Mark of the beast idea

[Sean]

Mike, the preterist's imagination is his problem. They try to say in their mind..."what I am reading, surely doesnt mean what its saying"....the possibilities are endless and dangerous with this this out of control mindset.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

Yep your preterism doctrine is equated to God as hay.

Oh, so the reference to HAY, like the referenced to BUYING GOLD in Revelation 3 is not literal HAY, but figurative? God sees it as though it was hay? But it's not literal hay?

Ahhhh. So that means the BUYING and the GOLD in Rev 3 is not literal! BUYING is not literal! Ahhhh. So what does that say about Rev 13's BUYING? Are you saying THAT IS NOT LITERAL EITHER? But it is something FIGURATIVE that describes something that TO GOD IS LIKE BUYING??: Is that what you're saying?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

Mike, the preterist's imagination is his problem. They try to say in their mind..."what I am reading, surely doesnt mean what its saying"....the possibilities are endless and dangerous with this this out of control mindset.

You just said HAY is not literal HAY, but it is what something is like to God. So it is not what it says it is???? You contradict your own method of interpretation. We are reading something in Rev 3 that is not what it's saying! Hay is not literal hay! Wow. But yet buying is buying, but not in this part of Revelation, on ly in THAT part? Wow. Where's the consistency?

[Sean]

Mike, I have been playing along. I know what you are saying.

The book of Rev. does indeed have symbolism...but tied to its literal meanings.

My point is you guys OVER symbolize the meanings, into your private interpretation.

[mfblume]

Sean, I told you this before, but u as usual you forget the things you do not want to remember. But there is STRICT restriction and limitations to what the meaning has to be if it is figurative in Revelation. IT HAS TO BE USED IN A FIGURATIVE SENSE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE BIBLE, usually the old testament, AND IT MUST BE SELF-EVIDENT that it is referring to something. That is a far cry from the sky is the limit and whatever our imagination can contrive is the limit.

You're not even being honest in our chats when you say the nonsense that there is no limits to what we can imagine for the meaning.

For example, Jesus is not A LAMB in Revelation because lambs are nice and Jesus is nice. He is not a lamb w=for whatever other imagination you can come up with. He is lamb whose blood REDEEMED US (Rev 5:9) because the PASSOVER LAMB foreshadowed Jesus in Exodus. That restricts the interpretation. AND THAT IS THE SAME THING FOR EVERYTHING ELSE IN REVELATION. That's why I referred to Deut 6 and the law between eyes and on hand to find the principle of what the bible means when it says the hand and forehead in Revelation.

Now, you'll just forget that again, like you did since the last time I explained this. And you'll continue to dishonestly tell everyone we imagine everything we 'claim is an interpretation to what we claim is figurative in the bible. So you're not even being honest in our chats. Nor with yourself, for that mater.

But you read it at face value here but not there. You read BUYING literally in Rev 13 but not in Rev 3. You are inconsistent. Go figure.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

Mike, I have been playing along. I know what you are saying.

The book of Rev. does indeed have symbolism...but tied to its literal meanings.

My point is you guys OVER symbolize the meanings, into your private interpretation.

Of course it is tied to literal meanings! We never said it did not! Over-symbolizing something is not only not a word, lol, but it is NOT possible. Something is either a symbol or it's not. There's no such thing as oversymbolizing anything as much as it's impossible to overliteralize something. It's either literal or symbolic.

So please explain to us why the buying in Rev 3 is not literal but is in Rev 13? Why can't Revelation 13's buying be tied to literal meanings?

the key is to STICK TO THE BIBLE. Not the koran, or the newspapers like you do with Revelation today. You look at the newspapers. Aquila looks at the Koran, and we look to the rest of the bible.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sean, I told you this before, but u as usual you forget the things you do not want to remember. But there is STRICT restriction and limitations to what the meaning has to be if it is figurative in Revelation. IT HAS TO BE USED IN A FIGURATIVE SENSE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE BIBLE, usually the old testament, AND IT MUST BE SELF-EVIDENT that it is referring to something. That is a far cry from the sky is the limit and whatever our imagination can contrive is the limit.

You're not even being honest in our chats when you say the nonsense that there is no limits to what we can imagine for the meaning.

For example, Jesus is not A LAMB in Revelation because lambs are nice and Jesus is nice. He is not a lamb w=for whatever other imagination you can come up with. He is lamb whose blood REDEEMED US (Rev 5:9) because the PASSOVER LAMB foreshadowed Jesus in Exodus. That restricts the interpretation. AND THAT IS THE SAME THING FOR EVERYTHING ELSE IN REVELATION. That's why I referred to Deut 6 and the law between eyes and on hand to find the principle of what the bible means when it says the hand and forehead in Revelation.

Now, you'll just forget that again, like you did since the last time I explained this. And you'll continue to dishonestly tell everyone we imagine everything we 'claim is an interpretation to what we claim is figurative in the bible. So you're not even being honest in our chats. Nor with yourself, for that mater.

But you read it at face value here but not there. You read BUYING literally in Rev 13 but not in Rev 3. You are inconsistent. Go figure.

The dishonesty Mike is the LIE you guys teach that the first 19 chapters of the Book of Rev. ALL fulfilled.
That is the biggest lie that has been concocted by man, to make the GREAT book of prophecy for end time readers , essentially irrelevant to its readers...shame on you guys.

You have been an extension movement of the "scoffers" in 2 Peter 3!


You guys have cause folks to NOT be aware of the signs of the end times around them.

Jesus says.."look", you guys say, ..."dont bother it already happened"

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

The dishonesty Mike is the LIE you guys teach that the first 19 chapters of the Book of Rev. ALL fulfilled.

DISHONESTY is knowing something to be true and instead saying it is NOT true. I am NOT DISHONEST when I say your doctrine is false. I am NOT dishonest when I say the first 19 chapters of Rev were fulfilled in the first century. I am as honest as I can be. You need to learn the definition of dishonest/ And notice how you change arguments from your dishonesty in lying about us always using Josephus TO YOU.

Frustrated to be able to give no biblical answer again, I see. There goes to slurring again with no biblical discussion to show you are right.

If you're going to accuse someone, then provide the evidence and show why your accusation is true. You never do that, though. You give conclusions with no workable evidence.

That is the biggest lie that has been concocted by man, to make the GREAT book of prophecy for end time readers , essentially irrelevant to its readers...shame on you guys.

More conclusions not proved. More knee-jerk reactions of emotion, really. Typical.

You have been an extension movement of the "scoffers" in 2 Peter 3!

More accusations with no evidence to prove it. No proof or exegetical discussion showing how our views apply to the scoffers of Peter's dissertation. In fact, your lies are shown to be lies by my evidence with detailed explanation of a scripture. For example, you claim we believe we're like the scoffers of Peter's words who said Jesus would never come after such a long time. For one thing, Peter's LONG TIME was from the point of the cross to the time Peter wrote. And for another thing, I BELIEVE JESUS IS STILL COMING.

here's what I do to accusations that you flippantly throw out as opposed to you accusations you never prove. I will handle your claims of falsehood with the way in which you should be proving you slanderous claims about us. USING BIBLE EXPLANATION.

2Pe 3:3-4 KJV Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (4) And 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.

Peter said the scoffers deny the Lord's coming and question it by asking where is the promises' fulfillment? I do not deny His coming. And I AM NOT looking for the promise of his fulfillment in way that suggests I do not believe it will happen. HE IS COMING BACK. I BELIEVE IT! I DO NOT look at how creation continued as it was since the beginning to justify a lie that the Lord is not coming again as you accuse me of doing. He;s coming back! We will see Him in the sky most visibly! Peter was talking about scoffers who scoffed the idea of that HE WILL COME AGAIN!

So you lied about me again.

You guys have cause folks to NOT be aware of the signs of the end times around them.

No, you take out of context the signs Jesus told us about. They were about AD70 and the people he told the signs to were the people he said would see them, not us. Where does the bible say that the SIGNS Jesus mentioned were not for AD70 but are to occur thousands of years after AD70? I believe Jesus is coming back. I NEED NO SIGNS TO PROVE IT. Do you? Why are the SIGNS in Matt 24 NOT FOR THE FIRST CENTURY?

Jesus says.."look", you guys say, ..."dont bother it already happened"
[/COLOR][/B]

How can Peter's scoffers be people like me WHO ARE STILL LOOKING FOR HIS SECOND COMING?

Peter did not say the scoffers claim the signs of the coming in Matt 24 were not for us thousands of years later. Where did Peter say that? You confused everything! I proved from the words of Peter that I am NOT what you claim and accuse of being. No wonder your'e futurist! You twist everything that Peter and Jesus said.

That's as silly as saying the flood is going to occur because Genesis 6 it is going to occur. AND YOU FAILED TO NOTICE THAT GEN 8 SHOWS IT ALREADY OCCURRED.

And notice how you change arguments from your dishonesty in lying about us always using Josephus TO YOU.

[Sean]

Okay my friends, this is your Bible answer man for futurism...

Welcome to my forum.

May I take your next question please?


LOL

[Sean]

This stuff is ADDICTING!!!