The AnteChrist, the AntiChrist, and the AntiSemite.

[John D. Brey]

Etymologically and theologically speaking, the word "Anti-Christ" doesn't generally mean "against" Christ. It means "instead of" Christ. The "Anti-Christ" is a replacement for Christ, a false-Christ. The word "Ante-Christ" means "before" Christ. . . . And we all have a pretty good idea what "Anti-Semite" means, someone "opposed" to Semites.

Within the context of the Pharisaical worldview, Pharisaical Jews appear justified in viewing Jesus of Nazareth as Anti-Christ (instead of Christ) in a manner that has led to the worst cases of Anti-Semitism. If Jesus is Anti-Christ, within the Pharisaical worldview, he's also Ante-Christ, before Christ, before Messiah. So in this sense, Pharisaical Judaism could rightly consider Jesus Anti-Christ (instead of Christ), Ante-Christ (before Christ) and Anti-Semitic through and through (since he is he basis for the worst cases of Anti-Semitism).

. . . If I were a Pharisaical Jew, I would view Jesus as a satanic personage designed and created (by satan) to bring persecution and death to God's chosen people. History would justify this worldview beyond a reasonable doubt since Jesus did present himself as Messiah, did not bring on the Kingdom of God (at least not as expected), and has been personally responsible, through his ministry, for the death of millions of natural-born-Jews throughout history.

. . . Adding insult to injury, not only did Jesus do all of the above, but he was mostly rejected by natural-born-Jews, such that the most successful Christian missionary, Saul of Tarsus, whom Nietzsche fondly referred to as "the rug weaver," was forced to ply his missionary wares not among natural-born-Jews, but among the very people God seemingly rejected in selecting the Jews out from amongst the nations?

As noted above, there's a pretty sound argument for considering Jesus of Nazareth the AntiChrist within both a Pharisaical Jewish framework, and even a fairly general historical and ideological framework. Jesus' ministry has led to untold suffering and persecution of the natural-born Jew whom the Messiah's (Christ's) ministry is thought to promote; Jesus' ministry doesn't appear to have resulted in the immediate attainment of the Kingdom of God (associated with Christ, the Messiah), and he died a common criminal under the law.

Based on these reasonable points, Jesus of Nazareth, far from being recognizable as Messiah, the Christ, appears to be a "forerunner" (anti) of the Christ: the AntiChrist. . . As such he comes "before" (ante) Christ (Messiah) --- such that he's ante-Christ, and he instigates a historical epoch associated with gross persecution of the natural-born Jew (anti-Semitism).

. . . Can I get an amen from a natural-born Jew . . . or anyone else?



John

 

[Acim]

Arguable, that Jesus presented himself as (the) Messiah.

Anyone can 'rightly' consider anyone 'Christ' or judge anyone else as 'Anti-Christ.'

I realize dogma may say otherwise.

 

[wizanda]

or anyone else?

So from a Rabbinic perspective, you're right; someone comes along, gets them kicked out of the nation, their 2nd temple destroyed, their kingdom divided, and then persecuted because of him...

Clearly that would look Anti-Jewish; yet then we have to question, why was all of that prophesied to *happen in the Tanakh, because of the Messiah*?

*Debatable*

 

[Spiderman]

Etymologically and theologically speaking, the word "Anti-Christ" doesn't generally mean "against" Christ. It means "instead of" Christ. The "Anti-Christ" is a replacement for Christ, a false-Christ. The word "Ante-Christ" means "before" Christ. . . . And we all have a pretty good idea what "Anti-Semite" means, someone "opposed" to Semites.

Within the context of the Pharisaical worldview, Pharisaical Jews appear justified in viewing Jesus of Nazareth as Anti-Christ (instead of Christ) in a manner that has led to the worst cases of Anti-Semitism. If Jesus is Anti-Christ, within the Pharisaical worldview, he's also Ante-Christ, before Christ, before Messiah. So in this sense, Pharisaical Judaism could rightly consider Jesus Anti-Christ (instead of Christ), Ante-Christ (before Christ) and Anti-Semitic through and through (since he is he basis for the worst cases of Anti-Semitism).

. . . If I were a Pharisaical Jew, I would view Jesus as a satanic personage designed and created (by satan) to bring persecution and death to God's chosen people. History would justify this worldview beyond a reasonable doubt since Jesus did present himself as Messiah, did not bring on the Kingdom of God (at least not as expected), and has been personally responsible, through his ministry, for the death of millions of natural-born-Jews throughout history.

. . . Adding insult to injury, not only did Jesus do all of the above, but he was mostly rejected by natural-born-Jews, such that the most successful Christian missionary, Saul of Tarsus, whom Nietzsche fondly referred to as "the rug weaver," was forced to ply his missionary wares not among natural-born-Jews, but among the very people God seemingly rejected in selecting the Jews out from amongst the nations?

