666 not the number of Satan

a reply to: Teeky
God may be within us, but he is also beyond us, something greater than ourselves.
So if we focus upon ourselves, we are focussing on something which is less than God.

The modern generation thinks it has discovered a way to treat egocentricity as a profound spiritual experience; but it isn't, really.

a reply to: Raggedymanand it says in the bible tjat this would be a physical mark?

a reply to: drevill

Sin is bad fruit and as Jesus said, good trees do not bear bad fruit. In other words, those who are in Christ and know him (good trees) do not produce bad fruit (sin).

1 John 3
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

According to John, those who continue to sin are not born of God because those who are born of God cannot go on sinning. Christians claim to sin every day, which according to John means they are not born of God.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: drevill

Sin is bad fruit and as Jesus said, good trees do not bear bad fruit. In other words, those who are in Christ and know him (good trees) do not produce bad fruit (sin).

1 John 3
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

According to John, those who continue to sin are not born of God because those who are born of God cannot go on sinning. Christians claim to sin every day, which according to John means they are not born of God.

O my goodness
You have read a phrase in the scriptures and created a whole private theology based on that one phrase
The enlightened atheist?, confident enough in themselves to preach the gospel without ever understanding it

a reply to: Raggedyman

The verse says what it says, I am only reading it the way it is presented. Either John meant what he said or he didn't.

I'm not an atheist either.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Raggedyman

The verse says what it says, I am only reading it the way it is presented. Either John meant what he said or he didn't.

I'm not an atheist either.

Yes as was my point, you have taken one verse from amongst many to structure your whole view

Sorry, I thought you were an atheist, my bad

a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you reconcile John saying that those born of God no longer sin with the Christian theology that we are all sinners and that sin is unavoidable?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The passage is interpreted by the context. Here we are being told that a person born again will not continue in sin forever. We are told In Philippians 1:6 that the work started in us would be completed however as a mortal human we are impatient. We are told that God is not slack as humans count it.

1john 1:8

if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Regards

a reply to: rickymouse

Not sure. It could be the Star of Remphan or the crescent and star, in my opinion

Regards

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The passage is interpreted by the context. Here we are being told that a person born again will not continue in sin forever. We are told In Philippians 1:6 that the work started in us would be completed however as a mortal human we are impatient. We are told that God is not slack as humans count it.

1john 1:8

if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Regards

Many kind thanks for the reply on my behalf, better than I could have said it

a reply to: drevill

So you're saying that John contradicted himself? No, I don't think he did.

To say we have never sinned would be a lie, but practice makes perfect and being born of God is a process of internal refinement, it doesn't happen overnight. Once you have refined yourself (been born of God) you "cannot go on sinning" just as John says.

This is why Jesus told us to be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect, he wants us to refine ourselves (practice), follow his example, and reach the point where we no longer sin (make perfect) because that is when "God's seed remains in us".

You cannot say sin is unavoidable then later go on to say that people born of God do not sin, that doesn't make any sense. If people born of God do not continue to sin as John says then according to Christian theology no one is born of God because it claims EVERYONE continues to sin on a daily basis.

There is a clear contradiction between Christian theology and what John says.

1 John 3
8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

If Christians do what is sinful every day, doesn't that mean they're of the devil and not God? John says so.

a reply to: DISRAELI

No, because the statement "cannot buy or sell without the mark" only applies when the Beast is ruling, and not immediately even then.

This made me think about the witch-hunts of the dark and middle ages and renaissance (even into the Colonies) -
if a woman (sometimes a man) was accused of witchcraft, they were examined to see if they had "the mark."

If a "mark" was found, they were declared "witches."

I studied Wicca some 20 years ago, practiced it for a while. Learned all about it....(the only rule is HARM NONE)......

And sometimes I imagine what it would have been like to be back 700 or 500 years ago, and be 'accused' and 'examined' - because I have a skin anomaly........

IMO, the "mark of the beast" is a total metaphor and in any age is interpreted to be relevant to that age.
I think it's all nonsense.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
This made me think about the witch-hunts of the dark and middle ages and renaissance (even into the Colonies) -
if a woman (sometimes a man) was accused of witchcraft, they were examined to see if they had "the mark."

Of course that is the reverse of the situation envisaged in Revelation ch13, when the authorities would presumably be checking up on those without the mark or sign of loyalty, whatever form it took.
It seems to be describing an economic boycott, like the boycotts of the Jews in 1930's Germany.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Of course that is the reverse of the situation envisaged in Revelation ch13, when the authorities would presumably be checking up on those without the mark or sign of loyalty, whatever form it took.

And what would that "mark" be? A UPC code tattooed onto the wrist?

It seems to be describing an economic boycott, like the boycotts of the Jews in 1930's Germany.

With all due respect, DISRAELI, "the situation" is always relative.
The "boycotts" don't ever stop. *aherm* *Kim Davis*
- What it seems to me is that it is still the "church people" whose leaders are threatening to condemn some and not others. Or rather - 'Bible' people twisting things however it suits them to fit what they consider "untoward" behavior worthy of ridicule, abuse, disenfranchisement,

I acknowledge that you are ATS's "resident instructor of things in the Bible" .....
I'm merely curious as to whether you are able to discern how ancient 'scripts' are so ambiguously worded that they can be applied to ANY situation, in ANY age.......and that it happens in EVERY age.

Doesn't matter how you "apply" it - it's never any different. Some 'promise' of horrible things to come because of 'this [ perceived ] perversion'........

You're not unscannable are you?????

No different from "What the hell is this mark on your skin"?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
And what would that "mark" be? A UPC code tattooed onto the wrist?

I don't know. The essence of it would be the fact that it announced the individual's loyalty.
In Nazi Germany, the equivalent of the mark was the "Hitler salute". There was a decree, which I quoted in one of my threads, that anyone who refused to give it would have to be counted as a social enemy. It looks like that kind of situation.
There would have to be the practical possibility of refusing it, because otherwise the fact that people were refusing it could not become an issue. If they tied people down and imposed it by force, there could be no "refuseniks" to be penalised.

- What it seems to me is that it is still the "church people" whose leaders are threatening to condemn some and not others.

John was writing at a time when the church people were on the receiving end.
There is a theoretical possibility that cultural developments could recreate that situation.
It is not so implausible a prospect; a world-dominating religion of some kind, which would demand and not get the co-operation of Christians and other believers. (Never mind the usual suspects, my money is on environmentalism, once the progress of climate change has generated enough sheer blind panic).

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Well it does if you understand the bible. Sorry but you are incorrect in your analysis.

You have to read it all not just a passage here and there

Regards

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Eyup

You can trace from nimrod to at least the nazi where some form of mark was used as a control of a population

The Chaldeans is a good place to start

What I'm saying is there has been something physical in more than one era.

a reply to: drevill

If you could explain how I am incorrect that would be great.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I personally don't think anyone will be forced into taking the mark, I think they will be offered certain things that will be so tempting that they will take it. The reason I say this is that Satan even tried to temp Jesus by offering the world to him.

It's those that will not bow down and worship that will be the ones facing death. Just like it was with Nebuchadnezzar.

Regards

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Have done matey... No point going over it again. We can disagree it's not the end of the world.

Cheers