- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121315
30 Jan 20
@secondson saidThe multiheaded beast is symbolic not literal, and so is the lake of fire symbolic not literal?
The multiheaded beast is symbolic of something literal, as is the lake of fire.
I’m just checking as you keep contradicting yourself .
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29755
30 Jan 20
@secondson saidHow is that silly?
That's silly. Provide evidence to the contrary.
John was eye witness to the ministry of Jesus Christ. Saw Jesus die on the cross, and saw Him alive again afterwards, along with hundreds of others.
So without evidence that you will accept John is just lying?
Am I to simply accept at face value that some chap in a book saw what he said he saw, just because he said he did? Where else in the world do we do that?
If I wrote that I saw a flying unicorn would you obligingly accept that unless contrary evidence was provided?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29755
30 Jan 20
@secondson saidDavid Icke claims (in a book) that he saw former British Prime Minister Ted Heath's eyes turn black while the two waited for a Sky News interview in 1989.
John was there and he said "I saw" 36 times in the book of Revelation.
John literally saw things that are real, that will literally happen. John saw literal people, angels, places and a host of literally real things.
John was there, but you weren't.
David was there and said he literally saw this with his own eyes. David was there, but you weren't. - Do you accept his version of events secondson as a factual occurence?!
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29755
30 Jan 20
@divegeester saidWell hold on there cowboy. SecondSon is about to tell us the difference between John literally seeing angels and the like, and David Icke literally seeing Ted Heath's eyes turn black.
No one American Christian in this forum seems to know the difference between literal and metaphorical, between realism and symbolism.
Apparently we have to accept both as factual due to both telling us in a book they were there in person when it happened, and that to challenge this is just silly.
31 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI can't say that you should.
Am I to simply accept at face value that some chap in a book saw what he said he saw, just because he said he did? Where else in the world do we do that?
You'll need more convincing than that of course. When you have found the evidence you need, and you will, if it's all true, and it is, then you will know.
Then you will have a blown mind like me. 😉
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29755
31 Jan 20
@secondson saidI think your OP should have come with a caveat.
I can't say that you should.
You'll need more convincing than that of course. When you have found the evidence you need, and you will, if it's all true, and it is, then you will know.
Then you will have a blown mind like me. 😉
"John literally saw things that are real, that will literally happen." We Christians accept this through faith and I understand that non-believers would require more evidence.
31 Jan 20
@secondson saidIt is a known fact that the island John was living on has multiple species of hallucinogenic mushrooms . A couple of mushrooms and anyone might see angels , devils and dragons , lol.
John was there and he said "I saw" 36 times in the book of Revelation.
John literally saw things that are real, that will literally happen. John saw literal people, angels, places and a host of literally real things.
John was there, but you weren't.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIf John saw something that represents something else, the vision would be literal regardless of the reality of if it is a real being or not in the vision.
I think your OP should have come with a caveat.
"John literally saw things that are real, that will literally happen." We Christians accept this through faith and I understand that non-believers would require more evidence.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121315
01 Feb 20
@kellyjay saidNo it wouldn’t, what’s the matter with you. It’s like conversing with a moron.
If John saw something that represents something else, the vision would be literal regardless of the reality of if it is a real being or not in the vision.
John has a vision of Flying Spaghetti Monster and writes in a book the words “flying spaghetti monster” therefore - Flying Spaghetti Monster is literal, it’s real, because it’s in the book in words.
NO IT ISN'T!
IT IS A REAL VISION OF A NON-REAL THING.
Good grief man.
02 Feb 20
@bigdoggproblem saidAlas, the Biblical canon is closed.
I should go have me a revelation there, lol.
02 Feb 20
@kellyjay saidAnd to think - issues like whether one will be tortured for eternity or not all come down to complete and utter nonsense like this ~ that somehow appeals to your narcissistic belief system/intellect? Gosh.
If John saw something that represents something else, the vision would be literal regardless of the reality of if it is a real being or not in the vision.