Christ vs. Antichrist.

[John D. Brey]

Foremost in importance so far as a discussion of "Christ vs. Antichrist" is concerned, is the fact that the designation "Antichrist" speaks not principally of "opposition" to Christ (though that's definitely the crux of the matter), but "instead" of Christ. Semantically speaking, the prefix "anti" means "instead of." The "Antichrist," and or the "spirit of Antichrist," speaks essentially of an entity mankind will find difficult to distinguish from Christ, such that conflicting opinions often lead to outright theological conflict. In point of fact, much of the back and forth, much of the debate and disagreement found in the crosshairs of the Jewish vs. Christian dialogue, centers around contrasting, even contra-distinctive ("antagonistic" isn't out of place here) visions concerning Christ, such that knowing what's at stake (so to say) makes it perfectly natural to demonize the other Christ and those who worship him.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Foremost in importance so far as a discussion of "Christ vs. Antichrist" is concerned, is the fact that the designation "Antichrist" speaks not principally of "opposition" to Christ (though that's definitely the crux of the matter), but "instead" of Christ. Semantically speaking, the prefix "anti" means "instead of." The "Antichrist," and or the "spirit of Antichrist," speaks essentially of an entity mankind will find difficult to distinguish from Christ, such that conflicting opinions often lead to outright theological conflict. In point of fact, much of the back and forth, much of the debate and disagreement found in the crosshairs of the Jewish vs. Christian dialogue, centers around contrasting, even contra-distinctive ("antagonistic" isn't out of place here) visions concerning Christ, such that knowing what's at stake (so to say) makes it perfectly natural to demonize the other Christ and those who worship him.

The words אין זולתך [there is no other than you], refer to powers, deities, already in existence to whom G'd has assigned various domains within which they appear to reign supreme . . . [but] their rule is not independent of You, i.e., אין זולתך. When it is your will, these powers exercise dominion; when it is Your will, You take this power away from them.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 2, p. 415.​

In the quotation above, Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz (the Shelah) references 2 Samuel 7:23 juxtaposing Israel's savior-God (who redeems them from Egypt) against the gods of the nations set against them. Jeremiah 23:7-8 is paramount concerning where the Shelah goes with this since there the prophet speaks of an eschatological dispensation where another Passover will occur that's so much greater than even the original Passover redemption that Israel will no longer mention the God who rescued them from Egypt, but rather, the God who will bring them out of a dispersion and exile that dwarfs the Egyptian captivity by biblical proportion. The God who rescues Israel from the greatest captivity they will ever know will first defeat an ancillary dominion and power worshiped by the nations who's temporary glory must be taken away prior to Israel's final glorious Passover celebration.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

In the quotation above, Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz (the Shelah) references 2 Samuel 7:23 juxtaposing Israel's savior-God (who redeems them from Egypt) against the gods of the nations set against them. Jeremiah 23:7-8 is paramount in where the Shelah goes with this since there the prophet speaks of an eschatological dispensation where another Passover will occur that's so much greater than even the original Passover redemption that Israel will no longer mention the God who rescued them from Egypt, but rather, the God who will bring them out of a dispersion and exile that dwarfs the Egyptian captivity by biblical proportion. The God who rescues Israel from the greatest captivity they will ever know will first defeat an ancillary dominion and power worshiped by the nations who's temporary glory must be taken away prior to Israel's final glorious Passover celebration.

Situated this way, biblically, and historically, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist sort of theologian to know whom Rabbi Horowitz and his students view as the adjunct deity ---worshiped by the nations --- who must be defeated (whose power must be taken away) prior to the final redemption.

The purpose of the Passover sacrifice is first and foremost to demonstrate G–d's superiority over all other deities both in Heaven and on earth. This is important; G–d had endowed many agents with different powers, and the impression that there were a number of primary sources of power in the universe had to be refuted. The discrediting of the strongest of these forces, the שר של מצרים [lord of Egypt] automatically brought about the discrediting of all other deities. . . The zodiac sign of the lamb is the first of the twelve zodiac signs and represents the senior power to which G–d delegated a variety of such functions. It was this symbol which had to be slaughtered to drive home the point that without the consent of G–d it represented impotence instead of power. Since the Egyptians had made it a symbol of their שר, counterpart in the Celestial Regions, it had to be slaughtered by the Jews.​

​

Shney Luchot Haberit, Torah Shebikhtav, Bo, Torah Ohr 7.​

Nothing fits so perfectly into history and the Shelah's interpretation of the Tanakh than to situate the "slaughter" of the Passover lamb and the redeeming power of its blood (through which Israel is redeemed from Egypt) with the fact that it's a latter-day "lamb" of the "celestial regions," a so-called "lamb-god," who's currently playing the leading role in the exile of the Jews from the holy land. Adding insult to injury, this lamb-god is worshiped among all the nations enslaving Israel subsequent to God's long awaited removal of the power of this lamb of the "celestial regions" just prior to the final redemption of Israel.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.​

​

John 1:29.​

​

For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.​

​

1 Corinthians 5:7.​

John

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see the Antichrist is one how knows the Station of the Messenger and without given authority claim that station for themselves.

In the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, Shoghi Effendi described Siyyid Muḥammad-i-Iṣfahání as the “Antichrist of the Bahá’í Revelation. He was a man of corrupt character and great personal ambition who induced Mírzá Yaḥyá (Baha’u’llah's Half Brother) to oppose Bahá’u’lláh and to claim prophethood for himself.

So the Antichrist, from what I see, is those that appose the Messenger and claim a God given Station for their own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[John D. Brey]

I see the Antichrist is one how knows the Station of the Messenger and without given authority claim that station for themselves.

Is "the Station of the Messenger," lingo directly associated with the revelation of Bahu'u'llah? I'm not familiar with the term.

In the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, Shoghi Effendi described Siyyid Muḥammad-i-Iṣfahání as the “Antichrist of the Bahá’í Revelation. He was a man of corrupt character and great personal ambition who induced Mírzá Yaḥyá (Baha’u’llah's Half Brother) to oppose Bahá’u’lláh and to claim prophethood for himself.

Right. This is something of a universal archetype pitting the Christ against the Antichrist, and vise versa. One is a facade or faux-god while the other is a true kinsman-redeemer and savior.

The truly tremendous nature of the battle between the two is the manner in which one seamlessly imitates the other to such a degree that the Antichrist appears more Christ than Christ. Many of the most religious and god-fearing persons could be, would be, and are, conned, convinced, they're servants of Christ and the God of gods while they're actual servants of the Antichrist. Telling the two apart is not an easy thing, since, as Dylan remarked, Adam's given the devil the reins: because he sinned, I've got no choice, sin runs through my veins.

Someone came. Surely it was God, God . . . or was it the devil? Who can tell them apart? They exchange faces; God sometimes becomes all darkness, the devil all light, and the mind of man is left in the muddle.​

​

Kazantzakis, The Last Temptation of Christ, 15.​

​

Samael is at one and the same time an angel, something holy, and also the source of death, evil. Keeping this in mind, we can understand the statements of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini in Chulin 91a who says that Samael appeared to Jacob as a pagan, whereas Rav Shmuel bar Acha thought that Samael appeared to Jacob in the guise of a Torah scholar. These two views need not conflict with one another . . . Samael appeared like a pagan; considering the holiness that radiates from the angelic aspect of Samael, he appeared like a Torah scholar.​

​

Shney Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayishlach, Torah Ohr, 13-14.​

So the Antichrist, from what I see, is those that appose the Messenger and claim a God given Station for their own selves.

Though I don't dispute that, for the sake of this thread, I see the Antichrist as a power in the "celestial realm" able to fairly easily deceive even the best of us despite not only our best of intentions, but despite immense biblical prowess and knowledge given to us by our fore-bearers and the writers of our scriptures. We simply aren't his match.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

Nothing fits so perfectly into history and the Shelah's interpretation of the Tanakh than to situate the "slaughter" of the Passover lamb and the redeeming power of its blood (through which Israel is redeemed from Egypt) with the fact that it's a latter-day "lamb" of the "celestial regions," a so-called "lamb-god," who's currently playing the leading role in the exile of the Jews from the holy land. Adding insult to injury, this lamb-god is worshiped among all the nations enslaving Israel subsequent to God's long awaited removal of the power of this lamb of the "celestial regions" just prior to the final redemption of Israel.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.​

​

John 1:29.​

​

For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.​

​

1 Corinthians 5:7.​

Despite the vertiginous effect of seeing the seemingly clear-cut parallel between the "slaughter" of the Passover lamb and Israel's redemption, and the awaiting of the final taking away of this lamb of the "celestial regions" power prior to the final redemption of Israel, no less a Jewish exegete than Nachmanides, who might otherwise like to be thought more careful than to enter this thorny fray, concurs with the theologoumenon produced, or rehashed by, the Shelah:

The astrological sign of Aries the ram is, of course, at its greatest strength during Nisan, when it is the rising sign. Slaughtering a lamb demonstrated that we did not leave Egypt by force of astrology, but by divine decree. The argument has even more force according to the understand of our Sages that this constellation was worshiped by the Egyptians, in which case God would have brought low their god at the very height of his ascendancy. The Sages read it this way: "Take a sheep and slaughter the god of the Egyptians."​

​

Nachmanides.​

​

Case closed. The Christ of the Christians is the Antichrist, the "lamb-god" of the "celestial regions," whose two-time claim to fame is the enslavement of the nation of Israel, and whose demise, slaughter, will bring about, as in the past, so too in the future, the final redemption of Israel.



John

 

[muhammad_isa]

Though I don't dispute that, for the sake of this thread, I see the Antichrist as a power in the "celestial realm" able to fairly easily deceive even the best of us despite not only our best of intentions, but despite immense biblical prowess and knowledge given to us by our fore-bearers and the writers of our scriptures. We simply aren't his match.

Mmm .. it's all an illusion.

The world is led to believe that the G7 (Seven heads and ten horns), who are the victors in the WW's and have Christian roots, are the best moral authority that world possesses.
..but this is a trap .. satan is having greater and greater control over their deeds, and it is becoming
more about wealth and power than anything else, and Revelation explains what is going to happen
eventually.
eg. Armageddon, and the return of Jesus, Son of Mary

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Is "the Station of the Messenger," lingo directly associated with the revelation of Bahu'u'llah? I'm not familiar with the term

One can just say "Station of Christ". This one Annointed of God is the Authority and one who is rebellious to that Authority is the Anti Christ.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Right. This is something of a universal archetype pitting the Christ against the Antichrist, and vise versa. One is a facade or faux-god while the other is a true kinsman-redeemer and savior.

The truly tremendous nature of the battle between the two is the manner in which one seamlessly imitates the other to such a degree that the Antichrist appears more Christ than Christ. Many of the most religious and god-fearing persons could be, would be, and are, conned, convinced, they're servants of Christ and the God of gods while they're actual servants of the Antichrist. Telling the two apart is not an easy thing, since, as Dylan remarked, Adam's given the devil the reins: because he sinned, I've got no choice, sin runs through my veins.

I think it is the nature of God's Message and the Matrix we are born into.

Would not these verses indicate that In God making good known unto us, all that is not good then becomes relative.

Isaiah 45:[7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. [8] Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.

Good is the God given animating potential, all that is not good becomes a slide into the opposite, which is evil.

Light the animating force of life, then take away the light and we eventually get into total absent of light, darkness.

I see you are correct, many thinking that they walk in the light, could actually be walking in darkness.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Though I don't dispute that, for the sake of this thread, I see the Antichrist as a power in the "celestial realm" able to fairly easily deceive even the best of us despite not only our best of intentions, but despite immense biblical prowess and knowledge given to us by our fore-bearers and the writers of our scriptures. We simply aren't his match.

I have taken the view that there is no independent source of evil. We are the Good, or we are the evil. The human spirit is part of us all, so when one is sick, all suffer in some small way. When the body of humanity is sick, when a majority chooses what is not God given Good morals and values, then that is the age we now live in.

Again, a lot are not aware they are tending towards the baser side of our capacity for good.

Regards Tony

 

[John D. Brey]

I have taken the view that there is no independent source of evil. We are the Good, or we are the evil. The human spirit is part of us all, so when one is sick, all suffer in some small way. When the body of humanity is sick, when a majority chooses what is not God given Good morals and values, then that is the age we now live in. . . Again, a lot are not aware they are tending towards the baser side of our capacity for good.

I think it's logically, philosophically, and theologically, problematic to say there's no independent source of evil. I would say the fallen flesh of sinful man is the source for his evil, while the divine spirit is the source for his good. His volition has access to the two, and decides whether he will follow the flesh, or the spirit.

Although there are strains of Gnosticism that perhaps go too far, it's undeniable that orthodox Christianity, if it doesn't fully demonize the flesh, nevertheless refuses to sanctify the flesh ala orthodox Judaism.

