Originally posted by FMFi am sorry but i have never been asked to give evidence of its inspiration and until you substantiate one of your claims you are not entitled to ask others to substantiate theirs, i will call you what i deem appropriate.
You have been asked again and again to offer proof that the Book of Revelation is authentic or divinely inspired. jaywill simply quotes from the Book and you just write weakly abusive posts in which you call me names.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn 24 Feb (page 5) you claimed that "on the contrary to your on the contrary, there is zillions of evidence [that the Book is divinely inspired]..."
i am sorry but i have never been asked to give evidence of its inspiration
Where is it?
Originally posted by FMFtheir are many ways to gauge an indication as to a books inspiration, for example is it in harmony with the rest of the biblical canon both internally and as a whole, in whose name does the prophecy claim to be given, does it contain the divine name, does it contain other parts of scripture in the form of quotations, does it contain fulfillment of prophecy, is it historically accurate, was it accepted at the time as being authentic etc etc. in each and every case an examination of the text may be made to establish its canonicity. You however evaded and evaded this and were unwilling to give it consideration! and now when you are pressed for evidence of your claims you cannot do anything but ask us to substantiate ours, well it will not do, no siree, either fess up or shut up!
On 24 Feb (page 5) you claimed that "on the contrary to your on the contrary, there is zillions of evidence [that the Book is divinely inspired]..."
Where is it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieUnfortunately, none of this is proof. Not even nearly. And if this is what you call "substantial" evidence, than I can't see how you can question the substance of my rejection of the Book of Revelation.
their are many ways to gauge an indication as to a books inspiration, for example is it in harmony with the rest of the biblical canon both internally and as a whole, in whose name does the prophecy claim to be given, does it contain the divine name, does it contain other parts of scripture in the form of quotations, does it contain fulfillment of pr ...[text shortened]... etc. in each and every case an examination of the text may be made to establish its canonicity.
Originally posted by FMFno, its not proof nor evidence, but it is the way of establishing whether or not the book should be considered canonical, is it not?
Unfortunately, none of this is proof. Not even nearly. And if this is what you call "substantial" evidence, than I can't see how you can question the substance of my rejection of the Book of Revelation.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf Books that are not authentic - i.e. not divinely inspired - somehow get through the process of establsihing canonicity, then there you have it. As you say "it's not proof nor evidence". But I am asking you for proof or evidence. You said there was "zillions" of it. Why not mention just three. Or two. Or one.
no, its not proof nor evidence, but it is the way of establishing whether or not the book should be considered canonical, is it not?
But remember "it contains other parts of scripture in the form of quotations" is not evidence.
And "it was accepted at the time as being authentic" is proof of nothing.
Originally posted by FMFoh no i am sorry FMF, each of these processes are an indication of its canonicity and inspiration, but let us take just one example, and here we must look into the book itself, i know it may be painful for you, but i promise it wont last too long. take for example just one verse, the verse that i quoted to you earlier,
If Books that are not authentic - i.e. not divinely inspired - somehow get through the process of establsihing canonicity, then there you have it. As you say "it's not proof nor evidence". But I am asking you for proof or evidence. You said there was "zillions" of it. Why not mention just three. Or two. Or one.
But remember "it contains other parts of scriptu evidence.
And "it was accepted at the time as being authentic" is proof of nothing.
“With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: ‘Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.’” revelation 21:3
we must ask the question is this in harmony with the rest of the biblical canon, and when we examine the text we find that it is, for example notice the similarity to this verse
And I shall certainly put my tabernacle in the midst of you, and my soul will not abhor you. And I shall indeed walk in the midst of you and prove myself your God, and you, on your part, will prove yourselves my people. Leviticus 26:11,12
now is this not amazing, in that a verse that was held to be canonical to the ancient Hebrews should suddenly find its fulfillment in the book of revelation, why would the author fabricate this, no my friend it is EVIDENCE of its inspiration and its internal harmony, for just as Moses was given the law, so was John given the vision, let us proceed, for we are not done yet!
consider the next verse
“And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” revelation 21:4,
and again when we consider the sentiments and cross reference the text we find that it has amazing similarities to the ancient text held to be inspired and canonical, for example
He will actually swallow up death forever, - Isaiah 25:8
To exultation and rejoicing they will attain, and grief and sighing must flee away. - Isaiah 35:10
And I will be joyful in Jerusalem and exult in my people; and no more will there be heard in her the sound of weeping or the sound of a plaintive cry.” Isaiah 65:19
thus we can easily establish that the sentiments of the verse are the same as the rest of the inspired record and can easily deduce that if we are to Hold that Leviticus, Isaiah and other books are conical, there is absolutely compelling reason to conclude that revelation must also be!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe question "why would the author fabricate this?" is not a credible argument. And no, sorry, but it's not evidence. And even if it were, it could just as likely be evidence of very careful fabrication. But that's beside the point. Your fastidious clippings from the text are not 'evidence' of anything. Where is the evidence that the Book is Jesus communicating with his followers rather than one (or more likely a team) of his followers communicating with fellow followers?
why would the author fabricate this, no my friend it is EVIDENCE of its inspiration and its internal harmony,
Robbie,
What do you think ?
" I Jesus have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches ..." (Rev. 22:16)
One may respond with belief or with disbelief, PERIOD.
" Moreover, indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book.
But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)
One may respond here also, with belief or with disbelief, PERIOD.
See also Revelation 2:1, 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14.
