President of Israel and the Antichrist

BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Youre right, I did lead the conversation off topic. To get it back on topic, I'll discuss the antichrist in relation to the meter.

As stated earlier, I think Nimrod is the AntiChrist, and just as Jesus is the genetic Son of God, I think Nimrod is the genetic son of Satan somewhere down the line. Thats why both Apollyon and the Beast share the same symbol as the 7 headed dragon. The bible reveals both the angelic and human nature of the antichrist.

I think the False Prophet better fits the discription of the corrupt Jewish leader.

If my assumptions are correct, Nimrod will return by 10/22/2016.

I don't think you took anything off topic. I think you were contributing a unique perspective, for my part.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Yeah, kinda miss read your post.

reply to post by Gryphon66

. . . insisting that others refer to themselves with YOUR pet phrase?

Matthew 10:33
But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
(2011 NIV)

reply to post by jmdewey60


So are you accusing me of denying Christ? What if I call myself a Jesusite or Yahoshuite? What if in some future language the word for Christ is Duloxis and I decided to call myself a Duloxite?

Baptists consider themselves Christians, but they go by Baptists on account of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean they deny Christ?

I distance myself from the fallacy and stereotype of Protestant Zionism and Preterism because in my mind these doctrines deny Christ. So whats your problem?

So what if the term Messianic has a Jewish connotation? The last time I checked, Jesus was Jewish.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

So what if the term Messianic has a Jewish connotation? The last time I checked, Jesus was Jewish.

By default the definition of the word means

1. (Bible) Bible (sometimes capital)
a. of or relating to the Messiah, his awaited deliverance of the Jews, or the new age of peace expected to follow this
www.thefreedictionary.com...

that it has to do with the messiah not having come yet, the very definition that the New Testament writer of the Letters of John gives for the antichrist.

jmdewey60
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

So what if the term Messianic has a Jewish connotation? The last time I checked, Jesus was Jewish.

By default the definition of the word means

1. (Bible) Bible (sometimes capital)
a. of or relating to the Messiah, his awaited deliverance of the Jews, or the new age of peace expected to follow this
www.thefreedictionary.com...

that it has to do with the messiah not having come yet, the very definition that the New Testament writer of the Letters of John gives for the antichrist.

Eventhough the word 'Messiah' may look like a direct translation of Heb. 'Meshiach', it is to be understood as a cognate, rather than a translation, since Christians claim 'Messiah' is to be understood as a translation of another Hebrew word, 'moshiah' meaning 'savior'. The idea of the Messiah as a divine savior who will remove sin is regarded herecy in orthodox Judaism.

Some gentiles have told me that the term "mashiach" is related to the Hebrew term "moshiah" (savior) because they sound similar, but the similarity is not as strong as it appears to one unfamiliar with Hebrew. The Hebrew word "mashiach" comes from the root Mem-Shin-Chet, which means to paint, smear, or annoint. The word "moshiah" comes from the root Yod-Shin-Ayin, which means to help or save. The only letter these roots have in common is Shin, the most common letter in the Hebrew language. The "m" sound at the beginning of the word moshiah (savior) is a common prefix used to turn a verb into a noun. For example, the verb tzavah (to command) becomes mitzvah (commandment). Saying that "mashiach" is related to "moshiah" is a bit like saying that ring is related to surfing because they both end in "ing."

www.jewfaq.org...

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

Even though the word 'Messiah' may look like a direct translation of Heb. 'Meshiach', it is to be understood as a cognate, rather than a translation, since Christians claim 'Messiah' is to be understood as a translation of another Hebrew word, 'moshiah' meaning 'savior'. The idea of the Messiah as a divine savior who will remove sin is regarded heresy in orthodox Judaism.

There is a Greek word in the New Testament, Messias, that comes out in the English translations as Messiah.
A lexicon of New Testament Greek will tell you that it comes from the Hebrew word, mashiach.

I don't get all involved in the details of where it comes from, but rather look at whatever the culture was that existed at the time of the writing of the New Testament and what the word meant in that context.

I think the thing that you are trying to bring out is that Christians and Jews generally have differing ideas as to what it might mean, and who they think should have that label bestowed upon them.

The page that you linked to should make it clear that there is an active use of the word Messianic and it is mainly in a Jewish context that excludes the historical Messiah of the Christians, Jesus of Nazareth.

reply to post by jmdewey60


"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." (Matthew 23:24)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the perspective of an outsider to Christianity, I will tell you that the concept of "The Antichrist" has got to be one of the most deliciously ironic concepts that I have encountered. From whatever it meant to the early Christians (in which it seems to have been an early incarnation of the scapegoating "united enemy of the church") it developed, post-Nicea, into another "boogey-man" for the Church to frighten the masses with, and then millenium later, the Roman Church itself became "The Antichrist" to many Protestants.

