The mark of the beast:

[bbyrd009]

(Jonah was not three days in the belly of a FISH for nothing narf)

 

[bbyrd009]

your chain is getting royally yanked hun

 

[Giuliano]

And I guess part of the gig there is, if you’ll pardon me for using you as an example, we are quick to make thoughtful comments on part two or another words the part we understand or have some grasp of, and slow to ask questions or investigate part one because we have no knowledge of it, which I’m sure I also do too, at times anyway

Be back later. I'm running behind a bit.

Anyway, I hope we get to discuss the parable of the rich man and (Eleazer) someday, I’ve tried to broach the subject a couple times here, but for whatever reason the conversation just never developed.

Why not go forward with it?

 

[bbyrd009]

Be back later. I'm running behind a bit.
Why not go forward with it?

Well that’s kind of hard to explain. I thought I gave somewhat of an explanation last night, but I may have erased it I don’t remember. Anyway, kind of for the same reason that no one is finishing “what is the new Jerusalem made out of?” To get to “the pearl of great price” or iow bc I guess I am hard enough to understand anyway?

And it would just make no sense coming as a Monologue; it is a dialogue, from the naïve dialectic.

So iow Dao is full of irrefutable monologues, right, But the Bible just really doesn’t work that way, maybe because it recognizes that an opposer is essential? Because we look at ourselves in a mirror and then go away and forget what we looked like? ha ya that helps mark arg lol. Sorry, I’m not meaning to speak in riddles. Telling someone “the truth” doesn’t work, is why. I mean including me even.

So, why does no one, ever, argue about Tao stories, but everyone, always, argues about scriptural stories?

 

[bbyrd009]

OK, this is the “mark of the beast“ thread? I think? So, because believers believe that a literal Great Final Battle is about to commence, culminating in the Glorious of Jesus, right? That’s why

 

[bbyrd009]

The battle is all over, ladies; the victory has already been won! The terrible and dreadful events from the revelation that we are taught must soon occur are all in your mind, our minds, imo.

Now don’t get me wrong, fractals, as above so below and all that, and we reap what we sow too right, so we might (will, I guess) actually manifest Some pretty dreadful stuff tomorrow...But it will be because in general we are waiting for something to happen, instead of something to happen waiting for us; “As you think, so are you”

 

[bbyrd009]

It is one of the its heads that suffers what appears as a deadly wound. The deadly wound is the breaking of its power but later it is revived.
This head is undoubtedly the RCC system which the second beast will enforce worship to.

And no offense meant OK? I understand why you say what you do. In my opinion, don’t be waiting for tomorrow for all that to happen OK. “Undoubtedly” is prolly the part that is preventing...That needs to be examined. Undoubtedly is killing us

 

[bbyrd009]

Bitcoin and the Gospel of Jesus Christ
Out of the Blue

 

[bbyrd009]

So, is there anyone in here who is ready to hear “no Son of Man may die for another sins?” One guy

 

[bbyrd009]

One guy who realizes that Jesus is never, ever, ever ever “returning" in the manner we are taught?

“I will never leave you nor forsake you”

 

[VictoryinJesus]

OK, but I suggest that you contemplate that the revived beast is also in you, where Christ is meant to be revealed; iow the context for Understanding the beast should be “the revelation of Christ”
something something fractals...ya, that’s all i got

“That rivived beast is also in you” Fatally wounded yet healed and the world marvels after? Nehushtan
Considering Paul’s thorn you mentioned in the other thread of Paul not being exalted above measure...God suffered that thorn piercing flesh for something more excellent...that pearl of great price?

 

[bbyrd009]

Fatally wounded yet healed and the world marvels after?

Sure, why not? Benny Hinn comes to mind, Jimmy Swaggart, like that maybe?

 

[bbyrd009]

“That rivived beast is also in you” Fatally wounded yet healed and the world marvels after? Nehushtan
Considering Paul’s thorn you mentioned in the other thread of Paul not being exalted above measure...God suffered that thorn piercing flesh for something more excellent...that pearl of great price?

