Replies

Sorry to take so long to get back to you.

>>How could the Bible copy Zoroastrian lies if the Bible came first?<<

The bible certainly did not copy Zoroastrian lies. I had tried to tell broadsword that the Zoroastrian elements of the Pharisaic faith were abominations and were recognized as such by Talmudic Jews. The most I did say was that the Zoroastrians came the closest first to the notion of the afterlife being separated into Paradise and Hell.

>>Zoroastrian appeared AFTER the Bible. As you can see this doesn't make sense. It is Zoroastrian that imitated the Bible. <<

I am utterly unqualified to take a position on the relative timeline between the exilic Jews and Zarathustra.

>>Next, if you don't think the anti Christ is being described in say, Revelation, than what do you think is being described?<<

Which person in Revelations do you refer to? The beast was Neron Caesar. the Whore may represent Rome and Jerusalem, in varying senses. The Serpent is Satan himself. These are identifying them based on the historical sense to which the prophecies were applied. If one reads the prophecies in a predictive way, then the personages are yet unrevealed, although not fits the common depiction of the anti-Christ. Who is the dark prophet? My best guess would be Mohammed, although there was probably someone who was contemporary to John who the figure allusion was based on.

These are the four primary evil characters in Revelation. Pick which one you believe to be the anti-Christ, and I will define how they do not fit the popular notion of the anti-Christ. To some extent, they are all anti-Christs, but only to the extent that Abe Foxman, Bishop Spong, Fidel Castro, Mohammad Gandhi, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, Caesar Nero and the my former housemates are anti-Christs. My former housemates did not exactly have millions of devout Christians praying fervently to be delivered from them. IOW, they are technically fit the very loose definitions of the epistles of John, but they do not fit the popular supposedly Christian notion of the anti-Christ.

>>The Old Testament attests also to the anti Christ. You've probably heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls ... well they validate the Old Testament that we read today. The Bible is concistent. <<

I don't find anything in the Old Testament to suggest an anti-Christ figure at all.

>>Zoroastrian imitates the Bible and not the opposite. <<

Again, MY point, (and please don't confuse me with other posters) was to show that the Zoroastrian beliefs which have corrupted Christianity are NOT biblical.

The bible certainly did not copy Zoroastrian lies. I had tried to tell broadsword that the Zoroastrian elements of the Pharisaic faith were abominations and were recognized as such by Talmudic Jews. The most I did say was that the Zoroastrians came the closest first to the notion of the afterlife being separated into Paradise and Hell.

>>Zoroastrian appeared AFTER the Bible. As you can see this doesn't make sense. It is Zoroastrian that imitated the Bible. <<

I am utterly unqualified to take a position on the relative timeline between the exilic Jews and Zarathustra.

>>>I hope you can double check the timeline I provided to clarify that it was the Zoroastrians that imitated beliefs in the Bible.

As for who the ultimate anti Christ is, is anyones guess. There will be many false prophets however the Muslims are looking interesting concerning prophecy.

I'll look over the rest of your reply. You made a comment about the Old Testament that concerns me.

Okay let me be even more precise on my questions:

"Which person in Revelations do you refer to? The beast was Neron Caesar."

Revelation and it's character(s) have NOT occurred yet so I am puzzled as to how you could identify the beast to be Neron Caesar.

"the Whore may represent Rome and Jerusalem, in varying senses."

Most believe the whore is Rome or Constanople but certainly NOT Jerusalem. How did you come up with Jerusalem?

"The Serpent is Satan himself. These are identifying them based on the historical sense to which the prophecies were applied."

What serpent are you referring to in Revelation? What passage? I'm not interested in a historical sense but rather the context of where you believe the "serpent" is stated in Revelation. In the beginning Satan took on the form of the serpent but he is not restricted to that form.

"If one reads the prophecies in a predictive way, then the personages are yet unrevealed, although not fits the common depiction of the anti-Christ."

If you don't read Revelation in a "Predictive way" then how do you read it. Yes, revelation does mean to reveal ... you have me confused with this ..."although not fits the common depiction of the anti-Christ." Then what do you believe is written in Revelation if not a further description of the anti Christ.

"Who is the dark prophet? My best guess would be Mohammed, although there was probably someone who was contemporary to John who the figure allusion was based on."

Mohammed or rather Muslims do seem to have possibilities. Do you see Revelation as an allusion? Revelation means to reveal to how could it be a contemporary of John, who most believed wrote Revelation?

"These are the four primary evil characters in Revelation. Pick which one you believe to be the anti-Christ, and I will define how they do not fit the popular notion of the anti-Christ."

Maybe you had better reveal the four primary evil characters you see in Revelation and I'll take it from there with questions.

