The Mark?

[mrgravyard49]

http://www.businessinsider.com/startup- ... ips-2017-4

[1whowaits]

Rev 14 indicates that those who take the mark and worship the beast will be 'tormented with burning sulfur... forever and ever..' It appears that those who take the mark are eternally condemned to the Lake of Fire, there is no chance of repentance.

At this time people take marks and worship Satan but if they repent and accept Christ they can still be saved, up until the time they die. It would then seem unlikely that just getting a tattoo or a chip and worshiping Satan's representative by itself would eliminate the opportunity to repent and accept Christ. There would appear to be something more, something that changes an individual into something that can never repent or accept Christ.

[SueAnn]

Rev 14 indicates that those who take the mark and worship the beast will be 'tormented with burning sulfur... forever and ever..' It appears that those who take the mark are eternally condemned to the Lake of Fire, there is no chance of repentance.

At this time people take marks and worship Satan but if they repent and accept Christ they can still be saved, up until the time they die. It would then seem unlikely that just getting a tattoo or a chip and worshiping Satan's representative by itself would eliminate the opportunity to repent and accept Christ. There would appear to be something more, something that changes an individual into something that can never repent or accept Christ.

1whowaits, you have just articulated my thoughts better than I have ever been able to.
I, too, believe that the mark is not just a chip or a tattoo, but something that negatively impacts our Free Will to accept Jesus. For a while I have had the "instinct" that it is a DNA, chromosomal or physical change at the cellular level. Something physical that will change our ability to reason and make our own decisions.

[slick]

Hello Gang,
Havent posted in awhile but still follow boards.....

The Chip Implant could very well be the immediate precursor to the the mark...however in and of itself at this time IS NOT because it is not mandatory or GOVERNMENT required....

2 Thessalonians 2:10-13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason GOD WILL SEND [b]upon them [b]a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but [f]took pleasure in wickedness.

This will be something that occurs in DIRECT allegience to The a/c and COMPLETE rejection of JESUS...
Regards,
Clarence

[christian_m0mmy]

Wow, I was afraid to mention this on the board because...well yeah it's pretty sensational. DNA changing? yeah. I just watched a video series that describes this very thing.

Start at the bottom and work your way backwards. It is several hours long, but this man gives scriptural support to every one of his ideas.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgkxVtdHaobhy5CVeF8Rsdg/videos

[1whowaits]

God has allowed the worst of human sinners to repent and accept Christ, does that change during the GT? God does not change but can humans change?

There is much in popular culture regarding augmented humans, changed genetically in some way to have super-human powers, to become like 'gods'. Satan may offer a form of 'change' to people, to make them more than human, which may in reality make them demonic, sealed with a 'mark' confirming their change into one of Satan's offspring- 'I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and hers.' Gen 3.

Satan apparently does have offspring, and his offspring cannot receive Christ and the Holy Spirit.

[Mark F]

This makes me think of Genesis 6 and the "sons of God." I don't find that evil beings messing with DNA or something is too far from reality.

There is an odd passage in Daniel 2 that speaks of "they mixing with the seed of men", sounds like tom foolery to me.

Dan 2:41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay.
Dan 2:42 And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.
Dan 2:43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

"They" cannot be the seed of men, so who or what is it? This is in the explanation of the colossus Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream....definitely end times application.

[ToledoDebbie]

More Companies making the "chip" voluntary for now. https://www.theepochtimes.com/wis-compa ... 72343.html

[ToledoDebbie]

http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/articl ... ws_id=2353

Very interesting - I had no idea that these groups and individuals even existed!! Everything seems to be on fast-forward these days.

[whelen36]

Isn't the holy spirit leaving the earth during the end times,
Only the 144,000 who have been sealed are to remain to preach the gospel?? Without the holy spirit, those who take the mark wouldn't have any force to convict their hearts, most who would take the mark wouldnt really have free will as they would belong to the antichrist at that point, only the ones who didn't take the mark would be able to have free will and would be able to hear the witnesses and truly hear and accept the word.

[GodsStudent]

http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=2353

Very interesting - I had no idea that these groups and individuals even existed!! Everything seems to be on fast-forward these days.

I read the article. At first, I cut and paste from the article the argument that if you get the chip, you won't have to carry a HEAVY wallet....and I was rolling my eyes and shaking my head, BUT....the article goes on to "sell" the idea of the transhuman who, with all this implanted technology, will be superior......this is bible stuff......signs and wonders.....and deceiving even the elect......so, I withdrew my joke post about the "heavy wallet" comment in this article.
Seriously, reading this article was like reading a document made to confirm the bible.....scary thing.

[Jericho]

Ye will be like Gods. Satan told this lie to Eve, and mankind has been running with it ever since. We are definitely moving in the direction of The Mark, and whatever all that entails. I can already imagine the ad campaigns. People will talk about the convenience of it and how "free" they feel not having to carry around anything. It will be portrayed as stylish, modern, and sexy. Eventually it will turn into a movement, and people will start putting peer pressure on one another to take it. In time they will get more and more aggressive about it. Those that don't take it will be marginalized and demonized. Christians, of course, will be seen as old-fashioned and out-of-touch. Apostate Christians will try to convince us how it is not The Mark and we are just being ridiculous. Finally, the False Prophet will make it mandatory, causing everyone to swear allegiance to the AC if they want to participate in the economy.

