Ask Me Help Desk - Trump's Tweet Today

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Just because something isn't specifically mentioned doesn't invalidate the argument, In Revelation huge fires are mentioned and the dying, what does 666 mean if not the impact of man. I think you should read it for yourself, because you have already quoted one verse out of context and are obviously sucked into the opinions of one person. Remember you believe it is a code, what is a code but veiled references

Jesus millenial reign is a time of peace

I've studied Revelation in college and with several different pastors and lay teachers. I am a preterist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes, there are more of us. Interesting you should ask about banners! I just bought about ten yards of plain cotton-polyester that I plan to cut and dye. Any special design(s) you want on them?

How about 12-12-12 in big numbers? That would be code for doubling down on 666. The fundies will love it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Not in the sense she's using it. It would be more like a letter written by one spy to another where certain words have specific meanings known only to them. It's really a shame her pastor told her that, but I suppose she has never checked it out for herself.

yes some people believe the Davinci Code too doesn't make it true

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

yes some people believe the Davinci Code too doesn't make it true

What??? It's not true???

Very true. Speaking of Clete's DvC comment.

yes some people will believe anything, they even believe the Quoran

I don’t have much trouble with different ideas as long as the person can give some rational reason for believing them. Now why we should believe Revelation is written in code?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Now why we should believe Revelation is written in code?

Since Christians were being persecuted by Rome at the time, John coded it so that only those familiar with Jewish history would make the connection.

I understand that is your contention. Now what evidence is there of that? Did, for instance, any of the early church fathers mention that idea?

John was imprisoned on an island, why did he need a code to record his visions. The exposition on the seven churches is not a code unless he was speaking of the great falling away we see today, every church going its own way

So far we have John writing about the church in Nero's time, but after Nero's death, prophesying abut events which had already taken place, and writing in a code which no one knows and for which there is no evidence. So you can see why there exists some skepticism?

Quote:

some skepticism?

What we have here is taking some prophesies of Jesus which were fulfilled and turning it into an excuse to say the prophesies of John referred to the same events and have been fulfilled, and what does this mean? It means we are now licensed to do whatever

I'm not even sure we have that. "I've studied Revelation in college and with several different pastors and lay teachers." Well, OK, but can that person explain why she believes that Revelation is code, or why she believes the prophesies of Revelation have all been fulfilled?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm not even sure we have that. "I've studied Revelation in college and with several different pastors and lay teachers." Well, OK, but can that person explain why she believes that Revelation is code, or why she believes the prophesies of Revelation have all been fulfilled?

She did already in this thread.

Revelation almost didn't make the cut. It is one of the most controversial, complicated, and esoteric books in the New Testament canon. Chiliasm (the belief that Christ will return to earth in visible form and establish a kingdom to last 1000 years, after which the world will come to an end) was part of the controversy.

Oh? What post was that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Oh? What post was that?

Surely you jest.

When you were gnashing your teeth, I added more to my post #94.

Forget it. Everything has to be a joke to you. If you posted evidence, you would simply say, "Post xx". You haven't, and so you can't. You haven't because you don't have any. So until you can, find someone else to be evasive with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Forget it. Everything has to be a joke to you. If you posted evidence, you would simply say, "Post xx". You haven't, and so you can't. You haven't because you don't have any. So until you can, find someone else to be evasive with.

If you stopped with the nastiness and insults, I'd be more than glad to comply. And if you took the time to wander back in this thread just a bit, you'd see my post that you're crabbing about.

Sure you would. Sure I would. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Sure you would. Sure I would. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Read up on chiliasm.

Nope. If you have, then post it. Let's hear your own explanation. After all, you studied Revelation, and you know, so if you do, put it down.

You don't, so you can't. Besides, you have, according to you, already posted your defense. So why would I need to go and look something up when the explanation is on this board?

We just need to part ways. It always goes like this.

You make a statement.
"Can you support that idea?"
"I already have."
"Oh? Where?"
"It's on this board somewhere. Look for it."
"If I knew where it was, I wouldn't ask you for it."
"Go on the internet and look up blah blah blah."
"But where is the evidence you said you posted?"
"Oh, you're being ugly, so now I'm not going to say."

And on and on it goes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Nope. If you have, then post it. Let's hear your own explanation. After all, you studied Revelation, and you know, so if you do, put it down.

I did. Read back in this thread.

Quote:

you already posted your defense. So why would I need to go and look something up when the explanation is on this board?

Because that's what we all do. I defined chiliasm in this thread, and, if you want more information about it, you'll have to look it up.

a fancy way of saying you believe in something few do

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

a fancy way of saying you believe in something few do

I'm not a chiliast. In fact, I don't even care for chili!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I'm not a chiliast. In fact, I don't even care for chili!

and yet you say you know what it means????

ball of confusion temptations - - Video Search Results (yahoo.com)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

and yet you say you know what it means????

Yes. I defined it in an earlier post. (I was being silly talking about chili.... hmm, I could write a poem about this....)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes. I defined it in an earlier post. (I was being silly talking about chili.... hmm, I could write a poem about this....)

or a limerick

there was a chiliast from Chile
who one day said I fancy some chili
but this chiliast didn't know
the millenium hadn't happened yet
and that was quite a blow

lousy limerick last line has to rhyme with chili and the 3rd line with the 4th

there was a chiliast from Chile
who one day said I fancy some chili
but this chiliast didn't know
and that was a blow
that the limerick had become silly

I think we all have waayyyyy too much free time on our hands.

Quote:

I did. Read back in this thread.

I rest my case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I rest my case.

*sigh* post #94:
"Revelation almost didn't make the cut. It is one of the most controversial, complicated, and esoteric books in the New Testament canon. Chiliasm (the belief that Christ will return to earth in visible form and establish a kingdom to last 1000 years, after which the world will come to an end) was part of the controversy."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

lousy limerick last line has to rhyme with chili and the 3rd line with the 4th

Here's mine:
There once was a chiliast named Billy
Who dearly loved his mom's chili.
He decided to freeze some
To bring to the millennium,
And no one thought he was silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wondergirl

here's mine:
There once was a chiliast named billy
who dearly loved his mom's chili.
He decided to freeze some
to bring to the millennium,
and no one thought he was silly.

the winnah and still champion - wonder girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

"Revelation almost didn't make the cut. It is one of the most controversial, complicated, and esoteric books in the New Testament canon. Chiliasm (the belief that Christ will return to earth in visible form and establish a kingdom to last 1000 years, after which the world will come to an end) was part of the controversy."

So THAT'S your evidence that Rev. was written in code??? It doesn't even mention a code, so I can see why you were so hesitant to post it. It is basically an admission that you overstepped by a large margin.

No wonder you sighed. I would have too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So THAT'S your evidence that Rev. was written in code???

You had asked more recently for a definition of chiliasm -- although as I read back in this thread, you didn't say specifically what you wanted, but did make a point to continually berate me.

You are a Christian fundamentalist, so you must believe Revelation is predicting the End Times. Have you read the Left Behind series by Timothy LaHaye?

Quote:

You had asked more recently for a definition of chiliasm.

No, I didn't. I asked for evidence for a code. In fact, if you will look at your post 94, you will see plainly that it is a reply to that very question in my post 93. "Well, OK, but can that person explain why she believes that Revelation is code, or why she believes the prophesies of Revelation have all been fulfilled?"

Sigh. You've answered neither question, and instead posted an answer for a question no one asked. Strange, but not unexpected.

Like I've said before, the honorable act would be to simply admit you don't have any evidence and move on.

Quote:

You are a Christian fundamentalist, so you must believe Revelation is predicting the End Times. Have you read the Left Behind series by Timothy LaHaye?

I'm not a Christian fundamentalist. I don't read material like Left Behind.

I have not berated you, but I have challenged you to be honest. You say I asked for a definition of chilaism, but then add to your comment to basically say I did not. That's what I'm talking about. If you don't have evidence for your code theory, then why not just admit you don't have it instead of pursuing the silliness of insisting that you had already posted it when plainly you had not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you don't have evidence for your code theory, then why not just admit you don't have it instead of pursuing the silliness of insisting that you had already posted it when plainly you had not?

Why was Revelation written, and why did it almost not make it into the canon?

Revelation has a wide variety of interpretations. I'm a preterist, understanding it as simply historical, written with code names and words that its early readers understood. I am not a futurist, understanding the book as a prophetic view about what will happen in the future.

I understand all of that. You have said it several times now, and you are certainly welcome to your position. I have no idea why you believe that, but you are entitled to believe what you will.