The rider on the white horse brings an eye for an eye. Does that make him the Antichrist?
After reading Isaiah 63:3–5, Isaiah 11:1–5, and Revelation 19:11–19, the rider on the white horse — faithful and just — appears as a warrior who repays. There love for the enemy is not preached, but the principle of eye for eye. So then, where does the doctrine of loving enemies (Matthew 5:44–45) come from? Not from Hebraism, but from a Greek maxim formulated centuries earlier by Cleobulus of Lindos.
The Greek sage spoke… and attentive ears listened: “Do good to your friends and to your enemies… thus you will keep some and attract others.” “Any man, at any moment in life, can be your friend or your enemy, depending on how you conduct yourself with him.” Were we not told that Jesus said very similar things? It turns out that these phrases were spoken by Cleobulus of Lindos, one of the so-called Seven Sages of Greece, in the 6th century before Christ… more than 500 years before Jesus. Curious… isn’t it? Not only are very similar words later attributed to Jesus —Matthew 5:44—, but it is also claimed that these teachings summarize “the law and the prophets” —Matthew 7:12—… yet the law says in Deuteronomy 19:18-19: “you shall do to the false witness as he intended to do.” And the prophet Nahum says in Nahum 1:2: “God is a jealous and avenging God… and reserves wrath for his enemies.” Nothing about rewarding enemies. So then… could it be that an aggressive Rome, confronted with the Jews and their king, never wanted “an eye for an eye”… because it killed the king of the Jews? Isn’t it obvious that Rome never wanted to be reached by the justice of that law? The Greek also said: “Moderation is best.” And it is written: Ecclesiastes 7:16: “Do not be overly righteous… nor excessively wise.” Ecclesiastes 7:17: “Do not be overly wicked…” But it is also written: Proverbs 9:9: “Give to a wise man, and he will be wiser…” Revelation 22:11: “He who is righteous, let him practice righteousness still…” So then… moderation… or justice without limit?
Prophecy shows that love for a wicked enemy does not work:
Psalms 109:1 Do not remain silent, O God of my praise. 2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me; they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. 3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred, and fought against me without a cause. 4 For my love they are my adversaries, but I give myself unto prayer. 5 And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love. 6 Set thou a wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right hand. 7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned, and let his prayer become sin. 8 Let his days be few, and let another take his office.
Sirach also warns against doing good to a wicked enemy:
Sirach 12:1–6
1 When you do good, take note of whom you do it to, and you will be able to expect something from your good action. 2 Do a favor to the good, and you will obtain a reward, if not from him, then from the Lord. 3 Helping the wicked brings no good, and it is not even a good action. 4 In time of need he will do you double harm for all the good you have done to him. 5 Do not give him weapons of war, so that he may not attack you with them. 6 God also abhors the wicked and will give them their punishment.
Why would Jesus contradict these teachings? He did not. His enemies did, but they blamed Him for it.
But assuming that what is presented as having been said before Christ is pure, simply because Rome did not persecute the prophets, is also an error. For there is a proverb that says, “If your enemy is thirsty, give him something to drink” (Proverbs 25:21), and another that says, “When your enemy falls, do not rejoice” (Proverbs 24:17). This contrasts with the rejoicing required of the righteous at the fall of their enemy Babylon in Revelation 18:20: “Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.”
Obviously, since Babylon fell in 539 BC, before Christ, Revelation uses Babylon as an allusion to the idolatrous empire that murdered the saints.
Isaiah 65:13–14
13 Therefore thus said Jehovah the Lord: Behold, my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty; behold, my servants shall rejoice, but you shall be ashamed. 14 Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but you shall cry out for pain of heart, and shall howl for anguish of spirit.
Ayudando al pensamiento crítico a sacudirse de dogmas impuestos desde la niñez. Soy creador del blog: https://ntiend.me (https://gabriels.work).
Este blog no solo está en español y tiene como propósito respetar la inteligencia frente al dogma.
Este blog no fue creado para defender la Biblia ni para buscarle una interpretación alternativa, porque eso sería darle crédito como un bloque coherente de mensajes. Los textos allí atribuidos a los santos contienen contradicciones demasiado numerosas para etiquetarlas como simples accidentes o diferencias de interpretación. Mientras se atribuye a los santos mensajes tanto de amor como de odio hacia sus enemigos, aquí hay gato encerrado. La cuestión no es cómo interpretar la Biblia o sus enigmas, sino saber hasta dónde llegan las raíces del engaño: si los mensajes están adulterados, no tiene sentido perder el tiempo intentando descifrar enigmas bíblicos posiblemente adulterados por la mano que mató a los santos y se apoderó de sus escritos para arrogarse la autoridad moral de determinar qué escritura, original o escrita por esa mano asesina, debía considerarse “la verdad” y cuál no.
//
Helping critical thinking shake off the dogmas imposed since childhood. I am the creator of the blog: https://ntiend.me (https://gabriels.work).
This blog is not only in Spanish and is intended to respect intelligence in the face of dogma.
This blog was not created to defend the Bible or to seek an alternative interpretation of it, because that would give it credit as a coherent body of messages. The texts attributed there to the saints contain far too many contradictions to dismiss them as mere accidents or differences in interpretation. While the saints are attributed with messages expressing both love and hatred toward their enemies, there is something fishy going on here. The question is not how to interpret the Bible or its enigmas, but rather how deep the roots of the deception go: if the messages have been adulterated, there is no point wasting time trying to decipher biblical enigmas possibly adulterated by the hand that killed the saints and seized their writings in order to arrogate to itself the moral authority to determine which writing, original or written by that murderous hand, was to be considered “the truth” and which was not.
Ver todas las entradas de José Carlos Galindo Hinostroza