Steve_S

The good news is that we have a means by which to be reconciled to God and it doesn't matter who you are, where you come from, what you've done, or what you've been through. The very reason Jesus died and was resurrected is so that we would have an avenue of reconciliation to God. God is all about restoration and the offer from Him is there. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Rev 14:9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, ", If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand Rev 14:10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." This seems to be a fairly straightforward scripture. If one receives the mark of beast, they go to eternal torment. There seems to be absolutely no way around that. We are told explicitly that anyone who worships the beast will end up in this situation. It is prudent to heed such warnings in my view.

Killing in and of itself is not a sin. Murder is definitively a sin. There is a biblical distinction between the two going back to the torah. Even in the instance of centurions. They were never told to leave the military or not participate in battle, just not to mistreat others or misuse their authority.

I'm not sure one can make an argument that lethal weapons are biblically banned. Even the disciples had swords among them and Jesus did not rebuke them for having them either, indeed He asked specifically about them and seemed to want to ensure that they possessed them (though He did rebuke peter for using it to chop off someone's ear). In antiquity swords were not weapons used for hunting or for kitchen cutlery. It was probably a gladius, the roman short sword, and its sole purpose was to inflict damage on other humans. I'm not promoting the idea that Christians go around armed to the teeth, just stating that there is new testament mention of being armed for defense. Luk 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Luk 22:37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS.' For the things concerning Me have an end." Luk 22:38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." Lest we make the assumption that Christ was speaking metaphorically about purchasing a sword, the disciples produced two physical swords and He told them that would do. Even in the instance of Peter, the primary rebuke was not that Peter used it, but that He used it to attempt to prevent Christ's purpose (a purpose which in that moment peter did not understand). Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Joh 18:11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?" Mat 26:51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Mat 26:52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Mat 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? Mat 26:54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"

I'm pretty sure a normal person (who doesn't have extensive military or law enforcement training and experience) put into a pressure situation such as that can't process information fast enough mentally to "try not to kill" or "not try to kill" someone. Life is not television - these things are usually over in seconds. In high stress situations with adrenaline pumping and so forth, normal people usually aim for the largest and easiest part of a person to hit, the torso, and that generally happens to be where most of the major organs reside.

I was speaking in context of the verses George posted. What I was basically asking is how do you make a determination of the intent of someone else who is invading your home in the middle of the night?

The issue is in the middle of the night if you're awoken by someone breaking into your house, how exactly do you determine what their intentions are?

This doesn't at all abrogate the fact that in multiple instances a physical return of Christ is specified and indeed a new physical kingdom. Firstly, using the YLT in this instance doesn't at all negate the idea that Jesus will physically come with the clouds. Rev 1:7 Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen! Rev 1:7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. This is a literal statement. What scholars specifically?

I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing not to believe it" here, could you elucidate on that please? There are a multitude of scriptures that are incredibly counter to this specific theology. I think it's fine to start with just one, though, to keep things manageable in length. Rev 1:7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." How is such a thing possible if the there is no future physical kingdom?

The problem with the underlined statement is that the premise is incorrect. There was an observable kingdom in the first century, it just wasn't the expected observable kingdom and even if it were, it wouldn't have mattered. Luk 16:30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' Luk 16:31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' " A great many people who watched Christ perform miracles, including raising people from the dead, did not believe. Not only, but even in spite of the fact that Jesus Himself rose from the dead, they did not believe. Mat 28:11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened. Mat 28:12 When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, Mat 28:13 saying, "Tell them, 'His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.' Mat 28:14 And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure." Mat 28:15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. The Sanhedrin was well aware that Christ had been resurrected, just as He'd said He would be. What was their response? Faith? No. Their response was to attempt a cover up. Jesus performed a great many signs (including raising a man who had been dead four days - to which the answer of the leadership in Jerusalem was a plot to kill Lazarus himself). Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies. The multitude in Jerusalem observed the kingdom themselves. Joh 12:12 The next day a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, Joh 12:13 took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out: "Hosanna! 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!' The King of Israel!" Not only did they observe it, they declared it. A few days later, their response was to call for His crucifixion. If the problem mentioned here is the idea that an observable kingdom would lead to faith of all who see it, then that premise itself is the problem.

