ironhorse Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 IH, we call that a dodge, not answering the question. But very well. I agree with you about revelation (historical in that was written in the past, futuristic in that it contains prophecies). You wanted to take it one at a time. There's one. Do you care to tell us another? Or maybe you prefer to wait for more responses? Makes sense if you do. My opinion is that Revelation is too symbolically apocalyptic and too vague to come up with a clear interpretation of what events are supposed to transpire. And yes, from what I have studied, many things described by the author seem to represent issues that Christians in that day were dealing with, the mark of the beast for example (they had to make an incense offering to Ceasar at the agora and receive a mark on their hand or forehead to show they have paid homage before they could buy or sell in the market). You said..."My opinion is that Revelation is too symbolically apocalyptic and too vague to come up with a clear interpretation of what events are supposed to transpire." I agree. It is a difficult book to read and pinpoint every event. I like much of what is in Halley's Handbook commentary on the book of Revelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I agree. It is a difficult book to read and pinpoint every event. I like much of what is in Halley's Handbook commentary on the book of Revelation. There are no real events in the book of Revelation. It was written after Rome had attacked the Jewish land and butchered the place. The author wanted his imaginary friend to take revenge. But Jesus didn't come back in 150 AD. Rome continued right along for centuries. The fiction wasn't prophesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverlandrut Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 IH, we call that a dodge, not answering the question. But very well. I agree with you about revelation (historical in that was written in the past, futuristic in that it contains prophecies). You wanted to take it one at a time. There's one. Do you care to tell us another? Or maybe you prefer to wait for more responses? Makes sense if you do. My opinion is that Revelation is too symbolically apocalyptic and too vague to come up with a clear interpretation of what events are supposed to transpire. And yes, from what I have studied, many things described by the author seem to represent issues that Christians in that day were dealing with, the mark of the beast for example (they had to make an incense offering to Ceasar at the agora and receive a mark on their hand or forehead to show they have paid homage before they could buy or sell in the market). You said..."My opinion is that Revelation is too symbolically apocalyptic and too vague to come up with a clear interpretation of what events are supposed to transpire." I agree. It is a difficult book to read and pinpoint every event. I like much of what is in Halley's Handbook commentary on the book of Revelation. No need to remind me of what I said. I take full ownership of my statements and what I qualify as my opinion and what I assert as fact. You show that you are very good at pointing to what other people say as demonstrated by your above post, but I still would like to know what you interpret the book of Revelation to mean, if indeed you have a view on it. As an aside, I have more respect for you than a few of your Christian counterparts who frequent this forum. You seem to try to choose your words carefully and sometimes take your time in your responses. I see that you get ridiculed for this, which I wouldn't take too personally if I were you. I, for one, can respect it. There is no shame in taking one's time to formulate a good response. Dodging, however, I will call out. And you are dodging. I ask again, what do you interpret the book of Revelation to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 IH's posting technique seems to involve obligatory reference to what someone else says, usually at some blog or website, claiming "me too", i.e., that the offsite reference is what he believes, or of which he was influenced, or is somehow is relevant to the question. Occasionally, he composes his own short sentences which sometimes contain a tidbit of his own thinking. When he gets confused, or stumped, he usually responds by ignoring the question and posing his own question in an attempt to change the subject, move the goalpost or avoid a response. Oh I know, he's been stumped in a few threads now so he's moved on here to try and change the subject. Please direct me to the thread where I've been stumped. I will reply. You're a funny guy. There are dozens and dozens of posts on this forum that you conveniently ignored, attempted to change the subject, intentionally misinterpreted or outright lied about. I'm not your research assistant. Do the hard work yourself. Post one I have ignored or not answered. If you don't know of one....asked me one yourself. I'm here to stay. This constant mantra that I am not answering questions is not going to fly with those who are actually reading these threads. http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62720-no-shit-sherlock/page-23#.U65_ovldVzM Post # 443. Here's something you ignored, IH. If you're here to stay, the least you can do is apply yourself to questions you haven't answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 So IH is a preterist. IH, not that it means anything, but you'll get massive amounts of respect from me. Do you actively oppose people like this? EDIT: video is long, so if you don't have the time, just answer later. I watched a few minutes of it again. I watched it a few years ago on the History Channel or Discovery...can't remember exactly. It is a good presentation but it covers, if I remember correctly, only the dispensationalist point of view. I do not actively oppose them but I will engage in discussions with Christians \who hold a different view. Most people in the church I attend believe the dispensationalist view. I live in the South and among Christians here this is the prominent view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Thanks for your candid answer, that's the first one in a while you've answered without dodging. I see you now as an enabler, willing to let very destructive ideas go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisdownunder Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 I have been away for a few days thinking and I won't be replying to this thread anymore. (Due to faith.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I have been away for a few days thinking and I won't be replying to this thread anymore. (Due to faith.) Are you a Christian again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisdownunder Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 I have been away for a few days thinking and I won't be replying to this thread anymore. (Due to faith.) Are you a Christian again? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Thanks for your candid answer, that's the first one in a while you've answered without dodging. I see you now as an enabler, willing to let very destructive ideas go on. Do you mean I'm "destructive" because I do not actively engage other Christians who hold different views of the last days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Thanks for your candid answer, that's the first one in a while you've answered without dodging. I see you now as an enabler, willing to let very destructive ideas go on. Do you mean I'm "destructive" because I do not actively engage other Christians who hold different views of the last days? You're this guy: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Thanks for your candid answer, that's the first one in a while you've answered without dodging. I see you now as an enabler, willing to let very destructive ideas go on. Do you mean I'm "destructive" because I do not actively engage other Christians who hold different views of the last days? Another question from Ironhorse! Please get back to me about those six (6) responses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts