Since this sounds like a variation of the Gambler’s Fallacy, can we call it the Prophet’s Fallacy (or Phallacy)? 
Just tell me when Sephiroth starts playing pool with the solar system.
The world doesn’t end. Stop wasting your time torturing scripyure and join us in trying to make things better.
Long as I get credit, sure!
I find myself wondering if ephraim even reads the responses to his/her/its threads.
Why would he need to? After all everything he/she/it posts is the whole of the truth, so there’s nothing more for him/her/it to learn :dubious:
I find myself wondering if ephraim even reads the posts that he/she/it submits.
There are at least three groups of Christian thought on Revelation, besides the Futurist one (the End Timers)- the Preterists who see Rev as being an encouragement for Christians to keep the faith through the Roman persecution & the destruction of Jerusalem; the Historicists who see Rev as foretelling the unfolding of Church history - the fall of Jerusalem, the Roman persecutions, the Christianizing of Rome, the Fall of the Empire & the eventual corruption of Roman Christendom, the Reformation, the Revolutionary era onto the final End Times; and the Idealists/Allegorists who see Rev as telling Christians to hold on in spite of beast rulers & harlot religions & natural disasters because JC is in charge.
The book of Revelation consists of 404 verses, 278 of them are direct references to the Old Testament scriptures, it dovetails especially with the book of Daniel. It pronounces a blessing upon anyone who reads and obeys what is written in it and a curse upon anyone who changes it or disobeys it. Considering the importance of the book it is quite commendable that you have undertaken to consider it and try to understand it in relation to current world events, most just scoff at it and at anyone who attempts to unlock its symbolism.
There are a couple of issues I would like you to consider in your analysis. First, the antichrist is referred to as the son of perdition (2Thes2:3) and there is only one other person with that title and he is Judas Iscariot (John17:12). The antichrist and his false system will not stand directly opposed to Christianity, but will actually come from within. He will be a counterfeit who claims Christ but who in practice will act in opposition to Him and His teachings. Counterfeits all work the same way, they try to get as close to the genuine as possible otherwise no one will be deceived by them. Just as you have never seen a counterfeit 99 dollar bill (because there is no genuine one), the antichrist system will appear to be genuinely Christian in most respects, otherwise no one would be deceived into following him. Second, you should reconsider the concept of a pretribulation rapture. The purpose of the book of Revelation is to reveal end time events to believers so those traumatic events will not take them by surprise and so they will be prepared to continue the work of evangelism within the context of global judgement. If believers are not present for the events, there was no purpose for the book to be written to them; it would be an academic study perhaps but totally irrelevant. There is indeed an imminent second coming of Christ but there isn’t a second and then a third, that’s a fable. If you would like to take up these issues, perhaps we could come to a consensus and then move on to the intricate symbolism in the book.
There is no “Antichrist” in the Book of Revelation.
Some who believe in the pretribulation rapture of the church claim that one of their proofs is that the church is not mentioned in Revelation after chapter 4. However it is mentioned throughout in different terms and with different symbols other than “church”. It is the same with the Antichrist. The term “Antichrist” is only mentioned in the small books written by John but is represented by other symbols and terminology in John’s last book.
Based on a particular (man created) theology, and not based on the actual texts of scripture.
No. The “antichrists” (plural) spoken of in the Epistles of John have nothing to do with the “Beast” of Revelation. “Antichrist” was an epithet for apostate Christians, not a title for a futuristic supervillain. The Beast was the Emperor of Rome.
Incidentally, the author of Revelation is not the same “John” as either of the two the authors of the Epistles or the Gospel with that name. GJohn, 1 John, 2 and 3 John and Revelation are the works of at least four different authors, none of whom were the alleged apostle of that name.
Individually, the words make sense. But together, they make none.
The Sephirot are, IIRC the facets into which G-d has divided Himself in order to manifest in creation without destroying it. Properly arranged and connected, the Sephirot form the Tree Of Life. What any of this has to do with the planets leaving their orbits escapes me.
No, but there are two Antichrist characters - the Beast and the False Prophet, so come on, just because Rev doesn’t use the term “Antichrist” doesn’t mean the concept isn’t there.
Re the authorship of the Gospel, the Epistles & the Revelation of John- I can see the case for three authors, but I think four is stretching (I don’t even think it’s necessary that there be more than one- tho if there was one author, I think he had help with his Greek in the Gospel & Epistles with whoever was his various scribes, plus I wonder if the Gospel might have been edited together from the accounts of others, like Lazarus & Magdalene).
As for if any of them were the Apostle John…I’ve said it before on other Biblical topics & I’ll keep saying it- you don’t know they weren’t, just like I don’t know
they were.
You are assuming that John the Apostle, to whom the Gospel of John and the three Epistles of John are attributed, was the same person as John of Patmos or “John the Divine,” to whom Revelation is attributed. Do you have anything to support that assumption?
He/she may be referring to the Final Fantasy character Sephiroth, who tries to ram a planetoid into the game-world.
I have a question.
Suppose we accept that God did in fact inspire the entire diverse collection texts now known as “the Bible”. If so, He would surely have arranged for them to be as clear as possible to human readers. Thus, he would surely have used the same word for a given person, place, or thing every time. This would give maximum clarity, whereas using multiple different words reduces clarity. Hence he would not have used three (or more) different words to designate the person now commonly known as “the Antichrist”. Instead, he would have used only one word.
Am I not right?
Given the many Kabbalah references used in Japanese pop culture, you’re probably right.
It depends on what you see God doing.
If you subscribe to the notion promoted by Bible Man that God held the hand of every author whom He wished to represent Him and then had the Holy Spirit gather together all the works that were written through some mysterious process, then your assumption is correct. And I will leave it to those who believe that method of transmission to explain why we now have to hunt and peck through scripture, cherry picking verses to link together, just to figure out what He intended.
For a different perspective, if you subscribe to the notion that God inspired many people to explain their many experiences of Him in their own ways in their own words at different times and that then the Holy Spirit guided the community of believers to select the works that expressed different aspects of God at different times, then your assumption is not correct for that scenario–and it is up to those believers to justify why different works with apparently contradictory passages and messages were all deemed worthy of selection.
And at the far end from the first group are those who believe that different books have just been selected at different times for political reasons and that there is no need to inject God into the discussion.
(There are also other opinions on the continuum from the first view through the third where people may be farther from or closer to any of those particular scenarios, but differ on key points.)
At any rate, the outsider examining the historical creation of the various canons will either accept or reject the process as indicative of their anthropological approach to faith and religion among humans while that person can only accept or reject the faith presented based on their own willingness or ability to share in that faith. Despite the claims of the first group, there is not rational argument that is utterly persuasive regarding belief.