The Mark of the Beast

[sambos671]

**If Paul compared Hagar, the bondwoman to the Sinaitic Covenant and her son to Israel, and then down in verse 30 urges with his followers to cast out both the woman with her son does not mean what I said in my exegesis, I rest my case. Blind faith will never allow you to be on the same page with me. Therefore, please, let us make this our last on this subject. I am done. **

Just one question about this if you’ll indulge me. Do you have a personal issue with Pauls Claim that those who have faith in Jesus are the decendents of Abraham? It seems to be problematic. Note when Jesus spoke in Nazarith in the Gospel of Luke The Jews in the synagogue don’t really have a proplem with Jesus saying Isaiah is fulfilled in their hearing but when he mentioned that there were many widows in Isreal during the Day’s of Elijah but the prophet wasn’t sent to any of them but to the widow from Sidon. Jezibaels home town. It was here they got mad and attempted to throw him over a cliff. Are you in the same boat? Why I am asking is because of this in your statement:

Blind faith will never allow you to be on the same page with me

I don’t know what you mean by blind faith. I have faith and I trust God. I wouldn’t classify it as blind. And the last part of your sentence here is clearly directed at faith. On the same page as me seems bitter statement. You know we believe that just being born Jewish doesn’t save you. But that both Jew and Gentile have the same opportunity at salvation. You must really dislike the Messianic Jews. They claim both!!

 

[Ben_Masada]

No. The Pope is Head of the Catholic church. If this was the case, why didn’t the Heads of other religions (are there any?) intervene? Why not have a problem with them? You say “because Hitler was BORN a Catholic”. that’s because most of the world WAS Catholic. That doesn’t mean the Pope is responsible for the Holocaust. Think of how silly that sounds.

**Noooo! How could you imply that I should think the Pope responsible for the Holocaust? I just thought he could have done much better towards the numbers of murdered Jews. That’s all. I think even the American Jewish leaders did not do enough. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Just one question about this if you’ll indulge me. Do you have a personal issue with Pauls Claim that those who have faith in Jesus are the decendents of Abraham? It seems to be problematic.

Yes, I do. Gentiles become descendants of Abraham when they convert to Judaism. Without that precondition, they are descendants of Noah, albeit partakers of the blessings of salvation in the descendants of Abraham. The Abrahamic Covenant was made with Israel and not with all Mankind, as was the Noahite.

Note when Jesus spoke in Nazarith in the Gospel of Luke The Jews in the synagogue don’t really have a proplem with Jesus saying Isaiah is fulfilled in their hearing but when he mentioned that there were many widows in Isreal during the Day’s of Elijah but the prophet wasn’t sent to any of them but to the widow from Sidon. Jezibaels home town.

I think I have told you before that I believe only 20 percent of the NT as legitimate and true of and about Jesus. Any prophetic claim at all from the Tanach as being fulfilled in Jesus is part of the 80 percent of interpolations.

It was here they got mad and attempted to throw him over a cliff. Are you in the same boat? Why I am asking is because of this in your statement:

I don’t believe the Jews wanted to throw Jesus over a cliff. This is a gospel exaggeration with a bad taste of Replacement Theology.

I don’t know what you mean by blind faith. I have faith and I trust God. I wouldn’t classify it as blind. And the last part of your sentence here is clearly directed at faith.

I mean by blind faith, faith with strings attached. Faith which is not derived simply from Biblical understanding but from a kind of commitment to the Church.

On the same page as me seems bitter statement. You know we believe that just being born Jewish doesn’t save you. But that both Jew and Gentile have the same opportunity at salvation. You must really dislike the Messianic Jews. They claim both!!

**Save me from what? I am not lost. I am not Jewish with the intent to be saved. I am Jewish because it is a way of life. I think I have told you already that there are two kinds of salvation. One is personal salvation based on the obedience of the Law. (Ezek. 18:21,22) The other is collective salvation based on the existence of Israel as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37) **

 

[sambos671]

think I have told you before that I believe only 20 percent of the NT as legitimate and true of and about Jesus. Any prophetic claim at all from the Tanach as being fulfilled in Jesus is part of the 80 percent of interpolations.

