The Mark of the Beast

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:58 am

The Mark of the Beast

Christians, especially Protestants, and among them, the Seventh-Day Adventists in particular, enjoy to talk about the mark of the Beast; and with fantastic definitions, that only make a ridiculous picture of themselves. Then, they charge each other with the potential to get the mark of the Beast. They think of almost everything but the real thing, which is given by the NT itself.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist. Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words: Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands against Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it's only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? "God forbid," he said, "that I should glory in anything save in the cross." The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

Now, your comments are welcome.

Ben.

Easyrider · Post by **Easyrider** » Sat May 30, 2009 10:43 am

kayky wrote: The book of Acts is pure fiction and was written by someone who did not personally know any of the characters involved.

That's another one of those far-left stretches of the imagination. Every major scholarly study Bible around has Luke as the author, and not one event noted in Acts has ever to my knowledge been shown to be false. If you think one has, identify the scripture, make your case, and let's see how far that flys.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat May 30, 2009 11:03 am

Easyrider wrote:
kayky wrote: The book of Acts is pure fiction and was written by someone who did not personally know any of the characters involved.
That's another one of those far-left stretches of the imagination. Every major scholarly study Bible around has Luke as the author, and not one event noted in Acts has ever to my knowledge been shown to be false. If you think one has, identify the scripture, make your case, and let's see how far that flys.

No most scholars have the author of Luke and Act are the same author but the author is unknown, they never tell us who they are. There are no compelling reason to think it is Paul's Luke. That is just questionable tradition. There are good reasons to think the author used Josephus. Acts doesn't follow Paul's letters and either Paul is telling stories or the unknown author of Acts is inventing.
We have threads so take your challenge there and don't waste our time with your cute and paste apologetics. Where the Jews trying to get Paul or was a king after him when they lowered Paul down the wall in a basket?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sat May 30, 2009 11:33 am

Easyrider wrote:
kayky wrote: The book of Acts is pure fiction and was written by someone who did not personally know any of the characters involved.
That's another one of those far-left stretches of the imagination. Every major scholarly study Bible around has Luke as the author, and not one event noted in Acts has ever to my knowledge been shown to be false. If you think one has, identify the scripture, make your case, and let's see how far that flys.

Yes, the writer of Acts was the writer of the Gospel of Luke. However, her point stands, since even Luke admits he got his information second hand.

To say the writer of the Gospel of Luke knew the characters involved is a large fantasy.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Sat May 30, 2009 12:08 pm

I've never said that Luke and Acts weren't written by the same person.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat May 30, 2009 12:54 pm

kayky wrote:I've never said that Luke and Acts weren't written by the same person.

No you didn't. It looks like they were trying to say you didn't by making some statement that you might over look the wording so they could go "see God exists and you are wrong.
It was a trick.
Most scholars tend to think the author of Luke was also the author of Acts, there are those that do disagree. It is not settled.
The author is unknown. Some think it was a women.
But this thread is about the Mark of the Beast 616 or 666.
I can only wonder why we are trying to deal with the issue of the author unless someone tried to prove something using Luke or Acts.
The problem of using the gospels top support some claims is the gospel are the one making the claim and our apologists are trying to make further claims using the original claims, at least as they reinterpret the writings.
They are quite mad you know.

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:27 am

kayky wrote:I'm surprised that you're surprised.

Why? Am I supposed to know about your unexpressed thoughts? Take a look at the historical books in the Tanac and see if the NT has anything compared to?[/b]

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:40 pm

That's the point, Ben. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament has much historiocity.

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:49 pm

kayky wrote:That's the point, Ben. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament has much historiocity.

Kayky, I am sorry but you cannot discuss about something when you have not done your homework. I don't believe you have ever read the historical books of the Tanach. That's why they are called the historical books. There is as much history in the Tanach as in any respectable History book.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:01 pm

Ben Massada wrote: Kayky, I am sorry but you cannot discuss aboutsomething when you have not done your homework. I don't believe you have ever read the historical books of the Tanach. That's why they are called the historical books. There is as much history in the Tanach as in any respectable History book.

Since I have been using the Christian term Old Testament, I can only assume that it is identical to the Tanach. If that is the case and you think that it is as historical as any modern history book, then you are as deluded and your belief as doomed to irrelevance as that of any fundamentalist Christian.

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:06 pm

kayky wrote:
Ben Massada wrote: Kayky, I am sorry but you cannot discuss aboutsomething when you have not done your homework. I don't believe you have ever read the historical books of the Tanach. That's why they are called the historical books. There is as much history in the Tanach as in any respectable History book.
Since I have been using the Christian term Old Testament, I can only assume that it is identical to the Tanach. If that is the case and you think that it is as historical as any modern history book, then you are as deluded and your belief as doomed to irrelevance as that of any fundamentalist Christian.

Every time you write a post, I can see how much of ignorance you have about the Tanach. Besides, there is no such a thing as Old Testament. This is a misnomer which gives off the idea of Replacement Theology.