|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
The beast of Rev 17 - 7/6/2008 11:07:47 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Here is a completely different approach to solving the riddle of the beast:
http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Chapter_20
The meaning in riddles and double entendre is "Christ takes away the sins of the church."
See the solution at the site above.
< Message edited by rcjones -- 7/6/2008 11:27:41 AM >
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/6/2008 8:40:56 PM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 1063
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
Considering that there is a great harlot named Babylon riding this beast, I find it laughable to consider that the Beast in Revelation 17 is Christ. In fact, the two are so far removed I would almost be willing to call it heretical... almost. The very fact that this person says the beast is Christ taking away the sins of the church and the beast is being ridden by the mother of all harlotries who has been made drunk on the blood of the saints... means that they are either looking through the wrong end of their telescope, or they really have no idea what Revelation 17 actually says.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/7/2008 8:19:35 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin
Considering that there is a great harlot named Babylon riding this beast, I find it laughable to consider that the Beast in Revelation 17 is Christ. In fact, the two are so far removed I would almost be willing to call it heretical... almost. The very fact that this person says the beast is Christ taking away the sins of the church and the beast is being ridden by the mother of all harlotries who has been made drunk on the blood of the saints... means that they are either looking through the wrong end of their telescope, or they really have no idea what Revelation 17 actually says.
Adam
Considering the beast isn't anything that you expected, I would expect that the mother of all harlotries isn't what you expect either. By mixing popular typology with "shadows" you can get nothing but a jumble. Wouldn't it be more prudent to ask for an interpretation of the mother of all harlotries before judging based on the jumble you produced?
Look at some of the other stuff produced on that site by using the hermeneutic. The story of Tamar as a shadow of the birth of Christ. Uzziah, Japhthah,, Eglon as shadows of Christ. None of these are what you expected.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/8/2008 1:08:01 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
Could it be that they're not what we expected because... Well... Because that's NOT what they're meant to be saying?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/8/2008 8:29:35 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
Could it be that they're not what we expected because... Well... Because that's NOT what they're meant to be saying?
You're better than that Mr. Fribbles. Certainly you are not suggesting that you would expect to be able to mix the results of two methodologies and obtain sensible results.
Since the site has a disclaimer, that everything in it should be taken as observations until verified by others, I was hoping we might discuss the methodology rather than the fact that it doesn't agree with popular typology.
The fact is, that popular typology doesn't agree with popular typology, so your objection is very weak, even if it did address the primary proposition.
The method used correlates scripture with scripture. In principle, there should be no objection to that. Other interpretations attempt to correlate scripture with history, or futurist predictions. Which of these methods, philosophically, is more appealing, human invention or scriptural correlation?
The method uses a hermeneutic available in the first century. The 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer. The other hermeneutics were invented much later. Which hermeneutic philosophically, is more appealing? One which existed at the time the document was written, or one invented much later?
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/8/2008 4:39:35 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Since the site has a disclaimer, that everything in it should be taken as observations until verified by others, I was hoping we might discuss the methodology rather than the fact that it doesn't agree with popular typology.
I'm quite familiar with the method proposed on that site, and I find it ridiculous.
quote:
The method used correlates scripture with scripture. In principle, there should be no objection to that. Other interpretations attempt to correlate scripture with history, or futurist predictions. Which of these methods, philosophically, is more appealing, human invention or scriptural correlation?
The angel tells John that the events recorded in the Apocalypse will come to pass, strongly implying something happening in the future. He does not say that He's going to explain basic Christian doctrine through riddles.
quote:
The method uses a hermeneutic available in the first century. The 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer. The other hermeneutics were invented much later. Which hermeneutic philosophically, is more appealing? One which existed at the time the document was written, or one invented much later?
If you can prove that was the only hermeneutic style used in the 1st century, you'll have a point. Otherwise, I don't see where you're going there.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/8/2008 5:41:49 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
He does not say that He's going to explain basic Christian doctrine through riddles.
God says he speaks in riddles... and see how he links wisdom to solving them:
Nu 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches <02420>; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;
Da 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences <02420>, shall stand up.
Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings <02420> of old:
Ps 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart shall be of understanding.
4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying <02420> upon the harp.
Pr 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings <02420>.
