GnosticSoldier
4th August 2007, 08:30 PM
I call this letter: Why Vincent Bridges is oblivious.
Vincent Bridges seems to think Nostradamus offers prophecy warning of an “antichrist”, and more specifically, he insists this will be the third “antichrist” in history. He also suggests (without backing it up in any way), that this so called “antichrist” will be retarded or stupid, homosexual, a pedophile, a hater of women and various other negative personality traits. He also claims that Nostradamus reinforces warnings of the “antichrist” found in the book of Revelations. He also thinks this “antichrist” will be born of Satan or into worshipping Satan. Bridges also seems to think the first “antichrist” was Napoleon, the second Hitler, and the third not yet named. He claims this is confirmed in other books of the Christian bible.
Here are reasons why these are the theories of either a flat out liar, or a flat out idiot.
1) Nowhere in the book of Revelations is this “antichrist” ever mentioned.
2) Nowhere in the book of Revelations is “Satan” ever mentioned. There is reference to a “dragon” a “beast” a second “beast”, and locusts, but no Satan or antichrist.
3) Nostradamus only makes two references to the antichrist in his prophecies, in one stating “there will be one wrong antichrist”, and “the antichrists will be three yearlings”. The first seems to clearly suggest someone wrongly accused, and the second suggests there are three at the same time. Thus by Nostradamus words, which Vincent Bridges tries to use to back up his claims, there are three “antichrists” all at one time, not at different periods of time.
4) The only real reference to the “antichrists” that I know of is found in the book of Mathew: “even now very many antichrists have gone out”. Firstly it indicates rather clearly the “antichrist” is a general term applied to people opposing the teachings of Christ. Secondly, it alludes to them existing while Christ was alive and teaching; it is clearly not a reference to the future in any way.
5) The reference to the “antichrists” in Matthew, clearly alludes they are people opposed to Christ.
6) The idea of opposing Christ suggests some form of oppression against Christians.
7) Neither Napoleon nor Hitler oppressed Christians. In fact, both were born into Christian homes, and both had political ties to the Vatican.
8) Having as above proved the very notion of there being three historically important antichrists is false, and flat out baseless, I think it fair to say, the rest of his assumptions to that effect are just as stupid.
9) Since the “antichrist” is an arbitrary term to people against Christ while he was alive two thousand years ago, there is nothing to suggest this fictional and non existent character would be retarded, or gay, or a pedophile, or hate women. Again stating, because there is no single antichrist.
10) Logically, the only rational means of interpreting the idea of an “antichrist” as a prophetic suggestion, would clearly allude to suggest the presence of people in a future point in time opposed to Christ.
11) Since Christ died two thousand years ago, the above statement is invalid, since by rational logic (evidently omitted by Bridges) it is physically impossible to be against a man who died two thousand years ago.
12) Additionally, there have been many people who have opposed the Christian churches for various reasons, and have not opposed the words of Jesus: for example, the separation of church and state was action against Christian domination of political affairs, won by none other than Christians worshipping Christ.
13) By Nostradamus owns words he states “I am not a prophet, in my position I want nothing attributed to me of such a title, and you render me praise and thanks eternal…”., thus Nostradamus by his own words has made no such prophecy of any kind.
In conclusion, there is no single “antichrist” as some form of villain archetype, and there is nothing by way of either biblical parable or prophecy to suggest there is. Since the villain archetype portrayed by half literate, unread, unintelligible, fruitcake boobs like Bridges, there is no reason to believe his inane theories of retardation or homosexuality would be accurate. In short, I do believe I’ve just in only one and a half pages disproved the whole of Vincent Bridges writings, at least those pertaining to biblical prophecy.
I should point out, I have a personal issue with Vincent Bridges, who refused to offer me a review of a book I wrote, and instead slandered me and to date still avoids me.
Vincent, if you read this by all means, feel free to email me, it would be nice an alleged “mystic” like yourself were willing to take part in any kind of open debate rather than hiding in the shadows with malicious lies.
