Freethought & Rationalism Archive

joedad · 01-11-2010, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortalWombat

The History Channel seems to have gone from being the Hitler/Third Reich Channel to the UFO/Ghost/Bible Prophecy Channel in the last few years. I guess dollars are their bottom line. More people are interested in woo woo stuff than being actually educated.

Did anyone catch that episode on the Bermuda triangle? It rates a gold star for maximum woo and pseudoscience.

Back Again · 01-11-2010, 12:13 PM

I've all but given up on the History Channel. Fortunately, there is still quite a bit of good programming on History International.

The National Geographic Channel is a much more "responsible" network. Like History, they will dedicate an hour to some sensationalized bullshit story, but at least they spend the last fifteen or so minutes debunking their own story line...albeit in an overly subtle way.

bacht · 01-11-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Ancient historical research reveals that the very first person on planet earth to have been awarded the "Anti-Christ" medal (by Christians of course) was none other than Arius of Alexandria. That is, Arius was the first person in the literature record of ancient historical sources to have attracted this term to himself from multiple "Christian sources". I would be interested to know whether this history channel special on the anti-Christ mentions this fact, or the name of Arius of Alexandria, however I would guess that this fact is as yet beyond the research capabilities of the people involved in the ancient history.

But, the character called Jesus of Nazareth was the "Anti-Christ" of the Jewish Christ.

What about all that "666" stuff from Revelation, wasn't the antichrist supposed to be Nero or Domitian or whoever?

Back Again · 01-11-2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

What about all that "666" stuff from Revelation, wasn't the antichrist supposed to be Nero or Domitian or whoever?

The 666 is the number of the Beast...The term anti-christ is not from Revelation.

The wikipedia gives some good beast number scenarios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast

aa5874 · 01-11-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, the character called Jesus of Nazareth was the "Anti-Christ" of the Jewish Christ.

What about all that "666" stuff from Revelation, wasn't the antichrist supposed to be Nero or Domitian or whoever?

Wasn't Revelations by John based on Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint and written after NERO was dead?

Now, these are the words of Jesus as found in the canonical Gospels.

Mr 13:6 -

Quote:

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And Mark 12.17

Quote:

....17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

But the Caesars were regarded as Gods in antiquity.

Apparently even in the very JESUS Stories, the Jews were not deceived.

They realised very early that Jesus of Nazareth was not the expected Christ, but was a deceiver, a blasphemer, the CHRIST OF ROME, The ANTI-CHRIST.

bacht · 01-11-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back Again

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

What about all that "666" stuff from Revelation, wasn't the antichrist supposed to be Nero or Domitian or whoever?

The 666 is the number of the Beast...The term anti-christ is not from Revelation.

The wikipedia gives some good beast number scenarios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast

Right, but it does show up in 1 and 2 John:

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.
1Jn2.22-23

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2Jn1.7

Back Again · 01-11-2010, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

What about all that "666" stuff from Revelation, wasn't the antichrist supposed to be Nero or Domitian or whoever?

Wasn't Revelations by John based on Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint and written after NERO was dead?

Now, these are the words of Jesus as found in the canonical Gospels.

Mr 13:6 -

And Mark 12.17

Quote:

....17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

But the Caesars were regarded as Gods in antiquity.

Apparently even in the very JESUS Stories, the Jews were not deceived.

They realised very early that Jesus of Nazareth was not the expected Christ, but was a deceiver, a blasphemer, the CHRIST OF ROME, The ANTI-CHRIST.

Where are you going with this aa? I agree with your statements that Jesus was the anti-christ as christ was understood by the jews. What then is the purpose of Mark's portrayal of the jews not being deceived? 1 and 2 John clearly defines anti-christs as anyone who denies "Jesus". Revelation is talking about a specific human being.

show_no_mercy · 01-11-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back Again

The 666 is the number of the Beast...The term anti-christ is not from Revelation.

The wikipedia gives some good beast number scenarios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast

Right, but it does show up in 1 and 2 John:

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.
1Jn2.22-23

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2Jn1.7

So it seems that the first person to actually be called the anti-Christ was Cerinthus, a contemporary of "John". Cerinthus worhipped the Christ spirit but ignored the human Jesus.

bacht · 01-11-2010, 02:15 PM

I agree, though I don't know how many Jews would use the word "christ" rather than "messiah" (I was only half-serious about the Nero reference)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

What about all that "666" stuff from Revelation, wasn't the antichrist supposed to be Nero or Domitian or whoever?

Wasn't Revelations by John based on Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint and written after NERO was dead?

Now, these are the words of Jesus as found in the canonical Gospels.

Mr 13:6 -

And Mark 12.17

Quote:

....17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

But the Caesars were regarded as Gods in antiquity.

Apparently even in the very JESUS Stories, the Jews were not deceived.

They realised very early that Jesus of Nazareth was not the expected Christ, but was a deceiver, a blasphemer, the CHRIST OF ROME, The ANTI-CHRIST.

aa5874 · 01-11-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back Again

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Wasn't Revelations by John based on Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint and written after NERO was dead?

Now, these are the words of Jesus as found in the canonical Gospels.

Mr 13:6 -

And Mark 12.17

But the Caesars were regarded as Gods in antiquity.

Apparently even in the very JESUS Stories, the Jews were not deceived.

They realised very early that Jesus of Nazareth was not the expected Christ, but was a deceiver, a blasphemer, the CHRIST OF ROME, The ANTI-CHRIST.

Where are you going with this aa? I agree with your statements that Jesus was the anti-christ as christ was understood by the jews. What then is the purpose of Mark's portrayal of the jews not being deceived? 1 and 2 John clearly defines anti-christs as anyone who denies "Jesus". Revelation is talking about a specific human being.

In the NT, Jesus claims he is the Christ. I am claiming that Jesus was not the expected Christ of the Jews. Jesus was in fact the anti-Christ.

Based on the Josephus, the Jews expected a Messiah or ruler at around 70 CE.

Based on the NT, Jesus did not fulfill the expectations of Jews to be called Christ. He was crucified after he was accused of blasphemy.

It is my view that the legendary character called Jesus Christ in the NT was indeed the ANTI-CHRIST, the CHRIST OF ROME, not of the JEWS.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-11-2010, 12:13 PM	#12
Back Again Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Detroit Metro Posts: 705	I've all but given up on the History Channel. Fortunately, there is still quite a bit of good programming on History International. The National Geographic Channel is a much more "responsible" network. Like History, they will dedicate an hour to some sensationalized bullshit story, but at least they spend the last fifteen or so minutes debunking their own story line...albeit in an overly subtle way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.