Technology is becoming a snare to humanity. The end to privacy and anonymity is fast approaching, if its not already here. What we will have is a digital prison without bars or walls, but a prison nonetheless. One where your behavior and actions are monitored and controlled via technology. It is the ultimate control mechanism from which there is no escape.

[extravagantchristian]

They already chip animals to keep track of them, the next step could be chipping certain people like criminals, people who receive government assistance, food stamps. Or maybe they'll start with illegal immigrants, as part of a plan to let them some of them stay.

[Ready1]

Thousands of people in Sweden are having futuristic microchips implanted into their skin to carry out everyday activities and replace credit cards and cash.

More than 4,000 people have already had the sci-fi-ish chips, about the size of a grain of rice, inserted into their hands — with the pioneers predicting millions will soon join them as they hope to take it global.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/14/swedish-people-are-getting-chip-implants-to-replace-cash-credit-cards/

[Jericho]

Thousands of people in Sweden are having futuristic microchips implanted into their skin to carry out everyday activities and replace credit cards and cash.

More than 4,000 people have already had the sci-fi-ish chips, about the size of a grain of rice, inserted into their hands — with the pioneers predicting millions will soon join them as they hope to take it global.

I remember hearing about this sort of stuff in the 80s when it will still very much fringe talk. And talk about global government was a conspiracy theory. Here we are today and it doesn't seem to far fetched.

I've said before that even though this may be a prelude to the Mark, and not the actual Mark, there are still good reasons not to take it. Anonimity and privacy will be gone forever. And once you take something like this, taking the actual Mark will be so much easier.

I don't know how people who don't take the Mark will survive, but we know there are people that come out of the tribulation who didn't take the Mark. Maybe God supernaturally provides for them or maybe there is some underground black market at the time, I don't know.

[Happydaddy]

Haven't you read the Left Behind series Jericho? During the tribulation we'll be able to jet set across the globe upsetting the antichrists plans! Not saying it isn't possible but that series became comical after awhile. But, yes, I pray that Believers will be taken care of by the Lord!

[Mark F]

I'm of the firm conviction that people go to hell for what they believe, for what they pledge their allegiance to.

How is an implanted micro chip then the mark of the beast?

It has to be, and maybe more, a denial of the Father and the Son, a denial of the cross of Christ. Those things are why people go to hell.

[Ready1]

Seems like adequate warning is given by God to refuse the "Mark". To intentionally receive it after being warned by God to refuse it would indicate that they pledge their allegiance to someone other than God.

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Rev 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

[shorttribber]

I'm of the firm conviction that people go to hell for what they believe, for what they pledge their allegiance to.

How is an implanted micro chip then the mark of the beast?

It has to be, and maybe more, a denial of the Father and the Son, a denial of the cross of Christ. Those things are why people go to hell.

It is my opinion that when the time comes that this chip is implanted BY Force...it will be implemented BeCAUSE those who Causeth all to receive it will be THE ONES WHO Deny the Deity of Christ.

It IS NOT YET the Mark...but it WILL BE when it is Not An Option, but mandatory.

Some will take it even though it IS Mandated, because they will still not Believe it IS the Mark. They will then cut off their Own Hand that offended them. After those many people begin to do that, it will no longer be placed in the hand...But the Forehead.


That's what I think will happen regarding the chip/mark

[Mark F]

I suppose there COULD be some truth to that, if people are herded up and forced to make some profession of allegiance to anti-christ I can see a chip COULD be used.

I have seen countless Christians declare that a phrase "God d** ....." is taking the name of the Lord in vain, but I would argue that is isn't. It most surely is unacceptable and sinful but I don't agree that is what the verse in Ex 20:7 means, "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in Vain".

I believe it has to do with representation, as I claim to do things in the name of the Lord, yet my motives are proven to be self serving, or I deceive people with false truths about God and His word for personal or finacial gain.

It's like an ambassadorship, do you think the King would tolerate a man who is sent to another kingdom and continually misrepresents the king who sent him? That I believe, would be taking the name of the king whome I claim to represent in vain.

So sure, I suspect a chip COULD be part of it, but it COULD also be 9,000 different thigs as well.

Paul did say in 2 Timothy 2:11; "If we deny Him, He will deny us,"

[Jericho]

How is an implanted micro chip then the mark of the beast?

It has to be, and maybe more, a denial of the Father and the Son, a denial of the cross of Christ. Those things are why people go to hell.

I'm sure there is more to it than just a chip, although it's apparent technology will be a big part of it. You can't control what people buy, sell, and trade without it. It's also apparent this is the direction we are headed, toward a cashless society. Modern digital technology provides a degree of control that was not possible in any other generation.

It's interest to note that it's the False Prophet not the AC who causes people to receive the mark prior to the Great Tribulation. This system is probably already in use before then. Those who take the Mark would get the 666 prefix for it to continue working, and those that refuse will find they can no longer participate in the economy. It would be like going to the super market only to discover your credit card does'nt work. That would be a pretty big incentive to take it in itself.

