The Mark of the Beast

[minkymurph]

Speaking of Biblical interpretation in Judaism, Isn’t it true that Maimonides had to add a few rules to it. I think they are 13, while previously there were only 7.
Also, Ben once spoke of numerous layers of interpretation for any given passage, but strangely he would not admit there might be many layers of interpretation for the passage of Isaiah he keeps bringing up: that was meant for Israel and only for Israel! Clearly, there is bias there! :twocents::coffeeread::sad_yes:

As far as I know, the Jews believed prophecy to be contemporary which is why I was so surprised at Ben’s response Lapell to your post about Isaiah. The Jews also believe that scripture is, as you say Lapell, layered. Perhaps however it depends on what particular sect of Judaism you belong to. After all, in the Christian world interpretations regarding the construction of scripture, the Canon and how the Bible should be read differ. I wonder if all sects of Judaism claim that their interpretation of scripture is ‘the one’ and how they view Jews that do not share their opinion.

 

[minkymurph]

Question for Ben: during which period of Jewish history would you say the book of Isaiah was written?

 

[Ben_Masada]

beauty is in the eyes of the beholder…your hateful diatibe against we Christians is old hat…we can never defend ourselves…consider…its popularity that is the mark of the beast…the Oprahs,Opie and his hate films against Jesus,hollywierd and its dysfunctional whores,broadway and ditto…certain politicos…Kennedy,Obama,McCain, etc etc…certain talk show hosts who also are on the same team as the above…Billy O,Rush,Sean,Etc…all are popular,make huge amounts of money,laugh and smirk at us behind our backs…and more and more right in our faces…they send our young sons and daughters to fight in no win wars while they make money with belonging to the mil.-industrial complex…these,boys and girls are the demons who make money from selling the war goods …uniforms,munitions,fuel,food,armaments etc etc…and so it goes…the mark of the beast is …popularity…if one is popular,receives favorable press or free publicity…like Bill,Rush,Sean etc they have the mark of the beast on their soul…the poor things have joined the secular humanistic culture and thus hate Jesus with a passion.notice the tremendous free publicity,given to yet another hate film…Angels etc…by Opie…this would cost millions otherwise,but teammembers get it free…tune in next week boys and girls for the thrilling story of yet another war in a place called…Af…

I have only two words to tell you about the above: Very impressive!

 

[Ben_Masada]

Malcus was the servant of the high priest. I should have been more specific. John 18:3 suggests that there was a detachment of Roman troops with the Temple guard. This would be a case of the occupying military escorting the provincial government. If the Roman’s were behind the arrest, Jesus would have gone straight to Pilate. But that is not what happened. It was primarily the provincial government acting at that point.

**As I can see, the gospel writers thought of everything, as long as the blame for the death of Jesus fell upon the Jews and not the Romans, including bending the rules that the Sanhedrin could not get together at night to deliberate any case, or that at least two thirds of the Sanhedrin had to be present. And last but not least, that a death sentence could not be declared in the same day. It would usually take from months to years for someone to be condemned to death in Israel. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

For what it’s worth, thanks for the compliment. The only point I’m making about double standard is: the criteria of “no I witness author” is fine for Judaism but not Christianity. And the elapsed time between the writing and actual events is six time larger (or more) with Judaism. It’s a double standard to hold that against one text without holding it against the other.

Now, I understand what you mean by “double standard” in my case. There is a reason for it: The purpose of the NT: Replacement Theology. The Pauline policy of replacement of Divine election had to be incremented at any price.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Should a book be written: Not By Reason Alone ? Actually, you are not just saying:" I will believe anything that can be demonstrated through reason", which I myself agree to say. But you are saying, “I won’t believe a thing that can’t be demonstrated through reason”… which is at once contradicted by your faith in the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, if it’s really in Him that you truly believe in…

I do not need faith to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Read Psalm 19. " The Heavens proclaim the glory of the Lord, and the Universe is the work of His ‘hands.’"

 

[Ben_Masada]

Well if you supposedly read the NT, you’d see it. Jesus told Peter, not only to start His church, but gave the command “**Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven, whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven” **Not only did He leave Peter with the authority to govern the church, He also gave commands to His Disciples when He breathed on them with the Holy Spirit and said “**What sins you forgive are forgiven them, what sins you retain are retained” **This is also the duty of pennance from our priests.

The simple believe everything. That’s a later interpolation with the purpose to document the Church with Apostolical credibility. That conversation is part of the 80 percent that should be discarded as interpolations.

