The Mark of the Beast

[OneTrueCathApos]

OneTrueCathApos;4981341:

How can I forget that he founded a religious institution that has killed more Jews than any other institution of before and after him?

If you are speaking about Jesus, you are mistaken to say that we rejected him. How could we reject a fellow Jew who came to confirm Judaism to the letter?
(Mat. 5:17-19)

.

Nevertheless, of the other nations God will make an end; but of the Jews, God will only chastise as we deserve. Read Jeremiah 46:28.

**Jesus was a religious Jew. Therefore, he would never establish a church like Chritianity. What he established was called the Sect of the Nazarenes, whose converts were staunch defenders of the Jewish laws. Read Acts 21:20.

Regarding the “old laws” you say are no longer applicable, it’s not what Jesus said. Read Matthew 5:19. The laws he came to observe, he warned us all to do the same. It means you are adulterating the text. And for your saying that Christians are now the chosen of God is Replacement Theology that butters no bread, and I hate bread without butter.

Ben: **

If your saying that the Catholic church kills Jews, (in which Jesus Christ founded not Paul), then you really have a persecution problem.

 

[Thing]

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

He is the type of jew that puts to death his neighbour for willfully cutting Bens lawn against the Law, and who puts to death his wife for wilfully cooking dinner on Saturdays.
And who observes the other 611 odd Commandments.
He is, in short, someone who keeps all the Laws, unlike Catholics etc…, Jesus said Ben was overburdened with Laws and that he should rest in Jesus, love God, and neighbour as himself, and by doing just that he would fulfill all the laws. Anyway, what do we know…

 

[Thing]

Not at all. This is a matter of principle. Ben believes that Jesus did not abolish the Law *or *fulfill the Law. For Ben the Law has to remain as it was in first century palestine because Jesus, as God, did not make any changes.
Now, to obey that law, regardless of personal feelings, requires the sentence of death to one who wilfully breaks what we know as the ten commandments.

Ben:

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.

 

[PeteVZ]

**As I can see, you continue confused. Let us read together the quotation of I John 2:18,19. “Children, it is the final hour; just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many such antichrists have appeared. This makes us certain that it is the final hour. It was from our ranks that they took their leave…”

Now, ponder: If John the Apostle wrote that Letter, he meant to say that the Antichrist has come from the ranks of Judaism. Paul came from Judaism, when he left to found Christianity. If the writer of this Letter is a Christian declaring that the antichrists have taken their leave from “our ranks,” he meant from Chritianity. Either way Paul is compromised. I hope I have helped clearing the confusion.

Ben: **

Luckily Ben, We have almost 2000 years of scholars that agree that John was referring to people that denied Jesus was the Christ in that passage. He said “THE antichrist” was yet to come so even if Paul was “AN antichrist”,(which since he didn’t deny that Jesus was the Messiah, he wasn’t) he couldn’t have been “THE antichrist”.

Technically, since you deny that Jesus is Christ, that makes you an antichrist, doesn’t it?

 

[Ed_Rand]

**As I can see, you continue confused. Let us read together the quotation of I John 2:18,19. “Children, it is the final hour; just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many such antichrists have appeared. This makes us certain that it is the final hour. It was from our ranks that they took their leave…”

Now, ponder: If John the Apostle wrote that Letter, he meant to say that the Antichrist has come from the ranks of Judaism. Paul came from Judaism, when he left to found Christianity. If the writer of this Letter is a Christian declaring that the antichrists have taken their leave from “our ranks,” he meant from Chritianity. Either way Paul is compromised. I hope I have helped clearing the confusion.

Ben: **

Ben, you’re picking and choosing from scripture like the most foolish of Christians do. Except, you don’t believe it’s inspired, so it’s more like what many Muslims do so often on this forum. They pick a piece that they like and ignore the rest of the book. You used Acts to prove that nothing was supposed to change? Acts is very specific on how things did change and why–and it’s mostly about Paul.

I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse.

By the way, the passage above has nothing to do with Paul. Trying to prove that Paul was an antichrist by quoting the New Testament is just, well… funny. I can’t go about explaining it. What’s amazing is that it seems that you’re pretty familiar with the New Testament.

 

[Filioque]

**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: **

Ben:

As my mishpucha, (both you and Jesus) I do find some fault in your statement. If we look at another famous Jew, Karl Marx; Prior to writing Das Kapital, he was a Jew. After writing Das Kapital, he was a Jew and along with Friedrich Engels, the main founders of Modern Socialism. So too, I think Jesus, who was born a Jew, and founded the Catholic Church, was like myself born Jewish, (in my case Sephardic) and while not loosing his (or my own) Jewish identity, was indeed a Christian, (founder there of).

