↑
Ya...you are totally and completely off....reminds me of when Paul says that they will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths...
Hey Lisa, did you know that what Saul (Paul) said in Galatians 5:23 was actually written by Aristotle and what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:24 was written by Plato? Even more, what he wrote in Philippians 3;19 was written in Plato's "Republic" and what he wrote in Galatians 6:8 was written in his work called "Phaedo." These are just a few... If you don't believe me, please look it up for yourself. There are even more pagan plagiarisms than these... (Phil 1:21, 1 Cor 13:12, 1 Thes 5:15, Acts 26:14) to name a few more...
Please try to prove me wrong. Shalom
[/QUOTE]
For starters, your theory requires the assumption that this is the way people who believe in the book of Revelation interpret the passage. Your whole theory is based on the presumption of how the prophecy is interpreted by some, and how you have reinterpreted something that cannot be understood completely proving only that many things have not been fulfilled. This is what it means. When they are fulfilled, there will be more understanding.
Then, your theory is presented as fact and as a contradictory opinion to this debated subject. Therefore, your suggestion cannot be considered truth in any sense because it is a theory that is a replicated off of a theory that cannot be confirmed.
I don't believe the rider on the white horse is the antichrist, so no I also don't believe the antichrist will be the good guy either. I think that the rider on the white horse represents the mystery of lawlessness or the authority of God to allow deception to go throughout the world as a challenge to those who believe and persevere to the end. What does this do to your theory if I don't accept that this passage, in particular, is suggesting that the antichrist is the rider on the white horse? This is part of what you are using to support your theory, yes?
I also believe that scriptures used to demonstrate an expectation in the coming Messiah is represented in the book of Revelation by the return of Christ, or the coming of the Messiah for those who don't already believe in Him. Therefore, this is included in my understanding of the prophecy. However, how you are presuming the Messiah will be Michael cannot be understood by your argument at all. Where are you making a connection that the Old Testament is proving that the New Testament is inaccurate about the nature of the antichrist and that he is a good guy? I am not understanding. Christ the Messiah will return because the anointed one did not rebuild according to Daniel 9, which you suggest should prove whether He is the Messiah.
It says He will come when it is built, and the setting of the Gospels suggests that this happened. At best, your theory suggests that the prophecy isn't fulfilled, because it is one of the most confused interpretations I have ever heard, and this usually means something hasn't been fulfilled. Although, He did come according to the Gospels, so there is no conflict with this passage even if you disagree with it. Jeruselum was rebuilt in times of trouble according to history of the time period before Christ came. Then it was destroyed, which it was, as Josephus confirms. Then there have been wars and desolations ever since and we can expect them to continue to the final week. That is why there is the separation between the end of the sixty-two sevens and the final week.
The term antichrist is used to represent someone who rejects Christ. It is understood that the beast of Revelation is someone who will reject Christ. Therefore, he is referred to as the antichrist according to this connection. However, this "antichrist" is more literally referred to as a beast in the book of Revelation and not as an antichrist. This beast is another illustration of Daniel 9:27 where the one who will confirm a covenant with many will do so" on the wing of the temple until the decreed desolation is poured out." This is referred to as the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24. I don't believe this covenant is directed at the Jews even though the sacrifices and offering are cut off, but that this will be a Jew who will cut off the offering and sacrifices the same way King Uzziah tried to burn the incense in the temple in arrogance (2 Chronicles 26:18). Therefore, it will be the final disobedicene, so to speak, that will prove that God was just in His judgement towards Israel.
Although, I quoted my favorite quote of yours throughout this thread because of your brilliant connection between Aristotle and the apostle Paul. I enjoy this most because you use a verse in the book of Galatians to demonstrate Paul's affinity for the writings of Aristotle. Wow! Have you read the book of Galatians?
Also, who would have ever thought that Paul, being a witness to the Gentiles, would speak using things that people could relate with. Who would have ever thought that would be a good idea. Maybe you should try reading "How to Win Friends and Influence People" then you would see that being audience centered is a great way to persuade your audience, not an endeavor to plagiarize a famous Greek philosopher.
I have read large portions of Aristole's book "Physics" and "On the Heavens." I really enjoyed them. They are time-consuming because Aristotle is very long winded, but I forgive him because he didn't have a word processor that allowed him to edit his work quickly and make what he had to say more concise. What he has to say is very valuable and fascinating to compare with the present understanding of the subject. Just brilliant really. If there were 48 hours in a day, I would read all his writings and be the better for it; however, at no time would the writings of Aristotle and the apostle Paul be comparable in intent or purpose. To say one is plagiarizing the other is just a very poor literary analysis.