Shadow of the mark

Timtofly said:

So Zechariah got the place wrong, Jesus would return to?

Click to expand...

Where in Zechariah does He mention Jesus "returning" anywhere?

parousia70 said:

Where in Zechariah does He mention Jesus "returning" anywhere?

Click to expand...

"Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."

Timtofly said:

Where in Revelation is the blooming of the fig tree? We are talking about the Olivet Discourse.

Click to expand...

No. We are talking about Revelation and about its timeframe - "soon".

jgr said:

Of course. One singular student represents plural students. One singular man of God represents plural men of God.

One singular man of sin represents plural men of sin, consistent with John's declaration of multiple antichrists.

Click to expand...

Every reference to the beast/man of sin is singular.

jgr said:

But you couldn't.

Click to expand...

Seems I did better than YOU did.

Hammster said:

I’m thinking that you don’t really understand what hermeneutics is.

Click to expand...

I understand quite well. That's why I don't believe in reducing literal Scriptures to "metaphorical" status to attempt to justify a false, man-made doctrine.

Timtofly said:

"Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."

Click to expand...

Nothing about Jesus “returning” to do this. Also what does zechariah mean when he says the lord will fight “as when he fought in the day of battle”?

Can you point to any examples previous to Zachariah where the Lord “fought in the day of battle” so we can examine the Scriptures and understand what Zachariah means?

Clearly Zachariah is encouraging us to look at the previous examples of how the Lord fought in the day of battle, so we can understand what this battle he is describing would be like. Clearly Zachariah is saying, the way the Lord previously fought his enemies is the same way he will do so in this battle.

Can you point me to any of those previous examples?

Hammster said:

Do you understand that we should use scripture to interpret scripture?

Click to expand...

True. That's why we know the beast will be a man, & he was not Nero.

robycop3 said:

Every reference to the beast/man of sin is singular.

Click to expand...

So is the reference to "man of God".

robycop3 said:

Seems I did better than YOU did.

Click to expand...

I asked you for the literal interpretation of Genesis 3:15. You provided the metaphorical spiritual interpretation instead. I had to provide you with the literal interpretation.

You failed.

robycop3 said:

I understand quite well. That's why I don't believe in reducing literal Scriptures to "metaphorical" status to attempt to justify a false, man-made doctrine.

Click to expand...

Except of course, for the over 100+ literal NT scriptures declaring the event was "soon, near, about to take place, shortly, in a very, very little while, etc, etc..." THEN you absolutely believe in reducing those 100+ literal scriptures to "metaphorical" status to attempt to justify a false, man-made doctrine.

Maybe it's only OK when YOU do it?

robycop3 said:

The Jews plan to build a new one in Jerusalem at the right time. Just last year, they made & consecrated an altar to be used in it.

Click to expand...

I'm stocked up on popcorn.

Sozomen (ca. A.D.375-447)
"Ecclesiastical History"
Book V, Chapter XXII

Though the emperor [Julian the Apostate] hated and oppressed the Christians, he manifested benevolence and humanity towards the Jews. He wrote to the Jewish patriarchs and leaders, as well as to the people, requesting them to pray for him, and for the prosperity of the empire. In taking this step he was not actuated, I am convinced, by any respect for their religion; for he was aware that it is, so to speak, the mother of the Christian religion, and he knew that both religions rest upon the authority of the patriarchs and the prophets; but he thought to grieve the Christians by favoring the Jews, who are their most inveterate enemies. But perhaps he also calculated upon persuading the Jews to embrace paganism and sacrifices; for they were only acquainted with the mere letter of Scripture, and could not, like the Christians and a few of the wisest among the Hebrews, discern the hidden meaning.

Events proved that this was his real motive; for he sent for some of the chiefs of the race and exhorted them to return to the observance of the laws of Moses and the customs of their fathers. On their replying that because the temple in Jerusalem was overturned, it was neither lawful nor ancestral to do this in another place than the metropolis out of which they had been cast, he gave them public money, commanded them to rebuild the temple, and to practice the cult similar to that of their ancestors, by sacrificing after the ancient way. The Jews entered upon the undertaking, without reflecting that, according to the prediction of the holy prophets, it could not be accomplished. They sought for the most skillful artisans, collected materials, cleared the ground, and entered so earnestly upon the task, that even the women carried heaps of earth, and brought their necklaces and other female ornaments towards defraying the expense. The emperor, the other pagans, and all the Jews, regarded every other undertaking as secondary in importance to this. Although the pagans were not well-disposed towards the Jews, yet they assisted them in this enterprise, because they reckoned upon its ultimate success, and hoped by this means to falsify the prophecies of Christ. Besides this motive, the Jews themselves were impelled by the consideration that the time had arrived for rebuilding their temple. When they had removed the ruins of the former building, they dug up the ground and cleared away its foundation; it is said that on the following day when they were about to lay the first foundation, a great earthquake occurred, and by the violent agitation of the earth, stones were thrown up from the depths, by which those of the Jews who were engaged in the work were wounded, as likewise those who were merely looking on. The houses and public porticos, near the site of the temple, in which they had diverted themselves, were suddenly thrown down; many were caught thereby, some perished immediately, others were found half dead and mutilated of hands or legs, others were injured in other parts of the body. When God caused the earthquake to cease, the workmen who survived again returned to their task, partly because such was the edict of the emperor, and partly because they were themselves interested in the undertaking. Men often, in endeavoring to gratify their own passions, seek what is injurious to them, reject what would be truly advantageous, and are deluded-by the idea that nothing is really useful except what is agreeable to them. When once led astray by this error, they are no longer able to act in a manner conducive to their own interests, or to take warning by the calamities which are visited upon them.

The Jews, I believe, were just in this state; for, instead of regarding this unexpected earthquake as a manifest indication that God was opposed to the re-erection of their temple, they proceeded to recommence the work. But all parties relate, that they had scarcely returned to the undertaking, when fire burst suddenly from the foundations of the temple, and consumed several of the workmen.

This fact is fearlessly stated, and believed by all; the only discrepancy in the narrative is that some maintain that flame burst from the interior of the temple, as the workmen were striving to force an entrance, while others say that the fire proceeded directly from the earth. In whichever way the phenomenon might have occurred, it is equally wonderful. A more tangible and still more extraordinary prodigy ensued; suddenly the sign of the cross appeared spontaneously on the garments of the persons engaged in the undertaking. These crosses were disposed like stars, and appeared the work of art. Many were hence led to confess that Christ is God, and that the rebuilding of the temple was not pleasing to Him; others presented themselves in the church, were initiated, and besought Christ, with hymns and supplications, to pardon their transgression. If any one does not feel disposed to believe my narrative, let him go and be convinced by those who heard the facts I have related from the eyewitnesses of them, for they are still alive. Let him inquire, also, of the Jews and pagans who left the work in an incomplete state, or who, to speak more accurately, were able to commence it.

robycop3 said:

Spiritual temple. That should be easily understood, same as the metaphors we use every day, E. G. "I love you to the moon & back!"

Click to expand...

But the point is that it's a metaphor. You said Paul didn't use metaphors. You were wrong.

But the mark of the beast WILL be literal. What other kind of mark could be received on the right hand or forehead?

Click to expand...

A figurative or spiritual one. The right hand figuratively refers to someone's actions and the forehead figuratively refers to someone's beliefs.

Look at these passages:

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.

Deuteronomy 11:16 Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. 17 Then the Lord’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the Lord is giving you. 18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.

These passages talk about God's people figuratively tying His words and commands on their hands and figuratively binding them on their foreheads. Why can't the mark of the beast be understood figuratively in a similar way instead of in a literal way? I see no reason why not.