Question for FMF: Have you actually READ the book of Revelation? There is no evidence in your posts that you have done so. I've never read the Qur'an, so I am in no positon to say anything about it, unless there is something in it that contradicts the teachings of the Holy Bible, which I believe to be the only true Word of God.
edited for spelling.
Originally posted by FMF==========================
One only has to read the Book Of Revelations, and understand the history of its inclusion in the New Testament, to realise that it's fake. Meanwhile the likes of jaywill argue that the Book is genuine because, in the Book itself, it asserts that it is genuine. Backing this with quotes from the Book itself is not 'presenting evidence'. Its inclusion was a politic hat evidence is there that Christ was the "source" for the Book Of Revelations?
One only has to read the Book Of Revelations
==============================
It is called Revelation [singular].
That is in the first verse !! I don't think you have read it.
Originally posted by FMF=================================
One only has to read the Book Of Revelations, and understand the history of its inclusion in the New Testament, to realise that it's fake. Meanwhile the likes of jaywill argue that the Book is genuine because, in the Book itself, it asserts that it is genuine. Backing this with quotes from the Book itself is not 'presenting evidence'. Its inclusion was a politic hat evidence is there that Christ was the "source" for the Book Of Revelations?
Its inclusion was a political move - this is not even disputed by objective historians, and can be easily looked up - and it was against the wishes of Constantinople and the whole Eastern Church. But Rome prevailed. This occurred 400 years after Jesus' death, when an ecclesiastic political powerplay necessitated it. The burden of proof lies with the intellectually autistic likes of jaywill.
===================================
Disputes between Eastern Christiandom and Western Christiandom aside.
The burden of proof is on you to point out what contents of the book Revelation itself reveal it to be a "fake" with a political or ecclesiatical agenda.
So I ask you to point out specifically what attitude towards monarchs, church officials, kings, etc. is taught in Revelation which is not elsewhere taught in other books of the Bible?
How does the book's CONTENTS alter any previously taught attitude towards political figures or church offices ?
Here's your chance to prove the political/ecclesiatical agenda within the book of Revelation.
Just arguing that Eastern Orthodoxy and West Catholicism had disputes is not enough for me. I want to see you proof of an agenda in the contents of the book itself.
Can you point these ideas out in the book?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAny examples of this drivel and half boiled cabbage? Be specific. And where is this refutation? I'm stlll waiting for it.
it absolutely refutes the drivel and half boiled cabbage that our fiend FMF seems so adamant to dish up again and again.
Originally posted by jaywillWithout quoting from the Book Of Revelations, what evidence is there that Christ was the "source" for the Book Of Revelations?
The burden of proof is on you to point out what [b]contents of the book Revelation itself reveal it to be a "fake" with a political or ecclesiatical agenda.[/b]
Originally posted by FMFyour whole post is naught but boiled cabbage, but if you want specifics, what about the assertion that the book of revelation was not considered to be canonical until four hundred years after the death of Christ, when i quite clearly gave a list, with references, of many historians who held it to be canonical well before this. once you have addressed this, then we may pick through the cabbages soup to see if there is not yet perhaps a piece of carrot!
Any examples of this drivel and half boiled cabbage? Be specific. And where is this refutation? I'm stlll waiting for it.
Originally posted by FMFThe particular point on which I just challenged you is not about Christ being the source of Revelation.
Without quoting from the Book Of Revelations, what evidence is there that Christ was the "source" for the Book Of Revelations?
My challenge to you right now is to point out what content in the book betrays that is was written for the motive of bringing people under either political power or church hierarchical power.
The way you have framed your theory should call for your substantiation from within the text of the book.
I also challenge you to demonstrate that such teaching (with alledged ecclesiastical or political agenda) should be demonstrated by you to be substantially different from other books of the Bible.
Pointing out that Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism had disputes and power grabs is not enough for me. I need to see the evidence of your theory in the book of Revelation itself.
Do you intend to present intra-textural evidence for your charge or not?
You see folks, some books of the Bible were relatively late to be included the canon of inspired books - Song of Songs, Revelation, Hebrews.
Just saying that there was indecision or argument over such books is stating the obvious. Some ancient Christians were not convinced that such books should be recognized as being on the same level as the canonical books previously included.
This probably occured in both the OT and the NT.
FMF has said Revelation is obviously a fake and political and church hierarchical squabbles are respnsible for its inclusion in the NT canon.
If this is so obvious to FMF then he must be able to show where these "obvious" evidences exist in the book itself. Is it not a fabrication in his view?
He is unwilling to point this evidence out. Perhaps he is either too lazy to read it or perhaps he knows that he will have difficulty definitively pointing out such intra-textural evidence.
The Bible has a funny effect on some people. The less they read it the more they fancy themselves an expert on it.
I think some people read that Revelation was once discribed as "a madman's dream" and figured that that was all they needed to know about it.
The structure and scheme of Revelation is so intricate and well designed that it certainly doesn't come off as the dream of a madman IMO.
Is it unlike other accepted books like Daniel or Ezekiel or Zechariah, which books also contained many visions and signs of a symbolic nature?
FMF calls the book "Revelations" as in plural. That betrays to me that he doesn't know much about it. He could not even get the information in the very first sentence right - Rev. 1:1. This is typical bluster.
It is the "REVELATION [singular] of Jesus Christ". .
Originally posted by jaywillWithout 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 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.
Do you intend to present intra-textural evidence for your charge or not?
Originally posted by jaywillTyping error. Is this seriously part of your refutation?
FMF calls the book "Revelations" as in plural. That betrays to me that he doesn't know much about it. He could not even get the information in the very first sentence right - [b]Rev. 1:1. [/b]
Originally posted by FMFYou already employed this dodge. I already clarified that my challenge to you right now is not about Christ as the source or not of Revelation.
Without quoting from the Book Of Revelations, what evidence is there that Christ was the "source" for the Book Of Revelations?
Without quoting the book how are YOU going to demonstrate that it is "Oh So Obviously" the agenda for a church hierarchical or political indoctrination ?
Is the pope mentioned ? Is subservience to cardinals or bishops mentioned ?
Does it tend to enfluence to encrease one's taxes to the goveernment in some way? Where ?
Does it teach absolute submission to the clerical class ?
Where is the clerical class even mentioned ????
Does it exalt governors, magistrates, mayors, kings, princes above the common people? Where ?
Originally posted by jaywillWhat nonsense!
The way you have framed your theory should call for your substantiation from within the text of the book.
The way I have framed my theory now requires you to establish the auheticity of this Book without recourse to quoting its text.
You assert that it's divinely inspired. Well, lo and behold, the text says so! What admissable evidence do you have that this Book was, in effect, Christ communicating with his followers?