By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The Mark of the Beast

Hiku said:
hinch said:

I've only had TB, flu and a couple of 'Rona jabs what power level am I?

You're at Ultra Instinct Omen level.

'Imma gonna be honest.. I haven't been keeping up with new Dragon Ball. Never mind the Super series (need to get around to that).

Sounds good though, cheers. Maybe I'll power up with another booster to get to your level



Around the Network
Hiku said:
mZuzek said:

Pretty sure this never happened. As in, including Christ.

Then explain this!

Well, there it is. But really, if someone was gonna do it, it was gonna be Elvis.




I make music, check it out here on Bandcamp, Spotify, and Youtube!

padib said:
sundin13 said:

Alternatively, it is a garbled metaphor that has no real way of objectively interpreting. Thats largely how many of these prophecies survive. They put the onus of interpretation on the believer so they can never be disproven. If someone is wrong, the fault lies on the interpreter, not the original text. Meanwhile, the end will always be just around the corner.

Remember, this head is one of seven heads of a leopardbearlion. How objectively can we truly interpret a line about the healing of a wound on this "beast"? 

EDIT: Also, as you say, Revelations is written through the eyes of one 2000 years ago. It is interpreted through the lens of the time in which is was written, and it is continues to be interpreted in modern lenses as time progresses. As medicine has developed, how many times have people exclaimed "This new technology is marvelous! This must be what is referred to in Revelation"? By inviting interpretation, it asks you, the reader, to place it within the framing of your world, which is why it will always feel as if it applies to the present. 

When in history apart from Christ has any human cheated death properly speaking? That they fully died, were decomposing and revived, to a point where people can't believe their eyes?

Also, don't forget that if you take the pieces together, some possibilities are impossible. How would we be looking at a war general that is a leopardbearlion?
"and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?”"

He is referred to as him, someone against who war can be decalred, but is too powerful that nobody would dare. He is a leader of a region of the world.

The problem is that if you take pieces out of context and are not familiar with the whole picture, it's like trying to make sense of a movie after only having seen a single frame. It will never work.

You are introducing your own contexts into the scripture. There is no requirement for decomposition that I see in the scripture. It only states that there was a wound that looked to be fatal, but had healed. Further, it is impossible to state for certain how literal this is to be. 

Looking for interpretations of this verse, the first I found speculated that this is a reference to the fall and rebuild of the Roman Empire.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by bringing up the further context implying that this individual is a leader of a region of the world, even assuming that this inference is true. And btw, going by the contexts you provided, it is not necessary for this individual to be a leader of a region of the world. This individual could be bestowed power, or raise a non-state army (ala terrorist groups), or further, this could be a metaphor and not be meant literally. Perhaps "war" is not a literal war of armies, but a spiritual or ideological conflict.



sundin13 said:

You are introducing your own contexts into the scripture. There is no requirement for decomposition that I see in the scripture. It only states that there was a wound that looked to be fatal, but had healed. Further, it is impossible to state for certain how literal this is to be. 

Looking for interpretations of this verse, the first I found speculated that this is a reference to the fall and rebuild of the Roman Empire.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by bringing up the further context implying that this individual is a leader of a region of the world, even assuming that this inference is true. And btw, going by the contexts you provided, it is not necessary for this individual to be a leader of a region of the world. This individual could be bestowed power, or raise a non-state army (ala terrorist groups), or further, this could be a metaphor and not be meant literally. Perhaps "war" is not a literal war of armies, but a spiritual or ideological conflict.

You mentioned that it's the horn of a leapordbear lion, I shared scripture that makes it clear that it's a person that people will follow, and who's resurrection will astonish people. More than citing the text to show you that what I'm saying is true to the text, I can't offer.

The best I can do is point you to Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 and 2 Thessalonians 2.



padib said:
sundin13 said:

You are introducing your own contexts into the scripture. There is no requirement for decomposition that I see in the scripture. It only states that there was a wound that looked to be fatal, but had healed. Further, it is impossible to state for certain how literal this is to be. 

Looking for interpretations of this verse, the first I found speculated that this is a reference to the fall and rebuild of the Roman Empire.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by bringing up the further context implying that this individual is a leader of a region of the world, even assuming that this inference is true. And btw, going by the contexts you provided, it is not necessary for this individual to be a leader of a region of the world. This individual could be bestowed power, or raise a non-state army (ala terrorist groups), or further, this could be a metaphor and not be meant literally. Perhaps "war" is not a literal war of armies, but a spiritual or ideological conflict.

You mentioned that it's the horn of a leapordbear lion, I shared scripture that makes it clear that it's a person that people will follow, and who's resurrection will astonish people. More than citing the text to show you that what I'm saying is true to the text, I can't offer.

The best I can do is point you to Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.