What litmus test do you use to verify the verasity of the 20 percent of the NT? Sureyly, you do not adhere to the Jesus seminar and John Dominic Crossan?

 

[Ben_Masada]

What litmus test do you use to verify the verasity of the 20 percent of the NT? Sureyly, you do not adhere to the Jesus seminar and John Dominic Crossan?

**My litmus test is very simple: Parting from the principle that Jesus was a religious Jew, anything of or about him which is not Jewish, was not true. Therefore, it belongs within the 80 percent of interpolations.

Regarding the Jesus Seminar, it’s interesting that you asked. I was surprised that, after I read about it, I found it simply coincidental that I had figured very similar finds. **

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**Noooo! How could you imply that I should think the Pope responsible for the Holocaust? I just thought he could have done much better towards the numbers of murdered Jews. That’s all. I think even the American Jewish leaders did not do enough. **

Seriously Ben, I feel no matter what the Pope did, you wouldn’t be happy anyway.
800,000 is a lot Ben, and it is actually more than that. The Pope stuck his own neck out by forging signatures so the Jews could remain free. Who else would do that? Is there no one else to blame but Hitler?

 

[sambos671]

**My litmus test is very simple: Parting from the principle that Jesus was a religious Jew, anything of or about him which is not Jewish, was not true. Therefore, it belongs within the 80 percent of interpolations.

Regarding the Jesus Seminar, it’s interesting that you asked. I was surprised that, after I read about it, I found it simply coincidental that I had figured very similar finds. **

So you’re starting from an assumption. Isn’t it more safe to say nothing recorded about what Jesus said is accurate? There were many secular Jews in Judea at that time maybe he was one of these? Maybe he was the farthest thing from Bar Kochbah as you can get. I mean from a perspective that doesn’t believe what the gospels say is truth and the Jesus Seminar that you may agree with you might come to the Conclusion that Mary was forcably impregnated by a Roman Soldier. Since he was half goy it could stand to reason that if he taught anything maybe it would be gentile inclusion? See? From your stand point nothing about the NT could be correct.

 

[altabz]

To all faithful Catholics out there I have problem defending our Church against such an issue that the Catholic Church is the beast written in the revelations please enlightened me. You can send mesage to me personally please help. I’m a troubled soul

 

[Ben_Masada]

So you’re starting from an assumption. Isn’t it more safe to say nothing recorded about what Jesus said is accurate? There were many secular Jews in Judea at that time maybe he was one of these? Maybe he was the farthest thing from Bar Kochbah as you can get. I mean from a perspective that doesn’t believe what the gospels say is truth and the Jesus Seminar that you may agree with you might come to the Conclusion that Mary was forcably impregnated by a Roman Soldier. Since he was half goy it could stand to reason that if he taught anything maybe it would be gentile inclusion? See? From your stand point nothing about the NT could be correct.

**If Jesus had been a secular Jew, he could have never said what is written in Matthew 5:17-19. If I discarded even the 20 percent which I agree about Jesus, I would have to discard the man altogether, and regard him to being only a caprice of Paul’s imagination. He is described in the NT; and since there were a few like him, I believe he was there.

That Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier, I don’t want to believe it, and I do blame Christians for forcing non-Christians to believe it, but I have two sources, a book, “The Myth of the Pax Romana” by a German Scholar of the 19th Century, Prof. Erick Hinnerman and from a Lecture on the Historical Jesus at Stanford University on line.**

 

[Nino]

the mark on the forehead…good ole Gorby has one…and he is wined and dined by the ruling class so that says something there does it not…isnt it just grand and soooo kool that our rulers shove this dead pervert down our throats…oooh ,forget that line…here he bragged about sleeping with little boys,lost law suits on such issues,never fathered a child but we were told they were his…and we see on the boob tube moronic people weeping at some tribute to this nut case…a living example of how all the wealth in the world means nothing,even bleaching ones skin or ones nose falling off…the mark of the beast is situated in a certain spot on the devils anatomy…guess where…may God help us to fight this decadent establishment …sites like this is a start…a candle in the nite of darkness…

