Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 4 December 2010

Book of Daniel

I have started a new discussion at Talk:Book of Daniel about the proposed changes. Please discuss them there. Elizium23 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Book of Daniel revision

The Kingdoms

Pre-Roman interpretation

Referencing the canonization of Jewish scripture, most likely ending during the Hosmonean period, before or early on in the Roman occupation, some contemporary Jews and Christians, and most secular historians and higher critics advocate a scheme of interpreting the kingdoms in the Book of Daniel according to their periods of control over Judea, culminating in the events of the Maccabean Revolt, before the involvement of the Roman Empire in Jewish affairs.

The pre-Roman scheme includes:

(1) The Neo-Babylonian period of involvement from c. 587-539 BC,

(2) the Medo-Persian period of involvement from c. 539-332 BC,

(3) the Macedonian period of involvement, starting with Alexander the Great and continuing through the Diadochi from c. 332-305 BC to

(4) the Ptolemaic period of involvement from c. 305-219 BC, and

(5) the Seleucid period of involvment starting with Antiochus III Megas and culimating in the events of the Maccabean Revolt and the confrontation with Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The Maccabean Revolt concluded with the Jews' victory over the Seleucids on the Day of Nicanor, 161 BC.

The following chart lays out the typical pre-Roman interpretation of the Book of Daniel.

Separate issues:

-Some secular historians and certain critics would say that the book of Daniel has little to no significance beyond its historical setting.

-Certain Reconstructionists, Idealists, and the advocates of Realized/Sapiential Eschatology would say that the Book of Daniel is historical, but it is significant as godly instruction.

-In Revelation 17:10, John divided the kingdoms the same way as the Jews of his day would have, speaking of five kings that "were" (from Babylon to the Seleucids), one that "is" (the Roman Empire), with a seventh that was "yet to come" which would "become an eighth, but is of the seven." John's declaration established a triunism (or trinity, or typology) of three distinct and compartmentalized iterations of Daniel's prophecies--one pertaining to ancient Jewish history, one pertaining to the intermediate history of Christianity, and one pertaining to the End of the Age. This being the case, John's parsing of the first set of kingdoms into "five" (not four) that "were" supports the pre-Roman interpretation of Daniel's prophecies.

-Insofar as Judaism and Christianity is concerned, the Jews' cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem near the midpoint of the Maccabean Revolt is commemorated annually at Hanukkah, which Jesus observed according to John 10:22.

Post-Roman interpretation

Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews typically believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:

(1) the Neo-Babylonian Empire

(2) the Medo-Persian Empire

(3) the Macedonian Empire of Alexander and his successors

(4) the Ptolomaic and Seleucid Empires together, and

(5) the Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.

The conclusion of this scheme is described by Jerome:

"And yet to understand the final portions of Daniel a detailed investigation of Greek history is necessary, that is to say, such authorities as Sutorius, Callinicus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius, Claudius, Theon, and Andronycus surnamed Alipius, historians whom Porphyry claims to have followed, Josephus also and those whom he cites, and especially our own historian, Livy, and Pompeius Trogus, and Justinus. All these men narrate the history involved in Daniel's final vision, carrying it beyond the time of Alexander to the days of Caesar Augustus in their description of the Syrian and Egyptian wars, i.e., those of Seleucus, Antiochus, and the Ptolemies."

Full Preterists, Idealists, certain Reconstructionists and other non-futurists likewise typically believe in the same general sequence, but they teach that Daniel's prophecies ended with the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, and have little to no implications beyond that.

All of these schools of prophetic thought typically start from the same basic premise (with variations), but differ in their conclusions (as described afterward):

Separate issues:

The following statements are archetypical, and do not represent every variant of this mode of interpeting Daniel's kingdoms:

-Jewish and Christian Historicists (as generally taught in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Churches) believe that the prophecies of Daniel continue in a straight line through to the End of the Age.

