Conspiracy The mark of the beast revealed

[Weebhunter3000]

None of them are purely symbolic, but symbolism is still an important part of scripture.

Couldn’t the Bible be written without symbolism to clear up any confusion or is there something I’m missing.

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

I am proud of you. You've regressed on your point (therefore abandoning it) by now acknowledging that the mark is physical, so I am glad that you know the truth after all. That's how most theories of such an absurd nature as the one you proposed earlier, of the mark being intangible, should be treated; thrown away like garbage once their lack of worth is so-easily proven.

dnr

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Are there any books in the Bible that are explicitly meant to be taken as symbolism?

all of revelation

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

I am proud of you. You've regressed on your point (therefore abandoning it) by now acknowledging that the mark is physical, so I am glad that you know the truth after all. That's how most theories of such an absurd nature as the one you proposed earlier, of the mark being intangible, should be treated; thrown away like garbage once their lack of worth is so-easily proven.

t. believes this is real

 

[baqqrih]

None of them are purely symbolic, but symbolism is still an important part of scripture.

Actually, my knowledge failed me for a moment. I believe that a text like the Song of Songs could be considered entirely symbolic (I'm pretty sure) but that's the only one that I can think of.

 

[Dremora]

Couldn’t the Bible be written without symbolism to clear up any confusion or is there something I’m missing.

Yeah there's something you're missing. Peasants like us were not the ones to read and interpret the bible in better days, you'd just ask the priest when you were confused. It was literally his duty to answer your questions about what exactly the bible is saying, after all. The confusion came in when the peasants got all arrogant and thought they could interpret the bible by themselves instead of relying on the church fathers, who already understood far better than anyone. The result is the gazillions of different denominations. Maybe we really were better off when only the clergy could read the bible.

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Actually, my knowledge failed me for a moment. I believe that a text like the Song of Songs could be considered entirely symbolic (I'm pretty sure) but that's the only one that I can think of.

song of simps

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Actually, my knowledge failed me for a moment. I believe that a text like the Song of Songs could be considered entirely symbolic (I'm pretty sure) but that's the only one that I can think of.

There’s a difference between recognizing symbolism where it’s clearly intended and dismissing everything as symbolic just because you don’t like the literal meaning.

Jesus having a sword coming out of his mouth is obviously symbolic. It represents his Word, sharper than any two-edged sword. But when Christ says something like, “This is My body,” or when Scripture records actual events like the feeding of the five thousand, you don’t just get to hand-wave that as “symbolism” because it doesn’t fit your worldview. There's a line between interpreting scripture faithfully and twisting it to suit your convenience.

 

[baqqrih]

Couldn’t the Bible be written without symbolism to clear up any confusion or is there something I’m missing.

Yeah there's something you're missing. Peasants like us were not the ones to read and interpret the bible in better days, you'd just ask the priest when you were confused. It was literally his duty to answer your questions about what exactly the bible is saying, after all. The confusion came in when the peasants got all arrogant and thought they could interpret the bible by themselves instead of relying on the church fathers, who already understood far better than anyone. The result is the gazillions of different denominations. Maybe we really were better off when only the clergy could read the bible.

In addition to that, the emotion unleashed with a form of communication like symbolism grips our souls strongly, since man is ultimately a being of emotion in all matters of life. Imagine how drab it would be if our Christ simply said, when he was condemning the Jewish elites in their synagogue;
>You bad people who are influenced by Satan and who are also quite deceitful!
instead of
>You brood of vipers!
One provides a description quite like the analogy, yet it lacks such an emotive tone of describing these vicious people, whom, keep in mind, in this particular instance, have even gone as far as to deny The Holy Spirit. Meanwhile, the alternative gives us a clear comparison to a familiar creature--of this terrible, conniving wickedness that inhabits the essence of the viper--all while holding within itself a visible emotion of pained denouncement that Christ expresses for those who he's speaking to. From an example like this, you can see that one is often more effective than the other in conveying a point.

 

[Spas]

t. believes this is real

>believing that is real

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

>believing that is real
View attachment 3940

Joined: Sep 11, 2024
Messages: 416
Reaction score: 1,044

 

[Spas]

>Joined: Sep 11, 2024
>Messages: 416
>Reaction score: 1,044

 

[Weebhunter3000]

Yeah there's something you're missing. Peasants like us were not the ones to read and interpret the bible in better days, you'd just ask the priest when you were confused. It was literally his duty to answer your questions about what exactly the bible is saying, after all. The confusion came in when the peasants got all arrogant and thought they could interpret the bible by themselves instead of relying on the church fathers, who already understood far better than anyone. The result is the gazillions of different denominations. Maybe we really were better off when only the clergy could read the bible.

But no clergy is free from the possibility of corruption and twisting the Bible into their own words.

In addition to that, the emotion unleashed with a form of communication like symbolism grips our souls strongly, since man is ultimately a being of emotion in all matters of life. Imagine how drab it would be if our Christ simply said, when he was condemning the Jewish elites in their synagogue;
>You bad people who are influenced by Satan and who are also quite deceitful!
instead of
>You brood of vipers!
One provides a description quite like the analogy, yet it lacks such an emotive tone of describing these vicious people, whom, keep in mind, in this particular instance, have even gone as far as to deny The Holy Spirit. Meanwhile, the alternative gives us a clear comparison to a familiar creature--of this terrible, conniving wickedness that inhabits the essence of the viper--all while holding within itself a visible emotion of pained denouncement that Christ expresses for those who he's speaking to. From an example like this, you can see that one is often more effective than the other in conveying a point

Never thought of it from that perspective but it does makes sense.

 

[Dremora]

But no clergy is free from the possibility of corruption and twisting the Bible into their own words.

Certainly not, I didn't imply you should trust the clergy when you know for sure that they are teaching false things. For that, one can compare their teachings with what the fathers of the church taught. That is what the ecumenical councils are for.