For instance, whereas Judaism considers holy matrimony, i.e., marriage, a divine good, so that marital sex is actually a mitzvah, a good deed, Christianity recognizes an actual flaw in the very nature of the male and female flesh that makes sex, though necessary, nevertheless, a necessary evil, since the human body is broken and deformed in its fallen state; the clearest example of this broken and fallen state actually manifesting itself (ala the signature below this message) in the nature of phallic-bonding itself.

In this light it could be said that every man battles the antichrist that is his flesh, and succeeds, only when he comes to realize that there's no good in him, no good deed, that comes from his natural inclinations, moral or otherwise, but that only when his flesh is truly subjected to the divine spirit is the Christ manifest through his thoughts and actions. Everyone participates in the battle between Christ and Antichrist in that respect.



John

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think it's logically, philosophically, and theologically, problematic to say there's no independent source of evil. I would say the fallen flesh of sinful man is the source for his evil, while the divine spirit is the source for his good. His volition has access to the two, and decides whether he will follow the flesh, or the spirit.

Although there are strains of Gnosticism that perhaps go too far, it's undeniable that orthodox Christianity, if it doesn't fully demonize the flesh, nevertheless refuses to sanctify the flesh ala orthodox Judaism.

For instance, whereas Judaism considers holy matrimony, i.e., marriage, a divine good, so that marital sex is actually a mitzvah, a good deed, Christianity recognizes an actual flaw in the very nature of the male and female flesh that makes sex, though necessary, nevertheless, a necessary evil, since the human body is broken and deformed in its fallen state; the clearest example of this broken and fallen state actually manifesting itself (ala the signature below this message) in the nature of phallic-bonding itself.

In this light it could be said that every man battles the antichrist that is his flesh, and succeeds, only when he comes to realize that there's no good in him, no good deed, that comes from his natural inclinations, moral or otherwise, but that only when his flesh is truly subjected to the divine spirit is the Christ manifest through his thoughts and actions. Everyone participates in the battle between Christ and Antichrist in that respect.



John

I offer my understanding, from what I have read in the Baha'i Writings as well, so that is why we will respond to this with seeming differences, we both have different frames of references.

I like it that no person is wrong, working h from their frames of reference. I see Christ was given by God, as to enable us the possibility of unlimited frames of references.

Regards Tony

 

[John D. Brey]

I offer my understanding, from what I have read in the Baha'i Writings as well, so that is why we will respond to this with seeming differences, we both have different frames of references.

I like it that no person is wrong, working h from their frames of reference. I see Christ was given by God, as to enable us the possibility of unlimited frames of references.

. . . I like it that from my personal perspective all persons are wrong who have an improper frame of reference (although I agree that they're correct so far as an improper frame of reference is the criterion for their correctness).

To be unabashedly forthcoming, without the intention to offend anyone, what I consider one of the hallmarks of the spirit of antichrist is the attempted elimination of a transcendental-signifier which makes it possible to determine, in an absolute sense, right from wrong, true from false, specificity from relativity. Within this framework, it's perhaps fitting that once again, Judaism and Christianity are on opposite poles.

Just as earlier it was pointed out that Judaism makes phallic-sex (properly undertaken) a mitzvah, reflecting a sort summum bonum of divine reality such that if nothing is done incorrectly, phallic-sex reflects God's perfect will for man (whereas even the most sanctified sex is broken and a necessary evil in orthodox Christian thought since in Christianity, contra-Judaism, the human body is broken and sinful from start to finish), so too here, Judaism entertains a relativistic hermeneutic and exegetical stance concerning scripture that doesn't seek a transcendental centering mechanism where one root is the source for every symbol or idea, such that every symbol, ritual, or mitzvot, can be drawn back to, and more fully understood by means of that root. Jewish exegesis is absolutely relativistic so far as it denies an absolute centering-mechanism.

Ironically, the decree of the red heifer (parah adumah) is understood by many great Jewish sages to in fact be a Jewish transcendental-signifier acting, for Judaism, as Christ acts for Christianity, as a root, from which all else derives its meaning, i.e., the ultimate centering-mechanims. So it's peculiar and strange that the Jewish sages teach that no one knows (or can know, it's utterly relativistic) the meaning of the transcendental-siginfier of Judaism, the decree of the red heifer, until it's revealed by Messiah.

