1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Anti Christ a Jew?

Discussion in 'Eschatology & Prophecy Forum' started by jodycour, Jan 31, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    (samy;46739)
    Kriss has not answered the fact that Irenaeus and Hippolytus both taught that the antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan. The tribe of Dan migrated north. We find their remnants as far north as the Danish in Denmark. You can read what Hippolytus wrote at http://www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/a...le=anf05-18.htm look especially at paragraph 14.samy
    And if you read this with understanding and not hear what you want they teach that Antichrist is Satanthen when get to about chapter 15 it tells you it is the SON OF THE DEVIL that comes out of Dan not Satan/AntichristNow who is the Son of the Devil ??????????? The SON of the Devil is Cain who are the Kennites ? descentants of Cain As thier name implies So we are right back to where we started.Satan is THE ANTICHRIST the Kennites/ Tares come from the, son of the devil, Cain,The descendants of Cain, the son of the Devil, is associated with the tribe of Dan who is associated with the serpent who is SatanThese are the are the tares/kennites who are the Sadducee's and the pharisees........not the Antichrist himselfJhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Who was it that was the first murder? A murderer from the beginning that is the father of these Sadducees and pharisees?? http://www.christianityboard.com/parable-t...035.html?t=6035
     
  2. ncsojourner

    ncsojourner New Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;46797)
    And if you read this with understanding and not hear what you want they teach that Antichrist is Satanthen when get to about chapter 15 it tells you it is the SON OF THE DEVIL that comes out of Dan not Satan/AntichristNow who is the Son of the Devil ??????????? The SON of the Devil is Cain who are the Kennites ? descentants of Cain As thier name implies So we are right back to where we started.Satan is THE ANTICHRIST the Kennites/ Tares come from the, son of the devil, Cain,The descendants of Cain, the son of the Devil, is associated with the tribe of Dan who is associated with the serpent who is SatanThese are the are the tares/kennites who are the Sadducee's and the pharisees........not the Antichrist himselfJhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Who was it that was the first murder? A murderer from the beginning that is the father of these Sadducees and pharisees?? http://www.christianityboard.com/parable-t...035.html?t=6035
    You claim that the father of the Pharisee/Sadducee/Jew is Cain through the Kenites and use John 8:44 as one of your proofs.If this is correct, explain to me how you can accuse a person of being anti-Semitic, as Cain could not have been a Semite by any stretch of the imagination.How did any of Cain's descendent's get on this side of the world wide flood to father the Kenites? Swim?If the Kenites are tares and are in our society today, then that means we are now in God's kingdom as that is where the tares were sowed. How did the "serpent" get on this side of the world wide flood? Swim?Judges 4:11 Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.Isaiah 28:10, "....here a little, and there a little:" Makes for one botched theology doesn't it."Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." "Identity Crisis," The Jewish Almanac, compiled and edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 0-553-01265-7, 1980) p. 3Gary
     
  3. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    frankly Gary I dont think many on this site can make heads or tails of your Idea of scripture My scripture is just fine. And sense you seem to have diffeculty understanding the simplest thing said I really do not care to discuss a deeper teaching with you as you dont have enough wisdom given you yet, to understand it. Not trying to be insulting but call it as I see it. If you dont understand A you cant get B and C we are talking the earliest church teachings here and if you havent read them and do not have a basic knowledge of deeper scripture you can not get this it would just end in pointless arguments. I will give you some links you can check out.
     
  4. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
  5. ncsojourner

    ncsojourner New Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;46792)
    The oppisite of what Im saying what are you talking about
    In your quote below, you error in making the claim that this is the way one should study the Bible. The verses you quote in Isaiah 28 say just the opposite of what you claim. "Of course not its a deeper teaching God teaches in layers building upon precepts we have to progress when we are ready all wisdom will come from God a precept upon a precept "6673 tsav {tsav} or tsav {tsawv} Meaning: 1) command, ordinance, oracle (meaning dubious) 1a) used in mocking mimicry of Isaiah's words and thus not a true divine command Origin: from 06680; TWOT - 1887c; n mUsage: AV - precept 8, commandment 1; 9TWOTƒaw. Command. (ASV, RSV "precept" in Isa 28:10, 13.) In Isa 28:10, 13 the word appears parallel to qaw ("line, " q.v.). Some suggest these are elliptical sarcastic mimicries mocking a prophet's speech. One suggestion is the sound of a teacher and pupil constantly reciting the alphabet. Another possibility is a sound alluding to the root ƒ-w-h, "command." Another is that it is baby talk. The context is clear; the people are ridiculing Isaiah's message as meaningless tidbits (v. 10); he in turn announces that these tidbits will be the standard by which they will be judged (v. 13). In Hos 5:11; ƒ¹w ("he was content to walk after man's command" ASV) is emended with LXX to sh¹w° ("he was determined to go after vanity" RSV). If ƒaw means worthless and qaw is a measuring line used to mark off something for destruction, then the play on sounds in Isa 28:10, 13 draws from the vocabulary of judgment. "...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other. ...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. There is not any similarity between the two concepts." [Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August 1961.]Gary
     
  6. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    No they dont you just fail to understand them
     
  7. Jerusalem Junkie

    Jerusalem Junkie New Member

    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    0
    "...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other. ...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. There is not any similarity between the two concepts." [Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August 1961.]
    Well hes right about that..........
     
