Ensignia Mark of the Beast

[highflyertoo]

To think the Mark of the Beast is symbolic when it states how it ''if accepted'' is to be placed on the right hand and or forehead is trying to undermine the plain talking.

Too often preachers and their allies try to keep the scriptures in the context of a great mystery.Not everything is a parable,and when it is a parable ,some of those parables have been explained in the scriptures for people who would read them later in the future.

So the actual MARK of the Beast is a physical mark pertaining to his Lordship over the Earth,when and ''if'' he comes. For the Temple has not even been rebuilt for the Beast to sit in with his STATUE IMAGE OF HIMSELF which is called the Abomination that makes Desolate.

So I say to you people here who are worthy to be called SAINTS and those of you here who are in agreement with the saints, I say to keep telling people in a ''gentle manner'' to resist evil and for people not to give up. For who knows?,If the Lord God Almighty will cause the prophecies of the Beast to be aborted. For in the book of Jeremiah it says that God can change the evils or goods that has been foretold of Nations.

Jeremiah 18:7-10 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
[8] If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
[9] And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
[10] If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.


So the proof is in the scriptures whereby the Beast who is dertimined for perdition can repent from accepting Satan's magic power and so aviod Armageddon and aviod acting out many evil deeds prior to Armageddon.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

To think the Mark of the Beast is symbolic when it states how it ''if accepted'' is to be placed on the right hand and or forehead is trying to undermine the plain talking.

Too often preachers and their allies try to keep the scriptures in the context of a great mystery.Not everything is a parable,and when it is a parable ,some of those parables have been explained in the scriptures for people who would read them later in the future.

So the actual MARK of the Beast is a physical mark pertaining to his Lordship over the Earth,when and ''if'' he comes. For the Temple has not even been rebuilt for the Beast to sit in with his STATUE IMAGE OF HIMSELF which is called the Abomination that makes Desolate.

So I say to you people here who are worthy to be called SAINTS and those of you here who are in agreement with the saints, I say to keep telling people in a ''gentle manner'' to resist evil and for people not to give up. For who knows?,If the Lord God Almighty will cause the prophecies of the Beast to be aborted. For in the book of Jeremiah it says that God can change the evils or goods that has been foretold of Nations.

Jeremiah 18:7-10 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
[8] If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
[9] And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
[10] If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.


So the proof is in the scriptures whereby the Beast who is dertimined for perdition can repent from accepting Satan's magic power and so aviod Armageddon and aviod acting out many evil deeds prior to Armageddon.

Could you please quote the verse that says the mark is "accepted" by the people who received it? It's not in any of the translations I checked.

The mark of the beast is a symbol representing unbelievers. It corresponds to the "Father's Name" written on the forehead of believers. Given that the latter is symbolic, so is the former. It's like the characters in the vision were marked with labels saying who belongs to whom - Satan or God. It seems pretty simple and clear to me.

As for your suggestion that God might change his plans - if that's true, then maybe nothing in the book of Revelation will happen at all (in your interpretation).

From my perspective, Revelation happened in the first century when Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple desolated. Note that word, desolated? As in the Abomination of Desolation. Your theory that it is yet future contradicts many things in Scripture. There cannot be another "Holy Temple" of God to be desolated for two reasons. 1) Christ is the true temple, 2) God wouldn't call a Temple built by unbelieving Jews "My House."

The physical temple was still standing when Paul said that the man of sin would present himself in the temple and proclaim himself God. I think it refers to an apostate high priest who walked around like he owned the place. This fits well with the actual history of their behavior just before the desolation of the Temple.

[David M]

I am throwing into the arena to do with the Mark of the Beast the idea I have heard that the mark is the keeping of the Sabbath on the Sunday (first day of the week). The Sabbath on a Sunday is already kept by many churches and it is suggested that this will be made mandatory by the Beast (the false church) in the time to come. This is said to be in direct opposition to God's commandment to keep the Sabbath day, which in the Mosaic law is Saturday. Of course this brings up this argument as to whether it is correct now to keep the Sabbath on the Saturday or the Sunday, but in the case of the mark, the ruling church empire will dictate that the Sabbath must be kept on the Sunday.

It is suggested that the right hand represents the working hand by which a one earns a living to supports oneself and family. In the same way as those who do not have the mark of the Beast, will not be able to buy and sell, also they will not be allowed to work as a way of making them conform or go without.

