It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jewish Messiah will Be the Anti-Christ

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
all religions are fake. All religions are manmade manipulations of events.

There are however also facts behind the mythological inventions of mankind known as the group activity of religion and dogma.

If you go back to the ancent history, way way back, you can view how all mythology and religion stems from one source event.

You have also to look at the views of something to see if it is truth of manmade delusion.

Christianity vision of heaven: "Peaceful place where people grow and learn"... (true enough)

Islam vision of heaven: "Place were you'll be given Xnumber of "virgins" as wives". (horny mankind nature invisionment)




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn B.
He said that, but did he say that we'd know what his words were? How can we be sure we know what his exact words were?


Are you serious? Let's deduce this logically.

1) There were too many eyewitnesses still alive when the Gospels were written (three of them were even written by original eye witnesses) and would have exposed them as fakes. This was done many times- anytime someone tried to squeeze in a fake document, they were exposed as impostors.

2) It would make no sense for Matthew and Mark (where this prophecy is found) to twist it around- just say it like it is, guys.

3) The agreement of the Gospels, New Testament Epistles, and early Christian authors and eye witnesses not included in the Bible.

4) The authors of these Gospels (as well as the other apostles with the exception of John and Judas) died defending their accounts- which would have been insane if they had all been lying. No one would die for what they knew was a lie.

5) It would be illogical for a warning to be issued then purposely twisted into something totally opposite. Remember, they thought it was fully possible for Jesus to return in their lifetimes. If the warning was something else, they would be giving that warning- not the exact opposite.

Some people seem to forget Jesus did not preach to a few dozen people. He ministered to TENS OF THOUSANDS and appeared to HUNDREDS after His resurrection. There are simply too many people who testify to the actual events, gave their lives declaring it was true (the apostles, early church fathers and laymen Christians), etc. It borders on the ridiculous to claim these teachings were not the original (especially when documented in the first and second centuries as being authentic by extrabiblical witnesses) and is just about as ridiculous as the argument to claim Jesus never existed.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD


1) There were too many eyewitnesses still alive when the Gospels were written (three of them were even written by original eye witnesses) and would have exposed them as fakes. This was done many times- anytime someone tried to squeeze in a fake document, they were exposed as impostors.


None were alive when a bible was made. The people who exposed them as "fakes" were rulers of the country at that time, those people not that long before were using christians as lights in there courtyard. Neither me or you can prove that the "fakes" were the ones who were really exposing the fakes.





2) It would make no sense for Matthew and Mark (where this prophecy is found) to twist it around- just say it like it is, guys.


I'm not saying that it is incorrect, but that we can't prove what we're reading is his words.




4) The authors of these Gospels (as well as the other apostles with the exception of John and Judas) died defending their accounts- which would have been insane if they had all been lying. No one would die for what they knew was a lie.


Peter died because the Romans accused him of killing Simon Magnus. They died defending their accounts, but dissagreed with eachother on the accounts which is most likely why they contradict and leave things out that others have.


5) It would be illogical for a warning to be issued then purposely twisted into something totally opposite. Remember, they thought it was fully possible for Jesus to return in their lifetimes. If the warning was something else, they would be giving that warning- not the exact opposite.


I'm not saying that the warning isn't true, but that we don't know if we're reading what he taught.


Some people seem to forget Jesus did not preach to a few dozen people. He ministered to TENS OF THOUSANDS and appeared to HUNDREDS after His resurrection. There are simply too many people who testify to the actual events, gave their lives declaring it was true (the apostles, early church fathers and laymen Christians), etc. It borders on the ridiculous to claim these teachings were not the original (especially when documented in the first and second centuries as being authentic by extrabiblical witnesses) and is just about as ridiculous as the argument to claim Jesus never existed.



No, I know he preached to a lot, but I know that a lot including his own disciples dissgreed and forgot a lot of his teachings, not to mention they weren't alive when the bible was made. There were tons of different sects of christians for hundreds of years, then the government forced them together and now there's tons of different sects again.


[edit on 14-1-2008 by Shawn B.]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn B.
None were alive when a bible was made.


