The Mark of the Beast

[starlite]

The word fullfil is translated to accomplish. That can mean to complete, when something is complete it is done. Not done away with, but finished. This being said, it is useless to argue the value of law with a Christian. Now on to the antichrist and mark. The mark is probably a mystery to us. If the world knew it was "the mark" then no one would take it. That is why we must watch like preparing for a theif at night...

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stated: “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17) Or, as Today’s English Version renders the last sentence: “I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true.” Since Jesus came to make the teachings of the prophets come true, his coming was a guarantee that their prophecies concerning the restoration of paradise on earth would be fulfilled. Here are just a few:[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
(Psalm 37:11) But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Psalm 37:29) The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Psalm 72:1-8) O God, give your own judicial decisions to the king, And your righteousness to the son of the king. 2 May he plead the cause of your people with righteousness And of your afflicted ones with judicial decision. 3 Let the mountains carry peace to the people, Also the hills, through righteousness. 4 Let him judge the afflicted ones of the people, Let him save the sons of the poor one, And let him crush the defrauder. 5 They will fear you as long as there is a sun, And before the moon for generation after generation. 6 He will descend like the rain upon the mown grass, Like copious showers that wet the earth. 7 In his days the righteous one will sprout, And the abundance of peace until the moon is no more. 8 And he will have subjects from sea to sea And from the River to the ends of the earth.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Psalm 72:16-19) There will come to be plenty of grain on the earth; On the top of the mountains there will be an overflow. His fruit will be as in Leb′a·non, And those who are from the city will blossom like the vegetation of the earth. 17 Let his name prove to be to time indefinite; Before the sun let his name have increase, And by means of him let them bless themselves; Let all nations pronounce him happy. 18 Blessed be Jehovah God, Israel’s God, Who alone is doing wonderful works. 19 And blessed be his glorious name to time indefinite, And let his glory fill the whole earth. Amen and Amen.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Isaiah 9:6-7) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Isaiah 11:1-10) And there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jes′se; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful. 2 And upon him the spirit of Jehovah must settle down, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of mightiness, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah; 3 and there will be enjoyment by him in the fear of Jehovah. And he will not judge by any mere appearance to his eyes, nor reprove simply according to the thing heard by his ears. 4 And with righteousness he must judge the lowly ones, and with uprightness he must give reproof in behalf of the meek ones of the earth. And he must strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the spirit of his lips he will put the wicked one to death. 5 And righteousness must prove to be the belt of his hips, and faithfulness the belt of his loins. 6 And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. 7 And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. 8 And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. 9 They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea. 10 And it must occur in that day that there will be the root of Jes′se that will be standing up as a signal for the peoples. To him even the nations will turn inquiringly, and his resting-place must become glorious.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Daniel 2:44-45) “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; 45 forasmuch as you beheld that out of the mountain a stone was cut not by hands, and [that] it crushed the iron, the copper, the molded clay, the silver and the gold. The grand God himself has made known to the king what is to occur after this. And the dream is reliable, and the interpretation of it is trustworthy.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Daniel 7:13-14) “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.[/FONT]​

​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Soon now, just as the prophets foretold, the kingly administration of Jesus Christ will bring many blessings to mankind and the earth. [/FONT]​

​

 

[gwk230]

When Jesus said that he had not come to abolish the Law, and every single commandment down to the letter in Matthew 5:17-19, he meant the Torah. That's what we understand as the book of the Law. When Paul said in Romans 10:4 that "Christ is the end of the Law," he meant the Torah. But hey, you too are free to think whatever you want. But don't expect me to accept the testimony of an apostate from Judaism.

​

​

Ben, the Torah as a whole was never in question. You fail to see that it would just be plain stupid to think so. To think one would come to do away with laws that would condemn one for killing you and raping your wife. You and a lot of christians think this way with the whole law being nailed to some cross of tammuz, and as you state, that Sha‘ul teaches. You and a lot of christians have a lot in common Ben.​

​

​

I would also suggest that if you are going to quote a verse that you do so with all sincerity and honesty by quoting the whole text. We see that the whole of the verse of Rom. 10:4 states…………​

​

​

Rom 10:4 For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts.​

​

​

This is the true Hebraic rendering and I see that Yahshua was the last sacrifice for righteousness sake which before was the spilling of the blood of animals. It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist Ben.​

​

​

“apostate from judaism”? Oh come on Ben. You can do better than that man. I thought you more intelligent than this. I guess I stand corrected.​

​

What is figurative is the allegation that the veil of the Temple was torn. There is nowhere in our tradition that this ever happened. What gives Gentiles the right to fabricate their "things" and insert them into the Jewish culture?