Pr 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
quote:
Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Even a child can recognize a riddle when he sees one. It is a riddle whether you try to solve it with history, as the preterists do, or with speculation, as the futurists do. This is a solution to the riddle with scripture. Do you really expect anyone to believe that a literal beast has seven literal heads that are literal mountains? As I said, you are better than this.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 12:39:05 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
God says he speaks in riddles... and see how he links wisdom to solving them
None of those passages suggest all of Scripture is to be looked at as a riddle.
quote:
Do you really expect anyone to believe that a literal beast has seven literal heads that are literal mountains?
There's a difference between saying something is absolutely literal, and saying that it's all referencing something already stated in Scripture.
Why would God want to use an end-times prophecy to tell people about Christ in this way? What would be the purpose?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 8:42:26 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
There's a difference between saying something is absolutely literal, and saying that it's all referencing something already stated in Scripture.
And since the method on the site uses nothing but things already stated in scripture, you have tacitly endorsed it.
quote:
Why would God want to use an end-times prophecy to tell people about Christ in this way? What would be the purpose?
And therein is the catch, you must presume it is and end-times prophecy. Dr. Gage at John Knox Seminary has show that it is tightly coupled to the book of John, as using the same sequential parallels found in Matthew that can be found on that site. The Matthew eschatology suggests something quite different. And since the site is showing that there are shadows of Christ everywhere in scripture, it would be the exception if they were not found in Revelation. But you knew that already since you are already familiar with the site.
What would be the purpose? The book IS called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" after all. I think it would be obvious that it would primarily talk about Christ. The purpose would be the same as all the other shadows of Christ.
You still have not stated a single objection that is directly related to the topic. Perhaps you can tell why you are so opposed to seeing Christ in all the scriptures. Just state plainly that you have already accepted the principles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which says there can only be one meaning in scripture, and that it must be discerned using historical - literal methods. Tell us how that statement has more authority than 2000 years of church history since it is the result of modernist higher criticism. Just state plainly that you believe that human authors wrote the Bible and that it has no direct oversight or intervention by God. Then we will all know your a-priori assumptions and can move on.
Simply repeating your opinion with no basis for discussion is not very helpful.
Please show which words don't mean what the site says they mean. Show which correlations are not valid and why. Or show which riddle has another solution, then you have contributed substance to the conversation of the OP. Once the methods used in the observation are validated, then we can intelligently discuss what it means in local context and the bigger themes discovered in the shadows. I hope that scorn is not all that you have to offer.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 1:55:32 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
And therein is the catch, you must presume it is and end-times prophecy.
quote:
What would be the purpose? The book IS called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" after all. I think it would be obvious that it would primarily talk about Christ. The purpose would be the same as all the other shadows of Christ.
You didn't finish the verse.
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place." (Rev. 1:1, NIV, emphasis added)
You have to figure out what sort of Greek Genitive is being used here. If it is a genitive of content, then you'd be right. It would be the Revelation, whose content is Jesus Christ. However, that doesn't seem to be a natural reading, since Christ is the one who receives the revelation from God, to give to us. It seems more likely, then, that it is a Genitive of Ownership (probably not the correct title, but I don't have my Wallace handy to look it up), which means that it is the Revelation belonging to Christ.
What's more, it clearly states in this verse that the purpose of the Apocalypse of John is to show what must soon take place. How could it not be a prophecy of events that must soon take place, that is, at least somewhat in the future of the author's writing?
quote:
Just state plainly that you have already accepted the principles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which says there can only be one meaning in scripture, and that it must be discerned using historical - literal methods.
I've never read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, so I couldn't say for sure. However, I do tend to be historical/literal in my interpretation.
quote:
Tell us how that statement has more authority than 2000 years of church history since it is the result of modernist higher criticism.
So, scholarship is a bad thing? I suppose we should go back to just reading the Greek and Hebrew texts, then. It'll be tough on those who haven't learned the languages, but they'll just have to manage. After all, the original texts (well, as original as we can get, anyway, since the autographs are lost to us) must hold more authority than any modern translation.
quote:
Just state plainly that you believe that human authors wrote the Bible and that it has no direct oversight or intervention by God.
Well, it depends on what exactly you mean by this statement. If you mean that I do not believe that God took control of the author's hand and guided the pen to write exactly, word for word, exactly what God wanted without taking into consideration the personality and writing style of the author, then you're absolutely right. I don't believe that.
I do, however, believe that God's perfect truth is recorded in Scripture, through the vessel of the human author's. The content of the writing is entirely inspired - the style in which it is presented is entirely human, and God beautifully joined the two together to create Scripture.
quote:
Please show which words don't mean what the site says they mean.
