The Seven Reformations

[Wormwood]

It is not true that it is just my interpretation/reflections/assumption/creating, i always as-objectively-as-possible try to see whatever True historical matches/evidences between the text and history there are. It is true that i could be wrong, but there doesn't seem much doubt that the churches evidently also match ages (as well as the time of John and maybe some other things too). The 10 days surely matches the 10 years. The Laodiceans certainly matches the modern western church(es) (commerical, manufacturing, lukewarm, loas + dike, medicine worship, large jewish popn, in order with the other 6 before, etc).

I just don't think it is possible not to have one's interpretation laden with assumptions when the primary means of viewing a text is allegory. I think all of the churches in Revelation reflect characteristics of churches and nations in every age. To assign one church per one "age" (however one defines those parameters) is just creating categories that simply do not exist in the book of Revelation. Nothing suggests that the book of Revelation is to be interpreted as an allegory. It is apocalyptic literature, which is quite different from a parable or allegory. Even if we were to agree that modern western churches are materialistic and weak in faith as a whole, this does not mean that the references to the church in Laodecia is a message directed at an era 2,000 years removed from the original readers. The Bible cannot mean what it never meant. If the first readers would not have understood it that way, then its likely an errant interpretation.

I had similar debates about Arthur's 9 battle sites and they also try to claim it is all just artificial preconculsion theory and ignore all the stark accidentally discovered stark evidences/proofs. What would you accept as Proof?

I am not looking for "proof." I am looking for a consistent hermeneutic that appropriately deals with the nature of the genre. There was a first century church that was reading this letter. I believe the entire letter was meaningful to them and we draw our meaning out of that meaning. When we first try to make the text meaningful to us with no regard to the original audience, we are ripping the letter from its context and assigning dates and nations to things John wrote that likely never even crossed his mind. So, I guess my "proof" would be, "Would the church in Laodecia have recognized how you are interpreting the text?"

The bible has lots of cases/examples of alternative/additional layers of meanings/interpretations or analogus types (eg Abraham sacrificed Isaac). Jews have the [prds?] system. How strange this is that usually we are having to argue for "literal" true bible not just figurative/etc, now it is the opposite extreme. How can we "let the text speak for itself" (which i do actually try to do) if we don't study the text, study any/all related history, footnotes, other related texts/parts, the meanings of the names.

You make a very good point here and one that needs to be examined. Yes, the NT writers often employed typology as they looked at the OT and how it related to what God was doing in the NT. Yet, there are some important things to keep in mind as we understand how they interpreted the OT Scriptures.

1) These NT writers did not ignore the original meaning of the OT Scriptures. Rather, they based the NT fulfillments out of the OT examples or promises. Since you brought up sacrifice, lets examine that. The NT writers did not completely ignore the OT sacrificial system in their interpretation. They recognized the value and legitimacy of the old covenant. Yet, they claimed that those covenant practices foreshadowed a greater covenant. The OT sacrifices pointed to a greater and more complete sacrifice. Thus, the understanding of the new was based in the understanding of the old. Another example: Matthew says, "out of Egypt I have called my son" in reference to Jesus coming out of Egypt. Yet the text he is using is clearly referring to Israel coming out of slavery in Egypt. Matthew is not ignoring the context of that passage. Rather, he is claiming that Jesus is the true Israel. Thus, the events that transpired with Israel were meeting their true purpose and fulfillment in Christ.

2) These NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus, they were not going by what seemed right to them, but they were guided in their interpretation by the Spirit of God. We are getting God's insight into these texts, not an individuals personal gut feelings.

3) Allegory is not the same as typology. Typology says, "antitype - type" Christ was an antitype of Moses. Christ was an antitype of Adam. Christians escaping a world of sin is an antitype of Israel escaping slavery in Egypt. The cross was an antitype of animal sacrifice (specifically the Day of Atonement). Typology is showing how the past paved the way to what God is doing in the future.

