Freethought & Rationalism Archive

neilgodfrey · 11-28-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Please note that I was not speaking to what Malachi151(sheesh!) said about "end times". I was speaking to his (implicit) claim that he's been engaged in a deep and sustained study of "Christianity".

I see nothing in what he posts that warrants accepting this claim as true, especially since he (1) shows no contact with the works I mentioned, contact with which are requisite if one wants to claim that one has been engaged in such study; (2) evinces no desire to make such contact; (3) has apparently not taken what most would consider to be the steps necessary to actually study Christianity, let alone claim that one has been engagd in such study (i.e. to take some courses at a university in the subject); and (4) gives no indication that he has ever expended even a minimal effort to do any serious research into the topic, but (5) seems to have limited his "study" of Christianity to what he finds in second rate pages on Christianity and its beliefs and background that he chances upon on the web.

Sheesh!, I don't know Malachi151 from a bar of soap but I can't for the life of me see how you got all that out of his opening conversational line: "The more you study Christianity the more messed up you realize it really is" tagged with some humorous emoticon. If his '(implicit) claim that he's been engaged in a deep and sustained study of "Christianity"' was not taken from that opening sentence of his then where the hell else in that post did you see such an "(implicit) claim"?

Do you respond with pompous intellectual putdowns of everyone who exercises their right to have a bit of fun with a viewpoint you don't agree with and that does not match the intellectual content of the number of words you yourself have read and published?

aa5874 · 11-28-2006, 08:23 PM

Allegorical approach, Historical approach, Futuristic approach and what about the Fictional approach, or even the Incoherent approach? After 2000 years, the fictional or incoherent approach seems to me be more relevant to revelation.

WishboneDawn · 11-29-2006, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, take a look at what "Mark" states in his gospel:

Note, the bold quote references this text:

I take Mark's end of times prophecy as describing the destruction of Judea, and it seems to be saying that the destruction of Judea was the sign that the "TOTAL" end of times was coming.

Mark was writing in the 60's most likely, before the Jewish wars and a time of tension and uncertainty. His apocalyptic bit sounds like it could be a comment on what was going on at that time framed with Jesus.

jgibson000 · 11-29-2006, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Sheesh!, I don't know Malachi151 from a bar of soap but I can't for the life of me see how you got all that out of his opening conversational line: "The more you study Christianity the more messed up you realize it really is" tagged with some humorous emoticon. If his '(implicit) claim that he's been engaged in a deep and sustained study of "Christianity"' was not taken from that opening sentence of his then where the hell else in that post did you see such an "(implicit) claim"?

As I indicated previously, that is exactly where I saw his claim. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me.

Quote:

Do you respond with pompous intellectual putdowns of everyone who exercises their right to have a bit of fun with a viewpoint you don't agree with and that does not match the intellectual content of the number of words you yourself have read and published?

Leaving the issue of "rights" aside (let alone whether my questions are put-downs of any kind), the M man isn't having a "bit of fun". He's making declarations that he wants us to accept as well informed and authoritative.

And yes, I will challenge -- as you should also -- anyone who poses, as M does, as an expert when it's clear not only that he/she doesn't have the knowledge they claim to possess but when he/she also displays the cocksure attitude in one's pronouncements on Christianity (or its background and origins) that M displays in his.

But perhaps you'll be kind enough to tell me if you think the M has been engaged in a real study of Christianity and the NT and that his posts show any acquaintance with the materials on these subjects that one needs to have consulted to claim even a minimal expertise re Christianity or the NT . Is it your impression that he really has taken some time to delve into and master material on Christianity and the NT outside of what he has found on the web?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000 · 11-29-2006, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Allegorical approach, Historical approach, Futuristic approach and what about the Fictional approach, or even the Incoherent approach?[

Could you explain what you mean by "allegorical approache", "historical approach" etc?

And would you please be kind enough to name who among contemporary Biblical scholars who write on eschatology is an advocate of each of the positions you name? Who espouses the "allegorical" approach? Who espouses the "incoherent" approach?

Quote:

After 2000 years, the fictional or incoherent approach seems to me be more relevant to revelation.

Please explain why.

Jeffrey Gibson

WishboneDawn · 11-29-2006, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Could you explain what you mean by "allegorical approache", "historical approach" etc?

Aren't we, in part, discussing the allegorical approach? Whether Revelation was a reference to Rome?

jgibson000 · 11-29-2006, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Aren't we, in part, discussing the allegorical approach? Whether Revelation was a reference to Rome?

I think you need to look up "allegorical" and "allegorical approach". It's not as if the images used in Revelation 13 etc. would have been understood by the original readers/hearers of Revelation as anything other than referents to Rome and things Roman.

Jeffrey Gibson

WishboneDawn · 11-29-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

I think you need to look up "allegorical" and "allegorical approach". It's not as if the images used in Revelation 13 etc. would have been understood by the original readers/hearers of Revelation as anything other than referents to Rome and things Roman.

Jeffrey Gibson

Nevermind. Brain fart.

aa5874 · 11-29-2006, 07:46 AM

Jgibson000, Julian used the fictional approach.

Quote:

It is, I think expedient to set forth to all mankid the reason by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galileans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has nothing in it divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the montrous tale is truth'.

It is amazing that a person's dream or so-called revelation can have relevance to the outcome of mankind, especially when it has all the appearances of fiction.

EarlOfLade · 11-29-2006, 07:55 AM

Holy shit!

Gibson, someone must have stepped on your christian toes. Does it hurt?

What a pompous selfgloating i-can-not-say-the-name-here you come across as. Chill out!

If you think he is wrong, explain it it in simple terms why he is, if not... well...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-28-2006, 08:23 PM	#12
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Allegorical approach, Historical approach, Futuristic approach and what about the Fictional approach, or even the Incoherent approach? After 2000 years, the fictional or incoherent approach seems to me be more relevant to revelation.

11-29-2006, 07:55 AM	#20
EarlOfLade Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: Orlando, Fl Posts: 5,310	Holy shit! Gibson, someone must have stepped on your christian toes. Does it hurt? What a pompous selfgloating i-can-not-say-the-name-here you come across as. Chill out! If you think he is wrong, explain it it in simple terms why he is, if not... well...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.