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.
>>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. <<
Let me rephrase myself: There is apparently a broad disagreement among experts about the date of Zarathrustra. I have no way of deciding which of these experts is most reasonable. However, even the latest estimates predate biblical references to Heaven and Hell by 6 centuries, and Islam by well over a millennium.
>>Me: How did you come up with this since Revelation is FUTURE not PAST?<<
This is a common inference, but nothing in Revelations states whether these events are in the past or the future. John does, in fact, write in the past tense. However, it is typical of biblical prophecy for the prophet to write of something close to his own time, with meanings that will be fulfilled in the distant future. For instance, Isaiah's prophecies of the liberation of Israel describe Persia creating a free Israel c. 600 BC, just about as Isaiah was writing them. However, the same prophecies are also fulfilled by Jesus 6 centuries later, and have further meaning to the present day and to the end of days.
In this way, the preterist, historicist, and futurist all have partial validity. I would add a fourth: eternal. Prophecies do reveal the etrenal nature of Man, God, and their relationship. An excellent book about the eternal meaning of Revelation is "The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn.
>>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. <<
That was precisely my point. The only explicit references to an anti-Christ are so vague, that these people *do* meet the definition....
>>Me: you may want to check out Daniel or Isaiah. Daniel 9 tends to give some detail that may change you mind. <<
Ah! Finally a reference I can look up! And you know what? While Revelations does not have any mention of anything resembling the anti-Christ, I will allow that the prince in Daniel 9:26-27 seems like a candidate!
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
Gee, I wish that was in English. (Chuckle) The odd thing is that the PEOPLE of the Prince destroy the sanctuary, but the prince himself appears to have cooperated with the Messiah in building it. Almost as if the Prince is a good guy, but his people go evil: "Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks,"