Ensignia Mark of the Beast

[highflyertoo]

To date no one knows what the Mark of the Beast is that Scripture says will be put upon peoples foreheads or right hands as an identification for people who worship the Beast's prosperity and might through witchcraft.

We or the people who have been given understanding are aware of the name of the Beast.For his name is Beast.

Now as for the number of his name,we or those who have been given understanding know the number to be 666.

So the two above types of branding or etching onto the forehead or right hand has been revealed in Revelation 13:17.

Types of branding for being able to buy and sell without being put to death are

1) His name called, BEAST

2) Number of his name, 666

3) ''Mark'' of the Beast ?????????????? no one knows his emblem mark or trademark or insignia mark..... it's a big hidden mystery

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell,save he had the MARK, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.


The Mark of the Beast is to be the most prominent and widely used of the identification brandings........ Just say no to the Beast to really annoy Satan his father.

[duxrow]

In Genesis 4:15 a mark was put on Cain... a contrast maybe ?
Why not the left hand?

Today we're apt to say "I've got your number", meaning we know what they're up to (no good, usually).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In Genesis 4:15 a mark was put on Cain... a contrast maybe ?
Why not the left hand?

Today we're apt to say "I've got your number", meaning we know what they're up to (no good, usually).

Another good example is this vision given to Ezekiel where all the Jews were killed except those who had the mark:

Ezekiel 9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. 5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

The symbolism seems pretty clear. We need to remember that Revelation is a vision with symbolic meaning, not a screenplay for future events.

[Beck]

Another good example is this vision given to Ezekiel where all the Jews were killed except those who had the mark:

Ezekiel 9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. 5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

The symbolism seems pretty clear. We need to remember that Revelation is a vision with symbolic meaning, not a screenplay for future events.

That's the verse I was thinking of .....

[highflyertoo]

Another good example is this vision given to Ezekiel where all the Jews were killed except those who had the mark:

Ezekiel 9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. 5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

The symbolism seems pretty clear. We need to remember that Revelation is a vision with symbolic meaning, not a screenplay for future events.

How are the Jews killed if you're saying that passage of scripture (Ezekiel 9:4-6) was strictly symbolic?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How are the Jews killed if you're saying that passage of scripture (Ezekiel 9:4-6) was strictly symbolic?

The Jews in the vision were symbolic of Jews that would suffer God's judgment in some unspecified way. Or do you think there was a time in history when someone literally went through Jerusalem putting literal marks on the foreheads of those who were faithful so they would not be killed?

[highflyertoo]

The Jews in the vision were symbolic of Jews that would suffer God's judgment in some unspecified way. Or do you think there was a time in history when someone literally went through Jerusalem putting literal marks on the foreheads of those who were faithful so they would not be killed?

Can you tell me the actual suffering they were to bear if it was not taken as literal?


And yes someone did literally put somekind of a mark on the questioned faithful to show they were exempt from the slaughter that was about to happen.

There was nothing symbolic about it at all as God is cruel.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

To date no one knows what the Mark of the Beast is that Scripture says will be put upon peoples foreheads or right hands as an identification for people who worship the Beast's prosperity and might through witchcraft.

We or the people who have been given understanding are aware of the name of the Beast.For his name is Beast.

Now as for the number of his name,we or those who have been given understanding know the number to be 666.

So the two above types of branding or etching onto the forehead or right hand has been revealed in Revelation 13:17.

Types of branding for being able to buy and sell without being put to death are

1) His name called, BEAST

2) Number of his name, 666

3) ''Mark'' of the Beast ?????????????? no one knows his emblem mark or trademark or insignia mark..... it's a big hidden mystery

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell,save he had the MARK, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.


The Mark of the Beast is to be the most prominent and widely used of the identification brandings........ Just say no to the Beast to really annoy Satan his father.

I think the meaning of the mark of the beast is pretty plain and obvious. I just explained my view in another thread a few minutes ago. I'll repeat it here since you have started a thread devoted to this topic.

Revelation makes it very clear that it is a symbol marking those who are not saved. It is the unbelievers' counterpart to the "Father's name" that is written on the forehead of believers. This is confirmed by the fact that the mark of the beast and the mark on believers appear together within the space of four verses. That's called "context." And it is confirmed again by the OT symbolism that readers of Revelation would have recognized:

Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes [forehead]. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

I don't think there is any mystery about the mark of the beast at all. The confusion was created by the incoherent "literal interpretation" promoted by Futurists who don't have half a clue about how to interpret the Bible.

[David M]

I think the meaning of the mark of the beast is pretty plain and obvious. I just explained my view in another thread a few minutes ago. I'll repeat it here since you have started a thread devoted to this topic.

