Originally posted by FMFyour toast FMF, for not only can we substantiate our claims, that being that it was inspired by Christ, written by John, is in complete harmony with revealed scripture, is worthy to be included in the biblical cannon, is god-breathed and inspired, has nothing to do with political manipulation or guile, was not included as part of the canon 400 years after Christ but much earlier etc etc etc but what is more to the point, you cannot substantiate yours, no not one measly little claim, and to think you were claiming inspiration through the offices of the Holy Spirit but an hour earlier. But alas, i must thank you for hours of top notch entertainment, its but a small price to pay for listening to your meanderings!
Why 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?
Originally posted by FMF=================================
Why 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?
Why 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?
=====================================
First of all there is a slight typo in my sentence. I meant to write in essence that -
The powerful, the rich, the politically strong, the free might be seen as exempt from God's displeasure. And the slave, the commoner, the laity, the peasants would be under God's displeasure.
That is what one might expect if there was a class bias built into the book.
Second of all, since YOU will not provide any evidence of your theory, I have to make up some for you. At least I have to assume plausibly where one might look for some.
Rather than blame me for putting forth a dubious example, blame yourself for your total inability to point out evidence of your silly conspiracy theory.
Originally posted by FMF===============================
Why 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?
So you set something of your own invention up with these words and then knockm it down. Is that how it works?
=======================================
No. How it works is that after you have been asked six, seven or eight times to point to evidence in the text of your conspiratorial bias, YOU give some examples.
Since you won't or you can't I provide some plausible places where one might conceivably notice some.
I'd much prefer that you site evidence after multiple requests to do so.
I mean, I know "silence is golden," but this is ridiculous.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere? When? What? I am waiting. You've presented a bunch of quotes from the text itself. Where is the objective verifiable proof of, for all intents and purposes, Jesus' authorship?
your toast FMF, for not only can we substantiate our claims
Originally posted by FMFhow many references do you need? let us go back to basics shall we! the very first statement in the book states
Where? When? What? I am waiting. You've presented a bunch of quotes from the text itself. Where is the objective verifiable proof of, for all intents and purposes, Jesus' authorship?
A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, Revelation 1:1
Have we now any reason to doubt the validity of this statement, no, on the contrary for the apostle Peter also confirms that Christ is the author, when he states
Consequently we have the prophetic word made more sure; and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and a daystar rises, in your hearts. For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by mans will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.
we have already established that the daystar Peter refers to in his INSPIRED book and the bright morning star which claims the authorship of revelation are one and the same, namely the Christ and also that we are doing well in paying attention to the prophetic word, of which , we have also established, Revelation is a part of.
“‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.’”
therefore we have not one, but two independent references, firstly the apostle Peter and secondly the book of revelation itself! have we any reason to doubt these claims, absolutely none whatsoever, no for by excamining the books contents we have found that it is not only inspired, in complete harmony with the rest of scripture, but also that the Christ was the author as confirmed by Peter.
Also when we consider the style and teaching, is it not remarkably reminiscent of the Christ, for example consider the statement,
Happy is he who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who observe the things written in it; for the appointed time is near. Revelation 1:3
here we find echoing throughout the teachings of the Christ similar statement, for example
If you know these things, happy you are if you do them. - John 13:17
Therefore everyone that hears these sayings of mine and does them will be likened to a discreet man, who built his house upon the rock-mass. - Matthew 7:24
But he said: “No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!” - Luke 7:28
etc etc etc.
Also Christ is considered to be a greater Isaiah, if you ask your Muslim friends they will confirm this, for the name Isa (Jesus) and Isaiah are one and the same, and the prophetic fulfillment of Isiah's prophecy's occurred not only in the time of the Christ but are numerous in the book of revelation. I could site them but fear that there is enough here for you to be getting on with - regards Robbie.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI keep asking this but nobody seems willing to answer.
how many references do you need? let us go back to basics shall we! the very first statement in the book states.
If I produce a book written yesterday that contains all the text that you consider 'proves' the validity of Revelations, then will you accept it as valid too?
