Is the AntiChrist...Christ!?

[Joshua27]

While I’m waiting for confirmation from JagCath, I’ll answer Frindro…

Your translation of the word is wrong. Here it says that “Passover” means exactly that - it commemorates the LORD passing over during the final plague.

What happened that allowed the Lord to pass over the slaves of Egypt without killing them in the final plague of death?

Answer: The Lord, through Moses, through Aaron told the people to “mark their signs and doorposts with the blood of a newborn lamb, as the blood of the young lamb represented innocent life.” They were commanded to slaughter a lamb; Pesach. Actually, “Pesach” is english of the true Hebrew word that means “slaughter”, so it’s not even the right word, but you get my meaning in using it.

The Lord would’ve killed them as well if they didn’t follow his instructions to mark their doors with its blood. Death passed over the people of God through the blood of the lamb.

---

This is EXACTLY why Passover is the day the lamb is slaughtered, and its blood was poured on the altar, and its flesh was cooked in the oven. This is EXACTLY why the Son of God - as the ultimate sacrificial lamb - MUST be killed ON Passover to PERFECTLY syncronize with the Preparation of the feast, with the Feast, and with prophesy…as God is Perfect in all His plans.​

Passover =/= Feast of Unleavened Bread

The Day of Passover was the exact day Christ (the Lamb of God) was sacrificed and died.

Passover =/= Feast of Unleavened Bread

The following day the people of God ate the sacrificed lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs on the Feast Day of Chag HaMatzot (Unleavened Bread).

[God’s wisdom is awesome once you see all of the pieces connect together seemlessly]

Also, your idea that Gentiles had intimate knowledge of Jewish customs is wrong. Pilate knew about it since he was a Roman official working in Palestine, so it was probably part of his job to understand Jewish custom. St. Paul was a Roman citizen, but also a Jew, so it is expected that he would know Jewish custom. The Gentiles in Jerusalem, would also probably understand it to some degree since they live among people who practice it. The Greeks, however, would have much less exposure to Judaism, and so probably knew much less about it, and so probably would have had to have the Sabbath preceding the Passover explained to them, but this does not happen.

Think of it this way, we in the West, usually allow Muslims to live here with religious freedom, but most of us do not know much about their beliefs and practices. I know that I don’t. We may know some things about them, but there are very fine details that are almost exclusively known by Muslims or scholars of Islam. Much the same way, perhaps Gentiles knew that Jews celebrated the Passover and had a day of rest, but I doubt that they knew such a detail as there being a Sabbath before the Passover.

Please read the Acts of the apostles again…where do you think the apostles are going to spread the gospel of the Kingdom? I spoke of how Paul defends the CONVERTED GENTILES against honoring ALL Jewish traditions (particularly circumcision). Converted Gentiles are the object of my statement. I’m not talking about Paul, who was (indeed) a Pharisee.

 

[blazerdave]

So have we determined who is the antichrist yet?

 

[JAGCath28]

Here’s how Pesach and Chag HaMatzot comes to pass:

First, let’s setup the span of days and nights (let’s use 7pm for “night” and 7am for “day”):

7pm <13th of 1st month = Night> 7am
7am <13th of 1st month = Day> 7pm

7pm <14th of 1st month = Night> 7am
7am <14th of 1st month = Day> 7pm

7pm <15th of 1st month = Night> 7am
7am <15th of 1st month = Day> 7pm

Do you agree with this so far?

I will agree that based on a brief study into the ancient Hebrew “day” that it is based off of Genesis chapter 1 “and there was evening and there was morning the first day.” It is from sunset (shkiah) to sunset (shkiah) which could be whatever time it is that particular day. If you want to put specific times (why 7 instead of 6 I don’t know) then I will concede in this example.

As your version of references make evident, it is really easy to force a translation based on a preconceived idea of what the passages say.

The only preconceived idea of the Biblical references that I provided was the correlation between Exodus 12 and the disciples preparing for the Passover meal. I am not fluent it Hebrew nor am I a Hebrew scholar so I cannot confirm or deny whether your interpretation of the “original” Hebrew is accurate or not. I will have to study further to give an educated position on this.

I find this to be a very interesting topic of discussion and would like to continue. However, I don’t think this particular thread is the appropriate platform. Your thread title suggests that you or possibly someone you have spoken to is under the impression that the Antichrist is Christ Jesus. However, after 5 pages of discussion, it seems evident that you don’t believe that Christ is the Antichrist. You are actually trying to prove a point that there should be no Church Authority using your opinion of the “error” of when Christ was crucified as your example by saying that this “Church Authority” got this wrong…what else has it gotten wrong and why should we trust it. This is an interesting topic but not at all in line with your original subject. Because your argument about the day of crucifixion will not prove or disprove whether or not Christ is the Antichrist, the only purpose for this discussion is to prove (I suppose in your mind) whether or not we should have Church authority. Since this ultimate purpose is really not in line with the supposed topic of this thread it might be best to start a new one. I will gladly participate in the new thread, but I do not believe continuing the discussion in this thread is in line with the original topic.

God Bless,

Jessica

 

[Joshua27]

I will agree that based on a brief study into the ancient Hebrew “day” that it is based off of Genesis chapter 1 “and there was evening and there was morning the first day.” It is from sunset (shkiah) to sunset (shkiah) which could be whatever time it is that particular day. If you want to put specific times (why 7 instead of 6 I don’t know) then I will concede in this example.

