mark of beast...my theory

[Starise]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

I am inclined to believe COVID-19 actually exists. My brother-in-law was diagnosed with it and almost died. To think the doctors in the hospital were acting in a deceitful manner in regards to both medical care and the financial costs thereof takes greater "faith" then believing COVID exists. 

As I have said from time to time: we won't know what's what with this for a two or three years (maybe longer). Until then much of what we hear/read is true but much is falsehood or propaganda (which are not the same thing), and we're all just trying to sort it out and stay healthy. 

Sorry to hear of your BIL. Have had similar with family and friends here. And I agree, the rest of it is very sketchy at this time. Hopefully we will learn more however there are probably some aspects of it we might never fully be made aware of. I just want it all to go away. That won't immediately happen. I have the same kinds of feelings about it as the WTC and similar events. Not saying it's an all out conspiracy like I think the WTC was, but I think it might be exploited. In the end fear is the underlying motivator with most people and we aren't to fear as Christians. Makes for a great dry run to see how I will react to such things. Can't speak for anyone else, though I mostly see what looks like fear in others as a motivator for concern. 

It certainly has changed our world. No doubt about that.

[Starise]

Just now, Josheb said:

Yes, but a vaccine or microchip is not the mark of the beast. Whatever else COVID-19 may or may not be relevant to prophesy a vaccine or chip is not the mark. 

I don't see how anyone even half studied in the scriptures would think this either.

The mark will demand more than  a decision for a vaccine. There will be no waffling either way. No doubts as to what it is for anyone who has read the word.

[Diaste]

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

Which is not the same as  fear of eschatological imaginations. 

Which is not the same as the fear of eschatological imaginations. 

And I do believe I agreed with that. 

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

Statements like this are where you and I get into my being blunt, you not liking it and complaining, then further digression ensues despite my bringing things back on topic at the end. I stated quite clearly and plainly "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." 

I apologize the discussion didn't fit some preconceived parameters. In the future I'll refrain from introducing options. 

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

I am not referring to fearfulness as a lifestyle. Neither do I appreciate the implication. I am not wrong. 

I didn't suggest you were wrong. The wrong was the condition of fearfulness. If I think you personally are wrong I promise I won't stoop to implications. 

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

The poster in question has a bad eschatology. Not only is the eschatology bad but it is being handled badly because it provokes nightmares. Since there isn't a place in scripture where nightmares are a normal healthy response for the believer in Christ I'm encouraging a reconsideration of the nightmare-causing eschatology to one less inclined to provoke such distress in a believer. 

Well...this is interesting.  Maybe the poster has an eschatological view that isn't desirable to some. That can be applied to many such schools of thought. I think this is more of a specific instance of a portion of the view, not the whole entity. 

A 'healthy response'? Who's the arbiter? You? It's just a response to specific stimuli and from what I can tell it's not a general condition. 

It's nearly laughable to invoke the argument from silence to prove your point. No evidence proves nothing. How do you know what does or does not exist or occurred if there is nothing that says otherwise? 

You are certain of the 'correct' emotional responses to the receiving of dreams and visions from the Lord when the text is silent?  

From personal experience I can assert the range is varied.

 

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

It is that plain and simple. The questions asked were:

Do you think an eschatology that prompts nightmares in the members of Christ's body comes from God?
Do you think an eschatology that breeds fear among the ekklesia comes from God? 

I think I already said, "Generally, no."

15 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

I do not think such things comes from God. And I believe there was agreement posted. Fearlessness as a lifestyle has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

I was just trying to find out where you were coming from. In the past, probably even today, groups have taught the fear of the Lord is mitigated into reverence or respect, not real trembling in the face of the power of God and the dire consequences of our rebellion. 

[Diaste]

On 11/18/2020 at 5:42 PM, Josheb said:

Few currently in the discussion are going to agree with me and since I know many of you don't handle my "style" well I've chosen to remain circumspect. But... since you asked (remember: you asked, so don't get upset because I answered, answered differently, and answered decisively).....

 

Whatever the mark was is lost to the centuries because the mark is not a future event or condition. It is a past occurrence. 