You might want to look into some history -especially the first and second century church fathers, apologists, historians, and other early eye witnesses. Many were still alive to write the books they were known to have written before they were killed. Kind of off topic but some early extrabiblical authors even referenced historical records now lost to us that refer to Jesus' birth in the Roman records, his great nephews testifying to His life and ministry, and other extrabiblical characters who had been healed by Jesus who still survived into the early 2nd century and confirmed His ministry, Messiahship, and teachings.


The people who exposed them as "fakes" were rulers of the country at that time


I can think of at least three Bible passages off the top of my . that refute false doctrines and writings being passed around. Many were "nipped at the bud" before ever reaching the councils. Many 1st and 2nd century historians and church fathers as well.


I'm not saying that it is incorrect, but that we can't prove what we're reading is his words.


We can be skeptical if we wish. Unless we have a time machine and can go back with a video recorder we can't prove any figure in antiquity actually existed, wrote what they wrote, said what they said, or did what they did. But we can rationally believe the records. It's fashionable to accept anything and everything but to scrutinize Christianity to death with all sorts of wild conspiracy theories. As for me, I believe. As for everyone else, it's all a personal choice.


Peter died because the Romans accused him of killing Simon Magnus. They died defending their accounts, but dissagreed with eachother on the accounts which is most likely why they contradict and leave things out that others have.


Where are you getting this from? I've never read anything that said he was crucified for killing Simon. The early historians I've read are unanimous that he was crucified for his testimony. This is an honest question- I've never heard this accusation.


No, I know he preached to a lot, but I know that a lot including his own disciples dissgreed and forgot a lot of his teachings...


It's not that they forgot, they just didn't record every little thing Jesus did or said. What is the purpose of the Bible and the Gospels? Salvation. What is the message that got across? Salvation. Even John in the last few verses of his Gospel admits Jesus did more than was written and that "the books would fill the whole world if we recorded all of His works."


not to mention they weren't alive when the bible was made.


I agree that not all of the apostles were alive when the New Testament was written as many were killed for their faith. Therefore, they never wrote any books. On the other hand, those who were able to did write some books before they were killed or died.


There were tons of different sects of christians for hundreds of years, then the government forced them together and now there's tons of different sects again.


heheh This is true! And humorously enough, the E.C.M. is trying to squish them all back together again in our time as well!

[edit on 1/14/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Wrong. I believe a anti-christ is not associated in any way shape nor form of a person, character of Jesus Christ. Christ was self objective meek in purpose, a anti-christ would be made from other external massive foundry. I don't know how to word this quite right to get the point across but like, to make illness hgappen, to make famine, to make sickly, to make to die, to stomp on religion, to smash a belief in a second, to change the direction of history from good to evil, to found evil as a religion (not cult - belief in more than one God) while (Occult is belief that there are acting forces not a God), to guide the youth into exile without punishment, to drag society into a whole uproar againt itself. Things which would be relative to what a anti-christ would be, and yet have no power such that would be like Jesus Christ if a comparison can be made then its nothing that mankind has done thus far or likely to accomplish. What it leads to is nations with childless parental control, no one fears evil as its presence is upon them 100% of their life.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I have the answer!

Actually, no I don't, but I did run across this the other day and it seemed interesting. This thread made me think of it...

video.google.ca...

Could Prince William be the next anti-christ?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Hi/

Prince Charles or his children wont be the Antichrist!


Antichrist........Anti in Greek/in place of/instead of/the opposite of
Christ....In Greek/Xristos/Χριστός (Christós), which literally means "The Anointed One/Hebrew Word is Mašía literally translates Messiah.
If we look at the Human side of Jesus Christ and all that He did and taught then...so the Antichrist will try and do the same, but on a bigger scale.
The Antichrist with the help of his false prophet and helpers will do bigger miracles(false and misleading on a grand scale)
The Antichrist will only fool those that WANT such miracles performed and their wishes will be granted(only for a little time)
Jesus Christ said He was not From this World......The Antichrist will want to build his kingdom here on earth.

"And in the latter times of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up." (Daniel 8:23)

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders...." (2 Thessalonians 2:9)




1. In the prophecies of Patriarch Jacob about each of his sons becoming the progenitors of the tribes of Israel, the fate of Dan's ancestors is depicted in such a way that can only be ascribed to the Antichrist.
"Dan shall be a serpent on the way, an adder in the path..." (Genesis 49, 17)
2. In the prophecies of Ierenim: "From Dan himself...(Ierenim VIII,16)
3. In the prophecies of the Apocalypse, enumerating the remainder of all the tribes of Israel, marked by the Angel for salvation, the tribe of Dan is absolutely excluded. (Revelations VII, 4-8).

According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the devil, exalting the Antichrist, will try to vest his coming with all the signs of the coming of the Son of God to earth. (See St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the 150th catechistic word; St. Ephrem the Syrian, the 39th word, in the Russian translation Blessed Theodore, "A Short Exposition of Divine Dogma", Chapter 23, St. Ippolit, "The Legends of Christ and the Antichrist")



helen



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
First and foremost I wish to say hello to everyone here! First time posting on AboveTopSecret.

I think this a great discussion topic. I have spent many of years studying end-time prophecy and given much thought about who the antichrist could possibly be...

While 2nd Thessalonians clearly tells us that the antichrist will be revealed after the rapture, it is still interesting to speculate! Being Jewish would certainly help the antichrist to win over the Israelis. After all he will announce that he is the messiah in the rebuilt temple.

1. Could he come from Europe? Possibly... If he does, I would think he would be of Jewish ancestory.

2. Will this false messiah try to claim fulfillment of the Old Testament Prophicies that characterize the messiah, maybe. Even claim a lineage to David?

3. Could it be the 12th imam, very possible? I can post some very convincing data on that next time if your interested!

I do know that many people worldwide will follow the antichrist which tells me that he will be as slick as a used car salesman, very well liked, and appears to be perfect in every way.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn B.
Since Jews didn't accept Jesus as the messiah does anyone else think the messiah that the Jews will say/think is the messiah, Christians will say is the Anti-Christ? Could the second coming of Jesus and Anti-Christ thing just be there to misdirect people from the real Jewish Messiah?

That is correct. That's how Church Fathers teached, and even more: Antichrist will be from tribe of Dan. If you want that explained, say.

I see that many Protestant sects accept that teaching of Church Fathers of Orthodox Church [I don't know teach of RCC about this].


Now I see that Helen explained it:
reply to post by helen670
 

Well done.


Even Muslims teach the same [that Antichrist will be a Jew], except they think Jesus Christ come back and will lead Muslims in last battle [somehow like that].



Originally posted by Shawn B.
Do Jews even keep track of the living bloodline of David now?

You'd think they would since they say the Messiah will come from it.

As I said it will be from the tribe of Dan.



Originally posted by MurderCityDevil
reply to post by Shawn B.
 


it lists all 12 tirbes of isreal well excpet daniel's


4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

Well, well, there is NO tribe of Dan.


[edit on 15-1-2008 by Vojvoda]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn B.
Do Jews even keep track of the living bloodline of David now?

You'd think they would since they say the Messiah will come from it.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Shawn B.]

Yes, knowing personal heritage is important to Judaism.

Also on the AC, it may not even be a man...

My thought provoker on the subject here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 15-1-2008 by smans]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:07 AM
link   
The word Anti –Christ is in fact referring to Anti-Christos, which mean Anti Messiah.
The early Roman Christian church was very cleaver in the sense where in promulgating this kind of dogma they close the door of any future Messiah from any religion. This look like a Machiavellic power of all prediction, therefore only the Christ can return hence the second coming.
Anti-Christ don’t mean Anti-Jesus!
Because Jesus was not refer as Christ when he was teaching.

Kacou.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn B.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Some think this is how it will happen with the counterfeit Jesus. Or that the corrupt church will merge with Islam to make one big fake religion that everyone is forced to worship or face death.




Well, how do you know both aren't fake religions? Seems like both only got to where they are by massive bloodshed and fear.


What a saddening thread. The believe systems are virtual mindgames. Is a strategy played out by control freaks. As long as people keep THINKING about who is the new quarterback and who is the opposing team, the games go on.

Please stop thinking about it and it will disappear and you will be free of it. You all are Christ and Anti-christ and God and whatever.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pjotr
Please stop thinking about it and it will disappear and you will be free of it. You all are Christ and Anti-christ and God and whatever.