The only preconceived idea of the Biblical references that I provided was the correlation between Exodus 12 and the disciples preparing for the Passover meal. I am not fluent it Hebrew nor am I a Hebrew scholar so I cannot confirm or deny whether your interpretation of the “original” Hebrew is accurate or not. I will have to study further to give an educated position on this.

I find this to be a very interesting topic of discussion and would like to continue. However, I don’t think this particular thread is the appropriate platform. Your thread title suggests that you or possibly someone you have spoken to is under the impression that the Antichrist is Christ Jesus. However, after 5 pages of discussion, it seems evident that you don’t believe that Christ is the Antichrist. You are actually trying to prove a point that there should be no Church Authority using your opinion of the “error” of when Christ was crucified as your example by saying that this “Church Authority” got this wrong…what else has it gotten wrong and why should we trust it. This is an interesting topic but not at all in line with your original subject. Because your argument about the day of crucifixion will not prove or disprove whether or not Christ is the Antichrist, the only purpose for this discussion is to prove (I suppose in your mind) whether or not we should have Church authority. Since this ultimate purpose is really not in line with the supposed topic of this thread it might be best to start a new one. I will gladly participate in the new thread, but I do not believe continuing the discussion in this thread is in line with the original topic.

God Bless,

Jessica

Fair enough.

I’ll skip to the end (although usually when one does, most say “prove it” or “how are you making these baseless assertions”)…so I thought it benificial to allow the forum to progress in its own time, as I provide proof.

---

Here is why I ask “Is the AntiChrist…Christ!?”

The true Christ has:

a hebrew name…
a birthday that perfectly syncronizes with God’s feasts…
a length of ministry that perfectly syncronizes with God’s feasts and prophesies…
not broken any of God’s laws or suggest that “they no longer apply”…
not created any new laws to follow…
specifically said there is no authority except the Father’s
specifically gave one sign that would distinguish him from any “false” Christ that appears:

“buried three days and three nights in the grave and will rise on the third day.”

…and yet the Christ many follow is foreign in ALL of these categories, ESPECIALLY in the one sign of authenticity, the Jonah prophesy.

True =/= False

Yeshua =/= Jesus

Tishri 15 - Feast of Tabernacles (Sept 26th) =/= Dec 25th - Winter Solstice in 3-1 BCE

1 Year Ministry (because the sacrificial lamb was to be only 1yr) =/= 3 year Ministry (3yr olds are no longer considered “newborm” lambs but “adult” rams)

Fulfilling the Law (giving it substance) =/= “Law Fulfilled” means "Law no longer applies"

2 “Greatest” commandements clarify the Ten =/= 2 Commandments replace the TEN

Call no one “Father” =/= (ignored) many religous officials are called father

passover is before the High Sabbath Feast =/= Passover is the feast

Death was on passover (since he was the sacrificial lamb) =/= Death was after passover

Buried 3 days & 3 nights =/= buried 2 day & 2 nights and/or a “spiritual” day added; and/or was figurative

We are so literal when Christ said “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” and yet we fail to be as literal about 3 days and 3 nights, just because it brakes with tradition of Good Friday and Easter Sunday?

---

In the progression of time someone has hijacked the True Christ’s identity, and it doesn’t seem to matter to some. It doesn’t seem to matter what the facts are. One or two inconsistencies is fair, but all of these? And if the true Christ is who you say you follow, what’s the harm in alligning yourself up with the true facts?

Question: If you needed to give personal identification to a detective who was looking for a missing person, wouldn’t as much accurate, identifyable data be important?

The word “Anti” means “opposed; against; opposite”; an otherwise “counter” version of the “original”. So wouldn’t all these facts be opposing facts and warrant the label, “anti”?

---

This is why the 3 days and 3 nights Jonah prophesy analysis has so much to do with my title, as Christ said this would distinguish him from any and all AntiChrists in a sinful and adulterous generation (which we are in).

God is exact and perfect, right? So he would not leave the demarcation line (between the true messiah and false messiah) to “a figure of speech”.

The Christ that many follow - by default - is completely opposed; completely “anti” to the true Christ no one has ever known.

 

[JAGCath28]

So to make sure I understand your view clearly, let
me rephrase. You believe that the Christ that the majority
of organized church’s (Protestant or Catholic) worship is
an incorrect version based on 2000 years of incorrect
interpretation. And because this “Christ” we worship
is based on incorrect information you believe this in opposition
of who the “real” Christ is then the Christ we are worshipping
is the Antichrist.

Now to be clear, do you believe this to be THE Antichrist
or just anti who Christ really is?

 

[JAGCath28]

There are 100’s of Messianic prophecies. So are the ones you listed the main ones
that you find conflicting or are there others?

LOL. I think you know this is coming, but can you cite the scripture references where
these are prophesied about the Messiah?

I just want to address your issues one at a time to try to keep this somewhat coherent.
So for now let’s look at the first one on your list … “Hebrew name”…
please provide your reference for this prophesy. I believe you are aware that the New Testament was written in Greek. The name Jesus is the english translation for Iesous which is the Greek translation of Yeshua(which is where the english Joshua comes from). So I’m not sure what your hiccup is with this. Are you saying that because the english speaking world calls Jesus …Jesus instead of Joshua or even Yeshua that Jesus did not have a Hebrew name? Were the Romans required to call him by his Hebrew name instead of the Latin version? I think you are being over-analytical on this one, but maybe I’ve misunderstood your really problem with the name Jesus.

