Hi there,
So I really want to hit the nail on the head with this, guys: the Church has a very clear alternative, to face. Does the Church know its members by its fruits OR does the Church know its members by the end that they arrive at? Does the Church caricature Jesus one way and another OR does the Church judge them, by those that end up in Hell and those in Heaven? This is the dilemma that the anti-Christ puts to the Church.
The reality is that we can both know them by their fruits now and by the variety of fruit in Hell and Heaven then (when we reach Hell or Heaven)... there will be bad fruits in Hell and good fruits in Hell, bad fruits in Heaven and good fruits in Heaven. The statement that "we shall know them by their fruits" is true of Heaven and Hell, if we just wait. The twist is that the end we arrive at, is irrelevant to knowledge, but rather becomes intuiting them or intuiting of them - that is intuitive of the fruits that they keep at end, whether direct or indirect.
The mark of the Beast, then, is a ruse. The mark tells us that we are to pay attention to where the fruits can be found, not which tree they belong to. But we have this assurance, that the Holy Spirit will never expect fruit of us, that draws us away from Christ. We do not have to identify with the fruit of others, in this life - much like the fact that virgins before Christ do not have to give up their oil, for those that should have been prepared (gospels). So we are divided against the anti-Christ, who takes the mark that he may swear against the fruit that attacks the fortification of Israel (so saying in the best light, what his intentions are).
A ruse is not a fruit, that you dedicate a lot of time to: you simply work out where you stand and offer the justification that you think is easiest and lightest to live with. That I am explaining what the Holy Spirit would say a ruse was, shows that I have good fruit - I have not set out in a way to explore the reckoning we face, when it comes to fruit,, in a way that biases one fruit or another - merely that some can be found in one place and some can be found in another. The point being that even talk of a ruse as though it were a fruit of its own, should still be evaluated between good and bad.
If we can judge well between fruit that is good for Christ and fruit that is bad for Christ, we will have done well.
Show me a man that takes the mark of the Beast and does better work, and I will show you a man more concerned with his work, than his mark.
("He burned and took it not to heart" OT)
So I really want to hit the nail on the head with this, guys: the Church has a very clear alternative, to face. Does the Church know its members by its fruits OR does the Church know its members by the end that they arrive at? Does the Church caricature Jesus one way and another OR does the Church judge them, by those that end up in Hell and those in Heaven? This is the dilemma that the anti-Christ puts to the Church.
The reality is that we can both know them by their fruits now and by the variety of fruit in Hell and Heaven then (when we reach Hell or Heaven)... there will be bad fruits in Hell and good fruits in Hell, bad fruits in Heaven and good fruits in Heaven. The statement that "we shall know them by their fruits" is true of Heaven and Hell, if we just wait. The twist is that the end we arrive at, is irrelevant to knowledge, but rather becomes intuiting them or intuiting of them - that is intuitive of the fruits that they keep at end, whether direct or indirect.
The mark of the Beast, then, is a ruse. The mark tells us that we are to pay attention to where the fruits can be found, not which tree they belong to. But we have this assurance, that the Holy Spirit will never expect fruit of us, that draws us away from Christ. We do not have to identify with the fruit of others, in this life - much like the fact that virgins before Christ do not have to give up their oil, for those that should have been prepared (gospels). So we are divided against the anti-Christ, who takes the mark that he may swear against the fruit that attacks the fortification of Israel (so saying in the best light, what his intentions are).
A ruse is not a fruit, that you dedicate a lot of time to: you simply work out where you stand and offer the justification that you think is easiest and lightest to live with. That I am explaining what the Holy Spirit would say a ruse was, shows that I have good fruit - I have not set out in a way to explore the reckoning we face, when it comes to fruit,, in a way that biases one fruit or another - merely that some can be found in one place and some can be found in another. The point being that even talk of a ruse as though it were a fruit of its own, should still be evaluated between good and bad.
If we can judge well between fruit that is good for Christ and fruit that is bad for Christ, we will have done well.
Show me a man that takes the mark of the Beast and does better work, and I will show you a man more concerned with his work, than his mark.
("He burned and took it not to heart" OT)
