The Mark of the Beast

[LittleLambofJesus]

My view is 1st Jerusalem/Temple showing in Revelation and hasn't changed since I first viewed it like that in 2003.

Admittedly, that 1000 yr period has been troublesome for Preterists and Amills.
It could be symbolizing 3 different events, perhaps a type of time, times, half a time. Don't know.
Do you view Luke 19:41-44 fulfilled in the 1st century or not?

Luke 19:
41 And as He nears, beholding the City, and He laments on Her,
43 That shall be arriving days upon Thee,
and Thy enemies shall be casting up a rampart/siege-work to Thee
and shall be encompassing Thee,
and pressing Thee from-every-side.
44 And shall be leveling Thee and Thy offspring in Thee, [Luke 21:20 Revelation 18:19]
and not shall be leaving stone upon stone in Thee,
stead which not Thou knew the season of the visitation<1984> of Thee".

Luke 21:
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that Her desolation has come near.
24 “And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. [Revelation 13:10]
And Jerusalem will be trampled<3961> by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” [Revelation 11:2]

The Great City/Harlot/Queen Revelation chapts 17-19

Revelation 17
16 And the ten Horns which thou saw and the Beast, These shall be hating the harlot,
and They shall be making Her desolate<2049> and naked,
and the fleshes of Her they shall be eating<5315>
and shall be burning<2618> Her in fire.
17 For the GOD gives<1325> into Their hearts to do<4160> the mind<1106> of Him, and to do One mindand to give Their kingdom to the Beast
until shall be being finished<5055> the words of the GOD.

Revelation 18:
8 Thru this in one day shall be arriving<2240> Her blows,
death and sorrow and famine.
And in fire She shall be utterly burned<2618>,
that strong Lord the GOD, the One judging Her.
19 and they cast dust upon their heads, and cried<2896>, lamenting<2799>, weeping and mourning<3996>, saying,
"Woe! woe! the great City! in which are rich all those having ships<4143> in the sea, out of Her preciousness<5094>,
for to one hour was She was desolated<2049>.

It was fulfilled in 68-70 AD. The Christians took the warning of Jesus and fled from Judea to Pella in what is now Jordan.

Now apply this to Luke and Revelation ...

Wasn't Jerusalem in Judea?
That warning appears to be given to them in Revelation 18:4

Mat 24:16
“then let those who are in the Judea flee to the mountains. [Pella]

Mar 13:14 - “So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,'[fn] spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not” (let the reader understand),
“then let those who are in the Judea flee to the mountains. [Pella]

Luk 21:21 -
“Then let those who are in the Judea flee to the mountains [pella], let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.

Paul tells his followers to come out of the midst of the murderous Judeans of the circumcision:

1Th 2:15
who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us;
and they do not please God and are contrary to all men,

2 Corin 6:17
wherefore come-forth<exelqete 1831> out of midst of them! and be being separated! is saying Lord

And this great 1st century verse:

The Great City/Harlot/Queen Revelation chapts 17-19

Revelation 18:4
And I hear another Voice out of the heaven saying "come forth!<exelqete 1831> out of Her My people...........

https://www.preteristarchive.com/christian-flight-to-pella-study-archive/

 

[helmut]

Wasn't Jerusalem in Judea?

Yes, why do you ask?

That warning appears to be given to them in Revelation 18:4

I rather think it was in Mt 24:16; Mk 13:14; Lk 21,21. What you confirm by quoting these verses.

2 Corin 6:17
wherefore come-forth<exelqete 1831> out of midst of them! and be being separated! is saying Lord

And context makes clear this is about sinners, not about a kingdom.

And this great 1st century verse:

Do you think Rev 17-18 is about 1st century? Yes or no?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, why do you ask?
I rather think it was in Mt 24:16; Mk 13:14; Lk 21,21. What you confirm by quoting these verses.
And context makes clear this is about sinners, not about a kingdom.
Do you think Rev 17-18 is about 1st century? Yes or no?

I am leaning toward yes. What about you?