Well, right off the bat, since it says Cain represents both Christ and Adam, I would say there's a bit of a problem.
I'd also be interested in hearing how you believe that the Father has many Churches (capitol C, implying the Church, the Body of Christ) and prophets, per Genesis 12:16.
I could go on, but I frankly don't know where to begin.
quote:
Or show which riddle has another solution
OK. Samson's riddle. It's right there in the text - the solution was exactly what Samson said. A literal hive found in a literal lion. When Samson said what he did about plowing with his heifer, he was saying, through a figure of speech, that they got their answer from his woman; something they had no right to do.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 7:06:20 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
You didn't finish the verse.
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place." (Rev. 1:1, NIV, emphasis added)
I am glad you mentioned that. You see it is important to discern the difference between what the Bible says, and what you construct around it to make it make sense to you.
You are still presuming that "must soon take place" is somehow literal and yet means thousands of years in the future. So you still presume a futurist position, correlate it with speculative ideas, then impose it upon everything you read.
Since it is premature to discuss any doctrine taught by the shadows, particularly controversial ones, it is premature to impose any such construct upon them as well. So you are mixing popular typology and shadows again and trying to make sense of the jumble.
quote:
quote:
Please show which words don't mean what the site says they mean.
Well, right off the bat, since it says Cain represents both Christ and Adam, I would say there's a bit of a problem.
I am glad you pointed that out, so it can be clarified:
It should say that Cain represents Christ in the same way that Adam represents Christ. They are the same class of shadow. The similarity between Adam and Cain is shown to demonstrate the pattern within the shadows. The focus of all the shadows is Christ. Intermediate pictures are used to show the pattern or class of shadow.
You will see in the dictionary of shadows that I am developing http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Dictionary_of_shadows that Water is the Word, and the Word is Christ, so it is legitimate to say that the water is Christ as well. Cain is Adam, Adam is Christ, Cain is Christ. Anyone familiar with algebra understands the concept.
Shadows are more "idea objects" than words. Words are just symbols that enable you to correlate the ideas.
I have discussed elsewhere the issue of a person playing different roles, but when I checked the site I didn't see that it made it there yet. I will have to make sure that gets corrected. Thanks.
quote:
I'd also be interested in hearing how you believe that the Father has many Churches (capitol C, implying the Church, the Body of Christ) and prophets, per Genesis 12:16.
16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
Since I do not believe that the Father has many Churches, nor is this forum about what I believe apart from the observation of a solution to a riddle in Rev 17. I cannot image at the moment where you would get such an idea and what it has to do with the OP?
quote:
Me:
Please show which words don't mean what the site says they mean. Show which correlations are not valid and why. Or show which riddle has another solution, then you have contributed substance to the conversation of the OP.
The context of the challenge is the OP.
Your dodge to Abraham and Samson is cute and is a distraction from the OP. I will be happy to discuss it elsewhere. What part of the riddle of Rev 17 can you find problems with, or another solution to, within the scriptures?
The main point of the OP, just so we don't go too far astray is that there is a riddle, which is solved in a particular way when using a hermeneutic available in the first century.
It doesn't matter if that was the only hermeneutic available.
It doesn't matter that you only believe literal interpretations.
It doesn't matter that you keep trying to jumble the meaning with other typological systems.
It doesn't matter what your preferred method of interpretation is.
The questions that do matter are:
1. Do the words mean what the site says the words mean?
2. Do the riddles exposed by word replacements represent Christ?
3. Is the correlation accurate between Gen and Rev as spelled out?
4. Are there alternative correlations available (other solutions) for the riddles exposed?
I would be happy to discuss all the peripheral issues concerning shadows and their interpretation in another forum.
This particular riddle was solved in response to a challenge to use the hermeneutic upon a scripture that had not been studied. In fact I have avoided Revelation until the shadows of the Old Testament have been flushed out.
The exercise simply demonstrates the ability of the hermeneutic to find shadows of Christ in difficult passages.
Try it yourself on any passage or send me another challenge scripture.
I am looking for others to validate the methods. If you simply choose not to look at it seriously, that's your choice.
I would think the shear number of shadows produced using the hermeneutic already would demonstrate the impossibility of human invention. I'm not asking for your money. Simply that you might check it out and receive the same blessing I have received from studying them.
