President of Israel and the Antichrist

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Please show me from the Bible where the Antichrist is a Jewish ruler who rules for 7 years and is elected by the people.

reply to post by ketsuko

The Jesus in Revelation will be this sort of figure. The Jesus of the Millennial Reign is also hinted to be closer to this kind of authority - ruling with an iron rod. So, I don't know how much of the New Testament Jesus Christians will get which is one more reason why I'm not quite looking forward to the Apocalypse. I'm not sure how much of our Jesus will be there to greet us.

It doesn't say that specifically about Jesus.

In Revelation 2:9 & 27, the "son of God" says that those who overcome will rule with a rod of iron.
Those are the people who follow the correct teaching and don't fall for the lies of false prophets.

In Revelation 12:5, it is talking about a sort of portent, a scene in the "heavens" where it mentions that one of the characters was to eventually rule with a rod of iron.
This story character I would take to represent the church.

In Revelation 19:15, it brings up this phrase again, in relation to another portent in the heavens, of a character who is like a conquering hero backed up by the army of heaven and with a sword coming out of its mouth.
I would interpret this to mean basically the same thing as the other heavenly portent, which is the eventual victory of the truth over the lies of the false prophets.

OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Please show me from the Bible where the Antichrist is a Jewish ruler who rules for 7 years and is elected by the people.

I'm not saying he is. The assertations are based on common claims among Christians. I am not a preacher or a prophet. I'm a researcher. Big difference.

reply to post by buster2010

The AC is supposed to bring about peace before making the announcement of his godhood from the rebuilt temple mount. So where is the peace?

This comes from a really sketchy speculative interpretation of Daniel.

It just so happens to be the same prophecy that Jesus interpreted as meaning the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD due to the rebels closing the gates of the city to them and forcing a deadly siege.

reply to post by Tusks

Google "Talmud Jesus" to realize they do mention him.

According to my former rabbi who is a university department head and has his doctorate in how Christianity and Judaism diverged away from each other, there is no mention of the Christian's Jesus in the Talmud.
"Jesus" was a popular name back then.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

I find your quote applicable to modern day Israel as others in this thread, and many other threads, have pointed out that the European immigrants who came to Israel are not part of the "Tribes of Israel".

I may come off as a little overenthusiastic in my criticism of zionism and that could be because I was a zionist myself but relatively recently woke up to the deception. I am now left with a negative feeling about it.
I feel that it is vital to not give ongoing crimes against humanity our silent consent.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Tusks

 

Google "Talmud Jesus" to realize they do mention him.

According to my former rabbi who is a university department head and has his doctorate in how Christianity and Judaism diverged away from each other, there is no mention of the Christian's Jesus in the Talmud.
"Jesus" was a popular name back then.

Then he lied to you. He certainly would have known.

Tusks

jmdewey60
reply to post by Tusks

 

Google "Talmud Jesus" to realize they do mention him.

According to my former rabbi who is a university department head and has his doctorate in how Christianity and Judaism diverged away from each other, there is no mention of the Christian's Jesus in the Talmud.
"Jesus" was a popular name back then.

Then he lied to you. He certainly would have known.

Nowhere in the 7000 pages of the Babylonian Talmud is Jesus Christ mentioned directly. Some argue that a few sentences may refer to Jesus, but he isn't mentioned with full name. Why would he be mentioned, the Talmud is basically a commentary on the Torah, similar to the doctrines of rabbinic Midrash?

Utnapisjtim
The antichrist is basically a Jewish ruler of Israel who rules for seven years and is elected from a vast multitude.

What's the difference with this and the system of presidency in today's Israel?

[1] He is the secular ruler of Israel (practically a humanist Messiah)
[2] He sits for seven years (Rev. speaks of a 7 year tribulation)
[3] He is elected through democracy (comes up from the sea)

So what you guys think? Would Shimon Peres fit the suit of the Antichrist? Doubtfully. There are antipopes, and there are also antichrists, rulers who do "evil in the eyes of God". But what do you think?

Some say that Washington DC is "The New Jerusalem." Some say that Obama has some Jewish ancestors. Most say we are in Obama's 6th year of visiting misery upon us.

Utnapisjtim

Tusks

jmdewey60
reply to post by Tusks

 

Google "Talmud Jesus" to realize they do mention him.

According to my former rabbi who is a university department head and has his doctorate in how Christianity and Judaism diverged away from each other, there is no mention of the Christian's Jesus in the Talmud.
"Jesus" was a popular name back then.

Then he lied to you. He certainly would have known.

Nowhere in the 7000 pages of the Babylonian Talmud is Jesus Christ mentioned directly. Some argue that a few sentences may refer to Jesus, but he isn't mentioned with full name. Why would he be mentioned, the Talmud is basically a commentary on the Torah, similar to the doctrines of rabbinic Midrash?

edit on 28-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Being more precise

Many would disagree.
www.biblebelievers.org.au...

What Christians have thought of the Talmud is amply proved by the many edicts and decrees issued about it, by which the supreme rulers in Church and State proscribed it many times and condemned this sacred Secondary Law Code of the Jews to the flames.

In 553 the Emperor Justinian forbade the spread of the Talmudic books throughout the Roman Empire. In the 13th century "Popes Gregory IX and Innocent IV condemned the books of the Talmud as containing every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian truth, and ordered them to be burned because they spread many horrible heresies."

Later, they were condemned by many other Roman Pontiffs - Julius III, Paul IV, Pius IV, Pius V, Gregory XIII, Clement VIII, Alexander VII, Benedict XIV, and by others who issued new editions of the Index of Forbidden Books according to the orders of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, and even in our own time.

At the beginning of the 16th century, when the peace of the Church was disturbed by new religions, the Jews began to distribute the Talmud openly, aided by the art of printing then recently invented. The first printed edition of the whole Talmud, containing all its blasphemies against the Christian religion, was published in Venice in the year 1520. And almost all Jewish books published in that century, which was favorable to them, are complete and genuine.

Towards the end of the 16th century and at the beginning of the 17th, when many famous men undertook diligently to study the Talmud, the Jews, fearing for themselves, began to expunge parts of the Talmud which was published at Basle in 1578 has been mutilated in many places.

And at Synod in Poland, in the year 1631, the Rabbis of Germany and many other countries declared that nothing which would annoy the Christians and cause persecution of Israel, should be printed. For this reason there are signs of many things missing in the Jewish books which were published in the following century and thereafter. The Rabbis explain from memory what these things mean, for they possess the genuine books which Christians rarely see.

reply to post by Tusks

Many would disagree.

You are quoting someone really stretching with an apparent agenda, back in 1892.
These things have been explained to me by a serious modern scholar with no agenda but seeing the facts.

Tusks

Utnapisjtim

Tusks

jmdewey60
reply to post by Tusks

 

Google "Talmud Jesus" to realize they do mention him.

According to my former rabbi who is a university department head and has his doctorate in how Christianity and Judaism diverged away from each other, there is no mention of the Christian's Jesus in the Talmud.
"Jesus" was a popular name back then.

Then he lied to you. He certainly would have known.

Nowhere in the 7000 pages of the Babylonian Talmud is Jesus Christ mentioned directly. Some argue that a few sentences may refer to Jesus, but he isn't mentioned with full name. Why would he be mentioned, the Talmud is basically a commentary on the Torah, similar to the doctrines of rabbinic Midrash?

edit on 28-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Being more precise

Many would disagree.
www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Well, then please present to us quotes from the Talmud where Jesus Christ is mentioned. Just because many people believe this or that doesn't mean it's true. Many people still believe the Moon is made of cheese and that the Earth is flat too. Doesn't make it more true.

What a load of Jew-hating trash propaganda I see in this thread.

But I guess that is pretty standard for this forum. Threads like this and its inaccurate, oft-repeated nonsense seem pretty standard fare whenever Jews or Israel are mentioned.

I guess I'll share a few facts in case anyone reading this thread is interested in truth rather than boarding the Jew-hate train.

