End Of The Abrahamic Storyline, significance of inanna ishtar Options

the abrahamic storyline has dominated world religious events for the past 2000 years, and came into the mainstream with the advent of first christianity and then islam. as i was raised christian, and have the most knowledge of the christian view of the conclusion of it most of my information comes from Revelation. of course in revelation the word "anti-christ" is never used, but there is the whore of babylon. it is my theory that the scarlet whore is the archetype of inanna ishtar, who was both a virgin and harlot, like the virgin mary, and the aeon sophia of gnosticism who became a prostitute by spawning the material world by having a thought without the permission of the first pure emanation of the Godhead. my question is will there be a reconcilliation with pre-christian (sumero-babylonian, greco-roman, egyptian) western religions with abrahamic religion to synthesize a new religion which will be viewed by christian and islamic fundamentalists as the "religion of the anti-christ". it seems that each historical epoch since the dawn of state civilization has its own belief systems and organized religions. since the enlightenment in the west there has been an increasingly large spiritual vacuum as secularism has been taking predominace over christianity and essentially leaving the responsibility of religious guidiance blank... Robspierre, just after the French revolution attempted to completely resurrect the Ancient religion, but obviously didn't get too far with his Cult of the Supreme Beinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being . In modern times can an ideal like this be resurrected and submitted successfully for the approval of the mainstream? And if the Ancient Religion (the religion of Babylon, Egypt and Rome) can be revived not only would it co-opt abrahamic beliefs (as Jesus is a repetition of the resurrection stories of such dieties as Osiris), but it would also be met with hostilities from abrahamic fundamentalists.

Speaking of the divine androgyne the priests of Inanna-Ishtar were known to be the embodiers of the third sex, just like the indian Hijras of present day, and the Cybele priests of Rome. The Whore of Babylon, when sh/e winds her way from sleep will be an androgynous figure... s/he will be the a divine mystery that will shine throughout religious and political history for millenia to come and will assist in the traumatic phases of human evolution we are about to pass through. Carl Jung even outlined and extensively wrote about the divine transvesticism of the Alchemists, the merging of the male and the female to create the sought after elixer and gold ... s/he will be the celestial protectress who is the servant-scribe of the Watchers, the Nephilim, or the Elohim, that will pave the way for the "second coming" . All s/he is waiting on is time.

from book one of the i ching, hexgram 50, Ting - The Cauldron (Wilhelm/Baynes translation):

"Here we see civilization as it reaches its culmination in religion. The ting serves in offering sacrifice to God. The highest earthly values must be sacrificed to the divine. But the truly divine does not manifest itself apart from man. The supreme revelation of God appears in prophets and holy men. To venerate them is true veneration of God. The will of God, as revealed through them, should be accepted in humility; this brings inner enlightenment and true understanding of the world, and leads to great good fortune and success."

That is why the Abrahamic Storyline must come to a climax in this kind of way; the storyline is still open, and to think it will just whither away due to a little secular pesticide is absurd. The source of Abrahamic religion, being the Nephilim brought it to us with the advent of the state in the pre-Sumerian days when "Kingship descended from Heaven"; Utunapishtim became Noah, Sargon became Moses, Ishtar-Sophia has been marginalized and oppressed for too long, and to think events with literarily Biblical implications in world history are not over the horizon is naive.