I certainly think an oath of alliance to the AC in order to receive the Mark is plausible. It could even be something more advanced than a RFID chip. Some of suggested it may even alter our DNA. There's a lot of room for speculation. But as I said before, implanting a chip in itself may not be the Mark, but doing so makes it all the easier to take the next step.

[GodsStudent]

I have another thought that goes in the vein of the discussion here.
In the past two decades, we (societies) have begun to be very casual with our thinking on the temple, our bodies, and scriptures about that. We have, over time, become very comfortable with defaming it, even Christians. I cannot believe how many Christians, in church, I see, covered head to toe with tatoos, as if this is acceptable (because imo, it isnt). Not only that, but piercings all over the place...tongue, ears, eyebrows, belly buttons, and so forth.
I absolutely do believe that satan is behind causing many of us to think it's ok to defame out temples with these things, so that many of us don't think twice about it. I am astonished that so many Christians do this to themselves, seemingly without a thought, as to what the Lord might think of it.
Taking a mark into the flesh, since we've all become so accustomed to not protecting that temple of ours, will not be as significant and relevant, since we are all comfortable with doing things like that.

Just a few decades ago, you just didn't do it....now, why not? is the thinking.

[extravagantchristian]

Godsstudent, I see what you mean about marking up our bodies. In a way that could make the mark of the beast seem, normal.

But the Bible talks about inscribing words on our bodies, and even Jesus has a name written on His thigh:

Isaiah 49:16 See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; Your walls are continually before Me.

Revelation 19:16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Also bond servants had their ears pierced.

I'm thinking about getting a small "Jesus" tattoo written in red on my arm. I wanted to get it on my hand but don't want to confuse anybody if the mark of the beast comes in my lifetime.

So getting tattoos may be bad in the sense that they might make the MOB seem like not a big deal, but I don't think God judges us based on appearance, but rather our heart and keeping His commands.

[Jericho]

Well, there is that verse in Leviticus 19:28, "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks on you: I am the LORD." And then there was the mark placed upon Cain so no one would kill him (Gen 4:15). Unlike today, tattoos were not for show. They were either for some religious ceremony, a sign of ownership or submission, or used for identification.

I can think of two main objections to tattoos. One is they are a pagan practice. It wasn't something the Hebrews or later Christians practiced. Marking, cutting, or branding the body was always something the pagans did. The second is that it disfigures the body which was made in God's image. "Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?" (1CO 6:19). So if the body is a temple, tattoos would be like graffiti.

Just my 2 cents.

[GodsStudent]

Well, there is that verse in Leviticus 19:28, "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks on you: I am the LORD." And then there was the mark placed upon Cain so no one would kill him (Gen 4:15). Unlike today, tattoos were not for show. They were either for some religious ceremony, a sign of ownership or submission, or used for identification.

I can think of two main objections to tattoos. One is they are a pagan practice. It wasn't something the Hebrews or later Christians practiced. Marking, cutting, or branding the body was always something the pagans did. The second is that it disfigures the body which was made in God's image. "Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?" (1CO 6:19). So if the body is a temple, tattoos would be like graffiti.

Just my 2 cents.

THANK YOU. EXACTLY !!!!!

EC, that said (my strong agreement with the above),
I have always been taught, with the above scriptures if not also others, that our bodies were not to be marked up, as they were our temples, to be untainted with things like piercings and tattoos. I will consider your words (likely NOT so that I can, at the age of 52, begin the practice of marking up my body), but more to ensure that when/if I judge this action, I am accurate in my judgments.

That said, and due to my lifetime beliefs, I am amazed and astonished that we outright degrade our temples with pictures of butterflies, our current love interest, and so on and so on. It's widely accepted now and absolutely no big deal...the protection of this temple.....1 CO 6:19...especially comes to mind.
I have such a strong reaction to the defaming of our temples going on out there. It is done with little thought....if any, honestly.....so not a big deal....SO NOT a big deal....
If we don't take into consideration that we were told to NOT DO THAT....defame our temple....therein goes another layer of protection from ....against......the MOB. Christians should know not to defame the temple, so that GOD HIMSELF would absolutely not be encouraging us to take his mark (and indeed it won't be God, it will be satan getting us to do that...yet another snub at God).

So, I really do believe that this is all by design by satan.....and it has taken on in this falling world like a wildfire in California (sorry if my reference to wildfires in CA causes any pain to any member, but we all know how easily those start and how massive and terrible they get....hence my point).

EC, as to your decision to get a tattoo.....we know scriptures tell us to do what we believe to be correct and earnestly seek to please the Lord......so if you do not believe this tattoo you desire to be an issue, and if you believe it to actually be a physical statement of your love for the Lord....I understand and say its between you and the Lord.....do what you feel is right. I am not trying to be disagreeable and actually do believe what I am saying here about these tattoos and piercings, both of which have exponentially become widely accepted and even adored in society now. My personal thoughts are, is it any wonder?...no, it's by design.

[extravagantchristian]

Well, there is that verse in Leviticus 19:28, "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks on you: I am the LORD." And then there was the mark placed upon Cain so no one would kill him (Gen 4:15). Unlike today, tattoos were not for show. They were either for some religious ceremony, a sign of ownership or submission, or used for identification.

