how many people will take the mark of beast . I believe no one will take it

[Obadiah]

Now where a workman deserves his wages I can agree with that. Even Jesus used money.

But as far as the mark not being here yet...I would say that with the Soloman parallel/allusion its quite possibly here. Meaning getting involved with promoting things which are sinful just for the sake of marketing and "political correctness" is something that won't ever sit well with God. (Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).

So I won't say it is not here.... But just not "the mark" everyone has to have. YET

There are certainly plenty jobs that don't involve promoting sin. (Unless one is the kind of "Christian" that sees absolutely everything as sinful in some way!) All we have to do is ask God to show us what He is calling us to do, and listen for his guidance on where to work. If we (Christians at least) are not willing to do this, than we get what we deserve.

 

[JohnDB]

Uh, yeah. It's actually a pretty common phenomena:

Here was the exact citing, even highlighted:

Ezekiel 29:3
Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

I take it for granted that any serious eschatologist knows who the great dragon is. If not, they need to do more associative scriptural homework:

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.



Yeah, if you got that much out of Revelation you did just fine. That's really all there is to be gleaned from the end of the matters. Once that's done, we'll all tend to see much better.

The Ezekiel reference was the one in my mind really inaccurate. Try a translation not American based. (ISR for example) or a Catholic translation. (New Jerusalem Bible).

No one translation has all the answers but it helps to look at them all with a very exegetical look instead of an eisogetical view.

 

[smaller]

The Ezekiel reference was the one in my mind really inaccurate. Try a translation not American based. (ISR for example) or a Catholic translation. (New Jerusalem Bible).

No one translation has all the answers but it helps to look at them all with a very exegetical look instead of an eisogetical view.

It's extremely problematic for any believer to see these things, because, the fact is, we all suffer from the workings of Satan and his own in our own flesh. See Mark 4:15 to see "how" it happens or the fact of 1 John 3:8, showing that "sin" is of the devil and of course, all have sin and have sinned.

Ultimately all the worlds ills revolve around our "mutual" bad actor associate in the flesh.

 

[JohnDB]

There are certainly plenty jobs that don't involve promoting sin. (Unless one is the kind of "Christian" that sees absolutely everything as sinful in some way!) All we have to do is ask God to show us what He is calling us to do, and listen for his guidance on where to work. If we (Christians at least) are not willing to do this, than we get what we deserve.

A ham sandwich has no more sin than the mustard and mayo that surrounds it....but if it has cheese you are definitely going to burn...unless you toast the whole thing.

Agreed. This sort of thinking is rule making when Paul said these types of rules have an appearance of wisdom but actually have no value for a Holy Life.

Money is money.
But don't think that God wants us to do immoral things to earn a living. Such as prostitution or idolatry or murder.

As a construction electrician I'm not going to worry. Unless they want me to steal or be dishonest in my trade. Can't do that. A customer is a customer. Got to give him what he is paying for.

 

[Obadiah]

A ham sandwich has no more sin than the mustard and mayo that surrounds it....but if it has cheese you are definitely going to burn...unless you toast the whole thing.

Agreed. This sort of thinking is rule making when Paul said these types of rules have an appearance of wisdom but actually have no value for a Holy Life.

Money is money.
But don't think that God wants us to do immoral things to earn a living. Such as prostitution or idolatry or murder.

As a construction electrician I'm not going to worry. Unless they want me to steal or be dishonest in my trade. Can't do that. A customer is a customer. Got to give him what he is paying for.

So you are trying to tell me that my wonderfully fulfilling job as a hit man is sinful? Legalist!

 

[reba]

 

[Sinthesis]

So you are trying to tell me that my wonderfully fulfilling job as a hit man is sinful? Legalist!

Yes, but if you murdered as a hobby, so evil money wasn't involved...

 

[Obadiah]

Yes, but if you murdered as a hobby, so evil money wasn't involved...

Or maybe if I just took "donations"...

 

[john darling]

The word is "philarguria" which actually means "avarice" (extreme greed for wealth or material gain.) We can "love" many kinds of things and that's fine with God.