-Other scholars argue that there was a split betwen the Medes and Persians, not the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

-In the Protestant version of Historicism, the Reformers changed the order of kingdoms to claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the "whore of Babylon" and the papacy was the "antichrist." The Catholics reciprocated by claiming that the Reformers were the "seven heads of the beast," etc.

-Jewish and Christian Futurists, Dispensationalists, and, to some degree, Partial Preterists believe that the prophecies of Daniel resume at some point in the future after a gap in prophecy that accounts for the Church Age.

-Jewish Reconstructionists and Full Preterists believe that Daniel is completely fulfilled, and that the believers are now working to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

Ike Eickman (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Son of Perdition" edit

According to orthodox Jewish and Christian eschatological beliefs, and secular historians and scholars, the concept of the Son of Perdition (also called "the beast that goes into perdition" in Revelation 17:8 and 17:11) is used in the Bible in one or more of three contexts, forming a triunism (or trinity, or typology) of three potential interpretive references.

First frame of reference: Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Many historians, critics, and many Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the Book of Daniel is about the events in Israel from the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity to the end of the Maccabean Revolt . These scholars say that the Old Testament reference is to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the man who attacked the First Temple in Jerusalem and defiled it by sacrificing a pig on the altar, erecting a statue of Zeus as himself in the temple, raiding the Temple treasury and minting coins saying "Theos Epiphanes" (God manifest), etc. Even those who advocate an interpretation of Daniel that includes the Roman Empire in their interpretations of Daniel recognize Antiochus as a prototype of "antichrist."

In Revelation 17:8 and 17:11, John borrowed the "Son of Perdition" concept from the prophecies of Daniel, relating them by language. He refers to "the star that fell from heaven" Revelation 9:1 by two names, one Greek, and the other Hebrew. (Revelation 9:11) The Greek name is "Apollyon" (Greek: Aπολλυων), from the Greek root word "apollumi" (Greek:απολλυμι) It refers to utter loss, eternal destruction, and disassociation." The Hebrew name is "Abaddon" (Greek: Aβαδδων), from the Aramaic root word "'abad" (Hebrew transliteration:שׁא), which means the same thing as the Greek root word. Daniel 7:11 says that the eventual destiny of the "great beast" is to be slain, and his body "destroyed" ('abad), and given to the eternal flames (generally accepted by religious scholars to be a reference to hell).

Second frame of reference: Judas Iscariot

In John 17:12, Jesus says that of all his disciples, none has been lost except the "son of perdition". The New International Version translates the phrase as "the one doomed to destruction." D. A. Carson suggests that this verse refers both to Judas' character and to his destiny. The phrase is also used in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where it is equated with the Man of Sin.

Third frame of reference: Antichrist

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Paul--writing well after both Jesus and Judas had come and gone to their respective destinies--referred to "the Son of Perdition" in some future sense from the point in time in which he wrote his epistle. He also equated this person with the Man of Sin.

Likewise, In Revelation 17:8 and 17:11, John, writing well after Jesus and Judas Iscariot had come and gone to their respective destinies, refers to "the beast that goeth into perdition." Assuming a futuristic mode of interpretation, this would also be a reference to a future figure.

In some variations of Christian eschatology, this future figure is commonly referred to as "antichrist," the "false messiah," or the "false christ."

Applications

The following statements are archetypal, and do not reflect every organizational or individual variation:

Various sects of Jews and Christians, as well as secular historians and higher critics would acknowledge the use of the phrase "the Son of Perdition" or "the beast that goes into perdition" in one or more of these three frames of reference:

Jewish Reconstructionists and some secular historians and critics would acknowledge the first frame of reference, as they hold that the book of Daniel is strictly Jewish apocalyptic literature.

Jewish Messianists and Historicist-type Jews would acknowledge the first and third frames of reference, but not the second, as they do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.