It also says in Leviticus not to eat shrimp and to stone those who commit adultery, so I don't think we can take those rules and apply them today.

It may be in poor taste to get certain tattoos, but I can't think of one single verse that calls it a sin.

[Jericho]

It also says in Leviticus not to eat shrimp and to stone those who commit adultery, so I don't think we can take those rules and apply them today.

We don't live under the Law, but the Law was meant to teach right from wrong. If it was morally wrong under the Old Covenant, it's still morally wrong under the New Covenant. The only difference now is it doesn't come with corporal punishment. The dietary laws were part of the ceremonial laws and were specifically for the Israelites under the OC. So Christians are not bound by them.

[extravagantchristian]

It also says in Leviticus not to eat shrimp and to stone those who commit adultery, so I don't think we can take those rules and apply them today.

We don't live under the Law, but the Law was meant to teach right from wrong. If it was morally wrong under the Old Covenant, it's still morally wrong under the New Covenant. The only difference now is it doesn't come with corporal punishment. The dietary laws were part of the ceremonial laws and were specifically for the Israelites under the OC. So Christians are not bound by them.

Maybe so, but I'm not convinced because it also says that it's wrong to eat a rare steak (because it has blood in it) and wrong to trim the sides of your beard.

Leveticus 19

26 ‘You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor shall you practice divination or soothsaying. 27 You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard. 28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.

Tattoos and piercings may look "messy" but God cares about the heart.

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Not saying anyone here is a hypocrite but these verses point out the fact that Jesus cares more about the inside than the outward appearance of men.

[Abiding in His Word]

Just a thought about defaming/cutting the temple... How is circumcision not cutting the flesh? And the practice of making one a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom.

And scripture speaks quite often about earrings and nose rings among God's people. One reference is where the servant approached Rebekah and "... I put the ring on her nose, and the bracelets on her wrists." (Gen. 24:47)

Other references include one speaking of God Himself adorning with ornaments of the ancient culture.

Eze 16:11  "I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck. 
Eze 16:12  "I also put a ring in your nostril, earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. 

Exo 32:2  Aaron said to them, "Tear off the gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." 
Exo 32:3  Then all the people tore off the gold rings which were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 

There are others, but the point is that over time, cultural changes in scripture include clothing, hair styles, greetings, interaction between the Hebrews and surrounding nations, adherence to laws, rules, regulations; i.e. governing authorities, slavery, marriage, etc.

Some of my thoughts....

[shorttribber]

28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.

It's the Purpose of the Tattoo or Cutting of the Flesh that is emphasized in the text.

In other words, to Honor or Worship THE DEAD with these things is what was forbidden.

The other examples (circumcision, ear rings showing service, or adorning a virgin for marriage) that abiding has given were allowed, just and good.

[Jericho]

Just a thought about defaming/cutting the temple... How is circumcision not cutting the flesh? And the practice of making one a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom.

You might find this article interesting (link below). Basically circumcision was a sign of God's covenant between Him and His people. It might seem odd for God to pick circumcision as a sign of His covenant. But one thing I find interesting is that in order for children to be conceived, the man's "seed" has to pass through the covenant. In that way, even the unborn are under the covenant. Perhaps that is a possible reason for it.
https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/st ... rael/47568

That is quite a bit different from the way the pagans would cut themselves, like the prophets of Baal who cut themselves to their god (1Ki 18:28), or the demon-possessed man cut himself (Mar 5:5). That sort of cutting is demonic.

As for tattooing, the Bible admittedly doesn't have much to say about it. Although, I think the reasons I gave to not do it stands. To me a tattoo is a sign of the world and carnality. Just my opinion, please no one take offense.

[shorttribber]

You might find this article interesting (link below). Basically circumcision was a sign of God's covenant between Him and His people. It might seem odd for God to pick circumcision as a sign of His covenant. But one thing I find interesting is that in order for children to be conceived, the man's "seed" has to pass through the covenant. In that way, even the unborn are under the covenant. Perhaps that is the primary reason for circumcision.

Yes, as type and shadow, it is exactly that.

[Jay Ross]

What I find interesting is that the mark of Satan is also prevalent today. What is that mark? It is the mark of a "Slave of Satan." At the beginning of the Millennium Age when the beheaded saints are made heavenly Priests with Christ, the following is written.

Revelation 20:4: - And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

The question becomes, who or what is being referred to as the beast in this verse as the beast being worshipped and people taking the mark of the beast is only mentioned after the False Prophet and the Multi-facetted Beast is released from the Bottomless pit for a little while period at the end of the last Age, i.e. which has been labelled as the Millennium Age, in Revelation 13.

Is the mark in Rev 13, the same mark that the beheaded saints in Rev 20:4 did not take before the start of the Millennium Age.

We either have the mark/seal of Christ on our foreheads or the Mark of Satan on our foreheads or arm. We are either a slave to Christ or a slave to Satan. We chose, either by listening to God's truth or to Satan's deception.

Shalom

[Abiding in His Word]

Basically circumcision was a sign of God's covenant between Him and His people.

Very strange sign, wouldn't you agree?

It might seem odd for God to pick circumcision as a sign of His covenant.