All sentences preceeded by the formula "These things says ..." some self invoked discription by Jesus Himself as to Who and What He is.
You may respond with belief or with disbelief in exactly the same manner one responds to the speaking of Christ in the four Gospels.
FMF has no case. He just doesn't believe that part of the Bible.
Originally posted by FMFoh but we are only just starting, we have only covered one of the points, that the book is in complete harmony with the rest of the Bible, complete harmony! no doubt we shall cover others in due course!
The question "why would the author fabricate this?" is not a credible argument. And no, sorry, but it's not evidence. And even if it were, it could just as likely be evidence of very careful fabrication. But that's beside the point. Your fastidious clippings from the text are not 'evidence' of anything. Where is the evidence that the Book is Jesus communicating ...[text shortened]... her than one (or more likely a team) of his followers communicating with fellow followers?
Originally posted by jaywillPeter wrote: “You are doing well in paying attention to the prophetic word as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and a daystar rises.” we may ask ourselves the question, who or what is the “daystar”? The word “daystar” occurs just once in the Bible, and it is similar in meaning to “morning star.”
Robbie,
What do you think ?
" I Jesus have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches ..." (Rev. 22:16)
One may respond with belief or with disbelief, PERIOD.
" Moreover, indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book.
But these have been written that you m in the four Gospels.
FMF has no case. He just doesn't believe that part of the Bible.
As Jaywill notes, Revelation 22:16 calls Jesus Christ “the bright morning star.”
At certain seasons of the year, such stars are the last ones to rise on the eastern horizon. They rise just before the sun appears, and they thus herald the dawn of a new day. Peter used the word “daystar” to refer to JESUS. as the Messianic Daystar, he heralds the dawning of a new day, or era, for mankind, thus it is highly appropriate and not without foundation that the Christ is the inspiration behind the book of revelation based on the biblical evidence as Jaywill has pointed out!
In Revelation John sees Christ and hears His voice. He is devasted. The earthly man is now transfigured into this awesome supernatural personage.
He falls at His feet as dead much like Daniel collapsed at the vision of the Son of Man in his book. Jesus comforts John and speaks to him.
Now FMF wants us to believe that this is all a fabrication of John, I suppose. He fakes collapsing at the sight of Jesus. THEN he invents words to put into the mouth of Jesus which were never really said by Jesus.
John is latter so overwhelmed that he does something which he should know better not to do. He falls at the feet of the angel which is showing him these visions and worships the angel. Twice he makes this mistake and is rebuked.
The writer of the Gospel of John who teaches that Jesus is God is so overwhelmed by the revelation that he slips and transfers his adoration to the angel showing him these signs.
But we are suppose to see conspiracy in all of these. John has supposedly made up all these things to push some ecclesiatical or political agenda of his own.
The Revelation absolutely exalts Christ, glorifies Christ, focuses on Christ, magnifies Christ, seeks to turn our attention to Christ and exemplifies Christ.
But oh no! FMF sees a political agenda going on here. Surely there is some plot that by exalting Christ to the highest heavens chapter after chapter, the writer/s are attempting to bring us into submission to magistrates and kings and popes.
Hmmm. Interesting. Then we see that the dead great and small come before God in a final judgment. How come if it was a powerplay agenda it didn't just say "And the SMALL came to be judged by God"? You mean great kings are on the same level as the small ?
Then we have the great and the small shuddering at the coming judgement of the God and the Lamb in chapter 6:
"And the kings of the earth and the great men and the generals and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the rocks of the mountains;
And they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to stand ?" (6:15-17)
Wait a minute! Where's the conspiracy in the writing ? Surely what they should have shown was that the generals and rich and kings were all powerful people and free were all cool. Rather it was the commoners, the slaves who are shrinking from divine displeasure. Right ?
The conspirators should show that the politically powerful are all well in favor with God and the Lamb. Rather it is the masses of the poor, the laity, the commoners, THEY are the one about to be judged by God. God is of course on the side of the politically powerful.
You see how totally nonsensical FMF's conspiracy theories are in light of the text ?
Is the JUDGMENT of God equal opportunity in Revelation or is there a BIAS against the common, unwealthy, unpowerful, unconnected, politically weak ?
How come the kings, generals, and free men are put on the same level as everyone else if Revelation was DESIGNED to push a class superior agenda ?
Originally posted by jaywillLol, the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two edged sword, yes Jaywill in the light of your reasoning that bad ol Putty cat FMFs reasoning's are not but bilge water and cabbage, for like you say, the indictment is against the governments and the ruling authorities and false religious factions as well as freemen and slaves, if only he had taken the time to read the text before making his assertions, he would not now be roasted!
In Revelation John sees Christ and hears His voice. He is devasted. The earthly man is now transfigured into this awesome supernatural personage.
He falls at His feet as dead much like Daniel collapsed at the vision of the Son of Man in his book. Jesus comforts John and speaks to him.
Now FMF wants us to believe that this is all a fabrication of Joh
You see how totally nonsensical FMF's conspiracy theories are in light of the text ?
Originally posted by jaywillWhy do you presume this? What has this rather clumsy presumption of yours got to do with what The Book of Revelation stands accused of being? "Surely what they should have shown..." ? So you set something of your own invention up with these words and then knockm it down. Is that how it works?
Wait a minute! Where's the conspiracy in the writing ? Surely what they should have shown was that the generals and rich and kings were all powerful people and free were all cool.