Originally posted by twhiteheadthe simple answer Whitey my friend is no! for it would be an impossible task for you, this is the point that we are making, the book of revelation cannot be a piece of fabrication, for its integrity is such, that it bears all the hallmarks of a canonical book, the reasons of which have been stated now three or four times in this thread. if you care to consider them, then you may realize that it is not only improbable that the book was a fabricated manual for Machiavellian intrigues, but is, quite simply inspired of God, its really that simple. if you would like to try to produce a book then be our guest, but if it does not meet with the criteria, then please do not be disappointed, in the meantime let us observe how our friend FMF may squirm this way and that!
I keep asking this but nobody seems willing to answer.
If I produce a book written yesterday that contains all the text that you consider 'proves' the validity of Revelations, then will you accept it as valid too?
P.s. not only would it be impossible, but superfluous, for all the texts that we need have already been written, thousands of years before, but please do not let that be a discouragement for you, be our guest.
FMF says that the Catholic Church won out a political dispute of some type against the Eastern Greek branch of Christiandom. I do not argue with that. I do not dispute that at all.
What does it have to do with the book of Revelation ?
What benefit to Western Catholicism is displayed anywhere in Revelation ? The church in Rome is not even mentioned. And when something is mentioned in chapter 18 which conceivably COULD symbolize the city of Rome what does it say ? "Come out of her my people".
Is a global and world wide church mentioned in the book of Revelation ? The churches mentioned in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are all associated with CITIES and not the whole world. You have the seven churches in Asia. You do not have ONE church which covers all of Asia. And you do not have Rome mentioned as having a church at all.
This is not to imply that there was no church in Rome. This is to point out that there is no particular benefit to a Roman Church pushed in the place where one would expect to see one, namely in chapters 2 and 3.
You have Ephesus and a church there. You have Smyrna and a church there. You have Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and churches there respectively. Then you have Philadelphia and Laodecia with their respective churches. Where is special attention given to the authority of the Roman Church ??? It does not exist where one would expect to see it.
If I demonstrate that a world wide Christiandom which has been taken by many interpreters to symbolize Roman Catholicism in Revelation, there is NOTHING flattering about those passages. In fact such a entity is called Harlot and Babylon. The Harlot stands in negative CONTRAST to the Bride. The Mother of Harlots, Babylon is the antethisis to the Bride and Wife of the Lamb.
I think Roman Catholicism is symbolized by the Harlot, the Mother of Harlots in chapter 17. And the city of Rome is symbolized by what is discribed in chapter 18. The Roman Church as the mother of all the denominations of Christiandom - the mother of harlots (Rev.17:5) stands for the Roman Catholic Church. Historically all the denominations of Christiandom came out of her, so she is the mother.
My main point here is that it is ridiculous to think that there is some bias towards the Western Romanish Church built into the book of Revelation. It is ridiculous to even assume that there is some special favors given to the city of Rome. Both are exceedingly negative characters in the book of Revelation.
I think one's only defense against this is to say that there are no symbols of Roman Catholicism or the city of Rome in Revelation. I would take issue with that. Many Bible scholars would not agree. Even at least one Catholic scholar I have heard speak to it would not agree.
But if there is no symbolism for the Roman Church in Revelation then WHERE is there ANY benefit built into the book designed to help Roman Catholicism ?
Is there anything there about listening to the pope?
Is there anything there about submitting to bishops, cardinals, priests, nuns, monks of any official in the clerical class ?
Be careful. Priests are mentioned in chapter 5 - "You were slain and have purchased for God by Your blood [men] out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made them a kingdom of priests to our God; and they will reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:10)
Notice that these priests seem to not be any special clerical class though. They have simply been purchased for God by the blood of the Redeemer.
Does that argue more for Catholicism or for Justification by Faith of the Reformation? These priests are no higher than the common believer who is also purchased by the blood of Jesus.
The gigantic multitude which no one could number in chapter 7 consists of those who are likewise washed in the redeeming blood of Christ:
"After these things I saw, and behold, [there was] a great multitude which no one could number, out of every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb clothed in white and palm branches in their hands ...These are those who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (See Rev. 7:9,14)
The point is that the priests in chapter 5 are on the same level as the huge and gigantic multitude of common people who have also been purchased by the Redeeming Lamb. They are NOT in a priviledged clerical class at all.
Nothing in the book pays ANY particular favors to political officials or clerical positions. So, where is the fakery designed to instill some clerical or political class superiority over us in Revelation ?
