The Mark of the Beast

[Ben_Masada]

**Pilate wrote “Jesus of Nazareth, King of The Jews”. But the Jews didn’t like that, no siree, they balked at what he wrote because Pilate actually believed this. That is why Pilate said “It is what it is”. **

Jesus had never said that he was king of the Jews, and neither had his followers. Only the writers of the gospels came up with the idea because perhaps they misunderstood Jesus’ theme of the Kingdom of God just as Pilate did. Why?
Because the theme of Jesus teaching was about the Kingdom of God. So, the Romans never bothered understanding the terms of this Kingdom or the nature of the one Jesus was talking about. At that time there was only one Kingdom and it was Roman. And the only king was Caesar. Any mention of another kingdom would constitute subversive activity punishable with crucifixion. Therefore, what Pilate did was a joke based on his misundersanding. The Jewish authorities must have found Pilate a moron if he was being serious. Then, the Kingdom of God in the mind of Jesus was not a place to be build as such, but that it was within ourselves, as he once said it himself.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Catholics do actually think that Paul was a founder of their Church so it is not an insulting thing to Catholics to say ‘your Church was founded on Paul.’ I was always taught the Church was founded on THE APOSTLES and if you go to Rome, there are as many statues of Paul as there are of Peter. If you go to Lourdes there as many statues of Paul as Peter. In both Rome and Lourdes there are in fact stautes of all the Apostles in many Churches to denote that it was founded on all of them.

Paul had a specific mission in taking the message of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Peter had a specific role in relation to guidance on theological matters. So I have no problem when people say Paul was a founder of the Church. So long as they understand the Catholic Church teaches the Church was not founded on Peter as one man in that we follow the teachings of one man, we believe Peter was to lead in spiritual matters and not in an elitist way, but in union with the other Apostles. If others choose to believe Paul was the only founder and believe the evidence supports that theory, that is their perogative.
I am at liberty to consider other evidence and draw my conclusions.

**Very open-minded you. I confess you are one of a kind. Christians, especially Catholics would not compromise such a position. But with regards to what you say that Paul’s specific mission was to take the message of the gospel to the Gentiles, guess what? He failed, because since the Road to Damascus until his last station in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace.

Thinking of percentage, I would give Paul 98 percent of his missionary activities among the Jews, and only 2 percent among the Gentiles. I really can’t find when he finally decided to go to the Gentiles. Two percent of work with the Gentiles can hardly make of one the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Peter yes, this was the one assigned to the Gentiles and the one responsible for most Nazarenes synagogues of former Gentiles. I say former because with the Nazarenes, the converted Gentiles would become fully Jewish. (Acts 15:5) **

 

[Ben_Masada]

And how do YOU know the High Priests and the Sanhedrin had NOT bent the rules concerning them? Don’t tell me they could not: were they not humans? Certainly they were not God Almighty come into the flesh? You were not there: how can you be so sure that they didn’t bend anything? From a pre-revelation from the TaNaKH? Is it how you can tell? That would quite hazardous, to say the least!

**You guys love the chance to desfigure the image of Judaism. The Sanhedrin was not a gang of criminals as you seem to paint it. They were 71 illustrous citizens well-known for being famous paragons of justice. If they could bend the Laws to save a soul in Israel, they would. But to condemn, only in the antisemitic minds of frustrated people like Paul and the gospel writers. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Jesus and the Pharisees clashed of theological difference on many occasions. One of them occured right after the “living water” episode.

