Was Jesus the Anti-Christ?

This is insulting for christian community....

You shouldn't write posts like that!

Originally posted by Snippy23
reply to post by auraelium

 

Looks like you might be getting in the habit of finding something on the Net, then posting it without actually thinking first or forming an intelligent analysis (looks like your source here is pretty dramatically anti-Christian).

Here, think carefully. JC was, it seems, crucified before 40AD. Revelation, the main AC source, was written at least 40 years later, probably considerably more.

So, just how does your theory work? Are you saying that the author(s) of Revelation were plain daft, and wrote about the AC while failing to realise that the AC was actually the person he/they worshipped as the Son of God and their Saviour, and was both Christ and AntiChrist? If the Bible is that feeble, why are you relying on it?

Silly Post of the Week Award

edit on 24-8-2011 by Snippy23 because: detail added

Its nothing to do with the Book of revelation, Its the book of deuteronomy, and yes i have cross referenced it against the the book of deuteronomy the verses are correct. and for the third time the book of Deuteronomy was written by JEWS, who dont believe CHRIST has been BORN YET. Thats the third time ive had to say that can you please read OP and following posts before you make a comment.

Its nothing to do with the Book of revelation, Its the book of deuteronomy, and yes i have cross referenced it against the the book of deuteronomy the verses are correct. and for the third time the book of Deuteronomy was written by JEWS, who dont believe CHRIST has been BORN YET. Thats the third time ive had to say that can you please read OP and following posts before you make a comment.

reply to post by auraelium


Well if you talk about the Bible then by all means....show me the scriptures you are referring to.

Jesus spoke of Satan and he spoke of His Father. There is a lot to read in the Bible. If you are interested in the works of Jesus and what it says about the Anti-Christ then read the Bible.

IMHO what jews think....is not relevant as they are not Christian. They are anti-christian.

Originally posted by Nikola014
This is insulting for christian community....

You shouldn't write posts like that!

Odly enough ..... Its taken from the book of deuteronomy, which is in the christian bible, also the fact that im neither christian or Jewish. Im intrugued by the fact that the discription of the antichrist in the Bible has so many similaritys with Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by cluckerspud
Maybe his middle name was Anti.

Stop being silly "It was Uncle Christ " at least when he was shacked up to Mary Magdelan. Thats whats
Mary's kids used to call him.

reply to post by MamaJ


Ive spent 3 hours cross referencing it against Deuteronomy and the Book of Daniel, read the OP and go and look for yourself.

Thgis part especialy from the Book of Daniel...

In the book of the prophet Daniel, this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews (the "holy ones"; see Deut. 14:2 on this term) and would change the Law including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8, 20-25). Elsewhere, this false prophet is described as a king who would disregard the G-d of his fathers, exalting himself as a god and giving honor to this new god-head (Daniel 11:36-39).

The man known today as "Jesus" fulfilled all these prophecies. He became a "king" (over the Christian church) who changed the original Law, doing away with the Hebrew calendar and the Biblical holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkos the Festival of Tabernacles, Passover, etc.). He disregarded the one, infinite G-d of the Hebrew Bible in favor of a new "trinity" that included himself. And he repeatedly broke the Law by committing terrible sins, while openly challenging the G-d-given authority of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin.

Originally posted by auraelium
Was jesus the Anti-christ?

The Bible gave a warning about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test
our faith in God.i says that the Anti-christ will be so cunning that only the wisest of men will recognize him.So could he be that cunning?

No. I am going to assume that since you reference the Bible that it is fair for me to do the same. Jesus was accused of being Satan in His own time, and here was His response:

Matt 12

22Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

23And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

25And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

27And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

It is my understanding that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. As for Jesus Christ being the (antichrist)....no..I do not believe he was and is.

Nostradamus foretold of 3 antichrists....Napoleon.....Hitler....and the 3rd one to be revealed as yet.

reply to post by MamaJ


Spend time on the entire Bible and then come back and talk to me.

You are reading something into confusion my friend. I have read the Bible several times like a book and have referenced within for over 30 years. Be my guest to do the same. You will find that you are really confused. What is Deuteronomy? What does it mean? Have you read all about the Anti-Christ in the Bible?? If you do read what the Bible (all of it) says about the Anti-Christ you would think differently.

reply to post by Snippy23


The writers of the gospel didn't even agree about who Jesus was or what he taught, they all seem to have put their own spin and understanding as well as disparate agendas into their writings.

