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.