The Mark of the Beast

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:58 am

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.

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Mon May 18, 2009 11:05 pm

kayky wrote:Kayky:
When Paul says that Jesus "fulfilled" the law, he is not talking about doing away with the law. Jesus--symbolically both God and man--unites the spiritual with the physical. When this occurs, the person is so transformed that they no longer need a written code to know how to live righteously. Such a person does it automatically.
Ben Masada:
Kayky, you are getting things confused to yourself. Paul never said that Jesus fulfilled the Law. If you know something that I don't, at least, quote where you read that Paul said that Jesus fulfilled the Law. Paul said that the Law ended with his Christ. Read Romans 10:4. Paul said that the Law was abolished on the cross. Read Ephesians 2:15. He never said that Jesus fulfilled the Law.
Am I the one who is confused? It doesn't matter if you use the term fulfilled or ended, the theological concept is the same. You do not understand Paul. That is why I left a portion of my previous post to explain Paul's true meaning. You seemed to ignore this the first time around.

I know that Paul considered himself the apostle of the Gentiles. That was all right the kind of character he was: To say what he was and to behave otherwise. Since the synagogues in Damascus (Acts 9:2) and until his last station in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace, as if Gentiles were to be found in the synagogues of the Jews. (Acts 28:17)[/b]
Just what "kind of character" do you think he was? Most educated Christians believe Acts to be a late-dated fictional account. Compared to other early Apostles (such as James), Paul spent very little time in Jerusalem. Perhaps your resentment is directed at the wrong Apostle?

The hypocrite kind of charater who loves to say what he is and behaves otherwise.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Tue May 19, 2009 2:14 pm

If you say so. But that's quite a judgment to make about someone whose life we know little about.

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Sat May 23, 2009 3:14 am

kayky wrote:If you say so. But that's quite a judgment to make about someone whose life we know little about.

We know enough from the book of Acts and his Letters to the churches. Believe me we do.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat May 23, 2009 8:20 am

Ben Masada wrote:
kayky wrote:If you say so. But that's quite a judgment to make about someone whose life we know little about.

We know enough from the book of Acts and his Letters to the churches. Believe me we do.

True, we know enough that either Paul was not telling the truth or thta Acts is a idealized history and a pious fiction.
We know that Paul was not above doing anything to win people over as he was a Jew to Jews and Gentile to Gentiles.
We know Peter and others withdrew from him.
We also know his was not the only gospel and that he claims to have received it from Christ or God and not from the human Jesus or his disciples.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Sat May 23, 2009 9:59 am

kayky wrote:If you say so. But that's quite a judgment to make about someone whose life we know little about.

Ben Masada:

We know enough from the book of Acts and his Letters to the churches. Believe me we do.

All we know of Paul comes from his epistles, but not all of the epistles attributed to Paul in the New Testament were actually written by him. Do you know which are which?

The book of Acts is pure fiction and was written by someone who did not personally know any of the characters involved. It cannot be taken seriously as a historical source.

So, perhaps, you do not know as much as you seem to think you know...

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Tue May 26, 2009 2:58 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:
Ben Masada wrote:
kayky wrote:If you say so. But that's quite a judgment to make about someone whose life we know little about.

We know enough from the book of Acts and his Letters to the churches. Believe me we do.
True, we know enough that either Paul was not telling the truth or thta Acts is a idealized history and a pious fiction.
We know that Paul was not above doing anything to win people over as he was a Jew to Jews and Gentile to Gentiles.
We know Peter and others withdrew from him.
We also know his was not the only gospel and that he claims to have received it from Christ or God and not from the human Jesus or his disciples.

Or both. Barnabas did not follow the example of Peter and others. As he was sent to Antioch to take the leadership of the Nazarene Synagogue, instead of doing what had been told, he went to Tarsus after Paul, and the move caused the loss of the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch to Paul, who turned it into a Christian church. (Acts 11:26)

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:01 pm

kayky wrote:
kayky wrote:If you say so. But that's quite a judgment to make about someone whose life we know little about.

Ben Masada:
We know enough from the book of Acts and his Letters to the churches. Believe me we do.
All we know of Paul comes from his epistles, but not all of the epistles attributed to Paul in the New Testament were actually written by him. Do you know which are which?

The book of Acts is pure fiction and was written by someone who did not personally know any of the characters involved. It cannot be taken seriously as a historical source.

So, perhaps, you do not know as much as you seem to think you know...

We never know enough. Knowledge is endless. So, what is hitorical in the NT? And I thought that only the book of Acts was.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:03 pm

The New Testament has the same level of historiocity as the Old Testament.

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Fri May 29, 2009 10:32 am

kayky wrote:The New Testament has the same level of historiocity as the Old Testament.

]Now I am surprised and disappointed that someone with the avatar of a sage would let go such a statement that the NT historicity is considered at the same level with the Tanach. Unless you have never read the Tanach.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Fri May 29, 2009 10:57 am

I'm surprised that you're surprised.