​

​

Ben, it may be yours, but not mine so in no way is it “ours“. I am Ben Sinai and I do not follow the traditions of men but that culture and way of life that was handed down unto Moshe at Sinai. I observe, do and teach that which was written by Hebrews, for Hebrews and about Hebrews and it is written by Hebrews that the Temple veil was torn from top to bottom. there is no discussion on this issue. You can only deny it with your own vain and misguided words of your own thoughts and feelings with nothing to back it up except that which men have dreamed up.​

​

​

How about, "and of the Holy Ghost?" Your Bible does not have that? Jesus could have never said that, because he was a religious Jew and this language is not Jewish. It's Pauline par excellence. Read Acts 19:4.

​

​

No, Mine doesn’t render the Ruach Ha Chodesh as being part, in that way, of the mikvah bath (purification) ceremony. It is written that Yahshua received the Ruach Ha Chodesh after his purification which possessed him and led him to the wilderness to be tempted by Helel. In any case, It is understood that the only way to the Father, Yah, is the belief of Yahshua as Moshiach. Also I ask if you are a expert in the biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to speak on such things as what one would speak in that time period? The understanding of this so called modern Hebrew that the ones that call themselves jews speak today won’t cut it man. Yahshua was a Hebrew Yisraelite that may have spoke a combination of the Hebrew language with also that which is called Aramaic. He could speak whatever he chose to speak as well as that which was urged by the Ruach Ha Chodesh that resided within him at the time. He could have spoke English, even though it hadn’t been invented as yet, if the Malach within him so allowed. As far as Acts 19:4, this only shows Luke repeating that which Yochanan stated. What’s your point? ​

​

What Jesus commanded is in Matthew 5:17-19: The Law and the Prophets, which is Judaism in a word.

​

​

What Yahshua commanded them was the words of Yah which belong to Yah that was spoken by Elohim to be observed by all that would believe. And those things in the prophets that uphold that of Yah’s word. These words were given unto the Hebrew first that they might teach the nations. ​

​

Get the New American version of the Bible and you will see that's written, "My mission is only to the House of Israel." (Mat. 15:24)

​

​

Hey better yet, why don’t we post exactly what this version states………..​

​

​

From Bible Gateway, New American Version of Matthew 15:24.……….​

​

​

24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." ​

​

​

So I see it isn’t simply the “house of Yisrael” but to the “lost sheep of the house of Yisrael“. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Seems to me that he was not sent to the whole of the entire house of Yisrael but only a part. Wonder which part. Come on Ben lets see you wiggle some more. You are so good at it.​

​

And I do understand your dirty Psychology. You enjoy the thought that others, reading this, might think that you are scholastically pinning down a member of the People who wrote the Bible, but you are mistaken. The whole issue is that you ignore my quotations as proofs of what I am saying.

​

​

Ha, the same people that was, and is, just as paganistically as nasty as any other group of people over the entire earth? Look I know I am nothing more than a mud pie with two eye holes and a pie hole for I am nothing without Yah, that’s right a mere dust bunny, but you seem to think very highly of yourself and so called people who hold themselves over all others. Your so called quotations bring no proof to the questions at hand but rather only show further proof of your own scriptural ignorance. ​

​

​

 

[gwk230]

When Isaiah said to reason together and set things right with God, he did not recommend to offer sacrifices but to repent and obey. Only morons believe that the blood of animals serves to forgive one's sins. Besides, the system of animal sacrifices had nothing to do with God. The People was allowed to adopt it from the Gentiles in order to help establish a religious mentality. The People had just come out of 400 years of slavery in Egypt It's only natural that slaves could not understand that they were supposed to worship God in Spirit.

​

I’m cracking ribs over here reading this pig manure. Yah allowed the people to adopt this paganistic rite? I can’t help but visualize the Cohen sprinkling the blood in the Holy of Holies and on the Mercy Seat where Elohim was when Yah commanded Moshe not to do unto Him as the nations do to their pagan deities. What an abomination it would have been if what you say was true. You are so scripturally in error Ben. As I stated before that I understand that to obey was better than sacrifice and it is further understood that if one sacrificed without repentance of the heart/mind he wouldn’t be forgiven anyways. So again I have to ask just what is your point?​

​

​

That's so convenient! Christians speak about the crucifixion of Jesus as if he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans. When I mention others, they get upset.