  8. yaqub

    yaqub New Member

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    AC has to be Jewish because he needs to appeal to the Jews. AC from the tribe of Dan. AC does not regard the God of his fathers.... etc. Quite a list.perhaps, this article will help a better understanding:http://al-mahdi.atspace.com/jewishantichrist.html
     
  9. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    exactly thats why antichrist is Lucifer himself as scripture teaches he has to appeal to all religions because he sets up a one religion Muslims would never follow a Jew or the other way aroun antichrist will be claining to be Christ
     
  10. Jerusalem Junkie

    Jerusalem Junkie New Member

    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    0
    (yaqub;47475)
    AC has to be Jewish because he needs to appeal to the Jews. AC from the tribe of Dan. AC does not regard the God of his fathers.... etc. Quite a list.perhaps, this article will help a better understanding:http://al-mahdi.atspace.com/jewishantichrist.html
    Good info but sorry I do not buy it.................
     
  11. ncsojourner

    ncsojourner New Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;46852)
    frankly Gary I dont think many on this site can make heads or tails of your Idea of scripture My scripture is just fine. And sense you seem to have diffeculty understanding the simplest thing said I really do not care to discuss a deeper teaching with you as you dont have enough wisdom given you yet, to understand it. Not trying to be insulting but call it as I see it. If you dont understand A you cant get B and C we are talking the earliest church teachings here and if you havent read them and do not have a basic knowledge of deeper scripture you can not get this it would just end in pointless arguments. I will give you some links you can check out.
    Not the answer you would expect from one who claims, "community leader" status, all though it is veracious of one trying to impute blame or guilt on another because of their own inability to provide God breathed scriptures toasked questions.You claim to understand A, B, and C, but seem reluctant to help another understand A. Is this brotherly love....a community leader?Then you say, "we are talking the earliest church teachings here and if you havent read them and do not have a basic knowledge of deeper scripture you can not get this"; but you give not one example of these "earliest church teachings" for one to read.So I will ask them again, at least, maybe, I will receive some wisdom or a deeper under standing of the earliest church teachings.You claim that the father of the Pharisee/Sadducee/Jew is Cain through the Kenites and use John 8:44 as one of your proofs.If this is correct, explain to me how you can accuse a person of being anti-Semitic, as Cain could not have been a Semite by any stretch of the imagination.How did any of Cain's descendent's get on this side of the world wide flood to father the Kenites? Swim?If the Kenites are tares and are in our society today, then that means we are now in God's kingdom as that is where the tares were sowed.How did the "serpent" get on this side of the world wide flood? Swim?"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." "Identity Crisis," The Jewish Almanac, compiled and edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 0-553-01265-7, 1980) p. 3Gary
     
  12. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    I have no problem teaching one who wants to learn even if they decide they do dont agree but your past posts show you just want to see it your way no matter what so if you wont hear A how can I explain B and C?? I dont think you care what I say you just want to argue. And I dont want to argue with you because I dont get what your idea of scripture is. So far all Ive heard is how bad the Jews are. I have already given you links to explain all this
     
  13. yaqub

    yaqub New Member

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Jerusalem Junkie;47477)
    Good info but sorry I do not buy it.................
    Care to elaborate?
     
  14. Jerusalem Junkie

    Jerusalem Junkie New Member

    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forget it Kriss. Hes already condemn the Jews to hell.......
     
