I can easily recognise John's position - he has no way of knowing anything other than the east half of the Mediterranean, there's no TV, no knowledge of the rest of the planet. He knows of the Empires, he's met Romans, but from Rome and Greece to Syria and Persia is as far as knowledge reaches. And if he's seen what you have identified then his written description is not an unreasonable means of expression, it fits with his lived experience.
As for your ability to interpret further, the rapture clearly makes it problematic. You point out that none from God's Church will be left to interpret post-rapture events.
The Beast Revelation
Re: The Beast Revelation
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When you design tactics to maximise suffering on civilian populations and your only constraint is operational rather than moral, you've told the world who you are.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When you design tactics to maximise suffering on civilian populations and your only constraint is operational rather than moral, you've told the world who you are.
Re: The Beast Revelation
I can only make one observation on this point. If you are left behind, and you see what has happened, after being told repeatedly by Christians that God was coming for his people, you might have a tendency to change your beliefs. It's not the beginning that matters, it is where you end up...spot wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 3:45 pm I can easily recognise John's position - he has no way of knowing anything other than the east half of the Mediterranean, there's no TV, no knowledge of the rest of the planet. He knows of the Empires, he's met Romans, but from Rome and Greece to Syria and Persia is as far as knowledge reaches. And if he's seen what you have identified then his written description is not an unreasonable means of expression, it fits with his lived experience.
As for your ability to interpret further, the rapture clearly makes it problematic. You point out that none from God's Church will be left to interpret post-rapture events.
Re: The Beast Revelation
The following is an exchange of ideas on a popular forum. I thought that it was quite indicative of the state of the Christian mind today.ephraim wrote: Fri Sep 26, 2025 8:05 pm
Christian films often portray that all those who have not received the mark of the beast will be killed, this is a symbolic truth. The circumstances are true, but they missed the real meaning due to some failed interpretations. All those who have not taken the mark are killed, this part is true, but those who have not taken the mark are Hamas. The mark was given during the elections for the president of the Palestinian authority, which was boycotted by Hamas. Hamas has never received the mark. Films like to portray all people as subject to the mark. This part is wrong. It only affects those Palestinians who did not take the mark, and not the whole world. It is only Hamas. This makes the mark as what the letter indicates. It was the indelible ink brand given to those who voted in the Palestinian elections.
BH said:
"In no reality does Hamas represent those who have not taken the brand. They are murderers, liars, they kill babies, rape women and call it divine, they manipulate the media to make themselves look better than they are, and those who live in darkness believe in media manipulation. I am sorry to tell you this, but your mind is in darkness, and the light of the Lord Jesus is far from your perception.
My answer follows.
Christians are deceived by their own interpretations. They believe in them so firmly that when the true meaning is presented, it is completely rejected. The Lord said that He would do a work in our day, which, even if it were told, would not be believed. Your problem goes back a long way. It begins with one failed interpretation after another. What I find so astonishing about this topic is that no matter how many times I am right, Christians will always deny what I have presented. In your world, you are waiting for some kind of mark that will be implemented worldwide. I have discussed this in the letter. The first thing you need to know is who is being talked about. If you say "all people", then you will already be starting from a false premise. Then, you'll need to imagine a series of circumstances to match your conclusions. The most revealing of your interpretations is that you say nothing. You do not provide any details, and it is always coming soon. What bothers me the most is that you hide the real answers. It is a total shame that a person spends his whole life learning his beliefs, and when the time comes to apply the meanings, has no idea. The Lord said to watch. You have failed in this undertaking. You did something though, you interpreted. Now you are waiting for your ideas to come true, which will never happen.
This paragraph is not part of the original response.
It is easy to discern from B.H.'s commentary a certain set of beliefs. What he believes is that Hamas could not be the one that did not accept the mark because they are terrorists. Meaning that the mark will be implemented on a different group. A group that does not commit terrorist acts. Who is this group? If you've been following these teachers for years, the answer is clear. All those who have not accepted the mark are Christians. Christians will not accept the mark because they do not want to worship the beast, even under the penalty of not being able to buy or sell. This is the set of beliefs that B. H. holds as truth while he disputes me, that I should accept as true, which he does not even realize has been corrupted. False teachings that have been accepted by the majority have turned the true meaning of Revelation 13 into a polar opposite. Why would anyone consider what I have to say when such false teachings are so widely believed? I just wanted to emphasize this point because it's a blinder over the eyes of anyone interested in Bible prophecy. michae1
Re: The Beast Revelation
Well, yes. Well done, of course he's blind.
"Good people" isn't there in Revelation at all. The faithful are the faithful. They're marked by the Lamb, washed in the blood of the sacrifice, preserved through tribulation. God grants their status. It's conferred, it hasn't been earned, the argument isn't "the remnant must be morally good". BH offers an even worse suggestion: he's treating the shrieks from the media - terrorists! rapists! baby-killers! - as genuine moral reputation, as if salvation is a character reference. That's not Christianity. It's a Victorian excuse for Empire over savages. Negotiations in the Middle East would be so much more productive if sides stopped thinking "they're bad people" and fully recognised "we're all bad people".
BH is defending a sentimental-nationalist reading in which the faithful are defined as being the sort of people one would want to be seen with. Paul would have had nothing to say to him. The thief on the cross wouldn't make it through BH's screening. There are no good people. People bear sin from birth, I thought that was the central core message of Christianity certainly by the time of the author of Revelation. There are the faithful, the faithful are sinners, they can only reach salvation through faith and the redemptive sacrifice. Good doesn't get anywhere. The use of the word "moral" to discuss the book of Revelation is blasphemous.
"No one could buy or sell" is clearly expressive of living under sanctions. It's what the words mean. That's straightforwardly what the text says and what the post-2006 blockade of Gaza actually was. Restriction of the ability to buy or sell imposed on a population for refusing a mark of political legitimacy: "no one could buy or sell" maps onto sanctions with no interpretive strain. BH isn't arguing against that mapping, he hasn't even noticed it exists.
"Good people" isn't there in Revelation at all. The faithful are the faithful. They're marked by the Lamb, washed in the blood of the sacrifice, preserved through tribulation. God grants their status. It's conferred, it hasn't been earned, the argument isn't "the remnant must be morally good". BH offers an even worse suggestion: he's treating the shrieks from the media - terrorists! rapists! baby-killers! - as genuine moral reputation, as if salvation is a character reference. That's not Christianity. It's a Victorian excuse for Empire over savages. Negotiations in the Middle East would be so much more productive if sides stopped thinking "they're bad people" and fully recognised "we're all bad people".
BH is defending a sentimental-nationalist reading in which the faithful are defined as being the sort of people one would want to be seen with. Paul would have had nothing to say to him. The thief on the cross wouldn't make it through BH's screening. There are no good people. People bear sin from birth, I thought that was the central core message of Christianity certainly by the time of the author of Revelation. There are the faithful, the faithful are sinners, they can only reach salvation through faith and the redemptive sacrifice. Good doesn't get anywhere. The use of the word "moral" to discuss the book of Revelation is blasphemous.
"No one could buy or sell" is clearly expressive of living under sanctions. It's what the words mean. That's straightforwardly what the text says and what the post-2006 blockade of Gaza actually was. Restriction of the ability to buy or sell imposed on a population for refusing a mark of political legitimacy: "no one could buy or sell" maps onto sanctions with no interpretive strain. BH isn't arguing against that mapping, he hasn't even noticed it exists.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When you design tactics to maximise suffering on civilian populations and your only constraint is operational rather than moral, you've told the world who you are.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When you design tactics to maximise suffering on civilian populations and your only constraint is operational rather than moral, you've told the world who you are.