Anti-christ and Comming One World Goverment.

[UllysesS.Archer]

Worth noting, every thing the Jewish Messiah is supposed to do like rebuild the Temple, establish world peace, recall all the world's Jews to live in Israel - Jesus didn't do. And that if that actual Messiah ever shows up, and does all those things fulfilling Jewish prophecies it will include a united global government. So when Christians say how the guy who comes along and establishes world peace under one government aren't they saying how they will reject the true Messiah?

Well rebuilding the Temple wasn't part of what the Messiah was supposed to do. The Temple was still standing in Jesus' day and wasn't destroyed until 70 CE. The Messiah was supposed to do a lot of things but two big ones were to restore the line of David to the throne (which is why so much effort is taken in some of the gospels to trace the lineage of Jesus to David) and expel all foreign oppressors from Israel. How he was supposed to do this was a subject of debate. Some figured he would be a great military leader, some a wise sage....there was all sorts of speculation. However, the idea of the Messiah getting nailed to a cross by foreign oppressors was almost blasphemous in those days. This is precisely why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus did not restore the line of David to the throne of Israel (Christians argue that he did so in heaven) and he didn't get the Romans out.

Now I personally doubt anyone is ever going to be able to trace their ancestry back to David at this point and I don't see Israel establishing a monarchy anytime soon so I don't think we have a whole lot to worry about in regards to the Messiah of Jewish tradition arriving anytime soon.

BP, I've read a lot of what you have written in many threads, and you seem well educated on the subject, but I must say, the foreign oppressors did not put Jesus on that cross, the Scribes and Pharases(never could spell that), had that done, remember Ponchas Pilot wanted to set Him free, and washed his hands of the whole affair.

I personally believe that Jesus will set up the monarchy on His return during the thousand year reign.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Worth noting, every thing the Jewish Messiah is supposed to do like rebuild the Temple, establish world peace, recall all the world's Jews to live in Israel - Jesus didn't do. And that if that actual Messiah ever shows up, and does all those things fulfilling Jewish prophecies it will include a united global government. So when Christians say how the guy who comes along and establishes world peace under one government aren't they saying how they will reject the true Messiah?

Well rebuilding the Temple wasn't part of what the Messiah was supposed to do. The Temple was still standing in Jesus' day and wasn't destroyed until 70 CE. The Messiah was supposed to do a lot of things but two big ones were to restore the line of David to the throne (which is why so much effort is taken in some of the gospels to trace the lineage of Jesus to David) and expel all foreign oppressors from Israel. How he was supposed to do this was a subject of debate. Some figured he would be a great military leader, some a wise sage....there was all sorts of speculation. However, the idea of the Messiah getting nailed to a cross by foreign oppressors was almost blasphemous in those days. This is precisely why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus did not restore the line of David to the throne of Israel (Christians argue that he did so in heaven) and he didn't get the Romans out.

Now I personally doubt anyone is ever going to be able to trace their ancestry back to David at this point and I don't see Israel establishing a monarchy anytime soon so I don't think we have a whole lot to worry about in regards to the Messiah of Jewish tradition arriving anytime soon.

YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!! lol!!

GIS, you are a follower of Christ, and you are really starting to annoy me.

In Sunday school, just this morning, we studied about not leading a new Christian astray. Part of Paul's letter to the Corinthians. About idol worship and such. Anyway, one of the things brought up was going to a Chinese restaurant. You walk in and there is Buddah. Those well versed in faith, have no problem with this, but younger Christians could have a problem with this.

My point is, you are turning more people OFF with your "my way or the highway" rhetoric, than you are turning on.

I'm glad you are on fire for Christ, but fire must be tempered to be used properly, otherwise it just burns. Calling people ignorant, and getting upset with their responses shows no temperament, it shows arrogance.

Take that anyway you want to, I want you to stay on fire for Christ, but you will always, and I mean always catch more deer with sugar cubes, than you will with salt.

