maitreya is the antichrist

A. Benjamin Creme is not Maitreya.
B. Maitreya is not the Antichrist.

Here's why. Maitreya is the name of a future Buddha. Buddhism is about the renunciation of power over others. Period. Gautama Siddhartha the Buddha of history was a Prince who chose not to be King. Get the idea? Maitreya is a man or woman sitting on a chair wishing all the people would live in harmony. Thats all. No big deal, no power trip. Find something else to be afraid of that deserves your fear. Then convert it to the Way of Peace.

I doubt that Maitreya, is the Anti-Christ, here are several reasons why.

The Jews will not accept anyone other than a Jew to be the Saviour, no muslim, no catholic, no christian, no buddhist.

Maitreya also does not seem to have the power to convince anyone that he is God, no mention anywhere of him working any miracles, calling fire down from heaven, he has not performed any "Wonders" and He is not responsible for the changing of laws we now see taking place that would be caused by the coming Anti-Christ.

The Anti-Christ has not been revealed yet so no one knows who he is.

2Thess 2:3 � Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. [withholdeth: or, holdeth]
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he (the Holy Spirit) who now letteth will let, until he (the Holy Spirit) be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

The Anti-Christ will not be "Revealed" or does not appear until after the Holy Spirit is taken from the earth, which will happen at the Rapture of the Church.




[edit on 6-11-2004 by Lastday Prophet]

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
I doubt that Maitreya, is the Anti-Christ,
The Anti-Christ has not been revealed yet so no one knows who he is.

2Thess 2:3 � Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. [withholdeth: or, holdeth]
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he (the Holy Spirit) who now letteth will let, until he (the Holy Spirit) be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

The Anti-Christ will not be "Revealed" or does not appear until after the Holy Spirit is taken from the earth, which will happen at the Rapture of the Church.
[edit on 6-11-2004 by Lastday Prophet]

?? The 'falling away' & the 'removing of the Holy Spirit'..are actually the
same event....the preachers of soothing doctrines have caused the
faithfull to believe they are select and will be raptured before the days
of wrath, vials & bowls etc.
AND THEN, after being refined & purified & martyred....the remainder of
humanity will make the choice to follow the AC(& accept mark)...OR NOT !

ONLY THEN...will the identity & knowledge of the AC be known & revealed,
so this Maitreya is just another, of the crowd, declaring himself to be the
2nd comming messiah !

whoa...that was .03 cents worth.....bon !

Maitreya has been around alot longer than the internet, this isn't some story conjectured by a recent nut case though it is obvious some one has been using the name, look up the word before you try to present any opinions as the name can be found in hindu and other cultures as well. There's more to Maitreya than some nut case on the net.

You got that right. I'm sure he was a nutcase well before the internet
ever took hold in society

A. Benjamin Creme is not Maitreya.
B. Maitreya is not the Antichrist.

Here's why. Maitreya is the name of a future Buddha. Buddhism is about the renunciation of power over others. Period. Gautama Siddhartha the Buddha of history was a Prince who chose not to be King. Get the idea? Maitreya is a man or woman sitting on a chair wishing all the people would live in harmony. Thats all. No big deal, no power trip. Find something else to be afraid of that deserves your fear. Then convert it to the Way of Peace.

Quite right. The Maitreya is nothing but the greatest Buddha after the first Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama); he is NOT a God, per sa, as most western relgions dictate, but a man who has been "awakened" to the ignorance of the world and lives to chide those naysayers; to awaken those subject to decades of conceptual habituation; to awaken those who believe in puesdo-idolotry; to awaken all Buddhist schools and bring them together as a uniform body of thought; a Siddhartha Gautama on steroids and a couple of grams of Weed.

The internet is devoid of any "factualy" information regarding him/her, and usualy has sites devoted to puesdo-intelects.

The Anti-Christ, is quite simply, just that : A man/women who denounces the teachings of "christ".

Deep

Maitreya also does not seem to have the power to convince anyone that he is God, no mention anywhere of him working any miracles, calling fire down from heaven, he has not performed any "Wonders" and He is not responsible for the changing of laws we now see taking place that would be caused by the coming Anti-Christ.

You cannot use the Christian tounge to assent/dissent the Buddhist Messiah. Let us get something straight: HE IS NOT A GOD, NOR DOES HE REPRESENT GOD; he is simply one with a "god" consciousness, as defined by Buddhist philosophy.

You speak as if he actually lives and walks this earth, why is this ? I hardly doubt it that such a man/women is amongst as we speak, as i hardly doubt the second Christ is among us, or the Ant-Christ, or to be quite frank: the millions of other messiahs dreamed of by faiths the world over..

Deep

Originally posted by mellymai
first of all, knowing wearily that you won't believe what i have to say because you have decided in advance not to, i will limit my answer to something succinct and simple.
Thanks for filling me in on what I am and am not going to believe. I was under the mistaken impression that you posted your thread in order to inspire a discussion on the matter, but I guess that wasn't the case.
I'm talking about the sin that occurred BEFORE man, and thus the original "bad thing" that the bible makes clear to us happened in the heavens. that was when Lucifer said "i will be like God" and was cast out of heaven. pretty heavy punitive damages, if it wasn't actually wrong, getting kicked out of paradise and all... therefore, it's pretty clear to me that it kind of ticked God off just a little bit.
Lucifer was a king who thought he was invincible and stronger than the gods, so the LORD got mad and decided to knock him back into his place, where he belonged. Lucifer was a man, not a heavenly creature. He did not really fall from heaven. The description of his downfall was figurative not literal. It was selfish pride that caused his fall from power. If he had been striving for perfection and understanding, in an attempt to become more like a God whom he respected and loved, rather than using tyranny and oppression against those under his rule in order to force them into worshipping and obeying him, instead of their God, I don't think the LORD would have gotten angry at all. Of course, this is only my personal take on the meaning behind Isaiah 14, and I don't expect you to agree.
it's also clear to anyone who BELIEVES (and, again, this is a losing proposition with someone who has decided they don't, but i drag my weary carcass to the query, anyway, for the benefit of someone ELSE who might be reading the thread) that the fall of man was based on Lucifer's cunning powers to convince early man that they, too, could be like God.

