The Mark of the Beast

[Ben_Masada]

It doesn’t say Christianity started with Paul. it says the disciples were “first called Christians” at Antioch. The number of Gentiles in the community made it stand out clearly from Judaism.

 

[ryanoneil]

It is true God called Israel,Moses’ people,but do you really think God was disowning Israel or setting Moses up for a test to see if he would be a prefigure of Jesus and give himself for the peoples sin?

God was certainly not disowning them in a permanent sense, which is why I said don’t take it the wrong way. In Exodus, God said “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation,” but after the golden calf affair Israel was no longer spoken of as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The first-born sons in each family no longer inherited the father’s role as priest and the Levites were chosen in their place. The Levites stood between God and His people, and He did not dwell amidst his people. So, I’m using the word “disowned” very loosely.

Of course, the prophets promised that God would give the people a new heart, taking away their hearts of stone, and with a “New Covenant,” God would write His law upon the hearts of the people.

Did not Israel go on in fullfillment of God’s Covenant and become a great nation?

Yes. Israel fulfilled all the blessings and the curses of the covenant, which Moses predicted in Deut 30. And what became of the nation after Solomon?

Did not Jesus Christ come from the Tribe of Judah?

Yes he did.

Those that sinned at Siani were not alowed to enter the Promise Land, but Israel still survived as his chosen people.

Yes they always will. A different way of thinking about it, is using marriage language. Hosea symbolized God and Gomer the adultress symbolized faithless Israel. Of His one child “the LORD said: Give him the name Lo-ammi, for you are not my people, and I will not be your God.” (Hos 1:9)

And God said “Protest against your mother, protest! for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. Let her remove her harlotry from before her, her adultery from between her breasts” (Hos 2:4)

Of course, God takes back his wife and children because of His long-suffering love for Israel.

**I will espouse you to me forever: I will espouse you in right and in justice, in love and in mercy; I will espouse you in fidelity, and you shall know the LORD. (Hos 2:21-22)

I will sow him for myself in the land, and I will have pity on Lo-ruhama. I will say to Lo-ammi, “You are my people,” and he shall say, “My God!” (Hos 2:25)**

Do you see what I’m saying?

Isn’t the Kingdom of Israel at the Root of all Christianity?

Yes! The covenant with David changed the character of God’s covenant people from a nation state to that of an international kingdom, a worldwide empire. God’s covenant plan has always been to make the world His blessed and beloved sons and daughters. Israel is the first-born son, not the only son.

We christians believe Jesus is the heir of David. We believe He has (and is) restoring the Kingdom and we believe the New Covenant was fulfilled through Him. The Kingdom is not exclusive, but is inclusive.

 

[racing59]

God was certainly not disowning them in a permanent sense, which is why I said don’t take it the wrong way. In Exodus, God said “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation,” but after the golden calf affair Israel was no longer spoken of as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The first-born sons in each family no longer inherited the father’s role as priest and the Levites were chosen in their place. The Levites stood between God and His people, and He did not dwell amidst his people. So, I’m using the word “disowned” very loosely.

Of course, the prophets promised that God would give the people a new heart, taking away their hearts of stone, and with a “New Covenant,” God would write His law upon the hearts of the people.

Yes. Israel fulfilled all the blessings and the curses of the covenant, which Moses predicted in Deut 30. And what became of the nation after Solomon?

Yes he did.

Yes they always will. A different way of thinking about it, is using marriage language. Hosea symbolized God and Gomer the adultress symbolized faithless Israel. Of His one child “the LORD said: Give him the name Lo-ammi, for you are not my people, and I will not be your God.” (Hos 1:9)

And God said “Protest against your mother, protest! for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. Let her remove her harlotry from before her, her adultery from between her breasts” (Hos 2:4)

Of course, God takes back his wife and children because of His long-suffering love for Israel.

**I will espouse you to me forever: I will espouse you in right and in justice, in love and in mercy; I will espouse you in fidelity, and you shall know the LORD. (Hos 2:21-22)

I will sow him for myself in the land, and I will have pity on Lo-ruhama. I will say to Lo-ammi, “You are my people,” and he shall say, “My God!” (Hos 2:25)**

Do you see what I’m saying?

Yes! The covenant with David changed the character of God’s covenant people from a nation state to that of an international kingdom, a worldwide empire. God’s covenant plan has always been to make the world His blessed and beloved sons and daughters. Israel is the first-born son, not the only son.

We christians believe Jesus is the heir of David. We believe He has (and is) restoring the Kingdom and we believe the New Covenant was fulfilled through Him. The Kingdom is not exclusive, but is inclusive.

You bring up valid points.I differ though on who the adultrist is.Ezekiel in chapter 16 tells us who the harlot is, not the entire Kingdom of Israel, but Jerusalem. That is why she fell in586 B.C. and again in 70 A.D.John talks of this in Revelation chapter 13-18. It is true the Priesthood switch from the first born to the tribe of Levi, but Levites stayed loyal to God at Siani. So we we see it was not all of Israel that fell. Jerusalem was destoyed not because Israel was totaly corrupt,but the Priesthood inside Jerusalem became corrupt. Especially before 70 A.D. it became a Herodian Priesthood in polical ambition with Rome. John 19:15 we see this when the High Priest said,“We have no King but Caesar”. Caesar had become their god.You are correct saying Israel is first born a very powerful position and now all Christians are the Priesthood according to Melchezidek( King Priest of Shalom) were Jesus Christ is High Priest Heb. chp.7 , I Peter 2:9-10, and REv.5:9-10. We as Christians are the Priesthood now./B]

 

[ryanoneil]

That’s what I call absurdity. “The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” How were the disciples called before? Not Christians.

They were called “The Way”.

Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. (Acts 9:1-2)

Also (Acts 18:26; 19:9, 23: 22:4; 24:14, 22) The early Christians adopted this title to lay claim to the promises of Isaiah and assert their identity as the newly redeemed people of God. (Is 35:8; 40:3; 43:16-19; 48:17; 51:10; 62:10-12)

Why did they start being called Christians? Because, as the text says, Paul spent a whole year there preaching that Jesus was Christ. Not only that Christianity started at that time, but also proofs that Jesus was never known as Christ before. For Heaven’s sake, people, take off the blinders for a change!

The believers in the synagogues were all Jews (not Gentiles), and they all believed Jesus was the Christ (the anointed Messiah). Some of them stubbornly maintained the seperation of Jew and Gentile even after the Gentiles were openly accepted into the Church. Of course distinctions are going to be made.

Peter announced Jesus was the Christ at Pentecost.

Prove that Jesus disregarded the Jewish policy of separation from Gentiles? On the contrary, Jesus had an aversion to Gentiles. I even wonder why if Isaiah says that we have been given as light unto the nations.

Prove that Jesus had an aversion to Gentiles. It is the opposite of what you say.

He had to pass through Samaria. So he came to a town of Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there. Jesus, tired from his journey, sat down there at the well. It was about noon. A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” (Jn 4:4-7)

**When he entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully.” He said to him, “I will come and cure him.” (Mt 8:5-7)

Then Jesus went from that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.” (Mt 15:21-22)**

 

[Ben_Masada]

They were called “The Way”.

**The Sect of the Nazarenes was known as “The Way.” When Paul went to arrest Nazarenes in Damascus, he himself declared that he had gone to Damascus to arrest all those whe were living according to the New Way. (Acts 9:2) When he returned to Jerusalem to try to join the Sect of the Nazarenes, the Nazarenes were afraid of him because of his persecutions of the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:26) **

Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. (Acts 9:1-2)

**They were Jews but not Christians. And they did not believe that Jesus was the anointed Messiah. This idea started with Paul in Antioch about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Read Acts 11:26. **

Peter announced Jesus was the Christ at Pentecost.

Peter was a Nazarene Jew and not an anti-Semite. That speech in Acts 2 was never delivered by Peter. Proof of it is the introduction of the speaker in Acts 2:14. “You who are Jews…” A Jew would never speak to the Jews in that manner. Only a Gentile.

Prove that Jesus had an aversion to Gentiles. It is the opposite of what you say.

**Let’s start with Matthew 10:6. Every time he sent his disciples to preach the gospel, he would forbid them to visit the Gentiles or even to enter a Samaritan town. Why? Obviously, he had his reasons. Now, read Matthew 15:26. When that Gentile woman asked him to cure her daughter. He answered and said that it was not right to take from the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs. By children he meant the Jews, and by dogs the Gentiles. I still don’t understand why he did that. But let’s read another one. Read Matthew 7:6. That was by occasion of his Sermon of the Mount. He was speaking to a crowd of Jews and said to them: “Do not give what is holy to dogs or toss your pearls before swine.” If he was talking to the Jews, whom was he talking about? It’s obvious isn’t it? Is it enough to prove his aversion to Gentiles or you want more? **

 

[ryanoneil]

You bring up valid points.I differ though on who the adultrist is.Ezekiel in chapter 16 tells us who the harlot is, not the entire Kingdom of Israel, but Jerusalem. That is why she fell in586 B.C. and again in 70 A.D.John talks of this in Revelation chapter 13-18. It is true the Priesthood switch from the first born to the tribe of Levi, but Levites stayed loyal to God at Siani. So we we see it was not all of Israel that fell. Jerusalem was destoyed not because Israel was totaly corrupt,but the Priesthood inside Jerusalem became corrupt. Especially before 70 A.D. it became a Herodian Priesthood in polical ambition with Rome. John 19:15 we see this when the High Priest said,“We have no King but Caesar”. Caesar had become their god.You are correct saying Israel is first born a very powerful position and now all Christians are the Priesthood according to Melchezidek( King Priest of Shalom) were Jesus Christ is High Priest Heb. chp.7 , I Peter 2:9-10, and REv.5:9-10. We as Christians are the Priesthood now./B]
I don’t think we really disagree. Jerusalem (and Judah) were spared prior to the exile. (2 Kings 19:35-37) Yet for the house of Judah I feel pity; I will save them by the LORD, their God; But I will not save them by war, by sword or bow, by horses or horsemen. (Hos 1:7) Likewise, the heavenly Jerusalem, made up of faithfull Jews and Christians, was spared before the earthly Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. Does that make sense?

There continues to be a faithfull remnant in Judaism, that survived the destruction of the Temple. We are all priests according to the order of Melchezidek, are we not?

 

[ryanoneil]

**They were Jews but not Christians. And they did not believe that Jesus was the anointed Messiah. This idea started with Paul in Antioch about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Read Acts 11:26. **

Give me a break Ben! There were twelve apostles who all believed Jesus was the Messiah and they preached the gospel throughout the know world. The New Testament was not written by Paul.

Peter was a Nazarene Jew and not an anti-Semite. That speech in Acts 2 was never delivered by Peter. Proof of it is the introduction of the speaker in Acts 2:14. “You who are Jews…” A Jew would never speak to the Jews in that manner. Only a Gentile.

I suppose your going to say that Peter would never call the diaspora the “dispersion” either.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1)

Let’s start with Matthew 10:6. Every time he sent his disciples to preach the gospel, he would forbid them to visit the Gentiles or even to enter a Samaritan town. Why?

That should be obvious Ben. The Israelites where adopted as God’s own possession so it was appropriate that they first hear the New Covenant Gospel. This reflects the order and direction of salvation history. Israel then the Gentiles.

Obviously, he had his reasons. Now, read Matthew 15:26. When that Gentile woman asked him to cure her daughter. He answered and said that it was not right to take from the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs. By children he meant the Jews, and by dogs the Gentiles. I still don’t understand why he did that.

You miss the whole point. He was not there to minister. He was there to withdraw. She recognized Jesus as Lord and annointed son of David. He responded that way to announce his mission was first to the Jews, and to test her faith and humility. And she passed the test. She acknowledges her position as a dog, with no claim, and the children’s position at the master’s table. She can only beg for the blessings.

So, don’t forget to include verse 28. **Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour. **

But let’s read another one. Read Matthew 7:6. That was by occasion of his Sermon of the Mount. He was speaking to a crowd of Jews and said to them: “Do not give what is holy to dogs or toss your pearls before swine.” If he was talking to the Jews, whom was he talking about? It’s obvious isn’t it?

Again you are missing the point. He is saying that examination is necessary to avoid profaning what is holy and to avoid embracing what is false. And if verse six refers to Gentiles, so what. Try reading all of chapter seven instead of focusing on one verse. He has an aversion to the Jew who are called hypocrites, false prophets, and evildoers also.

And don’t ignore that Jesus goes to Capernaum next and marvels that the Roman centurions faith is greater than any in Israel (healing his servant). Stop ignoring God’s covenant oath to Abraham that all nations would eventually share his blessings.

Is it enough to prove his aversion to Gentiles or you want more?

That doesn’t prove anything.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Give me a break Ben! There were twelve apostles who all believed Jesus was the Messiah and they preached the gospel throughout the know world. The New Testament was not written by Paul.

 

[ryanoneil]

No, but the writers of the NT had been Paul’s disciples.

Obviously Paul had a large influence and many writings in the NT, but there are other schools represented.

And proofs that Jesus’ Apostles never preached about Jesus as Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected are based on the fact that they were headquartered in Jerusalem for about 30 years, when Paul showed up with that very same message and was nearly killed for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem.

You come to this conclusion because you assume Paul wrote the entire NT. Your facts are wrong. The apostles were not Jews in good standing. They were persecuted because they were preaching Jesus was Messiah son of God. (one of the persecutors was Paul).

How about the Apostles of Jesus? What were they preaching about Jesus? They were as much surprised about the Pauline gospel as were the local Jews.

They were preaching Jesus was the Messiah son of God. They were surprised because Paul had converted. Some disciple thought he was just trying to infiltrate their ranks.

Jesus did not say “first,” he said “only.” Read Matthew 15:24. Prove to me that he said “first.” I am all ears.

After Jesus resurrection, the apostles are sent to the Gentiles.

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)

 

[Ben_Masada]

Obviously Paul had a large influence and many writings in the NT, but there are other schools represented.

You come to this conclusion because you assume Paul wrote the entire NT. Your facts are wrong. The apostles were not Jews in good standing. They were persecuted because they were preaching Jesus was Messiah son of God. (one of the persecutors was Paul).

I am sorry but you are not thinking. Jesus could have never said that. That’s pure Pauline rhetoric. The baptism of Jesus was the baptism of John, as was the baptism of the Nazarenes and his disciples. Then, wherever Paul met one, he would rebaptize him or her in the name of Jesus. Read Acts 19.

 

[ryanoneil]

**That’s not the point. He did not have to refer to her as a dog in order to compliment her faith afterwards. **
He didn’t have to be that cruel to that mother just to exploit her faith. What was his purpose? Do you happen to know? Perhaps to show that there was no faith among the Jews? It would be worse in his records.

What was purpose of the phophets? Was it to make the people eager for the mercy of God? Did they say and do things to exercise the peoples virtues: faith, humility, patience and perseverance?

Maybe you should re-read the story and imagine Jesus was not insulting and exploiting. Because his mission was first to the Jews, He ignored her so she would ask with more sincerity. That way she would deserve the assistance we would give her. As far as the name calling, what is wrong with him inducing her virtue. We are all unworthy after all, and she acknowledged it.

Jesus was not an anti-Semite. You are probably confusing him with Paul.

I am confusing nothing. These are the words of Jesus.

**You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. (Mt 7:5)

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. (Mt 7:15)

Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ (Mt 7:23) **

The Old Testament prophets spoke the same way. Are you going to tell me they were anti-Semites? Perhaps you are confusing the prophets with Paul’s of their time.

 

[ryanoneil]

If they used to preach about Jesus as Messiah and son of God, they would not have found shelter to build their headquarters in Jerusalem. Sorry. I am only using Logic.

How do you know?

There was no resurrection. Jews don’t believe in bodily resurrection.

How do you know? Do you speak for all Jews, of all sects, throughout all of history?

**To think as you do is to accumulate contradictions in the NT.**I am sorry but you are not thinking. Jesus could have never said that. That’s pure Pauline rhetoric. The baptism of Jesus was the baptism of John, as was the baptism of the Nazarenes and his disciples. Then, wherever Paul met one, he would rebaptize him or her in the name of Jesus. Read Acts 19.

I am sorry but you are contradicting everything in the NT.

"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Mt 3:11)

If you think it is all lies, why are you citing it to make your case? The plain fact is, we believe it and you don’t.

 

[Ben_Masada]

How do you know?

I can think. The Apostles’ headquarters was in Jerusalem and they were coexisting peacefully with mainstream Judaism. When Paul showed up preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he was nearly killed by the local Jews for preaching apostasy. It’s only obvious that the Apostles had never heard of such fabrications.Read Acts 9 and 10.

How do you know? Do you speak for all Jews, of all sects, throughout all of history?

I know because the Hebrrew Scriptures is against it. Read Job 9:9,10; 10:21; 14:12; II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 88:6; 146:4; Proverbs 2:19; Ezekiel 26:20. Or you can read the whole book of Ecclesiastes.

I am sorry but you are contradicting everything in the NT.

Not me! The NT contradicts itself.

"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Mt 3:11)

That’s an interpolation inserted 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

If you think it is all lies, why are you citing it to make your case? The plain fact is, we believe it and you don’t.

Because you are using a religious Jew to distort the image of Judaism before the world.

 

[Ben_Masada]

What was purpose of the phophets? Was it to make the people eager for the mercy of God? Did they say and do things to exercise the peoples virtues: faith, humility, patience and perseverance?

Maybe you should re-read the story and imagine Jesus was not insulting and exploiting. Because his mission was first to the Jews, He ignored her so she would ask with more sincerity. That way she would deserve the assistance we would give her. As far as the name calling, what is wrong with him inducing her virtue. We are all unworthy after all, and she acknowledged it.

.