Yes, odd indeed.

But one thing I find interesting is that in order for children to be conceived, the man's "seed" has to pass through the covenant.

Jericho, please help me understand that statement. How does a man's seed "pass through" a covenant? Didn't God previously make a promise to the woman in Genesis regarding her "seed?" Her descendants throughout history proved the validity of God's promise to her resulting in the birth of the Messiah. It was the first of 353 prophecies regarding the coming Messiah in the OT.

That is quite a bit different from the way the pagans would cut themselves, like the prophets of Baal who cut themselves to their god (1Ki 18:28), or the demon-possessed man cut himself (Mar 5:5). That sort of cutting is demonic.

Cutting is cutting. God was very specific in Leviticus 21 that no sons of Aaron (priests) who had any defect whatsoever was to approach the altar. He lists the defects and again, mentions cutting the flesh specifically (Lev. 21:5) and then makes cutting the flesh (circumcision) a (non-visible?) sign of a covenant.

Makes no sense to me....Paul even circumcised Timothy and refused to circumcise Titus.

As for tattooing, the Bible admittedly doesn't have much to say about it. Although, I think the reasons I gave to not do it stands. To me a tattoo is a sign of the world and carnality. Just my opinion, please no one take offense.

Whatever our opinion about tattooing, maybe it would be better to learn to overlook them as they are very popular today and usually represent something special to each individual. I've seen some very beautiful (nearly) full body tattoos on people and asked them if they minded sharing what they represented. Nearly everyone is happy to share the meaning behind the design and most were declarations of fond memories, beliefs, people, dreams, etc. and some represented gang affiliations and the like.

[Abiding in His Word]

Whatever our opinion about tattooing, maybe it would be better to learn to overlook them as they are very popular today and usually represent something special to each individual. I've seen some very beautiful (nearly) full body tattoos on people and asked them if they minded sharing what they represented. Nearly everyone is happy to share the meaning behind the design and most were declarations of fond memories, beliefs, people, dreams, etc. and some represented gang affiliations and the like.

The story in the link I provided was the reason for my statement above. When the gang member in the story above tried to go to church in hopes of finding God, he was turned away at the door by a deacon based on his looks. He was told they didn't want "his kind" there. Read his story and if I remember the details, that man is being baptized today.

[Jericho]

Jericho, please help me understand that statement. How does a man's seed "pass through" a covenant? Didn't God previously make a promise to the woman in Genesis regarding her "seed?" Her descendants throughout history proved the validity of God's promise to her resulting in the birth of the Messiah. It was the first of 353 prophecies regarding the coming Messiah in the OT.

I don't think it has anything to do with the Messiah in this context. It was specifically a sign of God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac. Without getting too graphic, circumcision was done on a man's manhood, right? So during "the act" his seed (ie. sperm) passes through the mark of the covenant, and passes unto his children. Get the picture? Rather this has spiritual implications or is purely symbolic I don't know.

Cutting is cutting.

Perhaps it is as shorttribber said the purpose of it that makes the difference. I certainly don't think cutting one-self to Baal is equivalent to circumcision. One is from God, one isn't.

Makes no sense to me....Paul even circumcised Timothy and refused to circumcise Titus.

I believe that in Timothy's case he was part Jew and part Gentile. Since he would be around other Jews and perhaps ministering to them, it would be best for Him to be circumcised as it might offend them otherwise. In Titus case he was a gentile so it didn't really matter to anyone.

I don't think we're going to understand everything why God does things they way He does. It's just like animal sacrifice. It seems sort of odd that God would use animal blood to atone for sin. But obviously there is a supernatural quality about blood that we may not be aware of that transcends the natural. It was Jesus' blood that atoned for all of mankind. So blood seems to be a bridge between the natural and supernatural.

The story in the link I provided was the reason for my statement above. When the gang member in the story above tried to go to church in hopes of finding God, he was turned away at the door by a deacon based on his looks. He was told they didn't want "his kind" there. Read his story and if I remember the details, that man is being baptized today.

I think it's one thing for a person to get them when they are unsaved. I certainly don't think they should be turned away because of them. But I do think it's quite another to get them after being saved. An inward change is expressed by an outward change. If Christians look and act just like the world then something is wrong.

[Abiding in His Word]

I don't think it has anything to do with the Messiah in this context. It was specifically a sign of God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac. Without getting too graphic, circumcision was done on a man's manhood, right? So during "the act" his seed (ie. sperm) passes through the mark of the covenant, and passes unto his children. Get the picture? Rather this has spiritual implications or is purely symbolic I don't know.

Thank you so much Jericho, for trying to help me understand the purpose of a circumcision relative to a covenant. Without getting too graphic,....during "the act" his seed would pass through his manhood whether it was circumcised or not, wouldn't it? So I'm back to not comprehending the purpose of a circumcision to identify God's people.

Rather this has spiritual implications or is purely symbolic I don't know.

I can't see either spiritual or symbolic...it's physical. And it's not visible. So why did God choose a physical cutting of the flesh in this circumstance when He forbade defects and cuttings among the Levites?

I don't think we're going to understand everything why God does things they way He does.