The mark of the Beast in whatever form is true, must impact on the lives of those living at the time the Beast's power is effective. We should look at all the implications of this in people's lives.

This subject has got me thinking about starting a thread on the subject of 'The Right Hand and the Left Hand' which is a phrase we often come across and the particular phrases relating to the right hand only.


David

[Twospirits]

What many fail to see is that the beast is a 'kingdom' made up of 'peoples' and not 'a man' (individual) as many believe. The number six hundred and sixty six is the number of 'the beast,' (kingdom) not the number of 'a man.' The description of the beast and the context of the passage (Rev. 13:18) makes this clear. If John had meant 'a man' he would have written 'aner' which means 'a male individual,' rather than 'anthropos' which means 'mankind.'

Rev. 13:18, 'Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of man* (#444; anthropos; mankind) ; and its* (#846; autou; of it) number is six hundred threescore and six.'

444 ánthrōpos – man, also the generic term for "mankind"; the human race; people, including women and men (Mt 4:19, 12:12, etc.).
ánthrōpos ("man") answers to the Hebrew term, ̓adam – and 435 (anḗr) answers to the Hebrew term ̓ish.

K. Wuest, "There are two words in Greek which mean 'man,' anēr, which refers to a male individual of the human race, and anthrōpos, which is the racial, generic term, and which has the general idea of 'man444kind' " (3, Great Truths to Live By, 46).]

The beast of the sea is the political/governmental entity. The domestic, economic and foreign policies that drive the beast comes from both entities, the beast of the sea and the beast of the earth, those in political offices that bring persecution upon the saints that live within the beast and globally. Her policies affect and bring persecution to the entire world.

The mark of the beast is spiritual as is the mark of the 144,000 sealed. But just like any national 'economic' governmental system, you 'cannot buy or sell' unless you have the 'mark,' thus it is with the beast kingdom. The mark of the beast lies in his monetary system. Can you buy or sell anything today unless you have the 'monetary' means? I don't think so.

God bless---Twospirits

[highflyertoo]

Could you please quote the verse that says the mark is "accepted" by the people who received it? It's not in any of the translations I checked.

The mark of the beast is a symbol representing unbelievers. It corresponds to the "Father's Name" written on the forehead of believers. Given that the latter is symbolic, so is the former. It's like the characters in the vision were marked with labels saying who belongs to whom - Satan or God. It seems pretty simple and clear to me.

As for your suggestion that God might change his plans - if that's true, then maybe nothing in the book of Revelation will happen at all (in your interpretation).

From my perspective, Revelation happened in the first century when Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple desolated. Note that word, desolated? As in the Abomination of Desolation. Your theory that it is yet future contradicts many things in Scripture. There cannot be another "Holy Temple" of God to be desolated for two reasons. 1) Christ is the true temple, 2) God wouldn't call a Temple built by unbelieving Jews "My House."

The physical temple was still standing when Paul said that the man of sin would present himself in the temple and proclaim himself God. I think it refers to an apostate high priest who walked around like he owned the place. This fits well with the actual history of their behavior just before the desolation of the Temple.

Hello Richard.

Where does it say a high priest of the tribe of Levi would proclaim to be God while in the temple that Herod built?

[highflyertoo]

Could you please quote the verse that says the mark is "accepted" by the people who received it? It's not in any of the translations I checked.

The mark of the beast is a symbol representing unbelievers. It corresponds to the "Father's Name" written on the forehead of believers. Given that the latter is symbolic, so is the former. It's like the characters in the vision were marked with labels saying who belongs to whom - Satan or God. It seems pretty simple and clear to me.

As for your suggestion that God might change his plans - if that's true, then maybe nothing in the book of Revelation will happen at all (in your interpretation).

From my perspective, Revelation happened in the first century when Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple desolated. Note that word, desolated? As in the Abomination of Desolation. Your theory that it is yet future contradicts many things in Scripture. There cannot be another "Holy Temple" of God to be desolated for two reasons. 1) Christ is the true temple, 2) God wouldn't call a Temple built by unbelieving Jews "My House."

The physical temple was still standing when Paul said that the man of sin would present himself in the temple and proclaim himself God. I think it refers to an apostate high priest who walked around like he owned the place. This fits well with the actual history of their behavior just before the desolation of the Temple.