​

​

Ben, who is upset here? Its not me. You want to blame others for observing one death when others have died. We need to look back at………….​

​

​

Deu 34:8 The children of Yisra'el wept for Moshe in the plains of Mo'av thirty days: so the days of weeping in the mourning for Moshe were ended.​

​

​

What about all the other Hebrews that last there lives along the way over the past 40 years in the wilderness? How dare they weep only for Moshe for 30 days. Wasn’t their blood the same? Didn’t they feel the same pain of death? ​

​

​

See Ben it doesn’t work no more than your vain attempt. I answered you about this back in the beginning of your little charade but you choose not to accept my answer but disregard what I have told you as coming from me and how I understand it. I see your understanding and I am well aware as to your true intentions but that is of little to no consequence to me. ​

​

Are you positive? Why don't you read Acts 21:21? It says in there that Paul would teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children and to renounce the Jewish customs. Check it out. It's better than to return here and give others the impression than I don't know how to read.

​

​

Ben, That is a bold face lie and what is worse is that you even know it. Acts 21:21 in no way states that “Paul would teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children and to renounce the Jewish customs” rather you are yet again twisting the true text into whatever it takes to uphold your delusional agenda but, that text correctly states……….​

​

​

Act 21:21 Now what they have been told about you is that you are teaching all the Hebrews living among the Gentiles to apostatize from Moshe, telling them not to have a b'rit-milah for their sons and not to follow the customs.​

​

​

So it is what they were told? This doesn’t mean that what was told was true it just means that someone past this information onto others whether it be true or false. But we see throughout the text that Sha’ul did not teach the Hebrews but the Gentiles.​

​

I am sure you don't even know what the truth is. Do you wanna try a definition or you want me to tell you?

​

​

Oh please by all means impress us all with your wisdom and knowledge Ben.​

​

​

If Paul did not have even a word to defend himself, your denial is pure rubbish.

​

​

Why would he need to defend himself against lies that everyone, which meant anything, knew were lies? The question at hand, that had always been at hand, was the question of the Gentiles and none other. Anyone that can’t see this is just plain scriptural ignorant.​

​

Not true. They had been sent from Judea to salvage the Nazarene synagogues that Paul had robbed them from. And all because Paul was never able to build a church from scratch. All his churches throughout Asia Minor had been built on the foundations of the Nazarenes.That's why he got upset that some were indeed going back to the Nazarenes. READ GALATIANS 1:6. That's what he used to call "the other gospel.

​

​

LOL, you even argue with what was plainly written in Gal. 2:4. You are the only one I have ever seen that has denied this as fact. It was commonly known by then who and what these individuals were. Even the heads of the Assemblies in Yerushalayim. Gal 1:6 has to do with the same that tried to confuse the Gentiles that they must be circumcised. Again, elementary my dear Ben.​

. ​

On the contrary. Peter happened to be in Jerusalem when Paul went there for that Council meeting, Peter took the benche and said for all to hear that he and not Paul, was the one selected to be the one from whose lips the Gentiles would hear the gospel. Paul never in his life left the Jews in peace. Since Damascus and until Rome, his concern were not the Gentiles but Jews. Why don't you prove to me that he ever built a church with Gentiles?

​

​

He didn’t say “he and not Sha’ul” he just simply stated “he”. In any case by the end of this meeting the counsel sent men with Sha’ul and Barnabas to the Gentiles in Antioch. The consul even devised a letter to the Gentiles in Antioch for Sha‘ul and Barnabas to take with them. So the counsel sent Sha’ul and Barnabas back to Antioch. Therefore one with any understanding whatsoever would see that they were chosen to continue with the work.​

​

​

Also……………..​

​

​

Gal 2:7 but to the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the Good News for the circumcision ​

Gal 2:8 (for he who appointed Peter to be an emissary of the circumcision appointed me also to the Gentiles);​

​

​

No one built anything but by Yah. Elohim added daily as He saw fit. ​

​

​

 

[gwk230]