As noted above, there's a pretty sound argument for considering Jesus of Nazareth the AntiChrist within both a Pharisaical Jewish framework, and even a fairly general historical and ideological framework. Jesus' ministry has led to untold suffering and persecution of the natural-born Jew whom the Messiah's (Christ's) ministry is thought to promote; Jesus' ministry doesn't appear to have resulted in the immediate attainment of the Kingdom of God (associated with Christ, the Messiah), and he died a common criminal under the law.

Based on these reasonable points, Jesus of Nazareth, far from being recognizable as Messiah, the Christ, appears to be a "forerunner" (anti) of the Christ: the AntiChrist. . . As such he comes "before" (ante) Christ (Messiah) --- such that he's ante-Christ, and he instigates a historical epoch associated with gross persecution of the natural-born Jew (anti-Semitism).

. . . Can I get an amen from a natural-born Jew . . . or anyone else?



John

I think you bring up a good point that the Antichrist may not be this barbaric bloodthirsty instrument of Satan but Rather a person who is charitable, humble, , intelligent, fervent, charming, wise, enlightened, and seems to provide better solutions to unity and ridding the world of suffering, poverty, and war to such a great extent that people go to him instead of Christ, not so much because he is this evil Satanic butcher of God's people that He is portrayed as.

One thing I'd like you to consider regarding Antisemitism is that Jesus told people to not return evil for evil. He told his followers "put down your sword. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword...love your enemies...do unto others as you would have them do unto you...care for the sick, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, visit the imprisoned...what you do for the least of my people you do for me..."

There is no justification of harming any Jews in His commands. If all were adhering to the teachings of Christ, not a single Jew would have ever been killed by the hands of a Christian. Christians who committed such atrocities were doing the opposite of what Christ commanded.

 

[John D. Brey]

Arguable, that Jesus presented himself as (the) Messiah.

Anyone can 'rightly' consider anyone 'Christ' or judge anyone else as 'Anti-Christ.'

I realize dogma may say otherwise.

. . . Since what you're calling "dogma" is all we have to go by I don't see how you can claim it's arguable that Jesus presented himself as the Messiah. The dogmatic text clearly implies that he did.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

So from a Rabbinic perspective, you're right; someone comes along, gets them kicked out of the nation, their 2nd temple destroyed, their kingdom divided, and then persecuted because of him...

Clearly that would look Anti-Jewish; yet then we have to question, why was all of that prophesied to *happen in the Tanakh, because of the Messiah*?

*Debatable*

Do you have scripture from the Tanakh in mind that suggests those things will happen because of Messiah?



John

 

[wizanda]

Do you have scripture from the Tanakh in mind that suggests those things will happen because of Messiah?

Daniel 9:26 After the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off, and will have nothing. The people of the prince who come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end will be with a flood, and war will be even to the end. Desolations are determined.

 

[John D. Brey]

I think you bring up a good point that the Antichrist may not be this barbaric bloodthirsty instrument of Satan but Rather a person who is charitable, humble, , intelligent, fervent, charming, wise, enlightened, and seems to provide better solutions to unity and ridding the world of suffering, poverty, and war to such a great extent that people go to him instead of Christ, not so much because he is this evil Satanic butcher of God's people that He is portrayed as.

One thing I'd like you to consider regarding Antisemitism is that Jesus told people to not return evil for evil. He told his followers "put down your sword. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword...love your enemies...do unto others as you would have them do unto you...care for the sick, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, visit the imprisoned...what you do for the least of my people you do for me..."

There is no justification of harming any Jews in His commands. If all were adhering to the teachings of Christ, not a single Jew would have ever been killed by the hands of a Christian. Christians who committed such atrocities were doing the opposite of what Christ commanded.

There are some contradictory statements from Jesus of Nazareth. For instance he once said he wished he could bring the sword but that that time was not yet here. There are parables given by him that imply that those who are against him, natural-born Jews, will be slaughtered.

Fwiw, the similarities between Jesus of Nazareth and the AntiChrist are rather startling since Daniel's "Man of Sin" (who the NT often references as an OT type of the AntiChrist) brings about a time of "Jacob's trouble" (antiSemitism) unlike any persecution of the Jew that ever was, is, or will come. Which is to question who can deny that the current exile of natural-born Jews from the holy land, directly related to the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth (it began within a generation of his death), is the worst, and longest, period of persecution the natural-born Jew has ever known.

Daniel's "man of sin," like the NT "AntiChrist" is a demonic persecutor of natural-born Jews. He performs "signs and wonders"; he's a miracle worker (clearing throat) whose power comes directly from the "dragon" the "serpent," the demonic enemy of all Jews. . . And as if all that were not enough to cement Jesus in as the AntiChrist we have a mysterious whisper, a Freudian slip, if you will, and this from the disciple Jesus loved, that Jesus is, was, and will forever be, the AntiChrist.