Hi Obadiah. I don't think disagreement with your position is the same as narrow mindedness. For example in your quote above, you talk about "extreme greed" as though just a little bit of greed is okay. Can you see how that just becomes a convenient doctrine? You can excuse any need to deal with your own materialism as long as you convince yourself that your issues are not "extreme". And where did Jesus say that it's okay to love "many kinds of things" (i.e. material things)? I think it's significant that you don't have any scriptural support for that conclusion.

Matt 6:24 is not speaking just of loving money but is speaking of loving it to the point of making it your master.

Actually, the verse specifically says God is one master and mammon is the other master. Mammon is a term used to describe money and the things money can buy. Jesus says we cannot work for both at the same time and that we will love one and hate the other. That's what the text actually, literally says. All this stuff about loving one more than the other simply is not there.

But it also makes sense in practical terms, too. How can we say we love others when we only help them if they pay us for it? Common sense and experience tells us that love isn't really love if you have to pay for it.

If I say I love my wife or girlfriend this is certainly a different kind of love than if I said I love my daughter or my brother! In the Greek and Hebrew of scripture there are different words for these different kinds of love, but in English we are limited to only one word and must rely on the common sense of the listener (or reader) to take the statement in the context in which it was said.

I don't think we are limited, but I agree that context is important. When we talk about love do we mean intimate love or brotherly/sisterly love? I'm quite certain that both of us would agree that Jesus was not talking about intimate love when we said we cannot for for Both God (love) and mammon (materialism) at the same time.

But I notice that you limit your explanation about love family (i.e. gf, wife, children). We understand that we don't charge our family payment for our help because we love them and want what's good for them. God wants us to have this same kind of love for everyone.

There is more to life than money and things, and there are more rewards from a job than money and things.

Like what?

They (if they are Christians) need to look into what God has called them to do and change their professions and activities to line up with their calling!

You mean like a calling other than working for money? Can you elaborate?

Maybe I'm weird, but I love my job so much that if it were allowed I would even volunteer time for free to be able to accomplish more of the good things my job produces. (But sadly this is prohibited by law, and maybe for good reason. I found this out when a supervisor found out I actually was working "off the clock" at times just because things needed to be done.)

Hmmm, this is fascinating. Why do you think it's not okay to work for free? You say there may be a good reason prohibiting people from doing their job just because they enjoy the job (rather than for money). What good reason is that?

If you will not work for money, how will you provide for yourself in 21st century civilized society?

I think this is also a fascinating question because it seems to imply that people cannot be civilized without money. In other words, people cannot be kind and loving towards one another just because they want to. It's takes money. It's very similar to the situation I just comment on where you said your employer will not allow poeple to work just for the enjoyment of the job.

Anyway, I don't have any solution, personally, but I do see a solution in the teachings of Jesus. That solution is for people to help one another just because they want to. Is that really so hard to imagine? And if so, why? Because the monetary system we have now is far too civilized for love? Have you seen the rest of Matthew 6, where he talks about the flower and birds? He tells us to consider them specifically because they do not spend their time working for money, and yet god still feeds and clothes them.

As for all this talk of the "mark of the beat", it simply isn't here yet and we, as Christians should not worry about the future that we can't control.

No, it's not here yet. But it's coming closer and closer. A lot of people seem to believe as you do. They will wait right to the very last moment before saying "no". They imagine that they will be brave and courageous at the time. Maybe they will be, but it's more likely that they won't. All this stuff about "it's not here yet" is really just a convenient doctrine to avoid any need for change. It's procrastination plain and simple.

The Mark is coming. All over the world businesses are preparing for and switching over to cashless methods of buying/selling, all of which depend on microchip technology to process the transactions. The technology for implanting these microchips in the hand is becoming safer and more efficient. An examination of the evidence shows that there is a clear trend towards these implants. "Tap and pay" technology will become the dominate means of payment and the most secure and safe means of tap-and-pay is a microchip in the hand.

If you are not prepared to take action on this NOW then you will almost certainly find some convenient excuse in the future to take the implant in your hand. Smaller has basically said that it won't matter even if the Mark turns out to be a physical thing used for buying/selling because "nothing can separate us from the love of God". But he says even that doesn't matter because there will be no physical mark and the "buying and selling" mentioned in prophecy has nothing to do with actual buying and selling. He's got a host of convenient doctrines all aimed at dismissing any need to deal seriously with our dependence on mammon.

