• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! 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!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

IS JESUS THE ANTI-CHRIST?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Choir Loft, Apr 7, 2018.

  1. Choir Loft

    Choir Loft Member

    244
    +69
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Here's a little brain teaser for you to consider. Let's begin with a little background to my question, is Jesus the anti-Christ.

    The following is a thumb nail examination of Jewish ideology as it was in Jesus' time and as it is today.

    The gospels record frequent discussions between Jesus and representatives of a Jewish elitist group called the pharisees. The root of the debate was that Jesus taught one must obey the Torah/Tanakh (Old Testament Law) rather than the traditions of man. Specific traditions He referred to were numerous rules and regulations and re-interpretations called the Talmud.(*)

    Talmudic traditions could change with the wind, or whatever a majority of rabbis thought it might be. For example, it was said that even if Moses and Elijah appeared for a debate a mere three pharisaic rabbis could out vote them and win. In another example, the Talmud falsely records YHWH saying, "I have been defeated by my sons" because the opinion of a majority of pharisaic rabbis supersedes even YHWH Himself. Jesus taught that these traditions of man were wrong. He made Himself very unpopular with the pharisees when He said these things.

    Another key point for the Christian reader to consider is that modern Orthodox Rabbis are the continuation of the ancient Pharisees (it says so in the Talmud). In the two thousand years that have passed since they argued with Jesus there have been a few changes, but the essentials remain the same.

    My final point here is that the basic Rabbinic reasons for rejecting Jesus is that He taught opposition to Talmudic tradition, not because He claimed to be the Son of God (because a mere two pharisaic Rabbis could out vote God Himself). According to Talmudic tradition, if a man opposes Rabbinic interpretations he should be killed. Can you see where I'm going with this?

    That being said, here is my question.....

    Initial side of the argument;
    According to strict interpretation of Daniel's reference in Hebrew and Greek reference in Revelation to 'the abomination of desolation' the anti-christ isn't a man who is opposed to Jesus so much as it is an attitude and a tradition that opposes Torah.

    Opposing side of the argument;
    Talmudic traditions (as criticized by Jesus) DO oppose Torah, or "the Law" as it says in the New Testament. According to pharisaic tradition any man who opposes Talmudic tradition is anti-messiah (or anti-christ in the Christian vernacular).

    In this instance who then is anti-christ? Is it Jesus who opposed Talmudic traditions or is it the pharisees who opposed Jesus' strict interpretation of Torah?

    In summation;
    Jews are accused of being anti-Christ, but are they really? From the perspective of Jewish ideology, the issue isn't Jesus, its Talmudic tradition.

    It's not that easy to identify anti-Christ as you can see.

    Opinions and observations? What say you?

    and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

    (*) One Talmudic law stated how one must put on their sandals or shoes. The right one first and then the left one. Talmud also said one must wash one's right hand first, then the left one. When Jesus' disciples didn't wash their hands at all they were criticized for their lack of proper ritual etiquette. These 'laws' go on and on with exceptions and tangents multiplying as the Rabbis saw fit to impose.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. ☦Marius☦

    ☦Marius☦ Murican Supporter

    +1,995
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    US-Others
    The talmud is man made. You claiming it opposes the Torah should answer your own question for how moral it is. Christ didn't oppose the Rabbinic law, he fulfilled it.
     
  3. dreadnought

    dreadnought Lip service isn't really service. Supporter

    +3,399
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    Satan, who rules this world, tries to make us think Jesus is the bad guy. If you stand by the Lord's commandment that homosexuality is a sin, the world has all kinds of bad things to say about you.
     
  4. Choir Loft

    Choir Loft Member

    244
    +69
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You are correct in stating that Jesus fulfilled Torah (gentile linguistic translations refer to the Law - the two words, Torah and Law, are technically identical).

    "I did not come to abolish the law, or the prophets: I came to fulfil it."
    - Jesus as quoted by Mathew 5:17

    I'm not claiming Talmud supersedes Torah. Quite the opposite. My examples are given to illustrate the debate both in Jesus' time and today. Rabbinic school of theology (pharisees) both ancient and modern supports Talmudic tradition. Jesus, as well as Karaite Jews, claim Torah is The Word of God.

    For my part, I claim Karaite interpretation is correct.(*)

    Jesus opposed Rabbinic interpretations of Talmud, which He is quoted in the gospels as referring to traditions. When you read "traditions" in a Christian translation of Gospels and Epistles, substitute "Talmudic traditions" and you will understand more clearly the nature of the debate Christ had with the pharisees of His time - as well as our own.

    and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

    (*) According to Karaite Judaism, if a matter disagrees with or isn't in Torah or Tanakh, it's wrong. The reader no doubt agrees that strict interpretation of Torah & Tanakh includes the Gospels and the Epistles.
    [Note: The Tanakh is the remainder of the Old Testament, that which is now known as the Prophets and the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs & historic books such as Kings and Chronicles).]
    Karaite Jews acknowledge the correctness of literal interpretation. By extension and observation, there is NO disagreement in the combined narrative of Torah/Tanakh, Gospels and Epistles.

    Orthodox Jewish rabbinate disagrees at this point because they hold the Talmud and their own traditions to be superior. This debate and disagreement continues because parties are talking about different matters altogether - apples vs. oranges so to speak.
     
  5. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git! Supporter

    +28,465
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    I would even go so far to say it is not much different tan Islam's Koran, but unlike non-Chrisian Judaism, Muslims revere both Jesus and Mary. Irony.......
    [and no, I am not semitic !!]

    Jesus in the Talmud - Wikipedia

    ...............The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521.[11] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Advocates for the Catholic Church alleged that the Talmud contained blasphemous references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud, and claimed Joshua and its derivations was a common Jewish name, that they referred to other individuals. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.

    Rev 2:9 “ I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”
     
  6. 1213

    1213 Disciple of Jesus

    +789
    Christian
    Single
    Christ means Messiah, which is the King of Jews. If one is anti-Messiah, he is anti-King, not anti-Talmud. I think it is really dysfunctional argument to say anti-Talmud is anti-Christ.
     
  7. Choir Loft

    Choir Loft Member

    244
    +69
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    My purpose for this exercise is to pass along some information about Hebrew roots and traditions, particularly those of the Old Testament vs. New Testament. My purpose is to engage discussion about the roots of Biblical truth and the power it can have upon faith and lives and the reality of everyday living. Examples I've chosen illustrate Biblical issues as seen from the perspective of Jewish tradition as well as gentile tradition - to look at the subject from both directions.

    Christians are generally unaware of the traditions and languages that affect their ideology. Pastors may pass along interpretations of Jewish tradition as well as secular history, but for the most part the body of believers suffer in the darkness of false assumptions, accepting buzz words and religious slogans as truth gleaned from supermarket tabloid literature pretending to be Christian instead of the Word of God.

    For example, are you aware that except for the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts the entire New Testament was written by Jewish believers for Jewish believers about their Jewish messiah? References contained in the narratives are Jewish and well known by Jews who read them. Christians have to have it explained to them. The process can be as laborious as it is rewarding.

    I invite the reader to labor with me for a few minutes more.

    The writings and traditions described in the Torah and Tanakh (Old Testament) have been manipulated adapted and mutated over the course of centuries to the financial and political advantage of certain institutions - Jew and gentile alike. Historically speaking believers did not profit from these machinations. This created a situation God did not intend. In these End Times, heaven is reopening the book to those who are willing to learn its lessons.

    Ha-mashiach is the Hebrew word for messiah. It also means 'anointed one'. Y'shuah is the original Hebrew name of the Son of God. Hellenized (Greek) translations and culture affect the Gospels and Epistles to a great extent, perhaps greater than many Christians realize. Y'shuah ha-mashiach is the name of the anointed One who died for our sins. Jesus Christ is the Hellenized form of His name.

    Son of David vs. Son of Jacob

    Jews of His day referred to Him as ben David, meaning son of David. The prefix 'ben' means 'son of'. Therefore Y'shuah ben David means Jesus son of David. But according to prophecy as well as the gospels, ha-machiach might more accurately be named Y'shuah ben Yakov, Jesus son of Jacob. (Isaiah chapters 44, 45, 48 & 49) The error is caused by Jewish Talmudic interpretation. Isaiah describes the suffering servant - ben Yakov, which is accurate concerning Y'shuah's life and death and resurrection. Jews of His time mistakenly supposed Y'shuah would be a conquering general who, like the Maccabees who threw off the yolk of the Greeks, would liberate Israel from Rome. They were expecting someone else when they called Y'shuah by the name ben David.

    Jews of Jesus' time were expecting a Talmudic ha-mashiach, not the savior predicted by Isaiah - ben Yakov.

    Y'shuah's purpose was to fulfill Torah and Tanakh, not Talmud. Events recorded in the gospels as well as numerous secular texts affirm His intent and work. Jewish Talmudic rabbis expected a son of David, not a son of Jacob. Therefore Y'shuah's life miracles and words were diametrically opposed to the Talmudic concept of ha-mashiah. Y'shuah really was an anti-Christ in their eyes. That's why they exercised the nuclear option of Talmudic law and had the Son of God executed.

    It's not dysfunctional. It's false religious interpretation. Sometimes we see the events of two thousand years ago through the lens of history. Sometimes we don't learn its lessons. Sometimes the perspective of history is 20/20. Sometimes its ignored. As it was in Jesus' day, so it is now with regard to Talmudic tradition. Jesus was the anti-christ.

    It's rather ironic when you think about it. The anointed One who came to save His people was rejected because he didn't wave the flag of Jewish nationalism and revolt. Instead He was accepted in peace by Gentiles under no flag at all.

    - Jews still consider Jesus to be an anti-christ or anti ha-mashiah because He did not conform to their expectations of "son of David" when He rejected Talmudic law and traditions. From the point of view of the rabbinate, Jesus' claims were the antithesis of Talmudic law and tradition - an anti-Christ from the perspective of the Talmud.

    - Christians expect the anti-Christ to be a secular demigod or despot on the order of Napoleon, Stalin or Mohammad. One who opposes God with the voice of the evil one.

    "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Jesus as quoted by Mathew 5:17

    Jesus (and the apostles) spoke against Talmudic law, not Torah - the Law of Moses. He is the ONE who really sits in the seat of Moses, (*) not Talmudic rabbis. When the epistles state that Jesus destroyed the law, they are speaking of Talmudic law, not the law of Moses, the Torah. It is Talmudic law that is destroyed, not the royal law of Moses.

    For example, Talmud declares one must put on the right shoe (or sandal) first and then the left one. Talmud says one must wash the right hand first and then the left hand. When Jesus and His disciples didn't wash at all the pharisees were quite literally blind with rage.

    Read the gospel of Mathew with this in mind and see if it makes a difference in the way the events can be interpreted. Why Mathew? Because the gospel of Mathew was the only gospel originally written in Hebrew. The remaining three were written in Greek.

    Hope this helps.

    that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

    (*) the Seat of Moses - is a traditional reference to Talmudic authority or chain of command and is very similar to the structure of Apostolic Succession established by the Roman Catholic church and Islamic schools of religious jurisprudence. It may all be humanistic fakery in the name of religion, but that's the way things work.

    PS Print this off and show it to your pastor if you still have questions. He may be able to better explain the situation than I can in so few words as these.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  8. 1213

    1213 Disciple of Jesus

    +789
    Christian
    Single
    Interesting thing is that Jews couldn’t answer to this:

    He saith to them, `How then doth David in the Spirit call him lord, saying, The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool? If then David doth call him lord, how is he his son?'
    Matt. 22:43-45

    Sorry, I don’t see enough reason to think Jesus was destroying any law. He was fulfilling the law. But I think the right law is the ten commandments, because they were given to Moses and set as the condition for the promises God gave.


    Yahweh said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain, and stay here, and I will give you the tables of stone with the law and the commands that I have written, that you may teach them."

    Exodus 24:12

    All the other maybe something else than God’s Law.

    Did Jesus really eat without washing hands, or was it just evil accusation?
     
  9. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    +3,218
    Deist
    US-Libertarian
    Firstly, the Talmud does not date to Jesus' era. Sections of it MAY (some of the mishna'ot attributed to sages of his era.) If you want to know what MAY have been said by the Rabbis in Jesus day you will have to sift the Mishnah for men of this era. Even when you manage that, issues that had been legally ruled on have to be sifted from THAT. The Mishnah contains many opinions, but not all opinions were binding on the Jewish people.

    Secondly, when you quote Talmudic passages (in isolation and out of context apparently) you should be asking how the Sages came to this opinion. For this you should study Rabbinic hermeneutics. Most of the time understanding which Bible passages they are referring to and their method for extracting their interpretation is at least comprehensible and often justifiable.
     
  10. John tower

    John tower The Called Out

    +333
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    John 8(44) : What Jesus said about the Pharisees , and their modern descendants today : Also Rev 2(9), 3(9)!
     
  11. Choir Loft

    Choir Loft Member

    244
    +69
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    The issue is that there are two Jewish laws; Torah and Talmud.

    Jesus rejected Talmudic law and tradition and fulfilled Torah. There are very many Christians today who believe Jesus rejected all law entirely. I do not agree with them. According to Matt 5:17 and everything He taught, Jesus fulfilled Torah and the prophets even as He played games with and violated Talmudic traditions.

    Moses, by the hand of God, led the Hebrews out of Egyptian bondage. When they settled in the land God gave them they corrupted themselves. In their pride they abandoned God and embraced foreign ideology and religion. Consequently God divided the nation and led the remnant into captivity in Babylon. While there, rabbis guided the pendulum of religious devotion in the opposite direction with all the fanaticism they could encourage. The Talmud was composed in those years and was so filled with legalisms and traditions that it was hoped the Jewish people would never again abandon God. But they did - embracing their own variations of divine revelation they abandoned God once again. Jesus, like the prophets before Him suffered at the hand, not of pagan religion, but of that which He sought to clarify.

    Luke 11:38 records that pharisees were surprised when Jesus didn't wash His hands before He ate.

    Jesus violated Talmudic law every chance He got. At the same time He demonstrated God's approval of His words by means of miracles and authoritative speech.

    When the epistles, which are addressed to Jews, speak of an end to the Law it speaks of an end to Talmudic repression not Torah (also called The Royal Law or Mosaic Law). The 10 commandments still stand.

    or is it now ok to rob, cheat, lie and lay with your neighbor's wife?

    (Apparently it is ok if you're an American politician, Hollywood celebrity or one who upholds false doctrines of grace.) (*)

    and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

    (*) I once attended a Baptist church where the speaker concluded his sermon on grace by saying, "go out and sin this week that grace may abound."

    .....and decent Christians now wonder why the reputation of the church is now stained with hypocrisy...
     
  12. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    +3,218
    Deist
    US-Libertarian
    See post 9. Cite for me please the Talmudic passage and the ruling it gives that Jesus opposed.
     
  13. Choir Loft

    Choir Loft Member

    244
    +69
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    If the reader wants to know what "the Rabbis in Jesus' day" said, then an examination of the gospels is in order, not Mishnah. My posts refer to conversations documented in the Gospels and Epistles, which quote Jesus' responses to pharisees of His day. My purpose in these posts is to shed a bit of illumination on religious and philosophical motivations.