Allegory is much different. Allegory ignores the original context and purpose of a text and claims that the language is merely symbolic of something completely different than what the text is actually saying. Your examples are: Laodecia = Western Church. 10 days of tribulation = 10 years of Diocletian. This approach completely ignores the original readers and the original events in the first century and simply claims the language is code language to mean something completely different. I think this approach is laden with assumptions and really strips away the original intent of the letter, and thus the true meaning of the letter. Some early church scholars were often quite terrible about this use of allegory. Augustine allegorized the parable of the Good Samaritan and came up with the following:

The man going down to Jericho =Adam
Jerusalem, from which he was going =City of Heavenly Peace
Jericho =The moon which signifies our mortality (this is a play on the Hebrew terms for Jericho and moon which both look and sound alike)
Robbers =Devil and his angels
Stripping him =Taking away his immortality
Beating him =Persuading him to sin
Leaving him half dead =Because of sin, he was dead spiritually, but half alive, because of the knowledge of God
Priest =Priesthood of the Old Testament (Law)
Levite =Ministry of the Old Testament (Prophets)
Good Samaritan =Christ
Binding of wounds =Restraint of sin
Oil =Comfort of good hope
Wine =Exhortation to spirited work
Animal =Body of Christ
Inn =Church
Two denarii =Two commandments to love
Innkeeper =Apostle Paul
Return of the Good Samaritan =Resurrection of Christ

As you can see, while it makes for an interesting reflection, it clearly has nothing to do with the actual story and what Jesus was trying to communicate when he told it. Augustine created his own meaning that was quite different from what Jesus or the Luke were trying to communicate (namely, that we should love our neighbors). I think you are doing a similar disservice to Revelation. The letter is laden with incredible meaning and significance that would have challenged a struggling, suffering, and sometimes compromising church in first century and continues to challenge and encourage believers today. The message is pretty simple: Don't compromise with the world. Christ is on the throne and we will all give an account to him. Be faithful even to death, and you will receive a crown of life.
When we turn Revelation into a crystal ball to predict particular church ages and so forth with a view of trying to determine the end of time, we are really missing the point (in my estimation). The early Christians weren't concerned about various eras of the church age. They were concerned with how they were going to feed their families if they stayed faithful to Christ, or whether or not they would have their heads lopped off for not offering incense to the Roman gods.

 

[Bibliocentrist]

Whatever, i am withdrawing. Every forum i post on on any topics there are always people attacking me claiming/asserting my discoveries/etc are all just preconclusions/assumptions/interpretations/forcing/etc, no matter how hard i try to find the right words/way to show the evidences. Any replies after this i declare are not dis/proof unless i am able to properly answer.

I did not say that each church only represents only one thing, i clearly stated there were at least two or any number of possible meanings. There is no doubt that the Laodiceans church letter has matches with both the church there then in John's time and with (some) modern western churches.

I do not see that or how i am ignoring the "original meaning". There is match with both the 7 churches there then and with the church/es through ages, no contradiction. Revelation was "written" by Jesus and John so how do you know what they meant? I clearly stated the letters match the churches there then too. I clearly stated i believe "literal" not/notjust allegorical/figurative/symbolic.

Why can't you just say your focus is more/instead with the match with then and there, while ours is more/also with the evident match with ages? Rather than unfairly/untruly making us out to be all wrong and you all right.

You are just being mean forcing me to have to more clearly state the match with Both:

Laodiceans = the church of laodicea there then in john's time
And
Laodiceans certainly seems to have half a dozen strong matches the modern western church.

Antipas = an Antipas/"Antipas" there then
And
Antipas seems to match Telemachus or other later.

10 days = 10 days then
And
10 days seems to match 10 years Diocletian.

It is not just my "individual gut feelings".

How can you so casually dismiss/ignore/deny/reject the many matches of Laodiceans with age of modern western church/es ("commerical & manufacturing centre" [like tubal & meshech incidentally], "large jewish population", "centre of asclepius god of medicine worship", last in order with other 6, lukewarm, "rich", jesus on outside, laos+dike, plural ~ many denominations/churches, etc).

I was/am not doing the same as Augustine. And just because one person is wrong doesn't mean i am.

I did not mean your "allergory (versus typology)". I meant prophecy, multiple layers of meanings, types, analogies.

I am suspicious when i make possible discoveries that threaten the status quo system/church/etc and people seem to try cover them up or discredit me/them.

It seems to be evident and to make sense that Jesus had a message for churches of the ages as well. Where is his message to the churches of the ages other than your "[it just applies then and generally to all ages]"? Why 7x7 / 49 in Zechariah?

also what about taking in to account that it had seemed like some of the things i have posted had been given from God at various times over the years? (I'm not saying they definitely were/are but they seemed to have been.)

Good Samaritan:

the man was going *down* from *Jerusalem* to *Jericho*.
the priest/levite etc were going *down* the same road/direction.
the Good Samaritan is just stated to be going on same road not down or which direction.
it is implied it may have even been his own fault it happened to him but the Good Samaritan had compassion/mercy on him none the less.

 

[Axehead]

wormwood:
It is not true that it is just my interpretation/reflections/assumption/creating, i always as-objectively-as-possible try to see whatever True historical matches/evidences between the text and history there are. It is true that i could be wrong, but there doesn't seem much doubt that the churches evidently also match ages (as well as the time of John and maybe some other things too). The 10 days surely matches the 10 years. The Laodiceans certainly matches the modern western church(es) (commerical, manufacturing, lukewarm, loas + dike, medicine worship, large jewish popn, in order with the other 6 before, etc).
Antipas means "like the father". And/or Telemachus is also/alternatively Almachus. There would have been 2 "Antipases", one in John's time, one in the 3rd church age.
I had similar debates about Arthur's 9 battle sites and they also try to claim it is all just artificial preconculsion theory and ignore all the stark accidentally discovered stark evidences/proofs. What would you accept as Proof?
The bible has lots of cases/examples of alternative/additional layers of meanings/interpretations or analogus types (eg Abraham sacrificed Isaac). Jews have the [prds?] system. How strange this is that usually we are having to argue for "literal" true bible not just figurative/etc, now it is the opposite extreme. How can we "let the text speak for itself" (which i do actually try to do) if we don't study the text, study any/all related history, footnotes, other related texts/parts, the meanings of the names.
Zechariah has 7 x 7 candlesticks = 49/50 the number of the church. There were 7 baskets of pieces left over from feeding 4000. 7 spirits. etc. The 7 churches are thus either/both 7 contemporary places/peoples/types (then &/or now) and/or 7 consecutive times.

text (& history) -- history:
7 ches (betw seen, are, shall be) -- betw then and now
2nd 10 days tribulation -- 10 years Diocletian
3rd Antipas (like father, witness/martyr in midst/among in satans seat/pergamos "tower") -- Telemachus (died in coloseum in rome)?
7th laodiceans (plural, lukewarm, commercial, manufacturing, large jewish popn, medicine worship) -- many churches, medicine worship, commercial/manufacturing, jewish popn, lukewarm.

[ps it is strange that antipas and telemachus were not in the list of christian martyrs on wikipedia.
This is a list of major real/alledged martyrs i composed (there are hundreds/thousands though so is not exhaustive):
john Baptist, jesus, james son of Zebed, stephen, james just, peter (Upsdiedown), andrew (X), timothy?, antipas alban, justin martyr, ursula, telemachus, sebastian (arrows), st edmunds / edward the martyr, joan of arc, thomas More.
Telemachus seems the best match for "like father", faithful witness, martyr, died in midst/among, in satans seat/pergamos "tower", about the right time/order.]

rocky:
yes we can't tell if we are all of the Laodiceans, but we can tell that the laodiceans certainly has many details matches our time, so we are in the time of 7th church which means the end can't be massively too far away.

axehead:
is that an arc or a circle maybe?
there is also possibly some sort of parallel between the churchs
1st nico-laitanes -- 7th lao-diceans
2nd synagogue satan -- 6th syngogue satan

chuck missler said there are also 7 churches Paul wrote to and that they may parallel the 7 in John. (John & Paul also the 2 "mystical" of NT.)

Hey biblio,

Yeah, since I don't know where John went after Laodicea, I can only assume it is an arc, but could be a circle. Interesting, though. Maybe John was exiled to Patmos after Laodicea and what does that say about the end-times church?

 

[Wormwood]

Biblio,

I am not trying to hurt your feelings. I am simply expressing why I disagree with you as you are expressing why you disagree with me. I am not intending any harm but explaining why I disagree. I am sorry if my position comes across as hostile or demeaning to you. I don't know how else to differentiate my view and why I disagree with your view other than to point out what I feel are your view's weaknesses. Clearly, you think my views are in error, and I am not at all offended by that. I think the way we learn and grow together is to express our differences and disagree..without being disagreeable. Again, I'm sorry if I came across in a negative way. It was not my intent. I just don't agree and am trying to carefully explain why.

I did not say that each church only represents only one thing, i clearly stated there were at least two or any number of possible meanings. There is no doubt that the Laodiceans church letter has matches with both the church there then in John's time and with (some) modern western churches.

I do not see that or how i am ignoring the "original meaning". There is match with both the 7 churches there then and with the church/es through ages, no contradiction. Revelation was "written" by Jesus and John so how do you know what they meant? I clearly stated the letters match the churches there then too. I clearly stated i believe "literal" not/notjust allegorical/figurative/symbolic.

Why can't you just say your focus is more/instead with the match with then and there, while ours is more/also with the evident match with ages? Rather than unfairly/untruly making us out to be all wrong and you all right.

I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that your view causes a person to look primarily and fundamentally at what age Laodicea (or another church in Revelation) represents as the main means of understanding John's letters and revelation.

The way I try to determine what Jesus and John meant is to ask the question, "Did John's original readers understand this?" or, "would they possibly see this connection?" If they did not, then I think it is likely not the correct interpretation. Rather, If we say, "Look at the characteristics of the Laodicean church, and let us reflect on how our church or us as individuals share these characteristics and repent of them." Thus, the seven churches are representative of various attitudes all Christians and churches can have in every age and many different cultures, and we can lean from their successes and failures. Just as we look to Israel in the OT and see how they failed in the wilderness, etc. and seek to not follow in their errors (but mimick their triumphs).

So, I am not saying you don't see the churches as actual first century churches. What I am saying is that your interpretation seems to cause people to look first at more current historical events to decipher the primary meaning of the text, rather than primarily to the original audience to which John was writing.

Finally, I am not trying to exalt myself in this discussion. I am familiar with the historicist approach to Revelation. I know there are very intelligent people who hold that view. I just do not agree with it. I do not know how I can be right and you can be right at the same time. Either my view is wrong and you are right or my view is right and you are wrong (or, we are both wrong). While I would love for us to both be right, I believe in the law of non-contradiction. Thus, I don't think we can both be right since we hold very contrary views. I think you are taking this too personally. I am not trying to demean or undermine you as a person. I am just disagreeing with your views and explaining why. That is kind of the purpose of these forums...to discuss, and challenge one another in our thinking. Again, I am sorry if I have come across as being mean. Not my intent at all. Just stirring your thinking on the matter as you are stirring mine. We can still be brothers in Christ and not agree on everything .

 

[rockytopva]

The last (Laodicean) reformation I believe is the Word of Faith / Charismatic reformation.

1. The doctrinal statements are normally real short
2. Not much emphasis on sanctification
3. Ministers don't mind making much money off the ministry
4. Worship is contemporary

 

[Axehead]

Biblio,

I am not trying to hurt your feelings. I am simply expressing why I disagree with you as you are expressing why you disagree with me. I am not intending any harm but explaining why I disagree. I am sorry if my position comes across as hostile or demeaning to you. I don't know how else to differentiate my view and why I disagree with your view other than to point out what I feel are your view's weaknesses. Clearly, you think my views are in error, and I am not at all offended by that. I think the way we learn and grow together is to express our differences and disagree..without being disagreeable. Again, I'm sorry if I came across in a negative way. It was not my intent. I just don't agree and am trying to carefully explain why.


I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that your view causes a person to look primarily and fundamentally at what age Laodicea (or another church in Revelation) represents as the main means of understanding John's letters and revelation.

The way I try to determine what Jesus and John meant is to ask the question, "Did John's original readers understand this?" or, "would they possibly see this connection?" If they did not, then I think it is likely not the correct interpretation. Rather, If we say, "Look at the characteristics of the Laodicean church, and let us reflect on how our church or us as individuals share these characteristics and repent of them." Thus, the seven churches are representative of various attitudes all Christians and churches can have in every age and many different cultures, and we can lean from their successes and failures. Just as we look to Israel in the OT and see how they failed in the wilderness, etc. and seek to not follow in their errors (but mimick their triumphs).

So, I am not saying you don't see the churches as actual first century churches. What I am saying is that your interpretation seems to cause people to look first at more current historical events to decipher the primary meaning of the text, rather than primarily to the original audience to which John was writing.

Finally, I am not trying to exalt myself in this discussion. I am familiar with the historicist approach to Revelation. I know there are very intelligent people who hold that view. I just do not agree with it. I do not know how I can be right and you can be right at the same time. Either my view is wrong and you are right or my view is right and you are wrong (or, we are both wrong). While I would love for us to both be right, I believe in the law of non-contradiction. Thus, I don't think we can both be right since we hold very contrary views. I think you are taking this too personally. I am not trying to demean or undermine you as a person. I am just disagreeing with your views and explaining why. That is kind of the purpose of these forums...to discuss, and challenge one another in our thinking. Again, I am sorry if I have come across as being mean. Not my intent at all. Just stirring your thinking on the matter as you are stirring mine. We can still be brothers in Christ and not agree on everything .

I have read these interpretations but the one I really witness to in my spirit is the Triumphalist interpretation. Pretty amazing and it just fits together so much better for me with the full counsel of God.
Jesus: Victor over Religion

(1)Preterist interpretation.
(2) Historicist interpretation.
(3) Futurist interpretation.

Triumphalist interpretation. Sometimes called the idealist or symbolic interpretation. This interpretation usually sees the images of Revelation as explaining the conflict of good and evil, God and Satan, throughout all of time.

 

[mjrhealth]

Jesus once in a converstaion with a friend of mine, told her that all we know is upside down and back to front. She asked Him when did this all happen, and He told her the moment He left to go to heaven.

Funny thing was before she told me that He had shwon me the same thing.

Untill Christ is given His rightfull place in our live, untill we go to and have counsell with Him, untill we believe that God is true as is Christ and tha tte hholy Spirirt was ent to teach men the truth, and the bible itself takes its place as a guide and not set as an Idol between you and God, there will always be bickering and arguing while men lean on there own understanding.

My friend also told me in all the years He has being teaching her (thats around 30 years) she has not yet made it past teh 3rd chapter in genesis, and you think you can do it on your own.

in all His Love

 

[Wormwood]

I have read these interpretations but the one I really witness to in my spirit is the Triumphalist interpretation. Pretty amazing and it just fits together so much better for me with the full counsel of God.
Jesus: Victor over Religion

(1)Preterist interpretation.
(2) Historicist interpretation.
(3) Futurist interpretation.

Triumphalist interpretation. Sometimes called the idealist or symbolic interpretation. This interpretation usually sees the images of Revelation as explaining the conflict of good and evil, God and Satan, throughout all of time.

I agree with you Axehead.

 

[whitestone]

I believe in the seven churches as ages...

Ephesus - Apostolic - We all like to think our church is the closest to the Apostolic!
Smyrna - Martyr - Early Orthodox formed in this time.
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

Therefore...

Pergamos - Orthodoxy still retains elements of the Medieval ages.
Thyatira - Catholicism still retains elements of the mid ages.
Sardis - Protestantism still retains elements of the Protestant ages.
Philadelphia - Methodism/Pentecostism still retains elements of the Romantic period.
Laodicea - Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing

The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. - Revelation 1:20

These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; - Revelation 2:1

The Candlesticks - Are the seven churches
The Stars - Are each of the Christians within the seven churches. In that Christ holds each of us in his right hand. We are all little lights that make up the big light of the constellation of our church age.

The mystery- As this is Christ's mystery I cannot tell if we are all of the Laodicean constellation, or if all the candlesticks are lit, and that we all have our little light within one of the constellation.

I think it a neat thing that we, like Christ, have opportunity to walk amongst the seven churches.

I believe the infirmities suffered by the seven churches are the same infirmities suffered by individuals all the time down through time from then until now. Each of us should personally related to some of those issues and seek to resolve them as counseled by Jesus. We most certainly should not relegate the seven churches to "seven ages" what would that serve, and where would you get that idea?

 

[Bibliocentrist]

Biblio,

I am not trying to hurt your feelings. I am simply expressing why I disagree with you as you are expressing why you disagree with me. I am not intending any harm but explaining why I disagree. I am sorry if my position comes across as hostile or demeaning to you. I don't know how else to differentiate my view and why I disagree with your view other than to point out what I feel are your view's weaknesses. Clearly, you think my views are in error, and I am not at all offended by that. I think the way we learn and grow together is to express our differences and disagree..without being disagreeable. Again, I'm sorry if I came across in a negative way. It was not my intent. I just don't agree and am trying to carefully explain why.


I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that your view causes a person to look primarily and fundamentally at what age Laodicea (or another church in Revelation) represents as the main means of understanding John's letters and revelation.

The way I try to determine what Jesus and John meant is to ask the question, "Did John's original readers understand this?" or, "would they possibly see this connection?" If they did not, then I think it is likely not the correct interpretation. Rather, If we say, "Look at the characteristics of the Laodicean church, and let us reflect on how our church or us as individuals share these characteristics and repent of them." Thus, the seven churches are representative of various attitudes all Christians and churches can have in every age and many different cultures, and we can lean from their successes and failures. Just as we look to Israel in the OT and see how they failed in the wilderness, etc. and seek to not follow in their errors (but mimick their triumphs).