The irony in this is that Christians consider Christ (Messiah) the transcendental-signifier Judaism relates to the decree of the red heifer such that for Christianity, Christ revealed that he is the red heifer, therein fulfilling one of the requirements for Judaism to come to share the Christian transcendental-signifier of Christ (i.e., knowledge that Christ/Messiah is the red heifer). Unfortunately, in the very decree of the red heifer, its taught that its blood will make the pure impure, and the impure pure, which is to say the knowledge of Christ will be withheld, by Christ, from the priestly crowd (Judaism) while his blood will make the ungodly goyim pure, knowledgeable about spiritual things.

Using this as a frame of reference, any ideology or thought-world that seeks, defends, relativity (we can't really know), is the spirit of antichrist, while all thought brought into submission to a singular root, and the branch growing out of it, is the spirit of Christ.




John

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Using this as a frame of reference, any ideology or thought-world that seeks, defends, relativity (we can't really know), is the spirit of antichrist, while all thought brought into submission to a singular root, and the branch growing out of it, is the spirit of Christ.

I would offer that is the purpose of Faith, that is to be one in mind, with God, which is one with Christ, the Holy Spirit, the process of being born again.

The Quandary faced John, is truth is relative to our nature and nurture and our choice as to the possible source/sources of the Holy Spirit.

Was there but one "Annointed One" that requires submission of our mind for is to know and love God, or are there many Names of God that are all appointed sources?

I am if the latter choice, yet they are all One with God and in mind we become one.

It's the old elephant metephor, do we see the whole elephant, or only the trunk!

Regards Tony

 

[John D. Brey]

I would offer that is the purpose of Faith, that is to be one in mind, with God, which is one with Christ, the Holy Spirit, the process of being born again.

The Quandary faced John, is truth is relative to our nature and nurture and our choice as to the possible source/sources of the Holy Spirit.

Was there but one "Annointed One" that requires submission of our mind for is to know and love God, or are there many Names of God that are all appointed sources?

I am if the latter choice, yet they are all One with God and in mind we become one.

It's the old elephant metephor, do we see the whole elephant, or only the trunk!

In my opinion, our disagreement is healthy. But it's also real.

For me the spirit of antichrist is precisely the idea that there are many Christs, many avenues to God. -----While there are many prophets, many quasi-righteous men, many wise men, there's only One Christ. And while the wisdom and relative truth of the many prophets who deny the singular Christ stand up to time well, that is, their words have an outer varnish of truth, and wisdom, that's hard to deny, nevertheless, in the end, I suspect even great men of wisdom and truth, philosophy and religion, will, if they deny the singular Christ, be revealed as servants of the spirit of antichrist.

Perhaps being under duress to the spirit of antichrist is a defense? Perhaps because of that duress righteous service to the spirit antichrist will be transmuted into righteousness by a gracious God? I don't know? That's above my pay grade.



John

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In this light it could be said that every man battles the antichrist that is his flesh, and succeeds, only when he comes to realize that there's no good in him, no good deed, that comes from his natural inclinations, moral or otherwise, but that only when his flesh is truly subjected to the divine spirit is the Christ manifest through his thoughts and actions. Everyone participates in the battle between Christ and Antichrist in that respect.

I see that is 100% correct John. That is indeed the battle.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Though I don't dispute that, for the sake of this thread, I see the Antichrist as a power in the "celestial realm" able to fairly easily deceive even the best of us despite not only our best of intentions, but despite immense biblical prowess and knowledge given to us by our fore-bearers and the writers of our scriptures. We simply aren't his match.

For me the spirit of antichrist is precisely the idea that there are many Christs, many avenues to God. -----While there are many prophets, many quasi-righteous men, many wise men, there's only One Christ. And while the wisdom and relative truth of the many prophets who deny the singular Christ stand up to time well, that is, their words have an outer varnish of truth, and wisdom, that's hard to deny, nevertheless, in the end, I suspect even great men of wisdom and truth, philosophy and religion, will, if they deny the singular Christ, be revealed as servants of the spirit of antichrist.

I see the quandary that is faced, is in these two quotes John, first noting this

I don't know? That's above my pay grade.

You have no way of knowing if the deception is from your given frame of reference.

I also see it is healthy to share these thoughts, all can help us, if we are opening our heart to God, that we may pray, "God's Will be done on earth, as it is in heaven and not the domination of our own will".