Again, you believe it to make clear that it is a person, because it fits best in modern contexts by your personal estimation. It is not made clear by the scripture, as the scripture intentionally makes very little clear. 

However, I will say this in regards to your interpretations. If science allows individuals to be brought back from the dead, why would this bestow any theological significance on any individual? That is to say, why would people be astounded and follow such a man, when his resurrection was the product of science? That would be like following the first man who had received a heart transplant as if he had done anything. It would make far more sense to deify the doctor or scientist in such a scenario. As such, I see little logic in your interpretation that this will be a byproduct of scientific advancements. 



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
padib said:

You mentioned that it's the horn of a leapordbear lion, I shared scripture that makes it clear that it's a person that people will follow, and who's resurrection will astonish people. More than citing the text to show you that what I'm saying is true to the text, I can't offer.

The best I can do is point you to Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.

Again, you believe it to make clear that it is a person, because it fits best in modern contexts by your personal estimation. It is not made clear by the scripture, as the scripture intentionally makes very little clear. 

However, I will say this in regards to your interpretations. If science allows individuals to be brought back from the dead, why would this bestow any theological significance on any individual? That is to say, why would people be astounded and follow such a man, when his resurrection was the product of science? That would be like following the first man who had received a heart transplant as if he had done anything. It would make far more sense to deify the doctor or scientist in such a scenario. As such, I see little logic in your interpretation that this will be a byproduct of scientific advancements. 

To cheat death means to be immortal, it has big implications. What human has not sought to ascend to immortality or at least had a curiosity of it at some point in their existence? The only constant other than life right now is death. Why would he be able to perform this feat and not others? Perhaps he is extremely rich and powerful and privy to certain technologies that are only given to one person, perhaps he caused his people to create this technology and only allowed himself to use it, since he is expected to call himself God.

But also, why have you not read the references? They, along with the citations I made, clarify everything if you read them. It is a man.



padib said:
sundin13 said:

Again, you believe it to make clear that it is a person, because it fits best in modern contexts by your personal estimation. It is not made clear by the scripture, as the scripture intentionally makes very little clear. 

However, I will say this in regards to your interpretations. If science allows individuals to be brought back from the dead, why would this bestow any theological significance on any individual? That is to say, why would people be astounded and follow such a man, when his resurrection was the product of science? That would be like following the first man who had received a heart transplant as if he had done anything. It would make far more sense to deify the doctor or scientist in such a scenario. As such, I see little logic in your interpretation that this will be a byproduct of scientific advancements. 

To cheat death means to be immortal, it has big implications. What human has not sought to ascend to immortality or at least had a curiosity of it at some point in their existence? The only constant other than life right now is death. Why would he be able to perform this feat and not others? Perhaps he is extremely rich and powerful and privy to certain technologies that are only given to one person, perhaps he caused his people to create this technology and only allowed himself to use it, since he is expected to call himself God.

But also, why have you not read the references? They, along with the citations I made, clarify everything if you read them. It is a man.

To "cheat death" does not mean to be immortal. I'm not sure where you pulled that from. 

As for all of your suppositions, I find it to be far more likely, given the greater trajectory of the scientific and medical fields, that such technology would not be created under the singular and selfish efforts of one man and those he employs, but instead by the greater scientific community. While it may be used on one man at first (likely after clinical trials demonstrating its efficacy), again this affords no idea of divine providence to such a man. If someone came to me and said "I just had a cool surgery, follow me", I would tell him to kindly fuck off. 

As for your "references", they do little to prove your point. While they imply that there may or may not be a man (again, depending on how much you assume is literal), they do not clarify whether the head or beast referenced in Revelations is a literal man who suffers a literal wound and a literal resurrection.



sundin13 said:

To "cheat death" does not mean to be immortal. I'm not sure where you pulled that from. 

As for all of your suppositions, I find it to be far more likely, given the greater trajectory of the scientific and medical fields, that such technology would not be created under the singular and selfish efforts of one man and those he employs, but instead by the greater scientific community. While it may be used on one man at first (likely after clinical trials demonstrating its efficacy), again this affords no idea of divine providence to such a man. If someone came to me and said "I just had a cool surgery, follow me", I would tell him to kindly fuck off. 

As for your "references", they do little to prove your point. While they imply that there may or may not be a man (again, depending on how much you assume is literal), they do not clarify whether the head references in Revelations is a literal man who suffers a literal wound and a literal resurrection.

If he can cheat death, then he can cheat death again. Esp. if he holds the power to perform this miracle on himself, he would have access to that power and could make use of it again. Can you also reflect for yourself or do I have to spoonfeed everything? It gets me impatient, try to think for yourself.

As for the scriptures, you need to correlate them. I'm a bit tired to do it for you given you can't make the link between cheating death and immortality. If your train of thought won't go beyond 1 point, I won't do the work for you it gets my energies low.