If we take the writings of the New Testament, and other writings of the day at face value, as simply historical documents, without granting them the authority we give to Tanakah, then the statements of “I will build my Church” or if you will Knesset (Assembly for our non-hebrew speaking audience). If we believe as historical the statement, “Before Abraham was I am.” Then like Marx being a Jew who founded Socialism, Jesus must be considered a Jew, who founded Christianity. As most who found a new group are usually a member of that groups, would not Jesus be both.

If you are implying that to understand the basis for Christianity, (in this case the Catholic Church) that one has to understand the Jewish roots. If one is to understand much of Jesus’ teachings, one must understand what was occuring in Jesus’ day, one should understand the different factions of Jews and Gentiles in Israel then. I agree.

 

[cyber1call]

Ben Masada

You are wise to see the discrepancies between some of the teachings of Saint Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ during his first advent. Paul himself acknowledges that he was saying new things about the very nature of the gospel itself. However, Paul also claimed that these new teachings were direct revelations from God concerning doctrines that had been secret since the beginning of time until the time was right for them to be revealed. Now if you do not want to believe Paul is telling the truth, then you would be right to remove all of his letters from the canon. Otherwise, it would behoove you to see how things changed for the world when Paul was struck blind on the road to Jericho. I don’t think you seek to reject God’s direct revelation, so please choose wisely.

Ephesians 3:2-6 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into **the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. **

Colossians 1:25-26 I have become its servant **by the commission God gave me **to present to you the word of God in its fullness—the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

1 Corinthians 2:1-8 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4982865:

If your saying that the Catholic church kills Jews, (in which Jesus Christ founded not Paul), then you really have a persecution problem.

**Jesus never founded a church. When he was gone, his disciples the Apostles organized the Sect of the Nazarenes on his behalf, and they lasted only up to 135 CE, when about one third was destroyed by the Romans in the Bar Korba war, about one third was absorbed by Christianity, and about one third joined back to mainstream Judaism. The Church was founded by Paul. Read Acts 11:26.

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada

You are wise to see the discrepancies between some of the teachings of Saint Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ during his first advent. Paul himself acknowledges that he was saying new things about the very nature of the gospel itself. However, Paul also claimed that these new teachings were direct revelations from God concerning doctrines that had been secret since the beginning of time until the time was right for them to be revealed. Now if you do not want to believe Paul is telling the truth, then you would be right to remove all of his letters from the canon. Otherwise, it would behoove you to see how things changed for the world when Paul was struck blind on the road to Jericho. I don’t think you seek to reject God’s direct revelation, so please choose wisely.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben:

As my mishpucha, (both you and Jesus) I do find some fault in your statement. If we look at another famous Jew, Karl Marx; Prior to writing Das Kapital, he was a Jew. After writing Das Kapital, he was a Jew and along with Friedrich Engels, the main founders of Modern Socialism. So too, I think Jesus, who was born a Jew, and founded the Catholic Church, was like myself born Jewish, (in my case Sephardic) and while not loosing his (or my own) Jewish identity, was indeed a Christian,

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, you’re picking and choosing from scripture like the most foolish of Christians do. Except, you don’t believe it’s inspired, so it’s more like what many Muslims do so often on this forum. They pick a piece that they like and ignore the rest of the book. You used Acts to prove that nothing was supposed to change? Acts is very specific on how things did change and why–and it’s mostly about Paul.

I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse.

By the way, the passage above has nothing to do with Paul. Trying to prove that Paul was an antichrist by quoting the New Testament is just, well… funny. I can’t go about explaining it. What’s amazing is that it seems that you’re pretty familiar with the New Testament.

**To criticize me by saying that what I am doing is wrong won’t help. Why don’t you tell me what is right? About two thousand years ago, the writer of I John speaks of antichrist coming out as he says, “from us”. Why don’t you tell me what he means. That could help a little more.

**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Luckily Ben, We have almost 2000 years of scholars that agree that John was referring to people that denied Jesus was the Christ in that passage. He said “THE antichrist” was yet to come so even if Paul was “AN antichrist”,(which since he didn’t deny that Jesus was the Messiah, he wasn’t) he couldn’t have been “THE antichrist”.