Does it matter to tell you where what I say is written? You are not interested in the truth. You are consumed inside with envy and jealousy to take your time to verify what I say. But I'll try again once more. When the Synagogue of Antioch was growing out of proportions, the headquarters in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch. READ ACTS 11:22. They would not have sent him if that was not a Nazarene Synagogue. Then, instead of doing what he was supposed to do, he went after Paul in Tarsus to invite him over to help him with the work, because they had been old friends. READ ACTS 11:25. Then, Paul accepted the invitation and after a whole year preaching that Jesus was Christ, the disciples started being called Christians. READ ACTS 11:26. That's when Christianity started. And from then on, all Paul's life was to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues. Even at his last station in Rome, he would not leave the Jews in peace. READ ACTS 28:17.

​

​

Ben who are you to say if Barnabas did anything against what he was suppose to do or not? Those that sent Barnabas all knew that Yahshua was the anointed and that he was the Moshiach. The term “christian” was an insult to those that believed and was used by the pagans as a derogatory term towards those that believed. This is common knowledge and basic understanding Ben. I’m not going to say that there wasn’t any infighting among the disciples because there was but this in no way means that Sha’ul subverted the truth and started his own religion. He taught the same as the others. As hard as it is for some like yourself to understand but still the same and still the truth. As Kefa wrote…………​

​

​

2Pe 3:16 as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. ​

2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness.​

​

​

Ben, stop destroying yourself.​

​

That's the only thing not rubbish you have quoted. Why? Because this shows that Peter was the one selected to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, and not Paul. This only loved to say that he would go to the Gentiles but never left the Jews in peace.

​

​

Ben, it only shows that Kefa was chosen by Elohim, among them, to go to the Gentiles, and this was done a good while ago as stated, but it didn’t state that he was the only one chosen. This leaves opening for many from all over if Elohim so chose as well as those that was given the power to pick and choose others to go and either help or to go in their place. What of those that Kefa taught whether they be Hebrew or Gentile? Did they not continue in teaching others around them as well? Yet again, basic Ben. ​

​

​

Ben, why is it that you must continue to spread falsehoods against Sha’ul? What threat is he for you? You have no proof whatsoever to your argument with exception to what you yourself think and feel as your own beliefs. You twist the true meaning of what Sha’ul writes to fit your own agenda but it is so easily put to rest with the truth. Why continue Ben? It’s not looking good for your position at all.​

​

 

[gwk230]

You are consumed inside with envy and jealousy to take your time to verify what I say.

Envy? Jealousy? Man Talk about being puffed up. And what makes you think that your anyone special as to no one carefully verifying what you claim as truth? For it is written………

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Your not above reproof Ben Masada.

 

[AK4]

gwk230

Ben, why is it that you must continue to spread falsehoods against Sha’ul? What threat is he for you? You have no proof whatsoever to your argument with exception to what you yourself think and feel as your own beliefs. You twist the true meaning of what Sha’ul writes to fit your own agenda but it is so easily put to rest with the truth. Why continue Ben? It’s not looking good for your position at all.

:clap:beach::clap:beach:​

 

[IF_u_knew]

All one has to do is use simple logic to see that what Paul was teaching is indeed contrary to what it is the NT claims to be founded on (the Tanakh). I wonder why Malachi, the last book in the so called "old testament," put out such a clear warning against turning away from the ordinances of God if what Paul taught was truly right...

For instance, Malachi 3:7 says, "Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts..." and this right after the promise that the LORD does not change; and yet Paul says in Colosssians 2:14, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" And please, feel free to put Colossians 2:14 into context.. it only validates that Paul was over-writing what had already been written in the Tanakh, making up HIS OWN rules and ignoring what God had commanded.. you know, the same God who said He does not change *so that* the sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Given that Paul said the handwriting of the ordinances are taken out of the way and nailed to the cross and the LORD clearly is not "happy" about this, what Ben proposed, the mark of the beast being the cross is certainly the most logical conclusion one can arrive to.

What is even more strange to me is how the Christians try to dictate to the Jewish how the covenant works when the covenant between Israel and God never had ANYTHING to do with the Gentiles. The commands of that Covenant were not even applicable to the Gentiles and thus, Paul lied to you, making you think it was and since you all did not keep those commands (der!), you were in need of a literal blood sacrifice, which you accepted in the way of a Jewish man on a cross. And so, you still remain in ignorance because of the cross and all the lies that have stemmed from it. The only commands given to the Gentiles are the 7 commands given by God to mankind, found in Genesis 9. They are common sense commands that separate man from the animals.. and if those are SO hard to keep that one needs a covering for not doing them, well what conclusion can be drawn except that you are a beast?

