The Mark of the Beast

[Ben_Masada]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. I can’t speak for ever Christian denomination out there because there are tens of thousands. But as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, there is no conspiracy to transfer the blame because all parties are responsible! No one group or individual can be blamed. And if you get right down to it, everyone who has ever sinned is responsible (in a sense) because Jesus died for the sin of the world.

And you never answered my question. What did Jesus (a devout Jew who was faithfull to the Law) do to get the attention Rome? What did he do that warranted the death sentence?

**Jesus knew that’s against the Law for an individual Jew to die for another. It means, he did not die for anyone. He died just as the other thousands of Jews who were crucified by the Romans, as a result of foreign occupation.Read Josephus.

Now, with regards to what Jesus did to get the attention of Rome: A clash of a custom with a policy. The custom was that in Israel in the First Century ambulant Teachers and Rabbis would gather disciples in the mystical number of Twelve to teach them Torah and prepare future Teachers to keep the chain of sequence.

The policy was of the Romans to arrest only the heads of any private group throughout the provinces and crucify them so that the disciples would disperse. That’s exactly what happened to Jesus’ group of Twelve. (Mark 14:50) Besides, when the Roman soldiers went for Jesus in the Gethsemane, the order was to get only the head of the group, and Jesus knew it. And Jesus was not the only head of Twelve to clash with the Roman policy and get crucified. Many faced with the same destiny.**

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**Interesting that you ask, I mean, about the Pope. Have you ever heard that Pope Gregory VII was of Jewish origin?

The one about Mary, it’s obvious.**

So what? St. Peter was a Jew and the 41st pope St. Zosimus was Greek, and?..

 

[Ben_Masada]

So what? St. Peter was a Jew and the 41st pope St. Zosimus was Greek, and?..

Cut it off, will ya? Peter was never Pope and he never intended to be one. Peter was a Nazarene loyal Jew, who never apostatized from the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism. The first Pope was Paul. And it’s a shame to deny the credit to whom the credit is due. After all Paul was a Theological genius who struggled almost to the last of his breath to found Christianity. The minimum you could do was to acknowledge him as the one.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You didn’t read the link did you? The main difference is a resurrected body is immortal and incorruptible.

**On this mountain he will destroy the veil that veils all peoples, The web that is woven over all nations; he will destroy death forever. The Lord GOD will wipe away the tears from all faces; The reproach of his people he will remove from the whole earth; for the LORD has spoken. (Isa 25:7-8)

Shall I deliver them from the power of the nether world? shall I redeem them from death? Where are your plagues, O death! where is your sting, O nether world! My eyes are closed to compassion. (Hos 13:14)**

**My question remains. There was no difference between Jesus’ body of before and after the alleged resurrection. He would eat and drink with his disciples before and after. Since to defecate is the last natural process of digestion, it’s only obvious that Jesus would do that too. What immortal and incorruptible body was that?

Death will never be destroyed forever. Only God lives forever. All those who are born must die. This is as much a metaphorical expression as the wipe away of tears, and the reproach of Israel being removed from the whole earth.**

 

[KingAlfred]

The Beast is a beguiling political leader who convinces his followers to abandon Christianity in pursuit of other so-called *ideals and values *which ultimately lead them into Perdition.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Not only do the Four Gospels tell us, and the OT, that Christ died on the Cross, there are numerous letters written that were from the Early Church Fathers that also clearly state this.

Let us make a deal. You say above that the Hebrew Scriptures tell us that Jesus died on the cross. If you can give me one proof, just one quotation of where our Tanach says what you claim, and I am giving you my word that I’ll quit Judaism and become a Catholic. If you can’t, it is going to be embarrassing for you to be telling things when you know it’s not true.

 

[Lapell]

___________________________________________________________________________

Well my friend, at least, it’s better than to worship the godess of ignorance and faith.

So once you acquired some knowledge of God’s Torah you haven’t acquired with it faith (or trust) in Him?

 

[Lapell]

I know the Jews prefer to “adhere” to God than to “have faith” in Him, but really it’s hard to do one without the other!

 

[Ben_Masada]

You shouldn’t point fingers. Should I say Daniel (for example) is the opinion and hypothoses of people writing about a case 300+ years after the fact? What about some of your other favorite books? The majority of the Bible is written down after the fact, where the actual events didn’t take place.

**At least they were Jews writing for Jews about Jews. **

 

[Lapell]

Let us make a deal. You say above that the Hebrew Scriptures tell us that Jesus died on the cross. If you can give me one proof, just one quotation of where our Tanach says what you claim, and I am giving you my word that I’ll quit Judaism and become a Catholic. If you can’t, it is going to be embarrassing for you to be telling things when you know it’s not true.

