic: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)  (Read 1986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #35 on: Tue May 12, 2020 - 07:23:10 »
RB and lea,

The key phrase in Matt 23:29-36 that eliminates applying “this generation” to anything but those men and their own children that Christ was talking to is this:

“FILL YE UP THEN THE MEASURE OF YOUR FATHERS”

A “FILLED UP MEASURE” has no more room for offenses to be added to that particular cup .  It’s FULL.  The ultimate crime of betraying and murdering their own Messiah was an offense that could not be superseded by any subsequent generation.

When someone kills a visiting ambassador representative from another nation, they have essentially committed an offense against everyone in the nation represented by that ambassador.  Just so with Christ and all the righteous martyred ones that He represented.    By crucifying Jesus the Messiah, THAT generation of scribes and Pharisees that Christ was directly speaking to became blood-guilty of everyone martyred from Abel up until then who were “IN Christ”. 

The very same message was portrayed in Christ’s parables about the wicked servants who persecuted and killed the messengers sent to them by their lord.  Finally, He sent His own Son to them, saying that they would surely reverence His Son.  But instead, they only schemed against the Heir and murdered Him, in order to get the inheritance.  By murdering the Lord’s own Son, they “FILLED UP THE MEASURE” of offenses against their Lord.  The atrocity of this act could never be exceeded by any further acts of their generation.  It was the ultimate crime of THAT generation, and received the ultimate judgment in THAT single generation of time; a judgment that they called down on their own heads, with Christ’s blood guilt on themselves and their own children.

This “generation” term in this context of Matt. 23:29-36 is indeed about “TIME” - not “type”.

Offline Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9834
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #36 on: Tue May 12, 2020 - 14:57:34 »
The "or" in that verse applies to buying or selling, not eternal damnation. Can you see why "or" was used here but "and" was used in the other place? If you have the mark or if you have the name of beast, or if you have the number of his name, YOU WILL buy the harlots goods.

Rev 13:16  And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17  And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

That verse with the other in 14 are not separate. As you said if you have the mark, name, or number you will buy the harlots goods. And without the mark, name or number you will be unable to .Period. But it has everything to do with damnation.
Simply because you will be trusting the the "world"system. And the worldsystem belongs to Satan.

For if you accept that mark you no longer have your allegiance with our Father. You are not trusting Him. You are trusting the things of this world. And he will be done with you.

The more I read from various posts on GC the more it is clear that God does not intend for the reading of his holy words to be clear but shaded in a way that the understanding of the words make perfect sense to one but not to another.

So I will proceed with the understanding that what I am about to say is crystal clear to me, and try to explain why I understand it as such.

I will try to explain the meaning of "is" . ( If you are old enough you will get 
this)

KJV says Rev 13:16-17
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,to receive a
mark in their right hand,or in their foreheads:”

Meaning either/or.... one or the other,  NOT both.

The Codex  Sinaiticus says

16 And he causses all,  small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,to receive a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead,

17 and that no one should be able to buy or sell, but he that had that mark, the name of
the beast, or the number of his name.

And my Greek/English Interlinear says(in case you dont believe the Codex Sinaiticus)
says ON not IN...

https://www.logosapostolic.org/interlinear-nt/revelation/13.htm

On their right hand has a much different meaning then in their right hand.

On could indicate a tattoo, a scar,or even a branding mark.

In certainly could indicate a microchip, or a not seen mark that would require an
external reader.

I cannot help but wonder if the change was by accident and who was the first to make the change for the KJV and Geneva and Wycliffe bibles all say in.

Ah, I digress.....

He causeth... meaning he will make it happen. In other words no man can escape this and live. You have to do it for it will be forced upon you,either with your knowledge or unknown because the father of lies will deceive with a deception that only those of gret discernment will be able to avoid.

Jesus tells us in Mathew 24:24 if it were possible ,they shall deceive the very elect.

In Mark it is phrased For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Are you able to be deceived? By your belief that the Mark needs to contain the name, and the number so all three are present. I call that a deception of misunderstanding in what is specifically being talked about.

And we must be diligent knowing that if we accept something, simply because it does not fit with what you believe the very great possibility exists that you,or me,or anyone can cross the line out of God's hands.

How easy for the enemy to use a simple microchip under the guise of a lie that it is beneficial for all.

That is, IF,the correct original text said in and not on. All cloked under the darkness of the real reason. For his followers walk in daylight with you , me, and everyone. They are our friends, and acquaintances, and strangers we meet on the street.

They exist now, as they always have.

And we have no way of knowing who they are unless we are within the community.

A plan from the beginning and now we likely are seeing it mature to fruition.

9And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

I prefer the wordingof Codex Sinaiticus
9 And the third angel followed them, saying, with a loud voice: If any one worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or on his hand, even he shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared without mixture in the cup of his indignation;




Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9488
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #37 on: Tue May 12, 2020 - 15:41:08 »
RB and lea,

The key phrase in Matt 23:29-36 that eliminates applying “this generation” to anything but those men and their own children that Christ was talking to is this:

“FILL YE UP THEN THE MEASURE OF YOUR FATHERS”

A “FILLED UP MEASURE” has no more room for offenses to be added to that particular cup .  It’s FULL.  The ultimate crime of betraying and murdering their own Messiah was an offense that could not be superseded by any subsequent generation.

When someone kills a visiting ambassador representative from another nation, they have essentially committed an offense against everyone in the nation represented by that ambassador.  Just so with Christ and all the righteous martyred ones that He represented.    By crucifying Jesus the Messiah, THAT generation of scribes and Pharisees that Christ was directly speaking to became blood-guilty of everyone martyred from Abel up until then who were “IN Christ”. 

The very same message was portrayed in Christ’s parables about the wicked servants who persecuted and killed the messengers sent to them by their lord.  Finally, He sent His own Son to them, saying that they would surely reverence His Son.  But instead, they only schemed against the Heir and murdered Him, in order to get the inheritance.  By murdering the Lord’s own Son, they “FILLED UP THE MEASURE” of offenses against their Lord.  The atrocity of this act could never be exceeded by any further acts of their generation.  It was the ultimate crime of THAT generation, and received the ultimate judgment in THAT single generation of time; a judgment that they called down on their own heads, with Christ’s blood guilt on themselves and their own children.

This “generation” term in this context of Matt. 23:29-36 is indeed about “TIME” - not “type”.
Will answer your post in the morning. I just got back in and still have very little time~my time is now, (spring and summer months) your time is WINTER TIME because of the type of work we each do.  ::smile::

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #38 on: Sat May 16, 2020 - 07:00:31 »
  The mark will almost-certainly be some sorta microchip. The tech already exists, and this tech will soon advance so that a person's whole financial life can be put into it. And it doesn't really matter if this chip will be in or on the skin.

  Jesus called it a "mark", as John wouldn't've understood what a microchip is.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #38 on: Sat May 16, 2020 - 07:00:31 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9488
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #39 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 05:40:35 »
The mark will almost-certainly be some sorta microchip. The tech already exists, and this tech will soon advance so that a person's whole financial life can be put into it. And it doesn't really matter if this chip will be in or on the skin.
(Red highlight are mine for discussion~RB) Sir, your position has zero support from the scriptures, so any spiritual wise person would dismiss your pure speculations as one that comes from a person not trusting God's word as his only source of bible doctrine. "Almost-certainly" are words from someone who just does not have a firm grip on thus saith the word of God.
Quote from:  robycop3 on: Yesterday at 07:00:31
Jesus called it a "mark", as John wouldn't've understood what a microchip is.[/size]
To what degree John understood what he wrote the jury is still out on that~but, most likely he fully understood, but be it as it may, the scriptures will interpret THEMSELVES by comparing scriptures with scriptures~ here a little, and there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept....as said the prophet.
Quote from: Isaiah
Isaiah 28:9-13~"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."
Speculation and wishful thinking, has no part in coming to the knowledge of the truth. Truth is hidden in the scriptures alone, not outside of them, our duty is to follow sound, biblical hermeneutics, seeking God to reveal His truths to us, to be used for his glory and honor alone, not ours.

