Christ vs. Antichrist.

[John D. Brey]

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.

Thought of this way, these symbols open multiple avenues of profound exegetical insight since not only do the writers of the Talmud, et.al., claim that these two bloods were placed on the doorposts on Passover, but Jewish midrashim in general claims that the blood of the Paschal lamb represents the blood of Abraham's circumcision. And since the blood of Abraham's circumcision is paralleled with the Akedah throughout Jewish midrashim, therefore in some manner, the death of Samael (the death of the angel of death) is being directly related to the death of the Jewish firstborn (the Akedah)? When both bloods (lamb and limb), are placed on the doorposts to represent the slaughter of Samael, the death of the angel of death, it's difficult not to acknowledge that where these parallels are taken to heart, circumcision represents both the sacrifice of the Jewish firstborn, as well as, simultaneously, the death of the angel of death.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Thought of this way, these symbols open multiple avenues of profound exegetical insight since not only do the writers of the Talmud, et.al., claim that these two bloods were placed on the doorposts on Passover, but Jewish midrashim in general claims that the blood of the Paschal lamb represents the blood of Abraham's circumcision. And since the blood of Abraham's circumcision is paralleled with the Akedah throughout Jewish midrashim, therefore in some manner, the death of Samael (the death of the angel of death) is being directly related to the death of the Jewish firstborn (the Akedah)? When both bloods (lamb and limb), are placed on the doorposts to represent the slaughter of Samael, the death of the angel of death, it's difficult not to acknowledge that where these parallels are taken to heart, circumcision represents both the death of the Jewish firstborn, as well as, simultaneously, the death of the angel of death.

In his own rather brilliant theologoumenon concerning these things, the Shelah teaches that in order for Isaac to be a fitting human korban, that is, the first person sacrificed while still alive, Isaac must be conceived perfect, without "the evil smelling drop," and must remain sinless up until the time he's actually sacrificed.

Not only does this present a perfect theological analogy, since Abraham ritually slaughters the phallus (representing Samael) prior to the conception and birth of Isaac (intimating the perfection of Isaac's conception by means of the lack of the "evil smelling drop," the "poison" סם of Samael), but, since Samael represents the angel of death, whose poison סם contaminates all natural (uncircumcised) conceptions and births, Isaac's conception and birth isn't contaminated by the poison סם of Samael, who has been ritually slaughtered (Abraham's ritual circumcision) prior to Isaac's conception and birth, such that since Samael (the angel of death) has been ritually slaughtered, ritually speaking, he won't be there to affect the effect that is the "death" of the first human korban sacrifice at the Akedah.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Not only does this present a perfect theological analogy, since Abraham ritually slaughters the phallus (representing Samael) prior to the conception and birth of Isaac (intimating the perfection of Isaac's conception by means of the lack of the "evil smelling drop," the "poison" סם of Samael), but, since Samael represents the angel of death, whose poison סם contaminates all natural (uncircumcised) conceptions and births, Isaac's conception and birth isn't contaminated by the poison סם of Samael, who has been ritually slaughtered (Abraham's ritual circumcision) prior to Isaac's conception and birth, such that since Samael (the angel of death) has been ritually slaughtered, ritually speaking, he won't be there to affect the effect that is the "death" of the first human korban sacrifice at the Akedah.

This paralleling of Abraham's circumcision with the Passover implies that the blood on the doorposts at Passover situate the nation of Israel as a corporate version of Isaac (a nation conceived after the ritual slaughter of the Paschal limb/lamb, i.e., Samael) such that the nation of Israel qualifies to be sacrificed as a sanctified corporate korban offering since this nation ---like Isaac ---is conceived without Samael's willing and passionate approval; ritually speaking Samael is slaughtered prior to the birth of the nation (i.e., the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb). In this sense, we should be primed to expect the corporate Akedah we in fact get. Which is to say that just as Isaac was sacrificed forty years after Abraham's circumcision (which --Abraham's circumcision ---parallels Israel's Passover), so too, a latter-day lamb is slaughtered at Passover almost exactly the same forty years prior to the corporate Akedah history records occurring on Tisha B'Av 70 AD.


