-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Anti-Christ Christianity
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Bible tells antichristians are:
Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:22
I Am Hugh
Researcher
What reason do they have for denying them?
but it goes farther
acts 17:28
matthew 6:9
matthew 23:9
denying the son would exclude the known verse of john 1:3 too
the lack of at-one-ment to god in their belief
I Am Hugh
Researcher
So, it's a matter of interpretation rather than a claim of the passages in question being spurious?
oneness, atonement is spiritual/mental and can't be physically separate to an infinite. those who separate themselves in that way are dualist. oneness, atonement can't be realized in a duality
Last edited:
There was no widespread persecution of Christians throughout the empire until the reign of Decius in the third century. However, the politicization of Christianity, a phenomenon occurring even before Constantine in 313 AD, brought both positive and negative complexities to the religion. The churches in Judea, upon seeing Jerusalem surrounded by Roman armies, remembered the words of Jesus: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it" (Luke 21:21-22).
This remembrance elevated Christianity morally in the eyes of the Roman Empire. In response, the Jews accused the churches in Judea of "high treason," a crime that presupposes an obligation of loyalty to the state. As a result, the churches in Judea were systematically weakened internally, while Christianity was strengthened externally throughout the known world. This strengthening is evident in Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan in 112 AD, where he mentions the significant presence of Christians.
Furthermore, Christianity had already spread widely throughout Rome, as mentioned in Romans 1:8 (55 to 57 AD), indicating that the Christian faith was known throughout the Roman world. Being a testimony from the adversaries of the church, it becomes undeniable evidence of recent Christianity.
Sorry, I am not sure what do you mean with this, please explain.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Anti-Christ Christianity
Yes, Pauline-Christianity is the Anti-Christ/Dajjal as it teaches against the deeds and teachings of Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, right, please?
Regards
Yes, Pauline-Christianity is the Anti-Christ/Dajjal as it teaches against the deeds and teachings of Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, right, please?
Regards
1) Words are polysemantic; many meanings have been lost and, when found, often disregarded for benign convenience within the religious system.
2) The fact is that the writers of the Christian Bible ("New Testament") used a Greek text different from our Septuagint:
2a) Were they performing their own translation from Hebrew?
2b) Or were they using a Septuagint, recalling and altering or "improving" it as they progressed?
3) Is Paul misinterpreted in translations? We have seen that in many cases, yes. Jesus, too, is always interpreted unipolarly in a manner convenient to "Christianity." I can provide a glaring example here of a misogynistic, antisemitic, and ignorant translation in the Christian Bible, a pattern followed by nearly all translations on this specific issue I am addressing. So, how can I believe in the Jesus and Paul of this 'Christianity'?
If you want, I can cite the example I mentioned...
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
This is merely a reflection on literature that pertains to the Jewish people, their laws, and customs. I am solely concerned with the logical interpretation of the events involving this Jewish family in the narrative, without making value judgments of faith. This may not be particularly pertinent to you, but I would greatly appreciate your understanding of how this narrative truly unfolds.
The narrative in question describes a crucial moment in the life of Joseph, Mary's fiancé, in the context of Jesus' conception. Joseph, being righteous and observant of the law, upon discovering Mary's pregnancy, initially concludes that the child is the result of a divine male being. As a law-abiding Jew, he feared committing adultery by marrying Mary, believing that the child was fathered by the angel who visited her. Therefore, he decides to leave her secretly, a term that in Greek can also mean "to release from obligation, to set free," as the Jewish betrothal, which lasted twelve months, had legal force.
At this moment, the angel intervenes and clarifies to Joseph that, according to Jewish law, there is no possibility of adultery, because the child was conceived by spirit (feminine in Hebrew and neuter in Greek). In other words, the child was not fathered by the angel who visited Mary. Despite this, many modern translations seem to contradict this narrative, suggesting that Joseph, although righteous and observant of the law according to the Christian Bible, would act without faith in what was promised to his family. However, the narratives indicate that Joseph was aware of the events, as was his kin, who also knew the prophecies (Luke 1:45), and would never act to repudiate, expel, or divorce Mary.
Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son (Mateus 1:18-20)
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly . But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
The narrative in question describes a crucial moment in the life of Joseph, Mary's fiancé, in the context of Jesus' conception. Joseph, being righteous and observant of the law, upon discovering Mary's pregnancy, initially concludes that the child is the result of a divine male being. As a law-abiding Jew, he feared committing adultery by marrying Mary, believing that the child was fathered by the angel who visited her. Therefore, he decides to leave her secretly, a term that in Greek can also mean "to release from obligation, to set free," as the Jewish betrothal, which lasted twelve months, had legal force.
At this moment, the angel intervenes and clarifies to Joseph that, according to Jewish law, there is no possibility of adultery, because the child was conceived by spirit (feminine in Hebrew and neuter in Greek). In other words, the child was not fathered by the angel who visited Mary. Despite this, many modern translations seem to contradict this narrative, suggesting that Joseph, although righteous and observant of the law according to the Christian Bible, would act without faith in what was promised to his family. However, the narratives indicate that Joseph was aware of the events, as was his kin, who also knew the prophecies (Luke 1:45), and would never act to repudiate, expel, or divorce Mary.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Anti-Christ Christianity
Yes, Pauline-Christianity is the Anti-Christ/Dajjal as it teaches against the deeds and teachings of Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, right, please?
Like Yeshua-the truthful Israelite Messiah believed in One G-d but Pauline-Christianity propagates trinity, right, please/
Regards
Yes, Pauline-Christianity is the Anti-Christ/Dajjal as it teaches against the deeds and teachings of Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, right, please?
Like Yeshua-the truthful Israelite Messiah believed in One G-d but Pauline-Christianity propagates trinity, right, please/
Regards
After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the churches in Judea weakened, leading Hellenists living outside Judea to assume a prominent position in the interpretation of Christianity. This says it all..
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
This sounds uncommonly like the good old, "If they have a different interpretation than me, they are satanic, bound for hell, the antichrist, etc."
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The first widespread Roman persecution of Christians is typically considered to have occurred under Emperor Nero in 64 AD. Following the Great Fire of Rome, which devastated much of the city, Nero sought to blame the Christians for the disaster. This led to severe punishments and executions of many Christians in Rome, marking the beginning of more systematic and brutal persecutions in the Roman Empire.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The accusation of high treason specifically was more a tool used by Roman authorities against both Christians and Jews rather than between them.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Whatever persecution of the Christians was committed by the Pharisees and Sadducees, it all ended in 70 CE.
And quite honestly, I would say that it was the destruction of the Temple which was the most destabilizing event. These Nazarenes in Jerusalem considered themselves to be part of Judaism -- they even continued to make sacrifices. The destruction of the Temple not only hit ordinary Jews hard, but would certainly have created a serious challenge to the Nazarenes.
There are many other things that contributed to the weakening of the Nazarenes, but let's just leave it for now with the biggest one.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Actually both views are true, depending on which book you are examining. On many instances, the Septuagint is quoted word for word -- the first century version of copy and paste. This is especially true in Matthew, Luke, and Hebrews. However, it is also true that in other places, such as some of Paul's epistles, that the author did indeed do their own translation from Hebrew into Greek.