|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/11/2008 12:43:47 AM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 2004
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
I think Adam did a great job of working his way through it. . .
and I think rcjones did a great job of only select pieces and ignoring the ones that really "put the nails in the coffin."
_____________________________
-Ben-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/11/2008 5:55:52 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 1138
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
My main problem with the idea of the beast being Jesus taking away the sins of the world, is that it is completely ignoring everything else around it, so as to make the passage jump through a bunch of hoops like a trained puppy, and it just doesn't fit. The woman s catagorically NOT the Holy Spirit. Notice that there is a sign on her forehead that identifies her as Mystery Babylon, the mother of all harlotries. That is not the Holy Spirit. Who else in the Bible is "drunk with blood"? People that have gone crazy from killing so many people. Yes, if you want to make all numbers figurative, pull one part of a vision out of the middle of what is around it, and interpret symbols that the Bible already interprets in the same passage, you can make the beast of Revelation 17 out to be Christ... however, this is not a hermaneutic so much as a butchery of the passage. Notice that in my response I barely had to leave the chapter, let alone the book, to prove anything I said.
As for "popular typology", I espoused nothing other than what was in the passage. I have ascribed no names or identites to any of the characters mentioned that are not found in the passage already. To get even more in-depth, I could point out later in chapter 17, the horns throw off the woman and devour her flesh... lets hope that isn't the Holy Spirit, eh?quote:
I think Adam did a great job of working his way through it. . . Thanks, Ben, I tried.quote:
and I think rcjones did a great job of only select pieces and ignoring the ones that really "put the nails in the coffin." I noticed that. You can't tell me that I'm supposed to believe that this might be true when I have too much in the chapter that indicates it isn't.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/11/2008 8:33:11 AM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 342
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
I think this is one of the most bizarre and incredible examples of scripture-twisting I've ever seen. I really have a hard time believing the OP is even serious.
Maybe this should be moved to the Conspiracy folder.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 1:13:36 AM
|
|
|
A_Name_Written
Posts: 30
Joined: 4/3/2008
Status: offline
|
The woman represents a city which has dominion over every kingdom on earth; the angel says so.
The beast represents a kingdom, Gabriel says so in Daniel. No where else in the entire bible do we see any interpreter interpreting 'beast' to mean anything other than a kingdom.
The 7 heads, which are said to be 7 mountains, are seven cities (not seven physical hills). For those who believe these to be physical mountains in Rome, "hear" me out:
If the woman were said to be sitting on seven mountains, that were NOT also called seven HEADS on the beast, then there would be no need for further discussion, as, in my humble opinion, no further need for "wisdom/understanding/discernment/insight" is needed; meaning simply, a mountain, is a mountain, is a mountain. BUT, these are not SIMPLY seven mountains, we are told by the angel that they are ALSO seven HEADS of the BEAST. So, again in my humble opinion, because they are NOT only simple mountains, but are actually ALSO HEADS on the beast (kingdom), we have a task in front of us (made that much more obvious by prepending all this with "here is the mind which has wisdom[understanding/discernment/insight]"); that task, I believe, is to "discern", if possible, whether or not these "mountains" MIGHT have another application??? What is BOTH, a MOUNTAIN and a HEAD, BIBLICALLY SPEAKING!?!?
Joshua 11:10 And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms. [Hazor is a CITY]
Isaiah 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. [Damascus is a city, the capital of Syria]
As you can plainly see, what we today would term as a nation's capital, scripture calls the "head" of a nation. So far, we can use scripture to back up the "idea" that the seven heads are seven capitals of a kingdom. Now, how about "mountain", how, or when, is a mountain ALSO a head? Well, does the scripture use the word mountain in some way other than to mean a physical hill? Is their "symbolic use" in scripture of the word "mountain", which if found, may shed light as to when a Head is ALSO a mountain?
Isaiah 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.
Daniel 9:16 O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.
Zechariah 8:3 Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain.
As we can see, the word Mountain is used symbolically to mean city, in the case above, the Holy Mountain is "symbolic speak" for Jerusalem.
Now, again for those who believe the seven mountains are seven physical hills in Italy, consider, Constantinople[Istanbul] also sits on 7 hills, and the Roman Empire, and more specifically, the "Holy Roman Empire" ruled from Constantinople for twice as long as it did from Rome. Not to sound asinine, but I believe it to be a very fair question to ask of God; "if you're trying to tell us that this whore is a city sitting on 7 physical hills, then can you tell us a little more so we can know which 7 hills since at minimum 2 cities, Rome and Constantinople, both ruled and killed the saints?"
I believe I laid out a good case for saying that, if using scripture AND SCRIPTURE ALONE to determine the meaning of the 7 heads/mountains, the best conclusion is NOT that this whore is a city which sitis on 7 physical hills, but is instead a city which has dominion over the world, is supported by a kingdom that has seven capitals, and is hated by 10 kingdoms which are confederate with the 7 capitals, but having lesser power then the 7 capitals. Ultimately, these 10 kingdoms will destroy this great city (personally, I'm thinking that destruction will come by way of a nuclear device).
Opinions ?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 1:49:16 AM
|
|
|
cybrjewls
Posts: 1479
Status: offline
|
Greetings, it is written: for God has put it into their hearts to accomplish His Purposes. The two witnesses will prophesy during this time period at Jerusalem and there will come plagues of every kind upon the earth. Then, they will eat her flesh (a sort of communion with the city itself); He will attempt to change the laws and the seasons.....(the false worldly prophet leader called the antichrist).
quote:
ORIGINAL: A_Name_Written
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 9:55:06 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5402
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: offline
|
Some people need serious professional help.
And not allowed to operate motorized vehicles...
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 4:45:42 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
If the woman were said to be sitting on seven mountains, that were NOT also called seven HEADS on the beast, then there would be no need for further discussion, as, in my humble opinion, no further need for "wisdom/understanding/discernment/insight" is needed; meaning simply, a mountain, is a mountain, is a mountain. BUT, these are not SIMPLY seven mountains, we are told by the angel that they are ALSO seven HEADS of the BEAST. So, again in my humble opinion, because they are NOT only simple mountains, but are actually ALSO HEADS on the beast (kingdom), we have a task in front of us (made that much more obvious by prepending all this with "here is the mind which has wisdom[understanding/discernment/insight]"); that task, I believe, is to "discern", if possible, whether or not these "mountains" MIGHT have another application??? What is BOTH, a MOUNTAIN and a HEAD, BIBLICALLY SPEAKING!?!?
Well, since other have picked up on the scoffing and don't even recognize it, and think that nails have been put in the coffin, I will once again enumerate the errors. I will also remind you that I have shared an observation. Those who think they need to defend on eschatology or another are the ones who have presumed more than I have claimed. In fact, there there are two interpretations indicated by the heads being mountains and kings, and I have only shared the one concerning kings. I have not claimed it is doctrine, so the futurist Inquisition can put their matches away. Can you spell O-B-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-O-N for discussion? Thanks.
Post 2: Since the harlot has not been interpreted, it is an error to assume it to be something. In the shadows, it is the church.
see: http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Dwg:Bunch_of_women.jpg for the prostitute-bride theme of the shadows for more observations concerning it.
Scoffing: laughable, "they are either looking through the wrong end of their telescope, or they really have no idea what Revelation 17 actually says" and this based on an erroneous identification of the harlot.
Post 4:
Scoffing: " Could it be that they're not what we expected because... Well... Because that's NOT what they're meant to be saying? "
If this were considered to be anything but scoffing it would be extremely platitudinous. I am sure Mr. Fribbles is not a moron.
Post 6
Feigned knowledge:
"I'm quite familiar with the method proposed on that site, and I find it ridiculous. "
If one were "quite familiar with the site one would not make the errors of fact concerning the site that were pointed out elsewhere.
