Mark of the Beast

Jimlarmore said:

The Bible itself claims to be the Holy inspired Word of God. If God told them to do something it was indeed a holy act. There is a lot in the Bible that seems strange to us but if we dig deeply we can usually find a holy theme. What incidence are you talking about.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Click to expand...

Yes. If God who claims to be holy asks anyone to commit a sin, then He is a lier and our faith is in vain.

TrustAndObey said:

Just look around this thread Night. Jim asked for the Progressive view of what the mark of the beast is.

Has he gotten an answer?

Nope.

My guess is that he won't.

Click to expand...

And what principle of logic says he must?

Jimlarmore said:

IThe Bible itself claims to be the Holy inspired Word of God. If God told them to do something it was indeed a holy act. There is a lot in the Bible that seems strange to us but if we dig deeply we can usually find a holy theme. What incidence are you talking about.

Click to expand...

The Bible makes no such claim but obviously that is what you believe. That aside, this argument of yours is the same kind that allowed 19 young men to fly planes into buildings in the name of Allah.

Those who say part of the Bible isn't inspired or is wrong should read Christ's Object Lessons page 39 to 40. I quote:

Many professed ministers of the gospel do not accept the whole Bible as the inspired word. One wise man rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the word; and the Scripture which they do teach rests upon their own authority. Its divine authenticity is destroyed. Thus the seeds of infidelity are sown broadcast; for the people become confused and know not what to believe. There are many beliefs that the mind has no right to entertain. In the days of Christ the rabbis put a forced, mystical construction upon many portions of Scripture. Because the plain teaching of God's word condemned their practices, they tried to destroy its force. The same thing is done today. The word of God is made to appear mysterious and obscure in order to excuse transgression of His law. Christ rebuked these practices in His day. He taught that the word of God was to be understood by all. He pointed to the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority, and we should do the same. The Bible is to be presented as the Word of the infinite God, as the end of all constroversy and the foundation of all faith.

daro2096 said:

Those who say part of the Bible isn't inspired or is wrong should read Christ's Object Lessons page 39 to 40. I quote:

Many professed ministers of the gospel do not accept the whole Bible as the inspired word. One wise man rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the word; and the Scripture which they do teach rests upon their own authority. Its divine authenticity is destroyed. Thus the seeds of infidelity are sown broadcast; for the people become confused and know not what to believe. There are many beliefs that the mind has no right to entertain. In the days of Christ the rabbis put a forced, mystical construction upon many portions of Scripture. Because the plain teaching of God's word condemned their practices, they tried to destroy its force. The same thing is done today. The word of God is made to appear mysterious and obscure in order to excuse transgression of His law. Christ rebuked these practices in His day. He taught that the word of God was to be understood by all. He pointed to the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority, and we should do the same. The Bible is to be presented as the Word of the infinite God, as the end of all constroversy and the foundation of all faith.

Click to expand...

Jehoaikim comes to mind. Remember that story? He's the reason the phrase "pen knife Christian" came into play. He cut out the parts of scripture he didn't like or didn't feel applied to him personally. Eventually nothing was left.

I really do have a problem with people that not only say parts of scripture were incorrect or uninspired but then claim to know exactly which parts of it apply to their human understanding of "incorrect".

If that's true, that they know exaclty which PARTS of it are valid and which parts aren't, I guess we're expected to believe that the Holy Spirit wouldn't give the rest of us that knowledge too when we ask.

TrustAndObey said:

I really do have a problem with people that not only say parts of scripture were incorrect or uninspired but then claim to know exactly which parts of it apply to their human understanding of "incorrect".

If that's true, that they know exaclty which PARTS of it are valid and which parts aren't, I guess we're expected to believe that the Holy Spirit wouldn't give the rest of us that knowledge too when we ask.

Click to expand...

And well you should have problems with that situation. But, given your track record here, something tells me that you are misrepresenting what those people have actually said.

daro2096 said:

Those who say part of the Bible isn't inspired or is wrong should read Christ's Object Lessons page 39 to 40. I quote:

Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone here to whom this applies. Do you? If so please provide some evidence.

I wonder what Jesus stood up and read in the synagogue on the Sabbath day?

I also wonder what He he was quoting when He said (several times) "is it not written......"

Jim, do you think those guys would have flown those planes into those buildings if they did not believe the Koran gave them permission to do so?

I never claimed that God commanded anyone to rape virgins. Please read my carefully.