They DID become like gods, knowing good and evil, just as the Serpent had said.
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The LORD acknowledged this himself when he said:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

In reality, (and you're really going to hate this, but it's written clear as day for anyone not afraid to question what they've been taught) it was the LORD who lied, by telling Adam he would DIE if he ate of the tree of knowledge, and the serpent who told the truth. Don't believe me? Carefully read Genesis 3 for yourself, and prove me wrong.
the bible makes it plain that we need God to save our poor disease-ridden smelly farting pimple-ridden bacteria and fungus-laden gossipy self-involved greedy narcissistic prideful (and that's the "GOOD" folks

a**es from ourselves. it makes it pretty plain that we are nowhere even close to being a god (God wouldn't have morning breath, for starters

, and that redemption and mercy are our only hope. for someone who reads the book remotely and without any desire to believe what is in its pages but merely to extract something here and there to "prove" their dissention with it, you will nearly always be able to take something out of context and make it work for your point.

i would never pick up a book of any kind, fiction or non-fiction, turn to a single page, read a random quip, and then turn to someone and say that that one blurb defined the entire book. reading comprehension is based on the concept of reading an ENTIRE book or passage, and only when completely finished looking back over to say what it was about OVERALL.

Is that what I did? Funny, I thought I had spent the first 17 years of my life going to an Evangelical church and a Christian Fundamentalist school, where I was taught what the Bible said (as interpreted by adults who thought they knew its meaning), only to find out after re-reading it for myself as a free-thinking adult, that most of what I was taught as a child was grossly misinterpreted and misunderstood. My interpretation of the Bible's message may be different than yours, but that doesn't mean I haven't studied it as much as you, or have failed to comprehend it's meaning. I do not tell the Bible what it means, I wait for it to reveal its message to me on its own.
Do not presume yourself to be superior to me, simply because my understanding of things is not the same as yours. You might be the one who is mistaken in the end.


the message of the ENTIRE bible is that we cannot BE God, we can only expect His mercy. we can invite Him into our hearts, but the difference in saying that we invite Him into us versus BECOMING that divinity ourselves is both at once as tiny and as huge as it gets. the devil is in the details. the difference is pride, and it was, in fact, the original sin, even if you look at it from the perspective of humans, not fallen angels. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was about pride. Lucifer's fall from grace was about pride.

from a new nonfiction book i just purchased: "One woman was picked up by a gale of wind and thrown like a stone into the window of Schrafft's candy store on Fifth Avenue." is this a book about terrible weather in NYC? it's actually about the race to build the early skyscrapers in NYC. i can take one half of a sentence that refutes the other half vis a vis the word "but" and say that the original part was the author's full intention, or that the "but" invalidates the entire argument, as the overall idea is contradictory. or, i can read the author's full passage or book with an open unrigid mind, so that i can allow the author's ideas the opportunity to teach me something new, and after i am finished reading i can look back over the entire thing and draw my own conclusions.

If you are implying that I have used a verse(s) out of context, please show me an example and explain to me what you feel the Correct meaning should be.

the bible is about God's grace to a fallen race, and it makes, over and above anything else it says, it perfectly clear time and time again that man is to be humble before God, God indwelling IN him but not BECOMING him, and is NEVER to reach the point where he says "I will be like God".

and as far as THIS goes: "But it sounds to me like the gods were afraid man would cease to be inferior to them should they become immortal, so in order to maintain their position of authority over mortal men, the gods kicked Adam and Eve out of Paradise."--there were no "gods" in the bible, there was only ONE.
You believe this, I assume, because you believe in the concept of the Triune God, and you think They/It would naturally speak to Itself in the 1st person Plural (i.e., "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us", or "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"). While I respect that opinion, I do not share it. I believe that the OT contains the stories of several different "gods" whom the people of that time could have personal dealings with. This is why I used "gods" rather than God but you are more than welcome to substitute the plural with the singular if it makes you more comfortable.

and He is no more "afraid" of man, with our laughably limited resources (viruses are replicating faster than we can even begin to understand. we can't even cure athlete's foot!). He is ANGERED when His creations take this stance. if we were to actually be able to create artificial intelligence, which then turned around and said it would become equal to us, we would pull its plug and throw it in the landfill with our lean cuisine trays and old cell phones and dirty pampers.
So you believe that God will be angry at those of us who feel we are spiritually equal with God, since we would be angry if something WE created presumed itself to be capable of becoming OUR equal. Sorry, but I can't understand how a God that is perfect, and infinite could suffer from the same emotional flare-ups as man, such as anger. If God is infinite, then God is everything and everything is God. Nothing can be greater than infinity and infinity contains all things in existence, without exception.

and that conveyed what?

I smell an excessive quoting warn....

Originally posted by Bobbo
and that conveyed what?

I smell an excessive quoting warn....

Am I missing something? Is it not obvious that my responses are the bolded type? If it wasn't, now you know

ye are gods???

PSALM 82

"You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince." 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for to thee belong all the nations!

seems the gods will die to!

Originally posted by jezebel

Originally posted by Bobbo
and that conveyed what?

I smell an excessive quoting warn....

Am I missing something? Is it not obvious that my responses are the bolded type? If it wasn't, now you know

my apologies, I didn't catch on that your replies were bolded.

sorry