The Antichrist is Not Jewish or Israeli

[mkgal1]

"The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days."

That was a quote from the Judaism101 site, about what Jews believe regarding the messiah. The Jews rejected Jesus as the King of Israel/Messiah, and are looking for someone else - who will be the Antichrist.

That may be the understanding of modern Jews.....but biblical faithful Jews of Jesus's day were the foundation of our Church (quite literally, Mary mother of Jesus, brought us our Messiah priest/king).

 

[BABerean2]

Do you mean like this...?

Galatons 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Like this...


Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
Testing of Your Faith
Jas 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
Jas 1:3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.


.

 

[Dale]

The messiah does not do the anointing. A known prophet, in Jewish thought is supposed to anoint the messiah to be the King of Israel. It is similar to placing a crown on his head.

The messiah in Jewish belief is not just "a" king, but a specific King. King of Israel.

From Judaism 101 Judaism 101: Mashiach: The Messiah

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times.

The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days.

The Encyclopedia of Judaism is a much more solid source of information on Jewish thought than Judaism 101, which is pretty much one person's opinion. You say that the Jewish messiah must be anointed by a prophet. Judaism 101 briefly mentions that he will be anointed but says nothing about who does the anointing. It also says nothing about at what stage of his career this anointing happens. You assume that the anointing by a "false prophet" or "known prophet" must happen first but Judaism 101 says no such thing. It may be that this hypothetical Jewish messiah will do great deeds before he is anointed as king. You haven't read the Judaism 101 article very carefully.

If a self-proclaimed prophet were to anoint someone as King of Israel, what difference would it make?

Years ago, surfing the internet, I ran across the website of a man who claims to be the rightful King of the United States. Chances are that no one on CF has ever heard of him. For that matter, I once saw a program on a cult in California where the leader has been crowned as king, prince, duke, count and who knows what else by his followers. Does anyone care?

If you know anything about France, you may know that there are two men, descended from the Bourbons, claiming to be the rightful king of France. There is also a man descended from Napoleon who claims to be the rightful emperor of France. In the meantime, France goes on being a Republic. Most of the French believe they are better off since they got rid of kings and emperors.

 

[Dale]

The AC is fully human, but will be possessed by the fallen archangel Lucifer, at the middle of the tribulation.

That’s why the tribulation becomes the great tribulation.

There is no need for the antichrist to be possessed. He is pure evil from the beginning.

 

[Douggg]

The Encyclopedia of Judaism is a much more solid source of information on Jewish thought than Judaism 101, which is pretty much one person's opinion. You say that the Jewish messiah must be anointed by a prophet. Judaism 101 briefly mentions that he will be anointed but says nothing about who does the anointing.

There actually have been on three human kings of united Israel, before the breakup into two kingdoms following Solomon.

Those three kings were all anointed by a prophet, signifying that God selected that person to be the king.

Saul and David by Samuel the prophet.
Solomon by Nathan the prophet.

That is where the Jews are getting that the messiah must be anointed the King of Israel by a known prophet.

 

[iamlamad]

There is no need for the antichrist to be possessed. He is pure evil from the beginning.

He is first the "man of sin." Not yet a beast. He becomes a "Beast" when Satan is kicked down from the heavenly realms. Put two and two together...He becomes possessed, and becomes the Beast.

There is further proof of possession: the false prophet must be in close proximity to the Beast (and Satan inside the Beast) to perform false miracles.

 

[mkgal1]

He is first the "man of sin." Not yet a beast. He becomes a "Beast" when Satan is kicked down from the heavenly realms. Put two and two together...He becomes possessed, and becomes the Beast.

Where can I find all this put together like this in Scripture? I don't see "antichrist" ever used with "man of lawlessness".

 

[iamlamad]

Where can I find all this put together like this in Scripture? I don't see "antichrist" ever used with "man of lawlessness".

Some people are not very good at putting two and two together. It is humans that have titled the Beast of Rev. 13 the "Antichrist." John called him a Beast. Antichrist is not wrong, because He will come in the place of Christ. "him they will receive" as Jesus said.