Jesus never clashed with the Pharisees. These alleged clashes were Pauline pains felt by the gospel writer due to a Pauline grudge he fed himself all his life because the Pharisees never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil.
That’s all.

while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. But early in the morning he arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.” (John 8:1-11)

Raianoneil, you should have left this one for another poster of less quality which I think you have. It’s embarrassing for lack of a better word to believe that such a case really happened. First of all, Jewish authorities would never be the ones to execute the stoning of a criminal sentenced by the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin would never sentence an adulterous woman to be stoned to death in a day or two. It would take from months to even years. Then, who condemned that woman to be stoned to death? Obviously only the Sanhedrin could. Did she get stoned? No, she didn’t. How could a man in the street change a decision of the Sanhedrin? Then, the case is painted like a gang of Scribes and Pharisees who caught the woman in the act and brought her to Jesus. Come on Raianoneil! Please, have mercy on yourself! If you want to retell this case, at least, tell us as a parable. Anyone with a head on his shoulders knows that this case never happened..

Through your precepts I gain insight; therefore I hate all false ways. Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light for my path. (Ps 119:105-105)

**If the Word of God is a lamp and light on the path of man’s feet, whom did God confide His Word to? You can have the answer in Psalm 147:19,20. To Israel only, God entrusted His Word and to no other people on earth. Now, you have Israel as the light unto the nations. (Isa. 42:6) **

I, the LORD, have called you for the victory of justice, I have grasped you by the hand; I formed you, and set you as a covenant of the people, a light for the nations, To open the eyes of the blind, to bring out prisoners from confinement, and from the dungeon, those who live in darkness.(Isa 42:6-7)

Now, go back to the text in Isaiah 42:6 in the original and see that Isaiah is speaking about Israel, whom he mentions by name, as being assigned as light unto the nations.

 

[Ben_Masada]

It was very theological to Jesus and his contemperaries though.

On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and exclaimed, “Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as scripture says: ‘Rivers of living water will flow from within him.’” (John 7:37-38)

While this isn’t an exact quotation from any Old Testament passage, everyone knew what Jesus was saying about himself and compairing himself to.

I** will be standing there in front of you on the rock in Horeb. Strike the rock, and the water will flow from it for the people to drink." This Moses did, in the presence of the elders of Israel. The place was called Massah and Meribah, because the Israelites quarreled there and tested the LORD, saying, “Is the LORD in our midst or not?” (Ex 17:6-7)

Then he brought me back to the entrance of the temple, and I saw water flowing out from beneath the threshold of the temple toward the east, for the facade of the temple was toward the east; the water flowed down from the southern side of the temple, south of the altar. (Ezek 47:1)**

On that day, living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea, and half to the western sea, and it shall be so in summer and in winter. The LORD shall become king over the whole earth; on that day the LORD shall be the only one, and his name the only one. (Zech 14:8)

Now read about the division among the people, concerning Jesus being the Prophet and the Christ. link to John 7:37-53. Nicodemus pleads for due process and legal justice, only to be ridiculed by the Pharisees, just as the officers (7:47) and the people were (7:49).

Sorry my friend, but for all the above to be spoken by a Jew on an individual basis cannot be Jewish. Therefore, not true.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

That’s because Ben, you lived in the days of Christ. So you should know everything there is to know 2,000 years ago.

 

[ryanoneil]

Jesus never clashed with the Pharisees. These alleged clashes were Pauline pains felt by the gospel writer due to a Pauline grudge he fed himself all his life because the Pharisees never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil.
That’s all.

Believe what you want Ben. The prophets clashed with the people throughout history and many paid with their lives.

** Raianoneil, you should have left this one for another poster of less quality which I think you have. It’s embarrassing for lack of a better word to believe that such a case really happened. First of all, Jewish authorities would never be the ones to execute the stoning of a criminal sentenced by the Sanhedrin. **

According to the Torah they would (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22), but the Sanhedrin had to abide by Roman law for their survival.

**The Sanhedrin would never sentence an adulterous woman to be stoned to death in a day or two. It would take from months to even years. **

Why make this point? We don’t know if this woman would even be charged. We don’t know if a trial had started. We don’t know if a trial had been concluded after a year.

** Then, who condemned that woman to be stoned to death? Obviously only the Sanhedrin could. Did she get stoned? No, she didn’t. How could a man in the street change a decision of the Sanhedrin? **

He was not being asked about a decision by the Sanhedrin. They were trying to trap him in order to discredit him. They were trying to force him to choose between Torah and Rome. A trap that they themselves were already in.

**Then, the case is painted like a gang of Scribes and Pharisees who caught the woman in the act and brought her to Jesus. Come on Raianoneil! Please, have mercy on yourself! If you want to retell this case, at least, tell us as a parable. Anyone with a head on his shoulders knows that this case never happened. **

In case you missed it, the people were just claiming that Jesus was the awaited prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15-19) and the Messiah- king of Israel (2 Sam 7:12-14). They wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. (John 7:40-44) This incedent is there attempt to discredit him as a false messiah who contradicts Moses, and the Torah. Jesus upped the peoples claim by writing on the ground, claiming to be the Lord.

O hope of Israel, O LORD! all who forsake you shall be in disgrace; The rebels in the land shall be put to shame; they have forsaken the source of living waters (the LORD). (Jer 17:13)

** To Israel only, God entrusted His Word and to no other people on earth. Now, you have Israel as the light unto the nations. (Isa. 42:6)

Now, go back to the text in Isaiah 42:6 in the original and see that Isaiah is speaking about Israel, whom he mentions by name, as being assigned as light unto the nations.**

Yes, God’s Word was entrusted to Israel. Yes Israel was assigned as light unto the nations. How many times did the Prophets deliver that message? How many times did Israel not live up to her covenantal responsibilities?

Jesus IS the Word of God incarnate. He was promised to come. Just as Israel is God’s first born son, so to is the individual Jesus (heir of David) the son of God. Jesus is the greater fulfillment of Isaiah. Jesus is the Messiah and new Moses who the prophets predicted would lead the “new Exodus.” He is the one who would bring an even greater redemption and deliverance of God’s people. (Isa 10:25-27; 11:15-16; 43:2,16-19; 51:9-11). He is the one Jeremiah predicted, would mark the start of a “New Covenant” (31:31-33).

 

[minkymurph]

**Allow me please to remind you that the NT did not exist in the year 70 to be considered. Only the Pauline Letters, and none in Israel. All out in the Diaspora throughout Asia Minor. The gospels started appearing after the war of 70 CE all the way up to the end of the First Century. Mark after the war, Luke in 75 CE, Matthew in 85, and John between 95 and 100 CE.

And regarding your question, no Jew believes the NT was Divinely inspired. The Greek Sptuagint yes, the 70 Rabbies who were contracted to write it.**

As far as I know, none of the books of the Bible can be dated with any great degree of certainty. Bible scholars can make educated guesses but they don’t know for sure. In addtion, as books of the Bible are layered, different sections were written at different times eg: Isaiah and the Gospels.

The point I was making was that if the New Testament is not inspired, it is doesn’t really matter what it says because it is only human opinion and human opinion can be interpreted in a variety of ways. To explain, an analysis of literature or poetry in conjunction with a study of the author’s life produces all sorts of opinion, all of which have a degree of validity. Unless you knew the author could you ever be sure what they really meant? As Catholic I believe the New Testament is inspired which changes things.

 

[minkymurph]

**Very open-minded you. I confess you are one of a kind. Christians, especially Catholics would not compromise such a position. But with regards to what you say that Paul’s specific mission was to take the message of the gospel to the Gentiles, guess what? He failed, because since the Road to Damascus until his last station in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace.