Being correct on our eschatology is not a prerequisite to eternal life, yet, we should only speak and prove our doctrine with the word of God~those who refuse to do so, do show a serious problem with their faith and source of their trust that we will leave to God to sort out in that day and he will.
Quote
"But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."
I have labored to practice this in posts: # 9, 15, 26, 29, and 33 by the help of God's Spirit. Far from perfect, but enough truth to help folks to see the truth on this subject.
« Last Edit: Sun May 17, 2020 - 05:47:33 by RB »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #39 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 05:40:35 »



Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #40 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 08:56:43 »
(Red highlight are mine for discussion~RB) Sir, your position has zero support from the scriptures, so any spiritual wise person would dismiss your pure speculations as one that comes from a person not trusting God's word as his only source of bible doctrine. "Almost-certainly" are words from someone who just does not have a firm grip on thus saith the word of God. To what degree John understood what he wrote the jury is still out on that~but, most likely he fully understood, but be it as it may, the scriptures will interpret THEMSELVES by comparing scriptures with scriptures~ here a little, and there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept....as said the prophet.

  Can YOU prove the mark will be anything else? NUPE !

  God didn't name any of the kings in His visions & prophecies to Daniel, (besides Nebuchadnezzar, who was alive during many of them)but we know they came to pass just as He said. And in Rev. 17, He doesn't name the city of Rome, but He described it as it was at that time.

  History is shaped by Scripture, not vive-versa, & a microchip seemstabee the best candidate for the "mark" right now. Maybe something better will come along.



 
Quote
Speculation and wishful thinking, has no part in coming to the knowledge of the truth. Truth is hidden in the scriptures alone, not outside of them, our duty is to follow sound, biblical hermeneutics, seeking God to reveal His truths to us, to be used for his glory and honor alone, not ours.

  And thus, a microchip is the best candidate for the "mark" now. God enabled man to invent them. But it'll be a physical mark, as commerce won't be conducted without it. (Trib saints will hafta rely on "black markets".)

Quote
Being correct on our eschatology is not a prerequisite to eternal life, yet, we should only speak and prove our doctrine with the word of God~those who refuse to do so, do show a serious problem with their faith and source of their trust that we will leave to God to sort out in that day and he will. I have labored to practice this in posts: # 9, 15, 26, 29, and 33 by the help of God's Spirit. Far from perfect, but enough truth to help folks to see the truth on this subject.

  And God's word leans toward a MC as the "mark", as apparently, it'll replace cash & mac cards. Deny all ya want, but you'll be avoiding reality if you do.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9488
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #41 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 09:49:26 »
Can YOU prove the mark will be anything else? NUPE !
Sir, I at least used God's testimony to prove the mark of the beast, much more than you have thus far done. So, who is at least laboring to showing themself to be a noble Christian?
Quote from:  robycop3 on: Today at 08:56:43
God didn't name any of the kings in His visions & prophecies to Daniel, (besides Nebuchadnezzar, who was alive during many of them)but we know they came to pass just as He said.
Very true, but what does that have to do with you proving your understanding concerning the mark of the beast? Not one thing.
Quote from:  robycop3 on: Today at 08:56:43
And in Rev. 17, He doesn't name the city of Rome, but He described it as it was at that time.
Sorry but you are dead wrong. Rome is not the MAIN FOCUS POINT in Revelaiton 17.

I want to come back to this after I make a short trip....later~RB

Offline Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9834
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #42 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 09:52:34 »


Being correct on our eschatology is not a prerequisite to eternal life, yet, we should only speak and prove our doctrine with the word of God~those who refuse to do so, do show a serious problem with their faith and source of their trust that we will leave to God to sort out in that day and he will.

RB,

Far be it for me to try and explain what I see as error i your thinking.

By the same token, If Robycop believes it could be a microchip you cannot fault him as you, by your own admission do not even believe in "the mark of the beast" but interpret for yourself.

I agree with your first point that the mark of the beast is not a literal mark, but strickly a spiritual mark obvious to Spirit-filled saints.  Agreed, but "convincing" to Spirit-filled saints. AgreedThis is wrong~the seal of God is FREELY GIVEN without your participation or even KNOWING that it took place! It takes place in the new birth when one is born of the Spirit of God~AT THAT POINT God's children are seal with that holy Spirit of promise UNTIL the day of redemption of our bodies. You added:You very wrong in believing that NO ONE can unknowingly receive this mark~actual EVERYONE unknowingly has received this mark! They are born with it!

And you further confirm your beliefs in reply #15

Quote
Quote
Rella Reply #12 on: Yesterday at 19:38:33Please explain how a spiritual mark can be in only a right hand or forehead?
Rella, the mark on the right hand, simply means that those men and women that are able to move FREELY within the APOSTATE CHURCH of the latter days of the LAST DAYS, are in FELLOWSHIP with each other as far as worshiping the spirit of antichrist one that opposes the true gospel of Jesus Christ. 
[/quote][/quote]

Yes, I did read your lengthly discertation on the "spiritual" aspect of the mark.

Your explanation makes no sense when it says in right hand OR forehead. KJV.

We all know that it is KJV for you or nothing.

But look at the following translations of Rev 13:16  And note, that it is not and but says or..... so your spiritual explanation would seem to spit the believers and those chosen in 2 groups... without explanation.

Sorry this list is long

New International Version
It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,

New Living Translation
He required everyone—small and great, rich and poor, free and slave—to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead.

English Standard Version
Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,

Berean Study Bible
And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,

Berean Literal Bible
And it causes all the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the servants, that it should give them a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,

New American Standard Bible
And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,

New King James Version
He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

King James Bible

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Christian Standard Bible
And it makes everyone--small and great, rich and poor, free and slave--to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,

Contemporary English Version
All people were forced to put a mark on their right hand or forehead. Whether they were powerful or weak, rich or poor, free people or slaves,

Good News Translation
The beast forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, slave and free, to have a mark placed on their right hands or on their foreheads.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
And he requires everyone--small and great, rich and poor, free and slave--to be given a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,

International Standard Version
The second beast forces all people—important and unimportant, rich and poor, free and slaves—to be marked on their right hands or on their foreheads,

NET Bible
He also caused everyone (small and great, rich and poor, free and slave) to obtain a mark on their right hand or on their forehead.

New Heart English Bible
He causes all, the small and the great, the rich and the poor, and the free and the slave, to be given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead;

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And it will cause all, small and great, rich and poor, Masters and Servants, to be given a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,

GOD'S WORD® Translation
The second beast forces all people-important and unimportant people, rich and poor people, free people and slaves-to be [b]branded on[/b] their right hands or on their foreheads.

New American Standard 1977
And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead,

King James 2000 Bible
And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

American King James Version
And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

American Standard Version
And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead;

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand, or on their foreheads.

Darby Bible Translation
And it causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bondmen, that they should give them a mark upon their right hand or upon their forehead;

English Revised Version
And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead;

Webster's Bible Translation
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Weymouth New Testament
And he causes all, small and great, rich and poor, free men and slaves, to have stamped upon them a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,

World English Bible
He causes all, the small and the great, the rich and the poor, and the free and the slave, to be given marks on their right hands, or on their foreheads;

Young's Literal Translation
And it maketh all, the small, and the great, and the rich, and the poor, and the freemen, and the servants, that it may give to them a mark upon their right hand or upon their foreheads,  

**************
Geneva Bible 1560 
13:16And he made all, both small and great, rich and poore, free and bond, to receiue a marke in their right hand or in their foreheads,

Wycliff, Purvey, Tyndale, Geneva and yes, King James all say IN  and or in.

Catholic Online bible:
16 It compelled everyone -- small and great alike, rich and poor, slave and citizen -- to be branded on the right hand or on the forehead,  


Revelation of John, the original Jewish version Apocalypse composition, dating & authorship  

(with comment)

16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads
[inspired by the fact that some Roman owners were branding their slaves]  

Now, I could go on and look backwards some more... but you have to see that depending on the bible it can read in or on.

But always "or" not and knocks your spiritual theory of how a right hand or forehead off the mark.... If you were correct then those with the "spiritual" in the hand and those with the "spiritual" in the forehead ( mind) would be a selection of 2 groups.
NOTHING in the entire "Stand Alone Book of Revelation suggests this.

Nothing in any translation suggest spiritual but they all suggest a decisive act. 

Sorry Robycop....These also knock your  microchip as a suggestion out of the game.

Although, this does not mean that the mark Bill Gates and wife are pushing cannot be implemented with a microchip or an inoculation. It is the later he is suggesting and the reason for his fast tracking an inoculation as the other is ready to go.
He is claiming his internal planted tattoo will allow for people to be identified with all the inoculations they have had. Saving time, in the future.........

But that is a subject for another thread....

