Mark of the Beast may be only 2 1/2 years away

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I have 88 reasons why people need to quit setting dates. As for Bro Baxter he is resting peacefully.

Oh wow, I did not know that.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I have of course heard the nearly ubiquitous preaching that upon death one goes to heaven or hell. Then, the preaching about the white throne judgment and all mankind being judged. I NEVER heard anyone explain how people go to heaven or hell before being judged, in spite of my numerous questions. I also never heard anyone actually lay out that there are two judgments for everyone, one at death, and one at Judgment Day.

I have however heard a standard Protestant claim that upon death the soul goes to either hell (hades) or heaven, and gets a "taste" of their future judgment. At the judgment Day the wicked in hades get tossed into Gehenna and the saints go back to heaven.

None of that ever made any sense to me.

This is what meta AI responded when asked:

The Bible teaches both! According to Christian eschatology, believers will experience eternal life in two stages:

1. *Heaven* (Intermediate State): After death, believers' souls go to heaven, where they will be in the presence of God (2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:23). This is an intermediate state, often referred to as the "intermediate heaven."
2. *New Earth* (Eternal State): After the return of Christ and the final judgment, believers will be reunited with their resurrected bodies, and God will create a *New Heaven and a New Earth* (Revelation 21:1-4, Isaiah 65:17-25). This is the eternal state, where believers will live in the presence of God forever.

So, to summarize: believers will experience eternal life in heaven (intermediate state) and later on the new earth (eternal state).

[Amanah]

Meta AI had this to say about conditional immortality though

Yes, the Bible teaches conditional immortality. Conditional immortality is the belief that immortality is not inherent to humanity, but rather it is a gift granted to those who meet certain conditions, such as faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to God's commands.

The Bible teaches that the only ones who will receive eternal life are those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:16) and have lived according to God's will (Matthew 25:46). Those who do not meet these conditions will perish and cease to exist (Matthew 25:46, 2
2 Thessalonians 1:9

Some specific verses that support conditional immortality include:

- Matthew 25:46: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
- John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
- 1 Timothy 6:16: "Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see."

Please let me know if you have further questions or if there's anything else I can help you with!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Meta AI had this to say about conditional immortality though

Yes, the Bible teaches conditional immortality. Conditional immortality is the belief that immortality is not inherent to humanity, but rather it is a gift granted to those who meet certain conditions, such as faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to God's commands.

The Bible teaches that the only ones who will receive eternal life are those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:16) and have lived according to God's will (Matthew 25:46). Those who do not meet these conditions will perish and cease to exist (Matthew 25:46, 2
2 Thessalonians 1:9

Some specific verses that support conditional immortality include:

- Matthew 25:46: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
- John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
- 1 Timothy 6:16: "Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see."

Please let me know if you have further questions or if there's anything else I can help you with!

Is that Artificial Intelligence or Actually, Indians?

lol

https://boingboing.net/2024/04/03/am...-you-shop.html

[Amanah]

I'm on board with answer #5

META:
The "Mark of the Beast" is a symbol or sign mentioned in the New Testament book of Revelation, specifically in chapter 13, verses 16-18. It is associated with the Antichrist, also known as the Beast, and is described as a mark or number that is required for people to buy or sell goods and services.

The passage reads:

"16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 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 interpretation of the Mark of the Beast has been debated and speculated upon by many scholars and theologians over the centuries. Some possible interpretations include:

1. A literal mark or tattoo
2. A symbolic representation of allegiance to the Antichrist
3. A numerical code or identifier (e.g., 666)
4. A biometric or technological identifier (e.g., a chip or barcode)
5. A spiritual mark, representing a person's rejection of God and acceptance of the Antichrist's authority.

It's important to note that the true meaning and nature of the Mark of the Beast is not explicitly stated in the Bible and is open to interpretation.

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You were taught everyone is judged twice? Weird.

I was asking about the judgment of all the dead.

Do you believe the Bible teaches a judgment of all the dead OTHER than the one mentioned several times in Revelation?

Weird or not, that was what I was taught. When we are saved we are judged, and then the white throne at the end of time.
I no longer believe that anymore. I don't believe in an end of time at all. I believe in an old covenant becoming the new, this started to begin with the life of Christ. It became in full fledge with the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem.
If there is no end of time, only end of one covenant (Old) with the beginning of the new, so the end of all things must have happened when the old was made new. 70 as was the final end of the old because the Jews could not offer animal sacrifices anymore, with the destruction of the temple. God now dwells (temples) in our hearts now.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by loran adkins

Weird or not, that was what I was taught. When we are saved we are judged, and then the white throne at the end of time.
I no longer believe that anymore. I don't believe in an end of time at all. I believe in an old covenant becoming the new, this started to begin with the life of Christ. It became in full fledge with the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem.
If there is no end of time, only end of one covenant (Old) with the beginning of the new, so the end of all things must have happened when the old was made new. 70 as was the final end of the old because the Jews could not offer animal sacrifices anymore, with the destruction of the temple. God now dwells (temples) in our hearts now.