The commands that are given to the Jewish by God concerning THEIR covenant as the Chosen were never and even now are not up for the Gentiles to be re-writing and dictating to them. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 is clearly between the house of Israel, the house of Judah and God. You will not find the Gentiles have been included on that covenant and you will also see that NOTHING of the old covenant was abolished.. it is just a matter of it being written on the heart rather than in stone (meaning, they no longer need serve God out of fear).

Truly the cross, an instrument of death and upon which MANY of the Jewish (not just one) were barbarically crucified, is the mark of the *beast* since only savages could revel in and parade around something that caused so much pain to others because they cannot keep 7 commands that separate them from the animals. Just being honest in how I view it based on what is written. :cover:

 

[Ben Masada]

To think one would come to do away with laws that would condemn one for killing you and raping your wife.

Not everyone understands the way you do. This is the Christian way to promote Replacement Theology by using a Jew to make Judaism absolete in the eyes of the world.​

I would also suggest that if you are going to quote a verse that you do so with all sincerity and honesty by quoting the whole text. We see that the whole of the verse of Rom. 10:4 states…………Rom 10:4 For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts.

What do you mean, that Christ is the end of Torah? No, the Torah aims at the People of Israel as the collective Messiah, according to Isaiah.

This is the true Hebraic rendering and I see that Yahshua was the last sacrifice for righteousness sake which before was the spilling of the blood of animals. It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist Ben.


As I can see, it takes a rocket scientist to make you see that Jesus was not the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans. The way you speak of Jesus' sacrifice, that's the impression it causes.

“apostate from judaism”? Oh come on Ben. You can do better than that man. I thought you more intelligent than this. I guess I stand corrected.


I don't need you to evaluate my intelligence. If a former Jew shows up in Jerusalem preaching that another Jew was son of God without an earthly father, that's apostasy, because there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology in Judaism.

I am Ben Sinai and I do not follow the traditions of men but that culture and way of life that was handed down unto Moshe at Sinai. I observe, do and teach that which was written by Hebrews, for Hebrews and about Hebrews and it is written by Hebrews that the Temple veil was torn from top to bottom. there is no discussion on this issue.


Jesus did not come to confirm "traditions of men" down to the letter. He meant Torah in Matthew 5:19. And with regards to this fairy tale of the Temple veil being torn from top to bottom, that's exactly what it is: Fairy tale.

What Yahshua commanded them was the words of Yah which belong to Yah that was spoken by Elohim to be observed by all that would believe. And those things in the prophets that uphold that of Yah’s word. These words were given unto the Hebrew first that they might teach the nations.

And God's Word was granted to Israel only, and to no other people on earth according to Psalm 147:19,20.​

24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." So I see it isn’t simply the “house of Yisrael” but to the “lost sheep of the house of Yisrael“. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Seems to me that he was not sent to the whole of the entire house of Yisrael but only a part.

Jesus was not a moron to know that the ancient Ten Tribes did not exist. You make a moron out of him by setting him looking for those lost Tribes in Israel. He meant the Israel of his time, period.​

 

[Ben Masada]

I’m cracking ribs over here reading this pig manure. Yah allowed the people to adopt this paganistic rite? I can’t help but visualize the Cohen sprinkling the blood in the Holy of Holies and on the Mercy Seat where Elohim was when Yah commanded Moshe not to do unto Him as the nations do to their pagan deities. ​

Me too. Believe me, it's indeed a rib cracking to think that an adult, if you are an adult, believe that God allowed or not the Israelites to adopt a pagan rite. Who said that God had anything to do with that? Moses was the one who figured that slavish mentality could never understand that God, being incorporeal, the truest way to worship Him was in spirit. As I can see, you have too anthropomorphic an idea of God.​

Ben, That is a bold face lie and what is worse is that you even know it. Acts 21:21 in no way states that “Paul would teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children and to renounce the Jewish customs” rather you are yet again twisting the true text into whatever it takes to uphold your delusional agenda but, that text correctly states.​