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #43 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 11:32:42 »
RB,

Agreed with you that Rome is not the main focus of Rev. 17.  In fact, Rome is nowhere to be found AT ALL in Rev. 17.  However, Rome IS found in Rev. 13, which Beast that came out of the sea is an entirely different Beast than the Judean Scarlet Beast found in the wilderness (definitely a geographical feature of the land of Judea, and of the history of the Jewish people’s wilderness wanderings under Moses).

Your theory about the mark of the Beast being human depravity since the Fall of Adam and Eve is an impossible one (although you and I are in agreement that human depravity does plague the human race). 

How can the mark be imposed on a fallen Adam and Eve and their offspring if the Beast from the Land was going to impose it on behalf of the Sea Beast - NEITHER OF WHICH EXISTED when Adam and Eve sinned?  Neither of these Beasts from Rev. 13 existed until much later down the timeline of human history.  This eliminates human depravity from being the mark of the Beast.


Rella,

Your list of the vast majority of translations showing that the mark is received “on” the right hand or “on” the forehead is helpful to prove that there is more than just a “spiritual” aspect to this mark being imposed.  There is something tangible going on when the mark is received.

But I disagree that all who receive this mark are willingly complicit.  Some are receiving this mark under duress, since Revelation 13:16 does not say that the mark is simply offered as a choice which can be accepted or not.  The Land Beast “CAUSES” all to receive it.  It’s the Land Beast’s desire imposed on others, with the threat of not being able to make any purchases or sales without it - like it or not.

But this mark is also not a threat that you and I need to worry about today.  It was fulfilled long ago by the Israelite high priesthood, who imposed this on their own people.  The money-changers in the Temple (for an additional fee) exchanged any other currency given to them for the only coins accepted by the priests in the Temple for making sales and purchases - the copy of the pagan Tyrian shekel, minted in Jerusalem with Rome’s pagan images and initials of approval and authorization on it.  This was a requirement imposed on the Israelites ever since 19 BC, when the high priesthood asked Rome if they could mint these coins themselves.  They were given approval only if they continued to put the same pagan designs on these coins (which abominable images were forbidden by God, actually).

Men of adult age who paid their annual Temple tax also had to HAND over this Jerusalem copy of the Tyrian shekel every year.  And women who were married wore a set of 10 shekels on the FOREHEAD of their headdress, marking their marital status (as the woman in the parable who lost one of these 10 Tyrian shekel coins in Luke 15:8-9.

You and others are worrying needlessly over this mark, Rella.  It’s fulfilled history long past at this point.

Offline Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9834
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #44 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 12:30:22 »
RB,

Agreed with you that Rome is not the main focus of Rev. 17.  In fact, Rome is nowhere to be found AT ALL in Rev. 17.  However, Rome IS found in Rev. 13, which Beast that came out of the sea is an entirely different Beast than the Judean Scarlet Beast found in the wilderness (definitely a geographical feature of the land of Judea, and of the history of the Jewish people’s wilderness wanderings under Moses).

Your theory about the mark of the Beast being human depravity since the Fall of Adam and Eve is an impossible one (although you and I are in agreement that human depravity does plague the human race). 

How can the mark be imposed on a fallen Adam and Eve and their offspring if the Beast from the Land was going to impose it on behalf of the Sea Beast - NEITHER OF WHICH EXISTED when Adam and Eve sinned?  Neither of these Beasts from Rev. 13 existed until much later down the timeline of human history.  This eliminates human depravity from being the mark of the Beast.


Rella,

Your list of the vast majority of translations showing that the mark is received “on” the right hand or “on” the forehead is helpful to prove that there is more than just a “spiritual” aspect to this mark being imposed.  There is something tangible going on when the mark is received.

But I disagree that all who receive this mark are willingly complicit.  Some are receiving this mark under duress, since Revelation 13:16 does not say that the mark is simply offered as a choice which can be accepted or not.  The Land Beast “CAUSES” all to receive it.  It’s the Land Beast’s desire imposed on others, with the threat of not being able to make any purchases or sales without it - like it or not.

But this mark is also not a threat that you and I need to worry about today.  It was fulfilled long ago by the Israelite high priesthood, who imposed this on their own people.  The money-changers in the Temple (for an additional fee) exchanged any other currency given to them for the only coins accepted by the priests in the Temple for making sales and purchases - the copy of the pagan Tyrian shekel, minted in Jerusalem with Rome’s pagan images and initials of approval and authorization on it.  This was a requirement imposed on the Israelites ever since 19 BC, when the high priesthood asked Rome if they could mint these coins themselves.  They were given approval only if they continued to put the same pagan designs on these coins (which abominable images were forbidden by God, actually).

Men of adult age who paid their annual Temple tax also had to HAND over this Jerusalem copy of the Tyrian shekel every year.  And women who were married wore a set of 10 shekels on the FOREHEAD of their headdress, marking their marital status (as the woman in the parable who lost one of these 10 Tyrian shekel coins in Luke 15:8-9.

You and others are worrying needlessly over this mark, Rella.  It’s fulfilled history long past at this point.


An excellent point you make here.

"But I disagree that all who receive this mark are willingly complicit.  Some are receiving this mark under duress, since Revelation 13:16 does not say that the mark is simply offered as a choice which can be accepted or not.  The Land Beast “CAUSES” all to receive it.  It’s the Land Beast’s desire imposed on others, with the threat of not being able to make any purchases or sales without it - like it or not."

And you might have me convinced that it is long since past and not needed to wrorry today in yhe rest of your excellent history lesson, EXCEPT...

That tiny 3 letter word.  ALL.

You cite Luke in your commentary.

It has been suggested Luke was written around 60 AD (I refuse to say CE)

"This page gives a three-part discussion that shows the gospel of Luke was written between 59 to 62 CE. Physical evidence, secular writings, and logic are used. When you finish reading this page, you will begin to understand why Christians logically accept these dates"
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Luke_date-written.htm#top

If John wrote Revelation at any point after this, then the references you make could not be what he was referring to.

See:
"Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)."
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written


And All... is still not ALL.


If I, and others are worrying needlessly I would rather err on the side of caution.

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #45 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 12:37:34 »
  No, the beasts from the sea & from the earth have not yet come. And the city of Rome is CLEARLY INDICATED thruout Rev. 17 as the city of 7 mountains(hills) & the city that reigns over the kings of the earth at that time. Rome reigned over the world known to John, except for the Germans & Parthians if he knew of them.

  The beast itself represents both the antichrist and his empire. The harlot is indicated as being Rome, as it's the seat of the RCC. (A symbolic harlot always represents a false church, false worship, or an idol.)

  And the mark will almost certainly be an implanted microchip.  Christians will hide to avoid getting it, & many will be found & killed by the AC's "security forces". They'll have tough going, as they can't do normal business or even be paid, as employers will pay employees thru their chip.

  The rapture will occur very shortly after the AC takes power, so there'll be little opposition to the AC or the mark.

Offline lea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Manna: 8
  • I am rezar
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #46 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 13:30:36 »
 robycp3,

Rella is becoming a partial- preterist!

You should follow.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #47 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 13:41:52 »
Hey again Rella,

I appreciate your thinking critically about the particular language used for this prophecy.  The details are definitely vital for our understanding.  You have to ask yourself what category of people is being included within the parameters of the word “ALL”. 

Is this the sum total of all people who have ever lived on this planet, bar none?
Or is this all people living on the planet at a certain period of history?
Or is this all people living in a certain part of the world during a certain period of history?

Context determines the usage of the word “ALL”.  In the context of the Rev. 13 prophecy about the mark, this was going to be imposed on “them that dwell on the earth” that were under the control of the Beast coming out of the earth.  In Greek, scripture’s use of this  “earth” term (ge) is NOT usually associated with all mankind dwelling on the whole habitable world (oikoumenen).  The term “earth” (ge) is almost always associated in scripture with the LAND of Israel, or the promised land of Canaan. To the Jew of John’s days, the word “earth” or “land” automatically reminded them of the land of Israel as their fathers’ ultimate promised possession.

So this Rev. 13 Beast coming out of the EARTH (or the land of Israel) would cause “ALL” of those who were “dwelling on the earth” (in the land of Israel) to receive the mark on their hand (if you were an adult male) or on your forehead (if you were a married woman).

In order to buy or sell, Israelites dwelling in the earth (the land of Israel) had to either have this mark in the hand (the priesthood-approved Tyrian shekel being exchanged for any other foreign currency), OR they had to have the name of the Beast (as being part of the Land Beast system themselves - the priesthood), OR they had to have the number of the Beast’s name (as being part of the 666-year-old Roman Sea Beast system).