People say the Mark could not be a microchip implant because that would be too obvious, but the way people argue to defend money shows that it's not so obvious after all.

 

[JohnDB]

Hi Obadiah. I don't think disagreement with your position is the same as narrow mindedness. For example in your quote above, you talk about "extreme greed" as though just a little bit of greed is okay. Can you see how that just becomes a convenient doctrine? You can excuse any need to deal with your own materialism as long as you convince yourself that your issues are not "extreme". And where did Jesus say that it's okay to love "many kinds of things" (i.e. material things)? I think it's significant that you don't have any scriptural support for that conclusion.



Actually, the verse specifically says God is one master and mammon is the other master. Mammon is a term used to describe money and the things money can buy. Jesus says we cannot work for both at the same time and that we will love one and hate the other. That's what the text actually, literally says. All this stuff about loving one more than the other simply is not there.

But it also makes sense in practical terms, too. How can we say we love others when we only help them if they pay us for it? Common sense and experience tells us that love isn't really love if you have to pay for it.



I don't think we are limited, but I agree that context is important. When we talk about love do we mean intimate love or brotherly/sisterly love? I'm quite certain that both of us would agree that Jesus was not talking about intimate love when we said we cannot for for Both God (love) and mammon (materialism) at the same time.

But I notice that you limit your explanation about love family (i.e. gf, wife, children). We understand that we don't charge our family payment for our help because we love them and want what's good for them. God wants us to have this same kind of love for everyone.



Like what?



You mean like a calling other than working for money? Can you elaborate?



Hmmm, this is fascinating. Why do you think it's not okay to work for free? You say there may be a good reason prohibiting people from doing their job just because they enjoy the job (rather than for money). What good reason is that?



I think this is also a fascinating question because it seems to imply that people cannot be civilized without money. In other words, people cannot be kind and loving towards one another just because they want to. It's takes money. It's very similar to the situation I just comment on where you said your employer will not allow poeple to work just for the enjoyment of the job.

Anyway, I don't have any solution, personally, but I do see a solution in the teachings of Jesus. That solution is for people to help one another just because they want to. Is that really so hard to imagine? And if so, why? Because the monetary system we have now is far too civilized for love? Have you seen the rest of Matthew 6, where he talks about the flower and birds? He tells us to consider them specifically because they do not spend their time working for money, and yet god still feeds and clothes them.



No, it's not here yet. But it's coming closer and closer. A lot of people seem to believe as you do. They will wait right to the very last moment before saying "no". They imagine that they will be brave and courageous at the time. Maybe they will be, but it's more likely that they won't. All this stuff about "it's not here yet" is really just a convenient doctrine to avoid any need for change. It's procrastination plain and simple.

The Mark is coming. All over the world businesses are preparing for and switching over to cashless methods of buying/selling, all of which depend on microchip technology to process the transactions. The technology for implanting these microchips in the hand is becoming safer and more efficient. An examination of the evidence shows that there is a clear trend towards these implants. "Tap and pay" technology will become the dominate means of payment and the most secure and safe means of tap-and-pay is a microchip in the hand.

If you are not prepared to take action on this NOW then you will almost certainly find some convenient excuse in the future to take the implant in your hand. Smaller has basically said that it won't matter even if the Mark turns out to be a physical thing used for buying/selling because "nothing can separate us from the love of God". But he says even that doesn't matter because there will be no physical mark and the "buying and selling" mentioned in prophecy has nothing to do with actual buying and selling. He's got a host of convenient doctrines all aimed at dismissing any need to deal seriously with our dependence on mammon.

People say the Mark could not be a microchip implant because that would be too obvious, but the way people argue to defend money shows that it's not so obvious after all.

Do not muzzle the ox while treading out the grain. And A workman deserves his wages. Both of these are scriptures.

We must work and the talents given to us by God used to earn a living for our families. If that's sin in your book you got issues. If I can't work I can't give anything to anyone. (Unless retired and living off retirement investments)

I am God's slave. As such I am not going to be lazy and just be a talker about holy ideas. I work and give as the Master has directed.