There aren't even ads at the web site. There is not even a copyright asserted. Take what you want, use it how you want.
If it were a coloring book that used the size of the words to paint pictures, some would have already said that it was pretty cool. If it was pure invention, I would think that at a minimum you would give me credit for being clever.
But you cannot show that it is invention. I am not clever. You can see them for yourself when you know how. It's up to you whether you want to look or not.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 9:36:22 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
You are still presuming that "must soon take place" is somehow literal and yet means thousands of years in the future.
Well, that all depends on how we choose to translate the "en" in this verse. To me, it seems best to take the "en" as having a Manner aspect - which is to say, it shows the manner in which the verb acts with the dative. Given that "taxos" can often mean "quickly", this makes sense to me. So, looking at it this way, it seems a better translation would be "that which must take place with speed."
Another possibility, which most translations bear out, is taking the "en" to be Temporal, showing a time aspect with the dative. But reading it literally, even with "taxos" being soon, would be "that which must take place while/during soon," which to me does not seem to make sense grammatically.
All that to say, I see no problem with something which must take place quickly, happening thousands of years in the future. This lines up with Jesus saying that He will come like a thief in the night, and that only the Father knows the day, week, hour, etc.
quote:
The questions that do matter are:
1. Do the words mean what the site says the words mean?
Nope, I don't believe they do.
quote:
Do the riddles exposed by word replacements represent Christ?
Nope.
quote:
Is the correlation accurate between Gen and Rev as spelled out?
Nope. The manner in which Genesis and Revelation is linked, through names and numbers, is bordering on mysticism in my opinion. There is nothing in the text to suggest that this chapter is referring back to early genealogies. There is nothing to suggest that Enoch is the head which "is" just because he walked with God, or that Lamech is the one who is to come.
Also, it seems Cain means yet another thing - the sins of the Church. So now, not only are we reading names into the text mentioned nowhere in Revelation, but we are assigning yet another "shadow" meaning to them. It seems to me that the rules are being bent to fit the desired meaning.
quote:
Are there alternative correlations available (other solutions) for the riddles exposed?
Here's a solution - the Beast represents a tool of evil (be it a man, a government, or something else) that will play a large role during the end time events.
quote:
You can see them for yourself when you know how. It's up to you whether you want to look or not.
Careful. You're sounding a bit gnostic to me there. I'm sure that's not what you're intending, but it's coming across that way.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 9:46:24 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 435
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
John 3
Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Why was a serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness?
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 9:50:40 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
Peter, what does that have to do with the Beast of Revelation 17?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 10:03:30 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 435
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Numbers 21:4-9
The Bronze Serpent
4From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5And the people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food." 6 Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you. Pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." 9So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
My question is why did the LORD say to Moses,"Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live."
My question is, Why a serpent and not something else and then Jesus talking about the serpent in the wilderness in the same sentence as how the Son of Man shall be lifted up. My question is why a serpent?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 10:19:21 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
That has nothing to do with the Beast, Peter, unless there's some connection you're trying to hint at and we're not getting. If you're really curious about the serpent, I suggest making a thread about it in the "Bible" section, or wherever you deem appropriate.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 10:26:47 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 435
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
I hear, I'll go else where
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 11:29:19 PM
|
|
|
SuspenseWriter
Posts: 385
Joined: 2/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Man, I'm glad I'm too dense to be a theologian. All this frou-frou hairsplitting makes my eyes glaze. I'm also glad the Gospel is easy enough for a child to understand. This ... not so much.
_____________________________
John Robinson
writer of suspense...obviously!
www.johnrobinsonbooks.com
http://www.johnrobinsonbooks.com/my-journal/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/9/2008 11:31:31 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm also glad the Gospel is easy enough for a child to understand
Me too. : ) If people had to understand half the conversations that go on in these forums to receive salvation, heh, our faith would be a pretty miserable one. Thankfully, most of our discussions on here, while potentially profitable, are ultimately unnecessary in an eternal sense.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/10/2008 12:14:22 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
My question is why did the LORD say to Moses,"Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live."
My question is, Why a serpent and not something else and then Jesus talking about the serpent in the wilderness in the same sentence as how the Son of Man shall be lifted up. My question is why a serpent?
It is a shadow of Christ. Christ was made to be sin for us. When he was on the cross, he bore the sins of the world. The serpent on the pole is a perfect symbol of that.
When we look to Christ on the cross bearing our sins, we too live. Thanks for asking.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