This mark of the Beast imposed by the high priesthood on their own people had been in place ever since their request was approved in 19 BC, when the mint at Jerusalem began to produce the look-alike Tyrian shekels with Rome’s  sanction.  It was an ongoing, irritating problem until AD 66 when the Zealots rejected the humiliating Tyrian shekel that showed their subjugation to Rome’s authority, and started minting their own currency dated year #1 of the rebellion.

The date of Revelation’s  composition is narrowed down to a very precise late AD 59 to early AD 60 by the internal evidence within the book itself.  Traditional dating notwithstanding, which can be dumped if it doesn’t agree with Revelation’s internal witness. 

I have given all this internal evidence in the post at this link:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/when-was-revelation-written/

Offline Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9834
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #48 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 15:00:09 »
robycp3,

Rella is becoming a partial- preterist!

You should follow.

Are you nuts ? rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

What ever you are drinking while reading my replies, I want some...

Lea,

Read this...

This is where I am. At least 26 years later then your beloved 70AD

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96.

External Evidence
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

(side note: It is my hope to someday have a pair of small King CharlesCavaliers and name them  Eusebius and Polycarp)

Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence
The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

Offline Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9834
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #49 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 15:07:01 »
Hey again Rella,

I appreciate your thinking critically about the particular language used for this prophecy.  The details are definitely vital for our understanding.  You have to ask yourself what category of people is being included within the parameters of the word “ALL”. 

Is this the sum total of all people who have ever lived on this planet, bar none?
Or is this all people living on the planet at a certain period of history?
Or is this all people living in a certain part of the world during a certain period of history?

Context determines the usage of the word “ALL”.  In the context of the Rev. 13 prophecy about the mark, this was going to be imposed on “them that dwell on the earth” that were under the control of the Beast coming out of the earth.  In Greek, scripture’s use of this  “earth” term (ge) is NOT usually associated with all mankind dwelling on the whole habitable world (oikoumenen).  The term “earth” (ge) is almost always associated in scripture with the LAND of Israel, or the promised land of Canaan. To the Jew of John’s days, the word “earth” or “land” automatically reminded them of the land of Israel as their fathers’ ultimate promised possession.

So this Rev. 13 Beast coming out of the EARTH (or the land of Israel) would cause “ALL” of those who were “dwelling on the earth” (in the land of Israel) to receive the mark on their hand (if you were an adult male) or on your forehead (if you were a married woman).

In order to buy or sell, Israelites dwelling in the earth (the land of Israel) had to either have this mark in the hand (the priesthood-approved Tyrian shekel being exchanged for any other foreign currency), OR they had to have the name of the Beast (as being part of the Land Beast system themselves - the priesthood), OR they had to have the number of the Beast’s name (as being part of the 666-year-old Roman Sea Beast system).

This mark of the Beast imposed by the high priesthood on their own people had been in place ever since their request was approved in 19 BC, when the mint at Jerusalem began to produce the look-alike Tyrian shekels with Rome’s  sanction.  It was an ongoing, irritating problem until AD 66 when the Zealots rejected the humiliating Tyrian shekel that showed their subjugation to Rome’s authority, and started minting their own currency dated year #1 of the rebellion.

The date of Revelation’s  composition is narrowed down to a very precise late AD 59 to early AD 60 by the internal evidence within the book itself.  Traditional dating notwithstanding, which can be dumped if it doesn’t agree with Revelation’s internal witness. 

I have given all this internal evidence in the post at this link:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/when-was-revelation-written/


Nope:

As I pointed out to Lea, I am solidly on the 96AD side of the fence...



Recopied here:


Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96.

External Evidence
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

(side note: It is my hope to someday have a pair of small King CharlesCavaliers and name them  Eusebius and Polycarp)

Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence
The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

And that means whether or not John was calling for a localized all or an expanded all covering all human life at that time... it was ALL. I lean toward the later.

Revelation is stand alone. It does not need any other part of the holy words for clarity.


Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #50 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 17:10:15 »
Hi Rella,

There is nothing in the internal witness you supplied above that would conflict with Revelation’s composition date of late AD 59 up to early AD 60, just PRIOR TO the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake. 

John was writing in Patmos in this AD 59-AD 60 period (just off the coast of Ephesus, and under its jurisdiction) in the fellowship of tribulation with the believers.  This particular tribulation broke out in Ephesus following the AD 57 riot of the silversmiths and spread out over Asia Minor with the added encouragement of the Jews actively hostile to the faith.  A tribulation of such severity that even the Apostle Paul said he had “despaired even of life” because of it (II Cor. 1:8).   

Nero as of this AD 59-60 date when John was writing was not yet engaged in his pogrom against Christians, which lasted from late AD 64 until the end of his reign in AD 68, and under which Peter and Paul were martyred in AD 67.

Your “evidence” of Irenaeus for an early date is contradicted by Irenaeus himself, and in the very same chapter a few paragraphs earlier.  He speaks of “ANCIENT COPIES” of John’s apocalypse being available.  How could Irenaeus have ANCIENT copies, if Revelation was written almost in his own day of Domitian’s reign?  Not possible.

As for preferring that “ALL” means everyone on the globe without exception at one time, this is not necessary.   “ALL” can mean “all without DISTINCTION” instead of “all without EXCEPTION”. 

An example of this is Romans 11:32.  Speaking of Jews and Gentiles, Paul says, “For God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon ALL.”  Does this means that every single Jew and Gentile without exception is a believer who obtains mercy unto salvation?  Universal salvation?  That would be impossible, because in the preceding chapter 9:18, some do NOT receive mercy.  “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” 

So, the “ALL” who are caused to receive the mark doesn’t need to be ALL in the entire known world at that time who have it imposed on them.  It can be “all without DISTINCTION”, whether free or bond, small or great, rich or poor, as the context tells us.



Offline Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9834
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #51 on: Sun May 17, 2020 - 18:41:53 »
Hi Rella,

There is nothing in the internal witness you supplied above that would conflict with Revelation’s composition date of late AD 59 up to early AD 60, just PRIOR TO the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake. 

John was writing in Patmos in this AD 59-AD 60 period (just off the coast of Ephesus, and under its jurisdiction) in the fellowship of tribulation with the believers.  This particular tribulation broke out in Ephesus following the AD 57 riot of the silversmiths and spread out over Asia Minor with the added encouragement of the Jews actively hostile to the faith.  A tribulation of such severity that even the Apostle Paul said he had “despaired even of life” because of it (II Cor. 1:8).   

Nero as of this AD 59-60 date when John was writing was not yet engaged in his pogrom against Christians, which lasted from late AD 64 until the end of his reign in AD 68, and under which Peter and Paul were martyred in AD 67.

Your “evidence” of Irenaeus for an early date is contradicted by Irenaeus himself, and in the very same chapter a few paragraphs earlier.  He speaks of “ANCIENT COPIES” of John’s apocalypse being available.  How could Irenaeus have ANCIENT copies, if Revelation was written almost in his own day of Domitian’s reign?  Not possible.

As for preferring that “ALL” means everyone on the globe without exception at one time, this is not necessary.   “ALL” can mean “all without DISTINCTION” instead of “all without EXCEPTION”. 

An example of this is Romans 11:32.  Speaking of Jews and Gentiles, Paul says, “For God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon ALL.”  Does this means that every single Jew and Gentile without exception is a believer who obtains mercy unto salvation?  Universal salvation?  That would be impossible, because in the preceding chapter 9:18, some do NOT receive mercy.  “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” 

So, the “ALL” who are caused to receive the mark doesn’t need to be ALL in the entire known world at that time who have it imposed on them.  It can be “all without DISTINCTION”, whether free or bond, small or great, rich or poor, as the context tells us.


 In about 86 AD, a temple to Domitian was built in Ephesus. At the same time, the people of Ephesus were forced to worship and make sacrifices to Domitian, practices that would have certainly been denounced by John.

