Originally posted by FMF"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens."
You have repeatedly attributed claims and theories to me that I did not make. You appear to have done this so that you could slot into the text-quoting routines that remind me of my son.
Like John who was in spirit on the Lord's Day and saw visions of the kingdom.
There is so many parellels between the Sermon on the Mount and the book of Revelation !!
Of course in chapter 3 in the church in Laodicia, they were "rich" in spirit. Or at least they thought they were. So they were blind and needed eyesalve to anoint their eyes that they could truly see. (Rev. 3:17 - "Because you say, I am wealthy and have become rich and have need of nothing, and do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I counsel you to buy from Me ... eyesalve to anoint your eyes that you may see. As many as I love I reprove and discipline ..."
What wonderful parellels there are between the Sermon on the Mount and the book of Revelation, a real confimation that both are the inspired oracles of God.
It would be nice if FMF was more familiar with the Sermon on the Mount ! Then perhaps he would not comfort himself that he has no need of the last book in the Bible, Revelation.
"Blesssed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."
So true. When one comes to the Bible with a pure heart one comes with a single motive. A pure heart is an uncomplicated heart. It is not complicated by many motives. It seeks one thing. In this case it seeks God and God alone.
It is such a blessing to come to the book of Revelation with a pure heart as the Sermon on the Mount says. Then one sees God. Every chapter God is manifested.
I am so glad that the writer John was pure in heart there on the Island of Patmos. Because he was pure in heart, seeking God and God only, God was able to open the heavens to him and show him God and the purpose of God.
What wonderful parallels there are between the Beatitudes and the book of Revelation. How very pure in heart and single in motive John the Apostle was in order to see such visions of God.
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Matt. 5:4)
This mourning is a mourning for the terrible condition of the world. When one sees the sin and injustice in the world and has a mournful heart, that is the mourning spoken of in this passage.
What a wonderful parellel between this speaking of Jesus and that in the book of Revelation.
"I know your works and your labor and your endurance and that you cannot bear evil men ..." (Rev.2:2)
Christ speaks to the church in Ephesus. He knows that they cannot bear evil men. They mourn over the evil in the world. They will be comforted with the kingdom of Christ.
What wondeful confirmation to the Sermon on the Mount there is in the book of Revelation, both books being the inspired oracles of God.
Originally posted by jaywillSo you say, over and over again. But "parallels" are not "evidence" of being being inspired by God. The people who wrote the Book of Revelation (and claimed that it was "by" Jesus) were not stupid. Nor were they ignorant of the exisiting scripture. Remember, the Book was added more or less 400 years after Christ died, against the wishes of a significant proportion of the people who believed in Christ.
What wonderful parellels there are between the Sermon on the Mount and the book of Revelation, a real confimation that both are the inspired oracles of God.
Originally posted by jaywillThis sounds to me like a concession speech.
When one comes to the Bible with a pure heart one comes with a single motive. A pure heart is an uncomplicated heart. It is not complicated by many motives. It seeks one thing. In this case it seeks God and God alone.
Do you know what I mean?
Originally posted by jaywillOriginally posted by jaywill
What wonderful parellels there are between the Sermon on the Mount and the book of Revelation, a real confimation that both are the inspired oracles of God.
What wondeful confirmation to the Sermon on the Mount there is in the book of Revelation, both books being the inspired oracles of God.
You have already cited you own 'belief' as "evidence". I'm trying to figure what you're up to now: are you citing the fact that you have repeated the same assertion more than once as corroborating "evidence"?
I wrote it.
"What wonderful confirmation to the Sermon on the Mount there is in the book of Revelation, both books being the inspired oracles of God."
Some of us can see why it along with every other of the 27 New Testament books was referred to, presumably as canonical, by at least one of the Apostolic Fathers in the so called "Proto Orthodox" period.
A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix informs that Revelation was cited in the Didiache 10:3 (Rev. 4:11)' 16:4 (Rev. 13:2,13), as well as in the Sherpherd, Vision 4:2.1 (Rev. 21:2). Papias accepted the authority of Revelation, and it was cited in the Ancient Homily 17:7 (Rev. 11:13), and by Justin Martyr and Dionysius of Corinth.
Giesler and Nix write:
"While many of these citations may be disputed if modern critical approaches are used, it should be noted that by the standards of classical civilization these would be considered legitimate quotations. Therefore, works are regarded as quoted when they would be possibly misquoted or alluded to in modern parlance.
In summary, the first hundred years of the existence of the twenty seven books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the Apostolic Age."
[ A General Introduction to the Bible - chapter 14 - Development and History of the New Testament Canon, Giesler and Nix, Pg. 189,190, Moody Press]
The discussions on canonity and transmission are very long. I don't want to write about these things extensively here.
FMF is not responsive to other people's requests. And I feel that he is just throwing up distractions to avoid answering simple questions. For example he never explained how the division of the world in the Sermon on the Mount into "the evil and the good" (Matt. 5:45) was substantially different from such a division which he complains about in Revelation.
He wants to make charges against the book without quoting the book or really examining the book. We're just suppose to take his word for it that Revelation is "obviously" a fake.
Not a whisper has been given as to why this is so "obvious". I think he should start with familiarizing himself with the so called Sermon on the Mount first.
The church is built on the revelation of the apostles and prophets. John in Revelation 22 said he was a fellow servant with the prophets. The apostolic authorship and approval secure Revelation as one of the inspired New Testament documents.
IF FMF doesn't want to include it in his Bible, let him exclude it. I don't know what conclusion there is in his Bible to the whole word of God. Neither do I really care. I suspect that everything is left up in the air and shrouded in obscurity.
Revelation, in spite of contraversial passages, is still a definite climax and consummation of the 66 canonical books.
On to more parellels between these two books from God to us - Matthew and Revelation.
Revelation certainly continues the Christian ethic found in Matthew.
It may be difficult to see for one who fails to comprehend the real Christian ethic taught in Matthew.
Understanding Revelation is the secondary problem for such a person. It is the failure to comprehend Matthew which is the real problem.
I would propose that probably every one of the teachings in the so-called Sermon on the Mount could be seen as demonstrated and reinforced in the book of Revelation. Rather than contradiction we see repetition.
Originally posted by FMFI refer you to the above paragraph:
What proof do you have that it is divinely inspired?
===================================
FMF is not responsive to other people's requests. And I feel that he is just throwing up distractions to avoid answering simple questions. For example he never explained how the division of the world in the Sermon on the Mount into "the evil and the good" (Matt. 5:45) was substantially different from such a division which he complains about in Revelation.
================================
Point is that you do not respond. You're hypocritical to demand that others do when you are in the habit of ignoring other's requests of you.
No where in this discussion did I say "proof" for the inspiration of Scripture could be provided with any kind of mathematical certainty.
Nor have I on this Forum ever said I had "proof" for the existence of God with any kind of mathematical certainty.
My reasons for believing that the ancient brothers in Christ were wise to recognize Revelation as inspired in the same way they recognized Luke, Mark, Philippians, or John were inspired were briefly spoken of a few posts ago.
Hermas (c. 115 - 140) cited it.
Papias (c. 130-140) named it as authentic.
Irenaeus (c. 130-202) also named it as authentic.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150- 215) named it as authentic.
Origen (c. 185-254) named it as authentic.
Eusebius (c. 325-340) named it as authentic.
Jerome (c. 340-420) named it as authentic.
Augustine (c. 400) named it as authentic.
Revelation was included as canonical in the Muratorian canon (c. 170).
It was included in the Cheltenham canon (c. 360).
It was in the Athanasius' canon (c. 367).
It was not listed in the Marcion or the Apostolic canon (c. 140, c. 300 repectively)
None of these four major councils record the naming of Revelation as disputed as to its canonicity:
Nicea (c. 325 - 340)
Hippo (393)
Carthage (397)
Carthage (419)
Interesting to me is the fact that the Apostle Paul spoke of "the book of life" (Philippians 4:3) around A.D. 64.
" ... Yes, I ask you also, genuine yokefellow, assist them, since they contended with me in the gospel, as well as Clement and the rest of my fellow workers whose names are in the book of life."[/b]
Yet we hear nothing about this "book of life" until John mentions it in Revelation 3:5, 17:8, and 20:15 when he writes in approximately 90 A.D.
I believe that God showed both apostles that there was this book of life but at different times.
Is this "proof" with mathematical certainty of the inspiration of Philippians or of Revelation? Nope. But it is among the reasonable contributing evidences for Revelation's acceptance in the NT canon.
I never said that I could "PROVE" that any of the 66 books was the word of God. I give some of my reasons for my faith in the same.
Originally posted by jaywillAll these men you cite also believed that the sun revolved around the flat earth.
Hermas (c. 115 - 140) cited it.
Papias (c. 130-140) named it as authentic.
Irenaeus (c. 130-202) also named it as authentic.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150- 215) named it as authentic.
Origen (c. 185-254) named it as authentic.
Eusebius (c. 325-340) named it as authentic.
Jerome (c. 340-420) named it as authentic.
Augustine (c. 400) named it as authentic.
Originally posted by jaywillHow interesting that you are now citing the strong support for inclusion of the Book of Revelation from the ecclesiastical technocracy. It kind of proves my point, rather than yours.
Revelation was included as canonical in the Muratorian canon (c. 170).
It was included in the Cheltenham canon (c. 360).
It was in the Athanasius' canon (c. 367).
None of these four major councils record the naming of Revelation as disputed as to its canonicity:
Nicea (c. 325 - 340)
Hippo (393)
Carthage (397)
Carthage (419)
Originally posted by jaywillThe only thing that's telling is how you fail - or refuse - to understand the point I have made what those men did and did not believe.
They also never owned a Xerox machine. Telling isn't it ?
Your quip about a Xerox machine is utterly non-sequitur. I wonder if when I come back and look at this in the morning, it'll say "1 edit" under your name, and the nonsensical retort will have vansihed.