John 6:66

jfrog · #1 03-07-2010, 09:58 AM

John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Not that it means anything but it is kind of ironic that John wrote about the mark of the beast being 666 in Revelations and then in the book of John we find the only verse labeled 6:66 in the new testament and the verse is about leaving Christ.

Cindy · #2 03-07-2010, 10:39 AM

Do you think it means taking on the spirit of the anti-christ, if we walk away from Jesus Christ?

berkeley · #3 03-07-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy

Do you think it means taking on the spirit of the anti-christ, if we walk away from Jesus Christ?

You are with Christ or you are not. There is no middle ground.

missourimary · #4 03-07-2010, 11:10 AM

Bible verses weren't numbered til way after the passages were written.

And no, we don't take on the spirit of the antichrist if we walk away from Jesus. If that were the case, there would be no hope for anyone who backslides.

pelathais · #5 03-07-2010, 03:07 PM

Do you think Saint Jerome of Jerusalem was inspired when he did the chapter and verse divisions?

Michael The Disciple · #6 03-07-2010, 03:29 PM

Why not look at the obvious meaning of the verse itself? They could not bear the teaching of predestination so they distanced themselves from him.

jfrog · #7 03-07-2010, 11:51 PM

I wasn't saying this was some major insight on what the mark of the beast is or anything like that. I was simply saying this was interesting. It's not something to make a doctrine out of or even to validate a doctrine. I just noticed these coincidences and thought they were interesting like most coincidences are.

If I was going to use this finding as anything it would be to show how wrong it is to attribute any kind of meaning to something simply because a coincidence exists.

iceniez · #8 03-08-2010, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I wasn't saying this was some major insight on what the mark of the beast is or anything like that. I was simply saying this was interesting. It's not something to make a doctrine out of or even to validate a doctrine. I just noticed these coincidences and thought they were interesting like most coincidences are.

If I was going to use this finding as anything it would be to show how wrong it is to attribute any kind of meaning to something simply because a coincidence exists.

It is interesting.