 

[Ben_Masada]

the mark on the forehead…good ole Gorby has one…and he is wined and dined by the ruling class so that says something there does it not…isnt it just grand and soooo kool that our rulers shove this dead pervert down our throats…oooh ,forget that line…here he bragged about sleeping with little boys,lost law suits on such issues,never fathered a child but we were told they were his…and we see on the boob tube moronic people weeping at some tribute to this nut case…a living example of how all the wealth in the world means nothing,even bleaching ones skin or ones nose falling off…the mark of the beast is situated in a certain spot on the devils anatomy…guess where…may God help us to fight this decadent establishment …sites like this is a start…a candle in the nite of darkness…

**The mark of the beast is nothing physical but in the character of the person. This mark is called Antisemitism. Only the chronic anti-Semite has it. We all know that the word “Christ” comes from the Greek and it means “Anointed.” According to Habakkuk 3:13, Israel, the Jewish People is the Anointed of the Lord. Therefore, the Christ of God. Obviously, any anti-Jewish person is a candidate for the mark of the beast and to become part with the Antichrist. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

To all faithful Catholics out there I have problem defending our Church against such an issue that the Catholic Church is the beast written in the revelations please enlightened me. You can send mesage to me personally please help. I’m a troubled soul

**The beast is the Antichrist. And to have the mark of the beast, one must be an anti-Semite. You know anti-Jewish. Why? Because “Christ” means “Anointed.” And according to Habakkuk 3:13, Israel, the Jewish People is the Anointed of the Lord. Therefore, the Christ of God. So, any anti-Jewish is an anti-Semite and therefore one of the antichrists.

You don’t have to appeal to “faithful Catholics out there” because they don’t know. The Scriptures themselves can give you the answer. Whoever is telling you that the Catholic Church is the beast, must be part of the beast themselves and do not know.**

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**The beast is the Antichrist. And to have the mark of the beast, one must be an anti-Semite. You know anti-Jewish. Why? Because “Christ” means “Anointed.” And according to Habakkuk 3:13, Israel, the Jewish People is the Anointed of the Lord. Therefore, the Christ of God. So, any anti-Jewish is an anti-Semite and therefore one of the antichrists.

You don’t have to appeal to “faithful Catholics out there” because they don’t know. The Scriptures themselves can give you the answer. Whoever is telling you that the Catholic Church is the beast, must be part of the beast themselves and do not know.**

No Ben, this post is for you. You are the one who doesn’t get it. And who are you to tell “faithful Catholics” they know nothing? What about the anti-Catholics, and there are plenty out there

 

[look3467]

look3467;5380154:

In the case of Ben, God chose a people stubborn to His word as a thorn on the world’s side, by which many in the world would either love or hate the Jewish nation who are God’s representatives on earth.

Thank you for your acknowledgment that we are God’s representatives on earth. Now, how do you explain the hostile attitude of the Church towards God’s representatives on earth?

The dividing line is with this verse: Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Christianity is adamant about that verse to the exclusion of all who do not ascribe to that verse, Jewish people included.

There is however, a christian understanding towards the Jewish people that God is going to save all of them when when Jesus comes again.

Meantime there is an effort to evangelize all Jewish people to understand the meaning of that same verse.

Let me state it this way, what the Christian church requires is the same thing, though opposite, what the Jewish people require, again hinged to that same verse.

Both are blind to their own understanding and not to what God really wants us to understand.

And that is the beauty of God’s ways, that in the midst of division, love is born.

Blessing’s, AJ

 

[Ben_Masada]

No Ben, this post is for you. You are the one who doesn’t get it. And who are you to tell “faithful Catholics” they know nothing? What about the anti-Catholics, and there are plenty out there

Why do you have to add the word “nothing?” Did you know this could be slander? I didn’t say that faithful Catholics know nothing. I said that they don’t know how to answer the man’s question, that’s all.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5382518:

look3467;5380154:

In the case of Ben, God chose a people stubborn to His word as a thorn on the world’s side, by which many in the world would either love or hate the Jewish nation who are God’s representatives on earth.