There are so many wildly inaccurate claims in this thread it'll be too time-consuming to address them all, so I'll just touch on a few of the more egregious ones.

Claim: "Jews in Israel [or elsewhere] are actually Europeans."

This tired anti-semitic libel has been with us for a long time even though looking at most any Jew should tell you they aren't European. However today it is completely eviscerated by numerous genetic studies that have proven the vast, overwhelming majority of Jewish men are of middle-eastern extraction. The most common y-chromosome haplogroups amongst Jews are, in this order, J, E1b, and G or R1b (roughly same percentage of last two). The first three are all relatively rare in Europe but make up the bulk of the middle eastern population. R1b is the most common in Europe, however the percentage of Jews that are R1b is approximately the same as the percentage of R1b in the overall middle eastern population. At worst the ~9% of Jews that are R1b reflect the absorption of Khazars that is the basis of this tired and debunked libel.

Furthermore, genetic studies show that, for several haplotypes, Israeli Jews, "Palestinian" Christians, and Kurds are more closely related to one another than Muslim Arabs are to any of these groups. This comports with the reality of the history of the land of Israel: descendants of the House of Israel have lived there for millenia, a portion of these are the original Christians, and Muslim Arabs are relatively recent invaders from the Arabian peninsula.


It also seems the OP perverted words of the Torah to contrive more attacks against Jews in Israel.

Claim: We can only account for Levi and Judah in modern day Israel.

Oh really? Baseless nonsense rooted in a flawed understanding of history at best, at worst a contrived attack coordinated with distortions of Torah. The only way to prove this claim would be to assert knowledge of the genetic signature of those tribes at the time of the diaspora. However no one has this information.

Furthermore the OP seems to conveniently forget that Benjamin was a substantial chunk of the Judean population.

So why did the OP leave out Benjamin? My guess is because there was no contrived attacks planned, as there were for Levi and Judah.

Let's consider one of those attacks against Levites.


Claim: Levi can't own land in Israel therefore modern Israel lacks validity.

This would be funny, but the OP seems serious.

While it is true that the tribe of Levi was not given a specific, contiguous region of land with demarcated borders, Levi was given possession of 48 cities throughout the land of Israel the perpetual possession of which is regulated by laws unique to Levi.

Numbers 35:2
“Command the children of Israel that they shall give to the Levites from their hereditary possession cities in which to dwell, and you shall give the Levites open spaces around the cities.”
Numbers 35:7
“All the cities you shall give to the Levites shall number forty eight cities, them with their open spaces.”

The approximate total area covered by this land is approximately equal to the land possessions of some of the smaller tribes.

Furthermore, the possession and sale of this land is regulated by laws unique to Levi, laws that strictly maintain Levite ownership of the land and its houses. E.g. per Leviticus 25:34 the land of the Levites can NEVER be sold (land of all others tribes could be sold) and per Leviticus 25:32 any sold Levite houses always go out in the Jubilee. This law is unique to Levi and protects Levi against the law of Leviticus 25:30 which applies to all tribes other than Levi.

So not only is the OP’s claim entirely baseless, but the situation is the opposite of what the OP claims: the Levites do own substantial portions of the land of Israel, and Torah law binds them to this land in a stronger fashion than land is bound to the other tribes.


Oh well, I reckon it is unlikely that any amount of Torah data, or historical data, or scientific data will relieve Jew-haters of their urge to spread slanderous libel. It's not like it's hard to find reliable data that debunks these silly claims, whether they are perversions of Torah, history, or lineage. Jew-haters seem a group steadfastly determined to distribute baseless nonsense, no matter how ludicrous and contrived it may be.

So I have posted this for those readers who might actually have some regard for truth on these topics.

Utnapisjtim

Tusks

Utnapisjtim

Tusks

jmdewey60
reply to post by Tusks

 

Google "Talmud Jesus" to realize they do mention him.

According to my former rabbi who is a university department head and has his doctorate in how Christianity and Judaism diverged away from each other, there is no mention of the Christian's Jesus in the Talmud.
"Jesus" was a popular name back then.

Then he lied to you. He certainly would have known.

Nowhere in the 7000 pages of the Babylonian Talmud is Jesus Christ mentioned directly. Some argue that a few sentences may refer to Jesus, but he isn't mentioned with full name. Why would he be mentioned, the Talmud is basically a commentary on the Torah, similar to the doctrines of rabbinic Midrash?

edit on 28-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Being more precise

Many would disagree.
www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Well, then please present to us quotes from the Talmud where Jesus Christ is mentioned. Just because many people believe this or that doesn't mean it's true. Many people still believe the Moon is made of cheese and that the Earth is flat too. Doesn't make it more true.

Go to the link.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


that book of revelation is a book of meditation
too many 7s, sounds like kundalini experience
it is a cleverly disguised time capsule to anyone who understand it (honestly i dont)

edgar cayce version: www.near-death.com...

gnostic version: gnosticteachings.org...

rev 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

whoever takes the words away = whoever misinterprets it as doomsday prophecy, etc

holy city sounds like pineal gland
tree of life? immortality, maybe

peace

Utnapisjtim

OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Please show me from the Bible where the Antichrist is a Jewish ruler who rules for 7 years and is elected by the people.

I'm not saying he is. The assertations are based on common claims among Christians. I am not a preacher or a prophet. I'm a researcher. Big difference.

That isn't a very common claim among Christians. I've been a Christian my entire life and have researched many different theological views from dispensationalism (aka Christian Zionism) to Classic Covenant Theology (aka Replacement Theology) and everything in between and have never heard what you claim is a "common claim" among Christians.

Everyone thinks the world is currently in some prophetical bible days..... Soon as more people get over the fact it's not those times the better off the world will be.

reply to post by Trender

. . . looking at most any Jew should tell you they aren't European.

They are from central Asia, which is not really the same thing as the Middle East, from the Caucasus region near southern Russia.
Now there are some people who are the Sephardic Jews, who do look like they could be Middle Eastern and have ancestry from Palestine.
But those are not the ones who founded modern Israel, which were the Ashkenazi Jews from Poland and Lithuania, who like I said, are originally from Russia, or what was eventually taken over by Russia during the Czarist period.

This comports with the reality of the history of the land of Israel: descendants of the House of Israel have lived there for millenia . . .

What "millennia" would that be exactly?
I think what you are doing is looking at the Old Testament, which is fiction, and asking us to believe that it is history as it was written when all these events took place.
There is no evidence that there was a kingdom of Israel.
There was a province that was part of Palestine called Judea under the old Persian empire.

Utnapisjtim
The antichrist is basically a Jewish ruler of Israel who rules for seven years and is elected from a vast multitude.

What's the difference with this and the system of presidency in today's Israel?

[1] He is the secular ruler of Israel (practically a humanist Messiah)
[2] He sits for seven years (Rev. speaks of a 7 year tribulation)
[3] He is elected through democracy (comes up from the sea)

So what you guys think? Would Shimon Peres fit the suit of the Antichrist? Doubtfully. There are antipopes, and there are also antichrists, rulers who do "evil in the eyes of God". But what do you think?

There is no "The Antichrist",There is no such person written of in the book of Revelation nor ALL of scripture.John wrote of "antichrist" in his letters.It does not mean "a person".

In Greek anti means in place of .....christ is from the Hebrew mashiach or messiah which means to rub oil on which was done to a prophet or King symbolically to imbue the power of God on them.

When John wrote of "antichrist" it meant people "in place of" christ...the anointing .It is not difficult to know who these people are because Yahoshua spoke of them also when he said

"MANY will come "in my name" saying THEY are christ and deceive many."

These people were already there in Johns time now they are "many".It takes very little to recognize them .They come in the name of Jesus,,and say they are "christ"...currently there are approximately 2 billion people on the planet that claim this.They are "antichrist" yet not one of them know it.

reply to post by Rex282

2 billion people claiming to be christ? How is it I don't even know of one of them if there is really that many wackos running around out there?