I agree to a point. But the word circumcision or circumcise is found @80 times in scripture so it's of considerable importance. And the word covenant is found @295 times. And since I think the Bible is our path to understanding God, I hope to understand this type of "mark" required by Him. He was pretty specific when He pointed to a rainbow as a visible reminder of His covenant between Him and Noah and all flesh on the earth. But a circumcision is not visible and yet seems to be a visible identification as being a Jew.

It's just like animal sacrifice. It seems sort of odd that God would use animal blood to atone for sin. But obviously there is a supernatural quality about blood that we may not be aware of that transcends the natural. It was Jesus' blood that atoned for all of mankind. So blood seems to be a bridge between the natural and supernatural.

I understand that life is in the blood. And that animal sacrifice topologically (is that a word?) represents atonement for the sacrifice made for the forgiveness of sin by Jesus. But again in this blood covenant, the sign (the blood) is visible reminder of the substitution.

I think it's one thing for a person to get them when they are unsaved. I certainly don't think they should be turned away because of them. But I do think it's quite another to get them after being saved. An inward change is expressed by an outward change. If Christians look and act just like the world then something is wrong.

You may be right in this. But once again, even this "mark" is visible and once the body is covered with tattoos, they are relatively permanent. So if a believer's conscience permits a tattoo at one time and sees it differently down the road at some point, we are told to not judge according to appearance, but to judge with righteous judgement. Keep in mind, that the sins of a sexual nature are rarely visible as are others that are an abomination. Those who were prostitutes, lepers, lame, blind, deaf, and other defects/deformities are the very ones Jesus ministered to. And we may be sitting right next to a sexual assault predator, an adulterer, a liar, a greedy individual, etc. in church and because those sins are not visible, we fellowship with them. Outwardly they appear righteous, but inwardly may be lawless/sinners. It was for sinners He came.

Anyway, most covenants in scripture are more easily understood, but the circumcision is still a mystery to me.

[shorttribber]

Abiding in His Word wrote: Jericho, please help me understand that statement. How does a man's seed "pass through" a covenant? Didn't God previously make a promise to the woman in Genesis regarding her "seed?" Her descendants throughout history proved the validity of God's promise to her resulting in the birth of the Messiah. It was the first of 353 prophecies regarding the coming Messiah in the OT.

Then Jericho wrote: I don't think it has anything to do with the Messiah in this context. It was specifically a sign of God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac.

Anyway, most covenants in scripture are more easily understood, but the circumcision is still a mystery to me.

First, the promise of the seed of the woman and the validity of that promise, Confirmed by AN OATH, had Everything to do with Messiah, in that very context.

The primary reason for the circumcision in the flesh had to with the Timing of the Sign/Token commanded by God.
Understanding the Reason for commanded circumcision had to do with a dispensational change or as some writers have said, a different Economy of God's promises to and requirements on mankind.

At that Appointed Timethe promises and responsibility to be in Agreement/Covenant with God required MARKING those who would be HELD responsible IN A Household.

That is why the MARKING was only for the Male, placing the greater responsibility on them, then.
The marking was only temporary though wasn't it? It stayed in the flesh permanently, yes, but the Token was representing the Everlasting Covenant wasn't it?
But the circumcision of the flesh was not Everlasting, Right?

What made, or better to say Who MADE the Covenant Everlasting? The Promised SEED. Therein is the type and shadow.

Now there remains the Circumcision of the heart, and there is no Male nor Female in Christ as to Responsibility to be in Covenant/Agreement with God.

All are equally made responsible, regarding an UNSEEN Circumcision of the heart.

There really is much more I could or should say about it...but since I type so slow and time is limited...that's the best I can do for now.

[Sonbeam]

A question about “the mark”:

As per your posts, is the reason most of you (not all) seem to be fixated/worried about the “the mark in the flesh” because you believe you’ll lose your salvation if you get this “mark in the flesh”?

This is an impossibility. Salvation, i. e., the birth in the Spirit, is a spiritual birth -- not a physical “ in the flesh” birth. Born again believers have been marked with a seal, the seal of the Holy Spirit, Who guarantees our salvation, i.e, being God’s possession already and eternal life with Him.

Eph 1: 13,14

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

The above passage trumps any other scripture that would indicate otherwise.

Blessings,

sonbeam

[extravagantchristian]

While I don't think it's a sin to get a tattoo or piercing, it could give the wrong impression to unbelievers. I wouldn't want to look so much like the world that I no longer resemble Jesus. It's one of those freedoms we have that could be a stumbling block to someone else.

I seen this article today on Facebook, Joyce Meyer's opinion: She mentions a great verse that I was trying to remember earlier:

Isaiah 44:5
5 Some will say, ‘I belong to the Lord’;
others will call themselves by the name of Jacob;
still others will write on their hand, ‘The Lord’s,’
and will take the name Israel.

What God Says About Tattoos
- by Joyce Meyer
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email Size Button Print Button Like Button

Holiness is not legalism
For many years people have confused biblical holiness with a long list of rules to follow. The idea of “holiness” became not smoking, not drinking, not cussing, not dancing, not playing cards, not going to parties, not wearing pretty clothes, not wearing any makeup, no jewelry, not having a nice hairstyle and more. You had to cut or not cut your hair depending on which brand or religion you followed, and you definitely couldn’t have a tattoo or, if you're a man, put an earring in your ear! That kind of behavior would just put the religious people over the edge!