Regards Tony

 

[Elihoenai]

Foremost in importance so far as a discussion of "Christ vs. Antichrist" is concerned, is the fact that the designation "Antichrist" speaks not principally of "opposition" to Christ (though that's definitely the crux of the matter), but "instead" of Christ. Semantically speaking, the prefix "anti" means "instead of." The "Antichrist," and or the "spirit of Antichrist," speaks essentially of an entity mankind will find difficult to distinguish from Christ, such that conflicting opinions often lead to outright theological conflict. In point of fact, much of the back and forth, much of the debate and disagreement found in the crosshairs of the Jewish vs. Christian dialogue, centers around contrasting, even contra-distinctive ("antagonistic" isn't out of place here) visions concerning Christ, such that knowing what's at stake (so to say) makes it perfectly natural to demonize the other Christ and those who worship him.



John

Matthew 12:33

33 `Either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad, for from the fruit is the tree known.


There is the Good Christ/Anointing and Evil Christ/Anointing. Depending on the Anointing the Other is the Opposing Antichrist.

Fury Ending Credits

 

[John D. Brey]

The astrological sign of Aries the ram is, of course, at its greatest strength during Nisan, when it is the rising sign. Slaughtering a lamb demonstrated that we did not leave Egypt by force of astrology, but by divine decree. The argument has even more force according to the understand of our Sages that this constellation was worshiped by the Egyptians, in which case God would have brought low their god at the very height of his ascendancy. The Sages read it this way: "Take a sheep and slaughter the god of the Egyptians."​

​

Nachmanides.​

​

Case closed. The Christ of the Christians is the Antichrist, the "lamb-god" of the "celestial regions," whose two-time claim to fame is the enslavement of the nation of Israel, and whose demise, slaughter, will bring about, as in the past, so too in the future, the final redemption of Israel.

Samael's effectiveness in our world is through his nation which dominates Israel in exile due to its sins. . . I have explained in פרשת חיי שרה that Samael has roots in the higher emanations. . . Samael is at one and the same time an angel, something holy, and also the source of death, evil. . . I have explained the word סם-אל [samael] as being composed of סם, poison, something harmful and of א-ל, something godly, i.e. good and wholesome. We can divide the expression מלאך המות, angel of death, similarly. The מות, i.e. death part of the expression is something negative, whereas the מלאך, i.e. angel part of the word is something good, positive. The good is mixed in with the bad.​

​

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayishlach, Torah Ohr 13 & 67. ​

Samael is the angel of the nation and or nations who dominate Israel due to its sins. Read this way, Samael is the lord or angelic prince of Egypt associated with the "lamb" (Aries) such that when Nachmanides says, "Take a sheep and slaughter the god of the Egyptians," he's correctly interpreted to be speaking of ritually slaughtering Samael (or the symbol of Samael, i.e., the Paschal lamb) since the Shelah is quite clear that Samael is the angel that dominates Israel.

The discrediting of the strongest of these forces, the שר של מצרים [lord of Egypt] automatically brought about the discrediting of all other deities. . . The zodiac sign of the lamb is the first of the twelve zodiac signs and represents the senior power to which G–d delegated a variety of such functions. It was this symbol which had to be slaughtered to drive home the point that without the consent of G–d it represented impotence instead of power. Since the Egyptians had made it a symbol of their שר [lord], counterpart in the Celestial Regions, it had to be slaughtered by the Jews.​

​

Shney Luchot Haberit, Torah Shebikhtav, Bo, Torah Ohr 7.​

​

​

​

​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

The discrediting of the strongest of these forces, the שר של מצרים [lord of Egypt] automatically brought about the discrediting of all other deities. . . The zodiac sign of the lamb is the first of the twelve zodiac signs and represents the senior power to which G–d delegated a variety of such functions. It was this symbol which had to be slaughtered to drive home the point that without the consent of G–d it represented impotence instead of power. Since the Egyptians had made it a symbol of their שר [lord], counterpart in the Celestial Regions, it had to be slaughtered by the Jews.​

​

Shney Luchot Haberit, Torah Shebikhtav, Bo, Torah Ohr 7.​

Drawing the parallel between Samael and the Paschal lamb is fortuitous in a number of ways that lend themself to this examination. For one, we know that the writers of the Talmud, et.al., explain that two parallel bloods were placed on the doorposts on Passover: the blood of the Paschal lamb, i.e., Samael, and the blood of the uncircumcised limb (brit milah). According to the Jewish texts, these two bloods were placed on the doorposts on Passover such that in light of the current investigation the blood of the lamb, Samael, is equally represented by the blood of the uncircumcised limb, the phallus prior to its being ritually slaughtered to represent the same thing as the slaughter of the Paschal lamb.



John