In Revelation 1:4 John labels Jesus of Nazareth, "him who is, and who was, and who is to come. . .." -----Then, later, in chapter 17 of the same book, speaking of the great Mystery that is the identity of the AntiChrist, John exclaims that he was "greatly astonished" (almost a hapax legomenon, but not quite) because of the identity of the AntiChrist. ------The angel speaking to John says "Why do you marvel so? I will reveal to you the mystery . . . of the beast [AntiChrist]. . . The beast [Anti-Christ] once was, now is not, and is he who is to come, up out of the Abyss."

. . . How comforting for John must be the angel's revelation that Jesus (who was, is not, and is to come) is the AntiChrist?

Christians might say, "what a crock" to the foregoing. They'll exclaim vehemently that John's "astonishment" at seeing the beast-AntiChrist has nothing to do with the beast-AntiChrist being Jesus of Nazareth. . . But of course there's that pesky Greek word (thauma) "astonishment" used only two times in the entire NT . . . it's almost a hapax legomenon, but not quite. It's used one other place, which, as fate would have it, seems remarkably amenable to its blood-brother in Revelation 17:6:

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel [thauma]; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.​

The Holy Bible: King James Version. (2009). (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version., 2 Co 11:13–15). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. (Emphasis mine.)
​

The only other place in the entire NT that the word John uses for his "astonishment" at seeing Jesus revealed as the AntiChrist is a verse claiming that Satan transforms himself into a miracle-working angel of light and that even his disciples are transformed into ministers of righteousness when in fact they are demonic, AntiChrist, and ministers of the doom of Israel.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Daniel 9:26 After the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off, and will have nothing. The people of the prince who come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end will be with a flood, and war will be even to the end. Desolations are determined.

Ok. . . . But that leaves things a bit open ended (so to say). And your question stands: why would the Tanakh imply that Messiah is cut off?



John

 

[Acim]

. . . Since what you're calling "dogma" is all we have to go by I don't see how you can claim it's arguable that Jesus presented himself as the Messiah. The dogmatic text clearly implies that he did.

I don't see scripture as limited to a few possible books, nor do I see it as plausible that the only way Creator would remind Creation about Christ is via texts. So, no dogma is not all we have to go by.

But even within NT, I don't find much that states Jesus claimed himself as Messiah.

 

[John D. Brey]

I don't see scripture as limited to a few possible books, nor do I see it as plausible that the only way Creator would remind Creation about Christ is via texts. So, no dogma is not all we have to go by.

But even within NT, I don't find much that states Jesus claimed himself as Messiah.

How do you think the Creator reminds Creation about Christ . . .outside of the text of scripture? ----- If you know what the "anointed one" signifies, you would know that Jesus was presented as the anointed one?



John

 

[wizanda]

why would the Tanakh imply that Messiah is cut off?

Because according to Daniel, it is because the wicked one comes, and will cause the Abomination of Desolation to stand in his place....

Through this YHVH can establish a marvelous work, like a snare in words across time, to find out who the workers of iniquity are.

 

[John D. Brey]

Because according to Daniel, it is because the wicked one comes, and will cause the Abomination of Desolation to stand in his place....

Through this YHVH can establish a marvelous work, like a snare in words across time, to find out who the workers of iniquity are.

How does cutting off Messiah create "a snare in words across time"? And what do you consider the "Abomination of Desolation."



John

 

[Acim]

How do you think the Creator reminds Creation about Christ . . .outside of the text of scripture? ----- If you know what the "anointed one" signifies, you would know that Jesus was presented as the anointed one?

Having faith, belief and knowledge of God/Christ, I would ask how one could rationalize that God wouldn't engage in communication with Creation, except through a text?
Feel like I can come from scripture to expound on this point, but once that is understood, the reliance on 'scripture only' is necessarily reduced. I would consider that a great thing. And again, I understand that dogma may assert otherwise.

I fully get that Jesus is routinely presented as "annointed one." I am saying that if sticking with gospel (NT) only, there isn't much to suggest that he himself saw himself in that light. There is for sure some items that would make it very challenging to deny it. I don't feel that I'm denying, but am downplaying it. The whole "anointed one" type thinking really does appear to make an idol out of Jesus. But each to his own, without judgment, I suppose.

 

[wizanda]

How does cutting off Messiah create "a snare in words across time"?

Because human sacrifice defiles the Law; yet some people who are so quick to the spoils, have accepted it without question.

And what do you consider the "Abomination of Desolation."

Mark 13:14 But when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,

This would place it at the time of the 2nd temple destruction.

