I'm pretty sure the mark of the beast is a literal mark.
And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. Rev 16:2
See:
He answered: it's a metaphor
I say: that's bad hermeneutics
Poisoning the well
Interesting
Look you need to provide evidence, what you are doing here is ad hominem.
Provide texts, things that will back up your claims.
Well, at least you understood it. All I hear from your side is the sound of slurping Jew cock.
Not a joke. I'm serious. The whole evangelical worldview comes down to that. Perhaps many of you are victims yourselves and just repeating the words of the actual slurpers. But you've been psy-op'ed.
Did you reply the wrong post?
I don't know why I'm bothering with you, but here I go
Evangelical =/= Zionist
Catholic=/= Zionist
We hate the Scofield Bible too. Nobody uses it. It predates the evangelical theological movement as we know it today.
An evangelical is defined by his commitment to biblical inerrancy.
No, you called his post poison. Ad-hominem.
I'm geussing you're a troll.
I some times think that the "mark of the beast" is the "identities" prescribed by identity politics.
You goober
He was "poisoning the well" in fallacious terms by saying every evangelical source is not to be trusted outright
Read:
And in the next post…
I'm the one pointing out the ad hominem and not engaging
Sounds like MTF trans.