Prophecy re-thinking?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Mark Bassett wrote:
 
> On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 22:17:32 -0800, you wrote:
> 
> >> Some say the mark is a computer chip. Others say it is something else.
> >> Mainly it is a *mark*. What locusts are is not really important to one
> >> view of scripture or another.
> >
> >I disagree somewhat.  That which is forwarded to us in the Bible is
> >indeed there for us to understand.  God wastes no words.  He wrote
> >them for us to receive a message.  I know you agree.  So since He
> >spoke about "locusts" (Which, BTW, I feel are simply demon spirits),
> >He desires us to understand a certain aspect of truth.
> 
> The point is this: If you believe they represent demon spirits (which
> is quite reasonable), and in fact, in a period of time coming these
> symbols prove to be a fitting picture of something which literally
> manifests on earth in a quick period of"great tribulation", then fine.
> You were edified in your understanding, but then again, those who
> poked through to the anticipation of great triulation, and saw some of
> the future ought not to suffer rebuke ... or should they ?

No.

> >> >For one person says it is a computer chip.  Another says it is going to church on Sunday.
> >>
> >> I agree that there is rampant speculation in these matters. I do not
> >> agree that a massive abstraction is the answer, nor do I feel that the
> >> variations in SOME interpretations are of much significance.
> >
> >One person's abstraction is another's heart-felt revelation.
> 
> Oh, please forgive me. The heartfelt revelations which you have been
> posting, for exmaple, converning the "sweet tasting book", are
> certainly a part of our understanding. I have never read the
> introduction to Jesus' Revelation through John withpout seeing Jesus
> emanating from within the churches - I think others feel this way too.

My point in showing the introduction to revelation, which I admitted
was not even controversial, was due to the fact that we must begin
at the beginning.  And the sealed book is certainly amongst the beginning
of John's visions and mentioned later in Chapter 10.  And we must follow
closely what John saw FIRST before we head on past it all into the
parts pertaining to rapture and so on.  This is so since the first
visions in the book obviosuly have much to say in the following
visions.  

I know most would like to glide past the candlesticks and see
what we all have to say about the rapture.  But that is not proper
approach to the issue.

And my point was that the sealed book MUST represent us.
And if it does, then that throws out the idea that a certain 
generation, which the "seals being opened" refer to, is what
is meant for us to understand. 

Is the book "us" or not?  I feel my intro supports the thought
that it more than not "may be".  

Why not begin discussing what the book actually is?

> But, again, where the whole of the literal is denied, for the sake of
> the abstract (which as I said, we all read privately and richly - yes,
> God does speak to us privately on these matters -as you say, THROUGH
> the Holy Ghost experience, and yes this IS the rich material of
> prophecy), the "heart-felt" revelation of another is reduced to
> "Darbyite prattle."

Not at all.  But the fact that it is true that most of our 
interpretations, whether you agree or not, came from such men.  And 
my intentions were not to insiult those who agree with them, but to 
point out, "Hey, these guys were not Spirit-filled.  Don't you think
we should reconsider their views in light of personal study aside from
the influence of their thoughts?"  And you seem to have missed
my purpose and began discussing a purpose thought to have been mine,
and made an issue otut of it - when it doesn't apply since I meant
no such thoughts of your issue about "reducing" others' "heart-felt
revelations" to "Darbyite prattle".  You made people like yourself, 
who agrees with Darby (unintentionally or not), the issue, when I 
was not stressing any such issue.
 
That is why I am constantly saying let's forget about getting
"personal" for I neither meant anything personal, though it must have
probably looked like it due to your constant mention of it, nor meant 
to slur anybody who agreed with "Darby" and the likes.

> >> It was  clearly not highly significant that the individual receive a specific
> >> revelation from these pages, though he is BLESSED to receive what he
> >> does receive.
> >
> >I disagree with that.  But, let's continue.
> 
> If it was highly significant, even in your mind, then it would seem
> important to suggest why others who have the Holy Ghost don't or
> haven't preached these pages with great priority.

