The mark of the beast:

[Giuliano]

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?

I could have posted in that thread; but it would not have led anywhere.

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?

I am not familiar with the stories, only with the Tao Te Ching which I love.

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

On this point, people may need to know who or what God is before changing their minds. This particular belief is like a veil between God and men. Remember when I said what we believe tends to become true for us? And that it may not have anything to do with "reality" out there?

People can ask why God seems to be hiding from men. Perhaps men should ask why believe some of the things they do. Perhaps God wouldn't hide so much.

alright then, that's why Guiliano, ok

I know what I believe about Jesus' returning; and it is not at all like many suppose. You seem not to believe that the "sea" is a real place -- that is the region I call "lower waters." There is a region known as "upper waters" too or "air." When a spirit in the "air" wishes to appear to someone on the earth, it first projects into the space -- and there is a "presence" felt. Then the figure appears out of that "cloud of the presence."

Go back to Genesis 1: The "waters" there are not physical waters if you ask me.

It's very much like how an election "moves." An Electron doesn't actually move. It disappears in one place and appears in another; and there is an electronic field or cloud that shows up before the electron appears somewhere in that cloud.

 

[bbyrd009]

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.

well, certainly not disagreeing here; not sure the point? Oh, disabused, sorry. Ya, we have not even started talking about the real meaning of theat parable, wadr. Lazarus is Eleazer, the RM is asking for "a drop" of water to cool his "tongue" although he's supposedly on fire right...um, its like Dao, when you hear the interp, at east imo. Jesus was speaking in code, or at least on more than one level i guess.

why would the nt be written in the enemie's so to speak language, iyo?
but lazarus as eleazer, or the other way around, whatever, is surely imo the easiest way to the bottom of that one.

but i might ask you a...thought Q here; even if someone came back from the dead and told you--who is able to hear them, yes? at times, anyway? something like that?--that he who seeks to save his soul--as the standard interp of the parable of the RM and L broadly suggests one do, right?--shall lose it, or that no Son of Man may die for another's sins, would you listen to them?

There is no "objective" evidence for anything. You can't prove to me you exist or that the world exists.

actually i can, by the testimony of many witnesses, which comports with the def of AT quite nicely imo,
"Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares." ignoring DaVinci's elegant solution for the moment if you will. AT is, by our def, an agreement, iow.

While i do understand your reply, dont get me wrong, it plays on the def of "exist" imo, and not "objective?" Iow water is wet, and whether or not water even is, as you suggest, well, that can be subjective if you like, but you are going to be very alone in your interp there imo?

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

hello, scotty, well you can claim what you like, but imo little children came from women in that case, and we are prolly not going to approach what Scripture means by "woman" today either.

if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us right. why do you call Me good? and...Paul's thing, and all that, imo

Go ahead if you have such evidence from the Scripture.

um, you dont think i can establish from Scripture that Samuel was accepted and Saul was rejected? Im not sure the point here, sorry; if you have some refute of the obv vv, could you just state it?

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.

well, so you say anyway, yes

Did the Pharisees understand him? I think they did.

as you are entitled to do if you like, but wadr Scripture says the ezack opposite i guess, always hearing but never understanding, etc, Matthew 13:11 Lexicon: Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. , but having said that i will say that they surely understood lazarus was eleazer at least, and who th RM repped, sure 14The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all of this and were scoffing at Jesus and let's not forget what separated the pharisees from the sadduccees yeh

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.

um, ok, preach it bro!
but imo contemplate the same lazarus there if you will, eleazer, and get why the name change and all, before you preach too much more on that ok? Bc it is of course not coincidental that "another lazarus" was raised from the dead, almost surely?

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."

ha well you say they "had" the key...um, but we "have" Jesus, too, right, I will never leave you nor forsake you, but all kinda believers still waiting for Jesus huh. Nowhere does Scripture say they "had" the key bro, wadr.

I would submit that the Phar understood the parable as relating to them and to "today" (for them) exactly like you say, but they did not know what they key was imo, ref the rich young ruler, same guy anyway, who was baldly told the key. Now, if selling everything you have is the key, all poor ppl are by inference auto-"saved," yeh? Btw who is the buyer there, if everyone ("I desire that all men come...") does that? Wadr we run into these brick walls, these conundrums at this parable, bc it is not about any "afterlife" at all, as the Pharisees well understood. imo.