TrustAndObey said:

But to say he did, and quote the Pharisees' statement as FACT, is agreeing with them that He did break it right? It never ceases to amaze me how many people agree with the very people that plotted to kill our Savior. And yes, I had heard that before that they plotted to kill Him on the Sabbath. That's definitely not "keeping it holy" amen? Yet they wanted to put Him to death for healing a man. BE CAREFUL WHO YOU AGREE WITH!!!

Click to expand...

...I don't agree with what the Pharisee's did being 'just', I was merely pointing out that those who were the Sabbath-keepers of all Sabbath-keepers of His day were 'offended'. this was in response to the statement made in Telaquapacky's original post, "Our teaching is that the mark of the beast is the persecution of Sabbath-keepers by Sunday-keepers." I'm at a loss as to how this could be 'instituted', unless we plead to 'extremism'. too many 'religions' meet on Sunday as it is, even JW's! are the 'elect' only those that adhere to keeping the Sabbath? if so, why does Paul say, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." the only I can see 'persecution' arising over this issue is from those who know not the Lord of the Sabbath, and are instead 'offended' in Him.

NightEternal said:

As for the seal of God, I believe it is the Holy Spirit, not the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

That’s the most important thing for anyone to know about the mark of the beast.

When I see how the seal of God is described in Revelation, and following it, the mark of the beast in contrast; combine that with knowing that when Jesus returns it’s a zero-sum game- every human being either has the seal of God or the mark of the beast…

The impression I get is that the mark of the beast is by default. If you don’t have the Holy Spirit, you automatically, by default, receive the mark of the beast.

How does that relate to a National Sunday Law? Most Protestant churches that keep Sunday will tell you that they are opposed to Sunday Laws on the principle that worship is a voluntary act of love for God that loses it’s whole meaning and purpose if it is legislated, or performed under compulsion. But not everyone feels this way. If 9-11 type events began to happen in greater severity or astonishing frequency, enough so that they brought about a major paradigm shift in people’s orientation to freedom of religion in the Western democracies, and a Sunday Law were part of a “Patriot Act” kind of religious profiling scheme to protect us against further attacks, or whatever other pretext were given- who would go along with the Sunday Law and who would oppose it? This might separate those who have the Spirit of God living in them, by habit and practice and constant devotion (5 wise virgins), from those who don’t have it, and who merely attend church.

The Sunday Law would then only be a “litmus test.” The real criterion of salvation or loss would be the person’s filling with the Holy Spirit, or lack therof.

PostTribber said:

...I don't agree with what the Pharisee's did being 'just', I was merely pointing out that those who were the Sabbath-keepers of all Sabbath-keepers of His day were 'offended'. this was in response to the statement made in Telaquapacky's original post, "Our teaching is that the mark of the beast is the persecution of Sabbath-keepers by Sunday-keepers." I'm at a loss as to how this could be 'instituted', unless we plead to 'extremism'. too many 'religions' meet on Sunday as it is, even JW's! are the 'elect' only those that adhere to keeping the Sabbath? if so, why does Paul say, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." the only I can see 'persecution' arising over this issue is from those who know not the Lord of the Sabbath, and are instead 'offended' in Him.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 58:3 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

Exactly that's the point. God is the Lord of the Sabbath. By keeping the 7th day sabbath holy, the professed believers acknowledge God the creator as their Master and Ruler.

Col 2:16 is not talking about the new moons, annual sabbaths and weekly sabbaths.

The key phrase is 'in respect to'. That means the activities performed in connections to those three occassions: the Meal Offerings, Drink Offerings and Sin Offerings...these were shadows pointed to Christ.

Is the new moon a shadow that points to Christ? Of course not. How can they (new moon, annual feasts, weekly sabbaths) be a shadow of Christ?

Hi PostTribber,

You have raised a very valid point. I can also understand why you brought it up. However to give you a proper answer will require much more than the post here have addressed so far. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to give you a complete explaination. I will do my best to come back a little later and cover this topic for you from start to finish. Please be patient with me.

Please feel free to PM me at any time if you have any questions.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

Hi, Post Tribber!
I note that you are a fellow Protestant, though not an Adventist. It is hard to understand what we are talking about if you are not very familiar with our theology, escathology, and our understanding of church history.