  15. ncsojourner

    ncsojourner New Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;47501)
    I have no problem teaching one who wants to learn even if they decide they do dont agree but your past posts show you just want to see it your way no matter what so if you wont hear A how can I explain B and C?? I dont think you care what I say you just want to argue. And I dont want to argue with you because I dont get what your idea of scripture is. So far all Ive heard is how bad the Jews are. I have already given you links to explain all this
    Your first two links were Not Found/404…..The requested URL /par...35.html was not found on this server.The requested URL /his/ad...e=anf05-18.htm was not found on this server.This one was……http://www.christianityboard.com/true-sin-...study-t509.htmlI presume this is what you consider to be, “….the earliest church teachings…”and, “….a basic knowledge of deeper scripture…”? And therefore, make the boast, “My scripture is just fine”. So, let’s see if any of your claims are just. Starting with two, prominent, seedline advocates, let us see what they acknowledge, as truth, in their writings. "While the evidence is circumstantial, we are led to believe that Satan seduced Eve....". “Last Battle Cry: Christianity's Final Conflict with Evil”; Jarah B. Crawford; Jann Publishing, 1986; p 334."There are several opinions regarding the actual nature of this seduction which can not be clearly decided by the text alone." Star Wars; Nord W. Davis, Jr.; The Northpoint Teams; p 11.The writers of the above quotes were referring to Genesis 3, but why weren’t they completely honest and state that, in fact, there is NOT ONE passage in the entire Old Testament that supports the seedliner’s interpretation of Genesis 3. NOT ONE!! And, I am well aware of how the seedliner’s distort the use of words like, fruit, seed, naked, eat, etc., to try and give credence to their hypothesis, which, by the way, doesn’t have enough scriptural support to even qualify as a theory.So, let us go to the New Testament and see where, “all this knowledge of deeper scripture”, is to be found. Let us start with 2 Corinthians 11:3, because ALL seedliners have to treat it the same. No exceptions.2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.The following definitions and commentary, in Italics, are Denver’s and were taken from..... http://www.christianityboard.com/true-sin-...study-t509.html My comments are in bold. serpent = Greek word #3789 ophis (of’-is); probably from 3700 (through the idea of sharpness of vision); a snake, figurative (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person [, especially Satan: —serpent.] The words in brackets were not included in Denver’s, not so concise, definition of the word serpent, even though they are part of Strong’s definition. beguiled = Greek word #1818 “exapatao” (ex-ap-at-ah-o); to seduce wholly. [— beguile, deceive.] Again, Denver did not include Strong’s entire definition. This is nothing but deception. He totally leaves out the words that the translators used to translate exapataho. And, this is done on purpose!Now, pay close attention to how the deceivers change Strong’s definition of the Greek word exapataho. Keep in mind that James Strong, LL.D S.T.D., never once says that, “to seduce wholly,” means to be sexually seduced.Bingo. Further confirmation that this was indeed a sexual act. There is only one single meaning of the Greek "exapatao" and it's quite clear. [End Italics – Bold]There it is. “Bingo.” Just like that Denver redefines James Strong’s definition of the Greek word “exapataho”. Where does Denver get the authority to changeStrong's definition from a mental seduction, i.e. beguile, deceive, to what he claims is a sexual seduction?Then he says this is “further confirmation”. Excuse me! Further confirmation of what? There is no proof to begin with? All Denver has done is make a false claim that “seduce” is sexual. The English word seduce is used three time in the Bible, all in the New Testament. Seduce is translated from #4105 in 1 John 2:26 and Rev 2:20, and from #635 in Mark 13:22. There is absolutely no sexual implication, implied or suggested, in Strong’s definitions. To say otherwise would be totally dishonest. 4105)— plan-ah’-o; from (4106) to (properly cause to) roam (from safety, truth, or virtue): — go astray, deceive, err, seduce, wander, be out of the way.635)— ap-op-lan-ah’-o; from (575) and (4105) to lead astray (figurative) passive to stray (from truth): — err, seduce.Now, if exapataho has, “only one single meaning and it's quite clear that it is indeed a sexual act”, as Denver adjudges, and you are one of the deceiving seedliners, then you will have to also believe the following.In Romans 7:11, Paul was declaring that sin sexually seduced him! This is because the verb, exapataho, is in the active voice and in the Greek the active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action.In Romans 16:18, Paul was warning the church trying to prevent them from being sexually seduced by false teachers! Not only is the verb, exapataho, in the active voice it is also in the present tense.In 1 Corinthians 3:18, Paul was commanding the Corinthian Christians not to sexually seduce themselves! Here the verb, exapataho, is in the present tense, active voice and the imperative mood. In the Greek the imperative mood expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding.In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Paul is commanding the Thessalonian Christians not to be sexually seduced by any body. Here the verb, exapataho, is in the aorist subjunctive and is used as an imperative which forbids an action that is not in progress and therefore commands that it not be started. (And if this action has all ready started it should be stoped immediately)The seedliner’s assertion that there is, “….only one single meaning and it's quite clear that it is indeed a sexual act”, for the Greek verb, exapataho, shows how nonsensical their averments are. There is nothing in the Biblical use of the Greek verb, exapataho, to support the seedliner’s interpretation and therefore they rely on deception to promote their damnable seedline hypotheses.In John 8:44 we have one of the seedliner’s favorite passages and it is unbelievable what they try to claim from this passage, not the least, that these Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews are actually the seed of Cain who is the son of satan/devil/wicked one/serpent/humanoid of some satanic race….take your pick.Denver says, “One more verse confirms the nature of Satan for us:”John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. But what does the breathed word of our Lord and Savior say as to who these Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews really are? In John 8:37, Jesus the Christ identifies who they are, “I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.”Oooops!! I don’t know who you are going to believe but I do know who I am going to believe, and it sure “ain’t” them. Jesus the Christ identifies who they are. If you still want to believe the deceiving seedliner’s interpretation of John 8:44 then you must also be prepared to believe that Abraham is of the seed of Cain, and when you carry it to its final conclusion, it is demanded of you, to believe that Jesus the Christ is also the seed of Cain!! It can be no other way because the deceiving seedliners are demanding a literal interpretation of John 8:44.Just for the record, in John 8:44, Jesus the Christ is making a spiritual identification, NOT a physical identification. The physical identification is avowed by the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews themselves, in John 8:53, “Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself”?There is one other passage in the New Testament that the deceiving seedliners hang their hat, and that is 1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. The deceiving seedliners demand a literal translation of that verse also, and in so doing, unbeknownst to them, place themselves in a very precarious position because in demanding a literal interpretation of 1 John 3:12, verse eight, of 1 John 3, must also be interpreted literally. 1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Are you a sinner, Denver? How about you Kriss, are you a sinner? Romans 3:23 says you are, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Therefore, 1 John 3:8 says that because of your beliefs in the seedline hypotheses that you are both of the seed of satan/devil/serpent/wicked one/humanoid of some other satanic race/Cain…..take your pick.One more minor detail, and that is when the deceiving seedliner’s read 1 John 3:10-14, they must interpret those verses to either mean that all Israelites are to love the Cainites or all Israelites who do not love their brothers are of the offspring of the devil.Proverbs 24:28 Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause; and deceive not with thy lips.Titus 1:10-11 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." "Identity Crisis," The Jewish Almanac, compiled and edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 0-553-01265-7, 1980) p. 3Gary
     