Thinking of percentage, I would give Paul 98 percent of his missionary activities among the Jews, and only 2 percent among the Gentiles. I really can’t find when he finally decided to go to the Gentiles. Two percent of work with the Gentiles can hardly make of one the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Peter yes, this was the one assigned to the Gentiles and the one responsible for most Nazarenes synagogues of former Gentiles. I say former because with the Nazarenes, the converted Gentiles would become fully Jewish. (Acts 15:5) **

I appreciate your comment Ben. I try to embrace Ghandi’s approach, ‘open to all but swayed by none.’ However what I said about Paul is what the Catholic Church teaches. It’s not a personal compromise on my part. The Catholic Church professes to be APOSTOLIC. It is stated in the Creed which is said every Sunday. The problem is Catholics and non-Catholics alike misunderstand the teaching of infallibility. The Pope speaks infallibly only when there is concensus of opinion. Catholic’s believe Peter had a specific role in that regard but it was not an elitist role which it is sometimes interpreted as.

 

[ryanoneil]

Sorry my friend, but for all the above to be spoken by a Jew on an individual basis cannot be Jewish. Therefore, not true.

If Jesus is the heir of David and God incarnate, as he claimed, it can be true.

 

[Ben_Masada]

If Jesus is the heir of David and God incarnate, as he claimed, it can be true.

**Perhaps your Hellenistic Jesus did it. The Jesus of Nazareth
never claimed something that would be against God’s Law. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

I appreciate your comment Ben. I try to embrace Ghandi’s approach, ‘open to all but swayed by none.’ However what I said about Paul is what the Catholic Church teaches. It’s not a personal compromise on my part. The Catholic Church professes to be APOSTOLIC. It is stated in the Creed which is said every Sunday. The problem is Catholics and non-Catholics alike misunderstand the teaching of infallibility. The Pope speaks infallibly only when there is concensus of opinion. Catholic’s believe Peter had a specific role in that regard but it was not an elitist role which it is sometimes interpreted as.

**So, the Pope is there like a pupptet just to report the decision of the group of… let’s say Cardinals? And that’s what makes him infallible?

Now, regarding Peter’s role, I think it was conventionalized in terms of acquiring Apostolical credibility, because in reality, I find extremely hard that a Nazarene Jew would voluntarily give his vote for a Pauline Hellenistic Church. Therefore, the Church could not be
Apostolical but Pauline.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

As far as I know, none of the books of the Bible can be dated with any great degree of certainty. Bible scholars can make educated guesses but they don’t know for sure. In addtion, as books of the Bible are layered, different sections were written at different times eg: Isaiah and the Gospels.

The point I was making was that if the New Testament is not inspired, it is doesn’t really matter what it says because it is only human opinion and human opinion can be interpreted in a variety of ways. To explain, an analysis of literature or poetry in conjunction with a study of the author’s life produces all sorts of opinion, all of which have a degree of validity. Unless you knew the author could you ever be sure what they really meant? As Catholic I believe the New Testament is inspired which changes things.

**The bottom line then is that we all are infected by the virus of religious bias. You believe in the inspiration of the NT because you are a Catholic, and I believe in the inspiration of the Tanach because I am Jewish. So, the weapons we could use on this one are cancelled out. The only thing left now is the power of argument based on Logic. Charisma, that is. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

That’s because Ben, you lived in the days of Christ. So you should know everything there is to know 2,000 years ago.

You are exaggerating a little; but the truth is that being myself a member of the Faith of Jesus, I am more at home to report facts with much more accuracy.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Believe what you want Ben. The prophets clashed with the people throughout history and many paid with their lives.

But none by the People. And here goes down the drain the antisemitic NT accusation that the Jews killed the Prophets.

According to the Torah they would (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22), but the Sanhedrin had to abide by Roman law for their survival.

That’s not true at all. The Romans did allow the Jewish authorities to extort the People with taxes. But the Sanhedrin was not paid by the Romans.

Why make this point? We don’t know if this woman would even be charged. We don’t know if a trial had started. We don’t know if a trial had been concluded after a year.

**So, why report this circus episode after all? **

He was not being asked about a decision by the Sanhedrin. They were trying to trap him in order to discredit him. They were trying to force him to choose between Torah and Rome. A trap that they themselves were already in.