What did Paul do to defend himself of the accusations if they were false? Nothing. Silence is a confession of guilt. On the contrary, he accepted the suggestion to camouflage himself as an observer of the Law in the Temple and fake that he was also fulfilling the Law. (Acts 21:24) We all know that he had no vow to fulfill. He was advised to join other four guys whe had to fulfill a vow in order to avoid a scandal in the Temple if someone recognized him. James and the Elders asked him to do that because they remembered what had happened 14 years before when Paul was nearly killed for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem. But since God is not to mock, some Asiatic Jews recognized him and arrested him. (Acts 21:27,28) The point here is that he was indeed guilt of teaching the Jews to abandon Moses, which was his way to declare that the Torah was over and obsolete. ​

Oh please by all means impress us all with your wisdom and knowledge Ben.​

What is this, are you jealous or surprised that finally someone has decided to rain on your parade of misconceptions? That's over my friend, you can no longer go on using a Jew to teach the world that Greek Mythology is possible in Judaism.​

LOL, you even argue with what was plainly written in Gal. 2:4. You are the only one I have ever seen that has denied this as fact. It was commonly known by then who and what these individuals were. Even the heads of the Assemblies in Yerushalayim. Gal 1:6 has to do with the same that tried to confuse the Gentiles that they must be circumcised. Again, elementary my dear Ben.​

Read Galatians 1:6- 9. Paul had robbed the Nazarenes of their Galatian synagogue, and they had sent some envoys to try to recover it; and in fact, some were getting persuaded and deserting Paul, who was amazed himself that they would so soon desert him to go back to the other gospel. Do you have any idea what gospel he was referring to? If I told you, you would not understand. The blinders are too tight on your eyes. Read the quotation if you want to know. He was so hostile to the gospel of the Nazarenes that he would curse even an angel who came down from Heaven with a different gospel from his. ​

. ​

He didn’t say “he and not Sha’ul” he just simply stated “he”. In any case by the end of this meeting the counsel sent men with Sha’ul and Barnabas to the Gentiles in Antioch. The consul even devised a letter to the Gentiles in Antioch for Sha‘ul and Barnabas to take with them. So the counsel sent Sha’ul and Barnabas back to Antioch. Therefore one with any understanding whatsoever would see that they were chosen to continue with the work.

You don't even quote what you say above in the hope that I don't know your NT. But you are mistaken about me and wrong about what you read. The letter or message devised by the Counsel in Jerusalem was trusted on Judas and Silas and not on Paul. They knew that Paul would use it for toilet paper. And the recommendations to the brothers of Gentile origin was nothing more than the Noahite laws. Why if they had become Jewish when they had converted? Because those at the Nazarene Counsel had decided to cut their losses and let them follow Paul. It means that they, from then on, considered them back to their condition of Gentiles. And that's what Paul wanted anyways. (Acts 15:25-29)​

Gal 2:7 but to the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the Good News for the circumcision ​

Gal 2:8 (for he who appointed Peter to be an emissary of the circumcision appointed me also to the Gentiles);

Behold another of Paul's lies! We can see only too well that he was lying to the Galatians, because according to Acts 15:7, Peter himself declared that he had been the one selected to be the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul's luck is that Peter was not there to discredit him for saying something that was not true about Peter, who had never been assigned as the emissary of the circumcision but of the uncircumcision. Paul only loved to say that he would go to the Gentiles and never left the Jews in peace, since the synagogues of Damascus (Acts 9:2) and until his last station in Rome. (Acts 28:17) Perhaps he thought that Gentiles were to be found in the synagogues of the Jews. He was never able to build a church from scratch. He always preferred to build his churches in the foundations of the Nazarenes. The apostle of the Gentiles, he, he, he.​

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben who are you to say if Barnabas did anything against what he was suppose to do or not?

I can't believe you! Unless you didn't read the quotations in capital letters I suggested you to in my last post. Tell me, had Jerusalem assigned Barnabas to go after Paul and take him to Antioch? NO, HE DIDN'T. It means Barnabas did not do what he was supposed to do: To go to Antioch and take over the work at the main synagogue. Please, if you ask this again, I'll rest my case about you. You must be beyond repair.

Those that sent Barnabas all knew that Yahshua was the anointed and that he was the Moshiach. The term “christian” was an insult to those that believed and was used by the pagans as a derogatory term towards those that believed. This is common knowledge and basic understanding Ben.

Prove it to me. Use your own NT to prove that the term "Christian" was an insult. I'll be satisfied. If what you say above were true, Luke would lose all his credibility for lying that the disciples started being called Christians first in Antioch because of Paul.​

Ben, why is it that you must continue to spread falsehoods against Sha’ul? What threat is he for you? You have no proof whatsoever to your argument with exception to what you yourself think and feel as your own beliefs. You twist the true meaning of what Sha’ul writes to fit your own agenda but it is so easily put to rest with the truth. Why continue Ben? It’s not looking good for your position at all.

I will answer your question if you answer mine first. "Why is that you must continue to spread falsehoods about Jesus? Jesus was a Jewish man. Why do you have to spread the lies of the NT that he was like a Greek demigod? Why do you have to spill mud in the reputation of his mother by saying that being she married had a child who was not of her husband? Ponder!​

 

[Ben Masada]

Envy? Jealousy? Man Talk about being puffed up. And what makes you think that your anyone special as to no one carefully verifying what you claim as truth? For it is written………

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Your not above reproof Ben Masada.

You know very well that another Jew would not give you a munute of his day. You are having a sample with me and, don't deny that you get startled every time you get a reply to your most-the-time-not-too-smart questions.

 

[starlite]

Truly the cross, an instrument of death and upon which MANY of the Jewish (not just one) were barbarically crucified, is the mark of the *beast*

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the Bible book of Daniel, the various beasts represent successive human kingdoms, or empires. The composite beast of Revelation 13:1, 2 symbolizes the worldwide political system, empowered and controlled by Satan. Those having the mark of the beast proclaim their servitude to the beast. Thus, the mark, whether on the right hand or on the forehead, figuratively speaking, is a symbol that identifies its bearer as one who gives worshipful support to the beast like political systems of the world. Those having the mark give to “Caesar” that which rightly belongs to God. How? By giving worshipful honor to the political state, its symbols, and its military might, to which they look for hope and salvation. [/FONT]​

 

[blackout]

There are many beasts ... and they each make/put their mark on the world.

here's one. "Mark" = money / graven coinage / numeric points in your bank account.
"Beast" = the "entity" of elite families who force the world to "pay them interest",
making us slaves of them and their system, under the illusory power of their talisman.

 

[blackout]

here's another one...

"Mark" = social security number... making you literally a ward of the state.
their child.
"Beast" = the government. who makes your life practically unlivable if you don't take their mark.

 

[Rakhel]

here's another one...

"Mark" = social security number... making you literally a ward of the state.
their child.
"Beast" = the government. who makes your life practically unlivable if you don't take their mark.

I really do like the way your mind works.

 

[blackout]

i really do like the way your mind works.

....

 

[Rakhel]

here's one to consider
the mark

the beast

I guess revelations has already come to pass

 

[blackout]

EXACTLY!

here's one to consider
the mark

the beast

I guess revelations has already come to pass

again and again..... from generation unto generation...

 

[IF_u_knew]

In response to both UltraViolet and rakhel's posts:

I agree, though perhaps with a bit of a different perspective....

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf

And for those who think that Hitler was not truly a Christian, the same thing would have to be said of Paul and Martin Luther as well.

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly - and I myself was unaware of it - will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know."

"Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:
First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due reward."
-Martin Luther, excerpts from The Jews And Their Lies(1543)

1 Thess 2:14-15
For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

Titus 1:10-16
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision(Jews):
Whose mouths must be stopped (I always have to wonder how it is their mouths are to be stopped since most Christians can't do it with knowledge based on what Christiainity claims to be founded on), who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

I still think that the beast, according to the NT, is considered to be the Jewish (in the eyes of the NT writers, that is.. mostly Paul, I suppose) and the "mark of" is the cross. And to the 2nd poster, the Christians do not consider Hitler as having been the fulfillment of their prophecies... :no:

 

[blackout]

And for those who think that Hitler was not truly a Christian, the same thing would have to be said of Paul and Martin Luther as well.

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly - and I myself was unaware of it - will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.".....

I still think that the beast, according to the NT, is considered to be the Jewish (in the eyes of the NT writers, that is.. mostly Paul, I suppose) and the "mark of" is the cross. And to the 2nd poster, the Christians do not consider Hitler as having been the fulfillment of their prophecies... :no:

the same thing would have to be said of Paul and Martin Luther as well.

true true... amen to that.