Christian Historicists, Dispensationalists and Partial Preterists, Messianic Jews, and some historians and higher critics would acknowledge the second and third frames of reference, as they acknowlege two advents of Jesus Christ. They may also acknowledge the first frame of reference as a typology.

Christian Preterists, Idealists, and the advocates of Realized Eschatology/Sapiential Eschatology would acknowledge the second frame of reference, and possibly the first frame of reference as a typology, but not the third, as they do not believe in a literal future fulfillment of prophecy per se.

A Triunist would recognize all three frames of reference as valid, but in different modes of interpretation.

Blocked

Template:Z8

Eickman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Eickman (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please don't use this template to request blocks of other users. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You blocked me. Great. Now how about blocking User:Taiwan boi, who started another edit war after an administrator said not to, and tagged the page as being under construction so I could do my edits without harassment from this character, against the explicit instructions in the tag box.

It's rather like the NFL: You threw the yellow flag based on what you saw after the fact because you didn't see what happened before the fact.

Ike Eickman (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It was already explained to you that the administrator did not tag the article so you could edit it without other editors contributing. It has also been explained to you that you were not following Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was primarily cleaning up my own work, fixing broken links, and working on adding references (which seems to be your personal fetish).

You have a funny way of applying the rules to everyone else first, and yourself never.

Ike Eickman (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't address what I wrote. The administrator did not tag the article so you could edit it without other editors contributing, and you were not following Wiki policy. My actions have been reviewed as well as yours, and I wasn't the one who was blocked. Think about it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not block you for edit-warring. I blocked you for repeatedly making personal attacks on other editors, and continuing to do so after being warned and asked to stop. Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan boi--Know that I'm simply going to hit the undo button on the "Historicist (Christianity" page when I get back online.

Your attempts to hide the historical facts will not stand, despite your attempts to rewrite history to support your minority sectarian opinion.

This is a statement from one Father Marin State of the Greek Othodox Church:

"The early Church lived in expectation of the "day of the Lord," the day of His coming again. The Church later realized that its time is known but to God; still, some signs of Christ's second coming were expected..."

The first mode of prophetic interpretaton was not Historicism; it was immediacy.

And you can't erase the East-West Schism from history, and the two different versions of Historicism--Catholic and Orthodox--that arose out of it.

If you keep this up, I'm simply going to file a dispute, point out that you're presenting sectarian Adventist viewpoints as "historical facts," whereas I present the actual history of historicist beliefs in church history, and get your edits overturned.

On a postive note, your historicist chart more accurately portrays Historicism as taught by Jerome than mine did. Feel free to move that to the "Book of Daniel" page under "post-Roman interpretation," and straighten out the text at the top of that section. However, don't remove the statements below it, which present all of the different interpretations arising from that mode of interpretation, or I'll have to simply hit the undo button on that one, too, a file a dispute.

Ike Eickman (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done anything to "erase the East-West Schism from history", but you're wrong to say that two different versions of Historicism came out of it. The one Orthodox Historicist I've found is Apostolos Makrakis, and his exposition is significantly different from the standard Orthodox viewpoint, which is mystical and personal (not Historicist). As for "sectarian Adventist views", anyone can check the work I cited, published by Cambridge University Press, and see if it's pushing sectarian Adventist views. I'm not even an SDA. I just know a lot more about this topic than you do.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Look Eickman, there is obviously a major content issue here. You say the others are 7th day adventists, pushing their POV. They say you have written a book and are pushing an interpretation that is your book - not mainstream. This issue can't be decided by reverting and insulting people. There is one of you and more of them. You are a lot ruder. You will end up getting blocked. I have no idea who is "right" and who is "wrong". What I am saying is - you need to find some other way of resolving this issue other than aggressive reverting and aggressive comments. This is obviously quite a specialist area. One thing that could be tried is an RfC with notifications of it at all the theological and historical projects. Then you might get some third party input. When asking for third party input you need to state the issue clearly and neutrally and then state your position clearly and with sources so that people not well versed in historicism can work out what is going on. Taiwanboi, you have just been blocked for edit-warring on another article so you also need to think of some constructive way of resolving thgis dispute. I know it's frustrating but if you think about it - on the encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit", it's the only way. There is no them. There is only us.Fainites scribs 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't pushed "my" interpretation at all. In fact, they haven't even heard "my" interpretation yet, nor have I included it in any of my edits, except remotely, by inference, by pointing out what other scholars and theologians have said, because I can't fully present "my" interpretation on Misplaced Pages...yet.

However, "my" interpretation (which is three-dimensional) is strengthened by looking at all of the points (valid and invalid) that all the other schools of Bible prophecy make, and modern scholars and theologians present. So in pointing out the diversity of other eschatological and historical opinions, and presenting them as they actually exist--warts or not--I strengthen "my" position for later, when I can discuss "my" interpretation.

I think they're more ticked off that I'm presenting all possible opinions, which incidentally damages their single-minded opinions.

I'm sorry I have to get ornery with these characters, but they expoit every means possible--even making up their own rules on the fly--to undercut what I'm trying to do, which is actually fair to everyone.

Ike Eickman (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right. It's not a subject I am familiar with. I am just saying...... Well I won't repeat myself. Fainites scribs 23:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the sources he cited was his own book. That tells you what kind of scholarship and research we're dealing with here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know who is in the right, regarding the content of the article. You, however, are wrong on many points. Firstly your incivility is astounding, especially considering the warnings you got for it. Your lack of reliable sources for your edits, your alleged misrepresentation of them, and your original research and synthesis really doesn't convince me that you're fit for editing these articles. Incidentally, you appear to think that I'm an administrator - you're wrong about that as well. I'm just another editor who has an interest in keeping Misplaced Pages sane, especially in the area of my 200-odd article watchlist. And I cooperate with admins and policies here which you have been made aware of multiple times. I did post appeals for more eyeballs in several Wikiprojects, so I am hoping that there are enough people looking over your shoulder now that you won't be able to get away with trashing these articles completely. I sincerely hope that you will spend your blocked time reviewing and meditating on Misplaced Pages policies, and make a committment to follow them in the future. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense.

First, I haven't "synthesized" anything. The only thing I've done is accurately represent the viewpoints of every group involved.

In terms of the "Book of Daniel" article, the broad spectrum of opinions breaks down between two arguments. one primarily pertains to higher criticism and a strict historicist interpretation which is also being discussed by many Christian and Jewish scholars (i.e. F. F. Bruce, et al) that the original interpretation of Daniel was the one in Jewish history, i.e. that the book was about the period from the Babylonian Captivity to the end of the Maccabean Revolt--any other inferences are seperate issues. The other pertains to certain Jewish and Christian traditions which include the Romans in their analysis. This is NOT "original research." It's just research that certain individuals don't want known because it makes the traditionalists look bad.

And I didn't mention anything about my writings. All I've done is point to the writings of scholars who have been saying similar things to what I express, speaking of prophetic interpretation in terms of "trinities" or "typologies." (See this "typology" page.)

In terms of the "Christianity (Historicist)" page, Taiwan boi keeps trying to wipe out history as everyone else knows it. Historicism wasn't the first mode of prophetic interpretation. Immediacy (or Imminence) was. There are entire books on the subject (which I cited), and then Taiwan boi said it wasn't a "valid reference" because I didn't include "page numbers." Page numbers?!? They were complete books on the subject!

Then he attempts to erase the East-West Schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy from history, and the divergent forms of historicist interpretation that arose from that. I even posted up a direct quote to him from a Greek Orthodox theologian who said the exact same thing I and everyone else say--Historicm emerged in Christian history; it wasn't taught from the beginning.

These facts screw up the teachings of those who try to reverse engineer their cultic religious beliefs into history, as the Adventists do. They want everyone to believe that their interpretation of prophecy was the one always held by Christianity, but it wasn't.