I am not going to worry about this mark of the beast as it will be a known evil...like laziness. It will have something to do with a parody of Biblical names...aka making fun of the heroes of old. Not gonna do that. So it might have a microchip. But I ain't gonna take it because of the names.

Besides. I can and will run...if I need to. But there already will have been a war with the saints. And I'm no coward.

 

[Obadiah]

...How can we say we love others when we only help them if they pay us for it? Common sense and experience tells us that love isn't really love if you have to pay for it...

I've read your entire post, not just this one line, but am just going to quote this one line as an example of many such statements in just this post alone, not to mention in many of your other posts as well.

You say you are not being "narrow minded" about this, but this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I suggested you were indeed being narrow minded. Narrow mindedness is simply a state of mind whish means you are unwilling to open your mind to see any possibilities other than what you already have in your mind, and this statement is a good example of that in that to support your preconceived idea you had to add something I never said and represent it as something I actually did say. I never said or implied "only help them if they pay us for it" and that makes a huge difference! In fact, in other parts of my post I made the opposite quite clear but you ignore that because it doesn't support your narrow viewpoint. This kind of unwillingness to see anything other than 1. We do things out of love, therefore any form of payment must be refused or, 2. if we receive any form of payment, this makes it impossible for us to have also done whatever it was out of love is exactly what narrow mindedness is. You've demonstrated that you unwilling to look at the possibility that there can be other situations in between these two extremes and you've made many assumptions that simply aren't true in order to support your position. You even admit yourself that your ideas on this are unworkable and impractical and you have no solution for this, yet you refuse to budge. This is a prime example of narrow mindedness!


Many of your statements and leading questions in this post as well as many of your others seem to demonstrate that you are only interested in promoting your point of view (which is very different from normal), and that you are not open to discussion. So I just wanted to acknowledge to you that I did read you response to me, and say that there really isn't any point in me responding to all these questions and statements with what most other people would see as obvious answers. If you are not actually narrow minded on this subject (as you say you aren't) then the only other possibility I can see at this point is that you simply are looking for an argument. I'm not interested in arguing with you simply for the sake of arguing. Thanks.

 

[Obadiah]

Do not muzzle the ox while treading out the grain. And A workman deserves his wages. Both of these are scriptures.

We must work and the talents given to us by God used to earn a living for our families. If that's sin in your book you got issues. If I can't work I can't give anything to anyone. (Unless retired and living off retirement investments)

I am God's slave. As such I am not going to be lazy and just be a talker about holy ideas. I work and give as the Master has directed.

I am not going to worry about this mark of the beast as it will be a known evil...like laziness. It will have something to do with a parody of Biblical names...aka making fun of the heroes of old. Not gonna do that. So it might have a microchip. But I ain't gonna take it because of the names.

Besides. I can and will run...if I need to. But there already will have been a war with the saints. And I'm no coward.

 

[Sinthesis]

Or maybe if I just took "donations"...

Do you suppose that's what the Salvation Army is really up to?

 

[jasonc]

Do you suppose that's what the Salvation Army is really up to?

lol

 

[john darling]

I've read your entire post, not just this one line, but am just going to quote this one line as an example of many such statements in just this post alone, not to mention in many of your other posts as well.

Thanks for saying this, Obadiah. If I ever need a witness as to my position on the love of money, I will definitely call on you!

You say you are not being "narrow minded" about this, but this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I suggested you were indeed being narrow minded.

It's not narrowminded to be consistent in my position or to disagree with you. For example, you disagree with my position, but I don't think you are narrow minded because of it. I think your disagreement comes from fear (and possibly greed to some extent); the same reason Jesus gave in Matthew 6:24-34 when he talked about how we cannot serve God and mammon (money and the things money can buy), how we should consider the birds and flower specifically because they do not work for money and how all the nations of the world chase after these things but that we should not be like them. You've not given any rebuttal which specifically deals with these teachings. You've only given your own interpretation that it's okay to love working for money and the things money can buy so long as we are not excessively greedy. I'm quite happy to post quotes (again) where you explicitly make these kind of comments if you feel I've misrepresented you here.