When you mention that the majority of Christian faiths are Sunday-keeping faiths, you may be surprised to hear that this was not always the case. The apostolic churches were all Sabbath-keeping churches. When Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70, they expelled all Jews from Jerusalem, and this included the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ, because most of them were Jews, and all of them kept the Sabbath. When the headquarters of the church was moved to Antioch, the hub of Christian missionary outreach to Asia, a rival headquarters began to emerge in Rome itself. The Western church, which was influenced by the Church Fathers in Rome and Alexandria, wanted to distance themselves from the Jewish heritage of Christianity. They also wanted to escape persecution by Pagan Rome. So the Western church began to incorporate in their Christian belief and practice, some sacraments and doctrines which were influenced by Paganism. One of them was to change the day of worship from the Seventh-day Sabbath to the Roman Dies Solis, or “Day of the Sun.” Meanwhile, the churches in the East, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, kept the Sabbath, and kept to more of the Biblical teachings of the apostles. The church in the West recognized Rome as the most important center of world government, culture and religion, and so they regarded the Bishop of the church of Rome to be the most important of all Christian leaders. The Roman Empire accepted Christianity as a legal religion (with certain stipulations) by the Emperor Constantine. Constantine made Sunday the official day of worship of the Western church. Now, Pagan Rome became Christian Rome, or Papal Rome, as the Bishop of Rome was elevated to the position of leader of the church in the west. One of the Pope’s first acts was to excommunicate the Patriarch of the Eastern church, because he wanted to be the exclusive, unchallenged leader of the Christian church, and to control and enforce all church doctrine and practice. Two of the Pope’s early conflicts with the Church of the East were the proper date of the observance of “Easter,” which the Eastern Church celebrated on the first Sunday following the Jewish Passover (as opposed to the Western Church, which took the first Sunday after the Vernal Equinox- which coincidentally was the worship day of the Pagan goddess of fertility, Ishtar- where we get the word “Easter” from), and the observance by the Eastern Church of the Seventh-day Sabbath, as opposed to the Sunday, honored in the West. The conflict became very bloody indeed with centers of the Inquisition being set up all over Asia, most notoriously in India, to force the Sabbath-keeping Christians into submission. It eventually resulted in the almost complete eradication of Sabbath keeping and it’s memory in the Christian world. The tide was turned in around the seventh century. Previous to that time, the majority of Christians were Seventh-day Sabbath-keepers. Basically, Rome changed Sabbath to Sunday. Sunday remains a mark of the Pope's eccliastical authority over Christianity.

The Protestant Reformers, seeking to re-establish the Biblical principles of Righteousness by Faith, wanted to re-create in Christianity the pure Biblical doctrine. But the Seventh-day Sabbath had become so identified in the minds of Christians with legalism and works righteousness, that the Reformers never had either the political capital, nor “teachable moment” to restore this Biblical truth and commandment of God to Christianity. Moreover, Europe was anti-Semitic. So. Sunday Remains!

Jim, the facts don't matter. What matters is what people believe. You want to believe that 911 happened because of hate. The fact is, right or wrong, these people believe that the West hates them and their religion.

In fact, it is all madness but that has little effect on what is happening.

Here is the passage again. [Bible]Judges 21:20-24[/Bible]. Thanks for suggesting that I made it up. That's just great.

"Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." Isaiah 8:16

The Mark of the Beast as Tele and DL have rightly stated, is more about who you align with, rather than any specific "thing". You are sealed for God, or marked for satan, you are "slaves to the one you obey."

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments." I believe those who will be sealed in the last days will keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus.


It is important to note that the enforcing of the MOB is not emphasised in Revelation: there is only one verse on this - Revelation 13:16. The most stressed in Revelation to do with the beast is not to worship its image. If you worship the image of something, you are worshipping the object indirectly. This is where the Sabbath ties into things.


It is my opinion that the Sabbath, as EGW says, will be the deciding factor on who receives the seal of God and who does not. It is the one commandment that purely tests who we obey. Any Christian can clearly see it is wrong to steal or kill, or take God's name in vain. However, the Sabbath tests man's allegiance. EGW said she saw the fourth commandment shining brighter than all the others (for those who believe her visions actually count for something).


I do not believe that the Sabbath "is" the seal of God. It will be the precursor to who receives it, yes. By choosing to disobey the fourth commandment, and worship on Sunday, I believe this wilful decision will be the last.


Ezekiel saw the priests of God with their backs to the temple, and their faces toward the sun, the greatest abomination. Revelation says the "whole world" will wonder after the beast, and worship his image.

Even more, the seal of God is said to contain at least His name (Revelation 14:1) - where the mark is said to have the name of the beast (Revelation 13:17)

Notice: Root of Sab - Ab - meaning "Father"
Root of Ath - Oth - meaning "sign"
Prefix "B" - dwelling place of



Jon