 

[ryanoneil]

Speaking of Biblical interpretation in Judaism, Isn’t it true that Maimonides had to add a few rules to it. I think they are 13, while previously there were only 7.
Also, Ben once spoke of numerous layers of interpretation for any given passage, but strangely he would not admit there might be many layers of interpretation for the passage of Isaiah he keeps bringing up: that was meant for Israel and only for Israel! Clearly, there is bias there! :twocents::coffeeread::sad_yes:

I’m not familiar with Maimonides, and agree with many layers of interpretation. I’d go a step further and say multiple fulfillments.

 

[ryanoneil]

Well if you supposedly read the NT, you’d see it. Jesus told Peter, not only to start His church, but gave the command “**Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven, whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven” **Not only did He leave Peter with the authority to govern the church, He also gave commands to His Disciples when He breathed on them with the Holy Spirit and said “**What sins you forgive are forgiven them, what sins you retain are retained” **This is also the duty of pennance from our priests.

Don’t forget the first part of the verse “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is alluding to Isaiah 22:15-25, and telling Peter he will be “master of the palace” (who acts in the kings place while he is away).

 

[Lapell]

**As I can see, the gospel writers thought of everything, as long as the blame for the death of Jesus fell upon the Jews and not the Romans, including bending the rules that the Sanhedrin could not get together at night to deliberate any case, or that at least two thirds of the Sanhedrin had to be present. And last but not least, that a death sentence could not be declared in the same day. It would usually take from months to years for someone to be condemned to death in Israel. **

Who bent such rules, Ben?
If someone says something that seems to seal his fate, would the sentence not be rendered immediately? The High Priest said: “What need do we have of witnesses? You have just yourselves heard the blasphemy! What’s your verdict?” “He deserves death!” Jesus had said the one thing they took to be a clear blasphemy, punishable of death… Only the circumstances (it was during Passover) prevented them from stoning him to death! Hence that they delivered him instead to the Romans to have him crucified.

 

[Lapell]

As for the blame for Jesus’ death, it should fall on every one, not just the Jews who condemned him back then. On the Roman to have allowed his crucifixion even though they were convinced that Jesus had done nothing wrong, on the Apostles for having fled away and not stayed with him when they were so convinced that something in his condemnation was not fair, and all of us men and women of all times because we have greatly sinned.
Also, why should any Catholic or other Christian condemn the Jews in general for the condemnation ordered by some Jews… when not only Jesus forgave them, but He also resurrected, so the charge for His death would have to be annuled, since Jesus is alive , not dead any more!

 

[Lapell]

So, whoever came up with the charge of having killed Jesus must have made it up, and though he may have said that he was a Christian, nothing proves that he actually was! Or if he was, he actually was more like a nominal one, or one who would do picking-and-choosing, for Paul in his letter to the Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11, said some important things in favour of the Jewish people even though most of them absolutely opposed to what was preached about Jesus “the Messiah” according to the Gospel. These verses should have prevented any nasty physical attacks on the Jews!

 

[ryanoneil]

**As I can see, the gospel writers thought of everything, as long as the blame for the death of Jesus fell upon the Jews and not the Romans, including bending the rules that the Sanhedrin could not get together at night to deliberate any case, or that at least two thirds of the Sanhedrin had to be present. And last but not least, that a death sentence could not be declared in the same day. It would usually take from months to years for someone to be condemned to death in Israel. **

Your reply is a cop out. As I said earlier, there is plenty of blame to go around (including the Romans). Are you really saying the Sanhedrin was not involved at all? They were allied with the Romans for God’s sake, even if only for the sake of their survival.

The gospel writers were obviously aware of points you are making, which is why trial of Jesus was a scam. There were three decisions rendered by the Sanhedrin at three different sessions previous to the one which took place before Jesus’ trial. The first council, set up the excommunication of Jesus’ follower and denounced Him as a false prophet. In the second council the question whether He should die or not was proposed, and they unanimously decided yes. In the third council His arrest and execution were appointed to take place at the first favorable opportunity.

There was no semblance of justice or legality at Jesus’ trial because the matter had already been settled in their minds. There are alot more inconsistancies we could discuss (if that is what your after).

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**As I can see, the gospel writers thought of everything, as long as the blame for the death of Jesus fell upon the Jews and not the Romans, including bending the rules that the Sanhedrin could not get together at night to deliberate any case, or that at least two thirds of the Sanhedrin had to be present. And last but not least, that a death sentence could not be declared in the same day. It would usually take from months to years for someone to be condemned to death in Israel. **

Can you simply ignore the fact that the Jews wanted Christ dead? Do you not believe this? show me one quote from the New Testament, other than the Disciples of Christ who wanted Him alive. Do you think that the Pharisees wanted Him alive?