Some are going to dismiss that out of hand. Some are going to dismiss that because it is preterist and they'll have nothing to do with anything remotely preterist even thought we're all preterist to some degree. Some will dismiss it simply because it is contrary to their position. I can make the case from scripture for what I believe and am happy to do so with anyone actually genuinely interested in knowing the case for what I just stated. I don't feel the need to persuade anyone to change but if the case I present is factually correct, exegetically correct and logically rational then the need for any change speaks for itself. 

I will begin with the opening words of Revelation as written, plainly stated and plainly read without any additional interpretation. 

Revelation 1:1-3
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:  Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.  Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." 

Revelation 1:1-3
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,  who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.  Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near." 

Revelation-1:3
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,  who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.  Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near."

The Greek terms used for the portions I have place in bold-face type are "tachei" which literally means "quickly" or "in quickness or with speed" and "engys" which literally means "near" as in "near in place or time." "Engys" transliterally mean "in hand" or "at hand," (en = in or at; gys = hand). That is what the scriptures states and that is what I believe. The events described subsequent to the opening verses were going to happen quickly because the time was then  near. Revelation begins with these qualifiers and it ends with these very same qualifiers (see Rev. 22:7,10). 

 

So.... whatever the mark was, it happened within a timeframe that was quickly coming to pass, or shortly coming to pass, and a timeframe that was near to when the vision was given to John. 

 

The most frequently occurring responses to this are...

1) a post-hoc appeal to "When did this happen?" or "No, it has not yet happened!" Post hoc ergo hoc is a fallacy.
2) the baseless interpretation the near is in reference to some unspecified future group of believers during whose time the near becomes relevant.
3) an appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 that ignores the fact Peter was saying Psalm 90:4 was coming true and ignores the fact God always uses the word "near" to mean near, and 
4) ad hominem, appeals to ridicule, and/or straw men. 

 

I hope things will be different this time . 

What I posted above are the facts of scripture. The facts aren't open for debate or dispute. What we do with the facts may be disputed but what the facts themselves cannot be. Maybe we can discuss how those facts bear on the MOB but there will be no agreement with anyone who does not accept the facts of scripture as scripture itself asserts them. as written, plainly stated and plainly read. This will prove particularly problematic for anyone claiming to read prophesy literally because a literal reading of Rev. 1:1-3 makes it clear the MOB is a past occurrence. 

We needn't be looking for it in our future. We should be applying the lessons and/or precepts/principles taught in those scriptures today, but we're not looking for a future mark and we're definitely not doing so with any apprehension, dread, or vigilance. 

 

Yes...'If'. The mark is associated with a 42 month time period in which many things occur, one being the return of the Lord; when after said return He sets up a 1000 year reign. This would be a noted event in the history of the world and it's unlikely to be forgotten. We have no evidence this had occurred.

The 'soon come to pass' and 'the time is near' has the additional connotation of 'in the realm' meaning: the quickness of the events is specific to the time at which they begin, the speed of occurrence in the sphere of the events, not specific to a near or far time/space moment.

So then the mark has not occurred.

[R. Hartono]

On 11/13/2020 at 7:17 AM, doubleplay425 said:

Hello everyone!

I'm not sure how many people here are concerned about the vaccine being the mark of the beast, but quite obviously it can't be.

You don't get a shot in the hand or forehead!

My theory is that this may be a precursor to the mark of the beast.  It may be required for people to get vaccinated, or strongly recommended, in the name of "public health".  This will be a way to save lives and improve our quality of life. Along with the vaccine, as you may be aware, you receive some subcutaneous piece of technology that allows for people to know who has been vaccinated.  

Later, PERHAPS, they may go one step further with the RFID chip.  They may say, again, that it is in the name of the common good that people receive the chip so that crime can be done away, taxes cannot be avoided, keys can be done away with, archaic forms of ID can be done away with, and even that filthy money can become a thing of the past with digital transactions.

Let's say I'm right (and please chime in if you think I'm not...I've got thick skin). Would it be made optional?

How could God send someone to hell if this chip was forced on you? Wouldn't that mean that it would be recommended and therefore people would exercise their free will to accept?

