AntiChrist confirmed by Rabbi: Baraq U Vamah, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 14-8-2009 @ 03:04 PM by ChemBreather
So, this must be some kind of an wierd coincidence ??
Yes, ive seen alot of Debunks of it, and it tries too hard to explain why it is wrong for it not to feel like disinfo..

Here is an site, it is all about Opinions in my opinion..
It is like potato and potata....

The Aramaic Blogg
Luke 10:18:
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning falling from the heavens.

"These words are written in Greek and translated to English; however, Jesus spoke these words originally in Aramaic, which is the most ancient form of Hebrew.

As you know, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. If a modern Jewish Rabbi were to speak these words of Jesus today, he would speak them in Hebrew, much the same way that Jesus would have spoken them."

Mistaken Claim: Aramaic is not the most ancient form of Hebrew. Since Hebrew is a Canaanite language, the most ancient form of Hebrew would be Proto-Canaanite. Jesus spoke Old Galilean Aramaic, which is part of the Aramaic language family. Eventually the Canaanite and Aramaic language families date back to Proto-Semitic, but that is certainly beyond the scope of this claim. The two are very different languages.


"So in Hebrew Jesus said that he saw Satan falling 'as lightning from the heights' or 'from the heavens.'

So what are the words for 'lightning' and 'heights' or 'heavens' in Hebrew?

From the Strong's Hebrew Dictionary word #1299: A primitive root-word meaning 'to lighten' or 'lightning' or 'to cast forth' -- the word is "BARAQ".

In the Strong's Hebrew Dictionary word #1300: 'lightning' or by analogy 'a gleam, a flashing sword, or a brightness or a glittering' -- the Hebrew word is "Baw-Rawk"

So 'lightning' or 'a flash of light' in Hebrew is pronounced "ba-rak" or "baw-rawk"

If these people cant even deside what language it is in, how can either part claim to be right ??


Rabbi Dan Ehrenkrantz, president of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, in Wyncote, Pa inadvertently confirms the work of both of ppsimons fims - JESUS GAVE US THE NAME OF THE ANTICHRIST and UPDATED JESUS GAVE US THE NAME OF THE ANTICHRIST. Now...you can see the proof from an expert HERE! Enjoy.



reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 03:26 PM by breakingdradles
reply to post by mopusvindictus



LOL WUT?

Only 2% of America is Jewish.

I hang out with many Jews each day and I know that they and their parents are staunch republicans!

[edit on 14-8-2009 by breakingdradles]



reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 04:11 PM by Dean Goldberry
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012



Yup. I'd go with billions easily, including most Christ stains... I mean Christians. The proof is in "civilization" as we know it.


reply posted on 14-8-2009 @ 04:22 PM by chiron613
Aramaic is *NOT* the most ancient version of Hebrew. It is much more recent than Hebrew. What Jesus spoke would have been Aramaic, the language that ancient Hebrew morphed into over the millennia. It is similar to Hebrew in many ways, but its grammar and vocabulary is also significantly different. What Jesus spoke was not Hebrew. The only exception *might* have been when he was quoting text from the Old Testament, but even then it is likely he'd have said it in Aramaic so that the people around him would be sure to understand.

Speakers of Aramaic didn't understand Hebrew, which is why the Old Testament was translated into Aramaic for these people. They could read it in their native tongue (Aramaic), which they couldn't do with the Hebrew text (which was written with the same script).

Barak Obama's first name means "Blessed" in Arabic, as well as in other Semitic languages (in Hebrew, for example, it would be "Baruch").

In Semitic languages in general, the vowels are not written. That means that you have to figure out the sounds of the vowels from the context of the word. Barak's name would be written "BRK". To complicate matters, the final 'k' sound can be written in two different ways. Depending on which letter was used, the meaning of the word would change.

This whole Anti-Christ thing has been taken out of context, omitting all the other signs of the Anti-Christ. Do you think that Barak is going to convince anyone that he's the Second Coming of Jesus? Do you think anyone is likely to actually *worship* Barak?

Mention of the Anti-Christ occurs in the Epistles of John, not in Luke. The whole prophecy about the Beast, etc., occurs in the Book of Revelation. This whole nonsense is the basis of shoddy scholarship and completely erroneous assumptions. It's crap.


reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 05:19 PM by kleah
reply to post by Dean Goldberry



Is it really necessarry to lump all christians together and make a totally stupid comment to look like you know what you are talking about....Think before you type or better yet keep it to yourself
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



The Strange Sounds, The Dogon, Sirius B and The Bullroarer.
  Posted 18 days ago with 63 member flags
The Mahdi does not negotiate. Neither should we
  Posted 5 days ago with 10 member flags
When Video Games Predict The Future.
  Posted 19 days ago with 8 member flags
HEADS UP! Prediction in "The Conspiracy Theory" movie: 4/23/12
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags
Prophecies of Rasputin
  Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags
Hopi-Tibetan Prophecy
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Sky sounds = "World Wide Sounding of Ram Horn"?
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags