Was Jesus the Antichrist?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

with the proper mindset.

LOL....

Where can one pick one of those up?

a reply to: windword

There is an objective way of reading ancient documents that looks at the text in relation to how the people of the day would have understood the text.

a reply to: windword

Holy sh*t, I want one too!

To the general discussion here: Seriously though, the word Antichrist was coined in the first century to cover enemies of Jesus' Nazarene movement. To say Jesus is the Antichrist is a bit like saying Donald Duck is a goose. Or an aardvark.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

In my opinion Bible enthusiasts don't read the Bible objectively. Contrarily, I find that most Bible enthusiasts read and twist the Bible with a rather biased and self confirming eye.

The funniest part of all is that the OP tends to believe Jesus was an Antichrist based simply off a name "discrepancy"....

Anyone with that kind of mentality simply hasn't read enough. Jesus says we shall know them by their fruits. If you don't like his words...maybe you'd prefer "Actions speak louder than words."

So again, I ask, did Jesus ACT like an antichrist?

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
The funniest part of all is that the OP tends to believe Jesus was an Antichrist based simply off a name "discrepancy"....

Anyone with that kind of mentality simply hasn't read enough. Jesus says we shall know them by their fruits. If you don't like his words...maybe you'd prefer "Actions speak louder than words."

So again, I ask, did Jesus ACT like an antichrist?

A2D

Technically, all flesh is antichrist, and Jesus was flesh. Ergo, his death. Christ is a spiritual and ethereal entity, (supposedly).

originally posted by: windword
Christ is a spiritual and ethereal entity, (supposedly).

Yes, s u p p o s e d l y . Jesus was a king with no nation, so he created his own funnyland which he coined the Kingdom of God, a sort of mindset where you'd simply love everyone and give away everything you own. For all we know this whole thing was some sort of practical joke that still makes the Jebus grin and point at the Devil who then points at Mary, who points at Gabriel who points at the Devil again, who points at Joseph, who then points at the two other Josephs and a room full of Marys. IF it was a joke, I must admit that it's a good one, and a highly dynamic one that has turned into all sorts of madness.

I've been wondering whether I should perhaps make me own religions. Based on Damns. If you get a Damn, you should keep it forever and don't give it away, ever. And if you ever see anyone who gives a Damn, don't bother telling him he shouldn't give a Damn, he will be forgiven since he doesn't know exactly what he is doing according to some science-people at work. Just remember not to give one yourself. Mostly.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Excellent!

PS: I thought only tinkers could give a dam?

a reply to: windword

I have no idea what a tinker is, but I probably won't give a Damn anyway, but if the tinkers come about giving Damns to everyone, I'll stand up on the barricades and tell the bastards not to. Or probably not, actually, I'll just go and book a flight to some zika-warzone and don't give a bunch of Damns all at once

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
A tinker is a low-level metal-worker, travelling the countryside mending pots and pans. Possibly Irish.
Their curses probably came in such a plentiful flow that they could be regarded as cheap and valueless.

a reply to: Rasalghul

Was Jesus the Antichrist?

In a nut shell, no. As was pointed out, he couldnt be something, then not be it. Illogical.

But what I do see is that the "Christ" is more of a mindset rather than a individual. It has been suggested that Jesus actually was the mindset, spirit, angel, fallen angel (which now I take as Angels who have fallen, into the flesh) of Lucifer. And the auther must forgive me for omitting a link to the thread.

So to me, if the symbol of the christ is the spirit, then lacking the spirit would be the anti.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Hillel ben Shahar is the name of a person, not Lucifer. Lucifer was a Roman deity that wasn't even around or invented in the days of Isaiah. The horrible translation called KJV translates Hillel ben Shahar Lucifer. Christians been lying and accusing him ever since. Hillel ben Shahar was probably an enemy of Isaiah, nothing else.

KJV: Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer (Hillel), son of (ben) the morning (Shahar)!

It's a name complete with surname and all.

It's actually a reference to his former state and glory before his fall from grace...

Hebrew text says הֵילֵל בֶּן-שָׁחַר (Helel ben Shaḥar, "shining one, son of the morning")


en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: UtnapisjtimHalal ben shachar: If you look into it you will find out that Halal means shining one, tauntingly though. ben Shachar means son of Shachar. Shachar is a Canaanite cosmological God representing or being represented by Venus in the AM. He has a twin, Shahar who is venus at night.

Every morning venus looks like it's ascending the heavens but it always gets out shined by the sun.

It's a total metaphor. He is saying this to a king. He has some cajones, he could be killed by the kings soldiers but no one dared touch him because the king knew: This man speaks from God.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Notice how he says "I will be like the Most High (El Elyon) and not Yahweh. I think Isaiah was even written before they came up with Yahweh. If it says Yahweh in it (Isaiah) now, it was probably an edit. It's been suggested that it could be pre-mosaic, not by me, but its been suggested.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
It's actually a reference to his former state and glory before his fall from grace...

Hebrew text says הֵילֵל בֶּן-שָׁחַר (Helel ben Shaḥar, "shining one, son of the morning")


en.m.wikipedia.org...

It's the name of a person, not a god or some devil from the ninth floor down below. It's a n a m e . A p e r s o n .

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

In my opinion Bible enthusiasts don't read the Bible objectively. Contrarily, I find that most Bible enthusiasts read and twist the Bible with a rather biased and self confirming eye.

This is why there are so many versions of (I have 6); and all are wildly different in interpretation (scripture points) to suit the dogma of that particular faith indoctrination.

a reply to: windword

I would say a lot of people ignore an objective reading of the text, and its definitely not just Bible enthusiasts that ignore an objective reading of the text

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

I would say a lot of people ignore an objective reading of the text, and its definitely not just Bible enthusiasts that ignore an objective reading of the text

You mean reasonable? The Bible is metaphoric or poetic; meant to reach many people through as many differing interpretations as possible.

a reply to: Rasalghul
It is not a matter of right or wrong to my understanding. Whatever you respectively call Jesus is understood by Him. The Cepher translators have finished a two or three year study on the Hebrew rendition of the Son of God and has come to the conclusion that the proper Hebrew to English interpretation is "Yahuah." Pronounced in English as Ya hoo ah.

We are looking at Hebrew and Greek transcripts of copies and no one actually has the original autographs to say in certainty the truth in that matter. When I see the many different spellings of Jesus' name I automatically realize what is meant.