Jump to content

Origen

Staff
  • Content Count

    3,394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,990 Excellent

About Origen

Interests

  • Interests
    Hebrew, Aramaic (and other cognate languages), Greek, Latin, textual criticism, exegesis, philosophy

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

State

  • State (No Abbreviations)
    TN

Denomination

  • Den
    Church of Christ

Recent Profile Visitors

1,820 profile views
  1. You really think this is nothing more than a case of two people disagreeing? Let's see. Strong, the source you cited, does not agree with you. Four English dictionary do not agree with you. The scholarly Greek source I cited does not agree with you. The etymology of the word does not agree with you. Moreover you have provided ZERO evidence for your claim. You need a reality check.
  2. Then you should have used those words instead of making a false claim. As @Becky clearly points out in post 76 I NEVER said that all of Revelation was symbolic. I know just what you mean.
  3. We don't know. Most likely both. No doubt that too was part of it. Note the phrase "spirit of antichrist."
  4. Just so everyone knows my stance. Sometimes numbers are to be taken literally. Sometimes numbers are to be taken figuratively\symbolically. Sometimes numbers can be understood as both. A number can have a literal reference but also have symbolic significance beyond its literal reference. The idea that one rule fits all is pure nonsense in my view. The truth is no really knows if a number is literal, symbolic, or both simply by looking at it. Only exegesis within a text's OWN historical, cultural, literary, and theological contexts can provide any real meaning. Throw away all your 20/21 century ideas and theologies and try to understand the text as the author intended. Try not to bring your presuppositions to the text.
  5. Try "it." That is an opinion. You have not understood those verses in context.
  6. Well, that is the only place you will hear an apology.
  7. If that is all you got, you got NOTHING. Don't care what you think on the matter. Time to move on David.
  8. Opinions vary. Again, opinions vary. Never said it was and in fact said as much. I refused to be taken in and debate simplistic nonsense.
  9. That means it could not refer to a person. In order for it to refer to a person (such as an anti-christ) it was have to be in the masculine gender.
  10. I understand that is your perception. Then please show us in this thread where you comments on understanding numbers\numerals according to literary genre, cultural context, and historical setting. Sorry, never mind you didn't. That was me not you. Again, where is your where you comments on understanding numbers\numerals according to literary genre, cultural context, and historical setting. THEY DON"T EXIST.
  11. You have a number of problems. First, those two passages no where mentions an anti-christ. Second, you link them together without any evidence. Third, the gender of the word βδέλυγμα (i.e. abomination) is neuter. Fourth, the phrase "takes his seat in the temple of God" can be understood metaphorically. This is nothing new.
  12. Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. Hey guys check out the Greek verb on this one, not English translations. Let me know what you find. Tell me if you think it fits.
  13. Exactly! There seems to be a rule if there is a specific number mentioned it must be taken literally. There is no reason to even entertain such an idea. The truth is such a rule is meant to stack the deck. It ignores literary genre, cultural context, and historical setting. The only purpose of such a rule is to force an interpretation upon a text. If one follows such an obviously flawed rule (i.e. hermeneutical methodology) misunderstand of the text's meaning is sure to follow.
  14. There you go change what you first claimed. Now it is not teaching but promoting. Wrong again, not according to any Greek or English lexicon. A heretic is one who believes in or practices religious heresy, regardless if that person teaches or promotes it. The reason you have not cited one source for your false claim is because there are NONE! They don't exist.
×
×
  • Create New...