How about Psalm 22: “They nailed my hands and my feet, I can count all my bones”? You will of course tell us that this was about somebody else, I am sure!
I would not be surprised, coming from you. As for this being embarrassing for OneTrueCathApos or for anyone, you may think so, but actually it won’t! For to the unbeliever who sticks solidly to his unbelief, not even any reasonable arguments would be enough. Why you need to make it look as though you would be the BIG winner in this, I don’t know. We have been just trying to reply to your arguments with questions as well as arguments. Whether we “win” or not is not so important, Ben. I started to reply to you quite passionately, I know, but my concern was more to set the records straighter where you tried to make things look other than what they truly are. Other than that, I do know that on matters of faith, even though some of our arguments may be instrumental in convincing somebody ( but we can’t even say that the people would be won specifically because mainly of what we said. It usually would not be the case! )
Really, we should say like in the Psalm 114 (Not to us, not to us, But to You Lord the glory). We certainly are called to participate, in some way, in God’s own glory by observing His Commandments and performing His misvoth willingly.

 

[Lapell]

You may be a believer in things of Judaism, but you certainly look like an unbeliever in things of Christianity.

 

[Lapell]

**At least they were Jews writing for Jews about Jews. **

But they still were written after the facts as for a number of prophecies, eh? And given what was fulfilled, they then trusted they could include other prophecies meant to be fulfilled at an unknown date later, did they not? And of course the fulfilled ones help very much the publication of the others…

 

[Ben_Masada]

How about Psalm 22: “They nailed my hands and my feet, I can count all my bones”? You will of course tell us that this was about somebody else, I am sure!
.

**Now, you can see what I mean. Whenever you read Psalm 22, you attribute the meaning to Jesus by assumptions based on preconceived notions. I would like to bring up here two points: The first is that the wording of that Psalm is not to be interpreted literally. That’s not even a prophecy but an analogy, which according to my notions is a reference to Israel, the Suffering Servant according to Isaiah the Prophet.

The second point is that even if we were to take it literally, we should not forget that thousands of Jews were crucified in the same manner Jesus was. All you have to do is to read Josephus. You guys speak about the crucifixion of Jesus as if he was the only Jew crucified by the Romans. I knew that there is nothing that, directly, could be a reference to Jesus. That’s why I boldly made that deal. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

You may be a believer in things of Judaism, but you certainly look like an unbeliever in things of Christianity.

Wow! You deserve a PhD for that thesis.

 

[Ben_Masada]

But they still were written after the facts as for a number of prophecies, eh? And given what was fulfilled, they then trusted they could include other prophecies meant to be fulfilled at an unknown date later, did they not? And of course the fulfilled ones help very much the publication of the others…

Pretty soon you will say that Nostradamus was more of a prophet than the Biblical Prophets.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Cut it off, will ya? Peter was never Pope and he never intended to be one. Peter was a Nazarene loyal Jew, who never apostatized from the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism. The first Pope was Paul. And it’s a shame to deny the credit to whom the credit is due. After all Paul was a Theological genius who struggled almost to the last of his breath to found Christianity. The minimum you could do was to acknowledge him as the one.

Where do you get that St. Paul was the first pope? This obsession with Paul has to quit, you look like a fool.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Let us make a deal. You say above that the Hebrew Scriptures tell us that Jesus died on the cross. If you can give me one proof, just one quotation of where our Tanach says what you claim, and I am giving you my word that I’ll quit Judaism and become a Catholic. If you can’t, it is going to be embarrassing for you to be telling things when you know it’s not true.

There is Isaiah 53 with its minute description of the Suffering Servant who was despised and rejected, afflicted with pain and stripes, by whose " Stripes We Are Healed". He then dies, is buried, yet is revived and suffers all this “For the affliction of my people”. all this can be best applied to one person only.
**Yeshua of Nazareth.
** The Talmud (Sanhedrin 98) teaches that this chapter refers to the Messiah. The Targum of Jonathan begins the passage with the words Ha yatslakh avdee Mashikha,
"Behold my servant the Messiah shall prosper."
common sense says it must refer to Jesus…also read:
Daniel 9:26
Isaiah 7:14
Isaiah 9:6
Psalm 2, 2:17
Zachariah 12:10
But you’ll say this is something else anyway.

 

[Lapell]

Wow! You deserve a PhD for that thesis.

Frankly, I don’t think it would be enough to get one, dear mockingbird!

 

[Lapell]

Pretty soon you will say that Nostradamus was more of a prophet than the Biblical Prophets.

This has really nothing to do with Nostradamus, sir! And I certainly won’t ever say a thing like that… God have mercy on you!

 

[Lapell]

**Now, you can see what I mean. Whenever you read Psalm 22, you attribute the meaning to Jesus by assumptions based on preconceived notions. I would like to bring up here two points: The first is that the wording of that Psalm is not to be interpreted literally. That’s not even a prophecy but an analogy, which according to my notions is a reference to Israel, the Suffering Servant according to Isaiah the Prophet.

The second point is that even if we were to take it literally, we should not forget that thousands of Jews were crucified in the same manner Jesus was. All you have to do is to read Josephus. You guys speak about the crucifixion of Jesus as if he was the only Jew crucified by the Romans. I knew that there is nothing that, directly, could be a reference to Jesus. That’s why I boldly made that deal. **

Analogy… prophesy… I think you are more of a pick-and-chooser than anything close to a genuine seeker of the Truth, signore!