Point made: The angle didn't say he would speak in riddles:
Counterpoint: God says he would speak in riddles and the wise would sek to interpret.
Point: None of the passages suggest all Scripture is to be looked at as a riddle.
Unanswered Counterpoint: The number of riddles demonstrated at the site should suggest (notice I did not say PROVE?) that maybe we should give them consideration.
False premise:" If you can prove that was the only hermeneutic style used in the 1st century, you'll have a point. Otherwise, I don't see where you're going there. "
Answer: It makes no difference how many hermeneutics were available, only that this one was.
Point " Why would God want to use an end-times prophecy to tell people about Christ in this way? What would be the purpose? "
Answer: Same purpose as the rest of scripture. To reveal Christ. It might be suggested that Revelation is the Rosetta Stone for interpreting the riddles in the rest of scripture, which is the purpose of pointing to Dr. Gage's research.
Post 10:
Point: Verse quoted out of context.
Ignored: Secondary issue. I didn't quote. The whole purpose of the Bible is the Revelation of Jesus Christ."
My secondary issue: Seek to find Mr. Fribble a-priori assumptions and biases.
Answer to secondary issue: Mr. Fribbles never read the Chicago statement.
Current reply: Since Mr. Fribbles previously used nearly identical words to Longnekker's book on hermeneutics, denying having seen the Chicago statement is irrelevant, he is predisposed to the sentiments of the statement which permits ONLY a literal-historical interpretation.
Post 8:
Straw man: " So, scholarship is a bad thing? " This can be taken as scoffing since Mr. Fribbles is well aware that I did not make such a point.
Answer: My disdain for the narrow field of higher criticism does not imply that I would think ALL scholarship is bad.
Point: Mr.Fribbles a-priori assumption is that God did not inspire every jot and tittle.
Thank you. This immediately places Mr. Fribbles in the category of having decided the issue before it is heard, since the assumption considered in the observation is that every jot and tittle was inspired. Since Mr. Fribbles claims to know the web site well, he would know this is the assumption of the hypothesis. To intentionally not identify his bias places him again in the seat of the scoffer. An honest man can put aside his biases for the purpose of evaluating something else. This does not require that one give up belief in a system, but it is required for an honest evaluation of one.
Point: Cain represents both Christ and Adam, this appears to be a violation o f the rule.
Answer: The way it is verbalized, this is an understandable miscommunication , which burden lies solely on me to correct, which I attempted with the algebra example.
Point: Samson has a literal interpretation, therefore Revelation does.
Unanswered counterpoint: This is misdirection from the topic. The question in context referred to Revelation 17. Obviously the Samson riddle has a literal interpretation as well as a shadow one, as shown shown the web site. My claim is that Rev 17 has a literal AND a shadow. I have not given the interpretation of the mountains. So Samson's riddle is support for dual meaning of Rev 17.
Post 12:
Point: "en"
Counterpoint: Ignored as secondary issue.
Non-answer: "Nope, I don't believe they do. "
Non-answer: "Nope"
Non-answer: "Nope"
Scoffing: Your correlation borders on mysticism.
Point:" Also, it seems Cain means yet another thing - the sins of the Church. So now, not only are we reading names into the text mentioned nowhere in Revelation, but we are assigning yet another "shadow" meaning to them. It seems to me that the rules are being bent to fit the desired meaning. "
Counterpoint: If Mr. Fribbles were as familiar with the site as he claims, he would know the difference between a shadow and double entendre. Since I have started dictionaries for both at the site. So either he has misrepresented his familiarity, or he is simply scoffing.