Technically, since you deny that Jesus is Christ, that makes you an antichrist, doesn’t it?

---

 

[Eucharisted]

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.

Fallacy of generalization makes your whole argument invalid. Have a nice day.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

OneTrueCathApos;4983188:

**Jesus never founded a church. When he was gone, his disciples the Apostles organized the Sect of the Nazarenes on his behalf, and they lasted only up to 135 CE, when about one third was destroyed by the Romans in the Bar Korba war, about one third was absorbed by Christianity, and about one third joined back to mainstream Judaism. The Church was founded by Paul. Read Acts 11:26.

Ben: **

These are the kinds of answers from people who are not only ignorant of the faith, but of the truth, even though it is right in front of them.

 

[Filioque]

Filioque;4984683:

Ben:

Jesus never founded a church. The Church was founded by Paul. Read Acts 11:26. What was organized on behalf of Jesus was the Sect of the Nazarenes.
There is more than one way for a Jew to lose his or her Jewishness, and one of them is to confess loyalty to another religion. Jewishness is not a race but a religion.

Did Jesus give to the NT the authority given to the Tanach? Of course not! It didn’t exist. Why should we when because of the NT we have lost some many Jewish lives? Christianity was founded about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Jesus never had anything to do with it.

**No, I am not implying that to understand Christianity one must understand the Jewish roots. One is as farther away from the other as the North Pole is from the Southern one.

Ben: **

My grandfather was the only Kosher butcher in the area where he lived, he raised his own cattle and sheep. I thought I’d seen a lot of animal dung, before I read your distortions Ben.

 

[Dogiel]

Ben,

I think you should not worry so much about Catholics. You should worry about all the fundamental christian who want to bring all the Jew home from Russia so they can convert them and bring on there view of the rapture. Which in turn brings back Jesus according to them. I think you might have more of a problem with that.

 

[Ed_Rand]

**To criticize me by saying that what I am doing is wrong won’t help. Why don’t you tell me what is right? About two thousand years ago, the writer of I John speaks of antichrist coming out as he says, “from us”. Why don’t you tell me what he means. That could help a little more.

**

I cannot help you because you are being intentionally obtuse. If you fix that problem, then maybe I could help you.

 

[PeteVZ]

---

Ok, lets start by understanding what the antichrist is. The antichrist is an individual that will lead people astray from Jesus as the Christ (hence, “anti” - “Christ”.) When this individual comes, Jesus will return and in his return, the antichrist will be struck down and the world as we know it will end. So, there is one antichrist which will bring about the end of time.

Now, knowing that, lets look at your argument that John’s letter says that one individual has already come. The easiest way to do that would be to replace the words in the text, so let’s compare the antichrist to a fatal heart attack. (Replaced words are in green)

“Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that my fatal heart attackwas coming, so now many fatal heart attacks have occurred. Thus we know this is the last hour.”

It doesn’t work.

However, this makes more sense.

“Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that my fatal heart attackwas coming, so now many non-fatal heart attacks have occurred. Thus we know this is the last hour.”

See, when talking about a singular occurance, and saying many smaller similar occurances have already happened, it doesn’t mean the big one already has.

I think the biggest problem with your argument in general is that you say Paul is the one that “made up” the part about Jesus being the Messiah. If that was true, then Paul couldn’t be the antichrist because you say there is no Christ to be against. It isn’t the antijesus, it’s the antichrist. Therefore, your argument could only be true if Jesus is the Christ. If Jesus is the Christ, then Paul was affirming it, and leading people to him and he once again couldn’t be the antichrist.

So I think you need to further define your stance.

Is Jesus the Christ? (which confirms that Paul is not the antichrist)
or
Is there no such thing as the antichrist? (Which confirms Paul is not the antichrist)

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ok, lets start by understanding what the antichrist is. The antichrist is an individual that will lead people astray from Jesus as the Christ (hence, “anti” - “Christ”.) When this individual comes, Jesus will return and in his return, the antichrist will be struck down and the world as we know it will end. So, there is one antichrist which will bring about the end of time.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I cannot help you because you are being intentionally obtuse. If you fix that problem, then maybe I could help you.

**Oh! I got you! You want me to think with your mind. Thank you, but no, thanks. I have a mind of my own. If you want to discuss any spiritual issue at equal terms, I’ll be more than willing to comply. According to Isaiah 2:2,3, Gentiles are the ones who are supposed to address to Zion when they want instruction in the Word of God.

Ben: **