Well, it is entirely about the afterlife lol, after 70 ad, for them, huh narf

I could have posted in that thread; but it would not have led anywhere.

i suggest that you are maybe not really aware of your audience, or oblivious to time, in that case. Someone who needs you might find your post there ten years from now even? Thats how i found this forum. But i do get the "leading somewhere," and if you will allow me to again abuse you for an example--being as how i do the same thing myself surely, prolly all day long lol--Who's s'posed to be leading, again?

So iow it would not have led anywhere suitable to your rpeferences right now, yeh? I guess you will likely gloss this post and i dont blame you ok, but we might examine this "would not have led anywhere" a bit more and see what you were really saying, if you like?
What did you mean by that, anyway?
Are you sure--would you bet your life iow--that it would lead nowhere?

dont get me wrong ok, i get you already, but the point is that that is just you playing God wadr, at least prolly. The posts that "lead nowhere" are likely the most important posts here, i might argue? Truth silences ppl, right?

am not familiar with the stories, only with the Tao Te Ching which I love.

so iow wadr the part that attempts to divine one's path for the future, derived from the Dao, you love that part yeh
prolly better than our tarot anyway, at least somewhat closer to casting lots i guess

Short Story: The Taoist Farmer
a poor retelling, imo, but im spinning plates again somehow lol

I know what I believe about Jesus' returning

i know Jesus shuvu cannot be Quoted at all
gotta run, ttfn

 

[VictoryinJesus]

i suggest that you are maybe not really aware of your audience, or oblivious to time, in that case. Someone who needs you might find your post there ten years from now even? Thats how i found this forum. But i do get the "leading somewhere," and if you will allow me to again abuse you for an example--being as how i do the same thing myself surely, prolly all day long lol--Who's s'posed to be leading, again?

So iow it would not have led anywhere suitable to your rpeferences right now, yeh? I guess you will likely gloss this post and i dont blame you ok, but we might examine this "would not have led anywhere" a bit more and see what you were really saying, if you like?
What did you mean by that, anyway?
Are you sure--would you bet your life iow--that it would lead nowhere?

dont get me wrong ok, i get you already, but the point is that that is just you playing God wadr, at least prolly. The posts that "lead nowhere" are likely the most important posts here, i might argue? Truth silences ppl, right?

“Are you sure--would you bet your life iow--that it would lead nowhere?”

As you mentioned in the other post maybe ten years or so later... Malachi 3:11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.

realize how many view that and not saying that perspective is wrong. But have considered it also as a promise to keep the devourer in me from destroying all the fruit of the Spirit sown. As in to been seen and acknowledged in the praise of men and having a reward. Far out ...unknowingly in ten years or so...maybe God gives an increase and it won’t be devoured.

 

[bbyrd009]

But have considered it also as a promise to keep the devourer in me from destroying all the fruit of the Spirit sown.

ha well i doubt farming is in view there, yeh

 

[bbyrd009]

As in to been seen and acknowledged in the praise of men and having a reward.

hmm, i might be misunderstanding here, but this part i would not be holding my breath for wadr. Or i mean define "men," Adam or ish? Bc if Cain sees, his acknowledgement will be to kill one, right

 

[VictoryinJesus]

hmm, i might be misunderstanding here, but this part i would not be holding my breath for wadr. Or i mean define "men," Adam or ish? Bc if Cain sees, his acknowledgement will be to kill one, right

Meant ...an example would be the one with the bullhorn in the other thread in going home afterward to feel real proud ...similar to any addiction to get high but is only temporary? A thirst or hunger never filled or satisfied so one has to keep consuming yet it is never enough. In regards to it never goes anywhere and keeping the devourer from devouring all the increase before the time of the fruit. 1 Peter 1:11-12 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. [12] Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

 

[bbyrd009]

I could have posted in that thread; but it would not have led anywhere.

No offense meant OK, but again we are not really even having a conversation; you are not replying to my posts in any meaningful way, Except perhaps to you, vis steering the subject—which was wadr not “you”—Right back to you, right

I thought talking about yourself bored you? Sorry bro, I know this is not pleasant ok. If you want to give a lecture, then by all means give a lecture; post to notice, I might likely even attend! However this is supposed to be a conversation? Another word you have me as a captive audience here, you have essentially backed me into a corner and are now witnessing at me?

 

[Giuliano]

No offense meant OK, but again we are not really even having a conversation; you are not replying to my posts in any meaningful way, Except perhaps to you, vis steering the subject—which was wadr not “you”—Right back to you, right

I thought talking about yourself bored you? Sorry bro, I know this is not pleasant ok. If you want to give a lecture, then by all means give a lecture; post to notice, I might likely even attend! However this is supposed to be a conversation? Another word you have me as a captive audience here, you have essentially backed me into a corner and are now witnessing at me?

My response was about me because you seemed to wondering why no one finished the thread about what the new Jerusalem was made of.

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?

Why write that unless you wanted an explanation from me why I hadn't posted in it?

I cannot present your views for you. I am limited to giving my own views about reality. When I suggested you move forward with your views about Lazarus, you seemed reluctant to do so.

 

[bbyrd009]

My response was about me because you seemed to wondering why no one finished the thread about what the new Jerusalem was made of.

So in other words even i would not respond in that thread if you made a post? You really think so? OK

But for the record I am not wondering at all why no one picked up the ball there OK

Why write that unless you wanted an explanation from me why I hadn't posted in it?

Well with all due respect I did not have you in mind at all there

 

[bbyrd009]

I cannot present your views for you. I am limited to giving my own views about reality. When I suggested you move forward with your views about Lazarus, you seemed reluctant to do so.

It’s not that I am reluctant, it’s that imo that parable must be interpreted as a conversation, as I mentioned. My feeling now is that I said too much at “Eliezer” tbh, but fwiw we have already interpreted the parable between us, I was playing someone who had come back from the dead?

And the answer seems to be “no, no one will hear what is meant @ ‘You and your sons will be here with me’ Even if someone comes back from the dead and tells them”

 

[Giuliano]

It’s not that I am reluctant, it’s that imo that parable must be interpreted as a conversation, as I mentioned. My feeling now is that I said too much at “Eliezer” tbh, but fwiw we have already interpreted the parable between us, I was playing someone who had come back from the dead?

And the answer seems to be “no, no one will hear what is meant @ ‘You and your sons will be here with me’ Even if someone comes back from the dead and tells them”

So in other words even i would not respond in that thread if you made a post? You really think so? OK

But for the record I am not wondering at all why no one picked up the ball there OK

Well with all due respect I did not have you in mind at all there

???

 

[Giuliano]

actually i can, by the testimony of many witnesses, which comports with the def of AT quite nicely imo,
"Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares." ignoring DaVinci's elegant solution for the moment if you will. AT is, by our def, an agreement, iow.

While i do understand your reply, dont get me wrong, it plays on the def of "exist" imo, and not "objective?" Iow water is wet, and whether or not water even is, as you suggest, well, that can be subjective if you like, but you are going to be very alone in your interp there imo?

Your witnesses could all exist solely in my imagination too. Produce a million witnesses, and it's all the same to me. I could be hallucinating them all just for fun. I could be hallucinating "water" too.

As for all places and times? Conjecture. And who has been everywhere at all times to be able to conclude anything is absolute truth? I haven't. Perhaps all I can know is "here and now."

Or is it? Perhaps it's God imagining me into existence. Perhaps He's also imagining other beings like me into existence. That's an assumption; and it's what I do assume. I also assume that "you" are "there" while "I" am "here." How things look to you will be different from how they look to me. I also assume that "I" and "you" can communicate somehow. Thus I can "learn" about how things look to you from your viewpoint. My "total universe" then includes how things look to me and how they look to other people.

Then the question is how well can I "duplicate" what is in someone else's mind? Could I momentarily see things from his viewpoint, exactly as he sees them? My answer to that is yes. Indeed it is possible to "understand" almost anything by "imagining" you are that thing. How does the world appear to that thing? Awareness "covers" the object and "understands" it by "becoming" it.

I was trying to sleep one day when I suddenly started seeing a scene downstairs -- from a kitten's viewpoint. He was seeing another kitten, and I was seeing the same thing. This ability has slowed down a lot lately, and I don't mind; but it's not a question of trying to understand the other -- it is being willing to be the other.

When Jesus made his "I am" statements, it tells me he understood those things -- his awareness had pervaded them and he had momentarily become those things. Most people are in such fear of losing their physical bodies, they can't let go of them, not even briefly. They can never experience "the other" by becoming one with it.

I do not "hold onto" my human identity that tightly. Indeed I've had dreams where I was "someone else." I have had fantastic dreams of being on other planets or in outer space. Once I woke up and didn't remember (for a while) who I was or even what planet I was on. I was looking at the ceiling -- and I didn't recognize it. When I looked around the room, I recognized objects and then I remembered who I was and where I was. Where is "here" -- it's wherever "I am" at the moment; and yes, we can be in more than one place at the same time.

 

[bbyrd009]

???

i asked a rhetorical Q, but you read it literally?

Your witnesses could all exist solely in my imagination too.

in that case I would ask you to address why Scripture says that truth is established in the mouths of many witnesses
?

 

[Giuliano]

It’s not that I am reluctant, it’s that imo that parable must be interpreted as a conversation, as I mentioned. My feeling now is that I said too much at “Eliezer” tbh, but fwiw we have already interpreted the parable between us, I was playing someone who had come back from the dead?

It couldn't be Abraham's servant Eliezer in my opinion since I believe he was assumed bodily into Heaven. He wouldn't have been allowed to "return from the dead" so far as I can see.

And the answer seems to be “no, no one will hear what is meant @ ‘You and your sons will be here with me’ Even if someone comes back from the dead and tells them”

I rather think there is a joke involved there since I would say people had returned from the dead but it didn't do much good. Jesus did make jokes at times, like when he said God could raise up sons of Abraham out of stones. Two jokes there; one is a play on the word "ben" which means both "son" and "stone." The other is that God was doing just that already.

 

[bbyrd009]

It couldn't be Abraham's servant Eliezer in my opinion since I believe he was assumed bodily into Heaven. He wouldn't have been allowed to "return from the dead" so far as I can see.

OK, go with that then if you like. you believe he was assumed bodily into heaven; but can you quote it? anyway, I cannot comment on whether that was the exact same Eliezer that Lazarus represents or not; however that is certainly the one that comes to mind, isn't it? The question might be "what would the Pharisees have understood when they heard the name 'Lazarus'"

I rather think there is a joke involved there

ok, ty

 

[Giuliano]

i asked a rhetorical Q, but you read it literally?

I can be dense. I am not good at picking up implications.

in that case I would ask you to address why Scripture says that truth is established in the mouths of many witnesses
?

Does it say that? Or does it say men should seek more than one person as a witness to an act, not taking the word of just one man?

Did the High Priest come to the right decision when two "false witnesses" testified against Jesus?

Did the court that tried Naboth get the truth?

1 Kings 21:13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.

OK, go with that then if you like. you believe he was assumed bodily into heaven; but can you quote it? anyway, I cannot comment on whether that was the exact same Eliezer that Lazarus represents or not; however that is certainly the one that comes to mind, isn't it? The question might be "what would the Pharisees have understood when they heard the name 'Lazarus'"

It's not in the Bible. It's part of the Jewish Tradition which people are free to accept or reject. It's said too that Bithiah, Pharaoh's daughter who left with Israel, was also assumed bodily into Heaven. I believe that too.

But do say what you think the Pharisees thought when they heard "Eliezer" or "Lazarus."

 

[quietthinker]

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

The whore of Babylon is the conglomerate of apostate Christianity. The second beast is the political muscle of apostate Christianity. I'm persuaded it's power is and will be exercised beginning in the USA.

I would say the whore is Rome with the second beast being Protestantism that no longer has a protest...in fact, is kowtowing to Rome.

The vision of the founding fathers of America has been abandoned as can be witnessed by the removal of Gods Law from various pivotal institutions. Protestantism is moving back to Rome who claims the prerogative of altering God's Law. Protestantism is abandoning and will continue to abandon the liberty that was the founding principle of their once great country.

 

[Giuliano]

The whore of Babylon is the conglomerate of apostate Christianity. The second beast is the political muscle of apostate Christianity. I'm persuaded it's power is and will be exercised beginning in the USA.

I would say the whore is Rome with the second beast being Protestantism that no longer has a protest...in fact, is kowtowing to Rome.

The vision of the founding fathers of America has been abandoned as can be witnessed by the removal of Gods Law from various pivotal institutions. Protestantism is moving back to Rome who claims the prerogative of altering God's Law. Protestantism is abandoning and will continue to abandon the liberty that was the founding principle of their once great country.

What then could the number of the beast mean since that is the number of a man?

 

[quietthinker]

What then could the number of the beast mean since that is the number of a man?

six is mans number....six repeated three times is indicative of self absorption ie, self importance. We are to take particular notice when we see a three fold repeat anywhere in scripture. It is God saying, dig here.

I'm assuming it is clear Giuliano, that beasts and horns and heads etc etc are figurative.

 

[Giuliano]

six is mans number....six repeated three times is indicative of self absorption ie, self importance. We are to take particular notice when we see a three fold repeat anywhere in scripture. It is God saying, dig here.

I'm assuming it is clear Giuliano, that beasts and horns and heads etc etc are figurative.

So you are making "a man" also figurative?