Revelation could have been complete fiction or a butchered form of an earlier writing.

Wouldn't it have been so much easier if Jesus has simply written his teachings down himself? He could have inscribed it all down on sheets of lead and told them to pass it down through the ages.

If he had intended to start a new religion, I'm sure that is what he would have done. The message being SO important it would have made sense would it not?

I'm sure a carpenter with so many followers and such a gift in communication would be able to write, it seems absurd that with such an important message he would not have learned to from one of his many followers or earlier.

Such writings would obviously have been heretical then to Jews and now to Christians.

This nonsensical fact that there does not appear to be a 'gospel of Jesus' is why I give the bible no credence except for allegorical contemplation. Jesus himself said that the old testament was beneficial for teaching and reproving, he did not by my recollection say that God wrote it and it was 'the truth'.

Who knows what he did actually say? I find the books not included in the bible far more interesting.

reply to post by SavedOne


I am so glad you referenced the scriptures found in Matthew. Although there are many more...I just really do not feel like taking the time to do so. Forgive me for my laziness today.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
So why cant people eat shellfish?

How intelligent is that law... not to mention the stupidity of many others.

Ask yourself this- does preventing you from eating shellfish sound like the will of a pure and perfect God? If your answer is "no", which it should be, then what does that tell you? There's more than one option:

A) The context is describing something we don't understand under today's context (they didn't have fridges back then, perhaps eating shellfish transported inland from the coast was dangerous to them)

B) The passage does not represent God's will and was therefore not written or inspired by God

C) There is no God

I always fail to understand why atheists think this proves "C" when in fact it doesn't prove anything. Even dismissing the Bible completely does not necessarily mean there is no God, there can be a God whose characteristics are much different than what the Bible describes.

Originally posted by MamaJ
I am so glad you referenced the scriptures found in Matthew. Although there are many more...I just really do not feel like taking the time to do so. Forgive me for my laziness today.

No problem I think that passage explains exactly why Jesus could not possibly be Satan or antichrist, or anything of the sort. There's really no need to reference anything else, because it states it in as clear a language as possible. Everything Jesus did represented the exact OPPOSITE of Satan's will and wrecked Satan's kingdom (temporarily, but he's made quite the comeback). But the religious law keepers of the time (pharisees, sadducees, etc.) despised what Jesus preached to the masses, because it undermined their control of the populace and exposed them for the power-hungry, selfish tyrants that they really were. They did everything they could to discredit Him right up to killing Him for trumped-up crimes. The text in the OP just shows that their influence is still around even today among some Jewish scholars.

Religions text were written by men who say that they were in Gods favor, so their texts are the word of God. They are all either delusional or horribly arrogant. God doesn't favor anyone, he loves us all equally. That's the God I know anyway. Great post, it was entertaining.

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by MamaJ
I am so glad you referenced the scriptures found in Matthew. Although there are many more...I just really do not feel like taking the time to do so. Forgive me for my laziness today.

No problem

I think that passage explains exactly why Jesus could not possibly be Satan or antichrist, or anything of the sort. There's really no need to reference anything else, because it states it in as clear a language as possible. Everything Jesus did represented the exact OPPOSITE of Satan's will and wrecked Satan's kingdom (temporarily, but he's made quite the comeback). But the religious law keepers of the time (pharisees, sadducees, etc.) despised what Jesus preached to the masses, because it undermined their control of the populace and exposed them for the power-hungry, selfish tyrants that they really were. They did everything they could to discredit Him right up to killing Him for trumped-up crimes. The text in the OP just shows that their influence is still around even today among some Jewish scholars.

Well i dont think Jesus ever existed,neither did Mathew for that matter. My personal belief is that Christianity doesnt exist either only for the dumbed down masses as a form of control. And if it is true what many say about Catholicism and how it is a cover for a Lucifaerian cult and how behind the Pope is the true Pope, the Black Pope and the cult of Aton, then its possible that the manufactured Jesus christ was purpously created to fullfill the Satanic attributes described in the Old Testament.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep

So what was or is the Law

The law is YHWH's instructions for man. There are 613 laws in the Books of Moses (aka Torah).

and how did Jesus change it?

