Was Jesus the Antichrist?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
[...]
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,

Jesus serves a riddle about this:

Luke 20:41-44
But he said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is David’s son? For David himself says in the Book of Psalms,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”’

David thus calls him Lord, so how is he his son?”

==> The quick answer to that question is ==> Because Christ's name was Jesse, the same name as David's lord and father.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I am curious as to what you think Christ was attempting to convey here. I have my own opinion but its quite long so I'd like to hear yours if we are in the same ball park I won't spend the time.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I am curious as to what you think Christ was attempting to convey here. I have my own opinion but its quite long so I'd like to hear yours if we are in the same ball park I won't spend the time.

Bottom line: In the end, in the time leading up to his crucifixion, I understand the Gospel thus that Jesus was struggling with the troubles of fame and people's expectations and dogmatic demands, after years of being in the limelight (“Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”), to the extent that he flipped out completely around the time of the death of emperor Tiberius, when Jesus and his disciples evidently stole a donkey which he used to parade through Jerusalem posing as the new king of the Jews. They then carried on to break in to a fashionable home, where Jesus and his disciples partied into the night, and he completed his performance by serving out himself in the shape of common food (the classic «Everyone wants a piece of me»), all for which he was eventually tried and crucified by the Romans, but only after the Sanhedrin (scribes, priests and «the elders») were done with him, having beaten him to a state where he could hardly breathe or talk or carry a single piece of cut lumber (this man was a Zimmermann) up to Calvary.

Jesus was a great man. A true «son of the gods» as Centurio Longinus said, meaning Jesus was a righteous man, who didn't deserve the horrible destiny he had been given, to die because of people's bad judgement. Therefore, he received the healing strike of a Roman soldier's lance, aborting death, enabling Jesus to breathe again. Rich and influential people then bribed the guards to take the unconscious Jesus to a hidden location where he was treated by «angels in white garments» (possibly a common nickname for Essene healers, who always wore white garments) and healed for his inflictions.

The important part is Jesus' message about Torah: Jesus whole ministry was an exercise in promoting the Torah should be burden enough for the people, while Hillel and his Talmud and other corruptions of the Torah— are like heavy stones put on top of the burden of the Torah itself. Moderation rather than complicating in regards to the Law. Jesus tells us not to complicate laws and testimonies. Be kind when people are unkind to you. Love your fellow man, even enemies and foes, and show mercy and forgiveness. Redistribute wealth and take care of the poor. Pay taxes and follow the laws where you live, be gentle towards your fellow man, but be strict to yourself, so you don't covet and fall under for desire and theft. Be honest to live in the light of truth, be prepared to suffer, but live to triumph.

Hope that helps, though I don't consider meself a Christian, I'm hardly any religious at all. Before making up your mind, remind yourself of Jesus' words in Mark 9:38-41

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Beautifully put.

I used to hear people in my church argue over interpretations of the Bible. I asked the pastor once about this and his answer was simple and stays with me to this day:

"If your interpretation of scripture allows you to understand and/or love God or your neighbor better, then that is the correct interpretation."

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

In the end, in the time leading up to his crucifixion, Jesus was struggling with the troubles of fame and people's expectations after years of being in the limelight, I think (“Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”), to the extent that he flipped out completely around the time of the death of emperor Tiberius, when Jesus and his disciples evidently stole a donkey which he used to parade through Jerusalem posing as the new king of the Jews.

I am not sure why you think Jesus stole the colt...their is no fuss recorded between the owners and the disciples. They simply loose the donkey and tell the owner the lord has need of it. They go and discuss with a certain man about holding Passover at his house. You are completely distorting the text imo. Nor does any of this have anything to do with the verse I originally asked you about? Our conversation was about what Jesus meant in his riddle do you understand the references he was making?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The riddle is wordplay and showing the intrinsic nature of Jesus' fabled name and royal bloodline, relating it to the riddled text of Psalms 110. Maybe it's a riddle to reveal his true name as Jesse Bardavid.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I don't think his name was Jesse nor do I think that is what the passage is intending on revealing. Psalm 110 is a Messianic Psalm exalting the Messiah. This is a clear reference to the divinity of the Messiah in OT Scriptures. His discussion is with devout Jews. They know their Scriptures well, and the thought Jesus put forth to them was to think of what David must have meant by calling him Lord.

The Son of David is a Messianic title referring to the gene pool from which the Messiah would arrive, but Psalm 110 clearly shows that the Messiah is Divine.