 

[GISMYS]

well rebuilding the temple wasn't part of what the messiah was supposed to do. The temple was still standing in jesus' day and wasn't destroyed until 70 ce. The messiah was supposed to do a lot of things but two big ones were to restore the line of david to the throne (which is why so much effort is taken in some of the gospels to trace the lineage of jesus to david) and expel all foreign oppressors from israel. How he was supposed to do this was a subject of debate. Some figured he would be a great military leader, some a wise sage....there was all sorts of speculation. However, the idea of the messiah getting nailed to a cross by foreign oppressors was almost blasphemous in those days. This is precisely why jews do not accept jesus as the messiah. Jesus did not restore the line of david to the throne of israel (christians argue that he did so in heaven) and he didn't get the romans out.

Now i personally doubt anyone is ever going to be able to trace their ancestry back to david at this point and i don't see israel establishing a monarchy anytime soon so i don't think we have a whole lot to worry about in regards to the messiah of jewish tradition arriving anytime soon.

your ignorance knows no bounds!!! Lol!!

gis, you are a follower of christ, and you are really starting to annoy me.

In sunday school, just this morning, we studied about not leading a new christian astray. Part of paul's letter to the corinthians. About idol worship and such. Anyway, one of the things brought up was going to a chinese restaurant. You walk in and there is buddah. Those well versed in faith, have no problem with this, but younger christians could have a problem with this.

My point is, you are turning more people off with your "my way or the highway" rhetoric, than you are turning on.

I'm glad you are on fire for christ, but fire must be tempered to be used properly, otherwise it just burns. Calling people ignorant, and getting upset with their responses shows no temperament, it shows arrogance.

Take that anyway you want to, i want you to stay on fire for christ, but you will always, and i mean always catch more deer with sugar cubes, than you will with salt.

again!!! I tell you loud and clear !! Your opinion of my posting style is worth zero to me!!! Zero=0000000000000000000000000000000000000==

◄ Galatians 1:10 ►






Parallel Verses

New International Version
Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ
GALATIONS

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

your ignorance knows no bounds!!! Lol!!

gis, you are a follower of christ, and you are really starting to annoy me.

In sunday school, just this morning, we studied about not leading a new christian astray. Part of paul's letter to the corinthians. About idol worship and such. Anyway, one of the things brought up was going to a chinese restaurant. You walk in and there is buddah. Those well versed in faith, have no problem with this, but younger christians could have a problem with this.

My point is, you are turning more people off with your "my way or the highway" rhetoric, than you are turning on.

I'm glad you are on fire for christ, but fire must be tempered to be used properly, otherwise it just burns. Calling people ignorant, and getting upset with their responses shows no temperament, it shows arrogance.

Take that anyway you want to, i want you to stay on fire for christ, but you will always, and i mean always catch more deer with sugar cubes, than you will with salt.

again!!! I tell you loud and clear !! Your opinion of my posting style is worth zero to me!!! Zero=0000000000000000000000000000000000000==

◄ Galatians 1:10 ►






Parallel Verses

New International Version
Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ
GALATIONS

Well, what do you think of the Word then?

Micah 3:5Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who lead my people astray; When they have something to bite with their teeth, They cry, "Peace," But against him who puts nothing in their mouths They declare holy war.

Isaiah 3:12O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths.

Proverbs 12: 26The righteous is a guide to his neighbor, But the way of the wicked leads them astray.

My favorite

1 John 3:7Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;

A different interpretation is

1 John 3:7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

If you lead someone astray is it not much like this parable?

Luke 15:…4"What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 5"When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6"And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'…

So, you don't have to care for what I think of your posting style. Do you care for the Word?

 

[BluePhantom]

BP, I've read a lot of what you have written in many threads, and you seem well educated on the subject, but I must say, the foreign oppressors did not put Jesus on that cross, the Scribes and Pharases(never could spell that), had that done, remember Ponchas Pilot wanted to set Him free, and washed his hands of the whole affair.

I personally believe that Jesus will set up the monarchy on His return during the thousand year reign.

Well this one is a bit of a tough one. I have actually done quite a bit of research on Pontius Pilate. Let me post an email I wrote to a friend of mine who had a question about Pilate. It's really long and I apologize in advance but hopefully you will find it informative. As it was a personal letter i didn't bother to reference it...my apologies on that too.


Dear Susie,

It's funny that you ask me about this because I was browsing through the news feeds on Easter Sunday when I came across a headline that caught my attention on this very topic. "The Politics of Pontius Pilate" it read and I was immediately intrigued enough to click the link and have a gander. While the points made in the article were your basic political whimpering I was struck by the generousness at which the author portrayed one of history's great villains and concluding with the statement that Pilate was "not that bad of a guy." My amazement was heightened when others, claiming to be historians, went on rants about how vile and terrible Pilate was and how he murdered innocents by the thousands. Indeed only a quick browse through the comments section made it clear just how vitriolic and ferocious people were on both sides of the debate.

What is interesting, of course, is that very little is known about the Pontius Pilate of history. An inscripted stone in the ruins of Caesarea dedicating a building from Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius is about the only physical evidence we have of his very existence. That is enough to prove that he actually lived and was the Prefect, or governor, of Judea. However, any other sources about who he was and what he did are unfortunately few, varied, and biased. From those were are left only to speculate and use logical deduction to get a clearer image of who this man was. The sources that speak of Pilate are of course the gospels in the New Testament; Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, accounts from the ancient historians Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, and an extraordinarily brief mention in the Byzantine Suda, and various other non-canonical gospels that did not find their way into the New Testament for a variety of reasons. All of these accounts largely agree on the following:

- Pilate was a member of the House of Pontii; a relatively insignificant family on the lower end of the hierarchy of Roman nobility.

- Pilate was an equestrian, or knight, in rank and had previously served in a military capacity, almost certainly in the cavalry according to his title


- Pilate was the prefect of Judea for ten years. This is very significant as the majority of appointments for governorship lasted from one to three years. Five years was rare. Ten is flat out unheard of.

Let's begin by considering exactly what the job of a Roman governor was in the first century CE. He had four primary responsibilities: a) command the army, keep the peace, and put down insurrections, b) act as the supreme judge of the province, c) collect all taxes due the empire, and d) engage in and direct public works and building projects to enhance the lives of the residents. The first two are the ones most commonly discussed by those wishing to guide perception of Pilate one way or the other. Traditional Christians focus on his role as a judge. Others tend to focus on his role in putting down rebellions often arguing that he did so with an iron fist in a particularly bloody manner. To get to the truth we have to delve a bit deeper into the arguments from each side.



The most common portrayal of Pilate is the one offered by the gospels and by Christians regarding his role as a judge. Pilate is portrayed as being sympathetic to the plight of Jesus and hesistant to the idea of his execution. Time and time again he tries to convince an angry mob of Jews, led by the High Priest Caiaphas, that Jesus should be set free, even going so far as to be unwittingly forced to free a ruthless murderer when his plan to save Jesus from crucifixion backfires. This is problematic for several historical reasons as well as logical ones.

First is that, despite the accounts in the gospels, there is not a shred of evidence that it was customary to release a prisoner in honor of Passover, and indeed the very idea that a Roman governor would be in the habit of releasing murderers back into society is beyond ridiculous. Second, is that Pilate literally held the power of life and death in his hands and the idea of executing someone, even someone he thought to be innocent, would have been of little consequence to him. He had no idea that the man he was interviewing would be the catalyst for a religion that would endure for thousands of years and indeed be responsible for eventually changing the empire itself. To Pilate, Jesus was nothing more than the guy he had to deal with today. The suggestion that he would go to such extraordinary lengths to save Jesus is flat out laughable in my view.

If that is true then why would the gospels universally portray Pilate in such a sympathetic manner? A little history and reason can possibly shed some light on that. Despite popular belief the gospels, whether canonical or non-canonical , were NOT written by those whom those works are attributed to. In other words the Gospel According to Mark wasn't written by Mark the companion of Peter. The Gospel According to Matthew wasn't written by Matthew the disciple of Jesus. The Gospel According to Thomas wasn't written by Thomas the disciple. In fact most people are surprised when you point out that the gospels themselves don't even claim they are. They are anonymous books written decades after the death of Jesus and after the deaths of the disciples themselves that were later attributed to those people by those who wanted to give them more authority. Most likely they were written by gentiles, hoping to appeal to a gentile audience, and being very careful not to piss off the Roman Emperor which could result in their untimely demise. It's no wonder then, that Pilate would be portrayed as so sympathetic to Jesus. That portrayal absolves Rome from responsibility for the death of Jesus, makes Rome look like the good guys which would be attractive to a Roman, gentile audience, and ensure that they wouldn't get killed for writing it. It has the secondary benefit of placing the blame on the Jews who were far more oppressive to early Christians than Rome itself was in the very early stages of Christianity. By portraying Pilate in such a way, Christian authors accomplished several political goals, but whether such a portrayal is historically likely is doubtful in the extreme.

That must leave the alternate view of Pilate as the one that is accurate right? By alternate view I mean the one that depicts Pilate as a bloodthirsty and indiscriminate murderer of innocents by the thousands. A man who went out of his way to harass and annoy the very people, the Jews, he was in charge of. A man Tiberius hated and eventually fired for being too brutal even for the Romans. Is such a depiction likely? Well if you consider only the accounts of Philo and Josephus as reliable then one would have to reach that conclusion. But it's important to remember that both Philo and Josephus were Jews and both lived during, or shortly after, major wars between Rome and Jewish uprisings wherein Rome, true to its nature when dealing with insurrection, dealt with it harshly. But none of these wars had anything to do with Pilate, but with the Roman Empire itself. Isn't it likely to assume that Josephus and Philo were biased when describing a man who belonged to a people that had just slaughtered thousands of their countrymen? Just a quick look at their language shows their extreme bias. Pilate is described by them as "cruel", "stubborn", "murderous", a "tyrant", and "cursed by Tiberius", etc. These are not the words of those who are simply recording historical events. They are the words of those trying to steer their readers towards a specific conclusion based upon their experiences as Jews under Roman rule.

Is it reasonable, for example, to accept that Pilate, a man of a low noble class, was despised by Tiberius but allowed to stay in his post for over three times what was considered a long appointment? Hardly. This fact alone is strong and convincing evidence that Tiberius was at the very least satisfied and probably thrilled with Pilate's performance in his capacity as governor as Judea. There would have been sons of families from much higher ranks clamoring for a governorship. It would have been not only easy but expected for Tiberius to end Pilate's appointment to make room for those of a higher class, but he never did. One can only conclude that Pilate kept his post because he was performing at a very high level.

But doesn't that only prove that Pilate was every bit as bloodthirsty as Rome itself was? Only if you assume that Rome was tyrannical in its approach to the Jews. As a point of historical fact, they weren't. Indeed, Rome admired the Jews and while they held themselves as masters and conquerors of the Jews, it's important to realize that Jews were among the only people permitted to maintain their own traditions even under Roman rule. Jews were not forced to give sacrifice to Roman gods, the refusal of which was punishable by death for anyone else. Jews were allowed to become Roman citizens and in fact the Apostle Paul was both a Jew and a Roman citizen, a little fact he used to his advantage whenever he got in trouble. Jewish tradition was ancient and if there was one thing the Romans loved and respected, it was antiquity. Furthermore, when Rome conquered they did not suppress and annihilate the culture and the people as did the Mongols, for example. They assimilated the culture, Romanized it, and made it part of their own. They brought technology, security, fresh water, sewage, hot baths and even running water to those they conquered. Those are not the actions of an empire seeking to oppress and in fact many nations didn't even resist Roman conquest but openly invited it to gain the technological benefits of Roman rule.

Considering all this it's absurd to suggest that Pilate would have been an indiscriminate slaughterer of the Jews, a tyrant, a despot, but allowed to remain in his post for ten years when those very actions would have stimulated the risk for insurrection. This is especially convincing when you consider that the historical record suggests that Pilate had fewer than 5,000 troops at his disposal in order to control over a million inhabitants of Judea. The most reasonable conclusion therefore is that Pilate was a skilled politician, a master of enforcing Roman law while respecting Jewish custom, a hammer when putting down armed rebellion, but a man who almost certainly was willing to work the high priests to maintain order. In fact, he almost certainly had very little choice because 5,000 troops had no chance of holding off a million Jews if they decided to rebel. This is a fact that the high priest Caiaphas, his main advisor, certainly knew, and as such the two were forced to work together but also to play the game of tit for tat and politically try to work each other for favors and political advantages. This suggests that Pilate must have also been a shrewd negotiator and a master statesman. This is evidenced by coins minted during Pilate's governorship in Judea showing Roman symbols on one side and Jewish symbols on the other…a gesture of equality and cooperation. Also Pilate's willingness to meet with the priests on neutral ground so he would not desecrate their temples with his presence, nor would be the priests be forced to desecrate themselves by entering his palaces. So keeping that all in mind, let's offer an alternate scenario to the events that are depicted in the gospels in regard to Pilate's role in the crucifixion of Jesus. Now this is total speculation but let's dabble with it a bit.

It is Passover. Jews from all over are flooding into Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a pit. It's a lawless slum of a city. It's dirty, it's ugly, and it's troublesome. Every year during this time there's trouble and political upheaval. Pilate is forced to leave his beautiful beachfront palace in Caesarea where he is tended to hand and foot. There he has servants who cook him the finest foods, he has slaves who tend to his every material and sexual need. He has to leave paradise and go to Jerusalem. It's safe to say he was in a bad mood when he got there.

Jesus enters Jerusalem to observe Passover. Upon his entrance to the city he rides an ass while throngs of people lay palms at his feet and cheer him. Jesus accepts this and this is dangerous and ballsy for such an entrance into the holy city fulfills part of the prophecy of Isaiah. For Jesus to accept it is a statement to the Pharisees. It's a threat. Jesus begins to teach and draws massive crowds who marvel at his message, but his message is unorthodox and it contradicts the teachings and the power of the Pharisees. The Pharisees appear before Jesus and challenge him. They present him problems for which there is no real solution. They attempt to trap him intellectually but Jesus outwits them at every turn. They grow angry and frustrated.

Jesus goes to the temple to pray and sees the money changers defiling the holy temple. He flips an absolute bitch , overturning tables, and turning the place into total chaos. The Pharisees try to intervene but again Jesus makes them look like total fools and he makes what they perceive to be a threat of rebellion. This isn't good. They have a good thing going with Rome. They are getting rich. They have power over their people and because of sheer numbers they can blackmail Pilate with the threat of revolt. They don't actually WANT a rebellion because even though they could overpower Pilate, Rome will be back and will punish them with blood. So the Pharisees simply work the system and soak in their power….and this pissant nobody preacher from Nazareth is threatening to muck it all up. Something must be done…but what?