John’s opposition to emperor worship, in addition to his continued preaching of the Gospel, ultimately reached the ear of Domitian and prompted him to take action. In 94 AD, the 14th year of the reign of Emperor Domitian, the elderly John the Apostle was exiled to the island of Patmos.
https://drivethruhistoryadventures.com/john-exiled-to-patmos/

Island of Patmos
John is considered to have been exiled to Patmos during a time of persecution under the Roman rule of Domitian in the late 1st century. Revelation 1:9 states: "I, John, both your brother and companion in tribulation...was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ." Adela Yarbro Collins, a biblical scholar at Yale Divinity School, writes:

Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the Book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Patmos

John Imprisoned
Some parts of John's life are not clear and historical sources claim that he was a leader of the church at Ephesus. Eventually, he was captured in a persecution campaign by the Roman Emperor Domitian. John was ultimately sentenced to Patmos (Revelation 1:9)

https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/john-exiled-to-patmos/

However, the island of Patmos declined when the Romans conquered it. It was used as a place of exile for convicts. This is how Apostle John came to Patmos, exiled by the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius Domitianus in 95 AC. In Patmos, Apostle John conveyed the inhabitants to Christianity and wrote the Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse. Patmos then became a place of worshipping and pilgrimage and actually, the culture and history of Patmos are strongly connected to the Apocalypse of Saint John.

https://www.greeka.com/dodecanese/patmos/history/

John Imprisoned
Some parts of John’s life are not clear and historical sources claim that he was a leader of the church at Ephesus. Eventually he was captured in a persecution campaign by the Roman Emperor Domitian

http://zarephath.co.uk/blog/john-the-beloved-disciple-exiled-to-patmos/

Those in favor of the later date cite the fact that the Neroan persecution was limited to Rome, while John of Patmos speaks of the churches suffering persecution throughout Asia Minor. In addition, Irenaeus (d. 185), states that he had received information from those who had seen John face to face and that John recorded his revelation "almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian's reign" (A.H. 5.30.3). According to Eusebius as well, it was Domitian who had started the persecution referred to in the book. Many scholars agree that the famous number 666, identifying the "Beast" of Revelation, refers to Nero. However those favoring a late date see this reference as an allegory, with Nero symbolizing a later tyrant, such as Domitian.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_of_Patmos

So,in spite of the 666 reference to Nero,

I am sticking with 96 AD.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #52 on: Mon May 18, 2020 - 10:52:05 »
Hi Rella,

You have always seemed to me from your posting style to be a no-nonsense, take-the-bull-by-the-horns kind of person.  Yet you have not directly answered my question regarding Irenaeus’ two quotes that seem to contradict each other.  Here, I’ll post the whole quote from the “Against Heresies” Book V, chapter 30. 

“Although certain as to the number of the name of Antichrist, yet we should come to no rash conclusions as to the name itself, because this number is capable of being fitted to many names.  Reasons for this point being reserved by the Holy Spirit.  Antichrist’s reign and death.
1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found IN ALL THE MOST APPROVED AND *ANCIENT* COPIES [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing testimony [to it];...”

I ask you again, Rella, (and anyone else basing their late-date theory upon the SINGLE WORD inserted at the translator’s discretion into Irenaeus’ quote about Domitian);  why does Irenaeus mention having ANCIENT copies of John’s Apocalypse, if he was going to write shortly after in the same chapter 30 that the vision was seen only recently, almost in Domitian’s reign?  You can’t have both ANCIENT COPIES as well as a RECENT composition of Revelation. 

So which is it?  “ANCIENT” or RECENT composition of Revelation, as related to the time Irenaeus was writing “Against Heresies”?

The quote from Irenaeus about Domitian’s reign is ambiguous at best, based on that single word inserted into his quote by the translator’s choice.  And the entire stack of those who repeat this quote are merely copying what they THINK Irenaeus said.  Since the original language had no referent, and the translator had to make a choice, it had to be either JOHN that was seen almost up to the time of Domitian’s reign, or it was the VISION that was seen almost up to the time of Domitian’s reign. 

“...for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision.  For” (that OR he) “was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.  But HE” (meaning John) “indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him being aware of who he is:...”

I opt for the more reasonable choice of Irenaeus saying that JOHN was seen living among the believers, almost up to the time of  Domitian’s reign.  That’s because Irenaeus continues to talk about John in the very next sentence.  That’s also because Irenaeus had just spoken about witnesses seeing John “FACE-TO-FACE” in the quote I copied above for you.  If I were you, I would think twice before I built my entire eschatology on a single word inserted by a translator into Irenaeus’ quote about Domitian.

Another thing, Rella.  Do you really think that there was only one man called John that was in leadership of the early church?  Papias tells us (in Eusebius’ History) that there was both a John the disciple and John the elder.  It is very possible that historians confuse the two, and end up mistaking the actions and history of one for the other.  Remember John Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas?  He also was in church leadership.  Lots of Johns in those days.  Too bad they didn’t have social security numbers back then to keep them distinguished from each other.

And I’m sure you have also encountered the proof supplied by the title page of Revelation from the Syriac Peshitta, saying that John was in Patmos at the orders of the emperor Nero.   Not sure how you dismiss this...

These things, coupled with all the internal evidence I can find, end up proving an AD 59 to early AD 60 composition date of Revelation for me.  Traditions die hard, though.  Maybe the next generation after this pre-mil disp. one dies off will grow up with a blank religious slate that stands a better chance of getting these things correctly interpreted. 





Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #53 on: Mon May 25, 2020 - 13:36:45 »
 3Rs, have you read ALL the evidence pointing to the time of Rev's writing being in Domitian's time ? Just Google for it.

Offline Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9834
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #54 on: Mon May 25, 2020 - 16:11:27 »

Sorry to be so long in reply. This requires longer then my normal 5 minute replies and life got in the way.

Hi Rella,

You have always seemed to me from your posting style to be a no-nonsense, take-the-bull-by-the-horns kind of person.  Yet you have not directly answered my question regarding Irenaeus’ two quotes that seem to contradict each other.  Here, I’ll post the whole quote from the “Against Heresies” Book V, chapter 30. 

“Although certain as to the number of the name of Antichrist, yet we should come to no rash conclusions as to the name itself, because this number is capable of being fitted to many names.  Reasons for this point being reserved by the Holy Spirit.  Antichrist’s reign and death.
1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found IN ALL THE MOST APPROVED AND *ANCIENT* COPIES [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing testimony [to it];...”

I ask you again, Rella, (and anyone else basing their late-date theory upon the SINGLE WORD inserted at the translator’s discretion into Irenaeus’ quote about Domitian);  why does Irenaeus mention having ANCIENT copies of John’s Apocalypse,

Why does he say "Ancient copies"???

His work Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), written in about 180, was a refutation of Gnosticism. He would have been between 40 and 60 years old.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Irenaeus


Obviously it was not on the Times best selling list for 65 weeks as he wrote that 85years after Domitian came to power. As that would have been longer then a lot of people lived back then it would have been ancient.


I do not read it that Iraneus was just referring to  John's apocalypse but .. "IN ALL THE MOST APPROVED AND *ANCIENT* COPIES [of the Apocalypse]"

In all? How many were there?John's original and then those that were copied by other scribes?

of the most approved?   How many were discounted? Must mean that other's edited as they went along or approval would not have been needed?

And ancient... ancient to recent is about 35 years.... not a large enough time to make that distinction.

And could it just be, since we are told the earliest birth date if Iraneus is 125AD,
( Brittanica says c. 120/140)and most common 130 AD that by the time Iraneus was old enough to be doing what he did...96 could have been referred to as ancient
equally as well as 60-70.


if he was going to write shortly after in the same chapter 30 that the vision was seen only recently, almost in Domitian’s reign?  You can’t have both ANCIENT COPIES as well as a RECENT composition of Revelation. 

Yes you can because I do not read recent.... I read approved and ancient and 96 likely was an ancient time to him.


So which is it?  “ANCIENT” or RECENT composition of Revelation, as related to the time Irenaeus was writing “Against Heresies”?

Answered ~ BOTH


You are hanging your hat on a belief that Iraneus said ancient? You are looking for confirmation from a man who ..."Irenaeus argues that Christ did not die until he was older than conventionally portrayed,because he says " This means that Christ goes through every stage of human life, from infancy to old age, and simply by living it, sanctifies it with his divinity".
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Irenaeus

This is the Iraneus you want me to clarify my beliefs against? OY


The quote from Irenaeus about Domitian’s reign is ambiguous at best, based on that single word inserted into his quote by the translator’s choice.  And the entire stack of those who repeat this quote are merely copying what they THINK Irenaeus said.  Since the original language had no referent, and the translator had to make a choice, it had to be either JOHN that was seen almost up to the time of Domitian’s reign, or it was the VISION that was seen almost up to the time of Domitian’s reign.

Based upon the "translator's choice...and what "they think"
MY CHOICE IS 96


“...for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision.  For” (that OR he) “was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.  But HE” (meaning John) “indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him being aware of who he is:...”