This was said before 70ad:

..."the blood of all the Prophets shed from foundation of world"

Matthew 23:
30 “and ye are saying, ‘If we were in the days of our fathers, not ever we were participants of them in the blood of the prophets
35 “that on ye may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth/land, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Luke also mentions it:
"THIS GENERATION" in Bible

Luke 11:50
“that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation,

=========================================
It is mentioned in only 2 other verses of the NT:

The Great City/Harlot/Queen Revelation chapts 17-19

Revelation 16:6
For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets,
And You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.”

Revelation 18:24
“And in Her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.”

 

[helmut]

I am leaning toward yes. What about you?

I definitely think that most of revelation is for the last eschatological times, so Rev 17-18 is not about the 1st century.

I once read that someone calculated that the majority of Christians that ever existed are still alive, due to population growth and evangelism. I'm not sure whether this is still so, but it's quite possible.

 

[safswan]

Died without accepting Christ: No.
Other questions: Yes.


Paul links the turning of Israel to Christ with the resurrection of the dead, Rom 11:15.

Your response proves my point that the word "all" is qualified since you responded,no,to one of the questions.The question now is:what is the qualification

 

[safswan]

Not to take anything from Luke but Matthew was present and is a first hand account.

And from whom did Luke get his information and what was his aim?

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."(Luke 1:1-4)

They compliment each other not contradict.Unless you do not believe what Luke says?

 

[safswan]

So how many of the twelve died while jesus was taking his little vacation?

Matthew 10:21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death.
Matthew 10:22 You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

Or what was Lukes account of how many of the disciples were betrayed by thier families and put to death while Jesus was away?

Did Matthew's account show when the disciples departed?Did it show when they returned?As I said before whereas Luke tends to give a proper chronology of the events he writes about Matthew tends to group sayings without a similar attention to chronology.Hence the sayings reported by Matthew were not only for that time but for subsequent activities of the same sort.

 

[safswan]

There is no direct connection. But the term "Son of man" refers to the Son of Man in Dan 7. Jesus using this title claims that he will be the one who will rule and judge the universe.


Jesus coming to a village and the coming of the Son of man to earth are quite distinct.


How could the 12 disciples not finish to go to every town Jesus would go on His way? He did not say "until I come there", he said "till the Son of man be come".

You have nothing to support your theory about the term "son of man" and hence your point is very weak.As you say,"There is no direct connection" .

 

[shilohsfoal]

And from whom did Luke get his information and what was his aim?

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."(Luke 1:1-4)

They compliment each other not contradict.Unless you do not believe what Luke says?

Luke was not there.Mathew was.
You believe the wordsof someone who day they undetstand what an apostle taught them,over an apostle?

 

[shilohsfoal]

Did Matthew's account show when the disciples departed?Did it show when they returned?As I said before whereas Luke tends to give a proper chronology of the events he writes about Matthew tends to group sayings without a similar attention to chronology.Hence the sayings reported by Matthew were not only for that time but for subsequent activities of the same sort.

Where was luke when Jesus chose mathew as an apostle?
Would you prefer Jesuschoose Luke?

 

[helmut]

Your response proves my point that the word "all" is qualified since you responded,no,to one of the questions.The question now is:what is the qualification

The most probable "qualification" is all Jews living when Christ returns. See Zechariah 12:10,where those who have pierced JHWH will look to him. This will be the moment when they will return to Him and be saved.

Sometimes "all" is not to be taken literally, but as a sort of hyperbole refers to an overwhelming majority.

 

[helmut]

You have nothing to support your theory about the term "son of man" and hence your point is very weak.As you say,"There is no direct connection" .

You have nothing, either, your point is not stronger than mine.

 

[helmut]

Luke was not there.Mathew was.
You believe the wordsof someone who day they undetstand what an apostle taught them,over an apostle?

If it was the Mathew and not another "gift of God" (the meaning of that name, which was a rather frequent one).

Matthew has taken text from Mark, this is a indication that he was not there, hence he is not the Mathew from the Twelve.