John

 

[Yokefellow]

...in order for Isaac to be a fitting human korban, that is, the first person sacrificed while still alive, Isaac must be conceived perfect, without "the evil smelling drop," and must remain sinless up until the time he's actually sacrificed.

One day folks will understand that, not only does the Bible teach reincarnation, but it is highly likely that Jesus himself experienced reincarnation at least seven times...

Psalms 12:6
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

• The Word is Jesus.
• The 'Furnace of Earth' is the Womb.

Was Isaac an incarnation of Jesus? I believe the evidence is there...

John 8:56
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

Rejoicing is what parents do when their child is born.

Who is the Manchild that Sarah is giving birth to?

Revelation 12:5
"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

The Woman is Sarah, the Child is Isaac, yet the Child is Jesus. Put two and two together.

Look at King David. Obviously, another incarnation.

 

[Yokefellow]

Melchizedek is another clue...

Hebrews 7:17
"For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

It is not Melchisedec that is important, it is the Order he belongs to that is important.

It is like saying "The corporation that Joe works for." It is not Joe that is important, it is the corporation.

Melchisedec works for the corporation of the Kingdom of God. He is literally a Born-Again Christian in the Old Testament!

Imagine that. Christians in the Old Testament, right there in front of everyone's faces...

And what happened after Abraham was blessed?

Hebrews 7:1
"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him."

Melchisedec was like an Old Testament John the Baptist. After the blessing, the 'Star Seed' descended into the loins of Abraham as Isaac...

Genesis 15:1
"After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward."

Genesis 15:4
"And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir."

There you go. The Melchisedec Blessing and the Star Seed are related to each other.

What Melchisedec did to Abraham was similar to the message Gabriel had to Mary...

Luke 1:31
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."

Instead of a woman becoming pregnant, it was a man. Not in Abraham's belly of course, but his loins.

Abraham carried children in his testicles...

Hebrews 7:10 (New Living Translation)
"For although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him."

Abraham had a 'bun in the oven'... lol!

 

[John D. Brey]

This paralleling of Abraham's circumcision with the Passover could imply that the bloods on the doorposts at Passover situate the nation of Israel as a corporate version of Isaac (a nation conceived after the ritual slaughter of the Paschal limb/lamb, i.e., Samael) such that the nation of Israel qualifies to be sacrificed as a sanctified corporate korban offering since this nation ---like Isaac ---is conceived without Samael's participation and approval. Ritually speaking Samael is slaughtered prior to the birth of the nation (i.e., the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb). In this sense, we should be primed to expect the corporate Akedah we in fact get. Which is to say that just as Isaac was sacrificed forty years after Abraham's circumcision, so too, a latter-day lamb is slaughtered at Passover almost exactly the same forty years prior to the corporate Akedah that history records as occurring on Tisha B'Av 70 AD.

There's more to this concept than initially meets the eye since Abraham's circumcision is the foundation for the conception and birth not just of Isaac, but of the Jewish people too, who, as a corporate entity, are represented by the nation of Israel. Where it's recognized that Abraham's circumcision is a ritual precursor and parallel to the Akedah, i.e., the sacrifice of the original ראשית firstborn בכור, this sacrificial motif undeniably transfers from Isaac, as the ראשית בכור (original firstborn), to the nation of Israel as the ראשית בכור, the original firstborn of nation of God. What's good for the singular "original firstborn" ראשית בכור is good for the nation. The nation of Israel must endure its own corporate Akedah (Tisha B'Av 70 AD) to fulfill the founding motif of Abraham's circumcision and the sacrifice of Isaac.

For all these reasons the first-born, which is ראשית [origin, original], is more like G'd who is the quintessence of all ראשית. On earth no first-born is a true ראשית [origin, original], since every first-born was sired by a father and born by a mother who both preceded him. It follows that only God can be a true ראשית. . . Having shown that the בכור, first-born, does contain an element of ראשית within himself, at least vis-a-vis those who are born after him, we are to select the בכור to perform the service to G'd which will bring us closer to Him. This service represents a rapprochement between man and G'd, after G'd had withdrawn from man for most of history since Adam was expelled from גן עדן.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 2, p. 452-453.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

One day folks will understand that, not only does the Bible teach reincarnation, but it is highly likely that Jesus himself experienced reincarnation at least seven times...