I opt for the more reasonable choice of Irenaeus saying that JOHN was seen living among the believers, almost up to the time of  Domitian’s reign.  That’s because Irenaeus continues to talk about John in the very next sentence.  That’s also because Irenaeus had just spoken about witnesses seeing John “FACE-TO-FACE” in the quote I copied above for you.  If I were you, I would think twice before I built my entire eschatology on a single word inserted by a translator into Irenaeus’ quote about Domitian.

Yep... John likely was seen  among believers up to the time of Domitian's reign.
As I said.
  John came to Patmos, exiled by the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius Domitianus in 95 AC so he had to be living somewhere when that happened and it was not in his mom's basement.
https://www.greeka.com/dodecanese/patmos/history/
 


Another thing, Rella.  Do you really think that there was only one man called John that was in leadership of the early church?  Papias tells us (in Eusebius’ History) that there was both a John the disciple and John the elder.  It is very possible that historians confuse the two, and end up mistaking the actions and history of one for the other.  Remember John Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas?  He also was in church leadership.  Lots of Johns in those days.  Too bad they didn’t have social security numbers back then to keep them distinguished from each other.

And I’m sure you have also encountered the proof supplied by the title page of Revelation from the Syriac Peshitta, saying that John was in Patmos at the orders of the emperor Nero.   Not sure how you dismiss this...

As I said above

Those in favor of the later date cite the fact that the Neroan persecution was limited to Rome, while John of Patmos speaks of the churches suffering persecution throughout Asia Minor. In addition, Irenaeus (d. 185), states that he had received information from those who had seen John face to face and that John recorded his revelation "almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian's reign"
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_of_Patmos


These things, coupled with all the internal evidence I can find, end up proving an AD 59 to early AD 60 composition date of Revelation for me.  Traditions die hard, though.  Maybe the next generation after this pre-mil disp. one dies off will grow up with a blank religious slate that stands a better chance of getting these things correctly interpreted.

IT will always be 96 AD for me. Too much leads to that.

[/size]

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #55 on: Mon May 25, 2020 - 16:17:14 »
Hey Robycop3,

I’ve read the bulk of this pro-Domitian date material in Gentry’s dissertation “Before Jerusalem Fell”, where he submitted this “evidence” for close examination.  The vast majority of it seems to be founded upon the single ambiguous quote by Irenaeus with that single inserted word by the translator that has sent people in the wrong direction all these years.  A quote that is seemingly contradicted by Irenaeus’ own words in the same chapter, as I have shown above.

But this EXTERNAL evidence is not what we should base our dating proof upon anyway.  It is INTERNAL evidence that trumps the case, and this INTERNAL evidence of all scripture, (especially Revelation) points me without doubt to a composition date of late AD 59 - early AD 60.  Which, by the way, is NOT the date Gentry proposes in his dissertation.  I do not automatically march in lock-step with the main leaders of the Preterist movement, as you can probably tell.

Offline Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9834
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #56 on: Mon May 25, 2020 - 17:52:01 »
Adding a little light reading into the mix:

Conclusion:
The evidence supporting a A.D. 95 authorship for the book of Revelation is not based solely on Irenaeus. it is based on the statements of numerous early church fathers.

When was the book of Revelation written?
Bible Question:
When was the book of Revelation written?

You need to do a little more research concerning the dating for the Book of Revelation. Ken Gentry in his book, “Before Jerusalem Fell” cites evidence for a pre 70 AD date. The only source for the 95 date was Irenaeus, who by the way said that Jesus died at 50 years of age! Both John A.T. Robertson and William Foxwell Albright dated the NT as having been written between 20-80 AD! Finally, Moses Stuart writing in 1835 said that in his day the majority of scholars held to a pre 70 AD date. “Only the fool deceives himself. ”

Bible Answer:
The book of Revelation was written by the apostle John (Revelation 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). That is the internal evidence of the book and the external testimony of early church fathers. The Muratorian Fragment, an early document listing most of the books belonging to the New Testament, states that the apostle John wrote  the Apocalypse or Revelation.

The dating of the book of Revelation has sometimes been driven by one’s view of future things. Since Ken Gentry is a preterist, that is, someone who believes that Jesus Christ returned in A.D. 70, it is not surprising that he wants a pre-A.D. 70 date for the book of Revelation. The bigger question is what did the early church fathers actually say about the book of Revelation? Listen to the following evidence from men who hold different theological viewpoints about the future.

William Hendricksen, a well-known amillennialist, who has written a commentary set on the New Testament, makes this comment about the date of the book of Revelation.

The question now arises, when did John write the Apocalypse? In the year 69 (or even earlier), or must we reverse the figure and make it 96 (or perhaps 95)? One cannot find a single really cogent argument in support of the earlier date. The arguments produced are based on late and unreliable testimonies, on the wholly imaginary idea that John did not yet know his Greek when he wrote the Apocalypse, and on a very questionable literal interpretation of certain passages . . . The late date has very strong support. Says, Irenaeus: “For that (the apocalyptic vision) was seen not a very long time since, but almost in our own day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.” Again he says: “. . . the church in Ephesus founded by Paul, and lived in by John until the time of Trajan (AD 98-117), is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”[1]

It is important to note that Domitian’s reign occurred during the years of A.D 81-96.[2] This supports Dr. Hendricksen’s statement that the book of Revelation was written around A.D. 95. Irenaeus says that Revelation was written near the end of Domitian’s reign, and since Domitian ruled as Caesar after A.D. 81 to A.D. 96, a date of A.D. 95 for Revelation is the most credible date for its authorship.

G. K. Beale quotes Swete’s conclusion about the date of Revelation’s authorship with this comment,

Sweet’s conclusion about the issue of Revelation’s date reflects a balanced judgment: “To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the firm tradition stemming from Irenaeus.”[3]

Dr. J. MacArthur, a premillennialist, makes these comments

Those who hold to the early date [pre- A.D. 70] see in Jerusalem’s destruction the prophesied second coming of Jesus Christ in its first phase. External evidence for the earlier (Neronian) date is almost nonexistent. On the other hand, the view that the apostle John penned Revelation near the end of Domitian’s reign was widely held in the early church. The second-century church father Irenaeus wrote . . .[see above quote] . . . The church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome also affirm that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign . . . The testimony of the early church that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign is difficult to explain if it was actually written during Nero’s reign.[4]

Conclusion:
The evidence supporting a A.D. 95 authorship for the book of Revelation is not based solely on Irenaeus. it is based on the statements of numerous early church fathers.

References:
1. Ante-Nicene Fathers, I, pp. 416, 559.

2. Chris Scarre. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors. Thames and Hudson. 1995. p. 76; and Encyclopedia Britannica 2005, Ultimate Reference Suite DVD, Domitain.

3. G. K. Beale. The Book of Revelation. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Eerdamns Publishing Co., 1999. p. 27.

4. J MacArthur. Revelation 1-11. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Moody Press., 1999. pp. 7-8.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written/


Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #57 on: Mon May 25, 2020 - 17:54:58 »
Hi again Rella,

Irenaeus was not inspired.  Both you and I know that.  If I am giving the impression that I am basing my dating for Revelation on Irenaeus’ writing, I am most definitely not.  As you yourself brought up, the man had it wrong on Jesus’ age, saying that Jesus was anywhere from 44 to 57 years old at His crucifixion.  He said that Christ was crucified in the reign of Claudius in his “Demonstration of Apostolic Teaching”.   We know that both of these things are wrong by scripture’s testimony.

He also was totally screwed up on trying to use gematria in his musings about the 666 number, when John was actually talking about 666 YEARS that the Sea Beast had been in existence, ever since Nebuchadnezzar’s time.  And as many do, Irenaeus was also confusing the Anti-christ / Man of Sin character (of I and II John and II Thess. 2) with the Sea Beast character (of Rev. 13), when these were two different entities entirely.  Irenaeus was not an eschatology expert, and made some serious goofs as a historian as well.

I believe Irenaeus also mixed up the identity of a different John living into Domitian’s reign  (probably the church leader John who was surnamed Mark who lived until then).  I believe he was confusing John Mark the church leader with the author of Revelation who was John Eleazar (Lazarus).  The author of Revelation was the “beloved disciple” (NOT the apostle, another different John, son of Zebedee). 

This “beloved disciple” John, also known as Lazarus whom Jesus loved, remained on earth until Jesus returned in AD 70 (as Christ predicted he would in John 21:22), and was raptured to heaven with the rest of the newly-resurrected saints when they met the Lord in the air together at that time.  So John Eleazar, the author of Revelation, could not have been the same John that Irenaeus said was still around until the end of Domitian’s reign.

