Mark of the beast idea

[Sean]

Originally Posted by shag

Don't care how it happened.
Now, What is the purpose of God having the phrase "shortly take place", in the first verse, and "the time is near", in the 3rd verse, if it's not true?

Not even a little hint? Please?

[shag]

Originally Posted by shag

Don't care how it happened. And, no matter what I said, you wouldn't believe it.
Now, What is the purpose of God having the phrase "shortly take place", in the first verse, and "the time is near", in the 3rd verse?

Bump

[shag]

Originally Posted by shag

Don't care how it happened. And, no matter what I said, you wouldn't believe it.
Now, What is the purpose of God having the phrase "shortly take place", in the first verse, and "the time is near", in the 3rd verse?

I ask again. Serious question, why not leave it out?

[Sean]

Yes I am...here is his original post....
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
The key to understanding anything in Revelation is to see a pattern in the Old Testament that is undeniably similar, and to determine what the typology between it and New testament teachings are, such as the Passover lamb being the type of Jesus when we see the passover lamb in Revelation 5:6.

First, we must recognize there is such a perfect pattern between the name of God on the foreheads of the 144,000 in Rev 14:1 and the placement of God's Law on the forehead and hand in Deut 6. The name of God on the forehead in Rev 14:1 corresponds to the Law of God on the forehead in the Exodus. And just as the people of God backslid just when God was ready to give them the Law, and worshiped the image of the beast in the form of the golden calf, we see satan's responding similarly to the name of God on the forehead by issuing his own mark for the forehead and hand.

In order to determine the nature of the mark of the beast, therefore, we have to learn the nature of the worship of the beast in the form of the golden calf and compare it to the reception of God's law from the hand of Moses. That will help us contrast the name of God in the forehead from the mark of the beast in the forehead in Rev 13-14.

The bible interprets itself in this fashion. Unless we utilize THIS KEY to reading Revelation, we will be a million miles off target.


He is trying to tell us that these certain passages in Revelations is REALLY talking about the EXODUS, right?


These 2 books describe 1 single event right?


I have been gaining from this series of posts that he believes that these certain passages Rev. and Exodus are actually describing one in the same event.

Please, please, please tell me exactly what I am supposed to be understanding here, please.

[Sean]

Quote:
Originally Posted by shag View Post
Revelation 1:1

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must NOT shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,



Ok, I fixed it.






Okay, I fixed it guys...this is regarding the soon return of Jesus in the days of the Apostles...

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


Looks like Peter could have known something that he wanted all to see here

[Disciple4life]

Something that has been said time and time again is that-

You use bible to interpret bible. You do not use todays newspaper to interpret bible.

To my knowledge Preterism is uniform in this view.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Disciple4life

Something that has been said time and time again is that-

You use bible to interpret bible. You do not use todays newspaper to interpret bible.

To my knowledge Preterism is uniform in this view.

Preterism's newspaper is Josephus and any other tidbit of historical wording they can find on the internet.

[Aquila]

Rev. Blume, I have a question for those who hold the Partial Preterist position...

Where in Scripture do we see the literal physical return of Jesus depicted?

[Bowas]

Serious question: If "shortly come to pass" , or "at hand" does not mean "imminent" or "soon," from the writers or to the recipients of the letters perspective, as he was inspired by God on what to write, there can only be one of two possible reasons.

1.) Either it did occur but some have failed to recognize, understand or admit that it did, in that it doesn't fit their position as to how it should occur.

2.) Or, it didn't occur as the writer said it would, in which case the writer either misunderstood God or simply wrote it down incorrectly.

If #1 is correct, it incumbent upon us to grasp what is being said and adjust our views to agree with what is obviously stated in the scriptures, even if at first one doesn't fully comprehend how or when.

If #2 is the case, it would be saying the Bible has an error in it or God misled the writer, but whatever the case here, we would by default be saying the Bible is not correct on this point.

Conclusion: The Bible is very clear and has said it multiple times in various ways that it was about to occur during the time it was written and to whom it was addressed to, of that there can be no legitimate debate, so we must conform to the clear words as written and accept it had to have meant what it said to those it was addressed to, so we must search what did it mean to them then and how did it occur. If it didn't occur, the Bible is suspect on it's accuracy.
The notion that it is speaking from God's perspective of time, is a bogus argument intended for one to retain one's position. (the 1 day with the Lord is as of a thousand years to us is in no way a time template for things prophetic on several points)

Just one of the things I have had to come to grips with in my years of study.

[Sean]

Again bro...show us in history when Jesus returned okay.....PLEASE....