The Mark of the Beast

[Ben_Masada]

The Mark of the Beast

Christians, especially Protestants, and among them, the Seventh-Day Adventists in particular, enjoy to talk about the mark of the Beast; and with fantastic definitions, that only make a ridiculous picture of themselves. Then, they charge each other with the potential to get the mark of the Beast. They think of almost everything but the real thing, which is given by the NT itself.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist. Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words: Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against
or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands
against Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it’s only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? “God forbid,” he said, “that I should glory in anything save in the cross.” The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

Now, your comments are welcome.

Ben.

 

[PeteVZ]

While you offer an interesting theory, the primary problem with it is the timing. The antichrist will not come until just before the end of temporal existance. Before that happens, the majority of Jews will return to the salvation offered to them by God that they did not accept 2000 years ago. Then Jesus will return to strike down the Antichrist and the world will end. Since Jesus didn’t strike down Paul, and the world hasn’t ended yet, we can be certain that Paul wasn’t the Antichrist.

Secondly, Paul didn’t say that Jewish law was abolished with the Cross. He said it was fulfilled. Jewish law existed to point toward Christ. When His death and resurrection freed us from our sins, the Jewish law was no longer necessary, but was still valid. In other words, it is not wrong to follow the law, as long as it is for Christ. If you follow Christ in the spirit of the law, the minutia is not as important.

 

[cthulhubryan]

The Mark of the Beast

Christians, especially Protestants, and among them, the Seventh-Day Adventists in particular, enjoy to talk about the mark of the Beast; and with fantastic definitions, that only make a ridiculous picture of themselves. Then, they charge each other with the potential to get the mark of the Beast. They think of almost everything but the real thing, which is given by the NT itself.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist. Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words: Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against
or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands
against Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it’s only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? “God forbid,” he said, “that I should glory in anything save in the cross.” The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

Now, your comments are welcome.

Ben.

One must be very careful using Fundamentalist interpretations of the bible. Paul, by declaring that Jewish laws were abolished in the body of Christ, was declaring that Jesus was the savior of mankind and that Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to become Christians.

 

[deb1]

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? “God forbid,” he said, “that I should glory in anything save in the cross.” The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

.

Ben.

Hello Ben!

Paul was being humble and saying that he should not glory in anything but the fact that Jesus died for us. I do not see how that is glorifying himself.

As far as the end of the world, Catholics’ don’t seem as focused about the end of the world as some Protestant denominations.

 

[GKC]

The Mark of the Beast

Christians, especially Protestants, and among them, the Seventh-Day Adventists in particular, enjoy to talk about the mark of the Beast; and with fantastic definitions, that only make a ridiculous picture of themselves. Then, they charge each other with the potential to get the mark of the Beast. They think of almost everything but the real thing, which is given by the NT itself.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist. Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words: Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against
or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands
against Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it’s only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? “God forbid,” he said, “that I should glory in anything save in the cross.” The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

Now, your comments are welcome.

Ben.

Once upon a time, long, long ago, I did a lengthy exchange with a fundamentalist ninny, whose thesis was roughly the same thing, though he made it specifically the sign of the cross, as in crossing ones self. He tried to use some Latin etymology (ineptly), some Church doctrine, and the worse use of a dictionary I have ever seen in public. Plus a tiny bit of silly exegesis. It was a disaster.

No, I’m not going to do it again, but it’s gratifying to recall those days. Thank you for reminding me.

GKC

 

[Auriel]

Interesting thought, but does not fit.
**
Revelation 13:16-18

16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.**

What I think is cool is that 666 really is the number of man. We are carbon based. Carbon consists of 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Once upon a time, long, long ago, I did a lengthy exchange with a fundamentalist ninny, whose thesis was roughly the same thing, though he made it specifically the sign of the cross, as in crossing ones self. He tried to use some Latin etymology (ineptly), some Church doctrine, and the worse use of a dictionary I have ever seen in public. Plus a tiny bit of silly exegesis. It was a disaster.

No, I’m not going to do it again, but it’s gratifying to recall those days. Thank you for reminding me.

GKC

**Well, at least I made you feel nostalgic, and perhaps younger. And maybe, you won’t do it again, because you must have detected that I am not here to win Catholics away, but to claim Jesus as one of our own, which is exactly what he was: A Jew and not a Christian.

Ben: **

 

[graceandglory]

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it’s only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.:

Don’t have much to say except that personal theories like this are why I became Catholic. The early Church at the time knew St. Paul was pointing people to Christ, not away from Christ. Building a belief on a few scriptures, (like the SDA do), which contradict the Tradition and Magisterial teaching of the Church, which existed long before lay people like you and me had our own copies of scripture to misinterpret, only causes divisions among people.

Ben Masada,
I am interested in your Religion, and that you reside in Israel. Can you specify which type of Jew you are?

 

[GKC]

**Well, at least I made you feel nostalgic, and perhaps younger. And maybe, you won’t do it again, because you must have detected that I am not here to win Catholics away, but to claim Jesus as one of our own, which is exactly what he was: A Jew and not a Christian.

Ben: **

Nostalgic is my favorite mood, these days. Ah, it was good times.

I won’t do that particular subject again because your point is not what the loon I was talking to was trying to assert, back then. Which was based a great deal on the use of the Latin term “signum”, some points from the ECFs (that was on my side), some church doctrine on a particular sacrament, and, as I said, as inept a use of a dictionary as you will see, this side of functional illiteracy. I mean, it wasn’t even the definition that was being abused. The gentleman had no idea what the expression “w/…” meant, as "with “signum”, meaning when the use included signum. Oh, it was all complicated. But It had nothing to do with what you are attempting.And, anyway, my daughter ran off with the OXFORD UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY OF LATIN. Fair enough, it was hers.

Mostly I do history, now. Some history, anyway.

Thanks again.

GKC

 

[deb1]

**Well, at least I made you feel nostalgic, and perhaps younger. And maybe, you won’t do it again, because you must have detected that I am not here to win Catholics away, but to claim Jesus as one of our own, which is exactly what he was: A Jew and not a Christian. **

Ben:

Of course, Jesus was Jewish.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Interesting thought, but does not fit.
**
Revelation 13:16-18

He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead

 

[Ben_Masada]

Of course, Jesus was Jewish.

**In that case, I wonder why Christians don’t make of Paul the Mohammad of Chritianity and leave Jesus as the Jew that he was, with his Fatith which was Judaism.

Ben: **

 

[twosweetgirls]

Steve Wohlberg, a noted SDA, once told me–in fact, several times told me–that the Catholic Church was the mark of the beast (among other things), using the sign of the cross and Holy Eucharist as examples.

Then a Protestant, I decided to do my own research using an open mind and logical thinking. And I became Catholic. So much for Steve’s arguments.

 

[bpbasilphx]

What I think is cool is that 666 really is the number of man. We are carbon based. Carbon consists of 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.

**And who knows how many quarks, bosons, and what else?

Guess what? ALL life on earth is carbon based.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

**I do remember to have been proved to in a debate with a Seventh-Day Adventist fella, with an ancient map, that the Roman Empire had been broken down into 10 nations. And that three of them had been torn by the Power of Chritianity, which were the Ostrogods, Visigods and another one which I quite don’t remember right now. I am not at home to check it out in my records. I might get back to you.

Ben: **
[/quote]

 

[dawid]

**Well, at least I made you feel nostalgic, and perhaps younger. And maybe, you won’t do it again, because you must have detected that I am not here to win Catholics away, but to claim Jesus as one of our own, which is exactly what he was: A Jew and not a Christian.

Ben: **

You are correct that Jesus was a Jew!
To understand Christianity we have to learn of Judaism.

I strongly recommend reading Roy Schoeman’s book “Salvation is from the Jews”. When he became Catholic he said he never felt more proud to be a Jew. He asserts that it was not a conversion, but a fulfilment of his faith.

He also reminds us that the Jews are the chosen people, asserting how the efforts to harm them are satanic.

As a gentile, I found his, and Scott Hahn’s books helped me understand my own Faith through explaining the origin of Catholic theology and rites.

 

[deb1]

**In that case, I wonder why Christians don’t make of Paul the Mohammad of Chritianity and leave Jesus as the Jew that he was, with his Fatith which was Judaism. **

Ben:

Certainly there are some Protestants who read the Bible as if only Paul’s letters are relevant to modern Christians. What Jesus said, although interesting, does not seem to hold as much sway with them as Paul.

 

[vee8]

Hi Ben you might be interested in posting your ideas over on the End Times Speculation thread where we havent had a good 666 discussion in a while.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=306966

 

[Ben_Masada]

While you offer an interesting theory, the primary problem with it is the timing. The antichrist will not come until just before the end of temporal existance. Before that happens, the majority of Jews will return to the salvation offered to them by God that they did not accept 2000 years ago. Then Jesus will return to strike down the Antichrist and the world will end. Since Jesus didn’t strike down Paul, and the world hasn’t ended yet, we can be certain that Paul wasn’t the Antichrist.

Secondly, Paul didn’t say that Jewish law was abolished with the Cross. He said it was fulfilled. Jewish law existed to point toward Christ. When His death and resurrection freed us from our sins, the Jewish law was no longer necessary, but was still valid. In other words, it is not wrong to follow the law, as long as it is for Christ. If you follow Christ in the spirit of the law, the minutia is not as important.

**If my problem is with the timing, why would John 2:18,19 refer to the Antichrist still two thousand years ago as the final hour then, and that the antichrists had already appeared, and that they were coming out of the ranks of Christianity itself.? Kind of odd, isn’t it? It makes one wonder if these antichrists in the plural were members of Christianity, which others from within would claim that they albeit took their leave from Christianity didn’t really belonged with them. Please, check the quotation.

And regarding your attempt to excuse Paul, nice try for being his champion, but I have with me here two different translations of the Bible, and in both of them the verb used in Ephesians 2:15 is “abolished.” That Jesus did abolish the Law in his flesh on the cross. That’s a blatant contradiction of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17 that he had not come to abolish the Law.

And when you say that the Law is still valid if observed in Christ, I wonder what is the difference between observing the Law in Christ and out of duty, as long as the Law is observed.

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

You are correct that Jesus was a Jew!
To understand Christianity we have to learn of Judaism.

I strongly recommend reading Roy Schoeman’s book “Salvation is from the Jews”. When he became Catholic he said he never felt more proud to be a Jew. He asserts that it was not a conversion, but a fulfilment of his faith.

He also reminds us that the Jews are the chosen people, asserting how the efforts to harm them are satanic.

As a gentile, I found his, and Scott Hahn’s books helped me understand my own Faith through explaining the origin of Catholic theology and rites.

**Behold a paradox! This Roy Schoeman had to quit Judaism in order to appreciate what he had left behind. No wonder Hosea said that “My people perish for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6) As I can see, he never understood, neither before not after becoming a Catholic, the meaning of what Jesus meant by saying that “Salvation is from the Jews.”

I recommend you my thread about “Salvation is from the Jews.” I am glad I posted it before reading his book. I was not influenced. And last but not least, he reminds us that the Jews are the chosen People, and he deliberately chose to quit being one of the chosen to claim from outside what he lost. That’s indeed a paradox!

Ben: **