I never said or implied "only help them if they pay us for it"

You say you never said, or even implied, to only help people if they pay us for it, but at the same time you say I am narrow minded for saying we should not force people to pay us for our love. You suggest that we should have agreement while at the same time you disagree.

This is a common inconsistency when people try to serve both masters. They know the phrase "I will only help you if you pay me" sounds bad while at the same time "working for money" means exactly that; payment for services. If you don't demand payment for services then money becomes pointless. This refusal to acknowledge the purpose of money is at the heart of your confusion. You call me narrow minded, but I'd say you are double minded.

In fact, in other parts of my post I made the opposite quite clear but you ignore that because it doesn't support your narrow viewpoint.

Since you were not specific here I'm assuming you meant the parts where you talk about how you really like your job and that, at least to some degree, you'd be quite happy to do it for free. Is that right? If so, don't you think it's unfair to say I ignored your comments when, in fact, I addressed them quite frankly? Actually, I asked you a few questions about it, too, which it seems you read but which you didn't answer because you say they are "leading" questions and only meant to promote my own point of view. How can I ignore what you say and ask you questions about it at the same time?

Anyway, you've not given any reason why they are "leading" questions or what you even mean by that which I think is fairly consistent with efforts to dismiss the topic rather than rebut it. You say you would be open to working for love (as opposed to payment) but that you would not legally be allowed to.

Aside from the obvious convenience of being able to say, "yeah I'd like to do the noble thing but I'm not allowed to" you don't express any kind of disapproval of such laws, either. Even if you wanted to work for love (i.e. for free), it would be illegal to do so. Why? These is a fair question and I'd suggest your reluctance to answer them (by blaming me for asking them in the first place) shows more about your position than it does about mine.

You even admit yourself that your ideas on this are unworkable and impractical and you have no solution for this, yet you refuse to budge.

Nah, I never said that sharing and working for love are unworkable and impractical. I'd challenge you to post evidence for this claim but I know you can't. Also, I said that there IS an alternative to money, but it's not MY solution. I made this point about the difference between my lack of solution and what I see as a solution in Jesus' teachings because people so often try to make it seem as though I'm just promoting my own weird ideas. No, I'm not. It comes from Jesus. Here is what I actually said about it:

Anyway, I don't have any solution, personally, but I do see a solution in the teachings of Jesus. That solution is for people to help one another just because they want to. Is that really so hard to imagine?

Compare your comments about what I said to what I actually said and asked yourself, "why". Sometimes misrepresentations are genuine misunderstandings but when it comes to the root of all evil it's better to examine such misrepresentations verrrry carefully.

you are only interested in promoting your point of view (which is very different from normal), and that you are not open to discussion.

I never made any claim that the teachings of Jesus are "normal", but I do think it's interesting that you make this comment about what is normal and what is not. Compared to the values of the world (like forcing paymen for help), the teachings of Jesus are VERRRRY abnormal. But that's the whole point, isn't it?

Friendship with the world is enmity with God? The world has hated them because they are not of the world? Called apart? Set aside? A peculiar and Holy people? Narrow is the way?

Nope. You want normalcy. Buying and selling and the belief that service to mammon makes the world "civilized".

 

[Obadiah]

I rest my case.

 

[john darling]

Do not muzzle the ox while treading out the grain. And A workman deserves his wages. Both of these are scriptures.

Hi JohnDB. When using scripture it's helpful to get the context. For example, would you same the same thing about a prostitute? The laborer is worthy of his wages? No, obviously not. There was a context to the comment Jesus made about the laborer being worthy of his hire. He'd just sent them out with nothing; no money, no extra clothes, no food etc... and they were sent out to preach the Gospel (Luke 10:4-9). That was their job. Later, in Luke 22:35 Jesus referenced this same period and asked them, "did you lack anything" and they said, "no".

The laborer (one who seeks God's kingdom first) is worthy of his hire (and God will provide all the things you need Matthew ) Matthew 6:33. It makes no sense for Jesus to talk about the world providing for laborers via working for money since there'd be nothing difference between his kingdom and all the kingdoms of man if he were to do that.

You may say that prostitution is very different from something like working at McDonalds, but is it really? A prostitute offers love (or at least the semblance of it) in exchange for money. Isn't that exactly what we do with our lives when we participate in a system where help is only given if money changes hands?