 

[mkgal1]

Some people are not very good at putting two and two together. It is humans that have titled the Beast of Rev. 13 the "Antichrist." John called him a Beast. Antichrist is not wrong, because He will come in the place of Christ. "him they will receive" as Jesus said.

And some other people excel at creating their own biblical narrative - one that has a different plot and even a different cast of characters than Scripture. It's a Frankenstein version of the Bible narrative.

 

[GuyNad]

If I go with what is written in Daniel 9:26-27 that Antichrist will not be Jewish but from the people who destroy the Temple in 70 AD

 

[Douggg]

If I go with what is written in Daniel 9:26-27 that Antichrist will not be Jewish but from the people who destroy the Temple in 70 AD

He will be from the Romans, yes. Specifically descended from the Julio-Claudian family. Based on Revelation 17:10.

But a person can be a Jew and be a Roman as well. In Judaism, the qualifier for being a Jew is the person's mother has to be a Jew.

 

[mkgal1]

If I go with what is written in Daniel 9:26-27 that Antichrist will not be Jewish but from the people who destroy the Temple in 70 AD

I don't see antichrist mentioned in that passage. I see Messiah mentioned, though.

The destruction of the Temple seems to align with Jesus's pronouncement against the apostate religious leaders....so I don't see how an antichrist can be credited? That event seems to me to be in God's plan.

Matthew 21:43-45
Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” When the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they knew that Jesus was speaking about them.​

 

[GuyNad]

I don't see antichrist mentioned in that passage. I see Messiah mentioned, though.

The destruction of the Temple seems to align with Jesus's pronouncement against the apostate religious leaders....so I don't see how an antichrist can be credited? That event seems to me to be in God's plan.

Matthew 21:43-45
Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” When the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they knew that Jesus was speaking about them.​

It doesn't antichrist but it says the prince, and that prince will make a seven year treaty with many...

 

[mkgal1]

It doesn't antichrist but it says the prince, and that prince will make a seven year treaty with many...

That Prince mentioned is Messiah (and He confirms a covenant for 7 years)...but we're probably getting off topic for this particular thread. It'd be great to have you input here....where we are discussing Daniel 9:

Gabriel, in Daniel 8, in Daniel 9, what vision, what transgression in Daniel 9:23-24?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It doesn't antichrist but it says the prince, and that prince will make a seven year treaty with many...

The only thing it says relating to the prince in Daniel 9:26 is that His people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The prince of the people is not the focus of that verse, it's the people who destroy the city and sanctuary themselves. Therefore, the one who confirms the covenant in verse 27 is referring to the last individual who was specifically the focus of the prophecy and that was the Messiah.

 

[parousia70]

It doesn't antichrist but it says the prince, and that prince will make a seven year treaty with many...

Then please present the Biblical instruction you have to call the person who makes the treaty "antichrist". Seems to me there is exactly as much biblical instruction to call him "Kevin" as there is to call him "antichrist", no?

Can we say, with any scriptural authority:
"Scripture says Kevin will make a 7 years peace treaty"..?

1st and 2nd John Give us the complete, Explicit, Specific attributes and Identity of the Biblical antichrist.

In none of those specific, explicit passages can we find anything about antichrist being a prince that makes a seven year peace treaty. Such is purely an invention of men to claim antichrist does any of that.
Scripture teaches no such thing.

 

[Dale]

There actually have been on three human kings of united Israel, before the breakup into two kingdoms following Solomon.

Those three kings were all anointed by a prophet, signifying that God selected that person to be the king.

Saul and David by Samuel the prophet.
Solomon by Nathan the prophet.

That is where the Jews are getting that the messiah must be anointed the King of Israel by a known prophet.

Doug, you are saying that Solomon was anointed by the prophet Nathan.

No, Solomon was anointed by Zadok the priest. Samuel was High Priest as well as being a prophet. Eli was the last hereditary High Priest and Samuel was adopted as a baby by Eli and succeeded Eli as High Priest. It looks like the intent is that the King is to be anointed by the High Priest. There is no priesthood in Israel today to anoint anyone as King.

Nathan was with Zadok when Zadok did the anointing. We are told that Zadok "took the horn of oil from the sacred tent" when he anointed Solomon. The "sacred tent" can only be the Tabernacle. The KJV says that Solomon was anointed using a "horn of oil out of the tabernacle."