My poing is that God gives no revelation if it is insignificant to 
understand it.  God intended a SINGLE interpretation  to be had, and
took the effort to show a man of God, John, such details, and took the 
effort to put it in the Holy Writ, and took the effort to preserve it 
until now.

> I am making this point: When God uses the abstract to speak to our
> spirits (as he obviously has in Revelation) he has deliberately put up
> a wall between the common and the holy. We know this to be God's way
> (see Matt 13). 

Agreed.

> As I mentioned elsewhere, the plain ministers to one,
> and the hidden to another, however, the plain is not untrue.

I feel God had a single thought in mind, but whose "principles"
certainly apply since God does things in a certain way.  The seven days
of Genesis, for example, coincide with the seven vials.  Obviously,
when God does something in "7's" there is a principle by which 
]He is doing this.  And we can discover that principle by observing 
the similarities.  An dthis will help us interpret more precisely the 
intended meaning of the vials, for example.  IOW, we can preach about 
salvation from the vials, I suppose, if we saw a similar principle
at work, though I know of none offhand.  And that means the sermon is 
truth but not directly intended to be understood by studying the vials.

> Please note that well. The plain is not untrue. It is for this reason
> that the world, with all its charlatans, kooks, false prophets,
> profiteers, private agents, and denominations knows one basic Bible
> idea more than any other, save perhaps Calvary. That is, the
> anti-christ and "666"... The world rightly anticipates a tremendous
> catharsis BECAUSE of the message of the Bible through Daniel and
> Revelation, no matter WHO preached it.

Again, that is based upon presupposition that there wil actually
be a physical thing done to the hand and forehead.  But I see your 
point.

> God speaks to the world by means of this Bible. The world may not,
> indeed it does not know the finer things of the Spirit. But the world
> DOES receive the incontrovertable witness of God's documentation
> regarding his own plan.

Again, again ;-), salvation issues MUST be explicit.  But not
matter sthat pertain to maturoity and depth for spiritual growth.  God
veils the "deeper" things for the purpose of ensuring the sincere alone,
who alone will receive such things, indeed do receive them.  For He casts
not pearls before swine.
(Not that those who are insincere and do not understand the depths
of Revelation are swine - ...trying to be careful about
my intentions in typing certain wrods, here;-)  )

> Yes, judgement is coming.

Certainly.  But in literal explosions or inward hardening?

> Yes, the literal physical nation of Israel is being restored to a
> place of international prominence.

Even THAT is questionable in the place of prophecy.

> Yes, as Zechariah said, repentance and the knowledge of the identity
> of Jesus Christ will come to a people who were blinded.

Agreed wholeheartedly.


>Do you mean to say that Rev. 13:16 was "intended" to mean on ething
> >to the 15th century believer and another to the 20th?  Just
> >seeking clarification, that's all.
> 
> Speaking entirely with regard to the OUTWARD message of the prophecy:
> 
> No, certainly not, however most of the eras have concluded something
> similar with regard to the outward. It is of little surprise that only
> the ACTUAL endtime generation would see these matters with near
> perfect clarity.

Again that is based upon whether Revelation is about literal ENDTIMES.


> Yes - many considered the book to be hidden and mysterious throughout
> the ages. There are several reasons

Though many considered it so, I do not agree totally.  Those who met 
the requirements of sincerity 
and true craving to know His truth regarding the Revelation have been 
shown in any age.  Recall that Daniel's book was sealed.  Not so with
Revelation.  It is unsealed, and has been so since first given.

Realize that the title "Revelation" refers to the little book that was 
opened.  Read Rev. 1:1 closely.  The whole book surrounds this little 
scroll.

> 1 - It *is* hidden to some extent, in parable :-) Prophecy reveals AND
> veils.

Agreed.

> 2 - All people and every generation is inclined to consider all
> prophecy to have immediate impact on themselves. This is not true, for
> God deals with 1000 years as a day. annual or centenial revisions of
> the Word are not authorized, so ... each generation is NOT directly
> effected by ALL prophecy. 

...if Revelation regards ONLY endtime events.

> However all may THINK that they are. God is
> wise, and knows the hearts of men. If men are liars and misread the
> scriptures, God is not responsible for that. To see the Kingdom of
> God, a person must be born of water and spirit. But to hear and be
> moved by the word of God, a person must simply have ears and be above
> room temperature.

... in any generation.

> God sees and reveals the end from the beginning. He is not like us.
> His mind is not like our carnal mind. When the actual times which God
> framed in prophecy come to synch with or overlap with the revelation,
> it becomes eveident. Others, in earlier times, ALSO thought that they
> saw things merging.. I think we can understand the difference.

..if Revelation regards ONLY endtime events.

 Many today are making a lot of noise about protecting people from
> "end-time mania". I agree! We ought not to put things out of
> balance...
> 
> However, I for one think this very ironic, since I believe that we
> have moved beyond the rehearsal stages, and are now seeing the final
> curtains.
> 
> What a time for so many people to get wise and say, right on schedule:
> "... Where is the  promise   of   his   coming ? for since the fathers
> fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning  of
> the creation. " - 2 Peter 3:3
> 
> I believe that it is VERY DIFFICULT for the last generation to take it
> wrong - 

...If Revelation regards ONLY endtime events.

but, in Jersusalem, there was MANY MANY people who did not

> >> This ia thought that my influence thinking, but is not sufficiently
> >> developed to prevent there from being a litteral manifestation of the
> >> binding to the hand and head.
> >
> >>From my experience in scripture, the cross-referencing usually reveals
> >SIMILAR interpretations between two texts.  I cannot think of any biblical
> >vision that was symbolic to "good" but literal to "evil".
> 
> Perhaps Im a little lost here. You were relating the writing of the
> symbol of the number in the hand or head, to God's command to subject
> ourselves wholly to His word.

No.  To the DUAL similarity between the "mark fo the beast" and the "seal of 
God" in about 4 consecutive verses.  Why would the "MARK" be literal 
and the "SEAL" symbolic when both accounts are mentioned in the same vision
spearated by manmade words "CHAPTER 14" ?

> Thats fine - I dont see the arguement.  From your own anaylsis, the
> antichrist spirit wants to accomplish the same thing, relating to his
> precepts.
> 
> My point was merely this: the spiritual principles are often played
> out in the real world, and ought to be. Orthodox Jews today make
> literal practice of binding the word to head and hand as did some in
> ancient times. 

That is not the question.  The question is whether God intended them to 
do that.  This in no way has antying to do with the literal MARK.

> This displays their fervent belief that somewhere
> beyond this symbol there is a God whose word is supreeme.
> 
> The anti-christ wants no less devotion. Agreed, 

That assumes too much.  Point is that we are losing track that 
John saw a "vision."  You must show another vision elsewhere
in which LITERAL interpretations were meant to be read.

> >My point is that Biblical VISIONS always used symbols and never were
> >direct literal pictures.
> 
> Oh - I would have to disagree with this. I think you will too,
> ultimately.

Show me an example of literal visions.  As mentioned, I may be missing
an abvious one.  However, show me.

> >The prophets often asked God what the vision meant, for they knew it was
> >symbolic.
> 
> Yes they did, AND id they did, as with Daniel, they got answers that
> TOLD them what the vision meant, and were given an answer that was
> literal. :-) God is not the author of confusion.

Your point?  I was saying NOWHERE does it seem a vision was fulfilled 
literally elsewhere.


> >Just a moment.  God is SPirit.  And He manifests through the saints
> >who are both spiritual and physical.  Humans are the only creation
> >that are both spiritual and physical.  To say God manfests in flesh,
> >glorified or not, is not to say God HAS flesh, anymore than we can say
> >a literal physical altar exists in glory.  I do not know exactly
> >what the altar is.  But I simply point out that we cannot say for
> >sure either way.
> 
> Well Brother Blume, we may depart very severely on this point. The
> Bible says that Jesus ascended and those who watched were told that
> "... this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so
> come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." - Acts 1:11b

That strays from the issue.  God has no flesh.  Flesh came from earth
and from the physical, whether glorified or not.