The Abomination that makes Desolate is in reference to the Image of the Beast,for the image is of the Beast who had the fatal sword wound and was brought back to life. For this is the Abomination that is to be in a wing of the newly built Holy Temple in modern day Jerusalem,that will be in the exact place of where the ''Dome of the Rock'' is currently standing....... Now the Image of the Beast, which is the Abomination that makes Desolate,it will speak due to the life that is breathed into the ''Image/Statue'' from the miracle working False Prophet,and who ever does not bow and worship the Image of the Beast that sits in the ''WING'' of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem shall be put to death

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard.

Where does it say a high priest of the tribe of Levi would proclaim to be God while in the temple that Herod built?

The text says:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

The physical temple of God was still standing in Jerusalem when Paul said that the "man of sin" would "take his seat in the temple of God." The Thessalonians would have known that he was talking about a literal person in the literal Temple that then was standing.

The identity of the "man of sin" as an apostate high priest is the best fit to the Biblical data that I have seen. It all fits well with Christ's condemnation of the Jewish leaders as a "generation of vipers" just before he predicted the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24.

[Twospirits]

The text says:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

The physical temple of God was still standing in Jerusalem when Paul said that the "man of sin" would "take his seat in the temple of God." The Thessalonians would have known that he was talking about a literal person in the literal Temple that then was standing.

The identity of the "man of sin" as an apostate high priest is the best fit to the Biblical data that I have seen. It all fits well with Christ's condemnation of the Jewish leaders as a "generation of vipers" just before he predicted the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24.

We have discussed this in the 'Already/Not Yet' thread, and I showed that this view, among others fail to meet the Biblical and historical criteria of the prophecy. Though I did not mention 'a priest' as one of the views, it does not matter, because the prophecy states this he/it causes the daily (sacrifices) to cease (Dan. 9:27; Dan. 11:31; Dan. 12:11). Here's part of that discussion:

You say that Dan. 9:24-27 and Dan.12:7,11,12 'God's holy people' are speaking about the apostate Jews of 1st century Jerusalem. And you hold that Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the 'abomination of desolation' is to be the prophecy of Luke 21:20, the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem. But this can't be for several reasons.

The Romans (the abomination) didn't stand in 'the holy place' (Mt. 24:15) the temple until the 'end' of the tribulation. Which would be to late for it to be a sign for the saints to flee Judea.

If the Roman armies (or the zealots) (or priest; emphasis mine) are the abomination that causes desolation then this contradicts Dan. 9:27 and Dan.12:7,11,12. For Dan. 12:11 says, 'And from the time (that) the daily (sacrifice) shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, (there shall be) a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'

This passage tells us that the daily in the temple is taken away 3 ½ years+ 'prior' to the time that the abomination that causes desolation is set up. For those who hold the preterist view that the events speak of armies surrounding Jerusalem (or the zealots in the temple) this means that the sacrifices would have to have ceased sometime in Jan.-Feb. of 66 A.D. to the time of the abomination being set up ie. the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. Yet Josephus records that the sacrifices continued even after the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem up to the final months of that siege. The very opposite of the preterist view.


So we see that at this time, 6 months or so prior to the fall of the temple and city they were still continuing with the Mosaic sacrificial system. Therefore it is impossible for the Romans or others, the Zealots, (or priest; emphasis mine) to be the fulfillment of Mt. 24:15f, Mark 13:14f, and Dan. 9:27; Dan.12:11-12.

Read entire post here: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...3340#post43340

God bless--Twospirits

[highflyertoo]

The text says:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

The physical temple of God was still standing in Jerusalem when Paul said that the "man of sin" would "take his seat in the temple of God." The Thessalonians would have known that he was talking about a literal person in the literal Temple that then was standing.

The identity of the "man of sin" as an apostate high priest is the best fit to the Biblical data that I have seen. It all fits well with Christ's condemnation of the Jewish leaders as a "generation of vipers" just before he predicted the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24.

Can you provide the name of the high priest who you say was in the Temple showing himself as God? Surely the Jews must have this recorded?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Can you provide the name of the high priest who you say was in the Temple showing himself as God? Surely the Jews must have this recorded?

Josephus wrote about how wicked the priests were just before the destruction of the Temple, and he blamed it on them, saying that they brought down the wrath of God. It fits perfectly with Christ's prediction of the destruction of the Temple right after he condemned the Jewish leaders for being a "generation of vipers."

As for the names of the wicked priests, I seem to recall about them somewhere but I don't have that information off the top of my head.