 

[Lapell]

I’m not familiar with Maimonides, and agree with many layers of interpretation. I’d go a step further and say multiple fulfillments.

Oops! I should have included that this question was for Ben since he claims to be a Jew…
Jews usually would know a thing or two about Maimonides… Sorry, ryan!

 

[Lapell]

Can you simply ignore the fact that the Jews wanted Christ dead? Do you not believe this? show me one quote from the New Testament, other than the Disciples of Christ who wanted Him alive. Do you think that the Pharisees wanted Him alive?

Not everybody on the Sanhedrin agreed, as far as I remember. But they abstained from voting because it would be greatly threatening to them,
Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus…
BTW, Ben, how do you explain this “-us” ending in Nicodemus? Does it make him a Roman, really? (This I say because of what you said on the name “Malchus” (or Malcus… or “Malkus” maybe!!!)

 

[minkymurph]

Can you simply ignore the fact that the Jews wanted Christ dead? Do you not believe this? show me one quote from the New Testament, other than the Disciples of Christ who wanted Him alive. Do you think that the Pharisees wanted Him alive?

There is irrevocable proof that in the past Jews have colluded with oppressors and Jews died as a result. That irrevocable proof comes from survivors of the Holocaust. Those survivors have told us that Jews in concentration camps colluded with Nazi’s, became ‘supervisors’ of other Jews to save their own lives and treated their own people appallingly. Soldiers who liberated the camps also told us this happened and on some occasions, they had to stop lynchings from happening. There is any amount of proof for this; eye witness accounts, records, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that certain Jewish leaders colluded with Romans to have Jesus killed. Ben has said that outside the Gospels there is no proof of this, and he is right. However to say there is absolutely no possibility it could have happened is to say the least naive. Of course there are those who say there is no proof the Holocaust ever happened.

In this thread we Catholics have been called fools and it has been suggested we know what we believe is not true. There are many today who would say anyone who believes in God, irrespective of what denomination they are or whether they are Jew or Christian, is a blind fool as there is no proof God exists. So all of us are fools in someones eyes irrespective of how much history we have read or how well we can quote the Bible. What we need to ask ourselves is why we preach what we believe. Do we desire others to experience the transformation, peace of heart, an enriched view of life and faith and an enrichment of relationships with others and God? Or do we simply want to agree with our opinions? Personally speaking, if anyone experiences any of the things I have listed above as a result of some word or action on my part, I rejoice that God gave me the gift to do that and they don’t have to agree with everything I say in order for them to experience it or for me to be rejoice that they have experienced it.

 

[ryanoneil]

Oops! I should have included that this question was for Ben since he claims to be a Jew…
Jews usually would know a thing or two about Maimonides… Sorry, ryan!

No problem.

 

[Lapell]

Where is the documentation. Where is his clash with Roman policy recorded. Jesus was not on Rome’s radar screen until he was set up. And It was the Temple guards that went for Jesus, not Roman soldiers.

I agree with ryanoneil 100% here.

 

[Lapell]

There is irrevocable proof that in the past Jews have colluded with oppressors and Jews died as a result. That irrevocable proof comes from survivors of the Holocaust. Those survivors have told us that Jews in concentration camps colluded with Nazi’s, became ‘supervisors’ of other Jews to save their own lives and treated their own people appallingly. Soldiers who liberated the camps also told us this happened and on some occasions, they had to stop lynchings from happening. There is any amount of proof for this; eye witness accounts, records, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that certain Jewish leaders colluded with Romans to have Jesus killed. Ben has said that outside the Gospels there is no proof of this, and he is right. However to say there is absolutely no possibility it could have happened is to say the least naive. Of course there are those who say there is no proof the Holocaust ever happened.

In this thread we Catholics have been called fools and it has been suggested we know what we believe is not true. There are many today who would say anyone who believes in God, irrespective of what denomination they are or whether they are Jew or Christian, is a blind fool as there is no proof God exists. So all of us are fools in someones eyes irrespective of how much history we have read or how well we can quote the Bible. What we need to ask ourselves is why we preach what we believe. Do we desire others to experience the transformation, peace of heart, an enriched view of life and faith and an enrichment of relationships with others and God? Or do we simply want to agree with our opinions? Personally speaking, if anyone experiences any of the things I have listed above as a result of some word or action on my part, I rejoice that God gave me the gift to do that and they don’t have to agree with everything I say in order for them to experience it or for me to be rejoice that they have experienced it.

“It” being the transformation, peace of heart, an enriched view of life and faith and an enrichment of relationships with others and God, of course. Just what Paul said he wished King Agrippa, to be like him… without the “chains” (persecution, being arrested and falsely accused and charged)… Because Paul experienced all those good side effects of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.