Revelation makes it very clear that it is a symbol marking those who are not saved. It is the unbelievers' counterpart to the "Father's name" that is written on the forehead of believers. This is confirmed by the fact that the mark of the beast and the mark on believers appear together within the space of four verses. That's called "context." And it is confirmed again by the OT symbolism that readers of Revelation would have recognized:

Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes [forehead]. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

I don't think there is any mystery about the mark of the beast at all. [COLOR="#FF0000"]The confusion was created by the incoherent "literal interpretation" promoted by Futurists who don't have half a clue about how to interpret the Bible.

Hello Richard

On this I agree with you more than I do with highflyertoo. I think from a later post of highflyertoo, I think he means "symbolic" when he says "literally". This is another of those confusing areas mixing up the literal with the symbolic.

Your claim that Futurist have no clue how to interpret the Bible is a wide-sweeping statement that should not include all Futurists. Those who have got a clue, could say the same about Preterists.

I appreciate it when you get things right and appreciate that you are applying a correct approach on occassions to Bible study. I wish you would apply the same principle of getting "the context" to Jude 5,6,7 I cannot understand how you do not get the "angels" into proper context.

All the best.

David

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

On this I agree with you more than I do with highflyertoo. I think from a later post of highflyertoo, I think he means "symbolic" when he says "literally". This is another of those confusing areas mixing up the literal with the symbolic.

Good morning David,

I'm a bit confused aboutwhere highflyertoo is coming from. In other posts, he has expressed what looked like strong skepticism for the Bible, but in this thread he seems to be taking it very literally and as if it were fully accurate. So we'll just have to wait and see. He'll clear things up I'm sure.

Your claim that Futurist have no clue how to interpret the Bible is a wide-sweeping statement that should not include all Futurists. Those who have got a clue, could say the same about Preterists.

I can see why you might think I painted with too broad a brush. There may indeed be folks who think of themselves as Futurists who know how to interpret the Bible. But they are so rare that I forgot to qualify my statement. Sorry about that, I certainly did not mean any offense. I'm just expressing my opinion like everyone else, which is something I strongly encourage in everyone to do. And I'm glad you called me on it - we should all be ready to give answers for the things we say. When I said "Futurist" I was thinking along the lines of the dominant Dispensational school of thought that just invents things willy-nilly to support doctrines that directly contradict a host of mutually confirming verses. I've been discussing this topic on this forum for many years now and have so many successful arguments under my belt that I sometimes forget my words can seem unfounded and overblown to those who have not studied this topic as much.

The views of the Preterists and Futurists are widely divergent. They can't both be true by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to me that almost all the evidence falls on the side of Preterism. The essential problem is that almost all varieties of Futurists deny that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century. They then have to dispute the meaning of "this generation" as well as a host of confirming time texts. And worse, they must shred the integrity of the three synoptic versions of the Olivet Discourse to break out the parts that are supposedly future. When Twospirits tried to do this, he ended up asserting that the same sequence of words found in Matthew and Mark were yet future, whereas those same words referred to a past event in Luke. It is an utterly unjustifiable inconsistency that would, if true, make it entirely impossible to interpret the text with any confidence.

I appreciate it when you get things right and appreciate that you are applying a correct approach on occassions to Bible study. I wish you would apply the same principle of getting "the context" to Jude 5,6,7 I cannot understand how you do not get the "angels" into proper context.

I already did that, but you rejected my answer without reason, as far as I can tell. Jude quoted the book of Enoch. He took the words from a CONTEXT which spoke of angels having sex with women. This was the common belief amongst the Jews at the time Jude wrote. Likewise, Peter said the angels that sinned were chained in Tartarus, and again, the CONTEXT tells us that Tartarus was the place the Zeus chained the Titans who rebelled. And again, Jude quoted from the apocryphal "Testament of Moses" which talked about an dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses. I presume you agree that Michael is a real angel, not a mere human messenger. If so, then you must choose to be entirely inconsistent and say that a literal angel had a "metaphorical" dispute with the symbol "Satan." And on and on it goes. This is what happens when you try to invent doctrines to match what you want the Bible to say. No error will stand in the light of truth. False interpretations are pretty easy to spot because they are "disintegrated" in a most literal sense. They do not cohere with the truth, and so are exposed.

I would be happy to discuss this more, but you reject all evidence concerning the sources Jude used in his little book. That means you are rejecting the CONTEXT that is required before anyone can understand what he intended. The only way you can know, for example, what Peter meant by "Tartarus" is to look into first century Greek literature. We have no other source. The word appears only once in the Bible. Your rejection of the Greek sources is a rejection of scholarship and makes accurate understanding of the Bible impossible, much as would happen if you rejected all Greek dictionaries and lexicons.

Great chatting!

Richard