I read both Christ and the Antichrist in my KJ Bible. Do you?

The same method of analysis you use to find Christ and Antichrist in the Hebrew Scriptures can find them as easily in the Koran, the Upanishads, King Lear, Roget's Thesaurus, A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Idiot's Guide to Woodworking and your local sports pages.Any book you pick up will contain ideas that strike you as correct and ideas that strike you as wrong-headed. You want to call the ideas you like 'Christ' and the ideas you don't like 'Antichrist'? Go right ahead. But it's your metaphor, no one else's. Nothing about the texts mandates this treatment.A Red Sox fan can as easily call all the ideas she likes 'Boston' and all the ideas she doesn't like 'New York.' She'd be saying just as much.______Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Very much quite.You seem to think you're refuting something. You aren't. You're just illustrating my point. You use the word 'Christ' as a metaphor for 'good.' Exactly as I said. You use the word 'antichrist' as a metaphor for bad. Again, my point exactly.This shows why it's a good idea to understand a point before attempting to refute it.Mine is--follow closely this time, ok?--that you are simply using the word 'Christ' for ideas you like and 'Antichrist' for ideas you don't like. This is no great insight. All you've really said is that you have been able to find ideas you like and ideas you don't like in a work of literature.You have said nothing meaningful about the text itself. You have said nothing meaningful about the theological concepts normally denoted by these terms you use. You say only that you have your likes and dislikes when you read something. That is all.You can find the same 'dualism' in anything. And you can use any dualistic metaphor you like to describe it.Among die-hard Red Sox fans, the word 'Boston' can mean 'good stuff that we like' and 'New York' can mean 'bad stuff that we don't like.' Yankees fans might do the reverse. Either way, the word game is the same one you play in your OP.It makes little sense to complain about semantics when your OP is nothing but.______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

To you. But so what?To someone who is very concerned that unruly youths obey their parents--and who lives in a culture and time far removed from yours--a passage like the one you cited could seem highly appropriate. It establishes social order. To that person any defense of the right of minors to be insubordinate might seem the 'clearly inappropriate' way to talk.The evidence bears this out. Regardless of your future disapproval, the passage was penned and it did make the cut. Clearly, someone did think it belonged. Not at all. That remains an open question.Your own notions of what 'should have been known' are shaped by your culture and your time. One could ask for no more conclusive evidence of this than the anachronistic categories you use.Neither author nor editor had ever heard of a 'christ' or 'antichrist.' Your use of these terms shows that your ideas of propriety and 'shouldness' have been shaped by subsequent history. Very well. I have shown you the most plausible and likely reason.You're welcome.______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Not at all. A quote mine does not a refutation make.Please see my post to see what evidence I cite, and what the word this refers to. With how many societies, among the thousands that have existed among humankind, are you familiar?