 

[Joshua27]

Now to be clear, do you believe this to be THE Antichrist
or just anti who Christ really is?

“anti” who Christ really is.

But if we think about, is there a difference? Recall that the bible never mentions an Antichrist “personified”, but suggests that there will be MANY “false” christs…in other words, MANY “pretenders” or “facsimiles” of the original Messiah that will “fool” even the elect if possible (with many of the same signs). And then the bible mentions “The Man of Lawlessness” who will sit in God’s temple.

WE are God’s new temple aren’t we (1 Corinthians 6:19)? Christ is in our hearts, and yet what we know of Christ is “anti” to who Christ really is, right? So, who really sits in God’s temple? Scripture doesn’t say “the man of lawlessness will appear”, but that the “man of lawlessness” will be “revealed” (uncovered) in time.

There are 100’s of Messianic prophecies. So are the ones you listed the main ones
that you find conflicting or are there others?

LOL. I think you know this is coming, but can you cite the scripture references where
these are prophesied about the Messiah?

I just want to address your issues one at a time to try to keep this somewhat coherent.
So for now let’s look at the first one on your list … “Hebrew name”…

I think you are being over-analytical on this one, but maybe I’ve misunderstood your really problem with the name Jesus.

[lol. I can almost see the future, huh?]

Let me just say that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, as Matthew was a scribe.

---

Translating names is not the same as Transliterating names.

[Now before I continue, I hope you would agree that most people don’t know that Jesus (whether translated or transliterated) comes from Yeshua, correct? While we can try to speak for “most” people (and while you truly understand that the name has a source), most people do not know this, you’ll agree?]

Every name in Hebrew has a meaning; and a purpose; and it shows one’s role. In fact, a better explanation is “every Hebrew name is considered a sentence/action.” If one’s role or IDENTITY changed, so did their name; again, changing one’s name changed one’s IDENTITY. This was true for Yacob (to Yisrael) and Avram (to Avraham).

So if one’s name didn’t mean much, and if one’s changed name didn’t mean much, not even God would’ve followed this tradition…but he did.

"ehyeh asher ehyeh" - “ehyeh” (for short) was the name God gave Moses to give the Israelites (Exodus 3:14)

From the root “hayah” which means “to be”, God shared his role with Moses:

First Person (spoken from God) - “I will be” (ehyeh)

Third Person (speaking to or about God) - “He will be” (yehuwah)

Whever someone’s name was changed, it means their purpose changed; their action changed. Likewise, God’s role/IDENTITYchanged…

Matthew 1:21 - And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yehushuwa (3 syllables because “u” is silent) for he will save/free his people from their sins.

God now became salvation…but his role wasn’t complete, thus the imperfect (future) form of “hayah” was still used in his name (yeh). Christ’s name wasn’t Joshua because this is english translation of the “perfect/complete” form of salvation Yahushuwa. God’s name at this point was Yehushuwa.

In Revelations (Apocalypse) 3:12, we are told that when Christ returns - to defeat sin and death - he will have a new name to signify his new IDENTITY…of course we are not given the name Christ will possess (because only He’ll know), but if the pattern remains the same, THEN God will have “completed/perfected/finished” (Yah = I am) his salvation, so it would then be signified in the name “Yahushuwa” (Joshua in english).

---

The problem with Jesus is that while “Je” can be translated to Hebrew (“Yeh”), “sus” doesn’t mean anything in Hebrew. Going from “sus” (english) to “sous” (latin) to “sous” (greek) is pretty straightforward translations, but “sous” (greek) doesn’t go to “shuwa” (hebrew) without a willful alteration: Greeks did not agree that any male’s name should end in an “a” as such is “feminine” in their culture, so they changed it…but remember what a CHANGE signifies to all Hebrew names in terms of IDENTITY.

So what does “sous” mean?

“Sous” (Frence) means “sub”, “lower”; or “to sink”

(In Hebrew/Cannanite) - “Sous” (1 syllable) translates to mean “humiliation”.

…this is far different from “Shuwah” (2 syllables) “freedom; to be free”

So Jesus translates to “Yehsous” (hebrew) which means “He will be humiliated/lowered”

This IDENTITY may work for some people, as they can rightfully argue “well Christ WAS humiliated for us”, which is true. Christ indeed went through great humiliation for us, but that humiliation was from Satan’s successful plot (using Judas). GOD’S NAME for Christ was “He will be Salvation/Freedom”, it was never “He will be Humiliation”.

So ask yourself, who is the only one who’d want to revel in the humiliation of Christ…or subtly change his name to mean “humiliation” instead of “salvation/freedom”?

Subtle, sneaky deception, isn’t it?

---

–As an aside—I think most people misunderstand the fact that both the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same name, when they read Matthew 28:19…There is only one name for God, and that name changes as God’s role changes.

---

You may say I’m over analytical about this but, we know that Satan is a subtle deceiver, not an obvious one. Even from the beginning, Satan didn’t directly lie to Eve…his M.O. is clever subtlety.

 

[JAGCath28]

“anti” who Christ really is.

