Search results

My guess is that if one studies synchronic semantics, you would probably come to realize that the world lost its "literal" meaning over time and simply became a word used for "charity" or "kindness". Not saying "love of mankind" is wrong. But I wouldn't rest much theology on that word forcing it...

So what were you studying for 30 years if not reading these guys? Tell me what 30 years of self-study entails.

Much of Jewish and Christian geamatria was done in Hebrew transliteration. What do you think the significance of 14 is in Matthew 1 if not referencing David in Hebrew??? This is standard stuff. And he was just pointing out that there is quite an early variant for 616 as well. Interestingly...

To give you a taste... this comes from a footnote from my thesis as it pertains to your knockout punch and Rev. 5:6 which has Jesus on the throne (and already victorious in v. 5): Riveting stuff, no???

I did answer it at the end of post #56 That was sarcasm. Couldn't you tell? But seriously, I'll send it to you if you want. I have an article that just came out in a NT journal that is from a chapter of it. I can link that to you as well. Serious as a heartattack, brother. I'm sure it won't...

For you Rev

No more than your 30 years of self-study I guess. Hey... wanna read my thesis??? It is about Revelation.

Ummm... you mentioned your 30 years first. You wore it like a badge of honor. But, and forgive the academic snob in me, 30 years of unacademic study does not have that much weight in my estimation. My guess is, you have been this close-minded for years and only read literature that agrees with...

Get over yourself. I do that w/ all labels. I call myself a Calvie. Methinks your skin is quite thin. I see you complete missed my point about these guys. My issue with them is not what they said but the source for their writings. But you didn't address that, and I don't expect you will. My...

I've posted 3 posts in response to you, only 1 of which have you actually discussed. Why take you seriously if you can't engage in serious dialogue?

Coming from someone who was an academic in Dispensationalism and has journal articles written in the Journal of Dispensational Theology, all I have to say is: Even when I was a dispie, I would have never said something so pompous.

I also love how Dispies will use these church fathers when it suits them but ignore the fact that the way they interpreted Revelation was far closer to the preterist approach than the futurist. Irenaeus especially did not take the futurist approach you want so badly. One wonders if you rail...

Just what the BB needed... another know-it-all who is unwilling to learn from others but rather feels it incumbent upon himself to teach the world his 30 years of knowledge. I'm not sure it is even worth the trouble to debate you. You appear to be about as closed to the issue as a locked door...

Thought the same thing... about the kids!!!! (never owned a rabbit but threatened to kills my friend's rabbit and make a stew... b/c there is only one way to eat a brace of coneys!)

Sarcasm was not the right word. It was intentional mockery. But I thought you might get a laugh out of it. We take each other too seriously sometimes. Apologies if offended.

Thus I said God's WRATH!!! Unless you believe his wrath to have personality.

I did... looking forward to hearing your response. I will say though that your OP assumed so much w/out really proving it was true.

According to Rev. 5:5, Jesus has already won. So it is not "in the end".

I thought this thread was for partial preterist too??? So much for the most obvious. According to 1 John, many antichrists have already gone out in the world. I wonder if you know where the sources for the external witness come from and if they are reliable. Yes, Ire. and Poly. were close to...