No experts on Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant Historicism would ever attempt to make such a claim--they know their history. But try telling that to cultic elements.

And as far as having more "eyeballs" looking over my shoulder, EXCELLENT, as long as they aren't just TRADITIONALIST eyeballs, and includes modern scholars, historians, Jewish experts, and the like. They would understand what I'm pointing out. I'll be glad to take that challenge. In fact, that's exactly what people like Taiwan boi don't want--they don't want a broad-based multi-perspective examinations of issues because it makes the traditionalists look bad. (Hey, it's not my fault they screwed up--it's their fault.)

And don't believe all the crap coming from Taiwan boi about false references and original research. He's trying to concoct every kind of false argument he can by abusing every single rule Misplaced Pages rule he can to try and thwart my efforts. He's even making up his own rules about linking articles to other articles so people don't have to reinvent the lightbulb every time they need a new lightbulb.

Scholars know what I'm saying. Certain Christian and Jewish Theologians know what I'm saying. Historians know what I'm saying. Even these traditionalists know what I'm saying--they just don't want people to know what everyone else is saying.

And that's the crap that pisses me off--shutting everyone else down because they don't like what other people are saying.

If that isn't anti-Wikipedea, I don't know what else is.

Don't believe all the crap that Taiwan boi is feeding you--he has a personal agenda in mind, and everyone else is beginning to figure that out. (He just got blocked to for starting a edit war with someone else, too.)

By the way, I'm taking another shot at editing the "Son of Perdition" article again. I have a draft on my User discussion page. Take a look at it and then tell me I'm not trying to represent everyone's position (which, in the long run, helps my position).

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If scholars, Christian and Jewish theologians, and historians know what you're saying, then why can't you provide any quotations from them saying so?--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ike we've got that you say you are presenting the correct version as opposed to the 7th Day Adventist version. There are some issues to be addressed though, which I put on the Book of Daniel talkpage. You answered at length, but without really answering. Wiki articles should be linked to other articles which treat parts of the subject in more depth. This is not however the same as a citation. You need a source for anything that is likely to be controversial or challenged. Also, I would still like to know please on what basis this http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=10 is considered a suitable source. Fainites scribs 16:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry about the grammer and stuff in my last post--I'm "stream of conciousness" writing and doing it quickly.)

1) The other articles have (or should have, but don't) in depth discussions of their respective approaches to interpreting prophecy. A Historicist (of whatever sort) says prophecy is fulfilled in a line. A Futurist/Dispensationalist says there are "gaps" between parts. A Preterist says that prophecy was fulfilled, pretty much in its entirety. An Idealist says that it only applied in history as general teaching, and has no literal fulfillment yet to come. I don't have to go back and reinvent the lightbulb when someone else already has already done it. All I have to do is point to the articles on those positions. Everyone who is in the know already knows what these positions are, and if they don't, they can get that information from the other articles.

That's why I went after the "Historicist (Christianty)" page--it didn't fully express the concept of Christian historicism along all three dimensions of interpretation--in time, in contexts, and in applications, i.e. what did people say, who said it, and when did they say it.

If I have to go back and explain all this in a general article on "The book of Daniel," the article gets bloated and bogged down. In fact, there is already a warning at the top of the page asking folks to cut it down. The only way you can do that is to stick to generalizations, and point to articles that have more in-depth explanations.

For example: I don't need to explain in depth that Reconstructionist Jews believe that the entire Old Testament was only valid for its times, and is strictly Jewish Apocalyptic literature written to document Jewish history, which is the very same argument that modern critics make. These are just flat facts, not "original research." If it were "original research," there wouldn't be a page called "Reconstructionist Judaism," and the entire corpus of the "Book of Daniel" page is filled with arguments from "higher" critics saying that Daniel is just Jewish apocalyptic literature.