Nonsense. Who goes into a thread to do nothing but tell those participating in a thread to stop thinking about the subject matter? If you have no interest in a topic, then stay out of the topic. If Shawn and I want to discuss something civilly (as is our privilege as members) then we will.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
ah it must be divine providence, because I can post again.


The Jewish Messiah is Jesus, the Jews just don't know that yet, because he hasn't made the second coming yet. When he does, how can they deny him?


But if they do deny him at that point, well then, we will see..



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
There is this descritpion in Daniel 11:37-38 in regard to the Anti-Christ:

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

At the same time, I am always mindful of Revelation 20:4

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were BEHEADED for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their fore.s, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Note BEHEADING and comparing that type of execution to the Muslims.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey

At the same time, I am always mindful of Revelation 20:4

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were BEHEADED for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their fore.s, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Note BEHEADING and comparing that type of execution to the Muslims.


You are spot on. When I read that part as a child, I thought, man, these guys .. these forces of the beast are going to be some mean guys, cutting off peoples .s and all. Then I grew up and saw my childhood nightmares play out on television, hostage videos! islamic insurgents! be.ings for islam! all this crap .. and that is just one of many things that helped ME connect the dots from Revelation.

In Daniel it says he will worship the God of Force, a God his Father's did not know. Would anyone like to elaborate their opinion on this line?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by runetang
 


You wrote:
“In Daniel it says he will worship the God of Force, a God his Father's did not know. Would anyone like to elaborate their opinion on this line?”

My interpretation of this is that the Anti-Christ will worship a God that he’s father didn’t worship therefore if the Anti-Christ is a Muslim figure then he will not worship Allah but most probably a new concept of god. He could well be atheist but for sure it will be something very new for the masses.
My opinion of course!

Kacou



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Shawn B.
 


Hi Shawn.

I have read some of the other replies to your thread and most are reasonable and well thought out. I would like to give you my thoughts as well, from a very narrow (biblical/scriptural) perspective. Your thread is so relevant, but I am not sure if everyone gets that.

Here is the gist of it: Yes, the "Anti-Christ" will be Jewish. Many people consider the bible to be mysterious and hard to understand but God never intended it to be that way. He wants us to understand. If you read Daniel 11.36-37, we see that the ruler in the end time shall not regard the God of his fathers nor any god. By saying this in this way, Daniel points out that this man has a heritage of a relationship to God, the God of his fathers, the Jewish God, but he will reject that relationship in his personal life. It must also be noted that the religious Jew is still waiting for their messiah and in order for a man to qualify for this position he must be able to trace his lineage to the house of David (which Jesus did, but that is another matter). For the Jewish people to accept this man as their messiah, he must be of Jewish descent and in particular of the lineage of David. Daniel gives a good description of the relationship this man will have with the Jews and the world in general and his making and breaking of the peace treaty, etc. I could give you a rather lengthy study concerning these things, but space here will not permit. I encourage you to study Daniel and Revelation together, maybe find a study group in your area, if you are truly interested in knowing more. Good hunting, I wish you well.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Shawn B.
 


Jews didn't accept Jesus as the messiah does anyone think the messiah that the Jews will say/think is the messiah, Christians will say is the Anti-Christ? Could the second coming of Jesus and Anti-Christ thing just be there to misdirect people from the real Jewish Messiah?


The Maccabees were a Jewish national liberation movement that fought for and won independence from Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Mattathias the Hasmonean was a rural Jewish priest who sparked the revolt against the Seleucid empire. The Maccabees founded the Hasmonean royal dynasty and established Jewish independence in the Land of Israel for about one hundred years, from 164 BCE to 63 BCE.

The term Maccabees as used to describe the Judean army is taken from its actual use as the surname of Judah who was the son of Mattathias. The full story of the Maccabees can be found in the Catholic Bible in the deuterocanonical books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees.

This period of Jewish independence ended in 63 BCE when the Romans conquered the entire area that includes what was to come to be called Palestine. That land lying west of the Mediterranean Sea, running to the Jordan River, south of modern day Beirut (Lebanon) and north of today’s Negev Desert and the Gaza Strip.

