Comment of the Day, Take Two

Brian gives some excellent context to the world the Jesus was born into, and unpacks the Hebrew background to the concept of sin:

There is no such thing as original sin in the book of Genesis.
Judaism has no such doctrine.
Christian theologians, however, read that
theology back into Genesis via the work of Augustine. Original sin
simply isn’t original to the original text. Perhaps an exploration of
Judaism’s understanding of sin might be helpful in this conversation.

Sin in Judaism is understood in terms of actions instead of in terms
of human condition.
There is no doctrine of original sin nor is there a
theology that suggests humans are basically sinners. Instead human
nature is conceptualized by two different inclinations: the good
inclination (yetser hatov) and the bad inclination (yetser hara).
Humanity has the “free will” to choose either of these inclinations.
This theology of choice is grounded in the Torah. For example, in the
Garden of Eden, primordial humanity was described as being given the
choice between the Tree of Knowledge (i.e. way of death) and the Tree
of Life (i.e. way of life) (Genesis 2:9, 15-15). Similarly, in the
desert, God is portrayed as giving Moses and the people the choice
between life and death – and inviting them to choose life (Deuteronomy
30:11, 15-20). God’s invitation to humanity is the same today as it was
in Scriptural times: “Choose life so that you and your descendants may
live” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Therefore, humanity is given a blank slate
with the freedom to choose their actions, not infused with evilness
that cannot be overcome. Nor is there an evil being like a “devil” that
competes with God’s sovereignty and/or interferes with humanity’s
freedom.

Choice always remains for God’s people. Choosing the good
inclination (yetser hatov) helps humanity to live up to their full
potential as good creations made in the image of G-d (Genesis 1:27).
Conversely, choosing the bad inclination (yetser hara) causes humanity
to fall short of their potential. Acts of falling short are named as
sins and are described in two basic ways: chait and aveyrah.

Chait, the most common word translated as sin, is best described as
“missing the mark” or “making a mistake” in the Hebrew Bible (e.g.
Judges 20:16). In short, chait is missing the target. Since the goal of
humanity is to aim at Torah, God’s call, and living according to our
full potential, the stray attempts are what are understood as sins.
Since life is an ongoing process of change and development, human life
is characterized by a continuous activity of shooting arrows as well as
the ability to improve one’s “shot.” In other words, it’s within
humanity’s ability and responsibility to improve. In this perspective,
humanity is not a sinful, depraved being that has no hope of
betterment. Instead, humanity is in a perennial state of freedom with
the responsibility to improve our aim.

Aveyrah is the Hebrew term, often translated as sin, which means
“walking off the path.” Like chait, this term means that humanity’s
actions are sinful but not their essence. Humans have the freedom to
choice their path as well as the responsibility to walk on the best
path(s). The Halachah, the collection of Jewish law including the
written and oral Torah, offers a map and guide to the right path(s) to
follow in life. As humanity travels, God supports humanity on our way
so we can be led to the best paths. Moreover, like the term above, it
is ultimately humanity’s responsibility to get on the right path(s).
Such a theology of betterment is commended in Genesis 4:3-7: “Surely,
if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not
improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward you, yet
you can conquer it.” Humanity can choose and follow better paths.


Sins, understood as chait or aveyrah, are atoned for in two different
ways in Judaism. First, sins against people are atoned for when one
reconciles with them with his/her words and deeds. Second, sins against
God are atoned for when one reconciles to God in prayer.

  • EricW

    Not to beat a dead sus, but since you’re posting and inviting discussion of Brian’s Jewish/OT hamartology and nomology, I’ll again ask him (or anyone else) my as-yet-unanswered questions:
    Did Paul misread/misinterpret/misapply the Torah/Tanach when he revealed and treated and taught the Law as being merely a pedagogue to protect us until the coming of faith, and not as something capable of telling people what is and isn’t sin and enabling them to “do the right thing”?
    I.e., when Paul (and/or the author of Hebrews) said that no sacrifices take away sin, and that no Law could be given that would result in righteousness, because the problem was “sin in the flesh” -
    and therefore when the Law came it killed us, rather than gave us life (“choose life,” etc.) – was Paul stating the finally-now-revealed-and-explained truth about the Law, or was he distorting the facts and Moses?
    I.e., was Paul revealing/explaining the true meaning and understanding of the Law and sin as intended/purposed by God, or was he wrongly reinterpreting and distorting the Torah/Tanach?

  • http://unfinishedchristianity.com Virgil Vaduva

    EricW, the law served as the covenant only between God and his people. In Romans we read that those who are not under the law will not be judged according to the law. The Law therefore serves as a “covenant of flesh” while the new covenant, that of Christ, is a covenant of faith.
    When Paul speaks of the times when “he was in the flesh” (Romans 7) he is not speaking about the modern concept of “sin nature” and rather speaking of being under the Law. Paul even uses circumcision (of the flesh) to describe being under the law.
    The language used is describing a covenantal change in relationship between God and his people (flesh->faith)…it’s not a theological discourse on “sin nature.”

  • EricW

    To assert what Judaism “has” (or doesn’t have) and “understands” re: sin, Law, etc., is I think to oversimplify the situation. We know the Judaism of Jesus’s time was diverse, and I think one should be asked or required to prove that, e.g., “Judaism has no such doctrine of original sin” if one is going to make such a black-and-white statement. The fact that it “isn’t original to the original text” does not prove anything, for we know that “the original text” wasn’t the only thing that shaped and reflected Jewish beliefs of the time, or even our own times. Thus, I wouldn’t say that Brian’s description and context of Jewish theology are necessarily excellent or accurate; some of his claims are too absolutest, IMO. But I’m more than willing to be corrected.

  • Joel

    As I previously stated:
    I wouldn’t put too much stock in modern Jewish beliefs. Trust me, there’s not much there we can draw from. When dealing with Reform and Conservative (who, ironically, aren’t actually conservative), you’re talking to Jews that rely on some Judaism, but mostly Enlightenment thinking drawn from German higher criticism. When dealing with Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, you’re dealing with Pharisees, literally. The Pharisees, after the Roman persecution, were the only sect that really made it out. Modern Judaism is based on the Pharisees – and we know how Jesus dealt with them and how often He disagreed with their doctrines and traditions. So turning to modern Jewish beliefs as justification doesn’t make much sense considering modern Jews don’t follow Old Testament Judaism.

  • EricW

    When dealing with Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, you’re dealing with Pharisees, literally.
    Don’t confuse Hasidic Jews with Orthodox Jews. Hasidism had its origin in the Baal Shem Tov and is heavily influenced by Isaac Luria/Kabalah. They may look and dress similarly, but there is much antagonism and difference between the two groups. For a long time, and perhaps even now, the Hasidim were not considered to be practicing authentic Judaism as the Orthodox understood it. The cult of the charismatic Rebbe is not part of normal Orthodox Judaism; it is, however, the central focus of Hasidic groups.
    Or so my reading has been.
    For a good book that also explains the origins of Hasidism, read The Chosen by Chaim Potok (also a very good movie with Robbie Benson and Rod Steiger and Maximillian Schell, but I found the book a bit different in emphasis and better overall).

  • Joel

    I wasn’t intending to make it look like I was saying the two were the same. I was simply pointing out that both of them are closer to what the Pharisees were like (the Orthodox are the closest) than Conservative or Reform Jews. Apologies for insinuating otherwise.
    I come from the Orthodox tradition (though I was extremely young), but I do know of the animosity between the two. ;)

  • EricW

    And I come from the Reform & Conservative tradition myself! :)

  • Samuel Wood

    isSatan (Lucifer, tempting people to do evil?) in the Torah? Hmmm, so much for the Job saga…. No “battle” between good and evil, only a good God hope to influence the blank slate of humanity?… Hmmm, so much for all the apocraphal writings of the OT…. No final judgement of men’s souls? Hmmmm…. so much for the “great and terrible day of the LORD”.
    I’m no Augustian, in fact I have an optomistic theology of the human condition, believing that being formed in the “image of God” that humanity (totally and individually) is “essentially” good. But, to deny that we are all “stained” (damaged, bent, harmed, scarred) by the human experience (original sin?) seems quite naive to me…

  • Jonathan CHM

    HOLY LAUGHER, HOLY BARK, HOLY DRUNKARD & ETC.
     Holy Laughter, holy bark, holy drunkard and etc. are not found in the book of Acts during the Pentecost. Some Charismatic churches might use the word, leap, laugh, drunkard and etc. from the Old and New Testaments to support these movements. However, bear in mind that the word, leap, laugh, drunkard and etc. are mentioned instead of the full phrase of holy laughter, holy bark and etc. What if these practices are not from the work of the Holy Spirit, the insisting that these practices are from the work of Holy Spirit has caused one to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit and it would have grieved the Holy Spirit to accept the wrong saying that these are the work of them. However, the Holy Spirit does not do it. One has indeed blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by abusing the name of the Holy Spirit despite he does not do it. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgivable according to the New Testament
    DEFINITION OF BLASPHEMY IN HEBREWS/GREEK
    blas’-fe-mi (blaphemia) in classical Greek and Hebrews means primarily ‘defamation’ or ‘evil-speaking’in general; ‘a word of evil omen’, hence, ‘impious, and irreverent speech against God’. The above is the extract pertaining to the meaning of blasphemy in Greek. Consider carefully about holy bark, holy laugher and etc. For instance, if these are not the work of Holy Spirit, the abusing the name of Holy Spirit by saying that these are the work of Holy Spirit is indeed delivery of irreverent speech against the Holy Spirit. For instance, if these are not the work of the Holy Spirit, the insisting that these should be directed from the work of the Holy Spirit might have abused the name of the Holy Spirit and caused defamation of its name and one might have in turn grieved the Holy Spirit since these might not be the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit might be ended up to bear the name for the doer of holy bark, holy laugher and etc. What if it has grieved the Holy Spirit by insisting that these are the work of the Holy Spirit, our ignorance has ultimately caused the ultimate abusing and/or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
    HEALINGS IN CONTEMPORARY CHARISMATIC CHURCHES
    In miraculous healings among Charismatic churches today, we could easily spot out that many sick will fall down before the healers lay hands on them. However, many sick would remain unhealed after the rally despite they did fall down before the healers, i.e. Pastors that perform miraculous healings. God is definitely powerful and can heal all kinds of sicknesses. However, there is a deficiency in the healings in contemporary Charismatic world. What if the wonders are not the work of the Holy Spirit, the commenting to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit that it is he that does the work might have grieved the Holy Spirit in case if these are not the work of the Holy Spirit and it ends up that one has abused the name of the Holy Spirit and has ultimately blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.
    ALL BLASPHEMIES WHETHER TOWARDS THE HOLY SPIRIT OR GOD OR JESUS CHRIST ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS SINS
    Matthew 12:31-32, “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the BLASPHEMY AGAINST the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speak against a word the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever SPEAK AGAINST the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” As the phrase, speak against the Holy Spirit, is mentioned in Matthew 12:31-32 with the phrase, blasphemy against the Spirit, it implies that a person blasphemes against the Holy Spirit even if he speaks against the Holy Spirit. The same for abusing the name of the Holy Spirit in which it might have grieved the Holy Spirit to accept the false saying what if the works are not from the Holy Spirit. The word, forgiven, is mentioned in Matthew 12:31-32 with the phrase, every sin & blasphemy, it implies that all blasphemies are to be considered as sin or else why we should need God’s forgiveness for the blasphemies. The same in abusing God’s or Jesus’ name to support their miracles are from God or Jesus respectively and these are the acts of blasphemies to be considered as sins too.
    THE  WELL-KNOWN VERSES IN MATTHEW 7:21-23
    Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practise lawlessness!”
    What are the elements could be found in these verses above? There are:
    1) They believe in Jesus Christ since Matthew 7:22, “(mentions that) Many will say to me..’LORD, LORD”. These people must have believed in Jesus Christ or else how they could call Jesus Christ to be their Lord as mentioned above then.
    2) These people could use Jesus’ name to perform miracles since Matthew 7:22, “(mentions that) Many…have..prophesied…in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?”
    3) Will they be accepted by Jesus Christ? Matthew 7:23, “…I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me”.
    THE PRIDE AMONG CONTEMPORARY CHURCHES FOR THEIR NON-REPENTANCE
    This is my general discovery upon Charismatic churches: Some Charismatic churches might not repent in order to do away their so-called, gift, in the churches due to they feel thieir reputations are most precious than the truth of the Bible and that causes them to persist in the practice. However, bear in mind that the insisting the so-called, gift, in their churches to be the work of the Holy Spirit might cause them to abuse the name of the Holy Spirit and that causes them ultimately to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit what if the miracles are not from the work the Holy Spirit. The act of insisting to defend their reputation more important than the truth of the Bible has indeed violated the great commandment of the Lord. For Matthew 22:37, “(mentions that) Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” The act of having a high preference for their reputations rather that upholding the truth of the Bible implies that his love towards his own reputation is more significance than his love towards God.  For Matthew 22:37 has commanded us to put our love to God first instead of that has to be in replacement of our reputation.

  • Your Name

    1) The following are the proves that angels could perform miracles healing and there are falling angels in the Scripture to be against God too:
    John 5:3-4, “In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
    2) The following are the proves that Angels could perform marvellous wonders:
    Luke 1:7, “And they had no child, because that Elizabeth was barren and they both were now well stricken in years.” Luke 1:13, “but the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for their prayer is heard; and they wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John”. Luke 1:18, “And Zacharias said unto the angel, ‘Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my life well stricken in years.” Luke 1:19, “And THE ANGEL ANSWERING UNTO HIM, I AM GRABRIEL…” Luke 1:20, “AND BEHOLD, THOU SHALL BE DUMB, AND NOT ABLE TO SPEAK, UNTIL THE DAY THAT THESE THINGS SHALL BE PERFORMED, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.” Luke 1:22, “And when he came out, HE COULD NOT SPEAK UNTO THEM”.
    Matthews 28:1-2, “Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Many Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And, behold, THERE WAS A GREAT EARTHQUAKE, FOR AN ANGEL OF THE LORD DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN, AND ROLLED BACK THE STONE OF THE DOOR, and sat it.”
    Acts 12:23, “Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.”
    3) Angels could appear in somebody’s dream:
    Matthews 2:19, “…an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph…”; Matthew 1:20, “…an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream…”
    As angels could perform wonders, are there any strongest proves to show that those wonders in contemporary Charismatic Churches are from God? If someone in contemporary Charismatic Church could prove it, we have to accept it. However, if nobody could prove whether the existence of wonder in contemporary Charismatic Churches is from God or the Holy Spirit or Angels, there is a danger that one would comment that certain wonders are from God or from the Holy Spirit or from Jesus Christ and, in case if they are not and it would turn up that we have forced God or Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit to bear the name of doer and indirectly we have abused the name of Jesus Christ or God or the Holy Spirit and this causes us to speak against Jesus Christ or God or the Holy Spirit indirectly.
    Could contemporary Charismatic Church claim that the miracles and wonder they perform in the name of Jesus Christ, is accompanied by correct teaching (in accordance with God’s Word) and righteous living?
    A good Christian performs a wonder through the name of Jesus Christ in the Church. Many audiences would claim that this be the work of God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit. As fallen angels could perform wonders, i.e. Buddhists could perform wonders as it is listed in the Internet too. What if the wonders in contemporary Charismatic churches are not from God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit, the surrounding audience that claims to be the work of the Holy Spirit/God/Jesus Christ, would have indirectly abused the name of each of them even though they might not be the one to do it and it indirectly causes the defamation of the name of God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit and they might have grieved as a result of the whole church speaking against them since they might not do it. The abusing of the name of Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit/God would cause the audience to commit continual sins as when and they address these be the work of God.
    Can a Christian or a Catholics claim that he has followed the correct teaching and righteous living when day by day and month by month and year by year seeing people keep on claiming the wonders in contemporary Charismatic Churches to be the work of God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit without telling them the danger that they would have sinned against God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit what if the so-called, wonders, might not be their work then?
    For holy bark, you could see people running around the churches crazily to bark here and there.
    For Holy laughter, you could see people laugh without stopping.
    For manifestation of the Spirit, you see people roll from one place to another without knowing what he/she has done after performing.
    All these are not mentioned in the book of Acts.
    A number of people in the church mention that they receive revelation from God through words of knowledge, prophecy, tongues speaking, words of wisdom. Many prophets arose previously claimed that year 2000 and 1987 were the end of the world. However, the year before year 2000 and 1987, none of these people that claim to receive so-called, special gifts of the Holy Spirit, say that these years 2000 and 1987 are not the end of the world. If it is the work of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit should have informed all these people to correct their mistakes.