 

[safswan]

Luke was not there.Mathew was.
You believe the wordsof someone who day they undetstand what an apostle taught them,over an apostle?

I believe all the accounts give by the writers of the scriptures but I am also able to see certain limitations. Luke tends to be accurate where chronology is concerned unlike the others especially Matthew.In fact Matthew never seemed to be concerned about this as he had Jesus sending out the disciples but never stated when this happened nor when they returned.This should tell you something is missing from his account.

Where was luke when Jesus chose mathew as an apostle?
Would you prefer Jesuschoose Luke?

The various accounts do not contradict but compliment each other and note that Luke was at one time a companion of Paul and some believe he was among the seventy disciples as well.Do not take this claim lightly:

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first..."

 

[safswan]

The most probable "qualification" is all Jews living when Christ returns. See Zechariah 12:10,where those who have pierced JHWH will look to him. This will be the moment when they will return to Him and be saved.

Sometimes "all" is not to be taken literally, but as a sort of hyperbole refers to an overwhelming majority.

You are correct that,"Sometimes "all" is not to be taken literally".

But wouldn't that seem unfair?Why would those who are living when Jesus return be the,"all", to be saved?Why are they the ones chosen for this blessing?Note,if He returned somewhat earlier they would not have been born and others would have received this blessing.So why them?

 

[safswan]

You have nothing, either, your point is not stronger than mine.

I am not the one trying to prove a simple statement means more that it says.You are.You have even admitted there is no connection with the term and the book of Daniel as you originally claimed.See below what you said:

"There is no direct connection. But the term "Son of man" refers to the Son of Man in Dan 7."

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Literal versus Spiritual Israel | Tribulation of God's People | Bible Prophecy

Dispensationalists do not believe in Spiritual Israel, which is the Church, but believe that the promises of Scripture are for literal Israel only. They thus separate the Church from Israel, but the Bible makes no such distinction:

Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16 NIV).

...the truth is that typology in the Bible always points to something greater. The symbolic lamb points to Christ—the latter being so much greater than the former. Literal Babylon points to end-time Babylon, comprising all the forces that reject God. Literal Jerusalem is a type of end-time spiritual Jerusalem, comprising the redeemed of all the ages. Despite this, dispensationalists await a literal reconstruction of Babylon and Israel, which would be the same as awaiting the return of a literal lamb.

 

[helmut]

But wouldn't that seem unfair?Why would those who are living when Jesus return be the,"all", to be saved?Why are they the ones chosen for this blessing?Note,if He returned somewhat earlier they would not have been born and others would have received this blessing.So why them?

Is God "fair" in the sense we see the things? Ancient Greeks had the opportunity to hear Paul preaching and got saved, ancient Chinese had not.

This raises questions I cannot answer, I could only offer some speculation. But I prefer to point to Job 38:1-2 and Rom 9,14ff.

What is not told in Scripture, should not be taught as a doctrine, see Deut 29:29.

 

[shilohsfoal]

I believe all the accounts give by the writers of the scriptures but I am also able to see certain limitations. Luke tends to be accurate where chronology is concerned unlike the others especially Matthew.In fact Matthew never seemed to be concerned about this as he had Jesus sending out the disciples but never stated when this happened nor when they returned.This should tell you something is missing from his account.



The various accounts do not contradict but compliment each other and note that Luke was at one time a companion of Paul and some believe he was among the seventy disciples as well.Do not take this claim lightly:

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first..."

So Luke may have been one of the 70 but not one of the 12.Mathew is talking about the 12.Not the 70.

Matthew 10:1 And calling His twelve disciples to Him, Jesus gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they could drive them out and heal every disease and sickness.

 

[helmut]

I am not the one trying to prove a simple statement means more that it says.You are.

You are trying to prove that when Jesus uses the term "son of man", he simply refers to Himself without teaching anything about the Son of Man.
Usually, "Son of Man" refers to Jesus as the eschatological judge, i.e. the Son of Man in Daniel, it is also used to teach a point, as in "The Son of Man is master of the sabbath". But simply "Jesus" without any special meaning? That has to be proved.