The second but short lived era of Jewish independence came with the First Jewish Revolt which ran from 66 CE (AD) to 70 CE (AD) excepting the last holdouts on Masada which was overrun in 73 CE (AD). This Revolt is reported in detail in the writings of Jewish turncoat, Flavius Josephus. The Revolt began in 66 CE, and is generally blamed on Greek and Jewish religious tensions. It ended in 70 CE when 3 Roman legions under Titus besieged and destroyed Jerusalem, looted and burned Herod's Temple.

The Romans overpowered the last Jewish stronghold at Masada in 73 CE. Rome had already enslaved or massacred a large part of the Jewish population. I take it as significant that no one on the Jewish side mentioned Jesus. This non-recognition is taken by some to raise the issue whether the Jesus of the New Testament ever existed. Note: references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus are now regaled as spurious. That is, added later, probably in the 3rd or 4th century CE (AD).

The LAST Jewish Revolt against Rome. Known as the Simon Bar Kokhba Revolt. The outbreak took the Romans by surprise. It is generally referred to as the Second Jewish Revolt. Note: a few sources call Bar Kokhba’s “The Third Revolt” counting as number 2 the nearly continuous riots of 115 - 117 the Kitos War. The Bar Kokhba Revolt was the second MAJOR rebellion by the Jews of Iudaea. It also turned out to be the last of the Jewish-Roman Wars.

Early in 132 CE (AD) the Jewish sage and Rabbi Akiva convinced the Sanhedrin to support the impending revolt. He and others regarded the chosen commander Simon Bar Kokhba to be the Jewish Messiah. It was claimed Simon met the traditional requirements for the long hoped for Messiah. According to the Star Prophecy verse from Numbers 24:17: "There shall come a star out of Jacob" ("Bar Kokhba" means "son of a star" in the Aramaic language).

A sovereign Jewish state was restored for two and a half years that followed. The functional public administration was .ed by Simon Bar Kokhba, who took the title “Nasi Israel” (ruler or prince of Israel). The "Era of the redemption of Israel" was announced, contracts were signed and coins were minted in large quantity in silver and copper with corresponding inscriptions.

According to Roman historian, Cassius Dio, when the Bar Kokhba Revolt was ended, 580,000 Jews had been killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages had been razed. The Jewish Talmud however, claims a death toll in the millions. The latter figure is unlikely, because there were simply not that many Jews in the region. The Romans suffered great losses as well. Note: until recently it had been believed that attempts were made to restore the Temple in Jerusalem, but the evidence - letters written in Jerusalem and dated to the revolutionary era - has turned out to belong to the revolt of 66 - 70 and not to the 132 - 135 Bar Kokhba era. Note: numbers were not understood to be exact as today, but a large number meant "a lot" of whatever it was used to describe. Not to be taken literally.

Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah.
Once more it is of considerable noteworthiness that NO ONE mentioned the name of Jesus in the 132-135 CE (AD) Revolt. This glaring omission reinforces the claim by some writers that Jesus was not a real person, but an assemblage - a montage - of stories about the many rebellious Jewish itinerant preachers ("preacher" is a legitimate translation of the term “prophet”) who roamed the hinterlands of Judea. John the Baptist. The Essenes of Qumran’s Dead Sea scrolls fame. Instead, the people living there then called Bar Kokhba the Messiah. I don’t know where you can get stronger evidence than that. There is no messiah.

CONCLUSION.
Emperor Hadrian attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of continuous rebellions. In an attempt to erase any memory of Judea, he wiped the name off the map and replaced it with Syria Palaestina, after the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Jews. Arabs now living there are referred to as Palestinians. Dates are from Wikipedia.

[edit on 1/15/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Here again we have the kind of non-productive and divisive talk that religion naturally produces. We are all people. Not all jews are the same. Not all Muslims are the same. Not all Christians are the same, etc, etc, etc. Religions should be dumped in favour of an individualized spirituality. Finding god and discovering the secrets of the universe is a lifelong process with statrs inside us and ands inside us. Let go of the Anti-Christ nonsense. There is only you and your own spirtuality.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join