Was Jesus the Antichrist?

· I know it sounds crazy but hear me out. Matthew 1:23 " Look, the virgin will conceive and bear a sone, and they shall NAME HIM EMMANUEL," which means, "God is with us."
· Then in 1:25 they name him Jesus. Does anyone else find that odd? For the record, Isaiah is the book containing this prophecy in 7:14-15. The virgin birth is only inthe greek, but that's another issue.
· So it got me thinking, could Jesus himself be the antichrist? It sounds crazy at first, but why would they name him Yeshua( Joshua), and why do we call him Jesus, when the prophecy says Immanuel?

a reply to: Rasalghul

No, Jesus wasn't the antichrist, but his Church is.

The biblical character was named after the High Priest "Joshua" (Jesus, Yoshua) from Zachariah's vision:

Zachariah 3:1
And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

9
For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

a reply to: windword

But the prophecy says in Isaiah and in Matthew his NAME is to be Immanuel. And out of the blue they name him Yeshua which means Joshua and we call him Jesus.

It's a big deal and nobody has the answer why they didn't follow the prophecy. Jews take prophecy way too seriously for that to happen.

Somethings up and I'm gonna getto the bbottom of it. God willing.

a reply to: windword
I like that Zechariah passage though, The Satan gets little mention in the O.T. Good eye.

a reply to: Rasalghul

And out of the blue they name him Yeshua which means Joshua and we call him Jesus.

It's not "out of the blue", its a valid prophecy that fits with the Jesus myth.

Isaiah's prophecies don't fit the Jesus character at all, right down to the wrong name.

a reply to: Rasalghul
Isaiah is talking (in the first instance) about a child to be born in his own time, and Immanuel is to be the name of THAT child. I did a thread about it;
A child is born, called Immanuel, eating curds and honey

Because Matthew quoted that prophecy, Christians have taken to using Immanuel as a second name for Jesus, as you will hear in many hymns. They take it as representing his character, in that "God is with us" in the person of Christ.
So in practice Jesus does receive that name after all.

a reply to: DISRAELI
Are you saying Matthew was wrong? He clearly applies the prophecy to the infant Jesus, and his name is to be Immanuel. Clear as day.

If that Isaiah prophecy applies to someone in Isaiah's time, then it doesn't apply to Jesus. Jews don't have double prophecies. It's not traditional at all.

So was Matthew wrong, that's the only option left.

a reply to: DISRAELI
If Matthew was wrong, what else is wrong!?

I'm not buying any of this. If the prophecy isn't about Jesus, then generations of christians have been misled by Matthew.

a reply to: Rasalghul
I said Isaiah was talking about his own time in the first instance (prophecies can have more than one layer of meaning).
The fact that Isaiah was talking about his own time is obvious from the context. Instead of just taking the one verse in isolation, read with care the whole of Isaiah ch7. The thread which I linked will help you understand what is happening.

Then while Matthew is telling the story of Jesus, he recognises similarities in a number of Old Testament passages, including this one, and therefore quotes them as prophecies.

Gospel of Thomas also hints that Jesus was not the Christ of NT but was playing a different role. The answer lies in NT's affect on society, has it resulted in in enlightenment or a greater darkness over society. Perhaps a greater darkness forces more lost souls to seek light. Its a dilemma that I have yet to resolve.

Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary."

Link

From my point of view:

The meaning of Christ and Messiah is Anointed.

So by definition anti Christ would be anyone who manipulates a soul away from Anointment by making a soul miss the mark.

So the question is:
If you follow Yeshua:s suggestions will you reach anointment?
If you follow Paul:s suggestions will your reach anointment?
If you follow Siddhārtha Gautama suggestions will you reach anointment?
If you follow Muhammads suggestions will you reach anointment?
If you follow Nanak:s suggestions will you reach anointment?
If you follow Rumi:s suggestions will you reach anointment?

a reply to: Rasalghul

Was Christ the anti-Christ? Anti-Himself? Is that like being your own grandpa? The Anti-Christ is from the Apocalypse of John, it's not a Jewish prophecy... so according to you, when Christ comes back He'll come back as the anti-Christ, and Satan will come as Christ (weirdly called "Christ" this time around, when the first entity called Christ was an anti-Christ that was never prophesied by the Jews). Perhaps you're not totally insane with this line of argument and you're trying to claim that Christ is Gog (the Jewish conception of the anti-Christ). Well then, at very least, read the Book of Daniel concerning this matter and see for yourself that there are zero similarities between Gog and Christ, whereas there are 353 prophecies about Christ (Messiah) that were fulfilled by Christ.

Satan has been saying "I am good and G-d is evil, look at how he killed (evil) people in the Bible!" since the dawn of time. The heresies people latched onto after Christ (Gnosticism, Arianism, Marcionism, Catharism) all have their roots in Babylonian paganism, Zurvanism, etc.. and they all go back to the same insane idea that the Creator is evil and somehow has no control over the "good god" He created. How could a created god ever hope to prevail over his creator? Insane.

The sacrificial Jesus is the antichrist, the teachings of Jesus are Christ. One is carnal, the other spiritual.

Notice how believing in Jesus' sacrifice gives you a free pass to ignore Jesus' teachings because "every mouth that confesses Jesus is Lord and believes God raised him from the dead will be saved". No need to love others as yourself or forgive others. All you need is belief in a carnal sacrifice, no need in following Jesus' spiritual message of love and forgiveness.

So in a way, the Jesus represented in the NT is both Christ and antichrist at the same time, depending on which way you look at it.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
From my point of view:

The meaning of Christ and Messiah is Anointed.

So by definition anti Christ would be anyone who manipulates a soul away from Anointment by making a soul miss the mark.

So the question is:
If you follow Yeshua:s suggestions will you reach anointment?
If you follow Paul:s suggestions will your reach anointment?
If you follow Siddhārtha Gautama suggestions will you reach anointment?
If you follow Muhammads suggestions will you reach anointment?
If you follow Nanak:s suggestions will you reach anointment?
If you follow Rumi:s suggestions will you reach anointment?

Why follow? just create your own version that makes sense to the eternal being you are (these are just speaking points to direct you on a path); not sure anyone was to actually take them SERIOUSLY (yet did) OOPSE.

Prophecies don't have double meaning, that's not in Jewish tradition. Immanuel is an El based name Yeshua a Yahweh based name. So I think someone changes his name after.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1good point.

the jews certainly thought so, but most of the books in the new testament about jesus have a lot of contradictions.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You don't know much about Jewish prophetic tradition. There are no double prophecies or double meanings. It's just not how they believe

If Matthew was wrong he was wrong. If he was right then his name is Immanuel NOT Jesus.

Jesus is not the English version of Yeshua, Joshua is.

Jesus is the antichrist
Immanuel is the Messiah

originally posted by: Rasalghul
· I know it sounds crazy but hear me out. Matthew 1:23 " Look, the virgin will conceive and bear a sone, and they shall NAME HIM EMMANUEL," which means, "God is with us."
· Then in 1:25 they name him Jesus. Does anyone else find that odd? For the record, Isaiah is the book containing this prophecy in 7:14-15. The virgin birth is only inthe greek, but that's another issue.
· So it got me thinking, could Jesus himself be the antichrist? It sounds crazy at first, but why would they name him Yeshua( Joshua), and why do we call him Jesus, when the prophecy says Immanuel?

Your logic is incorrect and fatally flawed.The quote is clearly stated as being from a prophet (Isaiah) and describing the nature and character of a person.Before and after that verse(and ALL of the records) clearly states they “named” him Yahoshua(which means Yahweh is deliverance).It is only the nitpicking of the religious mind that can’t see the difference.

A name means “the character and nature of the thing or person named.The name you are called is whatever your parents gave you (or you choose to be called) but your nature and character is your real name.In this case your name is ignorance and blindness.