Psalms 12:6
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

• The Word is Jesus.
• The 'Furnace of Earth' is the Womb.

Was Isaac an incarnation of Jesus? I believe the evidence is there...

John 8:56
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

Rejoicing is what parents do when their child is born.

Who is the Manchild that Sarah is giving birth to?

Revelation 12:5
"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

The Woman is Sarah, the Child is Isaac, yet the Child is Jesus. Put two and two together.

Look at King David. Obviously, another incarnation.

I feel like the eis, in your eisegesis, is going to guarantee your argument ends up a cold-case. You may in the end be correct, but there just doesn't seem to be enough DNA evidence in the text to support your prosecution of the case.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

There's more to this concept than initially meets the eye since Abraham's circumcision is the foundation for the conception and birth not just of Isaac, but of the Jewish people too, who, as a corporate entity, are represented by the nation of Israel. Where it's recognized that Abraham's circumcision is a ritual precursor and parallel to the Akedah, i.e., the sacrifice of the original ראשית firstborn בכור, this sacrificial motif undeniably transfers from Isaac, as the ראשית בכור (original firstborn), to the nation of Israel as the ראשית בכור, the original firstborn of nation of God. What's good for the singular "original firstborn" ראשית בכור is good for the nation. The nation of Israel must endure its own corporate Akedah (Tisha B'Av 70 AD) to fulfill the founding motif of Abraham's circumcision and the sacrifice of Isaac.

For all these reasons the first-born, which is ראשית [origin, original], is more like G'd who is the quintessence of all ראשית. On earth no first-born is a true ראשית [origin, original], since every first-born was sired by a father and born by a mother who both preceded him. It follows that only God can be a true ראשית. . . Having shown that the בכור, first-born, does contain an element of ראשית within himself, at least vis-a-vis those who are born after him, we are to select the בכור to perform the service to G'd which will bring us closer to Him. This service represents a rapprochement between man and G'd, after G'd had withdrawn from man for most of history since Adam was expelled from גן עדן.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 2, p. 452-453.​

The Shelah has much more to say on this topic that's germane to this examination. But his statement above segues seamlessly into the narrative of the original ראשית firstborn בכור of the human race.

And Eve said: I have gotten the man of the Lord. From this statement another reason my be gathered why Eve did not call Cain a son [as she did her later offspring], namely, that because of her excessive joy and reverence she was unwilling to call him son but had something greater in mind about him, as though Cain would be the man who would crush the head of the serpent. For this reason she does not simply call him a man, but the "man of the Lord," of whom the Lord God had promised (Gen. 3:15): "Your Seed will crush the head of the serpent."​

​

Luther, Genesis 4:1.​

Eve was aware that the "serpent" was one of the intermediate powers of the celestial region whom the Shelah relates to Samael. So the promise of one who will crush the head of this angelic serpent, who happens to be the original bringer of death, relays to Eve the idea that the conquering power from the seed of the woman will himself be from the celestial regions such that she thinks of this one greater than the serpent as a divine-Christ (a messianic son of God) rather than the firstborn of her and Adam who the scripture presents as Seth.

Although this was a false hope, it nevertheless is clear that Eve was a saintly woman and that she believed the promise concerning the future salvation through the blessed Seed. And because she believes, she is so happy about her son and speaks of him in such grand terms: "I have gotten the man of God who will conduct himself more properly and with greater good fortune than my Adam and I conducted ourselves in Paradise. For this reason I do not call him my son, but he is the man of God who was promised and provided by God.". . Her extreme trust in the promise causes Eve to reach a hasty conclusion, and she believes that her son is the one about whom the Lord had given His promise.​

​

Ibid.​

In the literal Hebrew, Eve claims that her first son is the "son of the Lord," or the "Lord himself." The sages in Midrash Rabbah Bereshis admit as much and claim that for that reason the text mustn't be read literally.

WITH THE HELP OF (ETH) THE LORD. R. Ishmael asked R. Akiba: “Since you have served Nahum of Gimzo for twenty-two years, [and he taught], Every ak and rak is a limitation, while every eth [את] and gam is an extension, tell me what is the purpose of the eth [את] written here [Gen. 4:1]? ‘If it said, “I have gotten a man the Lord,” he replied, “it would have been difficult [to interpret (since Cain became a murderer . . .)]; hence ETH [with the help of] THE LORD is required.”​

​

Midrash Rabbah Bereshis, XXII, 2-4.​

Midrash Rabbah Bereshis points out that literally speaking, Eve thinks she's birthed a messianic-Christ from the celestial regions. Sadly, her belief that Cain is Christ turns into the nightmare that in fact he's the precursor of the antichrist such that when the scripture speaks of the time of the offerings that will be brought by Cain and Abel, the literal Hebrew calls it "the end of days" which is a Hebraism for "the days of Messiah." Keil and Delitzsch's commentary points out that the literal Hebrew is "the end of days" which is known as a term for the messianic-age, while Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's, The Living Torah, translates Genesis 4:3, "An era ended," and footnotes the literal Hebrew this way:

An era ended. Literally, "It was the end of days." It's significant that this same expression is used to denote the Messianic era, when the present era will end.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Midrash Rabbah Bereshis points out that literally speaking, Eve thinks she's birthed a messianic-Christ from the celestial regions. Sadly, her belief that Cain is Christ turns into the nightmare that in fact he's the precursor of the antichrist such that when the scripture speaks of the time of the offerings that will be brought by Cain and Abel, the literal Hebrew calls it "the end of days" which is a Hebraism for "the days of Messiah." Keil and Delitzsch's commentary points out that the literal Hebrew is "the end of days" which is known as a term for the messianic-age, while Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's, The Living Torah, translates Genesis 4:3, "An era ended," and footnotes the literal Hebrew this way:

An era ended. Literally, "It was the end of days." It's significant that this same expression is used to denote the Messianic era, when the present era will end.​

Eve's belief that the original ראשית firstborn בכור (Cain as it were) is "the Lord," has an eerie semblance to the Shelah's comments on the original ראשית firstborn בכור as noted above:

For all these reasons the first-born, which is ראשית [origin, original], is more like G'd who is the quintessence of all ראשית. On earth no first-born is a true ראשית [origin, original], since every first-born was sired by a father and born by a mother who both preceded him. It follows that only God can be a true ראשית.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 2, p. 452-453.​

Eve births the firstborn whom the Shelah claims is more like God, God being the quintessence of ראשית (originality). The Shelah says on earth no firstborn is a true ראשית (origin or original) since every firstborn is sired by a father and born by a mother who preseeded him. But Eve's case is different. She has reason to believe she's the clone of Adam before the descration of his body as that desecration occurs in Genesis 2:21. As such, she's like Adam before the descecration. Which is to say her body is created prior to the "breath of life" (the messianic-firstborn) being breathed into her mouth apart from the serpent's seed entering the middle of her garden, tearing the veil on entry, and leaving a mark, so to say, of the crime; a mark like the one left on Adam's body, i.e., the penile-raphe (that's the closing-up סגר of the body that was originally like Eve's prior to the creation of the newfangled bodily gender, male, formed when the labial flesh is sutured shut by the angelic surgeon).

Which is all to say that Eve actually has reason, by the Shelah's own words, to say what she says about her firstborn בכור ראשית being the messianic-Christ. Worse, at least from the perspective of orthodox Judaism, is the fact that in Eve's mind, as in the reasoning presented above, this messianic-Christ is more than just an angel from the celestial regions, in that he's the very breath of life given by God through which the entire human race lives and abides. Eve seems to know things hidden in the Torah-text but having been orally related to her by Adam of God.