Furthermore, if he were as familiar as he claims, he would see that I am suggesting there are actually four layers of understanding, like the Jews and Catholics, and have just begun wrestling with the mechanics of unpacking them. I am more interested in finding people who would like to explore something they haven't seen as I am still exploring, than in trying to establish some new doctrine or battling off scoffers. These forums are packed with people trying to impress everyone with their inability to follow a logical argument and unwilling to actually dialog about anything. Every thread turns into a battle ground by such scoffers as these. I am just asking for people to look at it and consider it for what I claim is an observation. So please forgive my attempt to have a conversation by weeding out those who are simply argumentative. I suggest more people do it.
Point: An alternative rendering: Here's a solution - the Beast represents a tool of evil (be it a man, a government, or something else) that will play a large role during the end time events.
Counterpoint: Simply making up "representations" is what popular typology does. He is free to do it. But arguing stuff he made up is superior to things derived from correlation is not a strong argument.
Scoffing: Careful. You're sounding a bit gnostic to me there.
Then Mr. Fribbles drives another member away with rudeness. Do you think this is evidence of a solid doctrinal position?
Post 18: Man, I'm glad I'm too dense to be a theologian. All this frou-frou hairsplitting makes my eyes glaze. I'm also glad the Gospel is easy enough for a child to understand.
Scoffing: No content.
Mr. Fribbles rudeness, scoffing, and failure to address the original topic warranted ignoring him.
Post 23:
FruGod intentionally mixes popular typology with shadows to produce a jumble then mock it.
1love thinks FruGod made an excellent argument that should have been addressed.
So I will address FruGods "excellent points" for the sake of 1love:
Point: Woman riding the beast is drunk with and attempted interpretation using the literal. "He has either been tamed by the woman (which is heresy) or Jesus is carrying her while she kills His people."
Answer: The woman is the church and she rides on Christ. I warned you about mixing, yet you scoff.
Point:This woman also has a plate on her crown that names her as Babylon, mother of all harlotries. Sounds to me like she is Babylon and she is persecuting the church. Difficult to wrap your brain around, I know...
Answer: Mystery Babylon is the flesh of the church. You were warned about mixing, but you jumble it then scoff.
Point: Now, the beast himself is "full of" blasphemous names. Does that honestly sound like Jesus to you?
Answer: Yes. He makes God's name common. You were wwarned about mixing, but you jumble then scoff.
Point: Now the beast has seven heads... the angelic guide of this vision actually TRANSLATES THE BEAST FOR US. Note, the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits... considering that Rome and Babylon were not even close to contemporaries, something is up here. It would seem that the two are going to be united at the time this happens.
Answer: As previously mentioned, the mountains in the shadows indicate that there is a second interpretation, which I have not presented. So you scoff at what you presume I might make of it.
Point: " To put it another way, the context of the beast in Revelation 17 is chapters 16 and 18 which is speaking about judgments against the kingdom of the antichrist and the destruction of the city of Babylon, respectively. "
Answer: By this time your jumbling is tiresome and your scoffing annoying. IF the words of Rev 17 have a second meaning, and IF the Tamar story id a shadow of the birth of Christ, and IF Uzziah, Elgom and the others are shadows of Christ, it is quite probable that Rev 16 and 18 also have double entendre.
Scoffing: " PS, the proof on the website listed isn't fit to prop up a table, let alone an eschatological vision "
Answer: You have overstated my position to make your scoffing seemed deserved. Nowhere on the site will you see a claim for a proof. Quite the opposite. It is made clear that it is an observation that I seek DIALOG on. Instead I get insecure futurists who feel compelled to scoff at every turn.
If there was an honest bone in your body, and you believed it was invention, you would congratulate me for being clever. But you have proven your dishonesty by your repeated scoffing.
Now since I have answered point by point. I would hope that ilove would be able to provide a list of "nails in the coffin". But since he didn't, he has found himself among the scoffers.
Scoffing: I think this is one of the most bizarre and incredible examples of scripture-twisting I've ever seen. I really have a hard time believing the OP is even serious. Maybe this should be moved to the Conspiracy folder.
Answer: With no evidence of understanding the proposition, nor that it is an OBSERVATION wherein I desire DIALOG, Peter also joins the scoffer and accuses me of scripture twisting. Who is it that is so insecure that they can't politely consider something that is out of the ordinary?
A NameWritten is the only one that actually knows how to dialog, and understands the proposition - to let the scripture and the scripture alone solve the riddle.
Thank you for your understanding.
Scoffers will continue to be ignored.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 5:48:56 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Opinions ?
[quote} The woman represents a city which has dominion over every kingdom on earth; the angel says so.
The shadows agree with this. She is Mystery Babylon which the shadows say is the flesh nature of the church and the spiritual nature of the church. The virgin bride must come out of Mystery Babylon.
quote:
The beast represents a kingdom, Gabriel says so in Daniel. No where else in the entire bible do we see any interpreter interpreting 'beast' to mean anything other than a kingdom.
This is a good observation. However, images in the shadows are not dependent upon other interpreters, only upon correlation within scripture. In the shadow methods, "beast" does not directly represent Christ. It is a multi layered riddle: Beast is a generic term for a number of animals, the donkey represents prophets who represent Christ. The Camel represents judges which represent Christ (I am not as sure about this as I am of the donkey and as I have waffled on it you will find different things mentioned on the site. When it becomes clear I will correct the others.). Other beasts represent different things. The tie to Christ is that the only beast mentioned in the descendants of Cain is the wild donkey. This is the link to the particular beast of Rev 17.
quote:
The 7 heads, which are said to be 7 mountains, are seven cities (not seven physical hills). For those who believe these to be physical mountains in Rome, "hear" me out:
...that task, I believe, is to "discern", if possible, whether or not these "mountains" MIGHT have another application??? What is BOTH, a MOUNTAIN and a HEAD, BIBLICALLY SPEAKING!?!?
An excellent observation. This agrees with shadows.
quote:
As you can plainly see, what we today would term as a nation's capital, scripture calls the "head" of a nation. So far, we can use scripture to back up the "idea" that the seven heads are seven capitals of a kingdom.
In the shadows, we must also consider that the man is head of the woman, and that Christ is head of the church. By saying that "head" means "authority", it means the same everywhere and meets the requirement of the shadows. It makes no sense to say that the man is the capital of the woman. Thank you for allowing me to show the difference between our methods.
quote:
Now, how about "mountain", how, or when, is a mountain ALSO a head? Well, does the scripture use the word mountain in some way other than to mean a physical hill? Is their "symbolic use" in scripture of the word "mountain", which if found, may shed light as to when a Head is ALSO a mountain?
...
As we can see, the word Mountain is used symbolically to mean city, in the case above, the Holy Mountain is "symbolic speak" for Jerusalem.
This is an excellent observation. I mentioned the four layers of interpretation.
In your observation, the mountain represents a literal Jerusalem.
When you have literal words and literal meaning, it is the voice of the king.
An earthy consequences for divine will is the voice of the judge.
Using symbolic language for earthly events is the voice prophet.
Using symbolic language to speak of Christ is the voice of the priest.
I believe your observation will eventually fit into an interpretation of the prophet, since you are using symbolic language to speak of literal fulfilment.
So I believe your method is in agreement with the the shadows, but that we are chasing different voices. Because there may be four layers, I am interested in the development of your idea.
quote:
I believe I laid out a good case for saying that, if using scripture AND SCRIPTURE ALONE to determine the meaning of the 7 heads/mountains, the best conclusion is NOT that this whore is a city which sits on 7 physical hills, but is instead a city which has dominion over the world, is supported by a kingdom that has seven capitals, and is hated by 10 kingdoms which are confederate with the 7 capitals, but having lesser power then the 7 capitals. Ultimately, these 10 kingdoms will destroy this great city (personally, I'm thinking that destruction will come by way of a nuclear device).
Some of your stuff has now departed from using the scripture alone. It is a difficult discipline to enforce upon yourself.
The reason the judge layer and prophet layer are more difficult to distinguish than the king and priest is that they are a mixture of literal and symbol.