But if we think about, is there a difference? Recall that the bible never mentions an Antichrist “personified”, but suggests that there will be MANY “false” christs…in other words, MANY “pretenders” or “facsimiles” of the original Messiah that will “fool” even the elect if possible (with many of the same signs). And then the bible mentions “The Man of Lawlessness” who will sit in God’s temple.

WE are God’s new temple aren’t we (1 Corinthians 6:19)? Christ is in our hearts, and yet what we know of Christ is “anti” to who Christ really is, right? So, who really sits in God’s temple? Scripture doesn’t say “the man of lawlessness will appear”, but that the “man of lawlessness” will be “revealed” (uncovered) in time.

Yes. But I see you making a huge leap by trying to say that the Christ who “we” worship is an antichrist because certain traditions that pertain to him are erroneous in your eyes. Does the fact that we choose to remember his crucifixion on Friday instead of say a Wednesday nullify the actual entity? Does it change the sacrifice that we are remembering? Does it change the love and peace that Christ taught? Does it change the mercy? I do not believe that the Christ that I know is anti who Christ really is at all. I’m very sorry that you feel this way and will pray for you.

You accuse me (and possibly others) of forcing a translation, but I will use your own words to describe EXACTLY what you are doing here.

As your version of references make evident, it is really easy to force a translation based on a preconceived idea of what the passages say.

You take a verse like your verse in 1 Corinthians and twist it around to mean what you are trying to prove. Don’t you see this?

Let me just say that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, as Matthew was a scribe.

Where did you get this information? Because the only place I know to find this is in the traditions of early Christians (specifically Papias, 130 AD, and Irenaeus, 180 AD). The same Christians who believed that we should remember Christ’s resurrection on a Friday. (Tertullion, 179 AD, was another Early Christian who wrote of Good Friday being the day in which the Christians remembered the crucifixion). You know the history of why this came to be don’t you? In the Gospel of John, it seems to very clearly point to the fact that Christ did die on the 14th of Nisan. (While Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to contradict this idea based on when Christ celebrated the Passover with his disciples. This is another discussion which I will go into but the school of thought is that they are all correct except that Jesus was possibly following the practice of the Essenes who went by the solar calendar to determine the feast days, while the Pharisees and Sadducees went by the lunar calendar. Only in 30 AD does the Essene Passover fall the day prior to the typical Jewish Passover.) So, your theory that the Sabbath was a High Sabbath is possibly correct except that it is also possible that the High Sabbath fell on the ACTUAL Sabbath. The early Christians (remember most of them were Christian Jews so they still followed some of the Jewish customs) were trying to determine WHEN to remember Christ’s death and resurrection since the 14th of Nisan fell on a different day each year. Friday was not a debate, and the fact that Christ rose on the first day of the week (Sunday wasn’t a debate), but the debate was when to celebrate annually. Should they celebrate with the Jews each year whenever the 14th happened to fall or should they celebrate Friday through Sunday. Many debates throughout the years have occurred on how to determine (via solar, lunar, etc.), but NEVER was it debated in the early churches whether or not Christ died on Friday and rose on Sunday. Did the early Christians, the ones who weren’t 2000 years removed from the situation know less than you do about that particular event? Or maybe they were already worshiping an antichrist of Christ because they didn’t take Jesus’ teaching on Jonah as literal as you would. These men lived within 100 years of this event, but they don’t know as much as you do I suppose.

Translating names is not the same as Transliterating names.

[Now before I continue, I hope you would agree that most

people don’t know that Jesus (whether translated or transliterated) comes from Yeshua, correct? While we can try to speak for “most” people (and while you truly understand that the name has a source), most people do not know this, you’ll agree?]

I agree that translating and transliterating are different. I can’t speak for most people, but I might agree with your assumption that most may not know that Jesus comes from Yeshua. But really any quick internet search (thanks wikipedia) or more in depth (such as a Strong’s concordance) points to this connection as well.

 

[JAGCath28]

Every name in Hebrew has a meaning; and a purpose; and it shows one’s role. In fact, a better explanation is “every Hebrew name is considered a sentence/action.” If one’s role or IDENTITY changed, so did their name; again, changing one’s name changed one’s IDENTITY. This was true for Yacob (to Yisrael) and Avram (to Avraham).

So if one’s name didn’t mean much, and if one’s changed name didn’t mean much, not even God would’ve followed this tradition…but he did.

"ehyeh asher ehyeh" - “ehyeh” (for short) was the name God gave Moses to give the Israelites (Exodus 3:14)

From the root “hayah” which means “to be”, God shared his role with Moses:
First Person (spoken from God) - “I will be” (ehyeh)
Third Person (speaking to or about God) - “He will be” (yehuwah)
Whever someone’s name was changed, it means their purpose changed; their action changed. Likewise, God’s role/IDENTITYchanged…

Matthew 1:21 - And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yehushuwa (3 syllables because “u” is silent) for he will save/free his people from their sins.

I will definitely agree with this. Hebrew tradition is very strict on giving children names. It isn’t like today’s society where a person says, “oooh…Stacey sounds nice.” Hebrew names meant something.

As I mentioned before, I’m not fluent in Hebrew or Greek so I have to rely on others who have studied these languages for translations. I’m not sure what your credentials are. Although I might be a bit nitpicky here, I believe your translation of Yehushuwa is a bit off. I have found this to typically be translated God (or Jehovah) is salvation.