In fact, I cited the article from F.F. Bruce in which he argues that 1) this is how Jewish Apocalyptic literature should be read (i.e. in the context of pre-Roman Jewish History first), and 2) that the post-Roman revision came from the Essenes, who were preaching that a war was about to start between God and Satan, angel and demon, and the "true Jews" (themselves) against the Romans.

(This eventually led to the famous mass suicide at Masada, when the Essenes decided to kill themselves rather than be overrun by the Romans. Funny how history has a way of repeating itself, i.e. Jamestown and Waco, TX. Even more ironic, Jim Jones and David Koresh both came from Adventist organizations.)

As to the Brandham/Billy Graham discussion, note that in paragraph 40 Brandham refers to the mission of Christ as a "trinity" in three parts. This was a non-standard use of the term "trinity," but one which shows up all over the place. Some people say "triunism" (as I refer to it myself). Some scholars use the term "Typology." It's not "original research." It's just that I had two problems: 1) I can't find a single source (other than myself) who has a solid defintion of "triunism," and 2) I don't know how to reference paragraph 40 in the citation.

The point is, it was not "original research;" it's just that there is a confusion of terms, which is why I tried to cite the position the way I did.

See, I'm not making this stuff up--it's documented all over the place. My adversary just keeps trying to shoot down the references and play technical games before I have a chance to defend them, or, if necessary, fix them. And, quite frankly, after he demonstrated his bias the first couple of times, I simply began ignoring him altogether: I expect no fair expressions from him whatsoever, so there is no point answering or arguing with him--UNTIL he starts an edit war, when I simply have no choice but to fight back.

Ike Eickman (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Ike! The reference. The sermon. How is this a suitable source. Fainites scribs 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I didn't cite the sermon to substantiate John's statement--John's statement substantiates itself. It's there to substantiate the triunism/trinities/typology statement. That's why the reference is with those statements, not after the reference to John.

(This concept is more developed in Idealism than the other post-Reformation schools of prophetic interpretation, but it sometimes "gets out of it's cage," and shows up elsewhere in Christianity.)

Second, sermons are cited as theological references all the time in theological discussions, and are used as sources all the time--even on Misplaced Pages.

Luther sermons

Calvin sermons

Wesley sermons

Billy Graham sermons

In the Brandham/Graham sermon/discussion I cited, Brandham contained an alternate use of the term "trinities."

Ike Eickman (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

By what possible definition of notability does Brother William Marrion Branham of the Branham Tabernacle in Jeffersonville, Indiana equate with Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Graham? Fainites scribs 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First, the conversation was between Branham and Graham, and Graham didn't seem to have any objections to his non-standard use of the term.

Second, I'm aware that it isn't the strongest of references, but it is enough to get the ball rolling. I find non-standard uses of the term everywhere, but finding an encylopedic reference is more elusive, partly because parties are avoiding the issue, prefering to speak of "typologies," and occassionaly "triunisms," lest they have to explain why the rest of prophecy isn't interpreted this way (which, in my opinion, would be the truth), and partly because of the usual confusion of terms in religion speak. Current theologians have settled on "typology" to explain the parallels between certain Old Testament events and New Testament parallels, but it isn't (in my opinion) sufficient to the discussion.

Third, I would point out that there is a lengthy new explanation of the origins of Belshazzar as son of Nebodnidus in the section above this one on the "Book of Daniel" page, but there isn't one single citation of any kind to support it; but since such an explanation would tend to satisfy the traditionalists' arguments, it hasn't come under attack. I hope it's true; that would be handy information to have. But without citation, it is useless to me and everyone else.

I can cite example-after-example of people discussing Christian theological issues in terms of triunisms/trinities/typologies (and what they really mean is the same thing--they just don't know it), but I'm looking for good "encylopedic" references, and using these other things to back me up in the meantime. For instance, If I Google the select phrase "in trinities," I get 88,000 hits. Now that's substantial; but try finding the "encylopedic" reference among them. (And feel free to help, people). But where is all the hubbub over the Belshazzar edit? Don't you find that the least bit hypocritical? And you'll find the same thing all over Misplaced Pages--entire articles that are unsubstantiated; but I don't see anyone taking those down.

