Bible insights

Greetings, true lambs! Let me preface this by saying that I heartily agree with Bro. Greg in his message to us all when he locked the "Mark of the Beast” thread; indeed, I also share belief in all the "simple truths” the Bro. listed. On another note, my own contributions, I must say, might not have always been "graceful” (who really wants to know my lunch plans?) but you can be sure that my exegesis ”“ and even my eisegesis(!) ”“ has been thoroughly "thought out”. So 1 out of 2 is at least promising enough for me to remain in Bro. Greg’s good books.

Moreover, I am the more mindful of the primary purpose of this site as "a place to grow, learn, serve and comment on the godly sermons found on this website”, as he reminded Jeff in the latter’s "God Bless you & farewell” thread. I must learn to respect that ”“ actually set out to listen to someone else (and certifiable authorities on Scriptural analysis/anointed preachers and teachers of the Word, at that) expound on Biblical truths. Truly, as Bro. Greg points out, "the people...that do not grow well in their walks with the Lord are those who are more busy sharing their own ideas then listening to godly anointed preaching and repenting of their ways”, etc.

Be that as it may, I believe that a believer may also help the Body proper by sharing a Biblical insight, or a series of insights, that he or she might have (or even think they have!). The truth, among this latter-day "cloud of witnesses” ”“ the truth-seekers on SI ”“ should shine forth eventually, should it not? In any case, "...in the multitude of counsellors there is safety”, right, brethren? So let’s not be coy in expressing disagreement over differing views, or in correcting blatant error, but "let (everything) be done in love”. (Caveat: "tares among the wheat” will be referred to Prov. 26:5. Or even to 26:4.)

Hello, chris³. I really liked the thoughts you posted on the "Mark of the Beast” thread. I think we’re on the same basic wavelength on the following: "That said: I have long believed that the mark represented something about a version of humanism -- man before God. This is the philosophy of this age and it has been embraced by some people who claim to love and follow Christ.

Whereas the Bible talks about this 666 number being the number of "a man," the word used is "anthrōpos" which is often translated as a pluralized or generalized version of "man" (e.g., "fishers of men," "man shall not live by bread alone," "every idle word that men shall speak," etc.).

There is a conceited philosophy in the world today that has even found its way in the "church" via the guise of "love." It is where people cannot fathom the truth of God and his plan for mankind because the "God" in their mind cannot be the one found in the Scriptures. It is the recreating God in the image of man rather than man in the image of God.

You hear this false teaching in churches around the world today. From "love wins" to the notion that "a loving God wouldn't send people to hell" -- this deception has crept its way into the doctrines of churches throughout the world. The notion of accountability for sin, repentance or even the need of a Savior are considered "archaic" to people who want to "feel good" from their "faith" rather than know the truth of the age.

I imagine that the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be quite offensive to those who feel a need to escape it and declare the entire world a "safe zone" that will free them from the "hate speech" of true Christianity. A physical mark might simply make the world a part of that fraternal order of humanism.”

Very well, folks, I hope you read my own last (marathonic) posts on the "Mark” thread to refresh your memories as to the shape pagan persecution took against the early Church (those original "haters”). I believe we’re coming around full-circle to that time by the way the whole world, it seems, is turning against Christians and their long-held values. But I’ll cut to the chase and state exactly how I interpret two or three symbols of the end time. (And, hopefully, we can all help fill in the gaps with our eschatological knowledge and understanding, or outright refute my views if they hold no water, either historically or exegetically. (But, hey, I’m entitled to my eisegesis, am I not?) :)

Okay, it seems pretty clear that the "temple of God” is no other than the Church. Second, the Beast itself: this is widely understood to represent a succession of worldly kingdoms, yes? You know...Babylon, Rome, etc. (Can we categorize that as "godless human government(s)”?) Therefore, the "image of the Beast”, another important part of the puzzle, may well be a TYPE of government or some entity that demands fealty and even "worship” (Rev. 13:15). I’ve thought a lot about this and candidates run the gamut from the Vatican to the Man of the Turin Shroud. Anyway, there’s also the second beast that looked like a lamb but "spake as a dragon” (hmm, why does that sound so familiar and current?), as well as the Antichrist and the "false prophet”. Quite an ensemble of characters! And candidates for any of these (to my eisegetic mind), include the above two, as well as the Papacy itself, the scientific establishment, a United States of Europe, AND the LGBT movement, among others.

And THIS brings me to the Mark of the Beast. Brethren, I posit that it is no other than "the acceptance (mentally, morally) and endorsement (in an active capacity; evidently) of SAME-SEX MARRIAGE”. This is today’s version of "sacrificing to idols, or else”. If not, ask the Kleins of Oregon, the Odgaards of Iowa, or the O’Connors of Indiana. And the list goes on and on and WILL get longer, mark (ha!) my words. Now, dear brethren (true lambs) chew me out if you have to. Blessings.

Prov. 26:5. Or even to 26:4

That is funny, in the early days of my walk with Christ when my children were very little and in that biting stage I was tempted to bite one back after they had bit their sibling and I figured it would teach them a lesson, the Holy Spirit quickened that scripture with understanding to me and it actually prevented me from biting my son, but out of that I have clarified so many ways in society we act contrary to the wisdom of God.