Hum, you would have to expand there, if there is a connection I’m not seeing it at the moment. I don’t think God suffered at all TBH, Except possibly in the other sense of “suffered,” iow tolerated

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Hum, you would have to expand there, if there is a connection I’m not seeing it at the moment. I don’t think God suffered at all TBH, Except possibly in the other sense of “suffered,” iow tolerated

Agree as it is a word I’ve not understood. Was looking it up last night considering “suffer the little children to come to me” and Genesis 20:5-6 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. [6] And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

Many others...
Luke 9:38-41
[38] And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. [39] And, lo, a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruising him hardly departeth from him. [40] And I besought thy disciples to cast him out; and they could not. [41] And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither.

 

[bbyrd009]

therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

ah not rly suffered as we define it now iow, yeh? KJV, olde englyshe kinda
Strong's Hebrew: 5414. נָתַן (nathan) -- to give, put, set

how long shall I be with you, and suffer you?

that one seems more apt imo Strong's Greek: 430. ἀνέχομαι (anechó) -- to hold up, bear with

 

[bbyrd009]

One guy who realizes that Jesus is never, ever, ever ever “returning" in the manner we are taught?

“I will never leave you nor forsake you”

alright then, that's why Guiliano, ok

 

[bbyrd009]

(Jonah was not three days in the belly of a FISH for nothing narf)

jonah (dove, vexer) in the belly (also cool) of the fish Strong's Hebrew: 1711. דָּגָו (dagah) -- to multiply, increase

for 3 days.
figure it out for yourself

 

[Giuliano]

JC, the parable again LOL, the only one, another words no witness, that people run to in these debates, every. single. time. But yes I agree sure; obviously there was a “great gulf” between Samuel and Saul too, yeh?

I don’t mean to say the parable is useless, just widely abused

Abused? Jesus' depiction is very standard Jewish fare. His teaching about the rich man getting his rewards in this life is also standard Jewish thought.

I could also tell you "who" the "lying spirit" sent to deceive Ahab was, according to the Jews; but that is something left to inference since it's not explicitly said in the Bible 1 Kings 122 "who" he was. Nevertheless once his identity is presented, things begin to make more sense.

Sorry, I might agree, I do agree, but that does not fit our definition of “absolute truth,” Which requires objective evidence that you cannot provide

There is no "objective" evidence for anything. You can't prove to me you exist or that the world exists. The "only thing" I can possibly claim to "know" is that "awareness exists." The universe could be an illusion, or I could hallucating; but in any case, I am still aware.

Once that "fact" is established in my mind, then I ask if there is any other awareness "out there."

What is your point? And will that matter if mine is the position that the Bible is proceeding from?

I make the audacious claim that the "seed of the woman" has been corrected in me.

Regardless, I think I could pretty easily demonstrate from scripture that Samuel was accepted while Saul was rejected? That strikes me is a pretty big gulf!

Go ahead if you have such evidence from the Scripture.

14The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all of this and were scoffing at Jesus. 15So He said to them...

I can dig up quotes that Jesus always spoke in parables to them if you like. But to be honest you’re the first person I’ve ever heard challenge that it was a parable?

I suppose it could be called a parable; but it is not like the ones that compare the kingdom to a pearl or a piece of money in the ground.

Did the Pharisees understand him? I think they did. At any rate, another "Lazarus" returned from the dead; and while many "regular" people believed in Jesus because of it, the Pharisees plotted his death. See? Some did not believe even when someone returned from the dead.

 

[Giuliano]

It is one of the its heads that suffers what appears as a deadly wound. The deadly wound is the breaking of its power but later it is revived.
This head is undoubtedly the RCC system which the second beast will enforce worship to.

Who or what then are the Whore of Babylon and the second beast in your view?

 

[Giuliano]

Anyway, I hope we get to discuss the parable of the rich man and (Eleazer) someday, I’ve tried to broach the subject a couple times here, but for whatever reason the conversation just never developed.

Find Eleazer in Lazarus, reader, if you want to understand the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

ha, which title is even dripping with meaning, the rm is not named at all. but comes (strangely, syntax-wise; right? The normal sentence construction there would be “Lazarus and the Rich Man?” “Pinky and the brain” “Jonah and the whale”) first...

Luke 16:19

I think the "rich man" shows the Pharisees with their spiritual wealth. They knew how to enter the kingdom but refused; and worse yet, they concealed how to enter from others.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

I realize most Christians can't believe the "lawyers" had the key of knowledge so they could have entered the kingdom if they had wanted, but that makes me ask if they know as much as the "lawyers."