If it can't be found then FMF's reasons for seeing such "obvious" evidence of such is purely imaginary based on some bias against this portion of the New Testament.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo if I send you a copy of a book that contains all the text of revelations plus the verse "robbie carrobie is wrong" inserted somewhere in the text, how would it not pass all your "hallmarks of a canonical book"?
the simple answer Whitey my friend is no! for it would be an impossible task for you, this is the point that we are making, the book of revelation cannot be a piece of fabrication, for its integrity is such, that it bears all the hallmarks of a canonical book, the reasons of which have been stated now three or four times in this thread. if you care ...[text shortened]... thousands of years before, but please do not let that be a discouragement for you, be our guest.
Originally posted by FMFRobbie is speaking for Robbie and I am speaking for jaywill. Try to keep that distinct.
Where? When? What? I am waiting. You've presented a bunch of quotes from the text itself. Where is the objective verifiable proof of, for all intents and purposes, Jesus' authorship?
I may agree with robbie in some of the things he says. Others I might put differently or not use at all. Probably robbie feels the same way about my posts. I don't know. I would expect it.
One thing is clear to me now. Asking you questions is fruitless.
I have been called away. Can't post now.
But I think any further posts responding to you will probably not have any question marks.
Originally posted by FMFSince you typed "Revelations" about twenty times, it's highly unlikely that you mistyped it about twenty times in a row. Nice try, though.
Typing error. Is this seriously part of your refutation?
Once again, you have exhibited NO evidence whatsoever that you've even read the book of Revelation.
I believe that YOU were the one who brought up the idea that Revelation should not be considered canonical. So, please give us evidence that it ought not to be considered canonical.
I can't believe that this thread has gone on for over twelve pages, given that you STILL haven't given even ONE piece of evidence that ANYTHING you've said is true.
Also, given that probably at least 95% of Christiandom acknowledges Revalation as canonical, it would seem that you should at least give SOME evidence to make your point.
I'd like to see a substantive argument from you but I'm not holding my breath.
The clergy laity system of ecclesiastical hierarchy is condemned in the book of Revelation.
In two places: the letter to the church in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7) and in the letter to the church in Pergamos (2:12-17).
The transcedent Jesus speaks to the church in Ephesus in His letter to them:
"But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicoliatans, which I also hate." (2:6)
Before I talk about who or what the Nicoliatans are it is important to see that Jesus says he hates their works. He also approves of the Christians in Ephesus for likewise hating the works of said same Nicoliatans.
The Greek word is composed of two words, one meaning conquer or be victorious over. The other word in the compound means laity or common people. Put the two words together and they mean conquerors over the laity or victors over the common people.
Jesus says that He hates the works of the victors over the common people. He hates, and He commends the Ephesian Christians for also hating the works of these conquerors of the laity.
This group of people called Nicoliatans must stand for some people who esteem themselves higher than common believers. This group of people overcome the common believers so as to form a hierarchical class, a meditorial class over the common Christians.
This symbolism undoubtably points to the hierarchy established in Christianity, both in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Jesus said that all of the believers were to be brothers. All believers were intended to be priests serving Christ directly. The establishment of a clerical class of believers over others as a hierarchy kills the function of the common brothers and sisters in the Lord's church. These works Christ hates.
This not to say that there is no order in the local church. But Christ never intended that there would be a limiting of the priesthood of every believer to directly serve God. There should not be a meditorial class of those who conquer over the common laity. Actually there should be no clergy or laity in the church. There should only be the universal functioning priesthood of every believer in a coordinated way of love.
Christ is telling us that He hates the tendency of some believers to conquer over and be victorious over the common brotherhood so as to establish a hierarchy.
What is a behavior or work that He hates in the letter to the Ephesians becomes a teaching that He hates in the letter to church in Pergamos:
"In the same way you also have some who hold in like manner the teaching of the Nicoliatans. Repent therefore ; but if not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war with them with the sword of My mouth." (2:15,16)
Now the works are more intrenched and have become the teaching. Christ hates the works of the Nicoliatans in the church in Ephesus and He will war against the tolerance of the teaching of the Nicoliatans in the Pergamos church.
The tendency, the behavior, the works have now become the teaching, the institutionalization of a hierarchy.