> >Labels such as "amillennial" often confuse the issue and they can have
> >an affect of initimidating people from ever believing anything involved
> >in such and such a group.  Now, I disagree sharply with RCC tradition and
> >dogma, but I have noticed that many "millennial" prophecies INDEED do
> >relate to the Church now!  Who could not apply Isaiah 11 with the Church
> >age as well as the Millennium?
> 
> I dont think its confusing.

That is not what I meant.  I meant that to bring labels into the
discussion in order to keep us away from OTHER doctrines used by those 
who believe the ideas we might believe, to imply that we are nigh unto
the OTHER doctrines of those whom we mention by label is to drift from the
fact that maybe SOME ideas are not wrong.  The RCC does believe in God.
Does that make me wrong in believing in God?  Of course not.

> Amillenial means (no transition to beginning of a kingdom where the
> devil is bound and God reigns over all the earth). Amillenialists
> believe that God reigns through the church right now.

I knwo what these labels mean.  But why mention them anyway?... 
is my point.

> I have noticed that the Kingdom of God which IS present on the earth
> does display  eternal principles at work right here and now. However,
> it dont take a rocket scientist to realize the world still has a lot
> of inoluable problems and that Jesus Christ, though our Lord is still
> the worlds Lamb. Unless you are Amillenial, you believe that that is
> fixing to change.

Agreed.  But why mention amillennialists?

> >> Revelation begins in confirming Zechariah saying "Every eye will see
> >> Him" and refer to a specific time on the Mt of Olives. Jesus, still
> >> living in mortal flesh, put the time frame in the future. He did not
> >> leave room for an unending, and perpetual stretching forward of
> >> history, but pointed to a specific END, politically, spiritually, and
> >> judicially.
> >
> >Agreed. Yet this does not limit everything in Revelation to these
> >limitations.
> 
> No, and I did not say that people are not entitled to their
> intepretations of Revelation. However, I am saying that there is going
> to be a fuss when the material projection of the endtimes is messed
> with, for many reasons.

...if Revelation regards ONLY endtime events.

> And no, it is not because we are sold out to tradition and uninspired.
> It is because we are inspired in such a way that we raise up some of
> these anticipations with good reasons, AND with anointing, whether
> someone else feels it or not.
> 
> >> >Comparative study  itself shows the popular ideas to be incorrect.
> >> >Where is the corss referencing for computer chips in the Bible?
> >>
> >> Where is any modern nomenclature?
> >
> >Nomenclature or not, there is no similar cross-referencing to
> >the thought of computer chips even using the vocabulary of the day
> >elsewhere in the Bible.  Again, John saw a vision.
> 
> Please... once again. there is no modern nomenclature ANYWHERE in the
> the scripture. 

I know that.  I was saying that other similar words used by 
John which we interpret to be "biochips" is not used.  SO we have 
ONE verse to base our thoughts upon, with no cross references.  And
when we DO use cross references, I feel we will find that the thought 
of biochips is far from the reality.

> John relates his vision this way in Rev 13
> 6  And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
> bond, to  receive   a   mark  in their right hand, or in their
> foreheads:  17  And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had
> the  mark , or the name of the beast, or the number of his name
> 
> OK.. Whatever... a chip ? I dunno - I doubt it. A credit card ? A id
> number somehow related to his mind or handwriting ? I dunno ..
> 
> But the idea of it is that without it, a person cannot buy or sell.
> 
> Oh, you say "its not a he at all that does this... its a 'system'" -
> ok.. heres one stage of degradation... Now, we say "its not really
> buying and selling, like at a store, its doing business with the lusts
> of the world".. yes ok...

That is due to the only other similar cross reference found in Revelation
to BUYING:

Rev 3:18  I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that 
thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, 
and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine 
eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

I thin kwe might get a better understanding of true interpretation if 
we would cross reference in this manner.  For the Bible indeed does
interpret itself in this manner.

Just a suggestion.

> I guess we all have to decide exactly what we think of scripture.
> 

Or decide upon truly wanting to believe what God intended us to.