I would be hard pressed to read Satan into this verse, particularly with the context of the chapter (and those chapters before it, which themselves I doubt need explanation), but more specifically this part of this chapter. Isa 54:14 In righteousness you shall be established; You shall be far from oppression, for you shall not fear; And from terror, for it shall not come near you. Isa 54:15 Indeed they shall surely assemble, but not because of Me. Whoever assembles against you shall fall for your sake. Isa 54:16 "Behold, I have created the blacksmith Who blows the coals in the fire, Who brings forth an instrument for his work; And I have created the spoiler to destroy. Isa 54:17 No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is from Me," Says the LORD. In short, this chapter as a whole is speaking of the restoration of Israel. Verse 15 speaks to the fact that whoever comes against Israel at this point (after their restoration) will not be sent by God, and will fall for their sake, which is in stark contrast to a good chunk of the history of Israel, there having been multiple times God used others to judge. Verse 16 speaks to the fact that God creates the one who builds the weapons (the blacksmith) and the one who uses the weapons (the spoiler/destroyer/waster, depending on what version you prefer - shachath in transliterated Hebrew). Verse 17 speaks to the fact that no weapons (almost certainly an allusion to the previous verse) "formed against you shall prosper." This entire sequence (going back several chapters) is certainly worthy of about two or three textbooks worth of study. However, to answer your question, I don't think an argument can be made that this is speaking of Satan, not even if you pull it out of its local context (which there is no reason to do).

That doesn't agree with scripture, though. There is a fundamental difference in the two situations. Nowhere does the scripture say that he was created for the sole purpose of being evil. That's an inference that is made, but that inference is countered by a multitude of scriptures, which renders it invalid. God is perfectly capable of creating someone perfect, but with the ability to make a choice which would then render them imperfect, and He is also perfectly capable of taking those who have chosen to sin and making them perfect (which He has done). The scriptures teach that this is the case, as has been posted all through this thread. This is not an "either/or" situation because the scriptures themselves speak directly to it not being an "either/or" situation. Attempting to use human logic to attempt to discern God's nature and intentions is always something that should be avoided and human logic is where this sort of theory arises. We have the scriptures and in this particular case they teach highly specific things which cannot be avoided and have, again, been posted all through this thread.

Heb 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, Heb 10:13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. Heb 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. The sort of perfection one receives as a result of Christ's perfect sacrifice is eternal in nature. Our (those of us being sanctified) preservation comes from Christ, not ourselves. Jud 1:1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ: 2Ti 4:18 And the Lord will deliver me from every evil work and preserve me for His heavenly kingdom. To Him be glory forever and ever. Amen! 1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 1Pe 1:5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Joh 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. Joh 10:28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. There is absolutely, without a doubt, scriptural support to show that the perfection imputed to those who are saved through faith in Jesus Christ is eternally immutable. Christians are not going to "fall" in eternity because we are conformed to Christ, who is Himself absolutely perfect.

This one has ran its course.

Removed from thread.

Hi sister, nice to see you back around. Rather than attempting to answer this specifically, I would ask a question - how many Christians have read the entire book of Isaiah more than once and then how many of those have done diligent, in depth studies on all or parts of it? I would suggest an alternative means of going about this. I'd just ask folks in person about it, without mentioning the book of Isaiah at all. Those who remember a hearing about lion lying down with a lamb (which will probably be a huge percentage of people), I'd ask them what book (and if they know that, what chapters) those verses are in. My suspicion is that you will get your answer on why everyone remembers it that way. Edit: Also have a look at 19th century commentaries on those verses (I'll save you the suspense, they talk about the wolf and the lamb). I found a spurgeon sermon in literally about five seconds on the very topic.

Removed from thread.

I would have to disagree with this. Rev 13:5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Rev 13:6 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. Rev 13:7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. We can make direct correlations here. Revelation 13:5 says he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, yes, however, Revelation 13:6 says "he opened His mouth." Then we are told that it was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. If we look to Daniel 7, we can see a couple of things about the little horn. 1. He is speaking pompous words. 2. He is making war against the saints. Dan 7:8 I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words. Dan 7:21 "I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, If the horn is the mouthpiece and not the beast himself then it's the mouthpiece that is making war against the saints and not the beast himself, but that's not what revelation 13 says. It says that he will open his mouth up and speak blasphemous words and will *also* make war against the saints, both of which are attributed directly to the little horn, meaning that the little horn must be him.

