The Mark of the Beast

[Ben_Masada]

Your own priests, way back in Herod’s time, stated to him that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

Do you remember what territory was assigned to the Tribe of Judah when the Israelites enterered Canaan? Bethlehem. Do you know where was David, the model of all Messiah-Kings born? In Bethlehem. The Jewish People are the remnant of that Tribe that came from Bethlehem. The other Tribes got lost and radically rejected by God forever. (Psalm 78:67-69) Therefore, the Messiah did come from Bethlehem. The question was made to the Priests, and they did give the answer that I would equally give.

Secondly what are we supposed to learn from the collective people of Israel?

The Truth. The Word of God. Life. How to make money. How to live well, etc, etc.

How to build a concrete wall? How to argue over different beliefs? Build a socialist Kibbutz system (not that I’ve got too many arguments with that one)? Put our hopes in praying up against a crumbling wall? Defend yourself with nuclear weapons? To be forever fighting for the mere right to exist?

And a lot of other things. And regarding being forever fighing for the mere right to exist, that’s what makes of our Army the best in the world. “Mere right to exist!” Mind you that existence is all that life is about. If you don’t fight for your existence, you are not worth existing.

Not trying to be cynical about the Jewish people, but the Messiah was clearly indicated to be a single individual.

By slavish mentality. When Moses appeared in Egypt to rescue the Israelites, they thought he was the Messiah himself. When he was gone they had to start waiting for another. An individual is born, lives his span of life, and dies. Where is the commonsense to have to wait for a Messiah in every generation? The Messiah does not die; he lives forever. That’s what God promised David in I Kings 11:36. That Judah would remain forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem.

And by rising from the dead, He indicated that evil will not win. It can kill the body, but it cannot destroy the soul, unless we let it.

Now, go ahead and prove to me who was an eyewitness to Jesus’ resurrection. Besides, Jesus did not rise; he was raised; and this is the term used by the gospel writers. Read the thread, "The Mystery of the Empty Tomb."

 

[Ben_Masada]

Bingo! Thank you, Ben, for a laugh at the end of the day.
And so true!

Been considering your posts from the beginning of the thread.
Much that I would disagree with, in some of your statements,
but I do agree with a number of things that you’ve stated.

I’m only up to April, I think, in terms of your posts.
*

Do you accept the Rambam’s 13 Principles of Faith?

jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm*

I particularly appreciate the first paragraph in the above link.

Best wishes,

reen12

About the Rambam’s 13 Principles of Faith, I do accept them with some reservations. As a matter of fact, the first paragraph is interesting. We do put much more into the action than into the belief. Notwithstanding that our actions are connected to what we believe, although bent more unto ethical behaviour.

 

[reen12]

About the Rambam’s 13 Principles of Faith, I do accept them with some reservations. As a matter of fact, the first paragraph is interesting. We do put much more into the action than into the belief. Notwithstanding that our actions are connected to what we believe, although bent more unto ethical behaviour.

I appreciate your reply, Ben. Thank you.

Would you please share your assessment of the 12th principle?
May I ask if you hold reservations with regard to the 12th principle
of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon?

1. The Messiah will come.

Am I correct in thinking that your position is that moschiach
is, in fact, the chosen people? Rather than one individual who is yet awaited?
[The anointed of God, *moschiach.]

Thank you, Ben.

reen12 http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

 

[Ben_Masada]

I appreciate your reply, Ben. Thank you.

Would you please share your assessment of the 12th principle?
May I ask if you hold reservations with regard to the 12th principle
of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon?

1. The Messiah will come.

Am I correct in thinking that your position is that moschiach
is, in fact, the chosen people? Rather than one individual who is yet awaited?
[The anointed of God, *moschiach.]

Thank you, Ben.

reen12 http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

**Have you ever read the Rambam’s opus prima, “The Guide for the Perplexed?” That’s the Rambam I have no reservations to accept in totum. It’s from this book that I came to understand his 13 Principles of Faith.

If you observe well, he sets the last two principles together for a purpose. 12. The Messiah will come; and 13. The dead will resurrect.