. . Having shown that the בכור, first-born, does contain an element of ראשית within himself, at least vis-a-vis those who are born after him, we are to select the בכור to perform the service to G'd which will bring us closer to Him. This service represents a rapprochement between man and G'd, after G'd had withdrawn from man for most of history since Adam was expelled from גן עדן.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 2, p. 452-453.​

This "rapproachement between man and God," affected though the bekor-re**** בכור ראשית (the original firstborn), is, as the Shelah knows quite well, a priestly function, which segues perfectly from Eve's thinking Cain is Christ the Lord, to the narrative of the priestly offering that follows the birth of Cain and Abel.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

. . Having shown that the בכור, first-born, does contain an element of ראשית within himself, at least vis-a-vis those who are born after him, we are to select the בכור to perform the service to G'd which will bring us closer to Him. This service represents a rapprochement between man and G'd, after G'd had withdrawn from man for most of history since Adam was expelled from גן עדן.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 2, p. 452-453.​

This "rapproachement between man and God," affected though the bekor-re**** בכור ראשית (the original firstborn), is, as the Shelah knows quite well, a priestly function, which segues perfectly from Eve's thinking Cain is Christ the Lord, to the narrative of the priestly offering that follows the birth of Cain and Abel.

Remember that if Adam had not sinned the whole concept of areas that are sanctified and areas that are not would not have existed. The whole earth would have been like גן עדן [the garden of Eden], and every place on earth would have enjoyed the status of sanctity. . . There similarly would not have been people specially selected to perform the service in the Sanctuary since the whole of mankind would have been a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. . . Man would not have been required to bring himself close to G'd by means of an animal sacrifice; he himself would have been the sacrifice . . ..​

​

Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, Shney Luchot Habrit, p. 681.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Remember that if Adam had not sinned the whole concept of areas that are sanctified and areas that are not would not have existed. The whole earth would have been like גן עדן [the garden of Eden], and every place on earth would have enjoyed the status of sanctity. . . There similarly would not have been people specially selected to perform the service in the Sanctuary since the whole of mankind would have been a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. . . Man would not have been required to bring himself close to G'd by means of an animal sacrifice; he himself would have been the sacrifice . . ..​

​

Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, Shney Luchot Habrit, p. 681.​

This important statement by the Shelah segues into two ancillary statements:

Abraham and Sarah are the תיקון, reformation of Adam and Eve ensuring their continuity.​

​

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Sheikhtav, Vayera, Chayei Sara, Torah Ohr, 7.​

Abraham was told about the impending birth of Isaac being itself a sacrifice, since Abraham had already sacrificed himself when he performed circumcision on his own body.​

​

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 57.​

The Shelah statement of the fact that Abraham and Sarah are the תיקון, the reformation of Adam and Eve, segues seamlessly with the idea that Abraham is, at least ritually speaking, a reconstituted, or reformed, Adam, able, so to say, to sacrifice himself to God rather than needing, ala Adam, to substitute an animal surrogate.

The truth of the symbolism is even more seminal since as a post-lapsarian son of Adam, Abraham isn't conceived apart from the evil-smelling drop of semen such that technically speaking he can't offer himself up as a sacrifice to God. Instead, he sacrifices the offending organ that made his personal sacrifice impossible. And by sacrificing that organ (as the very sign of the Jewish race he will un-father), he makes his post-circumcision firstborn an emblem of Eve's "ראשית," Eve's pre-seminal firstborn בכור, the father-less (no fathering-organ) son of God whose relationship to God (stillborn in the Tanakh) juxtaposes the relationship between Christ and Antichrist.



John

​

 

[InChrist]

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

Yes, I think the antichrist is not only in opposition to Christ, but will attempt to come in place of the real Jesus…


“ANTI IS A GREEK prefix that not only means “opposed to” but “in the place of.” Antichrist will indeed oppose Christ but in the most diabolically clever way possible: by pretending to be Christ.”

https://www.thebereancall.org/sites/2014.thebereancall.org/files/1707%20July%20WEB.pdf

 

[ChatwithGod]

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

That's a deep observation about the concept of "Antichrist" and its implications in religious dialogues. It's true that the term often involves the idea of something or someone that could be mistaken for Christ, leading to confusion and conflict. 1 John 2:22 tells us, "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son."