This one has ran its course and is nowhere near the OP at this point (nothing at all wrong with the requesting of prayer, though).

How so?

Yep, lol.

Revelation 21 is addressing the new heavens and earth. This is not inhabited by anyone who has taken the mark, or anyone else who is not saved. Well, it's certainly indicative of a spiritual state, so i believe that box is checked to be sure, but I don't believe it is *only* spiritual. I think it's always helpful to take a look at the scriptures regarding it. Rev 13:16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, Rev 13:17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. In this case, it would appear to be a tattoo of some sort, a physical mark. I don't generally view scripture allegorically unless the scripture itself gives us reason to and in this case, I certainly do not believe it does, insofar as it is pretty explicit - it's going to be a mark, his name, or the number of his name. I tend to view this sort of like a cattle brand. Having said all that and stating once again that I believe there will be a physical mark, I certainly would not rule a technological component that is involved in taking the mark, be that RFID or some even newer or as yet undeveloped technology. This would certainly make sense in light of the prophecies regarding buying or selling. So, in short, it is almost certainly two of those options (physical mark which is an outward expression of a spiritual condition) and could be all three (meaning it could possibly include a technological component).

I believe this one has ran its course.

I disagree with this to at least a limited degree, insofar as we are only told that this person demands worship after the abomination is committed. The mark itself is concurrent with this worship. If he is already demanding worship in the first half of the week, there would be no israeli remnant to flee to the wilderness (chapter 12) because they would all be dead already for refusing the mark. I agree that these two are almost certainly very active in the first half of the week and probably even before, but we also know that a covenant is confirmed with Israel by the beast specifically to begin the first week and that there is a temple in (at least part) the first half of the week where sacrifices are occurring that are *not* for the beast. We know that when the abomination occurs, Christ orders those in Judea to flee, which means that before this point there is no necessity of fleeing. If he were demanding worldwide worship and executing anyone unwilling to do so at this point, the necessity for flight would've seemingly been long before this. I tend to believe that once the mark is taken and these people become part of the collective who worships the anti-Christ, there is no hope for repentance from them (I believe this because they are condemned to eternal damnation at this point explicitly, which has already been discussed). I would say this point is moot because I believe that it would be impossible to fear, worship, and give glory to God once you have taken the mark and declared for the anti-Christ. The third angel gives an explicit warning on what happens to those who take the mark. I'm not sure what purpose such a warning would serve were it to be given after the mark has already been enacted and taken by all who will take it. Happy thanksgiving to you as well!

I don't know. I don't know that the flood can be used as a parallel here because Noah was just. Gen 6:9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. Hebrews 11 gives a more exacting, though very succinct expansion upon what this really meant. Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Then we have slightly more information from 2 Peter. 2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 2Pe 2:5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; Noah was saved through the flood. Noah was a just man, was faithful, feared God, and was a preacher of righteousness. I'd be hard pressed to make comparisons to those who enter the millennium (if they have taken the mark) to this man. I agree that it's probably not a strict chronology, but I do believe that it is generally chronological. I believe that at least parts of chapter 11 (the beginning of the testimony of the two witnesses specifically) starts before the mid point. I believe they are killed after the abomination (this is the *only* way that the timing can work out unless the abomination is not at the strict middle point, but at some point earlier, which may be possible, but i find it to be unlikely given the entire counsel of the eschatological passages surrounding the event). The chapter ends with the second woe and the sounding of the seventh trumpet, probably the third woe. There is a pause while a description of the dragon, beast, and false prophet are described in fairly great detail during chapters 12 and 13. It seems likely to me that chapter 14 comes on the heels of this description because their power is about to come to fruition. One final warning is given in chapter 14 for repentance and then we see the commencement of the bowl judgments starting with chapter 15 (though the actual descriptions of what happen with each one occur in chapter 16). I agree that this is a loose chronology at best, but it certainly seems to fit a reasonable progression of events. Judgment has indeed come at that point and is about to come to its full fruition. I don't see a real problem with such a timing. The second woe occurs after the deaths, resurrection, and ascension of the two witnesses. Judgment really starts even before the abomination, though, most likely, just not to the same degree. The judgments that are falling upon the earth are likely a part of the warning themselves as opposed to being entirely separate from it. Nearly every time we see a judgment occur mankind (except the saints) doubles down in their opposition to God. This is persistent throughout virtually the entire tribulation.