Messiah VS Antichrist (Jesus, Eden, virgin, prophet, Jerusalem)

[wizanda]

If the mission of the Anti-Christ is to distract from Christ and yet i point to what he said in defence of him all day, everyday.
with a site most people seem to think is Christian, as there is so much Christ writings, against John, Paul and Simon being what i can find are false and are all Pharisee from what Yeshua said, as to prove it to all for his sake.
Then where or why could i be Anti-Christ, when i defended what he stood for, reiterate his parables and basically help the cause?
On the other hand to put it Biblically Christians, have proven them self’s workers of iniquity, through their actions and proclaiming they are a friend of a man and then saying that it is good, that man should die?
This make no logical sense in any bodies cultures, it is just blatantly wrong and then to accuse God of sacrifice is wrong also.
Must admit it is hard to see, as the translations we have been presented with, are limited, as have been found and are finding need always looking in Hebrew and Greek meanings of words.

God offered (Ezekiel 39) Christ for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11) as test to if Israel had been listening to the prophets, this got them cut off as written. Yet sacrifice (Micah 6:6 + Hosea 6:6) doesn’t match and is also written in that a city on blood shed (Habakkuk 2) is wrong. Also if looked at in correct order the mother of all harlots makes perfect sense to what it is.

So given that as evidence it is the gospel of John for saying Yeshua is anything above what he said he was, making the term begotten son. which has caused countless wars and fighting, over that one use of that terminology, which is made up it looks anyways as his gospel contain lies all the way through it.
Most things people argue in Christian stem from John (so it does not bring peoples to Christ’s teachings), yet on close inspection of the other gospels, much of John doesn’t fit in the slightest with what Yeshua said anywhere else, and can easily be proven as false.
Given all the private conversations in the gospel of John he was witnesses to; you would think people would have noticed it may have been a Pharisee or X-member of the high council, who though even in his testimony said he tried to defend (Nicodemus) Yeshua whilst alive, but it wasn’t enough and it was a choice given to them of to pay the price of 30 pieces of silver or not (so he brought burial herbs, nice of the man).


Paul is just blind and blatantly contradicts Yeshua on works, inheritance, law, separating, love, god, Christ and about everything else he said, in some ways contradict Yeshua.
Not adding to it as some say, yet he reshapes it, re-labels it Christianity and there we have the exact same Pharisees; Christ stood against re-established as written in Zechariah 11 to happen.

Simon being labelled stone (peter) is not an accident on Yeshua’s part, him calling Simon Satan is not an accident either; he didn’t make accidents in his wording, he used them as sword (which take E-Sword to go through). So when we have the books of peter(stone) that also go against old testament values on same said point Yeshua used about Simons ministry, rock and (peter)stone in Bible search brings up God is the Rock (Isaiah 8), not Yeshua (plummet stone = To measure) as he says.
We have Maccabees 4 explaining someone by the name of Simon got Rome to force feed Israel meat and wine under sentence of death and take away the daily sacrifice as is written of the abomination of desolation?
The fact they are called Simon is very strange, when it is Simon whom told Christianity they may eat forbidden meats.

Anyways a point of Anti-Christ or not is those who stand against Yeshua teachings, which if Paul, John are Pharisee case closed.

[Jonathan Rex]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Are you labouring under the misapprehension that I'm a sola scripturalist? I'm not and I will not debate as though I am. I do not need to provide Scripture to back up my belief as we rely on things other than that collected in the canon also, a fact which should have been obvious to you from the word Tradition in my post above, so please don't treat me like a Protestant. Tradition does indeed strongly imply that this is the case, including the prophecies of more than a few saints.

James

I'm not challenging you. I've just heard a lot of people claim that and I'm wondering where it comes from. I've read numerous various scriptures from Hinduism to Buddhism, Taoism to Judaism, Christianity to Islam and I've never found anything that says anything about an Antichrist forming a One World Religion . . . other than the Left Behind Series and last time I checked, that was fiction.

I'm just wondering if maybe you can shed some light on that subject. Tradition doesn't settle with me. It must be written somewhere for this many people to be saying it.

[xexon]

Originally Posted by FFH

Messiah
Born of a virgin
Die on a cross

Jesus is the Christ/messiah/savior/redeemer of the world.

Antichrist
Any and all who profess Jesus was/is not the Christ/messiah/savior/redeemer of the world.

Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (president of Iran) the final antichrist ???

How did you come up with Ahmadinejad as anti-christ?

Turn the TV off. There are way too many people yanking your chain with this. Most of them in Israel.


x

[wizanda]

Rev 14:8
(8) And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

communion

Rev 13:7
(7) And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Christianity from Paul, John, Simon i.e. Pharisee