Was Jesus the Antichrist?

originally posted by: Rasalghul
And I already posted the passage for that prophecy in this thread. Isaiah 7:14. How many times do you have to hear it.

Yet, that verse says that a child will be called Immanuel.
But WHERE, before Matthew, is there any statement that Immanuel would be the Messiah?

a reply to: awareness10

Just because someones brain functions on a different level than your own, whether a higher or lower level of function does not matter, does not make them irrational. Each and every individual on this planet is different. We have different bodies. We have different beliefs. It has nothing to do with indoctrination and everything to do with the unique way every brain functions.

A2D

On another note...

Jesus' life, as documented, was one of humility. It was not one of arrogance and pride...which is a hallmark of an antichrist. It's really quite simple.

"Was Jesus the Antichrist?" Well, did he act like one? Do we judge a man by his name or his actions?

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

We have different beliefs. It has nothing to do with indoctrination and everything to do with the unique way every brain functions.

Yes, people have different beliefs.

No, to the last part you posted. How can you say it has nothing to do with Indoctrination and solely brain function?

Are you Religious Agree2Disagree? Cause if you are, you're placing not only yourself in a cage but everyone else too. Religious or Not.

If you're Not Religious, you're arguing against something about Religion in favor of something Scientific and pushing everyone else's idea of Reality into your own little box because you don't agree with it.

Here it is in BLACK AND WHITE.

Not just Christianity either, But Islam and every other Religion to boot...


Scientific American
www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: awareness10

I can say that it has nothing to do with indoctrination and solely brain function because that's the truth.

As far as religion goes...it depends on what you deem "religious". I believe there is a creator. I believe in powers greater than human hands and human minds. As for institutionalized religion, I practice none.

The first of what would be called "religious beliefs" were not indoctrinated beliefs, because, for obvious reasons, a belief must be established in order for it to be used in the indoctrination process....and being the "first" they were not already established.

The first of religious beliefs...or some might call them "superstitions", were manifestations of brain function. I can say this with 100% confidence.

A2D

Edit to add: Your video only furthered my point that religious belief is a matter of brain function.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Did you even watch the Vid i posted?

a reply to: DISRAELI

OMFG. ISAIAH just like I said. That's were it is. Man you are so confused. Matthew is citing the prophecy from Isaiah and applying it to Jesus. Matthew should be enough on its own to prove his name was to be Immanuel. But Isaiah IS the virgin birth prophecy I have pointed your know-it-all self to. You keep ignoring me. ITS IN ISAIAH.

originally posted by: Rasalghul
OMFG. ISAIAH just like I said. That's were it is. Man you are so confused. Matthew is citing the prophecy from Isaiah and applying it to Jesus. Matthew should be enough on its own to prove his name was to be Immanuel. But Isaiah IS the virgin birth prophecy I have pointed your know-it-all self to. You keep ignoring me. ITS IN ISAIAH.

Isaiah says there will be a child, who will be known as Immanuel. But Isaiah does NOT say that this child is the Messiah. You do need to read the verse in the context of the whole chapter and see what he's really talking about. The thread I linked will help you.

Matthew is
a) The one who identifies the prophecy with Jesus
b) The one who links the prophecy with the Messiah.
If you don't accept his testimony on the first point, you have no reason to claim his testimony on the second point, so your whole argument that "the Messiah is called Immanuel" falls to the ground.
While if you DO accept his testimony, you get the statements that Jesus is the Christ and also that Immanuel would be one of the names applied to him. And that comes true. Jesus is frequently addressed by the name Immanuel throughout church history.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Isaiah is the book. The only book to prophecy the virgin birth, also says, along with Matthew( which SHOULD be enough) that his name is to be Immanuel. 2 occurences.

I understand the Septuagint has the virgin concept but the Hebrew may not. But if Matthew says the prophecy applies to Yeshua, that's Gods will. If Matthew was wrong, then the whole bible could be wrong.

a reply to: awareness10

Well, let's do this. Your video shows a distinct link between brain function and religion. There are also numerous other studies, that link brain function and religion or religious practices. There's an entire field dedicated to researching this connection...it's called neurotheology. www.npr.org...

Now it's your turn. Is there any proof that religious beliefs are indoctrinated beliefs? How do you explain paleolithic religious practices such as burial that occurred 300,000+ years ago? How do you explain Neanderthal mans fascination with animals or totemism? How do you explain an elephants behavior around the deceased, which some might call "ritualistic" or "religious"?

From even the narrowest of scientific viewpoints, there is no debate that religion is a matter of brain function. Religion has it's ORIGINS in brain function...it evolved as the brain evolved....simple as that.

But Sure, religion can spread through the indoctrination process....(because I can convince your brain of lots of things)...but it's still a matter of brain function in the end.

A2D

a reply to: DISRAELI
Now quit bothering me about how your religion doesn't make sense, that isn't my fault.

Your trying way to hard.

originally posted by: Rasalghul
Isaiah is the book. The only book to prophecy the virgin birth...