Hello, Julius, thanks for the encouragement!

Well, like you, I doubt the mark is something physical, but: that it nonetheless constitutes an overt sign of aquiescence. I have concluded, from a study of the Roman persecutions of the Church, that the clearest, and most personally-hazardous "test” for Christians in the present milieu is their attitude of acceptance or rejection of same-sex "marriage”. This is true especially here in the West, and impacts primarily one’s economy, although death threats and other forms of harassment are not uncommon. I firmly believe, if history is any guide (since "there is nothing new under the sun”), that this situation will only worsen for Christians.

Don’t forget that the Adversary counterfeits everything of import to the grand design God has for us. Did some of the angels not "leave their habitation” to procreate with women, and thus blaspheme God’s holy prerogative for an only-begotten Son, as well as trying to preempt God’s plan of Salvation altogether? (My take on it.) There is a Lamb of God and a lamblike Beast. A Christ ("anointed one”) and an Antichrist . A marriage of the Lord with the Church (symbolized by the union of male and female), and an unholy matrimony of... Now you’ve got me thinking of further semiotic implications... But you get my drift.

Btw, it sure would help to have a better idea of that "image of the Beast”. Any thoughts?

And, yes, I agree that marks are very important for both God and the powers of darkness, and that spiritual marks that are not (readily) visible to us, are very much so to all Spirit beings.

Now, would you agree that the Seal of God is no other than His Holy Spirit? Consider: "When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit...” (Eph. 1:13b), "(a)nd do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption”. (Eph. 4:30). Yet Revelation seems to point to an end-time mass "sealing”, doesn’t it? (Rev. 7:3) So either our chronology of end-time events is off or it’s two different divine seals involved (see also Rev. 7:2 with its mention of "the seal of the living God”).

Anyway, brother, I hope you find all this as fascinating as I do. Guess I’ll be calling it a night, though. The peace of Christ be with you.

defined as the ability to understand people and situations in a very clear way.

Did not realize you guys were resurrecting the mark of the beast thread, thought maybe we could all move on to maybe a different subject, something maybe less controversial and perhaps more edifying???

You are correct on this issue. The organized church will have to make a decision. I believe Wilkerson prophesied about this issue and said the government would use this as a tool to remove the tax status for many churches.

Dohzman: Greetings! I appreciate your concern about the potentially-disturbing character of the current subject but, if that is to be the Christian yardstick for issues that impact the Church, then the Book of Acts might have ended pretty quickly. Most likely, there would have been no need for the opponents of the Gospel to charge its messengers thus: "These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also...(!)”

Nevertheless, it is not my intention to create a particular polemic where it is unwelcome. These forums should exist for the edification of Christians at large and if its denizens collectively ascribe value to certain topics over others, it may well mean that they are indeed being edified thereby. Hallelujah. I feel I have already presented my key idea, and that it might germinate in the minds that are open to it. The rest is up to the Lord. Peace.

Julius: I wish I had taken a course on speedreading ”“ good grief, it took me a while to take in that whole Wikipedia article! Anyway, my thoughts:

1.The Church is shamefully and hopelessly fractured. Why the myriad "denominations”? Whatever happened to "be of one mind”?
2.This fragmenting will only deepen under the new wave of persecution (as it has already facilitated it), if history does indeed repeat itself: "The persecution did, however, cause many churches to split between those who had complied with imperial authority (the ‘traditores’), and those who had remained ‘pure’”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#Legacy
3."It seems it will be a matter of time before activist Judges, politicians and the like, attempt to legally force all pastors and churches to perform gay weddings. SSM has been put on the same level as human rights so failure to comply will mean that the church is discriminating and engaging in human rights violations.” What was that ancient charge ”“ "haters of mankind”?
4."Funny thing is when you accept a privilege from the State, you always, always, always give up some right(s).” True, true, true! (And chalk in: when you become a signatory to international conventions.)
5."House Churches will undoubtedly proliferate.” Guess we’ll be giving up those pews sometime soon.
6.From the article: "‘Even when the laws of the land are in conflict with their Bible-trained conscience, Jehovah's Witnesses do not engage in protests or any form of political campaigns in order to change such laws.’” Gotta say that’s my own position, isolationist me (although I’ve never been, nor plan to be, a JW.)
7.Moravians? They’re a mystery to me. Research, research...
8.Pentecostals (AOG): "’It should be noted at the outset that there is absolutely no affirmation of homosexual behavior found anywhere in Scripture. Rather, the consistent sexual ideal is chastity for those outside a monogamous heterosexual marriage and fidelity for those inside such a marriage. There is also abundant evidence that homosexual behavior, along with illicit heterosexual behavior, is immoral and comes under the judgment of God.’" Yeah, my view, too (although I’ve never been...).
9.Vineyard Churches, USA: Hmm, their 2014 statement sounds good on the surface, but there’s a je ne sais quoi about it... Research, research...

Anyway, later, bro, gotta go! (Num. 6:24-26 to you, though.)