The Mark of the Beast

[Ben Masada]

The Mark of the Beast

Christians, especially Protestants, and among them, the Seventh-Day Adventists in particular, enjoy to talk about the mark of the Beast; and with fantastic definitions, that only make a ridiculous picture of themselves. Then, they charge each other with the potential to get the mark of the Beast. They think of almost everything but the real thing, which is given by the NT itself.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist. Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words: Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands against Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it's only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? "God forbid," he said, "that I should glory in anything save in the cross." The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

Now, your comments are welcome.

Ben.

[Amos]

The Mark of the Beast

Christians, especially Protestants, and among them, the Seventh-Day Adventists in particular, enjoy to talk about the mark of the Beast; and with fantastic definitions, that only make a ridiculous picture of themselves. Then, they charge each other with the potential to get the mark of the Beast. They think of almost everything but the real thing, which is given by the NT itself.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist. Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words: Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands against Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

There were already many antichrists in the world during the time of John (1 John 2:18). But people have a good time taking symbolic language from The Revelation that prophesied about events that would happen shortly to those to whom the letter was written, making the language literal and applying it to today or sometime in the future (Revelation 1:1-3). I’ll let them defend their erroneous eschatology.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it's only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.

You need to quote all of Matthew 5:17 and also verse 18: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

The passage says Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. Not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law till all was fulfilled. Jesus finished the work of fulfilling the Law (John 17:4). The Old Law has been superceded by the New Covenant, and Jesus now rules over the Kingdom of God (Galatians 3, Hebrews, Psalm 2, Isaiah 2, Joel 2, Daniel 2, Acts 2). Paul preached the gospel of Christ.

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? "God forbid," he said, "that I should glory in anything save in the cross." The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Shall we cite Old Testament passages to show that there is no God? That would be as honest as what you’ve done here.

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

The Anointed of the Lord is Jesus the Christ (Psalm 2, Acts 13:13-52, Hebrews 1).

[Paul2]

Ben,

Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words: Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands against Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

"Anti" originally meant "instead of". It seems possible that Israel will embrace a false messiah because he will match their idea of what the Messiah should be.

Jn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

Paul did not say the Law was abolished. He said, "nullifying the law of precepts in decrees...". Nullify does not mean abolish. If a precept is abolished, it is invalid in any context. If a precept is nullified, it may still be valid in another context.

The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Paul did not boast in his own achievements but in what God had done through the Messiah on the cross.

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

Isa 45:1 Thus says YHVH Elohim to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I hold fast, to sway over nations before him, and the waists of kings will I unloose, to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be closed.

It's interesting that Orthodox Judaism teaches that the Messiah is to be an individual.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist.

Where?


Paul

[Ben Masada]

The Mark of the Beast

Christians, especially Protestants, and among them, the Seventh-Day Adventists in particular, enjoy to talk about the mark of the Beast; and with fantastic definitions, that only make a ridiculous picture of themselves. Then, they charge each other with the potential to get the mark of the Beast. They think of almost everything but the real thing, which is given by the NT itself.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist. Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words: Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands against Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

There were already many antichrists in the world during the time of John (1 John 2:18).

Ben: I know, that's exactly what the text says. If John, the Apostle wrote that Letter, he meant to say that the antichrists were coming out of "our ranks;" he meant, Jews leaving Judaism. Paul left Judaism. Hence one of the antichrists. Since I doubt that John wrote that Letter, it must have been written by one of Paul's disciples. Either way, Paul is compromised, because "our ranks" means from the ranks of Christianity. Paul founded Christianity.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it's only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.

You need to quote all of Matthew 5:17 and also verse 18: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Ben: And how about verse 19. It should not be quoted? You guys never fail. I am still to see a Christian, who doesn't try to hide verse 19. You guys all know that verse 19 is the key that the Jewish laws remain intact to be observed and fulfilled by the People just like Jesus did. Not a jot of a letter was abolished, according to Jesus. Therefore, Paul was in big trouble, no matter how you guys struggle to untrap him from the spider's web.

The passage says Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. Not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law till all was fulfilled. Jesus finished the work of fulfilling the Law (John 17:4). The Old Law has been superceded by the New Covenant, and Jesus now rules over the Kingdom of God (Galatians 3, Hebrews, Psalm 2, Isaiah 2, Joel 2, Daniel 2, Acts 2). Paul preached the gospel of Christ.