But you appear to doubt the virgin birth prophecy, which prevents you from making use of it as an argument

that his name is to be Immanuel.

yes, but NOT that he is to be the Messiah.
Oh you who claim to have read the whole Bible, for heaven's sake just read that one chapter.
Isaiah explains very clearly that the child to be called Immanuel will be old enough to speak by the time that the siege of Jerusalem (by the king of Israel, Pekah the son of Remaliah, in alliance with the king of Syria) has been brought to an end by the advance of the king of Assyria.
I say to you again, read the chapter, see what it really says.

originally posted by: Rasalghul
Now quit bothering me about how your religion doesn't make sense, that isn't my fault.

Here's the deal.
If you stop writing nonsense about Biblical religion, I'm willing to stop pointing out that it's nonsense.
Why on earth do you start these fights, in the first place, if you can't take the friction they cause?

a reply to: Rasalghul

I think you have a bit of a language barrier. The phrase we translate to be called can also mean that this will be a title of sorts that describes the essence of that person, and Jesus is worshipped as being God in the flesh meaning his followers literally believe he was God with Us or Emmanuel.

We see the same thing occur in Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


Names are more descriptive in Hebrew and Greek than in they are in English, and they often refer to the persons character, purpose, ect.

Methuselah for example, means his death shall bring. RIght after Methuselah dies the flood is brought upon the world. Abraham means father of multitude. We can look at genesis 5 at the genealogy given and the names when read in order make a sentence. "Man is appointed mortal sorrow but the blessed God shall come down teaching that his death shall bring the despairing rest." As you can see the entire genealogy relays the main message of the Bible.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
That's cool. I see it differently, deviating from prophecy in the slightest is unimaginable for the Jews at that time. Matthew may not have been a Jew but it is the word of God, divinely inspired, leaving no room for errors.

It's a complicated topic. My PERSONAL THEORY Is that Immanuel was the Messiah and so as to connect him to Yahweh instead of El, they made up a name and dubbed him Jesus.

Of course we'll never know, all the originals are gone so we can't confirm. Either way, something stinks.

Good points though, I will consider them.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLambEmmanuel is a name, if it were a title it would be The Emmanuel. It's a name.

Jesus was called other names in Bible prophecy as well:

(Isaiah 9:6) For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Just because these were not the personal names given to him when he was born on earth, does not mean the name-titles do not apply to him, for he fulfills all of them.

Immanuel is also a name-title that God inspired Matthew to attribute to Jesus. It means: God is with us. And it showed that God had not forsaken his people. When Jesus was born into the world he certainly fulfilled the meaning of the name, that God had not abandoned his people.

Jesus has other names and titles in the Bible as well. Before he came to earth he was known as Michael as well as the Archangel. And also as Logos, or the word, being Jehovah's chief spokesperson.

a reply to: DISRAELI
No. I have my beliefs you have yours. I have never posted any nonsense except jokingly. You don't get to decide what is nonsense because you are indoctrinated into the beast system, indoctrinated. Most of what you say is complete b.s. but I am not bothering you. You think you know so much more than you really do.

You just NEED to be right so bad. Im done, not even reading your reply. Your a conformist, I'm an independent spirit, we have 0 in common.

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?

This whole Immanuel thing together with the crucifixion only serves to show extremely bad judgement from the Christian camp. Jesus wasn't named after Immanuel, Immanuel was Isaiah's son. Read the whole text in Isaiah and notice that he talks of a period stretching from some kind of virgin (or «young woman», doesn't really matter) conception— to birth at the end of the reign of «Two Kings». If you read this with astrology glasses on (modern astrology was conceived around the Babylonian captivity), you'll notice that there are nine months (the length of a pregnancy) from Virgo (Ha Bethulah - the Virgin) to Gemini (Shaneh Malakeha - the Two/Twin Kings).

Isaiah 7:14-16
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive (conception in Virgo) and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good (U: i.e. to be born), the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted (U: birth in the end of Gemini).
(Emphasis and parenthesis mine)

Jesus was named after Immanuel's father, Isaiah, Jesus and Isaiah are in all essence the same name. They are variants of the ancient name of the father of King David, Isai, or «Jesse» as some Bibles hold. Yoshuah is another, older name that for some reason ended up as being the name given for history to the good lord, probably since Christians are such a conservative bunch.

Isaiah 11:1
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, ==> Jesus shall be a father
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. ==> Jesus' son, «Eli», or Elimas «Magus» Barjesus

a reply to: Rasalghul

Emmanuel is a name, if it were a title it would be The Emmanuel. It's a name.

Like I said we read the English much different that a Hebrew or Greek person would read their languages. Here are more examples of what I am talking about when I say it is a descriptive title of his essence.

Luke 1:32
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,


Luke 1:35
35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

As you can see it is all over the Bible. Reading the Bible objectively and actually studying as an ancient text brings out really different ideas. Honestly it saddens me that Christians have let Christianity become what it is. Honestly as a world view as it should be held it is quite a rare and extraordinary set of beliefs but its over shadowed by the ignorance of Christians today.