**Where did you get the idea that Jesus’ mission was first to the Jews? Why don’t you read Matthew 15:24? He said that his mission was ONLY to the Jews. Who changed only for first, you or Paul? **

 

[ryanoneil]

I can think. The Apostles’ headquarters was in Jerusalem and they were coexisting peacefully with mainstream Judaism. When Paul showed up preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he was nearly killed by the local Jews for preaching apostasy. It’s only obvious that the Apostles had never heard of such fabrications.Read Acts 9 and 10.

You miss alot because all you do is focus on Paul. There wasn’t a peaceful coexisting when Jesus was alive or after his resurrection. Peter already preached Jesus as the ressurrected Messiah in Acts 2 and the trouble starts in Acts 4

I know because the Hebrrew Scriptures is against it. Read Job 9:9,10; 10:21; 14:12; II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 88:6; 146:4; Proverbs 2:19; Ezekiel 26:20. Or you can read the whole book of Ecclesiastes.

I can cherry pick also. Hebrew Scriptures are for it. Read Daniel 12:2, 12; Isa 25:8, 26:19-21; Job 19:25-27. Granted, this belief developed over time but it was quite mature by the time of the Maccabees.

Not me! The NT contradicts itself.

Only to the ones who don’t understand what they are reading.

That’s an interpolation inserted 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

The same thing could be said of Old Testament writings (except 50+ years would be much to small a number in many cases).

Because you are using a religious Jew to distort the image of Judaism before the world.

what is the exact distortion of Judaism you are accussing me of?

 

[ryanoneil]

**Where did you get the idea that Jesus’ mission was first to the Jews? Why don’t you read Matthew 15:24? He said that his mission was ONLY to the Jews. Who changed only for first, you or Paul? **

It’s the Gospel of Matthew not, not the Gospel of Paul. Why the sudden switch to being a literalist. Yes he says that, but his actions said different. If he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel he wouldn’t have extended the Messianic blessings to the gentiles. (Mt 15:24; Jn 4:4-7; Mt 8:5-7)

I’ll give you this, Jesus was concerned primarily with the Israelites when he was alive, but when he said he was the good shepard he also said he had another flock (Jn 10:16). Sending the apostles out to the Gentiles, after his ressurection, is fulfilling the worldwide kingdom of David (uniting Israel and the Gentiles into a single covenant family). So yes, salvation does come from the Jews.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

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.

Don’t get me wrong … I agree that all these wild stories and the accompanying “end of the world” paranoia is, to put it mildly, bizarre. However, what about stories like talking snakes, a god turning rivers into blood, sticks into snakes, appearing in the form of a burning bush, and so on? This seems equally bizarre to me …

 

[Lapell]

**Pope John 23rd did mention the false accusation of the crucifixion too, not only all the blood libels throughout History including the false accusation that the Jews were responsible for the black plague. God Almighty! How many Jews had to be murdered by the Church because of the superstitions of Catholics with regards to the Black Plague! **

The false accusation you are refering to was not to all the Jews of Jesus’ time, but to the Jewish people of subsequent times. You probably were yourself accused of being a deicide and Christ-killer. And as I pointed out, you are not 2000 years old, dear Ben, so in your case and the case of the Jews of today, yes the accusation was false and the people should stop accusing the Jews of today of that. O.K.?
Neither can the Jews of Jesus’ time be accused of deicide, for that would involve knowing that Jesus is God the Son. They thought they were sending a man for execution on account of proferred blasphemy. That’s the true reality.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The false accusation you are refering to was not to all the Jews of Jesus’ time, but to the Jewish people of subsequent times. You probably were yourself accused of being a deicide and Christ-killer. And as I pointed out, you are not 2000 years old, dear Ben, so in your case and the case of the Jews of today, yes the accusation was false and the people should stop accusing the Jews of today of that. O.K.?
Neither can the Jews of Jesus’ time be accused of deicide, for that would involve knowing that Jesus is God the Son. They thought they were sending a man for execution on account of proferred blasphemy. That’s the true reality.

Lapel, don’t fool yourself. The real reason why Jesus was executed was written on that plate at the top of his cross. Try to translate it and see if
it still sounds blasphemy to you. It sounds political to me. Therefore, Jesus was executed for political reasons. Is that settled now?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Don’t get me wrong … I agree that all these wild stories and the accompanying “end of the world” paranoia is, to put it mildly, bizarre. However, what about stories like talking snakes, a god turning rivers into blood, sticks into snakes, appearing in the form of a burning bush, and so on? This seems equally bizarre to me …

And I agree with you if you interpret all these bizarre stories literally. You know, the religious mind is too bizarre.