No denominational church is mentioned in the book of Revelation.
The churches bear the same name as the city or locality in which the believers reside. There is no mention of the Public Church. There is no mention of the Catholic Church. There is no mention of the Eastern or Western Church. There is no mention to a world wide global Church in chapters 2 and 3 where all the talk of church is located.
Here is what we see:
" ... What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches:
to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicia." (Rev. 1:11)
The name of the church is the name of the locality. The name of the church is the name of the city. Each city is matched with one church.
If the writer were pushing a world wide public Church we might expect to read for John to write a letter to the Church [singular] of Asia. But Asia consist of plural cities. So the letters are addressed to each city.
God recognizes no denominational churches. God recognizes Christians living in a city as the church in that city. This kills the teaching of a racial church. It destroys the notion of a national church or a church belonging to a particular doctrine or particular servant of God or a particular practice.
There is no Baptist church or Lutheran church or Black church or Asian church or American church or Chinese church or Pentacostal church or Northern church or Southern church or Russian church or Greek church or World Public Church.
This concept in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 reveals that man's entire way of dividing the church is in error. What God sees is one city matched with one local assembly.
I see no chance that Roman Catholicism would have any stake in creating the book of Revelation to push the concept of a "Church" which was world wide and covered many cities under its jurisdiction.
FMF has been silent to produce evidence in the text otherwise.
Originally posted by jaywillI wonder where FMF is hiding?
This book of Revelation is radical. It shows the universal brotherhood and priesthood of all Christians. It shows the locality wide anti-denominational nature of the practical church life.
Alright, I'll shut up for awhile.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe's doing what any shrewed Internet debater would do, waiting for some verbose poster to make some inevitable mistake. Then they pounce down hard upon that eventual mistake like "You see ? You were wrong all along like I said."
I wonder where FMF is hiding?
Originally posted by jaywill🙂
He's doing what any shrewed Internet debater would do, waiting for some verbose poster to make some inevitable mistake. Then they pounce down hard upon that eventual mistake like [b]"You see ? You were wrong all along like I said."[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillI am waiting for you to establish the authenticity of the Book of Revelation without resorting to the logical fallacy of quoting from the Book itself.
He's doing what any shrewed Internet debater would do, waiting for some verbose poster to make some inevitable mistake. Then they pounce down hard upon that eventual mistake like [b]"You see ? You were wrong all along like I said."[/b]
If I asserted that the world of Dungeons & Dragons (the role playing game) was real, would you allow me to "prove" that it was real by only quoting from the Dungeons & Dragons rule book?
No. You wouldn't.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Book describes itself as a revelation by Jesus Christ, so this is proof that the Book is a revelation by Jesus Christ?
how many references do you need? let us go back to basics shall we! the very first statement in the book states
A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, Revelation 1:1
Have we now any reason to doubt the validity of this statement... [?]
You're pulling my leg. Right?
Originally posted by jaywillI suggested nothing of the sort. More strawman stuff.
I see no chance that Roman Catholicism would have any stake in creating the book of Revelation to push the concept of a "Church" which was world wide and covered many cities under its jurisdiction.
Originally posted by jaywillI am waiting for you to properly engage - using some genuine academic rigour - with the claims I have made about the Book of Revelation's authenticity. Instead you seem to have resorted to putting words in my mouth, post after post.
[FMF is] doing what any shrewed Internet debater would do, waiting for some verbose poster to make some inevitable mistake. [/b]
Originally posted by jaywillI made no such suggestion. Why not stick to the claims I have made rather than inventing claims and then insinuating that they are mine?
If the writer were pushing a world wide public Church we might expect to read for John to write a letter to the Church [singular] of Asia.
"...a world wide public Church"? Where did I talk about this?
Incidentally, are you - with all this riffing on the 'God recognizes no denominational churches' thing - claiming that the Book of Revelation was added to the Bible without the Catholic Church's involvement? Surely not.
Originally posted by jaywillWhere did I talk about "class bias"? I made no such suggestion.
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.
Originally posted by FMFNo FMF i have shown with reference that it is inspired of God and quite impossible to have been the product of fabrication, if you do not wish to accept the testimony, then so be it, but you are being unreasonable, for its tenets are clearly held to be inspired in the rest of the canon, and, as yet you have produced absolutely nothing to the contrary, i see no reason why I should dispute the testimony of Peter, Isaiah, Moses, John, Christ, the early church fathers etc etc
And yet you are completely unable to prove this. You just keep quoting from the text itself.