Ben: Yes, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and to make sure we all did the same. Don't forget verse 19. Jesus finished the work of fulfilling for himself when he died. Now, everyone of us must do the same till we also die. Now, that the Jewish laws have been superceded, that's where Paul comes in and get the title of antichrist. The only real New Covenant is the one of Jeremiah 31:31, and it was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and not with Christians. Now, that Jesus rules over the Kingdom of God is Pauline rhetoric from his Christology, because what the Scriptures says is that the one who dies will never again have part in anything that is done under the sun. (Eccle. 9:6)

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? "God forbid," he said, "that I should glory in anything save in the cross." The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Shall we cite Old Testament passages to show that there is no God? That would be as honest as what you’ve done here.

Ben: Would you please? I am all ears. That's what we are here for. Go ahead.

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

The Anointed of the Lord is Jesus the Christ (Psalm 2, Acts 13:13-52, Hebrews)

Ben: Prove it! If you can't find proofs for your statement, you can read Habakkuk 3:13. It says in there that Israel, the People is the anointed of God. Anointed in Greek means Christ. It means that the People is the Christ of God.
[/b]

[Ben Masada]

The Mark of the Beast

Christians, especially Protestants, and among them, the Seventh-Day Adventists in particular, enjoy to talk about the mark of the Beast; and with fantastic definitions, that only make a ridiculous picture of themselves. Then, they charge each other with the potential to get the mark of the Beast. They think of almost everything but the real thing, which is given by the NT itself.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist. Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words: Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands against Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

There were already many antichrists in the world during the time of John (1 John 2:18). But people have a good time taking symbolic language from The Revelation that prophesied about events that would happen shortly to those to whom the letter was written, making the language literal and applying it to today or sometime in the future (Revelation 1:1-3). I’ll let them defend their erroneous eschatology.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it's only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.

You need to quote all of Matthew 5:17 and also verse 18: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

The passage says Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. Not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law till all was fulfilled. Jesus finished the work of fulfilling the Law (John 17:4). The Old Law has been superceded by the New Covenant, and Jesus now rules over the Kingdom of God (Galatians 3, Hebrews, Psalm 2, Isaiah 2, Joel 2, Daniel 2, Acts 2). Paul preached the gospel of Christ.

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? "God forbid," he said, "that I should glory in anything save in the cross." The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Shall we cite Old Testament passages to show that there is no God? That would be as honest as what you’ve done here.

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

The Anointed of the Lord is Jesus the Christ (Psalm 2, Acts 13:13-52, Hebrews 1).

[Ben Masada]

[quote="A 2009 7:34 am Post subject: Re: The Mark of the Beast

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote="Amos"] Ben Masada wrote:
The Mark of the Beast


Quote:
There were already many antichrists in the world during the time of John (1 John 2:18).


Ben: I know, that's exactly what the text says. If John, the Apostle wrote that Letter, he meant to say that the antichrists were coming out of "our ranks;" he meant, Jews leaving Judaism. Paul left Judaism. Hence one of the antichrists. Since I doubt that John wrote that Letter, it must have been written by one of Paul's disciples. Either way, Paul is compromised, because "our ranks" means from the ranks of Christianity. Paul founded Christianity.


Quote:
You need to quote all of Matthew 5:17 and also verse 18: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.


Ben: And how about verse 19. It should not be quoted? You guys never fail. I am still to see a Christian, who doesn't try to hide verse 19. You guys all know that verse 19 is the key that the Jewish laws remain intact to be observed and fulfilled by the People just like Jesus did. Not a jot of a letter was abolished, according to Jesus. Therefore, Paul was in big trouble, no matter how you guys struggle to untrap him from the spider's web.

Quote:
The passage says Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. Not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law till all was fulfilled. Jesus finished the work of fulfilling the Law (John 17:4). The Old Law has been superceded by the New Covenant, and Jesus now rules over the Kingdom of God (Galatians 3, Hebrews, Psalm 2, Isaiah 2, Joel 2, Daniel 2, Acts 2). Paul preached the gospel of Christ.


Ben: Yes, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and to make sure we all did the same. Don't forget verse 19. Jesus finished the work of fulfilling for himself when he died. Now, everyone of us must do the same till we also die. Now, that the Jewish laws have been superceded, that's where Paul comes in and get the title of antichrist. The only real New Covenant is the one of Jeremiah 31:31, and it was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and not with Christians. Now, that Jesus rules over the Kingdom of God is Pauline rhetoric from his Christology, because what the Scriptures says is that the one who dies will never again have part in anything that is done under the sun. (Eccle. 9:6)


Quote:
Shall we cite Old Testament passages to show that there is no God? That would be as honest as what you’ve done here.