It is also a bit confusing when the king layer tells a parable: The parable is the literal, so there may still be three other layers. I have found one more layer in five of the parables, each speaking of Christ.
Things you may wish to consider from shadows with which I am familiar:
Seven represents the full revelation of Christ, so seven heads is Christ's authority. Seven mountains is Christ's mountain.
Cities are the inheritance of priests. Those in towns have no inheritance. So cities represent the Kingdom of God.
Five is the symbol of man, and ten of dual natured man.
When a certain man is indicated, I have found it to be Christ.
Since we are both flesh and spirit, and they are at war with each other, it is not too much of a stretch to see that the flesh-church is at war with Christ. And just as the "beast" representing prophecy is destroyed meaning that prophecy is fulfilled, I expect the beast representing the judge to be destroyed as all judgment ends. We would also expect the prostitute- fleshly nature of the church to be burned up.
You can see hints already that the imagery can suggest a solid theology concerning the mission of Christ. This is why I am interested in persuing it further.
As I mentioned, I am chasing the voice of the priest. Every one else wants to know the voice of the prophet. But trying to get it from the words of the king will just be a jumble.
Your methods up to the last jump were excellent in my humble opinion.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 7:55:42 PM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 342
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjones
Scoffing
Post 4:
Scoffing
Post 6
Feigned knowledge:
False premise
Post 10:
Point: Verse quoted out of context.
Post 8:
Straw man
Unanswered counterpoint
Post 12:
Point: "en"
Counterpoint: Ignored as secondary issue.
Non-answer
Non-answer
Non-answer
Scoffing
he is simply scoffing.
Scoffing
Post 18: Scoffing: No content.
Post 23:
...yet you scoff.
but you jumble it then scoff.
jumble then scoff.
So you scoff at what you presume I might make of it.
Scoffing
Instead I get insecure futurists who feel compelled to scoff at every turn.
If there was an honest bone in your body, and you believed it was invention, you would congratulate me for being clever. But you have proven your dishonesty by your repeated scoffing.
...he has found himself among the scoffers.
Scoffing
Scoffers will continue to be ignored.
Wow!!! So the rest of the world is insane and scoffers? Hmmmm....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 8:17:24 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Wow!!! So the rest of the world is insane and scoffers? Hmmmm....
Once again you have a content-less post, and an intentional exaggeration of my position in order to scoff.
Accusing a handful of scoffing and pointing out in detail their inability to address the issue, does not mean I accuse everyone of scoffing. There are obviously many who are reading and are considering what they have seen. Many do not agree with it, and that's OK.
I am looking for dialog concerning it, and you still haven't offered any. Button...
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 8:40:20 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Where was your self-righteous indignation when Mr. Fribbles chased PeterD off the thread?
He has a legitimate question concerning the shadows and Mr. Fribbles would chase him off.
I didn't start confronting you scoffers directly until after that happened. Then I called it for what it is.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 9:27:58 PM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 342
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjones
Once again you have a content-less post, and an intentional exaggeration of my position in order to scoff.
Accusing a handful of scoffing and pointing out in detail their inability to address the issue, does not mean I accuse everyone of scoffing. There are obviously many who are reading and are considering what they have seen. Many do not agree with it, and that's OK.
I am looking for dialog concerning it, and you still haven't offered any. Button...
But I thought you said...
quote:
Scoffers will continue to be ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/12/2008 11:33:24 PM
|
|
|
cybrjewls
Posts: 1479
Status: offline
|
Apparently, you are not 'professional' enough to do so..... So The Lord helped Us since lucifer loves to destroy and murder.
I guess the real Builders help some.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
Some people need serious professional help.
And not allowed to operate motorized vehicles...
< Message edited by cybrjewls -- 7/14/2008 1:28:47 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/13/2008 6:13:18 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 1138
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
**shakes head** So... by doing no interpretation but merely listing what is actually in the passage... I'm jumbling popular typology and scoffing a "legitimate observation"? If the "observation" was legitimate to begin with, it would hang together with the rest of the passage. Why? Because it is not an isolated picture. It is, however, a vision set in the middle of a group of visions cataloguing the rule and destruction of Babylon and the Antichrist. Since I have been labled a "scoffer" because I dissented, let us now compare the two "observations" made by myself and rcjones about this passage...
Mine required little-to-no interpretation.
You would have to be a rhodes scholar to make the other even slightly make sense.
Mine needed no supporting evidence outside the book of revelation.
The other requires a hermaneutic that takes all of the Bible as a giant riddle and needs the entire Bible to interpret itself.
Mine used an end-of-the age mindset to view a passage that is smack in the middle of a book of the Apocolypse.
The other views this one passage as a historical occurance despite the context.
My observation made sense with the immediate context of the chapters around it.
The other names the church as the Harlot Babylon and declares that Christ is "full of blasphemous names".
The futurist interpretation I provided is far closer to the orthodox mindset than this shadows and entendre bit.
Considering that the majority of the world is poor, illiterate, and largely uneducated, which truly makes more sense? I'm tempted to pull out the heresy card, but I will restrain. At the very least, this is serious error. While I don't appreciate being told I "don't have an honest bone in my body", I know that God is my vindicator. Since I dun been iggied... have fun with this "discussion"... such as it is, anyway.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/13/2008 8:44:36 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5402
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cybrjewls
Apparently, you are not 'professional' enough to do so..... So The Lord helped me since lucifer loves to destroy and murder.
I guess the real Builders help some.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
Some people need serious professional help.
And not allowed to operate motorized vehicles...
Um, where did I name you in that post?
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/13/2008 10:53:33 AM
|
|
|
Sinner-Saint
Posts: 428
Joined: 10/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjones
Here is a completely different approach to solving the riddle of the beast:
From that site:
"The fact that seven and ten are in close proximity only in these places is no accident, and therefor are related."
This is a weakness of argument, association based coincidence of number. To speak of cause and effect, the entire premise of this site is immediately suspect by such a tenuous link.
< Message edited by Sinner-Saint -- 7/13/2008 11:08:07 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/13/2008 11:02:02 AM
|
|
|
Sinner-Saint
Posts: 428
Joined: 10/5/2006
Status: offline
|
More nonsense from that site:
The seven kings represent the full revelation of Christ.
This is speaking of the seven Kings who appear over time who are all part of the beast who is doomed to perdition!
REV 17:9 "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
I would say the mind that came up with the interpretation that the seven represent the full revelation of Christ is not wise.
Here is another way of looking at the seven heads:
From God's eternal perspective, over time, there are seven terrible rulers. In the end-time, five have already passed, one is as the anti-Christ, and one more will be at the end of the Milllennium when Satan is released. All seven being evil belong to Satan as various expressions of his opposition to God. Thus they and Satan are all doomed to Hell.
To portray any of this as being Christ is completely opposite any reasonable reading.
Again, you can do anything with a coincidence of numbers...
< Message edited by Sinner-Saint -- 7/13/2008 11:08:26 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/13/2008 11:07:44 AM
|
|
|
Sinner-Saint
Posts: 428
Joined: 10/5/2006
Status: offline
|
More nonsense from that site:
The only beast on the list is the wild ass. This represents Christ as the son who is also the prophet.
First of all, the list is entirely of the site's making. There is no rhyme or reason other than they claim a riddle involved in all and then go about arbitrarily assigning values to the seven.
So there is only one beast on their list, so what? By what reason does this animal represent Christ? Where stands it written that Christ is a wild ass?
And Jesus is more than just a prophet.
That site is bordering on heretical in my opinion and nothing in this thread is worthwhile.
< Message edited by Sinner-Saint -- 7/13/2008 11:22:20 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The beast of Rev 17 - 7/13/2008 11:42:03 AM
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