As I said, there were many named John in those days of the early church, and Irenaeus writing “Against Heresies” so many decades later around AD 180 could have easily confused their identities.  You do know that there are two tomb locations for John, don’t you?  One in Ephesus and another...I’ll have to look up the city’s name from my notes, but if I remember correctly, both are said to be empty.  Having two tombs for John could have also contributed to the confusion.

Offline Rella

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9834
  • Manna: 664
  • Just in case: callmerella@gmail.com
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #58 on: Mon May 25, 2020 - 18:05:59 »
Hi 3R,

I do not base anything on him, but you posted what you did and the man was a master of double talk....but I have just posted a long post of others , above, who are
of a late date belief  and why.. and also this link... is a good one, for me.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #59 on: Tue May 26, 2020 - 04:42:26 »
  The beast from the sea has NOT yet come. He will be the antichrist/man of sin/son of perdition/that Wicked, all the same one man.

  Nor has the rapture yet occurred. And John was not Lazarus.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9488
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #60 on: Tue May 26, 2020 - 06:02:17 »
Quote
Nor has the rapture yet occurred.
The biblical rapture AT THE LAST DAY has not occurred. Emphasis needs to be placed on the "last day" for only then will the saints be CAUGHT to meet the Lord in the air in the twinkling of an eye.
Quote from: Paul
1st Corinthians 15:51,52~"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
The LAST trump will be the SEVENTH and final trumpet that is recorded in Revelation, where we read of Seven Trumpets, Seals and Bowls all of which gives us a bird's eye view from the death of Jesus Christ to the end of the worlds from many different angles. The SEVENTH in all of them are showing the END OF THIS WORLD as we know it and the SAINTS of God BEING here UNTIL THAT VERY DAY and at THAT DAY caught up (the meaning of the word rapture) to be with Jesus Christ world without end NEVER to be separated from him again.
Quote from: THE HOLY GHOST
Revelation 11:12-15~"And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly. And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."
A fulfillment of:
Quote from: Daniel
Daniel 7:26,27~"But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him."
So, this has NOT taken place, but it seems as though it is not too far into the future of being fulfilled, for there are signs pointing to Christ's second coming which the resurrection and second coming are ONE AND THE SAME happening on the last day just before the final judgment and the destroying of this present world with fire, which will be the LAKE OF FIRE where all of the wicked from Cain to the last one born shall PERISH!
Quote from: robycop3 on: Today at 04:42:26
The beast from the sea has NOT yet come.
So wrong. The beast which is the mystery of iniquity has been in this world since the fall of man, only the coming that Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and John spoke of that was to come had not come in its FULL POWER and deceivableness! That coming was to be at the end of this world during the little season spoken of by John in Revelation twenty. We are living in the very heart of this prophecy to any person who's eyes have been open by the Spirit of God. The beast is nothing more than the spirit of Satan working without very much restrained from God working in the children of disobedience who have no love, or even a desire for the truths of the word of God. So much could be said, but my point has been stated.
Quote from: robycop3 on: Today at 04:42:26
He will be the antichrist/man of sin/son of perdition/that Wicked, all the same one man
Yes it is, and more could be added. The abomination that God will make desolate! Of course, you faith labors to make this ONE PERSON, whereas, God word calls them "THIS" generation, referring to EVIL AND WICKED little serpents from their father the Devil himself, whom to the surprise of the Preterist thought that he was destroyed in 70 A.D.~that's what he desires people to believe and some do, but will soon see that they were deceived by him by God sending them a STRONG delusion by leaving them to their own wisdom when they sought their truths OUTSIDE of the word of God instead of straight from the very mouth of God Himself! 

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #61 on: Tue May 26, 2020 - 08:32:41 »
Hi Rella,

You may not be basing your eschatology on Irenaeus’ one supposed statement, but all those you are quoting for late-date support in the link you gave ARE basing their views on him.  Irenaeus was only one of the very first “church fathers” who got their eschatology mixed up, and the bulk of those who followed after him merely copied and repeated what they think he said in that one sentence.

To merely copy a statement does not add to the weight of proof.  We see this today with those in the liberal press that merely repeat the talking points they are spoon-fed.  Repetition by these copy-cats does not make it true.


Robycop3,  you are merely repeating Irenaeus’ ancient error that the Sea Beast character with the 666 number and the Anti-christ were the same entity.  They aren’t.  You are arbitrarily conflating these two texts and merging them into one when their origins are completely different.  One came out of the SEA (Rev. 13:1-2), and the other came out FROM AMONG THOSE JOHN WAS WRITING TO (I John 2:19).


RB, your rapture scenario at the last trumpet of Revelation’s 7th trumpet was NEVER promised to include translated saints.  No where in scripture are the saints promised a free pass on ducking out of the death sentence passed upon us at the Fall.  ALL are appointed to die ONCE and ONLY ONCE (Heb. 9:27).  That means the “rapture” only caught up RESURRECTED SAINTS who had been changed to the incorruptible state. 

There are many scriptures that you have not answered that I have brought up about those last days of the first-century transition to the NHNE conditions in this present world.  Your accusation that my points are based on history instead of scripture as their foundation is incorrect. 

Did you ever give a response to that critical passage in Ezekiel 12:21-28 of God’s definition for an “AT HAND” prophecy?  I may have missed it if you did.  My “rubber stamp”, as you call it, for interpreting Revelation’s “at hand” prophecies has Ezekiel 12:21-28’s “AT HAND” term embossed on it.  God’s own definition of this term is the filter through which we MUST pass all our interpretations of “the end of all things” which I Peter 4:7 said was THEN “AT HAND” in his days.  This is a scripture truth that you and most everyone else are turning your backs on.

When God Himself tells you how to interpret the term ”AT HAND”, we are duty bound to follow His definition.


Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9488
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #62 on: Tue May 26, 2020 - 09:17:36 »
RB, your rapture scenario at the last trumpet of Revelation’s 7th trumpet was NEVER promised to include translated saints.  No where in scripture are the saints promised a free pass on ducking out of the death sentence passed upon us at the Fall.  ALL are appointed to die ONCE and ONLY ONCE (Heb. 9:27).  That means the “rapture” only caught up RESURRECTED SAINTS who had been changed to the incorruptible state. 
Well now, the rapture would include "both" those that are asleep and those that will be ALIVE when Jesus returns the SECOND time.
Quote from: Paul who was an "Idealist" AMILL
1st Thessalonians 4:13-17~ "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
I do not care HOW or WHEN you think this will or HAS taken place it is CLEAR that some will never die~or words have no meaning!

The pre-mill teach that these scriptures teach a secret rapture yet there is no proof within these scriptures supporting that theory. Many teach that the dead IN Christ shall be raised first, while the dead outside of Christ later. But a closer examination of these scriptures that the distinction is between the dead in Christ and the LIVING in Christ~that is those that are alive at his coming. The resurrection of the former shall occur before the change of the living.

There is certainly nothing secret about this coming. There will be a SHOUT~the VOICE of the archangel and the TRUMP of God...etc.

Bottom line, some will NEVER taste of death just as Enoch did not, neither did Elijah. The general rule is YES, all will die the death of their BODY, yet in a very true sense, the RIGHTEOUS have eternal life and shall NEVER see death, for to be absent from the body is to BE present with the Lord Jesus.
Quote from:  3 Resurrections on: Today at 08:32:41
When God Himself tells you how to interpret the term ”AT HAND”, we are duty bound to follow His definition.
Agreed....I have always once, I think you have forgotten, nevertheless, I will once more do it again after I return later today. Be happy to do so. 

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #63 on: Tue May 26, 2020 - 09:49:40 »
Hey again RB,

If I missed your comment on the Ezekiel 12:21-28 text, would be glad to hear a repetition of your response.

The “rapture” text describes more than just saints who are to be “alive” at Christ’s return.    It was going to be those of the believers who were “alive” and who had “REMAINED” on the earth.   These particular living saints had been RESERVED on earth, to be used for a particular purpose.  That’s what the “REMAINING” term means.  (As in “there REMAINETH therefore a rest for the people of God.”)

As you probably remember me saying before, I believe these “REMAINING”, reserved saints were the SEALED (reserved) 144,000 First-fruits raised along with the First-fruits Christ in the AD 33 resurrection.  In other words, they included the Matt. 27:52-53 saints raised to life with Christ who had been made “ALIVE”, and who had “REMAINED” on earth to serve in the early church.  They never died again, since this is impossible for the body of a saint raised to life again by the power of the Spirit.