As for what the political climate will be when this man comes to power, I wouldn't be surprised if people followed him like sheep. You only need to look at how people gobble everything the goverment is throwing to us today to predict given the trends that people will soon be nearly completely brainwashed.

Here in Quebec, people believe that non-vaccinated people are putting the population in danger and people are desiring that the government constrain non-vaccinated people by stripping away their priviledges.

https://twitter.com/lefacteur10/status/1483673688440512517?s=21&fbclid=IwAR2_EhrE59fiaN2pCrWMmblUdp3iltOV8H4Wr9xTjGzEApYPSILyjWXutLA

In such political climates, anyone in power can do anything.



padib said:
mZuzek said:

Pretty sure this never happened. As in, including Christ.

Despite your lack of belief in something recorded historically in a way that is more trusted than Julius Cesar himself due to historical and archeological evidence, you concede that nobody has ever cheated death.

Speak to sundin

Lulz no. We have first hand writings that historians are confident were written by Julius Caeser. We have nothing that was written by Jesus, and nothing that was even purported to be written by Jesus. We have letters written from the governor of Cilicia, Cicero, saying what a fucking asshole Caeser was, written while Caeser is claimed to have lived. The Aeneid specifically mentions Julius Caeser. As does the historian Sallust, who describes first hand interactions with Caesar. Those are a few comtemporary sources that mention Caesar, there are more. We also have coins bearing his image, images made during his lifetime. We also have plenty of evidence that around the time of Caeser's life, of territories coming under the control of Rome during that time, which is a phenomena that is hard to explain with a leaderless Rome. It is however consistent with accounts from Rome and from enemies of Rome talking about the asshole trying to take over their territory.

There is in contrast, no contemporary sources that show Jesus existed. The closest non-Biblical source is Flavius, a Jewish historian born after the alleged crucifixtion. He does not claim firsthand knowledge, obviously since he was just a wittle egg cell at the time, only that he heard of Jesus and that he was unfairly crucified. He claims nothing about resurrection. There's doubt about whether what he said had been altered. The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus, but he claims no firsthand knowledge and is describing what he knows from Christians of the time, that their founder was named Christ, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate. He does not say anything about resurrection, and cannot vouch for the fact that he ever existed, as he was writing about 70 years after that happened. The remaining evidence are the gospels, which were written anonymously, and at best were first published around 100 years after Jesus' death. They are not believed by most historians, including Christian historians, to be eyewitness accounts. 

So, the evidence for Julius Caeser dwarfs that of Jesus, since we have a ton of shit from his lifetime documenting his existence by friendly and enemy sources, and archeological evidence. Historians generally tend to agree Jesus likely existed, and I will tentatively defer to their expertise. But even to the extent that Jesus existed, it is impossible to verify his resurrection. No extrabiblical source exists for this, and the biblical sources are biased, not contemporary to the event, anonymous, and recorded after a decades long game of telephone. This would be sketchy evidence even if the claims were mundane and not violative of the laws of reality as we know them. But, even if your claim was correct, which it is not, then all you've done is shown that we should not believe that Caeser existed. Because regardless of any other historical events, the evidence for the resurrection is woefully insufficient.

Again to thee I say lulz no.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 23 January 2022

sundin13 said:
padib said:

When in history apart from Christ has any human cheated death properly speaking? That they fully died, were decomposing and revived, to a point where people can't believe their eyes?

Also, don't forget that if you take the pieces together, some possibilities are impossible. How would we be looking at a war general that is a leopardbearlion?
"and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?”"

He is referred to as him, someone against who war can be decalred, but is too powerful that nobody would dare. He is a leader of a region of the world.

The problem is that if you take pieces out of context and are not familiar with the whole picture, it's like trying to make sense of a movie after only having seen a single frame. It will never work.

You are introducing your own contexts into the scripture. There is no requirement for decomposition that I see in the scripture. It only states that there was a wound that looked to be fatal, but had healed. Further, it is impossible to state for certain how literal this is to be. 

Looking for interpretations of this verse, the first I found speculated that this is a reference to the fall and rebuild of the Roman Empire.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by bringing up the further context implying that this individual is a leader of a region of the world, even assuming that this inference is true. And btw, going by the contexts you provided, it is not necessary for this individual to be a leader of a region of the world. This individual could be bestowed power, or raise a non-state army (ala terrorist groups), or further, this could be a metaphor and not be meant literally. Perhaps "war" is not a literal war of armies, but a spiritual or ideological conflict.

Actually, not only is there no requirement for decomposition, if the account was literal, there would not be any significant decomposition. The scripture claims he was killed and returned three days later. If his return was bodily (debateable), it would not yet have decomposed, which tends to take several weeks if, as the Bible claims, he was in a covered area.