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.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:15 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.

Kayky wrote: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 Massada wrote: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.

I just made some pretty serious comments about your beliefs, and this is your response? Is the Tanach the same group of books referred to by Christians as the Old Testament or not? If it is, and you think it represents literal history, then you believe something that cannot be logically supported. The word testament simply means "witness." Using the title "Old Testament" only "gives off" the idea that these books are older. To read any more into it than that is to buy into fundamentalist drivel.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:17 pm

Ben Masada wrote:
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.

I have read then as well as the scholarship and they are not historical as any history book, they are a idealized or pious history with traditions and invented story as well as borrowed stories.
You need to study the Documentary hypothesis before we can discuss its historical aspects. What you have in the Hebrew writings are a number f traditions, stories that were edited and combined later. There was the J writing in Judea and the E in Israel. Then we have a combined version and then another version of the combined written by Priest. Then the is the Deuteronomic history and Deuteronomy written in the times of Josiah. Then there is the writing and editing after and during the exile.
The story of the birth of Moses was borrowed from Sargon I.
There is no evidence of a conquest, Abraham didn't have camels but they did when the stories were being written. They didn't worship one god until after the reforms of Hezekiah. We can go on and on about the lack of historical facts and find more about the history at the time of the writings then what they supposedly report as history.

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:01 am

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.

Kayky wrote: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 Massada wrote: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.
I just made some pretty serious comments about your beliefs, and this is your response? Is the Tanach the same group of books referred to by Christians as the Old Testament or not? If it is, and you think it represents literal history, then you believe something that cannot be logically supported. The word testament simply means "witness." Using the title "Old Testament" only "gives off" the idea that these books are older. To read any more into it than that is to buy into fundamentalist drivel.

How did you want me to react to your ignorance, with the same kind of stupidity? That's not in my nature. I am just sorry for you.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:24 pm

This sounds like the final words of a sore loser.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:55 pm

kayky wrote:This sounds like the final words of a sore loser.

If our poster had not gone off he might have explained the differences between the Hebrew writings and the Christian OT.
Even though they have many writings in common the OT is a reinterpretation of a select collection of Hebrew writings that came to the NT writers in Greek.
The Christians also rearrange the writings to writer their own story.
The Hebrew writings are grouped into writings, prophets, Law, and a number of other writings that maybe Goat of cnorman might be better at explaining. I would have to look it up.
I felt his post was uncalled for and rude.
He was playing word games with you and then got made because you didn't know the rules.

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:57 pm

MODERATOR INTERVENTION

How did you want me to react to your ignorance, with the same kind of stupidity?

Attributing "ignorance" and "stupidity" to another member is not acceptable. This is a personal attack and a personal insult.

Don't do this again.

I AM ALL I AM · Post by **I AM ALL I AM** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:44 pm

G'day.

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

The number of the beast is the number of a man.

In numerology, 9 is the number representing man (humanity).

6 + 6 + 6 = 18 >>> 1 + 8 = 9

If you understand numerology, you can count the number of the beast, for in numerology each number is added together until there is one digit (except for 11 & 22).

Taking this a step further, the number 6 represents the creative aspect (among others).

LIES < 6 > TRUTH
PAIN < 6 > JOY
FEAR < 6 > LOVE

When lived positively, the 6 is very creative (TRUTH, JOY, LOVE).

When lived negatively, the 6 is very destructive (LIES, PAIN, FEAR).

With this understanding, the 'Mark of the Beast' can be seen within man by what is created. LIES, PAIN, FEAR would be seen through the destructive 'Mark', or 'Mark of the Beast', while TRUTH, JOY, LOVE would leave a creative 'Mark'.

beloved57 · Post by **beloved57** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:09 pm

666 is basically the way man is born spiritually, with his darkened understanding of things of God..His way of life, His thinking outside of the special revealation of the Gospel..

Man thinks and trys to get right with God, the best way he can, but unless he is elect, he has no hope..

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:18 pm

beloved57 wrote:666 is basically the way man is born spiritually, with his darkened understanding of things of God..His way of life, His thinking outside of the special revealation of the Gospel..

Man thinks and trys to get right with God, the best way he can, but unless he is elect, he has no hope..

So, you are a Calvinist?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:26 pm

beloved57 wrote:666 is basically the way man is born spiritually, with his darkened understanding of things of God..His way of life, His thinking outside of the special revealation of the Gospel..

Man thinks and trys to get right with God, the best way he can, but unless he is elect, he has no hope..

Except there are earlier manuscripts that have the number 616.
Of course many NT scolars think that Revelations was writen in stages first starting with John the Dipper.