So, I am not saying you don't see the churches as actual first century churches. What I am saying is that your interpretation seems to cause people to look first at more current historical events to decipher the primary meaning of the text, rather than primarily to the original audience to which John was writing.

Finally, I am not trying to exalt myself in this discussion. I am familiar with the historicist approach to Revelation. I know there are very intelligent people who hold that view. I just do not agree with it. I do not know how I can be right and you can be right at the same time. Either my view is wrong and you are right or my view is right and you are wrong (or, we are both wrong). While I would love for us to both be right, I believe in the law of non-contradiction. Thus, I don't think we can both be right since we hold very contrary views. I think you are taking this too personally. I am not trying to demean or undermine you as a person. I am just disagreeing with your views and explaining why. That is kind of the purpose of these forums...to discuss, and challenge one another in our thinking. Again, I am sorry if I have come across as being mean. Not my intent at all. Just stirring your thinking on the matter as you are stirring mine. We can still be brothers in Christ and not agree on everything .

I was just checking here to find something i had not noted down and saw replies since.

I do not agree with that it "causes people to look first/primarily". It does not. I have equally seen them as historical 1st cent churches and as church ages and as message for us/me here and now. Equally not first/primarily. Maybe like you seem to say you don't just see the text as historical but as having some relevance/message to us here and now. There are seeming undeniable matches with a.d. history from John to now (http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21946-popes-office-in-the-bible/#entry262123), just as there are also matches with the actual archaeological/historical churches there then.

Yes i have also considered the question of John's readers, [and question of ages readers], and question of message for me/us. My approach is always to try objectively see if there is (or is not) any historical matches (and all possible candidates) for texts like the bible, Atlantis Account, "Nennius", etc not to have premise questions/interpretation/method (unlike orthodox academics/sceptics).

There is no contradiction except in your saying. In life there are times when both/neither are partly/all right/wrong, it is not always dualistic one or other. I did not start it, and i did not say you were wrong or in error, i was merely defending myself from you "disagreeing/explaining". The only error was you saying mine is error. Love edifies, knowledge puffs up. The bible seemingly sometimes/often can have more than one layer of meaning. Bibliocentrist was originally my zoints user name and meant books, but also meant &/or came-to mean bible, so is a not very good example how something have 2/+ right meanings.

It is not what i had thought forums were for/like quite myself. I had thought forums were where one could post ones ideas/thoughts/theses/comments and considerately discuss, but mostly i have found forums be negative like attacking (and i also tend to get negative myself), though some is my own pride-defensive paranoia.
People on forums are always attacking/highlighting/exploiting weaknesses or chinks in armour, never equally complimenting or considering or balancing-with good/right/strong points. Of-course i am not going to be right about everything, but it doesn't mean the whole thesis is wrong or that i am wrong about everything else in life/words/works.

I maybe take personally because i have almost always been sort-of like attacked on forums (hardly ever any positive), and on some forums some people (esp orthodox academics) have tried to unfairly/untruely make me look like all-wrong with/by dirty tactics, and because i don't have any much friends or life/love or faith (and do have some pride/ego). I hate being made a fool of by others &/or by myself (&/or by God).
This last year or two i more and more humiliatingly find i am just a dumb dog, and i hate God for making me dumb. (Though i am not wrong about everything, and no matter how dumb/wrong/sick/bad i am i have been treated criminally by some smart/right/healthy/good people, and all humans will be judged for their bad &/or good/love they have/haven't done (whether there is a God or is no God).)

Kephas in the other implied it was just my wrong "imagination" interpretation/commentary [in the way that the papacy authoritatively assert people are wrong/heretic, just like orthodox academia claim on "authority" we are wrong/dumb].
Well, yes of course i may be wrong about somethings, and everyone should "search to see if scriptures say so", but it doesn't mean we are wrong about everything, and they have not proven it just asserted it on authority.
"Imagination rules the world" - Napoleon.

I hopefully won't be posting any more on forums (if i am able to do other things here that i want/need to) (because i am just a dumb dog). (I also don't believe anymore because am dumb and other reasons (http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21957-i-cant-believeseek-anymore/), except that i can't go against either because i do at least have pastor help with water and few other things.)