But did you know that in Isaiah 44:5 (AMPC), it says, One will say, I am the Lord's; and another one will write [even brand or tattoo] upon his hand, I am the Lords...?

In Isaiah 49, it says that God has a picture of you tattooed on the palm of his hand. How cool is that? If I got a tattoo, I would get one just to make religious demons mad. For years I lived in so much bondage from legalism. Everything about legalism is something you can't do. But let me tell you something, it is not boring to serve Christ. It is so much fun, and there is so much you can do. And not only that, you can enjoy all of it!

It comes down to your heart
Leviticus 19:28 says You shall not make any cuts on your body [in mourning] for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves; I am the Lord. In other scriptures, God punished the Israelites for wearing earrings because they were doing it at a feast to the idol, Baal. But in Ezekiel 16:11-12, there was a big feast, and God put earrings on everyone and even nose rings.

So, what’s the difference? True biblical holiness is all about your motive and why you're doing things. It’s being different from the world and honoring God above all else…but that doesn’t mean you can’t have a little fun!

Why in the world would we think that God is colorless and boring and wants everything to be just a bunch of rules and regulations? Let me tell you something, the Bible says that God sits in the heavens and laughs, and He put a laugh in every one of us because He expects us to use it. We need to realize that we're the billboard for God. People so desperately want to be happy, and they need to see that in us. They don't need a bunch of people calling themselves Christians who look like they've been baptized in prune juice! Pursue holiness, stop looking at what everyone else is doing and go out and enjoy life…maybe even get a tattoo while you’re at it!

[shorttribber]

A question about “the mark”:

As per your posts, is the reason most of you (not all) seem to be fixated/worried about the “the mark in the flesh” because you believe you’ll lose your salvation if you get this “mark in the flesh”?

This is an impossibility. Salvation, i. e., the birth in the Spirit, is a spiritual birth -- not a physical “ in the flesh” birth. Born again believers have been marked with a seal, the seal of the Holy Spirit, Who guarantees our salvation, i.e, being God’s possession already and eternal life with Him.

Eph 1: 13,14

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

The above passage trumps any other scripture that would indicate otherwise.

Blessings,

sonbeam

Eph 1

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Looking at a list of about thirty translations I found only a handful with the added words "Marked" with a seal, rather than simply the word "Sealed".

I think it better to not have that word added...as a translation should Not Add to the existing Word of God.

That makes a Bible version an Interpretation rather than a Translation.

[shorttribber]

So many theological topics seem to find their way into a OSAS discussion.....not sure how it can be really avoided.

[Jericho]

Regarding scriptures that have been mentioned previously:

"One will say, I am the Lord’s; and another will call himself by the name of Jacob; and another will write [even brand or tattoo] upon his hand, I am the Lord’s, and surname himself by the [honorable] name of Israel." -Isaiah 44:5

I notice that only the AMPC emphasis "brand or tattoo". Most versions just say subscribe or write. Looking up how the word is used in the OT it generally means to write, inscribe, register, enrol, record. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... lexResults

Some commentaries I have looked at suggest it refers to a branding or tattoo, but there is also another possibility:

But all this is too refined, and is evidently a departure from the true sense of the passage. The mark, or writing, was not on the hand, but with it - literally, 'and this shall write his hand to Yahweh; 'and the figure is evidently taken from the mode of making a contract or bargain, where the name is subscribed to the instrument. It was a solemn compact or covenant, by which they enrolled themselves among the worshippers of God, and pledged themselves to his service. The manner of a contract among the Hebrews is described in Jeremiah 32:10, Jeremiah 32:12, Jeremiah 32:44. A public, solemn, and recorded covenant, to which the names of princes, Levites, and priests, were subscribed, and which was sealed, by which they bound themselves to the service of God, is mentioned in Nehemiah 9:38. Here it denotes the solemn manner in which they would profess to be worshippers of the true God; and it is expressive of the true nature of a profession of religion. -Barnes' Notes on the Bible
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/44-5.htm

I think this verse is fairly ambiguous to its use and therefore inconclusive.

Isaiah 49:16 See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; Your walls are continually before Me.

I don't see inscribing or engraving equivalent or an endorsement of marking the skin with ink. I also note that two separate words are used. "marks" in Leviticus 19:28 uses the word "qa`aqa`" and is only used once in the Old Testament, while "graven" or "inscribed" in Isaiah 49:16 used the word "chaqaq". This suggests to me they are not the same thing.

It's also possible it's not talking about a literal inscription here, but using poetic language to make a point. The pagan's would get tattoos as a sign of devotion to their gods. This scripture then would be God's way of saying that He was devoted to Israel, even if they had turned from Him.