Ben: Would you please? I am all ears. That's what we are here for. Go ahead.

Ben Masada wrote:
Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.


Quote:
The Anointed of the Lord is Jesus the Christ (Psalm 2, Acts 13:13-52, Hebrews)


Ben: Prove it! If you can't find proofs for your statement, you can read Habakkuk 3:13. It says in there that Israel, the People is the anointed of God. Anointed in Greek means Christ. It means that the People is the Christ of God.
[/b]
mos"][quote="Ben Masada"]

[Ben Masada]

Ben,

"Anti" originally meant "instead of". It seems possible that Israel will embrace a false messiah because he will match their idea of what the Messiah should be.

Ben: That's the same. Paul put himself in the instead of Jesus to say what he had not said.

Jn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Ben: Jesus spoke on behalf of the People of Judah who is identified as Immanuel in Isaiah 8:8.

Paul did not say the Law was abolished. He said, "nullifying the law of precepts in decrees...". Nullify does not mean abolish. If a precept is abolished, it is invalid in any context. If a precept is nullified, it may still be valid in another context.

Ben: I don't know what kind of Bible version you are reading from because I have here three versions with me and all bring in Ephesians 2:15 that the laws were abolished in his flesh on the cross. Who wrote the Letter to the Ephesians? Did I hear Paul? So, you are right, Paul was the one, and he said, "abolished."

Paul did not boast in his own achievements but in what God had done through the Messiah on the cross.

Ben: Yes, I know. That he abolished the Laws on the cross. But that's not what Jesus did, as he himself declared, he didn't come to abolish. What Paul says doesn't count, if it was against what Jesus said.

It's interesting that Orthodox Judaism teaches that the Messiah is to be an individual.

Ben: Only the ones who still hold the slavish mentality they brought from Egypt. The learnt ones have decided to accept the Prophet Isaiah's definition that the Messiah is Israel the Jewish People.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist.

Where?

Ben: On their hands to mean their actions and activities, and on their foreheads to mean their understanding. That they know what they are doing.

Ben




[/b]

[Amos]

There were already many antichrists in the world during the time of John (1 John 2:18).

I know, that's exactly what the text says. If John, the Apostle wrote that Letter, he meant to say that the antichrists were coming out of "our ranks;" he meant, Jews leaving Judaism. Paul left Judaism. Hence one of the antichrists. Since I doubt that John wrote that Letter, it must have been written by one of Paul's disciples. Either way, Paul is compromised, because "our ranks" means from the ranks of Christianity. Paul founded Christianity.

Says you.

You need to quote all of Matthew 5:17 and also verse 18: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

And how about verse 19. It should not be quoted? You guys never fail. I am still to see a Christian, who doesn't try to hide verse 19. You guys all know that verse 19 is the key that the Jewish laws remain intact to be observed and fulfilled by the People just like Jesus did. Not a jot of a letter was abolished, according to Jesus. Therefore, Paul was in big trouble, no matter how you guys struggle to untrap him from the spider's web.

According to Jesus not a jot or tittle was done away with until the Law was fulfilled. It was fulfilled. It has been done away with. V. 19 doesn’t change that. Until it was fulfilled, they were to continue to keep the Law. That’s what v. 19 means.

The passage says Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. Not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law till all was fulfilled. Jesus finished the work of fulfilling the Law (John 17:4). The Old Law has been superceded by the New Covenant, and Jesus now rules over the Kingdom of God (Galatians 3, Hebrews, Psalm 2, Isaiah 2, Joel 2, Daniel 2, Acts 2). Paul preached the gospel of Christ.

Yes, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and to make sure we all did the same. Don't forget verse 19. Jesus finished the work of fulfilling for himself when he died. Now, everyone of us must do the same till we also die.

Says you.

Now, that the Jewish laws have been superceded, that's where Paul comes in and get the title of antichrist. The only real New Covenant is the one of Jeremiah 31:31, and it was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and not with Christians. Now, that Jesus rules over the Kingdom of God is Pauline rhetoric from his Christology, because what the Scriptures says is that the one who dies will never again have part in anything that is done under the sun. (Eccle. 9:6)

Isaiah and Amos (the minor prophet) disagree with you. And of course the dead don’t have anything to do with what goes on under the sun.

Shall we cite Old Testament passages to show that there is no God? That would be as honest as what you’ve done here.

Would you please? I am all ears. That's what we are here for. Go ahead.