God now became salvation…but his role wasn’t complete, thus the imperfect (future) form of “hayah” was still used in his name (yeh). Christ’s name wasn’t Joshua because this is english translation of the “perfect/complete” form of salvation Yahushuwa. God’s name at this point was Yehushuwa.

In Revelations (Apocalypse) 3:12, we are told that when Christ returns - to defeat sin and death - he will have a new name to signify his new IDENTITY…of course we are not given the name Christ will possess (because only He’ll know), but if the pattern remains the same, THEN God will have “completed/perfected/finished” (Yah = I am) his salvation, so it would then be signified in the name “Yahushuwa” (Joshua in english).

Are you saying that Joshua in english is translated to mean a “perfect/complete” form of salvation? I think you are wrong in this instance. In fact, I’m sorry to say, but I find the rest of your “translation” argument to be weak and illogical.

 

[JAGCath28]

The problem with Jesus is that while “Je” can be translated to Hebrew (“Yeh”), “sus” doesn’t mean anything in Hebrew. Going from “sus” (english) to “sous” (latin) to “sous” (greek) is pretty straightforward translations, but “sous” (greek) doesn’t go to “shuwa” (hebrew) without a willful alteration: Greeks did not agree that any male’s name should end in an “a” as such is “feminine” in their culture, so they changed it…but remember what a CHANGE signifies to all Hebrew names in terms of IDENTITY.

So what does “sous” mean?

“Sous” (Frence) means “sub”, “lower”; or “to sink”

(In Hebrew/Cannanite) - “Sous” (1 syllable) translates to mean “humiliation”.

…this is far different from “Shuwah” (2 syllables) “freedom; to be free”

So Jesus translates to “Yehsous” (hebrew) which means “He will be humiliated/lowered”

This IDENTITY may work for some people, as they can rightfully argue “well Christ WAS humiliated for us”, which is true. Christ indeed went through great humiliation for us, but that humiliation was from Satan’s successful plot (using Judas). GOD’S NAME for Christ was “He will be Salvation/Freedom”, it was never “He will be Humiliation”.

So ask yourself, who is the only one who’d want to revel in the humiliation of Christ…or subtly change his name to mean “humiliation” instead of “salvation/freedom”?

Let’s forget about the english translation for a moment because english wasn’t around when Christ was in human form. The most common languages found during this timeframe were Aramaic, possibly Hebrew if you were an upperclass Jew, and Greek. And since the earliest New Testament scriptures are found in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, we have to understand the translations from the point of view as an Israelite, but also as a Gentile. So with this being said, did Greek names have the same significance as Hebrew names? From what I have researched, the answer is NO. So, we are looking at a case of transliterating not translating the name of Yehushuwa into Iesous.

There are several problems with transliterating Yehushuwa into Greek. Problem #1 Greeks had no “y” so the closest thing was the “Ie” sound. Problem #2 Greeks had no “sh” sound so the closest they could do was use “s”. Lastly, as you pointed out in your post, masculine names did not end in “ah” so instead of Iesouah they added another “s” for masculinity. You are assuming that it was some antichristian set of Greeks that changed Jesus’ name from Yeshua to Iesous and that this was done specifically as a slap in the face. Most tradition shows that these Greek translations were mostly like completed by the early Christians such as Paul. Paul being a Jew himself was quite aware of the importance of Hebrew names and their meanings. I doubt that the evil spirit of Satan came upon him while translating the New Testament into Greek. That kind of goes against our whole belief that Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Additionally, how can you logically say that Iesous means “He will be humiliation” when you are taking Greek letters and trying to go back to Hebrew for a translation? This doesn’t make any sense. In the same vein, let’s look at when Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter. In Aramaic, this is Kefa (rock, stone) while in Greek it is Petros (rock, stone). So what does Petros mean in Aramaic or Hebrew? If the word (or a similar word even exists) I’m sure it doesn’t mean rock. So, I guess this must have been a third name change for Peter if we go by your logic.

Subtle, sneaky deception, isn’t it?

Only if we buy into your conspiracy theory. The only thing that I might concede is that it is a shame that holy meaning of Yeshua was lost in the translations, but it doesn’t make the name Jesus any less holy or legitimate. It certainly, in my opinion, doesn’t make his mission antichrist in any way.

I understand that your list of grievances seem legitimate to you, and bother you because you believe that it may even deter many from Christianity. But my belief is that this is where many people lose out on so much when they completely abandon the works and traditions of the early Christians and try to come up with their own beliefs and interpretations 2,000 years later. You ask why we need an “overseeing” Church authority, well the answer is because through this Church authority these beliefs and traditions have been maintained.

This is probably one of the main reasons why I finally began to embrace the Catholic Church. I believed in God, specifically the Jewish God. I believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God so I now moved into the Christianity realm. So, I wanted to find out about the Christians who knew Christ in person or who knew the people who knew Christ in person. After studying these Christians, I realized that this is where the traditions and beliefs from the Catholic Church come from. Ceremonies and Mass have expanded since that first Sunday that the early Christians met together in remembrance of Jesus’ resurrection, but you can easily follow how and why. When you go to Mass (or even read through the Mass) anyone who is well versed in Scripture can immediately see that the entire Mass is completely based in Scripture. In fact, other than the homily, almost everything that is said during Mass comes from a scripture passage even down to most of the prayers.