If you read Isaiah 53:8,9, exiles for the Jews are considered as death; when they are cut off from the Land of the Living, which is the Land of Israel, and graves are assigned to them in the Diaspora among the Gentiles. So, metaphorically, the Jews in exile are dead and buried.

Now, if you read Ezekiel 37:12, at the end of their exile, God opens their graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. That’s resurrection. And that’s what the Rambam had in mind: The return of the Messiah to the Land of Israel after rising from their graves in the Diaspora.

Regarding my reservations, I am talking about the 8th principle, the Oral Torah, which he refers to, as having been given to Moses at Sinai. I don’t agree. I believe that the only thing Moses brought down from that Mount was the Decalogue.

Yes, you are correct about my position on the Messiah being collective rather than an individual. And yes, he is the Anointed of the Lord, Moschiach, according to Habakkuk 3:13, where he says, “You come forth to save your people, the Anointed One.”.**

 

[Nino]

so much for playing with numbers…the number 13 is sopposed to be bad.yet it was the original 13 colonies that broke from the mother country,they knew that someday this pathetic nation would actually confer upon a pro-druggy entertainer,a knighthood…(one of the bedbugs,I mean beatles)…

 

[Ben_Masada]

so much for playing with numbers…the number 13 is sopposed to be bad.yet it was the original 13 colonies that broke from the mother country,they knew that someday this pathetic nation would actually confer upon a pro-druggy entertainer,a knighthood…(one of the bedbugs,I mean beatles)…

As you can see, Jews are not that superstitious.

 

[reen12]

Have you ever read the Rambam’s opus prima, “The Guide for the Perplexed?” That’s the Rambam I have no reservations to accept in totum. It’s from this book that I came to understand his 13 Principles of Faith.

**If you observe well, he sets the last two principles together for a purpose. 12. The Messiah will come; and 13. The dead will resurrect. **

**If you read Isaiah 53:8,9, exiles for the Jews are considered as death; when they are cut off from the Land of the Living, which is the Land of Israel, and graves are assigned to them in the Diaspora among the Gentiles. So, metaphorically, the Jews in exile are dead and buried. **

**Now, if you read Ezekiel 37:12, at the end of their exile, God opens their graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. That’s resurrection. And that’s what the Rambam had in mind: The return of the Messiah to the Land of Israel after rising from their graves in the Diaspora. **

Regarding my reservations, I am talking about the 8th principle, the Oral Torah, which he refers to, as having been given to Moses at Sinai. I don’t agree. I believe that the only thing Moses brought down from that Mount was the Decalogue.

Yes, you are correct about my position on the Messiah being collective rather than an individual. And yes, he is the Anointed of the Lord, Moschiach, according to Habakkuk 3:13, where he says, “You come forth to save your people, the Anointed One.”.

Once again, I appreciate your full explanation here, Ben.
For those with an interest in The Guide to the Perplexed,
it may be found, online, here:

sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/index.htm%between%

quote: Ben Masada

Regarding my reservations, I am talking about the 8th principle, the Oral Torah,
which he refers to, as having been given to Moses at Sinai. I don’t agree.
I believe that the only thing Moses brought down from that Mount was the Decalogue.

Agree, wholeheartedly. I have never been able to understand the fact
that Moses is oft credited with composing all five books of Torah.

As to Moshiach, I look to the Rambam’s words, found in his work Mishneh Torah.*
Observations of Moses Maimonides [the Rambam, 1138-1204] with regard to Moshiach,
are to be found on the following webpage, beginning below the illustration.

The Laws Concerning Moshiach
**Chapters 11 & 12 of Hilchos Melachim from the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam **

kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html

It is clear here, I think, that Rabbi Moses Maimonides awaited Messiah.
“…though he may tarry, still I await him every day.”

Are you at all familiar with the Karaites, Ben?

karaite-korner.org/

reen12

---

*If I understand correctly, Thomas Aquinas was familiar with both
the works of the Rambam, as well as those of Averroes [who had translated
the work of Aristotle into Arabic.] In fact, the *Summa *of Aquinas functions, similarly,
to the works of Rabbi Moses Maimonides. Both authors highly respected by
many members of their own faith, for nearly a millenium.