This is why there is a comparison between the Bride and The Prostitute in the Revelation. The Bride doesn't demand payment; she works because she love the groom. The prostitute is only interested in materialism. Read the description of the Prostitute in Revelation 18. It's all about materialism and the things money can buy. We all prostitute the time and life God gave us for free (we don't earn it, remember?) when we demand payment for our time.

Jesus wanted to put the system back to the way it was in the garden (the curse was broken, right?), where we help one another just because we want to through sharing. But this world has become so dry. They can't see because they don't care, just like it was in the days of Noah and Lot; they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, giving and being given in marriage right up to the very end (Luke 17:25-30). It's not that these things are bad in themselves but that people stopped caring about what God wanted. They became blinded by the cares of this world. Jesus said it will be like that in the time just before he returns.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Do not reply until you have had time to truly think about it and let the Lord reveal the truth of it. But the "mark" is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are all forced to take that mark so that we might obtain our salvation.

Pray upon it. I would like to hear your thoughts.

.

The number of man and Satan is 6. 6 is the number of man; 6 is the number of Satan; and putting them together with all the nations of this age, under the influence of Satan gives the number 666. All the nations that started out in the statue of Daniel have mixed together and become the feet of the statue of iron and brittle clay, in which there is no cohesive government. Satan will attempt to draw all men away from the Spirit and kingdom of the Lord to be sole ruler over man, attempting to draw any man from acknowledging God as Sovereign. To accomplish this he creates two beast. A false Christ or religion. And a false Government that strips away the principles of God in Jesus Christ. In order to do that, he makes it impossible for the righteous and witnesses of Jesus Christ to survive by making them give into the rule of the principles of Satan to discredit their faithfulness, and make suspect to the witness of the saints of that age. Attempting to draw all men unto himself and away from God. Thus, The mark of the beast. Eventually Satan causes the first beast to be (false religion) destroyed by the people, so that he himself becomes the sole object of worship by the world, setting himself in the temple in Jerusalem . So unless all men agree to live under the principles of Satan. (abortion, homosexuality, high interest rates, legal drugs possession, high excessive taxes, repressing those who complain, totalitarianism) they will become the outcast of that society.
But the return of Almighty God. The stone that was not made with hand will crush the feet of the government of man under the influence of Satan. The end for some, the beginning for others. (Matt. 24: 15)(Daniel 2: 37- 45) (Revelation chapters 13 & 14)

 

[jasonc]

It's coats to learn any trade,I have 30 grand in tools.work for free and get all that isn't possible.Nevermind the schooling aND apprenticeship I would have to take,and learning the changes.donations, I have seen how bad churches struggle to make it.if I'm called to use my skills it's one thing ,another to make a living.

 

[Obadiah]

It's coats to learn any trade,I have 30 grand in tools.work for free and get all that isn't possible.Nevermind the schooling aND apprenticeship I would have to take,and learning the changes.donations, I have seen how bad churches struggle to make it.if I'm called to use my skills it's one thing ,another to make a living.

Even churches that are struggling don't expect utility companies to deliver utilities for free or constructions companies to repair their buildings for free. Maybe skilled members will chip in and do it for free, but that's more like dad and son putting a new roof on their house themselves rather than hiring a company. Even if non-members chip in as doing something for God, that's still like an extended family helping out with that roof job. But complete outsiders simply aren't expected to work or provide supplies for free, even by churches who are struggling financially. It's not right. It's not Biblical. And it's certainly not practical.

It's a very telling thing that with all this talk of working "for love" and not for money, I still see absolutely no workable advice given on how to do that and no way given to justify it in light of the scripture that says if we don't work, let us not eat. Changing the world's system of wages is probably the furthest thing from practical or workable that I've ever heard in my life. And this dogmatic insistence that if a person ever accepts wages for a job that precludes them from ever again voluntarily doing something just out of love is totally without merit. So much of this is so much without merit and knowing without a shadow of a doubt that the member offering these ideas is certainly not living this way themself, I really have to wonder if it's just being offered to get a reaction out of people for the fun of it. With no practical solutions given, this whole subject is worthless.