Ike Eickman (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, you can't find a single encyclopedic reference which supports your idiosyncratic "triunisms" view. That's the issue here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again: It is NOT "idiosyncratic." Just because you're ignorant of what goes on outside of your little cult community does NOT mean it's "idiosyncratic."

I can cite entire Unitarian books that refer to the concept of "trinities" and "triunisms" (but not necessarily correctly).

I can cite Fairbairn and the Idealist camp's references to "triunisms" and "trinities" (maybe a bit more correctly).

I would rather use Evangelical references (like the Branham/Graham citation) to shut the mouths of one-dimensional theological bigots like you who can't abide the possibility that you may be wrong (and you have no idea how wrong you are).

But, of course, since your agenda is to suppress and belittle any other viewpoint that proves your single-minded teachings wrong, you stand ready and willing to abuse the rules of Misplaced Pages (and even make up your own rules as you go) to make a nuisance of yourself yet again.

Ike Eickman (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So once more you can't find a single WP:RS to support what you're saying. You haven't even found a single source using the term "triunities", let alone using it the way you do, let alone a WP:RS using it the way you do.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

BINGO!

Found precisely what I needed.

Kinship of God and man: An attempt to formulate a thorough-going Trinitarian theology, by J.J. Lanier

The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21). VOLUME XVI. Early National Literature, Part II; Later National Literature, Part I.

IV. The New South: Lanier.

§ 36. Idealism.

His idealism is also revealed in his eager intellectual interests. Here too he triumphed over his untoward surroundings, as the brief sketch of his life has indicated. Pathetic witness to this inherent bent is found in a letter to Bayard Taylor...

Gotta' love those free-thinking Idealists.

Ike Eickman (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what this is supposed to substantiate? Does he uses the word "triunities" as you do? Does he speak of a "triune" interpretation of prophecy? Or is this more WP:OR?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read it again, and it's clear you don't actually know what he's saying.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan boi wrote: "One of the sources he cited was his own book. That tells you what kind of scholarship and research we're dealing with here."

Really? Where did I cite my own book?

I didn't cite my book.

I cited a clear definition of Triunism which I wrote to clarify the conundrum created by those using the terms "triunism" (i.e. Fairbairn, Lanier, et al), "trinities" (i.e. Branham, the Unitarians, et al), and "typology" (i.e. Kirkland, Milan, et al).

And my "scholarship and research" blows away anything you've heard before: When did anyone ever bother to go back and look at how Jesus and the prophets prophesied, rather than just what Jesus and the prophets prophesied--it tells a decidely different story than the ones all the different factions have been telling for 2,000 years.

But, of course, I can't talk about that on Misplaced Pages...yet.

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You previously linked this site, which promotes both your own personal ideas and your book. Writing your own definition of "Triunism" is WP:OR. You can't just make things up as you go along. You have provided absolutely no evidence that when Fairbairn uses "triunism", Branham and the Unitarians use "trinities" and Kirkland and Milan use "typology" they are all saying the same thing. This is not only WP:OR, it is WP:SYNTH. You need to find a WP:RS which says what you claim about the term "triunism". I look forward to being blown away by your scholarship and research. Please begin blowing at the earliest possible opportunity.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/re/jewish-apocalyptic_bruce.pdf
2. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=265&letter=N Nicanor
3. http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=10
4. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm
5. Gheorghe Petraru, Phd,http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/05/67-77Petraru.pdf
6. A short introduction to the Hebrew Bible, John J. Collins, p. 282
7. http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=10
8. http://www.endtime-truth.com/studies2.html
9. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Apollos, 1991), 563.