It was a cancer diagnosed maybe a year after being "fully vaxxed".
The man professes to be a Christian, and I will not speak in judgement on his salvation. He may be saved. But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign.
I clearly said "he may be saved. But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign."
The Bible is clear that those who take the mark of the beast are not saved. So assuming this isn't that mark, if someone is taking something very similar to the final mark that's a bad sign, dontcha think?
No. Because the Bible was passed down by word of mouth for generations then written by man. It is flawed, as man is flawed, and changed countless times in the past 2000 years.
No? The Bible isn't clear about the Mark of the Beast? Then either show me the earliest manuscript of the Book of Revelation that somehow doesn't mention the Mark of the Beast, or admit you're making absurd arguments to rationalize indulgence in your own sins.
It was a cancer diagnosed maybe a year after being "fully vaxxed".
The man professes to be a Christian, and I will not speak in judgement on his salvation. He may be saved. But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign.
Is the implication here is what....that the vaxed don't get into heaven?
I clearly said "he may be saved. But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign."
The Bible is clear that those who take the mark of the beast are not saved. So assuming this isn't that mark, if someone is taking something very similar to the final mark that's a bad sign, dontcha think?
No. Because the Bible was passed down by word of mouth for generations then written by man. It is flawed, as man is flawed, and changed countless times in the past 2000 years.
No? The Bible isn't clear about the Mark of the Beast? Then either show me the earliest manuscript of the Book of Revelation that somehow doesn't mention the Mark of the Beast, or admit you're making absurd arguments to rationalize indulgence in your own sins.