"To some extent, they are all anti-Christs, but only to the extent that Abe Foxman, Bishop Spong, Fidel Castro, Mohammad Gandhi, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, Caesar Nero and the my former housemates are anti-Christs. My former housemates did not exactly have millions of devout Christians praying fervently to be delivered from them. "

Well yes in the broad definition, anti Christ can be more than one person but in Revelation you and I seem to disagree.

"IOW, they are technically fit the very loose definitions of the epistles of John, but they do not fit the popular supposedly Christian notion of the anti-Christ."

OKay I left the ball in your court. I'm intensely curious about your interpretation. It's not something I have come across before. I hope to hear back from you.

Don't worry about not responding immediately. I'll check back tomorrow. I'm not looking for a dissertation. What I mean by that is in one of my questions to you I asked you to list the four characters you believe are described. I'm just looking for the verse and the character you believe it is. From there we can be specific on our debates. TIA.

You: Sorry to take so long to get back to you.

Me: No problem.

Me: How could the Bible copy Zoroastrian lies if the Bible came first?<<

You: The bible certainly did not copy Zoroastrian lies. I had tried to tell broadsword that the Zoroastrian elements of the Pharisaic faith were abominations and were recognized as such by Talmudic Jews. The most I did say was that the Zoroastrians came the closest first to the notion of the afterlife being separated into Paradise and Hell.

Me: Geesh - don't tell a Muslim that! MANY false religions make claim to that. I couldn't say that Zoro was the first.

Me: Zoroastrian appeared AFTER the Bible. As you can see this doesn't make sense. It is Zoroastrian that imitated the Bible. <<

You: I am utterly unqualified to take a position on the relative timeline between the exilic Jews and Zarathustra.

Me: Then you might want to take back your claim that Zoro was the first to write about Paradise and Hell. The timeline is very important because it highlights the fact that these other belief systems are imitations of Christianity.

Me: Next, if you don't think the anti Christ is being described in say, Revelation, than what do you think is being described?<<

You: Which person in Revelations do you refer to? The beast was Neron Caesar.

Me: How did you come up with this since Revelation is FUTURE not PAST?

You: the Whore may represent Rome and Jerusalem, in varying senses. The Serpent is Satan himself. These are identifying them based on the historical sense to which the prophecies were applied. If one reads the prophecies in a predictive way, then the personages are yet unrevealed, although not fits the common depiction of the anti-Christ. Who is the dark prophet? My best guess would be Mohammed, although there was probably someone who was contemporary to John who the figure allusion was based on.

Me: Ah ... here is part of the problem ... you are arbitrarily interpreting symbolism. You are not consistent. Let me clarify what you are doing:

1.Historicist – Revelation portrays the linear unfolding of history from the time of the Roman Empire and the Early Church, through to today, and on to the return of Christ. The main events as they have occurred in their correct historic sequence are recorded, in symbolic form, and there is no room for private interpretation.

2.Praeterist – this has been nicknamed the ‘lucky dip’ method. Readers take portions of the book at random and interpret them to fit whatever area of history they like. There is no linear aspect.

3.Futurist – this method is the most popular and widespread at the moment, with proponents such as Derek Prince and Barry Smith and many other leading Bible teachers and ministers. It is usually taught as the one and only correct interpretation to the exclusion of all others.

So you are mixing and matching interpretation methods!

You: These are the four primary evil characters in Revelation. Pick which one you believe to be the anti-Christ, and I will define how they do not fit the popular notion of the anti-Christ. To some extent, they are all anti-Christs, but only to the extent that Abe Foxman, Bishop Spong, Fidel Castro, Mohammad Gandhi, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, Caesar Nero and the my former housemates are anti-Christs. My former housemates did not exactly have millions of devout Christians praying fervently to be delivered from them. IOW, they are technically fit the very loose definitions of the epistles of John, but they do not fit the popular supposedly Christian notion of the anti-Christ.

Me:I am restricting my exchange to the Book of Revelation. I think we're getting a tad glib here. None of these people you list possess the attributes of the ultimate anti-Christ. Sure they're evil but they don't fit the picture of the AC painted in the Bible.

Me: The Old Testament attests also to the anti Christ. You've probably heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls ... well they validate the Old Testament that we read today. The Bible is consistent. <<

You: I don't find anything in the Old Testament to suggest an anti-Christ figure at all.

Me: you may want to check out Daniel or Isaiah. Daniel 9 tends to give some detail that may change you mind.

Me: Zoroastrian imitates the Bible and not the opposite. <<

You: Again, MY point, (and please don't confuse me with other posters) was to show that the Zoroastrian beliefs which have corrupted Christianity are NOT biblical.

Me: Okay but I see inconsistent interpretation problems from you concerning Revelation and the Old Testament.