He did not. Yeshua said that He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (i.e. live it to its utmost . . . perfection).

Also, if Jesus challenged the authority of the Sanhedrin, how did he do so?

The Sanhedrin would write law on top of YHWH's law. This was to prevent people from breaking God's law. For example, the law says that fornication is a sin. The Jewish leadership makes a law saying that touching someone of the opposite sex that you are not married to is a sin. The thinking is that if you do not break man's law, you are nowhere close to breaking the laws of YHWH.

Yeshua taught that man's law did not have to be followed. Only YHWH's law had to be followed. The Jewish leaders saw that this teaching would lead to the decline of the power of those in high positions, and they obviously did not approve.

Hi Auraelium -

If by 'Jesus' do you mean R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (who lived roughly between c. BCE 12 to 36 CE - whose Greek name was 'Iesous' but whose Hebrew name was closer to Joshua) - you know, the one who was strung up for armed sedition against Rome in 36 CE during the Passover (Heb. 'pesach') of the 100th year anniversary (i.e. the centennial year) of the Roman Invasion of Palestine in 63 BCE (see the 3rd Canonical Gospel 'according to Luke, whoever he was, chapter 22:35 ff 'but I say to you now, he who has no Sword of his own on his person, let him sell his Outer Tunic (---and on a cold night too !!!) and go out immediately and get one...and they brought him 2 swords, saying here, Rabbi are two swords - and he said to them, can you possibly think that only 2 swords will be enough ?' etc. )

At any rate, in terms of actual titles, this rabbi Yehoshua personage seems to have called himself messianic kingly titles such as 'ha Bar-Enasha' ('the son of man' ) which is an Aramaic phrase taken from the Aramaic Sections of the so-called Book of Daniel see: Dan chapter 7:13ff and linked to the ousted Daviddic monarchy - the daviddds were taken out of power since 587 BCE when Babylon destryoed Eretz Yisroel and killed off as many of the Davidds they could round up).

He never called himself 'the Messiah' although he might have referred to himself as 'ha Moreh' (i.e. The 'Teacher') especially if we take a really close look at the verbiage of the 1st canonical Greek gospel ('according to Matthew' whoever he was ) see Matt 26:17ff (The Secret Passover-Preparation Hide Out Scene)

'And the First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread came near - so the Disciples came to Iesous asking him, "Rabbi, where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover ?"

18 And he spoke to them saying, "Go to the [gate of the] City and you will say to the man standing [there] ''THE TEACHER says, "The time for me to celebrate the Pesach at your house with my Disciples has come..." Then follow him to the place he shall show you and there make your preparations for the Pesach..."

He also made a string of false prophecies which never took place as advertised - 'Amen Amen I say to you, there are SOME WHO ARE STANDING RIGHT HERE NOW who WILL NOT TASTE DEATH UNTIL THEY SEE THE BAR ENASHA COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN, SITTING ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH with all of his holy ones with him..." etc.

What is worse, is that the canonical greek gospels place this kind of language into the pre-Trial interrogation scene with Yosef Kaiphah (Joseph Kaiphas) e.g. the 2nd canonical Greek gospel ('according to Mark' whoever he was, chapter 14:61

'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One or not?' And he spoke saying, I am that I am (Gk Ego Eimi); and SOON YOU WILL SEE THE BAR-ENASHA RIDING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE POWER OF EL WITH ALL OF HIS HOLY ONES WITH HIM...'

Right, sure...that really happened...well, in fact...no such thing ever did happen - ergo he was called a FALSE PROPHET (which is kind of equivalent to a type of AntiMessiah or Anti Christ in certain people's imagination back in those days, no doubt - later Rebbes in the Talmud used to refer to him as 'He whose name which May Not Be Spoken' - for in their minds, he WAS an antiChrist or at least one of the many many many False and Failed Christ-Messiahs running around back then before Jerusalem was ground to powder by the Romans (CCE 66-72) in the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome...

