This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I don't want to offend anyone; I have an opinion about the Book of Revelation

#31bratt100Posted 4/3/2013 10:36:58 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: charey | #028
Do you mean the generation that saw the miracles of Jesus? Because that is the same generation.


I do not mean that generation, nor was that the generation that Jesus was referring to.


Prove it.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#32OrangeWizardPosted 4/3/2013 11:19:23 PM
From: bratt100 | #031
OrangeWizard posted...
From: charey | #028
Do you mean the generation that saw the miracles of Jesus? Because that is the same generation.


I do not mean that generation, nor was that the generation that Jesus was referring to.


Prove it.


I'll wait for charey to ask me.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#33Master CilanderPosted 4/3/2013 11:24:59 PM
People who say Rome was supposed to be the beast in Revelation need to explain what room that leaves for the rest of the statue in Daniel.

Oh, and prophecies can be fulfilled more than once in the bible. For instance, the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah was certainly fulfilled in the time it was written, but it also included a prolepsis which pointed to a future final fulfillment.

This isn't a simple issue at all.
---
Neutral but not impartial.
#34TheRealJiraiyaPosted 4/3/2013 11:31:11 PM
Master Cilander posted...
People who say Rome was supposed to be the beast in Revelation need to explain what room that leaves for the rest of the statue in Daniel.

Oh, and prophecies can be fulfilled more than once in the bible. For instance, the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah was certainly fulfilled in the time it was written, but it also included a prolepsis which pointed to a future final fulfillment.

This isn't a simple issue at all.


I agree with your second paragraph (thats my view as well, I mentioned it earlier) but with your first line, Daniel makes it clear that the Antichrist figure will come from the people who destroy the temple after the death of the Messiah - thats the Romans.

I believe somehow the Antichrist figure will have ties to Rome, and I think that belief is justified.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#35DarkContractorPosted 4/4/2013 10:09:23 AM
the atheist perspective does not see the Bible as divinely inspired and a divine collaboration between the Biblical authors, it's just the notion is generally entertained for the purposes of debate and such.

As such, the conclusion that the AntiChrist was Nero does not require any inferring from the collection as a whole. Even if Jesus is not the Son of God, surely they had someone in mind when they wrote about End Times and the Antichrist, and it seems like that person is Nero.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#36TheRealJiraiyaPosted 4/4/2013 10:12:57 AM
DarkContractor posted...
the atheist perspective does not see the Bible as divinely inspired and a divine collaboration between the Biblical authors, it's just the notion is generally entertained for the purposes of debate and such.

As such, the conclusion that the AntiChrist was Nero does not require any inferring from the collection as a whole. Even if Jesus is not the Son of God, surely they had someone in mind when they wrote about End Times and the Antichrist, and it seems like that person is Nero.


That is a fine perspective to hold, but my point is that my perspective is also a valid one given my religious beliefs - if Christianity is true and my view of the Bible is, then my interpretation is also true.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#37DarkContractorPosted 4/4/2013 10:28:45 AM
TheRealJiraiya posted...
DarkContractor posted...
the atheist perspective does not see the Bible as divinely inspired and a divine collaboration between the Biblical authors, it's just the notion is generally entertained for the purposes of debate and such.

As such, the conclusion that the AntiChrist was Nero does not require any inferring from the collection as a whole. Even if Jesus is not the Son of God, surely they had someone in mind when they wrote about End Times and the Antichrist, and it seems like that person is Nero.


That is a fine perspective to hold, but my point is that my perspective is also a valid one given my religious beliefs - if Christianity is true and my view of the Bible is, then my interpretation is also true.


but then asking us how we feel about the book of Daniel's predictions is a silly question.

As I said, the common denominator here is that these atheist interpretations all point to one thing: Jesus thought the apocalypse would happen very shortly after his death. Christian interpretations shoot off in various directions, if only so they can slip through the cracks of falsification.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#38paulo_yamato(Topic Creator)Posted 4/5/2013 9:42:43 PM
Great discussion guys, really great.
Now let me throw out there that it's pretty clear that the Book of Revelation has an entire sequence of events.
Do you think that these events will all happen in order, or in bursts that lead up to the rapture? Or will they happen over a very low period of time with lulls in the action, and then spiking toward when the obvious outcome is rapture? (I apologize for not being very coherent)
---
You see it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. -Adolf Hitler
#39TheRealJiraiyaPosted 4/5/2013 9:46:14 PM
DarkContractor posted...
TheRealJiraiya posted...
DarkContractor posted...
the atheist perspective does not see the Bible as divinely inspired and a divine collaboration between the Biblical authors, it's just the notion is generally entertained for the purposes of debate and such.

As such, the conclusion that the AntiChrist was Nero does not require any inferring from the collection as a whole. Even if Jesus is not the Son of God, surely they had someone in mind when they wrote about End Times and the Antichrist, and it seems like that person is Nero.


That is a fine perspective to hold, but my point is that my perspective is also a valid one given my religious beliefs - if Christianity is true and my view of the Bible is, then my interpretation is also true.


but then asking us how we feel about the book of Daniel's predictions is a silly question.

As I said, the common denominator here is that these atheist interpretations all point to one thing: Jesus thought the apocalypse would happen very shortly after his death. Christian interpretations shoot off in various directions, if only so they can slip through the cracks of falsification.


Ill point out I didnt ask you how you felt, I responded to another Christian's interpretation.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#40DarkContractorPosted 4/6/2013 2:37:15 AM
TheRealJiraiya posted...
DarkContractor posted...
TheRealJiraiya posted...
DarkContractor posted...
the atheist perspective does not see the Bible as divinely inspired and a divine collaboration between the Biblical authors, it's just the notion is generally entertained for the purposes of debate and such.

As such, the conclusion that the AntiChrist was Nero does not require any inferring from the collection as a whole. Even if Jesus is not the Son of God, surely they had someone in mind when they wrote about End Times and the Antichrist, and it seems like that person is Nero.


That is a fine perspective to hold, but my point is that my perspective is also a valid one given my religious beliefs - if Christianity is true and my view of the Bible is, then my interpretation is also true.


but then asking us how we feel about the book of Daniel's predictions is a silly question.

As I said, the common denominator here is that these atheist interpretations all point to one thing: Jesus thought the apocalypse would happen very shortly after his death. Christian interpretations shoot off in various directions, if only so they can slip through the cracks of falsification.


Ill point out I didnt ask you how you felt, I responded to another Christian's interpretation.


yeah but I was responbding to MC, you just had the most recent post so my direct response was aimed at you 8D kekeke
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat