So it's not a chip in the hand anymore?
So it's not a chip in the hand anymore?
I am also a little confused on what exactly we are talking about in general here. "the tribulation" is in reference to what? the end of the world? Or are we talking about the end of the age that Jesus was describing in Mathew 24? Because tribulation is one of the very few things Jesus says we WILL have. This mark in the hand and head is symbolic language found throughout scripture, like this for example
I basically agree with most of your reasoning and was only throwing a worm out to see if any big fish trolling around.I am also a little confused on what exactly we are talking about in general here. "the tribulation" is in reference to what? the end of the world? Or are we talking about the end of the age that Jesus was describing in Mathew 24? Because tribulation is one of the very few things Jesus says we WILL have. This mark in the hand and head is symbolic language found throughout scripture, like this for example
Deuteronomy 11:18
“You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
The mark on the hands just means to honor God with all you do, and the head is to honor Him with your thoughts. This is only one of MANY examples of God using this exact language used to describe this meaning. To believe that in this one case it means a literal mark is not a very strong argument in my opinion.
I just think it's important to really understand the terms and how they were used when these things were written. We can't jump in at the very end of the story with our 21st century understanding of these terms and think we understand what John was talking about then, in a Jewish mindset and worldview, and think we are getting it right.
This also applies to my very first question because it's always been my understanding that Christians are talking about the end of the world when talking about these things and that's just not what Jesus is talking about in Mat. 24 or what John is writing about in Rev. They are talking about the end of the AGE and the coming judgement on the covenant breaking Jews of that time that were screaming "crucify Him" and "His blood be on our heads and the heads of our children". The language used in Revaluation to describe Gods judgement including the term "day of the Lord", sound the exact same as they do in Rev, like this in Isaiah 13
"Behold, the day of the Lord comes,
cruel, with wrath and fierce anger,
to make the land a desolation
and to destroy its sinners from it.
10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations
will not give their light;
the sun will be dark at its rising,
and the moon will not shed its light. "
This judgement happen already and uses the same kind of exaggerated wording to describe the coming judgement on them.
I don't know how I wrote this much to your comment, but I guess I wanted to make sure I backed up my point, looking for a literal mark actually makes no sense at all in light of the rest the Bible. In my opinion.
I don't know how I wrote this much to your comment, but I guess I wanted to make sure I backed up my point, looking for a literal mark actually makes no sense at all in light of the rest the Bible. In my opinion.
I basically agree with most of your reasoning and was only throwing a worm out to see if any big fish trolling around.![]()
So when the one world government and leader is established and a mark on the hand or forehead in enforced to buy and sell, you'll both take that mark because the mark of the beast is only symbolic?
I'm not being snarky, I'm just curious if you'll actually take that mark.
By the way, did you guys get the COVID vaccine shots?
![]()
A distinct mark wouldn't be very deceptive. I was offered the vaccine free of charge and declined, taking my chances that I might die if I contracted it. Not that I worried that I would live or die either way, nor that I thought that it might be the mark. I was simply glad to be given the right to exercise my freedom of conscience and choice, being pretty sure the motb would rather not afford anyone that freedom. On the other hand, there are those that have been beheaded for 'not denouncing their Christian faith and taking up allegiance to' a certain 'group.' A group that those belonging to, do habitually 'mark' themselves with a certain name. You've certainly at least heard of this?
I experience side effects just by reading these comments.That's interesting! So when you take the mark, post here to let us know if there are any side effects. The Bible says that there will be.
![]()
I experience side effects just by reading these comments.
I'm not so sure they don't at least attempt to.Yeah, but these comments won't kill you and have eternal consequences.
![]()
I'm not so sure they don't at least attempt to.
I Likewise, how can you be certain that you haven't already taken the mark? Might you convert as long as it isn't a physical mark? Hypothetically, of course, but I'm not that interested in expending much energy on hypotheticals. I trust you will be glad to let me know when it is installed.You're still alive and breathing right? So no. There's no attempt.
I just want to know if the people who think the mark is just symbolic will actually take the physical mark thinking it's safe with no repercussions.
We have the technology right now. It is a matter for when the one world government is formed with the AC installed for them to implement this technology.
![]()
I Likewise, how can you be certain that you haven't already taken the mark? Might you convert as long as it isn't a physical mark? Hypothetically, of course, but I'm not that interested in expending much energy on hypotheticals. I trust you will be glad to let me know when it is installed.
When - precisely - did it end?
I am not hung up on anything. And, I rely on all three and ignore nothing. There is only one Olivet Discourse, and the details of all three accounts must agree - and they do.It ended in 70 AD and that event, the great tribulation, has nothing to do with Jesus comments in the 3 accounts regarding his second coming or end of the age. And what about the language used as mentioned? He was clearly addressing those he was speaking to, i.e.; "you". And also, you are apparently hung up on the word "immediately", even though you claim that all 3 accounts must be viewed together, to which I agree, and that such should always be done when looking at any biblical topic so as to not cherry pick; but as inferred above, you tend to rely on Matt while ignoring Luke and Mark, which give clarity to what Matt is really saying.
The tribulation happened and ended and has nothing whatsoever to do with the end of the age. Those comments made by the Lord must be looked at and extracted separately. You stated previously that the events clearly started in circa 70 AD but haven't yet concluded. The great tribulation events captured in scripture solely describe those of 70 AD. Note in Matthew 24:30 it says "and THEY shall see the Son of man cowing in the clouds if heaven---". And likewise in Mark 13:26, and exactly the same words in Luke 21:27. Why does it say THEY if it's part of the description of fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD as you seem to partially agree with? It can't possibly be the "they" of the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem as described in these scriptures. It's a future 'they' and that's how the scriptures must be separated, to segregate the end of the age from the great tribulation of Matt 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. The question posed by Jesus' deciples in Luke and Mark say nothing about the end of the age or the second coming yet Jesus comments deal with the second coming in all 3. When looking at Matthew and leaning heavily on what it says as opposed to Luke and Mark, it will confuse and mislead you as it appears to have done in your case and many others. Luke and Mark clarify; Matthew only will confuse.
Matthew 24:29
'Immediately after the tribulation of those days'
Mark 13:24
'But in those days, after that tribulation'
What 'tribulation'? What 'days'?
Jesus "answered" even more than they asked.One other point to make as an addendum to my above post 83. If you look at Matt 24:3, you see two separate questions being asked by the deciples; one about the temple destruction and a separate one about the second coming signs/end of the world. Two separate, unrelated events that most unfortunately think are not separate.
3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
There is no "valid scriptural description of the end of the great tribulation" just like there isn't a direct scriptural reference to the event itself described in Matt, Luke, and Mark as being the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem; but the historical record recorded primarily by Josephus clearly is that event. You seem to accept the one but not the other. If you accept what's described in the scriptures of Matthew, Luke, and Mark as the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem which is NOT specifically defined as such in the scriptures, then you should logically look for the answer to its end likewise, which is not in the scriptures, but also can be found in the Josephus historical record. The 70 AD fall of Jerusalem did end; if that was the great tribulation of Matthew, Luke, and Mark, which it is, then it ended. How did it not? That conclusion makes no sense.I am not hung up on anything. And, I rely on all three and ignore nothing. There is only one Olivet Discourse, and the details of all three accounts must agree - and they do.
I agree that the 'they' is future to 70 A.D.
Matthew 24:21 / Mark 13:19 / Luke 21:23b mark the start of the 'great tribulation' that Jesus referred to.
Matthew 24:29 / Mark 13:24 / Luke 21:25 mark the end of the 'great tribulation' that Jesus referred to.
Jesus "answered" even more than they asked.
Not just about 70 A.D.
Not just about the Second Coming.
But, both-and-all-between - the following ~2000 years.
Two separate 'events' - yes. But, until you show me a valid scriptural description of the END of the 'great tribulation' that Jesus referred to - that puts it circa 70 A.D. - your remarks are meaningless. The Matthew and Mark accounts (in particular) clearly place the sun/moon/stars 'events' directly after the END of the 'great tribulation' that Jesus referred to - there are no two ways about it. And, if those 'events' have not occurred yet...
Take what mark exactly? If you mean the Musk brain chip thing, then NO. I have no interest at all in "adding" anything to myself that isn't necessary or done while I was unconscious after crazy trauma, like the metal plates I have in bot arms, or the external fixator I had on my arm after I woke up following a motorcycle wreak. So I have a whole bunch of marks on my arms and head if that's what you mean.So when the one world government and leader is established and a mark on the hand or forehead in enforced to buy and sell, you'll both take that mark because the mark of the beast is only symbolic?
I'm not being snarky, I'm just curious if you'll actually take that mark.
By the way, did you guys get the COVID vaccine shots?
![]()
The false prophet causes many to receive a mark in the hand or forehead. The mark will be required to buy or sell. If the mark were symbolic how would one confirm whether a person had it or not?...
What I did notice right before I was about to hit "post reply" I noticed that you didn't acknowledge, let alone engage my point at all. What do you say about this language about the marking of the head and hands being used in a very specific way in every other instance except this one in Revelation? Is that good exegesis? Let me ask it like this, what leads you to believe that this is the one exception in scripture where it's not being used symbolically? What is the evidence you've seen that shows this example isn't the same as every other example? And who did you vote for?
What I did notice right before I was about to hit "post reply" I noticed that you didn't acknowledge, let alone engage my point at all. What do you say about this language about the marking of the head and hands being used in a very specific way in every other instance except this one in Revelation? Is that good exegesis? Let me ask it like this, what leads you to believe that this is the one exception in scripture where it's not being used symbolically? What is the evidence you've seen that shows this example isn't the same as every other example? And who did you vote for?