**Well, if there was a decision by the Sanhedrin, was the sentence executed? No. Why not? Because a passer-by in the street made the execution of the Sanhedrin obsolete. Does it make sense to you? I hope not! **

In case you missed it, the people were just claiming that Jesus was the awaited prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15-19) and the Messiah- king of Israel (2 Sam 7:12-14). They wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. (John 7:40-44) This incedent is there attempt to discredit him as a false messiah who contradicts Moses, and the Torah. Jesus upped the peoples claim by writing on the ground, claiming to be the Lord.

Do you happen to know what he wrote on the ground? And regarding that Prophet-like Moses, there was no secret about him even to the people listening to Moses, because everyone knew who he was. Joshua, who else could be? Even a prophecy, the case was not.

Yes, God’s Word was entrusted to Israel. Yes Israel was assigned as light unto the nations. How many times did the Prophets deliver that message? How many times did Israel not live up to her covenantal responsibilities?

**It doesn’t matter now, and it won’t help to judge Israel for her past. Since the day Messiah ben Joseph, the Ten Tribes, was removed from existence, God is stuck with the New Israel from the stem of Judah. Now, the Almighty has no choice but only to chastise Israel for whatever we do. If we ever get removed from existence as Israel was, might the whole world as well go, because the existence of the world depends on the existence of Israel. No wonder Jesus said that salvation is of the Jews. (John 4:22) **

Jesus IS the Word of God incarnate. He was promised to come. Just as Israel is God’s first born son, so to is the individual Jesus (heir of David) the son of God. Jesus is the greater fulfillment of Isaiah. Jesus is the Messiah and new Moses who the prophets predicted would lead the “new Exodus.” He is the one who would bring an even greater redemption and deliverance of God’s people. (Isa 10:25-27; 11:15-16; 43:2,16-19; 51:9-11). He is the one Jeremiah predicted, would mark the start of a “New Covenant” (31:31-33).

**Now, go back to Jeremiah 31:31-33 and read what you quoted. If you get embarrassed it’s because you are not beyond repair. But if you don’t even blush, it’s because of too much cynicism. **

 

[onenow1]

**The bottom line then is that we all are infected by the virus of religious bias. You believe in the inspiration of the NT because you are a Catholic, and I believe in the inspiration of the Tanach because I am Jewish. So, the weapons we could use on this one are cancelled out. The only thing left now is the power of argument based on Logic. Charisma, that is. **

Quote= onenow1. Exactly Ben ! Jesus left us one commandment that fulfills all the Law! When he said even as I have loved you, you must love one another.

Quote= onenow1. Ben I have read about half this thread, very repetitive; and nothing new in it.As it is said nothing new under the sun.

Jeus= Teacher= Teacher Par"Excellence. {This weapon can not be defeated Ben.

Peace, onenow1

 

[minkymurph]

So, the Pope is there like a pupptet just to report the decision of the group of… let’s say Cardinals? And that’s what makes him infallible? .

I think you know Ben that’s not what I meant. But of course you are entitled to interpet my words in whatever manner you choose.

Now, regarding Peter’s role, I think it was conventionalized in terms of acquiring Apostolical credibility, because in reality, I find extremely hard that a Nazarene Jew would voluntarily give his vote for a Pauline Hellenistic Church. Therefore, the Church could not be
Apostolical but Pauline.

What do you mean by ‘vote’ and why do you call it a Hellenistic Church?

 

[minkymurph]

**The bottom line then is that we all are infected by the virus of religious bias. You believe in the inspiration of the NT because you are a Catholic, and I believe in the inspiration of the Tanach because I am Jewish. So, the weapons we could use on this one are cancelled out. The only thing left now is the power of argument based on Logic. Charisma, that is. **

I agree. Everyone does come to a study of religion or theology with some sort of religious bias. This is important to remember when engaged in inter-faith dialogue because who’s to say we would not think exactly the same way as someone else if we were in their shoes. That does not mean you have to agree with them. It means you should have the insight to understand were they are coming from and have the capacity to discuss faith in a respectful manner.