And since such 'false prophecies' placed into his mouth (especially in the later greek Gospels where we have a Greek speaking Iesous uttering them !!) were circulating widely at the time, naturally, there would be those among shall we say 'more mainstream Judaeans' who would have said things like 'this Yeshua, whom we handed over to Rome - he is clearly an anti-Messiah' (i.e. a 'false Christ') - look, I mean, he was NOT even able to kick out the Kittim ('the Romans') from Eretz Yisroel like he bragged ('the times of the Amorites are fulfilled, repent, and believe the Good News of the Kingdom') but was put to death naked and spread eagled on a cross ! -with no Kingdom of David being realised- crucifixion was his deserved punishment from 'the most High' for speaking false prophecies and performing sorcery 'and leading Yisro'el astray...' !!

So his closest followers, baffled by his naked and horrible death on a gibbet (strung up as he was along with a bunch of other armed freedom-fighters against Rome, apparently!) began making up stories about thunderclaps on mountain tops ('after six days' like Moses on his own mountain talking with the clan-god of the Jews) and lightning lighting up his body, with thunder (interpreted by the listeners as a voice from EL - no doubt in accordance with the strict Rabinnic Rules set down in books counted among the fragmented surviving scraps of the Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g. the Scroll of the Bronto-Logion - or 'The Book on How to Interpret Thunderclaps') which they took to mean 'This is my son, my elect one, YOU WILL LISTEN TO HIM...!'

Whereas we all know in the book of Deuteronomy (see cchapter 18:22 ff) in the supposedly ancient Torah, it says, 'if any man should dare to utter an Oracle (Heb. Debir) claiming it to come from YHWH but IT DOES NOT TAKE PLACE as he spoke (i.e. as advertised) THAT MAN IS A FALSE PROPHET - YOU WILL NOT LISTEN TO HIM...!!!"

So to many of the mainstream within Judaiesm in his own time did just that - called him a Messianic Daviddic Pretender, did not listen to him, and believed he 'got what he deserved...'

At any rate, one should realise that these made up Transfiguration stories were a lame attempt of the early church gospel writers to make a (ahem) 'prophecy' of his to come true - after the fact - when in fact, it never did any such thing....

reply to post by MamaJ
Hah...I had to give the OP a star just because I'd never heard the idea before and it's actually quite tenable, although I disagree with it wholeheartedly off the bat.

Think about what you are asking though.....Is Jesus CHRIST the Anit- Christ? He did not preach against himself. He was not evil...he healed people. I could go on and on but there is really no need. He is Christ and he will be coming like a thief in the night.

This is OP's point - that 'Jesus' was only MIS-identified as christ/messiah by some, and was actually a false prophet - which at such a claimed magnitude would, of course, drop false leads to get people off his trail.

After dinner, I will definitely have to read the OP in full and break out my bible, but it's definitely an interesting...if not also completely off-putting...idea.

Take care, sister.

Originally posted by Threegirls
reply to post by Snippy23

 

The writers of the gospel didn't even agree about who Jesus was or what he taught, they all seem to have put their own spin and understanding as well as disparate agendas into their writings.

Examples?

Revelation could have been complete fiction or a butchered form of an earlier writing.

Proof?

Wouldn't it have been so much easier if Jesus has simply written his teachings down himself? He could have inscribed it all down on sheets of lead and told them to pass it down through the ages.

Because apparently He had A LOT of free time . . .

If he had intended to start a new religion, I'm sure that is what he would have done. The message being SO important it would have made sense would it not?

He was not starting a new Religion. Please go back and study Religious and Secular history.

I'm sure a carpenter with so many followers and such a gift in communication would be able to write, it seems absurd that with such an important message he would not have learned to from one of his many followers or earlier.

He did not need to write it down. It was/is all in the Tanakh. It was written down at a later date for the benefit of the Gentiles.

Such writings would obviously have been heretical then to Jews and now to Christians.

No, What He says actually blends quite well with PROPER Judaism. It does go against Rabbinical Judaism and mainstream Christianity.

This nonsensical fact that there does not appear to be a 'gospel of Jesus' is why I give the bible no credence except for allegorical contemplation.

There is no Gospel of Napolean. Guess he was allegorical as well?

Jesus himself said that the old testament was beneficial for teaching and reproving,

That was Paul.

he did not by my recollection say that God wrote it and it was 'the truth'.

Again, you do not seem to understand even the basic tenets and proofs of Judaism and Christianity.

Who knows what he did actually say? I find the books not included in the bible far more interesting.

I find them interesting, but most of them do not fit the basic ideas of the Tanakh.