All this strongly argues for Christ being opposed to Roman Catholic hierarchy rather than in favor of it. It also argues for Christ hating the clerical system and the pastoral system.
This does not mean that the church should be filled with anarchy. Latter we see in Laodecia that Christ is also against a free-for-all where everyone is lukewarm and has their own pet opinion. The word Laodecia means opinion of the people. It implies the opposite extreme to organizational hierarchy. That is no one is in submission to anyone. Every one has his or her own opinion. As a result the church is lukewarm, non-comittal, spiritually blind, spiritually dull, and oblivious to her own spiritual poverty.
The members of Christ's church are all to be directly connected to Christ as the Head of His church. All members are to be serving and functioning priests. This is the universal priesthood of every believer. Yet there are levels of maturity. It is not as though "anything goes" and "any opinion" can run rampant in the church. In love all the functioning members should also have humility and submit to one another.
The leadership is not official but organic and a matter of spiritual consistancy and maturity. There is no official and permanant office of leadership. There is no automatic leadership as in a worldly organization. The church is to be organic and living.
The two letters to the church in Ephesus and the church in Pergamos speak of Christ waring against organizational deadness replacing spiritual vitality.
Originally posted by jaywillyes I agree, every believer , to the best of his/her ability is an ordained minister of the Goodnews of Christ.
The clergy laity system of ecclesiastical hierarchy is condemned in the book of Revelation.
In two places: the letter to the church in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7) and in the letter to the church in Pergamos (2:12-17).
The transcedent Jesus speaks to the church in Ephesus in His letter to them:
"But this you have, that you hate the s speak of Christ waring against organizational deadness replacing spiritual vitality.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is no mention of any church positions in this book. Apostles are not mentioned. Elders and mentioned in chapters 4 and 5 but they are not human elders. They are the elders of creation, thus ancient angels as elders.
yes I agree, every believer , to the best of his/her ability is an ordained minister of the Goodnews of Christ.
(Correction: apostles are mentioned in the letter to the church in Ephesus).
No deacons are mentioned. John is only recommended as slave. He refers to himself as your brother and is only a fellow partaker.
This does not mean that there are no elders or deacons in the church. It does imply that those offices are played down. What we see instead is stars in the hand of Jesus as messengers and those who overcome.
Stars imply spiritual light. I think the emphasis is not on the position of each believer but the spiritual light which each believer possesses.
Stars in the right hand of Christ are messengers or angels. In the church His word and His truth is conveyed by those who have light. All believers should have light. It is not an office or a official position to have light. It is the common responsibility of all believers to be in the light and walk in the light - to be the light of the world.
No positions of an official nature are mentioned in this book unlike in some of the epistles. The call is for all believers to be normal functioning priests with spiritual light.
It should be obvious to the reader of Revelation that Christ is addressing His churches in chapters 2 and 3.
Out of the seven churches only one receives a continuous positive recommendation - Philadelphia. Philadelphia means brotherly love.
One out of seven receives no rebuke - Philadelphia. Perhaps we could say that the church in Smyrna receives no rebuke either.
All the rest of the churches receive rebukes. All are told that some in thier midst are to overcome. The call to overcome whatever degradation of obstacles to spiritual progress there may be ends each of the seven letters.
If there is surrounding degradation in the church, those who are there are called to overcome it. Whatever negative circumstances there may be, the believers who heed the Spirit are to overcome. If they overcome they will recieve a reward of some type.
I believe that the seven letters are seven prophecies which trace the history of the Christian church throughout the ages from its inception to the second coming of Christ. But that is perhaps another discussion.
In each letter it is Christ speaking in the beginning. At the conclusion of each letter we are exhorted to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The Holy Spirit is the virtual Christ. Christ is the Holy Spirit.
Christ is the High Priest walking in the midst of the seven golden lampstands which stand for the seven churches. He is there to trim the lampstands and add oil. He is there as a tending priest to care for the shining of each lampstand, ie. each local church. His speaking is His trimming. His speaking is His tending to the wick of each lampstand. His speaking and teaching is His pouring in fresh oil that the lampstands may shine brightly. His exhortations and warnings are all His tending to the illumination of each lampstand.
His speaking is the speaking of the Holy Spirit.