 

[heiscominginthe]

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.

Ben, your statement above can be viewed in itself antichrist. I am not saying this to offend you. The point is, your interpretation did not come from God, thus making it against God.

It is your lack of understanding of what Jesus said and what Paul said is lacking.

When Paul said the law was done away with, he was not meaning done away with as not existing. He was speaking that the physical law was done away with, and replaced by the spiritual law. For the spiritual law always existed. 'The problem was that men changed the spiritual law to the physical law though the hardness of their hearts.

You see, along with the laws given by God, men added a multitude of their own laws, putting them in more bondage.

As for the laws of God, they no longer exist in stone, but are written on the fleshly tablets of the hearts of all who believe.

 

[hawkeye]

The Mark of the Beast

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.

Be very careful, not to bring down a curse upon yourself, God is patient, I pray.

 

[reen12]

One recalls, with reverence, the words of God to Abram.

The Lord had said to Abram,
“Leave your country, your people and your father’s household
and go to the land I will show you.
I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”
[Genesis 12]

Perhaps it’s best to leave the territory of ‘curses’ in the hands of Godhead.

reen12 :coffeeread:

 

[placido]

**Nevertheless, Jesus used to refer to the Torah as God’s Word. A thing which you cannot say the same about your NT, which came to existence 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. **

“Jesus used to refer to the Torah as God’s Word”? What is your source for that statement? Give me an answer but please don’t quote the New Testament because you are supposed to be denying its credibility.

placido

 

[Ben_Masada]

Once again, I appreciate your full explanation here, Ben.
For those with an interest in The Guide to the Perplexed,
it may be found, online, here:

sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/index.htm%between%

quote: Ben Masada
Agree, wholeheartedly. I have never been able to understand the fact
that Moses is oft credited with composing all five books of Torah.

As to Moshiach, I look to the Rambam’s words, found in his work Mishneh Torah.*
Observations of Moses Maimonides [the Rambam, 1138-1204] with regard to Moshiach,
are to be found on the following webpage, beginning below the illustration.

The Laws Concerning Moshiach
**Chapters 11 & 12 of Hilchos Melachim from the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam **

kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html

It is clear here, I think, that Rabbi Moses Maimonides awaited Messiah.
“…though he may tarry, still I await him every day.”

Are you at all familiar with the Karaites, Ben?

karaite-korner.org/

reen12

---

*If I understand correctly, Thomas Aquinas was familiar with both
the works of the Rambam, as well as those of Averroes [who had translated
the work of Aristotle into Arabic.] In fact, the *Summa *of Aquinas functions, similarly,
to the works of Rabbi Moses Maimonides. Both authors highly respected by
many members of their own faith, for nearly a millenium.

**I read Rambam’s Mishne Torah a long time ago. I don’t recall any reference of the Rambam to an individual Messiah. Then, Rambam besides being a Theologian, he was a Philosopher. He would not advocate an individual Messiah and then keep on waiting for a Messiah in every generation after the Messiah died. An individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. It is absolute illogic to expect a different Messiah in every generation.

The Messiah does not die. When God promised David, in I Kings 11:36 that his Tribe would remain forever, He meant that the Messiah would never die out. The Messiah is the life-saving sustenance of Mankind in his role as Immanuel to keep God’s Covenant with Mankind alive.

Yes Reen, I am familiar with the Karaites. They took after the Saducees not to acknowledge the authority of the Oral Torah.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, your statement above can be viewed in itself antichrist. I am not saying this to offend you. The point is, your interpretation did not come from God, thus making it against God.

It is your lack of understanding of what Jesus said and what Paul said is lacking.

When Paul said the law was done away with, he was not meaning done away with as not existing. He was speaking that the physical law was done away with, and replaced by the spiritual law. For the spiritual law always existed. 'The problem was that men changed the spiritual law to the physical law though the hardness of their hearts.

You see, along with the laws given by God, men added a multitude of their own laws, putting them in more bondage.