Lastly, I started wondering about the prophets in the Bible.  How did they receive prophecy? Was it always through God speaking to them and/or giving them visions of the future?  How would the prophet John have known about this hand or forehead mark of the beast? Would he have had a vision of someone scanning there hand to purchase something and also saw someone getting his or her forehead scanned?

Discuss!

It can be a depopulation agenda as BG said its going to be even worst in 2021.

[doubleplay425]

On 12/15/2020 at 8:31 AM, Josheb said:

On 12/15/2020 at 7:40 AM, Diaste said:

So then the mark has not occurred.

I disagree but that has nothing to do with my point(s) here in this discussion

First I just want to let everyone know this wasn't a nightmare I had. They were thoughts that occurred in the wee hours of the night when I had trouble sleeping. 

Josheb, would you mind sharing what event fulfilled the mark of the beast? 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by doubleplay425

[1to3]

This Abraham accord coin shows what the NWO has planned

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 12/14/2020 at 1:42 PM, Starise said:

I don't see how anyone even half studied in the scriptures would think this either.

The mark will demand more than  a decision for a vaccine. There will be no waffling either way. No doubts as to what it is for anyone who has read the word.

Vaccines are normally given in your upper arm or behind areas.   That's quite the distance from the {right hand/forehead} unless the chip [if there is a microchip] somehow could maneuver its way to those critical areas.

[Diaste]

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

I would if I could but the canon closed before it occurred. Whatever it was, it was not a vaccine or a computer chip. 

 

You understand the book of Revelation pertains to "the things that are, and the things that are about to take place after these," yes? Some of what is contained in Revelation occurred before John was shown the vision, before he penned a single word. The woman giving birth, for example, had already occurred and occurred long before John wrote a single word. The Greek word for "about to" is "mellei," and it is conjugated in the tense meaning "to be about to," "on the point of," "soon to come", "point of action".  It's root, "melló" can also mean can also mean intend, delay, linger, or or sure, propose, or ready to happen but the present active indicative conjugation does not permit any interpretation meaning thousands of years later. I'm not a Greek language scholar so don't take my word for it; ook it up if there's any doubt.

Well so much has not taken that we must ask "Why?" Do you have an answer? What's the evidence? How does one explain why some things have not occurred if it was supposed to happen long ago?

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

The mark has come and gone

Can you prove this?

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

Read a few books on exegesis. I recommend Gordon Fee's books. He's a futurist but he teaches exegesis well (even if he doesn't always practice it). I also encourage you to give Anthony Hokema's "The Bible and the Future," Kim Riddlebarger's "The Case for Amillennilaism," and Gary Demar's "Last Days Madness" a read. The first two authors write from the same position. The last author much different and a little harsh in places but the content is still worth reading. The book, "The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views," is a good intro to that topic. Zondervan also has a series of books where a small group of theologians assert their particular view and the other three or four critique it. These are much more accommodating and respectful, less vitriolic. These are the books in the 34-volume Zondervan's "Counterpoint" series and the ones relevant to this top are, 

"Four Views on the Boo of Revelation" 
"Four Views on the Millennium and Beyond"
"Three Views on the Rapture"

Most, if not all are available in Kindle format for much less than the Logos prices.

The works of the Ministry of Propaganda cited for our consideration.

 

 

[Don19]

10 hours ago, Josheb said:

 Whatever the mark may be it must be something the author and his original audience could understand.

That's a good point. Rev 13:9.

Either the mark refers specifically to Roman Catholicism and its adherents, or it refers more generally to those who trust in something other than Christ alone (which includes Roman Catholics, but also many others). God created both man and beast on the sixth day, and therefore to take the mark of the beast could be to rely on the sacrifice of man for salvation and not Christ. The term "antichrist" in Greek literally means in place of Christ. Those who have the spirit of antichrist substitute a trust in their own works for a trust in Christ. If this is so, then ironically, those who warn about the vaccine being the MOTB may have taken the mark themselves, if they think Christ's blood won't cover them should they consent to be vaccinated.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Don19