You will labor in vain to prove that the bodies of the living saints who haven’t died yet are all given a TRANSLATION change at Christ’s appearing.  The only “CHANGE” of the body promised for the saints is a change of their DEAD physical bodies in I Cor. 15. 

Scripture does not contradict itself.  We are all promised to physically die ONCE before a  judgment.  No skipping this process.  If God wanted to make a *SINGLE* EXCEPTION for Enoch (not Elijah who did die), He used Him to be a picture portraying the unique high priesthood of Christ who was given an endless life as our high priest who “continueth ever”.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9488
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #64 on: Wed May 27, 2020 - 04:43:18 »
Hey again RB,

If I missed your comment on the Ezekiel 12:21-28 text, would be glad to hear a repetition of your response.
Greetings, well, I was speaking of the term "at hand" from the book of Revelation. Ezekiel: 12:21-28 texts I have not but will after I make this post read it and consider the manner in which you are desiring to use it.

I deem Revelation use of the phrase " at hand " extremely important since that's the very book of prophecy that sums up all eschatology events from the prophets to Jesus Christ and his apostles to the beginning of the eternal reign of Christ with his chosen bride the New Jerusalem.

The term " at hand " as used by the Spirit literally is at hand for God would not use that phrase at hand if indeed those thing spoken in Revelation was not at hand as far as WE consider things at hand. Such phrases are not used in vain if events were thousands of years out into the future, YET, what truly is even two thousand years to man understanding, not that much. My (3x) great parents were born shortly after the 1800's and I actually saw my great grandmother and was a teenager when she died. If one stops and ponders, time move QUICKLY, much like a weaver's shuttle. (Job 7:6) When I read Revelation and see the following two scriptures then I understand how I should understand the phrase~" at hand "
Quote from: The SPIRIT OF GOD
Revelation 1:1~The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Quote from: THE SPIRIT OF GOD
Revelation 22:10~"And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Shortly come to pass, or " At hand " is used in the very first verse in Revelation and in the very last section of the same book~knowing that EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN those two scriptures MUST BE FULFILLED in that saying at hand.  There are things  yet to be fulfilled in between those two scriptures. Just to name a few: The marriage supper of the Lamb has not taken place~Revelation 19....yet it is WITHIN the "at hand" saying of the angel to John. The resurrection of the wicked and final judgment has not taken place~Revelation 20, neither has the creation of the New Heaven and Earth, etc etc.

So, "shortly come to pass and at hand"~ as used by the Spirit of God so far has lasted a little short of two thousand years, which is NOTHING as far as time goes, and it moves FAST! Our short 70-80 years goes by like a little vapor arising from a pot of hot water!
Quote from: 3 Resurrections on: Yesterday at 09:49:40
The “rapture” text describes more than just saints who are to be “alive” at Christ’s return.    It was going to be those of the believers who were “alive” and who had “REMAINED” on the earth.
Not more sir, it's your twisting, and playing on words to give your doctrine some credibility. It is "not" who had remained has you want us to believe Paul said. Consider Paul's exact words shall we:
Quote
1st Thessalonians 4:13-17~ "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
Do you see the words had remain? No you do not, you are adding them there to support your corrupt doctrine~shame on you!
Quote from:  3 Resurrections on: Yesterday at 09:49:40
As you probably remember me saying before, I believe these “REMAINING”, reserved saints were the SEALED (reserved) 144,000 First-fruits raised along with the First-fruits Christ in the AD 33 resurrection.
I do not remember, but I'm sure you have~yet you are missing the truth of Revelation 7 which I do not have time to consider that section but would love to do so later. I will only say this for now~the 144,000 thousand are ACTUALLY MILLIONS upon MILLIONS, etc. etc.  from ALL NATIONS under heaven! After the sealing of the SPIRITUAL TRIBES of Israel John said this:
Quote
Revealtion 7:9~"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;"
Not just a literal 144,000 but a number that NO MAN could number! Do not be deceived like the Jehovah's (false) Witnesses and limit the 144,000 to a literal number.
Quote from: 3 Resurrections on: Yesterday at 09:49:40
You will labor in vain to prove that the bodies of the living saints who haven’t died yet are all given a TRANSLATION change at Christ’s appearing.  The only “CHANGE” of the body promised for the saints is a change of their DEAD physical bodies in I Cor. 15.

Scripture does not contradict itself.  We are all promised to physically die ONCE before a  judgment.  No skipping this process.  If God wanted to make a *SINGLE* EXCEPTION for Enoch (not Elijah who did die), He used Him to be a picture portraying the unique high priesthood of Christ who was given an endless life as our high priest who “continueth ever”.
Well, for sure BOTH Elijah and Enoch left this earth without dying, what (and WHEN) happened BEFORE they enter into God's presence is not told us, yet WE KNOW that flesh and blood cannot enter, so a CHANGE took place in some fashion BEFORE they left earth's atmosphere. That's a given.

If you have time go here and read what John Calvin said and how Augustine labor over man not dying BEFORE being change~I found it very interesting reading. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_thessalonians/4.htm


 
« Last Edit: Wed May 27, 2020 - 07:30:33 by RB »

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Manna: 27
  • That’s 666 YEARS, people.
Re: The Mark of the Beast (what it really is explained)
« Reply #65 on: Wed May 27, 2020 - 13:37:40 »
Hi RB,

You are oh-so-close when you are able to see that “EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN those two scriptures MUST BE FULFILLED in that saying ‘at hand’.”  The only exception that scripture itself puts on what was NOT going to be fulfilled “at hand” was whatever those 7 thunders prophesied in Rev. 10:4.  Those prophecies were NOT written down, but were “sealed up” to be unsealed in future generations AFTER all those “at hand” prophecies had been unsealed in John’s days.

A marriage supper and a resurrection and judgment were also included in what was “at hand” for fulfillment in John’s days, since scripture does not seal these events up in Revelation.  Thankfully, scripture does speak of “marriage FEASTS” (PLURAL) in relation to Christ coming, which reserves yet another marriage feast for our future in which we are to participate in the final resurrection and judgment.

I do hope you are able to do some serious reflection on the Ezekiel 12:21-28 text.  This is not MAN’S perception of what “at hand” means - it is GOD’S own interpretation and definition expressed about that term.

As for the I Thess. 4 text about those among the believers who Paul said “ARE alive and REMAIN”, this was a PRESENT TENSE reality for a group of some individuals that BACK THEN in Paul’s day were at that time in a then-present reserved status.  If I phrased this in a confused manner that appears to “twist” scripture, I apologize.   

But this is not a future-to-us reality of a group of reserved saints who will be alive and remaining in a time to come for us.  This was the saints who BACK THEN had been made “alive” by being resurrected.  Raised to life either by the ministry of Elijah or Elisha, by Christ during His ministry or along with His own resurrection, or the original Apostles’ ministries during those days before AD 70’s resurrection and rapture. 

Remember Dorcas?  Peter “presented her ALIVE” to her acquaintances after her resurrection.  She also was one who would “REMAIN” on earth until Christ bodily returned in AD 70, just as the beloved disciple John who Christ said would “REMAIN (or tarry) till I come”.

I see you are still confusing the 144,000 NUMBERED resurrected group (out of Israelite tribes) with the LATER UNNUMBERED resurrected group (out of EVERY nation, kindred, people and tongue). 

These two DIFFERENT groups are also presented in Rev. 6:9-11, as the group under the altar (which included the Matt. 27:52-53 saints) who were given white robes of a righteous, resurrected body, and told to wait “a little season” until their persecuted and martyred fellow-brethren died and were resurrected.  That other group of fellow-brethren John said were “ABOUT TO BE KILLED” in his days as he was writing.  This refers to the massive “fiery trial” that I Peter 4:12 said was then engulfing the saints (Nero’s persecution against the Christians dating from AD 64-68).

So, the Matt. 27 resurrected saints, and others like them who had been under the altar were raised with Christ, and then told to “wait a little season” (from AD 33 until AD 70’s resurrection) when both groups of resurrected ones would “meet the Lord together in the air” when He came in the clouds to rapture them to heaven.   

I know, not your typical interpretation, but it sure beats Augustine’s, who called his own surmising a “feeble conjecture” about how the rapture could take saints to heaven who had not yet died.  I fully read your Calvin link also, and this worthy gentleman was also greatly confused on this point.  Essentially, he said that the raptured living and remaining saints passed through something LIKE DEATH on the way to heaven, but really didn’t die, etc.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.