As for the laws of God, they no longer exist in stone, but are written on the fleshly tablets of the hearts of all who believe.

**Now, your next step is to define what you mean by physical laws and spiritual laws. To me, when Jesus declared that he had come to confirm the Law and the Prophets, he meant all the Jewish laws down to the letter, and he established no distinction between laws and laws. (Mat. 5:19)

Then, about 30 years later, when Paul declared that the Law of commandments had been abolished on the cross, he, likewise did not distinguish between laws and laws. (Ephe 2:15) Therefore, someone must be wrong here, and I don’t think it was Jesus. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

“Jesus used to refer to the Torah as God’s Word”? What is your source for that statement? Give me an answer but please don’t quote the New Testament because you are supposed to be denying its credibility.

placido

**Let me tell you something, Placido. I do accept as true 20 percent of the NT. The other 80 percent are non-Jewish interpolations. The pattern of my method to come up with these percentages is based on the fact that if Jesus was a Jewish man, anything about him which is not Jewish, is not true.

Now, you cannot ask me something about Jesus and at the same time, that I don’t use the NT. It is as if Jesus never existed, since there is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures about him if not through assumptions. So, if you still want my answer, let me know.**

 

[twb1621]

Galatians 4:21-31.

**Galatians 4:21-31 **21 14 "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the freeborn woman. 23 The son of the slave woman was born naturally, the son of the freeborn through a promise. 24 Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. 25 Hagar represents Sinai, 15 a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Rejoice, you barren one who bore no children; break forth and shout, you who were not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the deserted one than of her who has a husband.” 16 28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise. 29 But just as then the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the spirit, it is the same now. 30 But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son” of the freeborn. 31 Therefore, brothers, we are children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman.”

Historic Biblical Interpretation [21-31] Paul supports his appeal for the gospel (⇒ Gal 4:9; ⇒ 1:6-9; ⇒ 2:16; ⇒ 3:2) by a further argument from scripture (cf ⇒ Gal 3:6-18). It involves the relationship of Abraham (⇒ Gal 3:6-16) to his wife, Sarah, the freeborn woman, and to Hagar, the slave woman, and the contrast between the sons born to each, Isaac, child of promise, and Ishmael, son of Hagar (Genesis 16; 21). Only through Isaac is the promise of God preserved. This allegory (⇒ Gal 4:24), with its equation of the Sinai covenant and Mosaic law with slavery and of the promise of God with freedom, Paul uses only in light of previous arguments. His quotation of ⇒ Genesis 21:10 at ⇒ Gal 4:30 suggests on a scriptural basis that the Galatians should expel those who are troubling them (⇒ Gal 1:7).

Ok, so here it is. Now could you elaborate somewhat on what you are claiming here and to what you are arguing against specifically? No offenses but you do not have the most accurate track record for interpreting the gospel.

 

[twb1621]

I agree with you, but there is an enormous difference between mine and your situations. It’s not important to me who or when the Tanach was written, as long as the writers were Jewish. In your case, you have Gentiles former disciples of Paul writing for the building of a Church using a Jewish background. That’s a no no.

This really isn’t about what you pick and choose as important to you when it comes to your making accusations against Christianity. Truthfully you promote two opposing principles here. In keeping with your line of reasoning the fact you are not Christian completely denies you the right to make reasonable comparisons in regard to interpretation of Gospel. As far as your emphasis on Paul and his disciples is concerned, you seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to Christianity and its establishment. Paul was but one involved in the teachings of Christ. You seem to totally discount the Apostles who accompanied Jesus and their teachings and their Hebrew Heritage. You disregard the Heritage of any of the writers for those apostles as well. It almost seems you have contempt for gentiles. Thats a no no.

 

[placido]

**Let me tell you something, Placido. I do accept as true 20 percent of the NT. The other 80 percent are non-Jewish interpolations. The pattern of my method to come up with these percentages is based on the fact that if Jesus was a Jewish man, anything about him which is not Jewish, is not true.

