The Mark of the Beast - Imminent!

[Nihilo]

There are a million permutations of 666. Forget Nero. It will be something modern, only recognisable in hindsight - not worth speculating about now.

Yet, if it is Nero, then this is just spinning your wheels, isn't it? It doesn't seem like a waste of time to at least seriously examine the question. And it being Nero is supported by the manuscripts with 616 instead of 666, those manuscripts nearly as old as Revelation is, rather than something modern.

 

[Nihilo]

The trinity doctrine teaches ONE God.... but liars like you gotta lie.

Cite on what the "trinity doctrine teaches?"

I have mine. Do you have yours?

 

[Nihilo]

The trinity doctrine teaches ONE God....

Nope it doesn't.

Yes it does.

 

[Nihilo]

Such confusion when the Bible is so clear:

Rev 20:4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(20:4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. ​

It's not a coin, or a credit card, etc. etc. etc.

It's a physical mark. Probably along the lines of a tattoo.

The word used for MARK is:

G5480 χάραγμα charagma (cha'-rag-ma) n.​

a scratch or etching, i.e. stamp (as a badge of servitude), or scupltured figure (statue).​

[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]​

KJV: graven, mark ​

Compare: G5482 ​

See also: G1125 ​

Besides the book of Revelation, there is only ONE other verse in the Bible where this word is used:

Acts 17:29 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
​

It's a physical mark.

Upon a coin.

 

[iouae]

Yet, if it is Nero, then this is just spinning your wheels, isn't it? It doesn't seem like a waste of time to at least seriously examine the question. And it being Nero is supported by the manuscripts with 616 instead of 666, those manuscripts nearly as old as Revelation is, rather than something modern.

I think I asked you the relevance of 666 being Nero in the end-time, and you could not help me.

 

[Nihilo]

I think I asked you the relevance of 666 being Nero in the end-time, and you could not help me.

You think 666 has to do with end times without even knowing what 666 is.

 

[TheThirdAngel144]

What if I told you, they are pushing the mark of the beast as a benefit for society? For example, how shall we deal with climate change? Their solution: The mark of the beast!

Better video, IMO.

 

[Right Divider]

Correct. The trinity doctrine teaches One three-headed God. And in Greek mythology, Chimera was a fire-breathing female monster with a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail.

No, it does not.

 

[Right Divider]

Upon a coin.

Coins to NOT have foreheads or hands.

 

[Right Divider]

Cite on what the "trinity doctrine teaches?"

I have mine. Do you have yours?

:dizzy:

 

[Nihilo]

Coins to NOT have foreheads or hands.

People have hands, and coins have marks, and when buying and selling, marks on coins are on hands.

And it's always hands OR foreheads, NOT hands AND foreheads.

 

[Nihilo]

:dizzy:

That's my point. You don't have a cite on the Trinity.

 

[Right Divider]

That's my point. You don't have a cite on the Trinity.

I cite the Bible.

 

[Right Divider]

People have hands, and coins have marks, and when buying and selling, marks on coins are on hands.

And it's always hands OR foreheads, NOT hands AND foreheads.

You're crazy.

 

[Nihilo]

I cite the Bible.

Which is why you can't refute non-Trins because they cite the Bible too.

 

[Nihilo]

You're crazy.

You bowled me over with that stumper. lain:

 

[Right Divider]

Which is why you can't refute non-Trins because they cite the Bible too.

So other using the Bible WRONGLY means that I cannot use it CORRECTLY?

You have many problems.

 

[Right Divider]

You bowled me over with that stumper. lain:

I'm not going to waste my time with you. Therefore, you get the "stumper".

 

[Nihilo]

So other using the Bible WRONGLY means that I cannot use it CORRECTLY?

Rather, I would hope and assume that you would.

You have many problems.

Just give me your cite on the Trinity doctrine. :idunno:

 

[Nihilo]

I'm not going to waste my time with you. Therefore, you get the "stumper".

I can't honestly say that I'm surprised. lain: