YOu: 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: Actually that is false by the timeline I gave. Furthermore it is the Judeo Christian God that created ALL. He didn't create evil however He gave people and yes even the angels a CHOICE. Satan was created by God however he REBELLED against God. I have NO belief in Zoro or any of that nonsense but IF I ever did, by defnition God created this person or being. Does the Word made Flesh ring a bell? So no matter what timeline you come up with, doesn't matter. God created ALL!
Me: How did you come up with this since Revelation is FUTURE not PAST?<<
You: 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.
Me: No, John writes in the tense of the FUTURE.
You: 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.
Me: Here you go again, stating that John wrote in the past tense and then shift gears and generalize that he MAY have written in the future tense. You are arbitrary. The only thing JOhn did was describe events and things in words common to his time.
You: 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.
Me: No, you have to chose either preterist, historicist or futurist. You are mixing and matching prophecy for a predetermined outcome. Prophecy doesn't work like that. Prophecy is FUTURE in Revelation and in the Bible. Making up a third, "eternal" only further muddies the word. I don't need other books about prophecy ... the Bible is clear enough.
Me: Again you cannot mix and match interpretation methods for accurate prophecy:
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. It is usually taught as the one and only correct interpretation to the exclusion of all others.
Me: 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. <<
YOu: That was precisely my point. The only explicit references to an anti-Christ are so vague, that these people *do* meet the definition....
Me: Well ANYONE can create a straw man argument and that is what you did however it does NOT make a valid point. The people you mentioned are not the anti Christ. That is easliy determined by the Bibles descritption and WHY I know they are NOT the AC. The description of the AC in the Bible is NOT vague.
Me: you may want to check out Daniel or Isaiah. Daniel 9 tends to give some detail that may change you mind. <<
YOu: 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!
Me: The majority of Revelation is a description of the AC! I'm not about to copy/paste it here. I'm glad you can acknowledge Daniel ... .
You: "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."
YOu: 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,"
Me: Evil NEVER cooperates with good. He did NOT cooperate with God. He was mocking God by doing what he did.
I could further explain this but it's pointless. You don't just leap into Biblical prophecy. You really need to spend some time with the Bible and stop using other sources fro interpretation. Your reaction to Daniel 9:26 tells me you rely on others, not the Bible for understanding. You can't do that. You really have to study it yourself and ask those well taught your questions - preferably ones not out to make a buck off you.
I'm not going to continue this. You're really not familiar with legitimate Biblical prophecy. You mix and match interpretation which leads to inconsistency and misses the point on what is being said. Your views in general are NOT orthodox. I lack the time to delve in and explain what I know to be true using the Greek and Hebrew.
Take care,
>>No, John writes in the tense of the FUTURE. <<
No, Joh writes in the past tense. "saw, sang, proclaimed, worshipped, fell". All these verbs are past tense. However, since he is describing a vision he SAW, it is reasonable to suppose that these visions are be of something yet to come. But that is a presumption, albeit a very reasonable one.
>>No, you have to chose either preterist, historicist or futurist.<<
Who says there is only one meaning? Did I not show how Isaiah had multiple meanings which have EACH been shown to be true? Surely you wouldn't argue that because Isaiah calls Cyrus the Messiah that means Jesus was not the Messiah.
>>The description of the AC in the Bible is NOT vague.<<
I'm beginning to lose patience. You tell me something, ANYTHING that the bible says about the anti-Christ. You keep saying "Revelations is all about the Anti-Christ." You show me ONE SINGLE PASSAGE in Revelations about the anti-Christ. I showed you the only four DIRECT references in the bible to the anti-Christ. If you find what you consider an indirect reference in Revelations, point it out.
The only things we are told about the anti-Christ in the bible:
There are many of them.
There have been anti-Christs since the time of John.
ANYONE (including my roommates) who denies the physical resurrection and godhood of the Son is the anti-Christ.
>>Me: The majority of Revelation is a description of the AC! I'm not about to copy/paste it here. I'm glad you can acknowledge Daniel ... <<
Tell me ONE PASSAGE. ONE VERSE. Or even answer my question as to WHICH PERSON in Revelations is the anti-Christ.
>>I'm not going to continue this. You're really not familiar with legitimate Biblical prophecy. <<
I'm beginning to think you never read Revelations at all.