Today, Israel doesn't have a Tabernacle or a Temple with a horn of oil used for royal anointings.

Samuel was the recognized High Priest of Israel when he anointed Saul and David. This doesn't provide any precedent for a new king to be anointed by a popular prophet who holds no official position.


38 So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and had Solomon mount King David’s mule, and they escorted him to Gihon. 39 Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the trumpet and all the people shouted, “Long live King Solomon!”
I Kings 1:39 NIV

38 So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule, and brought him to Gihon.
39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.
I Kings 1:39 KJV

 

[Douggg]

Doug, you are saying that Solomon was anointed by the prophet Nathan.

No, Solomon was anointed by Zadok the priest. Samuel was High Priest as well as being a prophet. Eli was the last hereditary High Priest and Samuel was adopted as a baby by Eli and succeeded Eli as High Priest. It looks like the intent is that the King is to be anointed by the High Priest. There is no priesthood in Israel today to anoint anyone as King.

Nathan was with Zadok when Zadok did the anointing. We are told that Zadok "took the horn of oil from the sacred tent" when he anointed Solomon. The "sacred tent" can only be the Tabernacle. The KJV says that Solomon was anointed using a "horn of oil out of the tabernacle."

Today, Israel doesn't have a Tabernacle or a Temple with a horn of oil used for royal anointings.

Samuel was the recognized High Priest of Israel when he anointed Saul and David. This doesn't provide any precedent for a new king to be anointed by a popular prophet who holds no official position.


38 So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and had Solomon mount King David’s mule, and they escorted him to Gihon. 39 Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the trumpet and all the people shouted, “Long live King Solomon!”
I Kings 1:39 NIV

38 So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule, and brought him to Gihon.
39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.
I Kings 1:39 KJV

Nathan oversaw Zadok do the anointing. There is no prophet in Israel today. The false prophet of Revelation 13 will be the one who anoints the prince who shall come the King of Israel/Messiah coming in his own name.

33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:

34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.

 

[Dale]

Nathan oversaw Zadok do the anointing. There is no prophet in Israel today. The false prophet of Revelation 13 will be the one who anoints the prince who shall come the King of Israel/Messiah coming in his own name.

33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:

34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.

Doug: "Nathan oversaw Zadok do the anointing."

You're adding to the Bible when you say that Nathan supervised Zakok. First Kings doesn't say this.

"... it is not usual to anoint the son of a king that has been anointed; and that the reason of the anointing of Solomon was, because of the sedition of his brother Adonijah, and to confirm the kingdom to him ..."

This is from John Gill's commentary on I Kings 1:39. You consider the anointing of Solomon to be an important precedent, requiring a future false King of Israel to be introduced to the world through an anointing ceremony. Gill tells us that as David's son, anointing would not be needed except for an extraordinary circumstance, the treason of Adonijah. It was needed to tell the people that Solomon was the legitimate successor, not because of Jewish law.


Link
1 Kings 1:39 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse

 

[Douggg]

Doug: "Nathan oversaw Zadok do the anointing."

You're adding to the Bible when you say that Nathan supervised Zakok. First Kings doesn't say this.

"... it is not usual to anoint the son of a king that has been anointed; and that the reason of the anointing of Solomon was, because of the sedition of his brother Adonijah, and to confirm the kingdom to him ..."

This is from John Gill's commentary on I Kings 1:39. You consider the anointing of Solomon to be an important precedent, requiring a future false King of Israel to be introduced to the world through an anointing ceremony. Gill tells us that as David's son, anointing would not be needed except for an extraordinary circumstance, the treason of Adonijah. It was needed to tell the people that Solomon was the legitimate successor, not because of Jewish law.


Link
1 Kings 1:39 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse

John Gill can have whatever comment he wanted. But there were only two human kings of Israel before Solomon. Saul and David. It is was not by a law set that those two were anointed king, but by God's instruction. The point is that the only three kings of united Israel involved being anointed by a prophet. That's what the Jews base their belief regarding the King of Israel/Messiah.

Here is what it says in 1Kings1:

32 And king David said, Call me Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. And they came before the king.

33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:

34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.