05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOkay. Typing error. I make those too. So I'll drop that.
Typing error. Is this seriously part of your refutation?
Demonstrate the agenda within Revelation that shows it the tool of political or ecclesiastical munipulators which you say is SOOO obvious.
05 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFFMF writes:
Without quoting from the Book Of Revelation, what evidence is there that Christ was the "source" for the Book Of Revelation? If He wasn't, then it's a fabrication. How do you establish its authenticity? The Gospels, for instance, are about Jesus' words and deeds. The Book Of Revelation claims to be further instructions from Jesus. What proof do have that ...[text shortened]... m the Book's text. That's a fool's errand and has no intellectual foundation whatsoever.
========================================
The Gospels, for instance, are about Jesus' words and deeds. The Book Of Revelation claims to be further instructions from Jesus. What proof do have that it was what it claims it is - and please, do this without quoting from the Book's text. That's a fool's errand and has no intellectual foundation whatsoever.
=======================================
Okay, This is "Jesus in the Gospels we trust. But this Revelation of Jesus ... its a fake. Some politician's agenda to push his own ideas on us as if they were further teachings from Jesus."
1.) Did Jesus promise to continue His ministry after His acension ?
If so is it possible that the book of Revelation could be part of that extension?
2.) What is in Revelation which is substantially contradictory from what Jesus taught in the four Gospels ?
3.) What in Revelation is substantially contradictory to the rest of the Bible ?
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by jaywillDemonstrate the Book's authenticity first.
Demonstrate the agenda within Revelation that shows it the tool of political or ecclesiastical munipulators which you say is SOOO obvious.
I have a feeling you believe it is Christ's 'word' because you believe it is Christ's 'word', and that that is enough evidence for you. In which case how could I possibly demonstrate anything to you?
05 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFyou slippery snake, you are the one making the unfounded assertions, either substantiate them or retract them, for the more cabbage soup you serve up the more moronic you become! and unlike jaywill who has a very sensitive conscience, mine is quite broad, so either make with the readies FMF for it is becoming self evident that you are a fake and a fraudster.
What evidence do you have that it is?
05 Mar 09
1 edit
FMF, I am going to quote the book of Revelation whether you like it or not.
I think you seem afraid that you'll actually have to take the time to become familiar with it.
Jesus taught in the Gospels that the Holy Spirit would lead the disciples into all of the truth after His ascension. See John chapter 14 - 16.
Now the Spirit is definitely speaking in Revelation. Especially in chapters 2 and 3.
Each of the seven letters to the churches begins with it saying Jesus is talking. Each closing few statements include an exhortation that it is the Spirit that is speaking and we should heed what the Spirit says to the churches.
I propose that you have to carefully exmine the CONTENT of those speakings. Are there contradictions from what Jesus taught in the Gospels?
Would Jesus say one thing and send His Spirit to contradict Him ?
I'm sorry FMF if you have to take the time to actually familiarize yourself with a book you have dismissed as not necessary to accept.
Take your time to read it if you wish, before you try to prove that it is so OBVIOUSLY a fake revelation.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSubstantiate them or retract them? Does that mean that if the 'sensitive' jaywill cannot prove the authenticity of the Book Of Revelation, you and he are going to retract it? I won't hold my breath.
you slippery snake, you are the one making the unfounded assertions, either substantiate them or retract them, for the more cabbage soup you serve up the more moronic you become! and unlike jaywill who has a very sensitive conscience, mine is quite broad, so either make with the readies FMF for it is becoming self evident that you are a fake and a fraudster.
What is it about your belief system that requires you to call people who do not share it, moronic?
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by jaywill"Each of the seven letters to the churches begins with it saying Jesus is talking. Each closing few statements include an exhortation that it is the Spirit that is speaking and we should heed what the Spirit says to the churches."
FMF, I am going to quote the book of Revelation whether you like it or not.
So, let me get this straight. You are claiming the Book of Revelation is authentic because the Book of Revelation claims it is authentic?
05 Mar 09
1 edit
FMF may be afraid that I will hide behind some difficult symbolism in Revelation which he feels can be used to justify anything.
But there are some things in Revelation which require not much interpretation. It tells us what the sign means.
Of these explicitly self interpreted signs where is the evidence of a political/ecclesiatical clerical agenda to bring readers under some kind of worldly or ungodly authority?
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by jaywillDo you count TV evangelist charlatans, many of whom stray very little from Revelation and anachronistic Old Testament mumbo-jumbo, as worldly or ungodly authority?
Of these explicitly self interpreted signs where is the evidence of a political/ecclesiatical clerical agenda to bring readers under some kind of worldly or ungodly authority?
05 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFSo we're friends now. Okay my friend.
My friend. John 16 is not evidence that the book of Revelation is part of the extension of Jesus' ministry.
All is forgiven. I mean the cracks about me being autistic and stuff.
John 16 was referenced to demonstrate that Jesus said in essence "When I physically leave the scene, the Holy Spirit will continue to guide you disciples into all of the truth."
Do you deny that Jesus promised that ?
Is it POSSIBLE that the book of Revelation could be the continued guidance to the apostles by the Holy Spirit ?
Is it possible?
Does the evidence in the text tend to demonstrate that it is possible or it is improbable?
Where in the text does it seem unlikely to you and painfully obvious that Revelation is NOT of the Spirit but the agenda of a politician or clerical authority ?
You have 22 chapters there to fish out your "obvious" indications of the apochryphal nature of the book.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by FMF==============================
Do you count TV evangelist charlatans, many of whom stray very little from Revelation and anachronistic Old Testament mumbo-jumbo, as worldly or ungodly authority?
Do you count TV evangelist charlatans, many of whom stray very little from Revelation and anachronistic Old Testament mumbo-jumbo, as worldly or ungodly authority?
===================================
No. No. No. That's not going to work. You are not going to push me to the opposite extreme - ie. "EVERYBODY who has a vision or a dream is being the spokesman for the Holy Spirit."
Please do not try to run to the other extreme in defense. I am not saying charlatans do not exist.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by jaywillIs you asking me " Is it possible?" evidence?
Is it POSSIBLE that the book of Revelation could be the continued guidance to the apostles by the Holy Spirit ?
Is it possible?
I chose the words "intellectually autistic" deliberately. I have an autistic son. Your epic quoting of text from a book you are obsessed with, and expecting that this will suffice - as "proof" and "evidence" - when challenged by people whose mindmap is different, reminds me of routines my son sometimes goes into about features of Create Your Own Model Railway, capitals of the world, and so on. If you think I was somehow being hateful when I called you "intellectually autistic" then you presumably think I hate my son. Well, you can think what you want.