Now what do you believe? We are judged when we are saved, or when we die?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by loran adkins

Weird or not, that was what I was taught. When we are saved we are judged, and then the white throne at the end of time.
I no longer believe that anymore. I don't believe in an end of time at all. I believe in an old covenant becoming the new, this started to begin with the life of Christ. It became in full fledge with the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem.
If there is no end of time, only end of one covenant (Old) with the beginning of the new, so the end of all things must have happened when the old was made new. 70 as was the final end of the old because the Jews could not offer animal sacrifices anymore, with the destruction of the temple. God now dwells (temples) in our hearts now.

Before the destruction of the Temple, God was already dwelling in people's hearts. Therefore the destruction of the Temple was not a necessary requirement for God to establish the new covenant temple of the church.

But let's say you are right about the idea that "because the Jews could not offer animal sacrifices anymore, with the destruction of the temple" therefore it marked the end of the old covenant. So what happens if, say, they rebuild a temple and start offering animal sacrifices once again? You can say "God won't recognise them" but He wasn't recognising them to begin with according to Hebrews. That is, "the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins".

But if what you are saying is correct, then a re-establishment of animal sacrifices in Jerusalem at the temple location would necessitate a re-instatement of the old covenant.

One thing I am not understanding though the is the fascination with AD 70. "It became in full fledge with the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem". It seems like, in your view, AD 70 is the big main centerpoint around which everything revolves rather than the death and resurrection of Christ. At least that is how it is coming across to me. Dispies have as the big main centerpoint the Jews and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. You seem to have as your main centerpoint the destruction of Judea in 70 AD.

Furthermore, it looks to me like you have settled on that date and event as the centerpiece, and then you subsequently stuff everything in to that date and say "the date was sure, therefore XYZ or ABC must have occurred (somehow, invisibly if necessary) at that time." I'm going to be honest, this is not meant to be snarky, but honestly, that sounds to me no different than the JWs and their "Jesus came back in 1914" thing, or the SDA's and their "Jesus began the Judgment in 1845" thing. Just pointing out how it is coming across to me.

[coksiw]

Do they jews need a temple to do animal sacrifice? Can't they just build the Tabernacle?

BTW, they have been doing animal sacrifices already with priests and levites for at least 6 years, during passover as far as I know.

They probably already did the red heifer too but just didn't say anything to avoid turmoil with neighbors. The Temple Institute indeed said they would be doing it before passover, and then, passover is over, and no news whether they did it or not.

Just watch the Temple Institute youtube channel.

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Before the destruction of the Temple, God was already dwelling in people's hearts. Therefore the destruction of the Temple was not a necessary requirement for God to establish the new covenant temple of the church.

But let's say you are right about the idea that "because the Jews could not offer animal sacrifices anymore, with the destruction of the temple" therefore it marked the end of the old covenant. So what happens if, say, they rebuild a temple and start offering animal sacrifices once again? You can say "God won't recognise them" but He wasn't recognising them to begin with according to Hebrews. That is, "the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins".

But if what you are saying is correct, then a re-establishment of animal sacrifices in Jerusalem at the temple location would necessitate a re-instatement of the old covenant.


One thing I am not understanding though the is the fascination with AD 70. "It became in full fledge with the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem". It seems like, in your view, AD 70 is the big main centerpoint around which everything revolves rather than the death and resurrection of Christ. At least that is how it is coming across to me. Dispies have as the big main centerpoint the Jews and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. You seem to have as your main centerpoint the destruction of Judea in 70 AD.

Furthermore, it looks to me like you have settled on that date and event as the centerpiece, and then you subsequently stuff everything in to that date and say "the date was sure, therefore XYZ or ABC must have occurred (somehow, invisibly if necessary) at that time." I'm going to be honest, this is not meant to be snarky, but honestly, that sounds to me no different than the JWs and their "Jesus came back in 1914" thing, or the SDA's and their "Jesus began the Judgment in 1845" thing. Just pointing out how it is coming across to me.

No It would not, as what man does outside of Gods will does not please God. I they were to build another temple God would not recognize it. The people that call themselves Jews today are just another nation as our we.

The children of Abraham today and forever are those of us of faith in Jesus never to will he go back to the old covenant.

Gal 3:7.. Therefore know that those of faith, these are the sons of Abraham...

Gal 3:14.. so that the blessing of Abraham might be to the nations in Jesus Christ, and that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith...

Gal 3:29.. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

If we are Abrahams seed in Christ then who are those that call themselves Jews today? No one.

Heb 8:13.. In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away...

Why does Paul say the Old covenant was ready to pass away? Meaning It was still around when Paul wrote Hebrews. Because they were still offering sacrifices in Jerusalem as long as the temple still stood.

Jesus said, "this generation shall not pass till all these things come to pass.

Mat 24:34.. Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled...

What generation and what things? The generation that would see those things that he prophesied, namely the temple being destroyed and the great tribulation. That happened in 70ad.

No place in scripture does it talk about a third temple being built. The temple that John speaks of is the one that was still standing in Jerusalem when he wrote Revelation.

There is much more that I could say but I think this is the jist of what I now believe.

And not I don't believe there is a coming Mark of the Beast.