The dividing line is with this verse: Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And the point you miss is that Jesus spoke as a representative of the People who are God’s represntatives on earth. Are you backing up now?

Christianity is adamant about that verse to the exclusion of all who do not ascribe to that verse, Jewish people included.

And that’s what I call Replacement Theology.

There is however, a christian understanding towards the Jewish people that God is going to save all of them when when Jesus comes again.

**Save us from what? We are not lost. Besides, God Himself is our only Savior. Read Isaiah 44:23. **

Meantime there is an effort to evangelize all Jewish people to understand the meaning of that same verse.

Why, to get us away from the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism to the Faith of Paul, which was Christianity? Not a very fair trade, I tell you.

Let me state it this way, what the Christian church requires is the same thing, though opposite, what the Jewish people require, again hinged to that same verse.

I think that there is much more to it than just that.

Both are blind to their own understanding and not to what God really wants us to understand.

**How do you know what God wants us to understand? You are not Jewish, the People God gave His Word to. (Psalm 147:19,20) **

And that is the beauty of God’s ways, that in the midst of division, love is born.

That’s nice to say but it sounds more like a cop-out. There is no love in division. The objective of love is to unite.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Why do you have to add the word “nothing?” Did you know this could be slander? I didn’t say that faithful Catholics know nothing. I said that they don’t know how to answer the man’s question, that’s all.

And you say that’s all? Please think about what you say.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And you say that’s all? Please think about what you say.

And you can say anything without thinking. No wonder I have been here for such a long time and I don’t get a single reply to any of my questions.

 

[sambos671]

**If Jesus had been a secular Jew, he could have never said what is written in Matthew 5:17-19. If I discarded even the 20 percent which I agree about Jesus, I would have to discard the man altogether, and regard him to being only a caprice of Paul’s imagination. He is described in the NT; and since there were a few like him, I believe he was there.

That Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier, I don’t want to believe it, and I do blame Christians for forcing non-Christians to believe it, but I have two sources, a book, “The Myth of the Pax Romana” by a German Scholar of the 19th Century, Prof. Erick Hinnerman and from a Lecture on the Historical Jesus at Stanford University on line.**

Chistians would never get anyone to believe anything other than the virgin birth. I’m using what the Jesus seminar speculates on. If Jesus were a result of this type of thing he could not be an orthodox Jew. So you must come down to one of two possibilities. Virgin birth or incarnation. Or that Joseph got beaten to the puch so to speak and Jesus would still be illigitament thus who would trust his teaching? And why would Mary not be put to death? So at least you believe in the Historical Character in Jesus. At least that is something.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Chistians would never get anyone to believe anything other than the virgin birth. I’m using what the Jesus seminar speculates on. If Jesus were a result of this type of thing he could not be an orthodox Jew. So you must come down to one of two possibilities. Virgin birth or incarnation. Or that Joseph got beaten to the puch so to speak and Jesus would still be illigitament thus who would trust his teaching? And why would Mary not be put to death? So at least you believe in the Historical Character in Jesus. At least that is something.

**Sambos, I recommend you my thread “The Alleged Sons of God.” You will understand pretty well that in the case of Jesus if he was, like thousands of other children, the result of a rape, he could be, as he was, a religious Jew. “Orthodox” is not a word of the First Century. Therefore, the choice you submit me to, between virgin birth or incarnation has been neutralized. You will also understand why Mary could not be put to death, as none of the other mothers was. Special deliberation from the Sanhedrin.

Oh yes, with all my sincerity, and to save Joseph and Mary from Agnostic smearing, I defend that Jesus was a legitimate descendant of David by being a biological son of Joseph’s. But as I have said before, I don’t blame the Agnostics for their irreverence. I blame Christians for their intransigence**