Good day.
Vincent Bridges seems to think Nostradamus offers prophecy warning of an “antichrist”, and more specifically, he insists this will be the third “antichrist” in history. He also suggests (without backing it up in any way), that this so called “antichrist” will be retarded or stupid, homosexual, a pedophile, a hater of women and various other negative personality traits. He also claims that Nostradamus reinforces warnings of the “antichrist” found in the book of Revelations. He also thinks this “antichrist” will be born of Satan or into worshipping Satan. Bridges also seems to think the first “antichrist” was Napoleon, the second Hitler, and the third not yet named. He claims this is confirmed in other books of the Christian bible.
Here are reasons why these are the theories of either a flat out liar, or a flat out idiot.
1) Nowhere in the book of Revelations is this “antichrist” ever mentioned.
2) Nowhere in the book of Revelations is “Satan” ever mentioned. There is reference to a “dragon” a “beast” a second “beast”, and locusts, but no Satan or antichrist.
3) Nostradamus only makes two references to the antichrist in his prophecies, in one stating “there will be one wrong antichrist”, and “the antichrists will be three yearlings”. The first seems to clearly suggest someone wrongly accused, and the second suggests there are three at the same time. Thus by Nostradamus words, which Vincent Bridges tries to use to back up his claims, there are three “antichrists” all at one time, not at different periods of time.
4) The only real reference to the “antichrists” that I know of is found in the book of Mathew: “even now very many antichrists have gone out”. Firstly it indicates rather clearly the “antichrist” is a general term applied to people opposing the teachings of Christ. Secondly, it alludes to them existing while Christ was alive and teaching; it is clearly not a reference to the future in any way.
5) The reference to the “antichrists” in Matthew, clearly alludes they are people opposed to Christ.
6) The idea of opposing Christ suggests some form of oppression against Christians.
7) Neither Napoleon nor Hitler oppressed Christians. In fact, both were born into Christian homes, and both had political ties to the Vatican.
8) Having as above proved the very notion of there being three historically important antichrists is false, and flat out baseless, I think it fair to say, the rest of his assumptions to that effect are just as stupid.
9) Since the “antichrist” is an arbitrary term to people against Christ while he was alive two thousand years ago, there is nothing to suggest this fictional and non existent character would be retarded, or gay, or a pedophile, or hate women. Again stating, because there is no single antichrist.
10) Logically, the only rational means of interpreting the idea of an “antichrist” as a prophetic suggestion, would clearly allude to suggest the presence of people in a future point in time opposed to Christ.
11) Since Christ died two thousand years ago, the above statement is invalid, since by rational logic (evidently omitted by Bridges) it is physically impossible to be against a man who died two thousand years ago.
12) Additionally, there have been many people who have opposed the Christian churches for various reasons, and have not opposed the words of Jesus: for example, the separation of church and state was action against Christian domination of political affairs, won by none other than Christians worshipping Christ.
13) By Nostradamus owns words he states “I am not a prophet, in my position I want nothing attributed to me of such a title, and you render me praise and thanks eternal…”., thus Nostradamus by his own words has made no such prophecy of any kind.
In conclusion, there is no single “antichrist” as some form of villain archetype, and there is nothing by way of either biblical parable or prophecy to suggest there is. Since the villain archetype portrayed by half literate, unread, unintelligible, fruitcake boobs like Bridges, there is no reason to believe his inane theories of retardation or homosexuality would be accurate. In short, I do believe I’ve just in only one and a half pages disproved the whole of Vincent Bridges writings, at least those pertaining to biblical prophecy.
I should point out, I have a personal issue with Vincent Bridges, who refused to offer me a review of a book I wrote, and instead slandered me and to date still avoids me.
Vincent, if you read this by all means, feel free to email me, it would be nice an alleged “mystic” like yourself were willing to take part in any kind of open debate rather than hiding in the shadows with malicious lies.
Good day.