We are not here to handle the scriptures dishonestly, which is what you did with the passage from Galatians. But everybody knows the Psalmist said “there is no God.�

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

The Anointed of the Lord is Jesus the Christ (Psalm 2, Acts 13:13-52, Hebrews).

Prove it! If you can't find proofs for your statement, you can read Habakkuk 3:13. It says in there that Israel, the People is the anointed of God. Anointed in Greek means Christ. It means that the People is the Christ of God.

Read Psalm 2, Acts 13:13-52, the book of Hebrews and Acts 2 for good measure. The NT writers say Jesus is the anointed, and that He is sitting at the right hand of God on the throne of David.

[Paul2]

Ben,

That's the same. Paul put himself in the instead of Jesus to say what he had not said.

No. Paul wrote nullify (katargeO) and not abolish.

Jesus spoke on behalf of the People of Judah who is identified as Immanuel in Isaiah 8:8.

He was speaking TO Judah and not on behalf of Judah. Read the context of the verse. Paul has not been received by Judah.

I don't know what kind of Bible version you are reading from because I have here three versions with me and all bring in Ephesians 2:15 that the laws were abolished in his flesh on the cross. Who wrote the Letter to the Ephesians? Did I hear Paul? So, you are right, Paul was the one, and he said, "abolished."

The law of precepts in decrees is nullified (katargeO) in the context to which Paul referred. It isn't even clear that Paul was referring to the Law under which Israel stood. The Gentiles were given decrees by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem which contained commandments (precepts) to be kept.

Ac 16:4 Now, as they went through the cities, they give over to them the decrees to maintain, which have been decided upon by the apostles and elders who are in Jerusalem.

Romans 3:3 (katargeO underlined)
NIV
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?
NKJV
For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?
NASB
What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?
YLT
for what, if certain were faithless? shall their faithlessness the faithfulness of god make useless?
AMP
What if some did not believe and were without faith? Does their lack of faith and their faithlessness nullify and make ineffective and void the faithfulness of God and His fidelity [to His Word]?

Yes, I know. That he abolished the Laws on the cross. But that's not what Jesus did, as he himself declared, he didn't come to abolish. What Paul says doesn't count, if it was against what Jesus said.

As I've already explained, this is incorrect.

Only the ones who still hold the slavish mentality they brought from Egypt. The learnt ones have decided to accept the Prophet Isaiah's definition that the Messiah is Israel the Jewish People.

Rashi had a slavish mentality? Who are the learned ones to which you refer?

On their hands to mean their actions and activities, and on their foreheads to mean their understanding. That they know what they are doing.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist.

Where in the NT do the words "mark of the Beast" appear in conjunction with the word "Antichrist"?


Paul

[Ben Masada]

According to Jesus not a jot or tittle was done away with until the Law was fulfilled. It was fulfilled. It has been done away with. V. 19 doesn’t change that. Until it was fulfilled, they were to continue to keep the Law. That’s what v. 19 means.

Ben: So, what did Jesus do? If he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets for us, and after him we are to continue keeping the Law, what did he do? It makes no sense; I am sorry.

The passage says Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. Not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law till all was fulfilled. Jesus finished the work of fulfilling the Law (John 17:4). The Old Law has been superceded by the New Covenant, and Jesus now rules over the Kingdom of God (Galatians 3, Hebrews, Psalm 2, Isaiah 2, Joel 2, Daniel 2, Acts 2). Paul preached the gospel of Christ.

Ben: Paul preached his own gospel. The gospel of Jesus was preached by the Nazarenes. Unless we are not talking about the same person.

Would you please? I am all ears. That's what we are here for. Go ahead.

We are not here to handle the scriptures dishonestly, which is what you did with the passage from Galatians. But everybody knows the Psalmist said “there is no God.�

Ben: Nu! Where is the quotation? And you say that "Everybody knows the Psalmist said 'There is no God.'" You have forgotten someone who does not know: Yourself.
Do you know why you cannot quote what you claim? Because you are not alone to claim things without the proper knowledge of what you are talking about. I'll be still waiting for the quotation.

Read Psalm 2, Acts 13:13-52, the book of Hebrews and Acts 2 for good measure. The NT writers say Jesus is the anointed, and that He is sitting at the right hand of God on the throne of David.

Ben: I read Psalm 2. It has nothing to do with Jesus, but according to Habakkuk 3:13, with Israel, the Jewish People. Listen, do you agree that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah? I am sure you do. Take a look at Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. Isaiah mentions the Messiah by name when he identifies that Servant with Israel. Wake up my friend; it's high time to open your eyes to the real truth of the matter.

Ben: [/b]