  • Jonathan CHM

    LUKE 9:49-50 ABOUT THOSE THAT DO NOT FOLLOW JESUS BUT COULD PERFORM WONDERS IN JESUS’ NAME
    Luke 9:49, 50 (TCNT), “Hereupon John said: “Sir, we saw a man driving out demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he does not follow you with us.” “None of you must prevent him,” Jesus said to John; “he who is not against you is for you.”
    Were these people that were mentioned in Luke 9:49-50 to be the disciples of Jesus since it is mentioned that they did not follow Jesus?
    The following are the verses to prove that God’s people would surely follow Jesus:
    John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
    John 10:3, “To him the porter openeth, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calleth his own sheep by nam, and leadeth them out”.
    From the above verses, it is obvious that the sheep will surely follow the shepherd, Jesus.
    As the phrase, he is not against you is for you, is mentioned in Luke 9:49 instead of the phrase, he is not against you is for me Jesus, it does not show that all these people that could use Jesus to perform miracles were for Jesus but for us, disciples, especially Jesus had mentioned clearly in John 10:27 and 10:3 that Christians would surely follow Jesus. The possible interpetation for Luk 9:49 for him to mention that they were for us that it might be that they could assist us in bringing outsiders to the attention of Jesus Christ for our evangelism. However, they are not for Jesus since they do not follow Jesus since they would definitely follow Jesus if they are for Jesus.
    Indeed the people as mentioned in Luke 9:49-50 that could perform wonders in Jesus’s name were not God’s people or else Jesus should have included these people ont top of the twelve disciples. Or in other words, if these people that could perform wonders in Jesus’ name were God’s people, there would be more that twelve disciples instead of remaining to be twelve all the time during Jesus’ mission and it proves the fact that Jesus’ name could be abused to perform miracles. Or in other words, despite these people as mentioned in Luke 9:49-50 were not following Jesus and were not the disciples of Jesus, they could use Jesus’ name to perform wonders.
    CASTING OUT DEMONS MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE ONE TO HAVE DISTURBED BY DEMONS AS MENTIONED IN ACTS 19:13-16:
    Matthew 17:15-16, “Lord have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.” Matthew 17:18-19, “And Jesus rebuked the devil and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, ‘Why could not we cast him out?’ ” Matthew 17:21, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” From these verses, it is obvious that the failure in casting out demons might not necessarily cause one to be disturbed by demons as that is mentioned in Luke 9:49-50.
    PROOF THAT ANGELS COULD PERFORM MIRACULOUS HEALING AND THERE ARE FALLEN ANGELS TOO:
    John 5:3-4, “In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.””
    From John 5:3-4, it shows that angels could heal various kinds of illnesses whether they are blinded, halt and withered. As angels could perform miraculous healings and there are so-called, fallen angels, it is irrational to jump into conclusion that certain illnesses be healed to be the work of God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit since some wonders might be the work of angels and/or fallen angels.
    One might have quoted Luke 9:49-50 well that nobody should stop those people that perform miracles in Jesus’ name. However, he should meditate Matthew 7:22-23 carefully again that the so-called people to use Jesus’ name to perform wonders might be rejected by the Lord. For instance, if these people that are mentioned in Matthew 7:22-23 to use Jesus’ name to perform wonders are the work of God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit, there should not be any strong ground for Jesus to reject them. However, Jesus will reject them despite they do perform wonders in Jesus’ name and there is a query the so-called wonders that they perform are from God. The following are the extracts:
    Matthew 7:22-23, “Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practise lawlessness!’

  • Jonathan CHM

    Contemporary Charismatic Churches support pre-millennium, mid-millennium, post-millennium and etc. However, the so-called, manifestation of the Holy Spirit in contemporary Charismatic Churches does not stop them to support these theories in the past and there is a query whether the so-called, manifestation of the Holy Spirit in contemporary Charismatic Churches is from God.
    The following is the reason about my comment:
    Rev 22:18-19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of this prophecy of book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
    As the phrase, shall add, is mentioned in Rev 22:18-19 with the phrase, God shall add unto him the plagues, it implies that God demands us, Christians, not to add any words into the book of Revelation. As the phrase, shall take away from…this prophecy, is mentioned in Rev 22:18-19 with the phrase, shall take away his part out of the book of life, it implies that God forbids Christians to remove anything from the book of Revelation.
    The interpretation of the Revelation that Jesus would come in Rev chapter 6 before the tribulation; or Jesus would come in Rev 20 after tribulation; and/or etc., implies that one has added words into the book of Revelation and that should be forbidden as mentioned in Rev 22:18-19. What if Jesus would come at some part of Revelation instead of in Rev 6, those Christians that insist he would come in Rev 6 has added words into God’s mouth that Jesus would come in Rev 6 even though Rev 6 does not mention it. The worse is some would link up the Book of Daniel and/or any other books to the book of Revelation. What if the actual interpretation of God for the revelation is not like this, these Christians have acted contradictorily to Rev 22:18-19 to add words into God’s mouth that God’s prophecy should be so but indeed God does not mean it.
    The same is for those that interpets Rev 13, the 666 to be the anti-christ. Nothing is mentioned in Rev 13 that 666 is for anti-christ and yet one links the word, anti-christ in 1 John 1 to be the one in Rev 13. What if God’s interpretation for 666 in Rev 13 not to be for anti-christ, we, Christians, simply force God to accept the so-called, 666, in Rev 13 to be anti-christ then.
    To my personal opninion, we, Christians, must leave the book of Revelation not to be interpreted so as we would not violate Rev 22:18-19. The reason is we, Christians, would have added words to God’s mouth in case if the book of Revelation, to God’s interpretation is another way instead of following our own interpretation.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X