A deal is struck with Judas Iscariot. Judas reveals to them that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy and Caiaphas the high priest has Jesus arrested and tried for blasphemy. In a kangaroo court they find Jesus guilty but Roman law does not allow them to carry out an execution according to Jewish custom. Only Pilate can do that. So they whip up a frenzied crowd and drag Jesus to Pilate. Now Pilate doesn't give two shits about blasphemy. That is Jewish law, not Roman law and his job is to enforce Roman law. Caiaphas tells Pilate about his threat in the temple and how he created chaos. But according to Roman law that is not punishable by death. Additionally, killing Jesus may satisfy the threat of insurrection by those in front of him but to kill Jesus would risk insurrection by the followers of Jesus who has become wildly popular. A sound beating…a scourging would be appropriate to satisfy Roman justice and in fact that's precisely what the law would have prescribed. Pilate probably thinks that will be enough to satisfy Caiaphas and since Jesus is alive it reduces the risk of rebellion by Jesus' supporters. So Pilate, according to the law and in a shrewd calculated move, has Jesus scourged. But Caiaphas is not satisfied. He wants Jesus out of the way for good, and in truth he truly believes that Jesus is worth of death, for according to Jewish law he is a blasphemer.

At this point Pilate sees an opportunity. It's not that he is sympathetic with Jesus as the gospels say. It's that suddenly he realizes that Caiaphas wants something that only he can give and he wants it badly. The politician in Pilate takes over and he begins to play up his hesitation to condemn Jesus, not because he really cares about Jesus but because he can manipulate Caiaphas into a position of debt. He makes a great show of resistance until the moment he has been waiting for. Caiaphas suggests that although he will do all he can, he's just not sure he can hold off a rebellion from his supporters if Jesus is not executed. Pilate plays into it. "Very well, Caiaphas" we might imagine him saying. "I will condemn an innocent man to the most cruel and brutal death one could imagine to keep the peace….but you are now in my debt. And I will remember this the next time our interests are at odds." Pilate follows with a show of washing his hands to really stick the point and Jesus is condemned to die.

Is that what really happened? No one in this world will ever know. However such a scenario does make far more sense than a Pilate who was truly sympathetic to a man he would have seen as nothing more than a troublemaker, a chip to be played in the game of poker between him and the priests, and the "headache of the day". It makes far more sense than the bloodthirsty tyrant, indiscriminate killer that Philo and Josephus try to convince us of that would have never made it past year two of his governorship let alone to year ten.

We will never truly know what happened on that day that changed the world forever. For even if you are a believer or a non-believer one cannot deny that the trial and death of Jesus changed the world and forced repercussions that reverberate to this very day, for better or for worse. What the reasonable mind can confidently say, however, is that regardless of whether this scenario was accurate or not, the depiction of Pilate as a weak, sympathetic figure is laughable and the depiction of Pilate as a ruthless, tyrannical murderer is equally as unrealistic. As is so often the case, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[BluePhantom]

BTW Archer, I actually made a mistake in my letter as I read it over. Caiaphas was a Sadducee not a Pharisee....ooops.

 

[BluePhantom]

I personally believe that Jesus will set up the monarchy on His return during the thousand year reign.

I assume you are referring to what is commonly known as The Millennium from The Apocalypse (Apocalypse is just the Greek word for Revelation...I tend to use "Apocalypse" more than "Revelation" but they are interchangeable).

The Millennium is indeed an interesting facet of the Revelation and there's been quite a bit of discussion and debate on it since it was written. To be totally honest I have not yet made up my mind on how to interpret it. I don't take it literally...John of Patmos was writing in symbolism the entire time so why would we assume that in regards to the Millennium he is suddenly talking literally, you know? My leaning (not by any means a final decision or a statement I would make with a great deal of insistence) is that either the Millennium has already passed or we are currently living in it. The reasons why I tend to lean that direction are another thread unto itself. But John of Patmos was actually very specific about the timetable he was predicting and when you put the Revelation in it's correct cultural context it becomes evident that John was not predicting something that would happen thousands of years in the future. He was talking about what was going on at the time.

For me....JUST FOR ME...I tend to believe everything depicted in the Apocalypse has already been fulfilled (for the most part at least), but again that's another thread unto itself.