The verse implies both the existence of David in a future state, and the authority of the Messiah over that invisible world into which that prince was removed by death. Otherwise, no matter how great a monarch the Messiah might have been he could not have been properly called David's Lord. Not sure why you think it is revealing his name to be Jessu Bardavid.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Whatever.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

It just seems to be a more coherent view of the text to me.

a reply to: UtnapisjtimAre the Zodokim the Essenes or the Chasidim? I've been pondering it and I want it to be the Essenes who were the Zadikim because Zadikim comes from Zedek as in Melchizedeck.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
That's were Zadok got his name.
:

a reply to: Rasalghul

Heb. צדק or «Tsedek» is the ancient Hebrew name of planet Jupiter according to Solomon Gandz in his book 'Studies in Hebrew Astronomy and Mathematics', and translates into 'Justice' or 'Righteousness' according to Brown-Driver-Briggs' 'Hebrew and English Lexicon' (BDB). Put together with Heb. מלך «Melek» (means 'King' 'angel' or 'Messenger' depending on the vocalisation also according to BDB) it becomes Melchizedek, thus Melchizedek means 'King Jupiter' or 'King/Messenger [of] Rightiousness', or as it's traditionally translated, «My King is Right» (Strong's and NAS Concordances)

Anyhow, Tsedek means Jupiter, which of course is the head of most astrological pantheons, Jupiter AKA Ba'al and Zeus.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

That's cool. I have heard a thousand theories on Melchizedeck and all I can say is he is the most fascinating High Priest AND king in the bible which says no more about him until the nt. Except for a psalm maybe, I'm not 100% sure.

I wanted to know if you knew, were the Zadikkim the Essenes, or were they(Zadikkim) the Chasidim (Hasidim) ?

originally posted by: Rasalghul
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

That's cool. I have heard a thousand theories on Melchizedeck and all I can say is he is the most fascinating High Priest AND king in the bible which says no more about him until the nt. Except for a psalm maybe, I'm not 100% sure.

I sort of see Melchizedek in much the same way I see the role of D. Sutherland's Mr. X character in the movie JFK. The sort of Black Knight that comes in from the sideline sorting out all the loose ends.

I wanted to know if you knew, were the Zadikkim the Essenes, or were they(Zadikkim) the Chasidim (Hasidim) ?

To be honest I have no idea. As far as I can see Tsadikim and Hasidim are two schisms in Rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism, they are like two different disciplines or approaches to Judaism, Talmud and Torah on one hand (Law and order, Tsadikim) and Kabbalah and Zohar (Mysticism, Hasidim) on the other— but I may be wrong. Like I said, I have no idea.

The Essenes were the sect leaving behind the Dead Sea Scrolls as far as I know. Talmud as we know it today wasn't fully formalised or put in written formation until a few hundred years AD. There were no books connected to Kabbalah or the Mishnah etc. found at Qumran, but plenty of stuff on the Torah and all sorts of rules and pseudo-messianic prophecies— I honestly don't know.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
Yeah hes a shadow man, good analogy. Did you know Cain had a son named Enoch too? He gets nothing more than a mention.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
[...]
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,

Jesus serves a riddle about this:

Luke 20:41-44
But he said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is David’s son? For David himself says in the Book of Psalms,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”’

David thus calls him Lord, so how is he his son?”

==> The quick answer to that question is ==> Because Christ's name was Jesse, the same name as David's lord and father.

Actually Jesus said that because he lived before David did. In fact he was alive when Jehovah inspired David to write that prophecy. And Jesus was born to Mary, a descendant of king David.

That is why he very matter-of-factly stated that he was alive before Abraham existed:

(John 8:57-59) . . .Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.


Jesus was the firstborn, God's only-begotten son. He was God's first and only direct creation. Through Jesus all other things were created, whether they are invisible or visible:

(Colossians 1:15, 16) . . .He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

He is the first of all creation, and before all other things.

That is why David could call Jesus "my lord," even though Jesus was only born as a human in the first century C. E. He existed long before he came to earth:

(John 3:13) . . .Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man.

a reply to: JackReyesJesus actually has conflicting accounts of his geneology. It's like me saying I am a descendant of Augustus Caesar, prove I'm not. So you don't even need his genealogy, it's unclear and irrelevant. If people were so concerned with fulfilling prophecy they'd have named him Immanuel.

originally posted by: Rasalghul
a reply to: JackReyesJesus actually has conflicting accounts of his geneology. It's like me saying I am a descendant of Augustus Caesar, prove I'm not. So you don't even need his genealogy, it's unclear and irrelevant. If people were so concerned with fulfilling prophecy they'd have named him Immanuel.

No you actually are quite wrong on this matter.

The one account in Matthew traces Jesus' linage through his mother, Mary, while Luke traces Jesus' linage through his adopted father, Joseph's line. If you read Joseph's line deviated from the royal line of kings.

But, Jesus received the legal right as king, not through his adopted father, but through his blood relation, his mother Mary, and that lineage carries the line of kings.