You don’t agree the New Testament was inspired. Why use it? It is of no worth if it is not inspired as it is only one man’s opinion. We both agree the Tanach is inspired so there is a power of ‘arguement’ to use as a ‘weapon.’ However I would say that terminology is sacrareligious. They are the Revelation of God;’ God’s communication of himself. God did not communicate this Divine Revelation so we could use it to make others feel inferior or stupid. The Holy Scriputures were not written so humans could beat each other in arguements. The Holy Scriptures were not written so humans could derive some sort of egotistical satisfaction from being ‘better’ versed in it from someone else. It is quite possible for a Jew and a Catholic to discuss interpretations of the Tanach or Old Testament in terms of the economy of salvation without reference to the New Testament or Jesus. However before we enter into dialogue, we should critically evaluate our motives for doing so.

I am all for inter-religious dialogue in order to gain greater insight into other faiths and give others greater insight into mine for the purpose of erradicating sterotypical, biased and ignorant notions of my own faith and that of others. I agree dialogue has to be logical but we are people of faith, not Richard Dawkins type humanists who accept only what can proven through empirical evidence.

I have to disagree with you therefore on the ‘power of arguement.’ The power of God is greater than any arguement constructed by a human because God has the power to transform lives. I don’t know anyone who’s life was transformed by a good arguement but I stand to be corrected. Passing on faith is not a bar-room debate. It involves God himself. ‘Divine Logic’ also differs from that of human logic because while it involves human reason it also involves faith. Blind faith is one that is devoid of reason. Reason alone is devoid of faith. Therefore, in understanding Divine Revelation both are required.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Quote= onenow1. Exactly Ben ! Jesus left us one commandment that fulfills all the Law! When he said even as I have loved you, you must love one another.

Quote= onenow1. Ben I have read about half this thread, very repetitive; and nothing new in it.As it is said nothing new under the sun.

Jeus= Teacher= Teacher Par"Excellence. {This weapon can not be defeated Ben.

Peace, onenow1

**I can’t agree with you more that Jesus=Teacher=Teacher par Excellence. Therefore, he was a married man, because a Jew could not be a Teacher or Rabbi in the First Century in Israel if he was not married.

Now, with regards to his commandment, “you must love one another,” I know he didn’t have the mind of Freud, but I am sure that he knew that love cannot be commanded. Love is an emotion and no one can be commanded to feel. I think Jesus meant to respect one another. Respect yes, can be comanded, and sometimes even enforced.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

I think you know Ben that’s not what I meant. But of course you are entitled to interpet my words in whatever manner you choose.

Originally Posted by minkymurph:
I appreciate your comment Ben. I try to embrace Ghandi’s approach, ‘open to all but swayed by none.’ However what I said about Paul is what the Catholic Church teaches. It’s not a personal compromise on my part. The Catholic Church professes to be APOSTOLIC. It is stated in the Creed which is said every Sunday. The problem is Catholics and non-Catholics alike misunderstand the teaching of infallibility. “The Pope speaks infallibly only when there is concensus of opinion.” Catholic’s believe Peter had a specific role in that regard but it was not an elitist role which it is sometimes interpreted as.

**The paragraph above is yours, and the sentence in color is what I understood by consensus of the Cardinals. Then, the Pope would pronounce what became the decision of the group. If this is what consists the infallibility of the Pope, I am vindicated. **

What do you mean by ‘vote’ and why do you call it a Hellenistic Church?

By vote, that I find hard that Peter would lend his opinion to promote a Gentile religious institution or church. And by Hellenistic Church I mean what Christianity is due to two facts: First, that it was founded by a Hellenistic Greek former Jew in Paul. And second, the Hellenistic doctrines with basis in Greek Mythology, as in reference to the birth of Jesus.