Your idea that the Christ we worship is anti who Christ really is just baffles me. I will agree that there are many who do awful things in the name of Christ. They and their actions are antichrist with no doubt. But to say that THE CHRIST that we worship (we as in the general population of Christians) is an antichrist is discounting everything that this Christ that we worship stands for. I really hope that in your studies you haven’t lost sight of Christ the redeemer.

 

[distracted]

i read 1/2 the OP b4 i began to wonder what religion the poster was and went back to check… but all the while i knew the poster wasn’t Catholic… long story how i know… i guess catechized Catholics (or do i only speak 4 myself?) dont have that many Qs about things… so it seems

not that its bad to have Qs…

but anyhow, i believe in Jesus Christ more becaues of the Real Presence found in His original Church than anything else… and when I am There, well i do have Q’s but if i stay long enough i realize that He has much to “tell” me … etc… i like to sit in total silence There as long as i need to He always tells me somehow when its a good time to leave… but i would never leave if i had a choice… (i gues that goes w/o saying?)

i haven’t read all posts… but i’m wondering what u think of Catholicism and if u r considering joining the Church?

 

[Joshua27]

Yes. But I see you making a huge leap… Does the fact that we choose to remember his crucifixion on Friday instead of say a Wednesday nullify the actual entity? Does it change the sacrifice that we are remembering? Does it change the love and peace that Christ taught? Does it change the mercy?

My answer goes back to an answer I gave Frindro; You are a flock of birds and the Spirit is the path of the wind. Do you follow the wind’s path or do you choose to follow your own path (even if it does seem to get you to the same destination)? Your argument is, “what’s it matter, because I worship the same Jewish God?”, but recall all the teachings about God and Christ and see that ‘it does matter’, Jessica…

This is hard for us to accept (in this generation) because we are all so independent and self-identified, and we can’t fathom a loving God who would ever be as “strict” (for lack of a better word).

Know that your Jewish God told the Israelites to build a (temporary) tabernacle (camp) while in the wilderness; the measurements were to be SPECIFIC to EXACTLY how God instructed the structure to be built…every time. And - most importantly - there was only one way into the tabernacle (camp), as all of the rest of the camp was to be fenced off with high fences. There wasn’t an additional path people could choose to enter into the camp; they couldn’t get into the camp any other way. People who wanted to enter into the dwelling place of God could only enter through one gate on the east towards the Head of the camp that was ALWAYS at the west of the camp.

Notice that this design was a shadowpicture of God’s instructions, as his people always had their backs to the east; to anything that had to do with the Sun, and also that there wasn’t but one designated path to the Jewish God; our God. God is the same yesterday and forever, right?

This is why “3 days and 3 nights” matters. Because it was less about Christ being resurrected from the dead [as Lazarus was resurrected from the dead too, and he wasn’t Christ] and more about Christ SPECIFICALLY setting a timeframe of his resurrection that made him authentic. Who can boast such a claim to set a specific point in time when he - himself - would be raised from the dead, but the true Son of God?

Exactness has always been God’s signature; to prove that he is the true God, because only the true God can be exact.

You take a verse like your verse in 1 Corinthians and twist it around to mean what you are trying to prove. Don’t you see this?

1 Corinthians 6:19 - Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself,

I find it puzzling how often I’m told that I “twist words” when I quote (“cut and paste”) entire passages - in context - word for word when “declarative statements” in scripture are made.

So let me ask you: what does “your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in your” mean other than exactly what it says? Which one of us is drawing more from this declarative statement? I say this statemtent means, “our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit of God, who lives in all of us”, the same as the tabernacle God instructed Israel to build in the wilderness…the same tabernacle; the same temple that must be exactly designed to specifications.

In the Gospel of John, it seems to very clearly point to the fact that Christ did die on the 14th of Nisan. (While Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to contradict this idea based on when Christ celebrated the Passover with his disciples. This is another discussion which I will go into but the school of thought is that they are all correct except that Jesus was possibly following the practice of the Essenes who went by the solar calendar to determine the feast days, while the Pharisees and Sadducees went by the lunar calendar. So, your theory that the Sabbath was a High Sabbath is possibly correct except that it is also possible that the High Sabbath fell on the ACTUAL Sabbath.

…Then let’s leave this for that discussion, because the other gospels do not contradict John. Indeed (if you refer back to my previous posts) the High Sabbath couldn’t been the weekly sabbath…I said that. The problem with using solar (pagan) or jewish (lunar) calenday is that both are not biblical. The start of the biblical year was not based on lunar calculations or solar calculation, but agriculture.

Exodus 13:4 - This day came ye out in the month Aviv…

“Aviv” is an agriculture term which represents when the Barley crop grows to full maturity. UNTIL the barley has become “aviv” the new year does NOT begin. If - at the end of the 12the month - the barley does not ripen, a thirteen month is added to the year.

Indeed this is another discussion, but this is why people have become so confused about important days as Christ’s birth and crucifixion…because we truly don’t know what time it is (Jews forsook God’s calendar, and Christians never had it; inherited a pagan/solar one).

---

I will reply later to the rest of your comments, but I have to go for now.

 

[Joshua27]

…You are assuming that it was some antichristian set of Greeks that changed Jesus’ name from Yeshua to Iesous and that this was done specifically as a slap in the face.