Daniel 11:31 “Forces will stand on his part, and they will profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and will take away the continual burnt offering. Then they will set up the abomination that makes desolate.

The word abomination is some form of idolatry.

It could be the fake 'jesus' established by John, Paul, and Simon the stone (petros).... Yet I'm not sure.

 

[John D. Brey]

Having faith, belief and knowledge of God/Christ, I would ask how one could rationalize that God wouldn't engage in communication with Creation, except through a text?
Feel like I can come from scripture to expound on this point, but once that is understood, the reliance on 'scripture only' is necessarily reduced. I would consider that a great thing. And again, I understand that dogma may assert otherwise.

I fully get that Jesus is routinely presented as "annointed one." I am saying that if sticking with gospel (NT) only, there isn't much to suggest that he himself saw himself in that light. There is for sure some items that would make it very challenging to deny it. I don't feel that I'm denying, but am downplaying it. The whole "anointed one" type thinking really does appear to make an idol out of Jesus. But each to his own, without judgment, I suppose.

If "idolatry" is the worship of a manifestation of God, then I would think the crucifix would be the only legitimate form of idolatry since Paul says Jesus is the fullness of deity in bodily form? If Jesus is not a legitimate idol, what is he?



John

 

[savagewind]

You are basing your argument on the possibility that nothing bad would have happened to the Jewish nation had Jesus never taught. Do you believe that?

 

[John D. Brey]

You are basing your argument on the possibility that nothing bad would have happened to the Jewish nation had Jesus never taught. Do you believe that?

I'm neither sure what this means, nor whom it's addressed to?



John

 

[Acim]

If "idolatry" is the worship of a manifestation of God, then I would think the crucifix would be the only legitimate form of idolatry since Paul says Jesus is the fullness of deity in bodily form? If Jesus is not a legitimate idol, what is he?

A great Teacher whose teachings (by example, messages) matter more (to a student) than perception of his being as if that is external/separate from the student. That his message included consistent teachings on Christ, makes the teaching in the domain of the Holy (Spirit). He provides an example of divinity on the earthly plane and how that may act and share in Knowledge. I find Jesus' teachings in NT (but also elsewhere) attempt to clarify that Christ is in You (or All) and that he (Jesus) is not the only one fit for the path of Christ. I strongly believe what makes Jesus, Christ (or relatable as Christ) is that he chose to see Christ in everyone he encountered and that this grew in strength for him because of how God's Love (or Being) works in reality.

 

[Akivah]

Within the context of the Pharisaical worldview, Pharisaical Jews appear justified in viewing Jesus of Nazareth as Anti-Christ (instead of Christ) in a manner that has led to the worst cases of Anti-Semitism. If Jesus is Anti-Christ, within the Pharisaical worldview, he's also Ante-Christ, before Christ, before Messiah. So in this sense, Pharisaical Judaism could rightly consider Jesus Anti-Christ (instead of Christ), Ante-Christ (before Christ) and Anti-Semitic through and through (since he is he basis for the worst cases of Anti-Semitism).

"Anti-Christ" is Christian terminology. No knowledgeable Jew would use it to describe a person. Whether the literary character known as Jesus was portrayed as anti-Semitic is debatable. Certainly many historical church leaders and Christians that spoke in his name were.

. . . If I were a Pharisaical Jew, I would view Jesus as a satanic personage designed and created (by satan) to bring persecution and death to God's chosen people. History would justify this worldview beyond a reasonable doubt since Jesus did present himself as Messiah, did not bring on the Kingdom of God (at least not as expected), and has been personally responsible, through his ministry, for the death of millions of natural-born-Jews throughout history.

I don't know what you are referring to by the term "Pharisaical Jew". And labeling someone as "satanic" is not something any knowledgeable Jewish person would do; that is a Christian term. Satan is just one of G-d's angels, satan isn't capable of creation. It is a created being. But yes, Christianity has resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews, and persecutions and pogroms for the past 1600 years.

not only did Jesus do all of the above, but he was mostly rejected by natural-born-Jews, such that the most successful Christian missionary, Saul of Tarsus, whom Nietzsche fondly referred to as "the rug weaver," was forced to ply his missionary wares not among natural-born-Jews, but among the very people God seemingly rejected in selecting the Jews out from amongst the nations?

That the literary character known as Jesus was rejected by G-d's servant Israel and the keeper of His Law, is a pretty big clue that the man-god was not a god, nor our promised messiah.

Jesus' ministry doesn't appear to have resulted in the immediate attainment of the Kingdom of God (associated with Christ, the Messiah), and he died a common criminal under the law.

The stories portray him as a criminal, so he received a just sentence.

. . . Can I get an amen from a natural-born Jew . . . or anyone else?

Okay. Amen.