Now, you cannot ask me something about Jesus and at the same time, that I don’t use the NT. It is as if Jesus never existed, since there is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures about him if not through assumptions. So, if you still want my answer, let me know.**

Why I asked you not to use the NT is because in post # 926 you seemed to discredit the NT. How can you discredit the NT and at the same time use it as a credible source of your information?

You said:

**Nevertheless, Jesus used to refer to the Torah as God’s Word. A thing which you cannot say the same about your NT, which came to existence 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. **

You implied that the whole NT (not just 80 %) is untrue because it came 50 + years after Christ. To my surprise, you have now changed the reason for your incredulity. It is no longer “50 + years” but the Jewishness of Jesus and the Un-Jewishness of parts of the NT.
According to your reasoning, a Jew cannot do anything that goes beyond the Jews. A Jew cannot be president of the World Bank (because it goes beyond the Jews); a Jew cannot be secretary general of the UN (because it goes beyond Jews); and Jesus (a Jew) cannot be the Savior of the whole mankind (because that goes beyond the Jews).

Placido

 

[Ben_Masada]

Why I asked you not to use the NT is because in post # 926 you seemed to discredit the NT. How can you discredit the NT and at the same time use it as a credible source of your information?

You said:

You implied that the whole NT (not just 80 %) is untrue because it came 50 + years after Christ. To my surprise, you have now changed the reason for your incredulity. It is no longer “50 + years” but the Jewishness of Jesus and the Un-Jewishness of parts of the NT.
According to your reasoning, a Jew cannot do anything that goes beyond the Jews. A Jew cannot be president of the World Bank (because it goes beyond the Jews); a Jew cannot be secretary general of the UN (because it goes beyond Jews); and Jesus (a Jew) cannot be the Savior of the whole mankind (because that goes beyond the Jews).

Placido

**Yes, the gospels appeared 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. It doesn’t mean that I now reject the whole thing. I still accept 20 percent as true. And all the things you mention above can be Jewish but one, that Jesus, on an individual basis, could be the savior of the whole Mankind. Neither spiritually nor practically, and you know that.

The world has become worse since Jesus came and left. What did he do for the salvation of the world? To be honest with you, nothing. Even the Sect of the Nazarenes, which he left, expired. Paul was the one who had a much better idea on how to make Christianity survive and become the giant that it is today. But he had to desert Judaism for that much. Jesus remained Jewish and he should be left out of the Hellenism of Christianity.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

This really isn’t about what you pick and choose as important to you when it comes to your making accusations against Christianity. Truthfully you promote two opposing principles here. In keeping with your line of reasoning the fact you are not Christian completely denies you the right to make reasonable comparisons in regard to interpretation of Gospel. As far as your emphasis on Paul and his disciples is concerned, you seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to Christianity and its establishment. Paul was but one involved in the teachings of Christ. You seem to totally discount the Apostles who accompanied Jesus and their teachings and their Hebrew Heritage. You disregard the Heritage of any of the writers for those apostles as well. It almost seems you have contempt for gentiles. Thats a no no.

**Myself, with contempt for the Gentiles? I don’t think so. How could I have contempt for the Gentiles if I am ready to walk miles to bring the Truth to the Gentiles? Jesus was the one with contempt for the Gentiles. Read Matthew 10:4,5. Every time he would send his disciples on a mission to spread the news of the Kingdom of God, he would warn them to go to the Gentiles. That’s contempt for the Gentiles.

And to answer your question about Jesus being preached as Christ, the idea started with Paul in Antioch, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26) So, all that time, even his Apostles did not know anything about such an idea.**

 

[placido]

And to answer your question about Jesus being preached as Christ, the idea started with Paul in Antioch, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26) So, all that time, even his Apostles did not know anything about such an idea.

Which idea? Jesus as the Christ or that Jesus’ teachings must be preached to all?
It is unfortunate you did not yet tell us which 20 % of the NT you believe to be true, otherwise I would refer you to Metthew 16:17 where Jesus is identified as the Christ, and Matthew 28:19 where we find an explicit command to preach Jesus as the Christ - that was way before Paul coverted.

placido