No, I am not assuming this. The point I was making was that when people inject their own “beliefs” and “traditions” (such as the way a male’s name should end) into the faith (whether they feel justified or malevolent make no difference), an opening for corruption is ALWAYS created. The deceiving work here is not human; people are the pawns “For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places” [Ephesians 6:12]. And as a pre-emptive defence, (again) I am just cutting and pasting a declarative statement from scripture…I am not twisting Paul’s words around as this is what he said.

Additionally, how can you logically say that Iesous means “He will be humiliation” when you are taking Greek letters and trying to go back to Hebrew for a translation? This doesn’t make any sense. In the same vein, let’s look at when Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter. In Aramaic, this is Kefa (rock, stone) while in Greek it is Petros (rock, stone). So what does Petros mean in Aramaic or Hebrew? If the word (or a similar word even exists) I’m sure it doesn’t mean rock. So, I guess this must have been a third name change for Peter if we go by your logic.

[Yes I mistyped…“transliteration” not “translation”, however…]

“shuah” (1 syllable; pronounced “shwa”) = means humiliation

“shuwah” (2 syllables; pronounced “shoo-wah”) = means freedom

…as I said “we can’t get from ‘sous’ (greek) to ‘shuwah’ (hebrew) without a willful alteration” (because there is no solid connection). I said we can’t get there…so we must keep it “sous”. And since you like wikipedia (which has it’s good moments), see what they post as teh meaning of “shuah” (1 syllable; pronounced “shwa”):

Shuah (Hebrew: “ditch; swimming; humiliation”[1]), also known as Sous,[2] was, according to the Bible, the sixth son of Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelites, and Keturah whom he wed after the death of Sarah.[3][4] He was the youngest of Keturah’s sons; the others were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, and Ishbak.[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuah

Only if we buy into your conspiracy theory. The only thing that I might concede is that it is a shame that holy meaning of Yeshua was lost in the translations, but it doesn’t make the name Jesus any less holy or legitimate. It certainly, in my opinion, doesn’t make his mission antichrist in any way.

I understand that your list of grievances seem legitimate to you, and bother you because you believe that it may even deter many from Christianity. But my belief is that this is where many people lose out on so much when they completely abandon the works and traditions of the early Christians and try to come up with their own beliefs and interpretations 2,000 years later. You ask why we need an “overseeing” Church authority, well the answer is because through this Church authority these beliefs and traditions have been maintained.

This is probably one of the main reasons why I finally began to embrace the Catholic Church. I believed in God, specifically the Jewish God. I believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God so I now moved into the Christianity realm. So, I wanted to find out about the Christians who knew Christ in person or who knew the people who knew Christ in person. After studying these Christians, I realized that this is where the traditions and beliefs from the Catholic Church come from. Ceremonies and Mass have expanded since that first Sunday that the early Christians met together in remembrance of Jesus’ resurrection, but you can easily follow how and why. When you go to Mass (or even read through the Mass) anyone who is well versed in Scripture can immediately see that the entire Mass is completely based in Scripture. In fact, other than the homily, almost everything that is said during Mass comes from a scripture passage even down to most of the prayers.

Your idea that the Christ we worship is anti who Christ really is just baffles me. I will agree that there are many who do awful things in the name of Christ. They and their actions are antichrist with no doubt. But to say that THE CHRIST that we worship (we as in the general population of Christians) is an antichrist is discounting everything that this Christ that we worship stands for. I really hope that in your studies you haven’t lost sight of Christ the redeemer.

…Well, I can’t argue with your opinion. And I thank you for your sincerity. My thing is, “why not see Christ - in all his truth - EXACTLY how he was/is?” If we want to truly want to get to know Christ the person, behind the smoke and pomp…because anyone can feed us anything they want us to believe.

In the end, thanks for your hope.

 

[John_the_server]

Reacting to your question, ‘‘what was the sign of the true Christ’s authenticity?’’

''The angel said to them, ‘‘do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.’’ And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: ''Glory to God in the Highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests." (LK 10:14)

 

[Joshua27]

Reacting to your question, ‘‘what was the sign of the true Christ’s authenticity?’’

''The angel said to them, ‘‘do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.’’ And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: ''Glory to God in the Highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests." (LK 10:14)

Yes. Indeed this was a sign for the wise men, but what was the only sign Christ - himself - gave an evil and adulterous generation?

—To JagCath—

Should we move on to the rest of the points you wanted to cover (one at a time)?

 

[Joshua27]

i read 1/2 the OP b4 i began to wonder what religion the poster was and went back to check… but all the while i knew the poster wasn’t Catholic… long story how i know… i guess catechized Catholics (or do i only speak 4 myself?) dont have that many Qs about things… so it seems

not that its bad to have Qs…

but anyhow, i believe in Jesus Christ more becaues of the Real Presence found in His original Church than anything else… and when I am There, well i do have Q’s but if i stay long enough i realize that He has much to “tell” me … etc… i like to sit in total silence There as long as i need to He always tells me somehow when its a good time to leave… but i would never leave if i had a choice… (i gues that goes w/o saying?)

i haven’t read all posts… but i’m wondering what u think of Catholicism and if u r considering joining the Church?

Hi. Is this question for me, distracted?

 

[JAGCath28]

Yes. Indeed this was a sign for the wise men, but what was the only sign Christ - himself - gave an evil and adulterous generation?

—To JagCath—

Should we move on to the rest of the points you wanted to cover (one at a time)?

You can if you would like, but I find it a difficult discussion. You have an opinion so it’s not really like you are asking a question unless it can be considered rhetorical. So, you aren’t asking in the sense to learn something, but to teach something. When many of us have offered our view based on either the scripture or other personal, historical studies you seem to discount them. For example, no where in my post did I mention wikipedia. Just because I state that I’m not fluent in certain languages, does not mean that the only source I use is wikipedia. I find that a bit insulting. Maybe wiki has the same information that I give, but it isn’t the source of my information. I take it from the Strong’s Concordance as well as a few other sources. (I use Strong’s only because I’m not familiar with an exhaustive concordance for Catholic Bibles otherwise I would use that instead.)

As far as twisting words are concerned…let’s back up several posts. I copied and pasted word-for-word scripture verses that have nothing to be read into them other than facts, and you claimed that I was using this to force a translation based on a preconceived notion. Because the translation read word-for-word something that didn’t follow your point, it is discounted. My point that you are twisting words and verses is valid I feel because you, as I said below, take a verse like 1 Corinthians and then say that this should be interpreted to mean…

WE are God’s new temple aren’t we (1 Corinthians 6:19)? Christ is in our hearts, and yet what we know of Christ is “anti” to who Christ really is, right? So, who really sits in God’s temple? Scripture doesn’t say “the man of lawlessness will appear”, but that the “man of lawlessness” will be “revealed” (uncovered) in time.

Yes we are God’s new temple, but no I do not believe that what we know of Christ is “anti” of who he really is, but you do. And so this preconceived notion of yours has you reading into every verse to pull out that very meaning. That is what I mean by twisting. Additionally, you misunderstood my use of the words “we choose” in reference to Good Friday. I wrote that from your point of view meaning that YOU believe that WE choose these dates arbitrarily.

I think I mentioned this before, but I will say it again. I believe it is very important to look at how the EARLY Christians celebrated and remembered Christ. I think that is key to any possible misunderstanding regarding this issue. When did the early Christians choose to celebrate Easter and why? Yes, choose being the word because Christ was no longer on earth when they began to gather in remembrance of him so when did they choose and why? The Good Friday tradition was not something that came 1000-2000 years after Christ. The Early Christians began practicing this tradition immediately. So, the question would become if YOU are correct then why would these Christians, who lived when Christ was on earth, get it wrong? To me, I lean towards those who actually witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection verses your interpretation 2000 years later.

Additionally, regarding the name change, if you aren’t assuming that this was done by some anti-christian sect, then why would you be offended if someone like the apostle Paul translated Yeshua into Iesous? Don’t you think that if this was as much of an issue as you are making it out to be that Christ would have given Paul a proper name in Greek to use since he took the time to convert Saul to Paul on the road to Damascus? Again, I tend to trust Paul since he was called by Christ specifically AFTER the ascension. To me, that’s a pretty big deal so if Paul and/or ANY of the other apostles decided that Iesous was the best way to translate Yeshua then I trust their judgment, mostly because I believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit since we use their writings as scripture.

 

[JAGCath28]

I believe that we DO see Christ in all of his truth (as best as we humanly can). You do not, and this is your opinion which you are entitled to. I would also like to make the point (I really hope that it isn’t missed this time) that these interpretations of what day to worship the crucifixion or whether Jesus is an appropriate name to call him in no way undermines who the God/Man Christ was, is and ever shall be. I do not believe that these interpretations, right or wrong, make the Christ we are worshiping “anti.” The reason being is that we aren’t worshiping the day Good Friday, or the name specifically as a name, but instead we are worshiping him as God and Savior. If someone were to claim that Christ taught something that was clearly against what Christ was supposed to represent, then I would say, “Yes. That would be anti-christ.” But I don’t believe this is happening. Christ taught us to “Love God with all our minds, hearts, and souls;” and “to love our neighbors as ourselves.” He taught us to be servants to those around us. He taught us to treat everyone as if they were Christ…feed the poor, care for the sick, SPREAD THE GOSPEL. These are things that we do or at least should be doing. This is what it means to be Christian. Are there hypocrites out there (possibly myself included)? Yes. When we are hypocrites are we little anti-christs? Yes, I believe so, but to be anti-christ is not to celebrate the crucifixion on a different day or call him Jesus, but to live and treat others “anti” how we were taught to by Christ. This is my preconceived notion on anti-christ terminology so I will be honest in saying that I will have a difficult time discussing your definition and belief any further mostly because your definition and my definition are. Please feel free to continue your discussion, but I can’t guarantee that I will comment.

Again, I pray that you do not lose sight of who Christ really is when you begin to go down this path of personal interpretation of scripture. Because you say that you are faithful, it is too ambiguous to really know what this means. If you are a Christian, please consider reading the works of the early Christians like Justin Martyr or Ignatius of Antioch. Read for yourself how and when these early Christians worshiped. I was communicating with a Rabbi the other day about the Torah. He said

The Torah was never meant to be understood only for the five books. That is obvious. So many laws and Mitzvot are so brief and vague.

Jews believe that together with the written law, Moshe received the oral tradition. This was the explanation behind the Mitzvot.

Keep this in mind when reading scripture because most of these events in the New Testament were written years and years after they occurred, and do not include every single detail of what actually happened. It is the oral tradition combined with the later written tradition that gives us a fuller truth of the accounts.

God Bless,

Jessica