> >> >My former post gives the example of the name of God on the
> >> >forehead.  We know that is not literal.  But we say the mark of the
> >> >beast is literal?
> >>
> >> The mark of the beast is something that the BEAST implements to HIS
> >> satisfaction in attempting to have all of humanity worship him.
> >
> >That is highly based on interpretation again.  I can say that God
> >wishes to reveal something to the church in a visionarly symbol in the
> >manner in which God wishes to reveal it.  This has nothing to do with
> >the way the Beast wishes to implement a thing.  I am saying that the same
> >God who showed us a symbol of bearing Jesus' name also showed us similarly a
> >symbol of the counterfeit.  It is not how the beast will do anything so much
> >as how God reveals events to occur.
> 
> Im loosing you Brother..
> 
> Since when is it "interpretive" to read the following words literally
> 
> "6  And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
> bond, to  receive   a   mark  in their right hand, or in their
> foreheads:  17  And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had
> the  mark , or the name of the beast, or the number of his name" ???
> 
> I would say this ... your comments are highly interpretive to forgo
> reading them plainly.

IO agree they are "highly interpretive".  But I am trying to say
your thoughts are too.  For it LOOKS like you are saying
it is irrefutable that the Beast implements a literal item
and that God's intention of the Seal of God being spiritual matters
not.  It is a matter of perspective, that is all I am saying. And
we must remember to keep it so.  This implies I my be wrong.  And you
may be wrong.  I know you agree.  But it sounded as though you were 
assuming too much... is all.
 
> >Now, if God gave a vision elsewhere in the Bible involving two similar
> >terms of vocabular, such as the two seals or marks in Rev 13
> >and Rev 14, and one was literally fulfilled and the very next one was
> >symbolic then I might have a tendency to be more agreeable to
> >your persuasion.  But it is not.  And, being open to the fact that
> >it MAY BE a bio-chip causes me not to ever receive one, I will not
> >say I know for sure it is NOT a bio-chip.  I just do not think it is.
> 
> To be honest, I am happy to hear to concended that there even might be
> such a thing as a literal mark.

I await the happiness of seeing you agree it MIGHT be a spiritual deal.
 
> >Again, bio-chips would be too obvious, and Satan is going to subtly
> >try to deceive the world including the church - and if it were
> >possible the very elect would be deceived.
> 
> Too obvious ? Why ? polls today indicate that while a few decades ago,
> the population of the USA would have resisted such actions. But today
> a very small minority would be adverse to it. Times are a-changing.
> The world is adjusting. It wants a god to solve it's problems.

That sounds so interpretive.  You are pretty sure of your ideas
of a literal thing, aren't you.

> Unless we blur the actual text, the deceptions do not relate
> completely to the mark, there are many more impressions that the
> characters (please not the plural, since the referenced scripture, Mat
> 24:24 read carefully, does not relate only to one character, but many
> deceivers over a LONG period of time, not only the specific short time
> times and a half time of THE false prophet's (Rev 13:11-17) influence.
> 
> Here also, the words "if it were possible" are important and ought not
> to be overlooked.

Agreed.  But that implies sensitivity, or why even note it at all?


> >> Yep.
> >
> >I am trying to say somethig is going on in my spirit regarding these things.
> 
> It seems, from numerous mentions that my turse three letter comment,
> troubled you. Let me just remind you of something Brother. I am not
> required by law or by fellowship or by even the Spirit of God to
> concur with all that I hear, or even to get excited about someone else
> getting excited.

No, but it "sounds" belittling.  That was my point.

> >Jesus said His kingdom was "in you".  He said it comes not with observation.
> >It is Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, as you already said.
> >Yes, I believe He will physically manifest that Kingdom.  But nothing
> >explicitly and irrefutably says that.
> 
> I believe there is plenty of direct scriptural teaching as well as
> witness of the Spirit that makes an anticipation inthe political order
> and the bodily change of the church and the *subsequent* literal
> return of Jesus Christ in body to rule on this planet, quite sound.

Sure.  But that does not demand all the details in Revelation to
be taken literally.  I am repeating this since it seems perhaps you
may not have heard much other than literal understanding by the amount
of space you donate towards preconceived views of future events.
(Fro example, your question whether I would receive a chip inmy hand
or not).


> 
> -mw bassett
> milford, ct
> http://eli.wariat.org/~mbasset

-- 
In Christ,
Mike Blume
mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm