Is this story related to the Mark of the Beast?

Hammster said:

I don’t fully understand your question.

Click to expand...

Is not Revelation, Daniel, and the Olivet Discourse about the end of the church, sin, and Adam's punishment?

grafted branch said:

Antitype - One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.

I place JtB in the Old Testament, with the New Testament starting after the testator dies.

I don’t expect you to believe that JtB was the 2 witnesses, but I do think a person should acknowledge all the similarities between the two.

Click to expand...

My other question is do you think such a person would be listened to today? Telling all the Second Coming is not what they expected would not go far against those today set in their different eschatologies. Revelation 11 does not say the 2 witnesses proclaim the Second Coming. The 2 witnesses are a thorn in Satan's side for the same 42 months Satan is given control.

Hammster said:

No.

Click to expand...

Then you agree, preterism is a false eschatological view. The word means doctrine of end things. Most who accept Daniel's 70th week declares the end by Stephen's stoning. We are not even the church now, but the millennium of undetermined length after the end of all things. Only the GWT is left to happen. "Nero and his FP" have been in the Lake of Fire. No one actually dies. They are just sent to sheol by the iron rod of Christ's reign. That is what most claim they believe who post here. That is the main points of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse, no?

Timtofly said:

My other question is do you think such a person would be listened to today?

Click to expand...

I could ask you a similar question, if 2 people showed up today claiming to be the 2 witnesses would they be listened to? Do the scriptures reveal how relevant it was or will be concerning the number of people who listen to the 2 witnesses?

Timtofly said:

Telling all the Second Coming is not what they expected would not go far against those today set in their different eschatologies. Revelation 11 does not say the 2 witnesses proclaim the Second Coming.

Click to expand...

Agreed

Timtofly said:

The 2 witnesses are a thorn in Satan's side for the same 42 months Satan is given control.

Click to expand...

If you are claiming that the 2 witnesses and the first beast in Revelation 13 are events that occur simultaneously at some future point then would you also conclude that the gates of hell will prevail against the church?

grafted branch said:

If you are claiming that the 2 witnesses and the first beast in Revelation 13 are events that occur simultaneously at some future point then would you also conclude that the gates of hell will prevail against the church?

Click to expand...

Why would one need to conclude the latter if they conclude the former? Does not Revelation 13 tell us that the beast shall make war with the church and overcome the church?

Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.


Does not Daniel 7 tell us this as well?

Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;


Does that then result in, that the gates of hell has prevailed against the church if these things happen in the end of this age?

Daniel 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High(Compare with Revelation 20:4); and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Apparently, it doesn't according to this verse. The beast is only able to overcome the church up until the Ancient of days comes and puts an end to it once and for all, and not instead prevail against the church altogether. How can verse 22 not involve the 2nd coming of Christ in the end of this age? How can verse 22 not be the interpretation of the following earlier in Daniel 7?

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones(Compare with Revelation 20:4) were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame(Compare with Revelation 19:20).


How can this be meaning events that already took place in the first century, rather than events that will happen in the end of this age once Christ returns? How can Daniel 7:9-11 and Daniel 7:21-22 not also involve what is recorded in Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 20:4?

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone(Compare with Daniel 7:11).

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them(Compare with Daniel 7:9 and Daniel 7:22): and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

DavidPT said:

Does that then result in, that the gates of hell has prevailed against the church if these things happen in the end of this age?

Click to expand...

Yes, because the word saints <40> doesn’t always refer to the church or even believers.


Look at Deuteronomy 33:1-3 for example, the blessing of Moses calls the children of Israel saints. Also Deuteronomy 14:2 gives a description that matches the definition of saints.

Romans 8:38-39 declares that nothing is able to separate us from the love of God, which includes principalities, powers, things present, nor things to come. When Daniel 7:25 says “they shall be given into his hand”, it can’t be referring to true believers else God himself forsakes believers. The more reasonable answer here is that God gave national Israel into the hand of the beast.


If the saints are referring to believers then it also must be Gods will that the saints are overcome. There is no power but of God. Since it was given unto the beast to make war and overcome the saints, this would have to be Gods will.



So true believers will submit themselves to God (James 4:7) and allow themselves to be overcome in order to obey Gods will; else if they resist Gods will they are going to receive damnation (Romans 13:1-2). However Revelation chapters 2 and 3 have a statement to each of the 7 churches about overcoming.


We are given the example to pray for Gods will to be done, so apparently if the beast is yet to come all believers should be praying that they will be overcome once the beast arrives. So if the word "saints" is referring to true believers then it would indeed appear that the gates of hell will prevail.

grafted branch said:

If the saints are referring to believers then it also must be Gods will that the saints are overcome. There is no power but of God. Since it was given unto the beast to make war and overcome the saints, this would have to be Gods will.

Click to expand...

It simply means God allows it in order to accomplish some objectives. One of them being the following, as an example, meaning what I have submitted from Daniel 11 and 12 below.

But first let's start with the following in Revelation 12.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Would you argue that---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ---is not meaning the church? I'm guessing you wouldn't, the fact I know that you can see that the text says this---and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Who other than the church would have that testimony, right?

What else does that verse say? It says this---and went to make war with these same ones. If we then turn to Revelation 13, we see this in verse 7---And it was given unto him to make war with the saints. Why would these saints not be meaning the same remnant of her seed, that have the testimony of Jesus Christ, mentioned in Revelation 12:17? After ch 12 what other group of ppl do we see being made war with if not these saints mentioned in Revelation 13:7?

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.


Look what verse 35 states---And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white

We see this mentioned again in Daniel 12.

Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

IOW, they are tried during the time when the beast is allowed to overcome the saints. After Christ revealed the NT church, how can one be a saint after that time, yet not be a part of the church? How can anything recorded in Revelation 13 be meaning a time prior to when Christ initially revealed the NT church, rather than a time after that instead?

DavidPT said:

Would you argue that---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ---is not meaning the church? I'm guessing you wouldn't, the fact I know that you can see that the text says this---and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Who other than the church would have that testimony, right?

Click to expand...

National Israel would. In Luke 24:27 Jesus expounded on all the scriptures that concerned himself. Clearly national Israel had the testimony of Jesus Christ through the Old Testament.

DavidPT said:

IOW, they are tried during the time when the beast is allowed to overcome the saints. After Christ revealed the NT church, how can one be a saint after that time, yet not be a part of the church? How can anything recorded in Revelation 13 be meaning a time prior to when Christ initially revealed the NT church, rather than a time after that instead?

Click to expand...

I believe the Beast and the overcoming occurred prior to the cross. I think this was necessary for them to crucify their Messiah. I place the false prophet after the cross, being Satan transformed into an angel of light.

grafted branch said:

National Israel would. In Luke 24:27 Jesus expounded on all the scriptures that concerned himself. Clearly national Israel had the testimony of Jesus Christ through the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

I think I see and understand where you are going with that. And even though I don't necessarily disagree with your point, now that you have brought it forth, I'm still arguing a bit differently than you are here, in regards to this. So let's try this angle next.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

If the remnant of her seed is not meaning the church but is meaning national Israel, who then is the woman meaning here? Both can't mean national Israel if one is seen flying into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent, and that the remnant remains behind in order to be confronted by the dragon head on.

DavidPT said:

If the remnant of her seed is not meaning the church but is meaning national Israel, who then is the woman meaning here? Both can't mean national Israel if one is seen flying into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent, and that the remnant remains behind in order to be confronted by the dragon head on.

Click to expand...

Revelation 12 is another one of those difficult areas for me.

I see the woman fleeing into the wilderness in Revelation 12:6 as Mary’s flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15). You’re asking about the woman in verses 13-17 which I think is also representing Mary.

I think we’ve talked about this before, what I see is some kind of parallelism going on. Verses 3-4 have the stars of heaven being cast to the earth. Verses 4-6 have the woman fleeing into the wilderness to get away from the dragon. Verses 7-9 have war and again what’s in heaven is being cast down to the earth. Verses 13-14 again have the woman fleeing into the wilderness. Verse 17 again has a war.

I haven’t studied Hebrew Parallelism but if that’s the correct way of looking at Revelation 12 then the woman is Mary that flees to Egypt in both verse 6 and 14.

My view of verse 15-17, which does contain speculation on my part, is this …

15. The water being cast out of the mouth of the serpent is when Herod sent forth and slew all the children.
16. The earth helping the woman by swallowing up the flood of water would be Herod dying and being buried.
17. The dragon (Satan) makes war with national Israel

Hammster said:

and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.


Yeah, when the destruction came to Jerusalem, some were not prepared. You should read up on the destruction that happened.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question about 2 Peter 3:3-13. Is there any reason to think that Jesus was talking about something different in Matthew 24:37-39 than Peter talked about when comparing the flood to what will happen at Christ's second coming in 2 Peter 3:5-7?

Timtofly said:

With a flood. Was there a flood in 70AD?

Click to expand...

Daniel 9:26 talks about the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary/temple and it says the end will come LIKE a flood. It's figurative language. It's not saying the destruction would come by way of a flood. Are you expecting another major flood at some point in the future that will destroy Jerusalem?