  16. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    226
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Gary, do you not understand what a root is? The hour is now late, but this sinner will respond to the rest of this later, for his holiness here.
     
  17. Alistein

    Alistein New Member

    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;46797)
    And if you read this with understanding and not hear what you want they teach that Antichrist is Satanthen when get to about chapter 15 it tells you it is the SON OF THE DEVIL that comes out of Dan not Satan/AntichristNow who is the Son of the Devil ??????????? The SON of the Devil is Cain who are the Kennites ? descentants of Cain As thier name implies So we are right back to where we started.Satan is THE ANTICHRIST the Kennites/ Tares come from the, son of the devil, Cain,The descendants of Cain, the son of the Devil, is associated with the tribe of Dan who is associated with the serpent who is SatanThese are the are the tares/kennites who are the Sadducee's and the pharisees........not the Antichrist himselfJhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Who was it that was the first murder? A murderer from the beginning that is the father of these Sadducees and pharisees?? http://www.christianityboard.com/parable-t...035.html?t=6035
    You seem to be misinterpreting scripture. Cain the son of the devil and anyway wasn't cain's lineage destroyed in the flood only 8 people survived and they had no link to cain. secondly when you say satan is the anti-christ are we talking about the beast or the dragon as the book of Revelation clearly says the beast is empowered by the dragon. I am convinced the beast is the anti-christ spoken of. Revelation 19:20 clearly says the beast is cast alive into a fire burning with brimstone. This beast is obviously a living being.
     
  18. Jerusalem Junkie

    Jerusalem Junkie New Member

    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." "Identity Crisis," The Jewish Almanac, compiled and edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 0-553-01265-7, 1980) p. 3
    Read this a hundred times and still find it funny hehehehehehe...........
     
  19. ncsojourner

    ncsojourner New Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Denver;48863)
    Gary, do you not understand what a root is? The hour is now late, but this sinner will respond to the rest of this later, for his holiness here.
    naga, aram, and nasha??.....in that order??"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." "Identity Crisis," The Jewish Almanac, compiled and edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 0-553-01265-7, 1980) p. 3Gary
     
  20. archierieus

    archierieus New Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am new to this forum and am just now looking at this whole thread. Very interesting discussion. I would guess that most of us who are Christians have been very seriously interested in the subject of the Antichrist. I, too, have done a bit of digging, in both Scripture and history. The results have been fascinating. I would like to add to this thread what I have found. Are there any guidelines or limitations in sharing study results here? My personal motto is "study to show thyself approved unto God, and good workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth." To me, that means uncompromising faithfulness to the Word as it reads.Dave
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...