Revelation 19:16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

I think it is assumed here that it is written directly on his thigh, but there is no mention of marking the skin. Commentaries I have seen suggest it is on his garment:

"Inscriptions on the outer garments were sometimes used by distinguished personages. -Ellicot's commentary for English readers

“And on his garment and (i.e., even) upon his thigh”; on that part of the robe covering his thigh, he has a title of honour written." -Expositor's Greek Testament

"on his vesture and on his thigh] i.e, probably, beginning on the lower part of the cloak, and continued where the thigh projected from it as He rode—whether this continuation was on the bare flesh, or (as seems likelier) on the skirt of the tunic." -Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/19-16.htm

My question is, if we accept tattoos then what else will we accept? Is it okay for a Christian to have body modifications or brandings? Where would we draw the line exactly? It seems like a slippery slope to me.

28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.

It's the Purpose of the Tattoo or Cutting of the Flesh that is emphasized in the text.

In other words, to Honor or Worship THE DEAD with these things is what was forbidden.

The other examples (circumcision, ear rings showing service, or adorning a virgin for marriage) that abiding has given were allowed, just and good.

ST, how do you know that marking the skin is connected with cutting of the flesh for the dead, and not two separate thoughts? If it is implied that tattooing is only prohibited if it's in regards to worshiping the dead, then wouldn't it be acceptable apart from that? And if so, then why was it not a common practice among the Israelites?

[shorttribber]

shorttribber wrote:28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.
It's the Purpose of the Tattoo or Cutting of the Flesh that is emphasized in the text.In other words, to Honor or Worship THE DEAD with these things is what was forbidden.The other examples (circumcision, ear rings showing service, or adorning a virgin for marriage) that abiding has given were allowed, just and good.

ST, how do you know that marking the skin is connected with cutting of the flesh for the dead, and not two separate thoughts? If it is implied that tattooing is only prohibited if it's in regards to worshiping the dead, then wouldn't it be acceptable apart from that? And if so, then why was it not a common practice among the Israelites?

The Hebrew form gives the meaning. The Cutting AND Tattooing is mentioned with the Emphasis OR Reason Against it Placed in the Center Between the TWO Wrongs.

He begins with the command and ends with I Am The Lord. And Places the Reason as Idolatry in the Middle.

Regarding two scriptures that have been mentioned previously:Isaiah 49:16 See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; Your walls are continually before Me.
I don't see inscribing or engraving equivalent or an endorsement of marking the skin with ink. I also note that two separate words are used. "marks" in Leviticus 19:28 uses the word "qa`aqa`" and is only used once in the Old Testament, while "graven" or "inscribed" in Isaiah 49:16 used the word "chaqaq".
This suggests to me they are not the same thing.It's also possible it's not a literal inscription, but poetic language.
The pagan's would tattoo their gods on themselves as a sign of devotion to them. This scripture then would be God's way of saying that He was devoted to Israel.

[Sonbeam]

A question about “the mark”:

As per your posts, is the reason most of you (not all) seem to be fixated/worried about the “the mark in the flesh” because you believe you’ll lose your salvation if you get this “mark in the flesh”?

This is an impossibility. Salvation, i. e., the birth in the Spirit, is a spiritual birth -- not a physical “ in the flesh” birth. Born again believers have been marked with a seal, the seal of the Holy Spirit, Who guarantees our salvation, i.e, being God’s possession already and eternal life with Him.

Eph 1: 13,14

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

The above passage trumps any other scripture that would indicate otherwise.

Blessings,

sonbeam

Eph 1

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Looking at a list of about thirty translations I found only a handful with the added words "Marked" with a seal, rather than simply the word "Sealed".

I think it better to not have that word added...as a translation should Not Add to the existing Word of God.

That makes a Bible version an Interpretation rather than a Translation.

I get your point ST, but in this case I don't think the word "marked" takes away anything from the meaning of what the passage is trying to convey.

But I'm fine with the use of "sealed" alone.

sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

So many theological topics seem to find their way into a OSAS discussion.....not sure how it can be really avoided.

First ST, rather than the acronym OSAS (once saved always saved) a more accurate statement that directly speaks to the children of God’s status/security in His kingdom is “once born again always born again.”

To answer your comment, the reason the topic is bound to come up in just about every discussion is very simple.

IMO in just about every topic, here and in most churches, there is the underlying belief and preoccupation/fear that our behavior (what we do or don’t do sometimes) will adversely impact our salvation, that is, that we will lose it, or at the very least tarnish it somehow.

This line of thinking might not be expressed openly, but it is still there. One on one though, I've heard it from dear
Christian friends many times.

And this ST is why I asked this question in my first post:

As per your posts, is the reason most of you (not all) seem to be fixated/worried about the “the mark in the flesh” because you believe you’ll lose your salvation if you get this “mark in the flesh”?

Didn't get any answers, but only you ST wondering how we could avoid this annoying subject from coming up in most discussions.

Since this is about salvation, a most important subject, I doubt it can be avoided



sonbeam

[shorttribber]

Didn't get any answers, but only you ST wondering how we could avoid this annoying subject from coming up in most discussions.Since this is about salvation, a most important subject, I doubt it can be avoided

Hi Sonbeam,
It's not an annoying subject for me, not sure about others, it's just unknowable with absolute certainty for me.

I do lean to the Idea that a person Can Lose their salvation, but I'm not adamant about it.

Each side has reasonably strong support....that's why I am admittedly undecided on the subject.


just realized that I didn't add the "not" in Not adamant...sorry for any confusion on it