    The dialogue and debate of Jesus' day isn't recorded in the Mishnah. As you stated, "some of the mishna'ot attributed to sages of his era". It is true that not all opinions expressed in the Mishnah were and/or are binding on the Jewish people. There are different groups and disciplines that interpret Mishnah as they choose. As I stated earlier, Judaism is not a philosophy set in stone, but is a dynamic and living thing.

    Two Torahs - Two Laws

    According to tradition Moses received two Torahs - an Oral Torah and a Written Torah. Phariseeism is based on belief in the Oral Torah, sometimes also called the Oral Law. This particular version was revealed to Moses during his second trip up the mountain of Sinai. (1)

    The Oral Torah was given and passed along orally to keep it out of the hands of the gentiles. God knew that the Tanakh (Old Testament) would be translated into Greek, explains the Midrash, so He gave the Oral Law by word of mouth to preserve it as the exclusive domain of the Rabbis as a sort of secret knowledge. (2) The reader should also know that a profound change in this tradition happened when the Oral Torah was committed to paper (3).

    As I wrote previously, I do not give credence at all to the Talmud. My purpose is to explain the heavy impact of Hebrew culture upon the New Testament, a matter of which many in the church are unaware.

    Wouldn't you agree?

    and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

    (1) Torah She-Be'al Pet - Babylonian Talmud, Sabbath 31a

    "Our Rabbis taught: An incident with a certain gentile that came before Shammai (a famous rabbi who lived a few decades before Yeshua) said to him, 'how many Torahs do your have?' Shammai answered two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.

    (2) Exodus Rabbah s47:1 - compare Lehrman Translation p. 536

    (3) 200 CE - writing of Mishnah begun by Rabbi Judah the Prince. Subsequent centuries witnessed debates, explanations and CHANGES to Mishnaic passages which became known as Talmud. Of these there are two Talmuds; Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud. Babylonian Talmud gained preeminence during the Middle Ages.
     
  14. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    +3,218
    Deist
    US-Libertarian
    The NT engages in polemics against its opponents and caricatures them. It is NOT an unbiased source.
     
  15. jesus316

    jesus316 All Truth is in Jesus Supporter

    +775
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The Jews had one meaning of the word Messiah; the Christians borrowed the word and infused new meaning into it. Of course Jesus didn't fit their view of the Messiah, but I don't think they had the concept of anti-Messiah.
     
  16. Choir Loft

    Choir Loft Member

    244
    +69
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Historically it was the Greeks who changed the words and meanings of Hebrew into a common text that could be transmitted across the Roman world. The word messiah is but one of them. In Hebrew it means, "anointed one".

    But anointed for what? This is the present day rabbinic problem as well as the problem of those who didn't know who they were looking at when God walked among them two thousand years ago. Yeshuah ben Yakov vs. Yeshuah ben David? (Son of Jacob [suffering servant] or Son of David [Maccabean military deliverer])

    You're correct about anti-messiah. I invented that to create a conversation piece. There's no such thing as a literal Jewish anti-messiah.....except perhaps in the way rabbis interpreted Jesus' words and ministry. Except in the way they do to this day......

    Jesus was neither judge of sinners nor a Maccabee. The politics of empire and religious tradition combined to misunderstand everything Jesus said and everything He did. Ancient divine prophecies were warped by the traditions of man. They still are.....

    At the end of the day consider the following;
    The New Testament, except for Luke and Acts, was written by Jews for Jews who had encountered Jesus in person or in their hearts and had accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

    It is estimated that between 25% and 30% of Jews in Jesus' day accepted Him as messiah.

    The Jew accepted Him first and then the Greek.

    And then along came the Roman Catholic church which busily redefinded almost every aspect of Christianity.....doing what the Jews once did....changing their interpretations of God's own truth into the traditions of man.

    Some things never change.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
Loading...