I will tell you, from someone not caught up in all the teleological and ontological gnat-straining, the confusion is almost comical from a certain perspective. Do you realize how many different "truths" have been presented in this very thread alone? To the point that some participants are claiming that others are not "Christian" enough? LOL. A mini-Inquisition.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Do you realize how many different "truths" have been presented in this very thread alone?

My "truth" is the New Testament, and it is pretty specific as to what the antichrist is.
Anything else that someone might think it is, is so much fiction as far as I am concerned.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

The page that you linked to should make it clear that there is an active use of the word Messianic and it is mainly in a Jewish context that excludes the historical Messiah of the Christians, Jesus of Nazareth.

Indeed. It may seem I am splitting hairs here, but the concept of the Hebrew 'Meshiach' is quite different to the Christian concept of the 'Messiah'. While to a Jew the Meshiach is merely a king to the house of David, the Christians see their Messiah as the divine Son of God Savior of mankind or more precisely a divine title of Jesus of Nazareth. The Septuagint LXX translates all occurances of 'Meshiach' &c in the OT into 'Christ', and the Hebro-Greek 'Messias' is used twice in NT in the Gospel of John, and both verses include a written interpretation; 'Christos'.

This is however not as simple as it may seem, since the Christ-concept grew and developed within the Church to such degree that today it is no longer possible to equal Heb. 'Meshiach' to Eng. 'Messiah'. The latter must be seen as a cognate of the former added the semantics of Heb. 'Moshiah' meaning 'Savior'. Like Eng. 'Assasin' no longer means 'a member of the Hashashinites', but more along the lines of 'a sniper', they are related but only remotely.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

It may seem I am splitting hairs here . . .

It's not, and you are right, Christianity redefined the concept of a Messiah.
That jewfaq page spells it out, that Shimeon ben Kosiba fit the mold of what they were wanting, and why they would reject Jesus.

To be brutally honest about my opinion, I think that Jesus was too smart to believe in all the Jewish mythology about how great people like Abraham, David, and Solomon were.
So of course he would not be interested in trying to emulate any of those storybook characters.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

It may seem I am splitting hairs here . . .

It's not, and you are right, Christianity redefined the concept of a Messiah.
That jewfaq page spells it out, that Shimeon ben Kosiba fit the mold of what they were wanting, and why they would reject Jesus.

I don't know who the people behind that page is, but it sums up a few important differencies between the Jewish orthodox view on the King of the Jews. Zionism to some, utter nonsense to others, but the reason to live for yet others, and the foundation of the whole Judaist religion.

To be brutally honest about my opinion, I think that Jesus was too smart to believe in all the Jewish mythology about how great people like Abraham, David, and Solomon were.
So of course he would not be interested in trying to emulate any of those storybook characters.

I wouldn't be so sure. But if anyone would be able to live up to what either religions expect from the guy, to me, he would have to be supernatural and the same bleedin' Son of God I know as Jesus Christ. It's turned out to become a bloody joke. I bet Jesus is laughing at us all, seeing how we try to dictate his will and purpose. The Jewfaq page, claims to be speaking for all Jews in imperatives, and decribes their Meshiach as someone who has to fit into their mold. And everyone wants a piece of him. They're like teenage girls dreaming up lists of requirements for their future husbonds. It's no use. Elvis has left the building.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

I don't know who the people behind that page is, but it sums up a few important differences between the Jewish orthodox view on the King of the Jews.

Like I said in my earlier post, it mentions R. Akib, who ended up being the dominant rabbi of his time, and his support of Shimeon ben Kosiba (the spelling that jewfaq uses).
There is a book, Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther, and the Gospel of John, by John Bowman that presents a good argument that the Gospel of John was actually written to refute the things that Akiba was promoting, including the messiahship of Kosiba.
You noted how the word messiah shows up in John.
Also the antichrist shows up in the Letters of John, which scholars think was written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of John.
The writer does a good job of not mentioning these people by name but I think that this "John" writer could have been in an indirect way warning people not to support Kosiba, by warning how what propels him was a group of people supporting the opposite of what Jesus represented, and were against any belief in him.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

I don't know who the people behind that page is, but it sums up a few important differences between the Jewish orthodox view on the King of the Jews.

Like I said in my earlier post, it mentions R. Akib, who ended up being the dominant rabbi of his time, and his support of Shimeon ben Kosiba (the spelling that jewfaq uses).
There is a book, Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther, and the Gospel of John, by John Bowman that presents a good argument that the Gospel of John was actually written to refute the things that Akiba was promoting, including the messiahship of Kosiba.

This one here? (Amazon link)
Makes sense in away. Maybe I'll give that book a try However that Akiba guy seems to be out of reach time-wise. The books of John are all late first century, while this guy seems to have lived later. But a good example on the vast amount of wannabe messiahs at the time.

You noted how the word messiah shows up in John.
Also the antichrist shows up in the Letters of John, which scholars think was written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of John.

The writer does a good job of not mentioning these people by name but I think that this "John" writer could have been in an indirect way warning people not to support Kosiba, by warning how what propels him was a group of people supporting the opposite of what Jesus represented, and were against any belief in him.

Some say he wrote the Apocalypse too. If true, in total, his authorship is a witness of a poetical evangelist turning more and more paranoid before ending up in a complete hallucinatoric state predicting world's end, kicking it with the angels. To me the books and letters of John gathered is a spark of the divine. If there was one guy I would love to have a post life chat with, it would be this guy. With all the time I have lived with the gears of the Apocalypse turning in my head, I would like a few answers

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

This one here? (Amazon link)
Makes sense in away. Maybe I'll give that book a try However that Akiba guy seems to be out of reach time-wise. The books of John are all late first century, while this guy seems to have lived later. But a good example on the vast amount of wannabe messiahs at the time.

That is a newer paperback re-issue of the book.
The original publishing was in a rather obscure series back in the 60's, but the book has continued to be of interest to biblical scholars and gets quoted in current scholarly publications.
And so why they would reprint the book, but there are still some used copies available from the original printing (which is what I have, that apparently was owned by one of the professor's students who would have bought it as part of a course.)

The dating is part of his argument and why you don't hear about this book being promoted by conservative Christians.
I accept the opinion of some top scholars that the original actual disciple of Jesus, John, is who wrote Revelation (likely the earliest book written in the group of books we today call the New Testament), and not the same person who wrote the Gospel and Letters of John.

As for "giving it a try", I might mention that it is pretty technical in a biblical scholarship kind of way, and the discussion is likely to go over the heads of people who are not already pretty read up in these fields (and maybe even a lot of those people too).

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

. . . that Akiba guy seems to be out of reach time-wise. The books of John are all late first century . . .

If you look at the Wikipedia page for Simon bar Kokhba, it says that he died in 135 CE.
Traditionally, Christians maintain that the Gospel of John was written in the first century, I am guessing for the purpose of claiming the Apostle John of the synoptic gospels fame as its author, even though the gospel itself never claims to have been written by John, and was more likely written by a disciple of Peter.

Under the heading, Third Jewish revolt, it says

Eusebius of Caesaraea wrote that Christians were killed and suffered "all kinds of persecutions" at the hands of Jews during the revolt.[2]
en.wikipedia.org...

where the note 2 is a source reference that takes you to a page called, Texts on Bar Kochba: Eusebius.
In there is the above quote and there is also one by Justin

For in the present war it is only the Christians whom Bar chochebas, the leader of the rebellion of the Jews, commanded to be published severely, if they did not deny Jesus as the Messiah and blaspheme him.
www.livius.org...

I would think that if the Letters of John were written at that same time, that he very well may have had those very people in mind while he was talking about the antichrist.

jmdewey60
...one by Justin

For in the present war it is only the Christians whom Bar chochebas, the leader of the rebellion of the Jews, commanded to be published severely, if they did not deny Jesus as the Messiah and blaspheme him.
www.livius.org...

I would think that if the Letters of John were written at that same time, that he very well may have had those very people in mind while he was talking about the antichrist.

I suppose you may be right, together with the people who claim the Apocalypse was a Midraist campaign decree of some sort directed at the AD 66-70 First Jewish–Roman War, with 666 being code for Nero who seemed to have done everything in his power to fulfill every last part of it, even burning down Rome and have the Christians thrown to the lions and used as "living candles" and what not. You MAY be right. However, I see things in a different light, understanding how some of the signs mentioned couldnot have been fulfilled, like rising an army of 200 million soldiers for instance....

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

I see things in a different light, understanding how some of the signs mentioned could not have been fulfilled, like rising an army of 200 million soldiers for instance....

OK, I looked at that.
I had to look it up and analyse the information on that topic that I could find in a short enough amount of time to make a response.
It looks like that John is using a lot of image evoking literary devices, that were in the general cultural mix of things, to make the point that all the things that are normally thought of as being at the disposal of God for forcing some kind of repentance from a people were tried but to no avail, and that they wouldn't repent and they stubbornly kept to their idolatry (there standing for an incorrect form of worship to who they believe is God).

reply to post by jmdewey60


Also, his descriptions of TV and the Bomb are striking. Next thing I'm waiting for is the sixth siren, the war I mentioned in me last reply, followed by rebuilding of the Temple and the crucifiction of Boaz and Jachin.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

Next thing I'm waiting for is the sixth siren, the war I mentioned in me last reply, followed by rebuilding of the Temple and the crucifiction of Boaz and Jachin.

Like I was saying in my last post, I think that all these things are part of a narrative of how "Babylon has fallen" is not something that just happens without some earlier proddings by the angelic forces to get it to repent.
I think that in our day, "Babylon" has already been judged and we are now in the New Age where things are heading in the right direction because we have a clear view of God and His divine nature which comes through Jesus and his church which is made up of diverse individuals, many being prophets.