Are religious folk moronic in nature?

Originally posted by jaywill
I will respond as soon as I can give it the time latter today.

I am curious. Suppose there is fairly good evidence that the document was written 400 years after Jesus' death. Would we still need to examine the content at all? What if it was 1000 years, 1500 years, 2000 years? Would you reject a book written yesterday or would you first want to discuss the content and check whether or not it fits with the rest of the Bible as a whole?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious. Suppose there is fairly good evidence that the document was written 400 years after Jesus' death. Would we still need to examine the content at all? What if it was 1000 years, 1500 years, 2000 years? Would you reject a book written yesterday or would you first want to discuss the content and check whether or not it fits with the rest of the Bible as a whole?

there are ways of determining a books canonicity, for example does it contain the divine name (the tetragrammaton either in itself or inferred), does it contain certifiable references to other parts of the bible (quotations and paraphrases etc), doe it contain principles that are readily identifiable with other scriptural sources (is it internally harmonious with the rest of the biblical canon), in whose name does the writer profess to speak, who is the actual author etc etc, is the style of writing consistent throughout, is there interpolations that seem awkward and out of place, many indication which may help.

Who was this John referred to as the writer of Revelation in its first chapter? We are told that he was a slave of Jesus Christ, as well as a brother and sharer in tribulation, and that he was exiled on the island of Patmos. Obviously he was well-known to his first readers, to whom no further identification was necessary. He must be the apostle John. This conclusion is supported by most ancient historians. Papias, who wrote in the first part of the second century C.E., is said to have held the book to be of apostolic origin. Says Justin Martyr, of the second century, in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (LXXXI): “There was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him.” Irenaeus speaks explicitly of the apostle John as the writer, as do Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, of the late second and early third centuries. Origen, noteworthy Biblical scholar of the third century, said: “I speak of him who leaned back on Jesus breast, John, who has left behind one Gospel, . . . and he wrote also the Apocalypse.”

The fact that Johns other writings put so much emphasis on love does not mean that he could not have written the very forceful and dynamic Revelation. He and his brother James were the ones so filled with indignation against the Samaritans of a certain city that they wanted to call down fire from heaven. That is why they were given the surname “Boanerges,” or “Sons of Thunder.” (Mark 3:17; Luke 9:54) This divergence in style should cause no difficulty when we remember that in Revelation the subject matter is different. What John saw in these visions was unlike anything he had ever seen before. The outstanding harmony of the book with the rest of the prophetic Scriptures unquestionably proves it to be an authentic part of Gods inspired Word.

According to the earliest testimony, John wrote the Revelation about 96 C.E., approximately 26 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be toward the close of the reign of Emperor Domitian. In verification of this, Irenaeus in his “Against Heresies” (V, xxx) says of the Apocalypse: “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitians reign.” Eusebius and Jerome both agree with this testimony. Domitian was the brother of Titus, who led the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem. He became emperor at the death of Titus, 15 years before the book of Revelation was written. He demanded that he be worshiped as god and assumed the title Dominus et Deus noster (meaning “Our Lord and God&rdquo😉. Emperor worship did not disturb those who worshiped false gods, but it could not be indulged in by the early Christians, who refused to compromise their faith on this point. Thus, toward the close of Domitians rule (81-96 C.E.), severe persecution came upon the Christians. It is thought that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian. When Domitian was assassinated in 96 C.E., he was succeeded by the more tolerant emperor Nerva, who evidently released John. It was during this imprisonment on Patmos that John received the visions he wrote down.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you must have inserted a subliminal message in your post so that when i blinked at it, it entered my subconscious and was reproduced involuntarily in the reply. yes i lick windows for a living, and the enormous turnip is about this giant turnip that no one can pull out of the ground, so grandma asks grandfather, grandfather asks the boy, the boy ...[text shortened]... rabbit asks the budgie, and altogether they pull out the enormous turnip and eat it for dinner.

I can't be bothered prolonging these hostilities. My OP in the other thread could have been phrased better (consider this an acknowledgement on my part that I was a bit of a dick) That thread has evolved into a whole new discussion. Your next ad hominen shall not be met with a response.

Do your worst

Originally posted by Agerg
I can't be bothered prolonging these hostilities.

Have a think about what starts them friend.

Originally posted by Agerg
I can't be bothered prolonging these hostilities. My OP in the other thread could have been phrased better (consider that an acknowledgement on my part that I was a bit of a dick) That thread has evolved into a whole new discussion. Your next ad hominen shall not be met with a response.

Do your worst

Lol, you will realize that i am just a ragged clown behind, you shouldn't pay it any mind, its just a shadow you see that hes chasing - no worries my friend i just come here for fun, but your humility is a testimony to your character, no doubt we may meet again, pistols at dawn, for the honour of the king of Scotland, (if we had one), and i say in Gealic 'Oidhche mhath', pronounced 'ike a vah', good night.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh FMF, what can i say, how would i know if the money was counterfeit or otherwise unless i examined for myself in the first place.

If you have been diddled by a Nigerian internet scam, when you realize as much, do you continue to pore endlessly over the details of 'her husband the General', the 'coup d'etat', the 'national treasury', the 'bank in Switzerland', sentence by sentence? I mean, come on - do you?

Originally posted by Rajk999
I like the "Coffe'd up, I shall continue" touch. Thats nice.

Yes. I must admit I had a little giggle about that myself. 😀

Originally posted by FMF
The few simple words that Jesus uttered seemed to have a universal and inherently uncontrollable strength such that their influence grew despite the obscurity of his life and death. They survived the interpretations of the unknown scribes that produced the texts which were gathered together as the Gospels. Christ's language witnessed reality in such a way credulous Christian imagination.

[Cup of coffee time. I'm not done. Bear with me.]

FMF I have skipped down to the portion which I think is substantial to your claim in a specific way.

===================================
The premise of Revelations was that an old man called John, living on the island of Patmos, could deliver a prophesy revealled to him by the risen Jesus Christ. Five verses into the text, John establishes his privileged relationship by introducing Christ as "the faithful witness" who, with "a great voice as of a trumpet," instructs him to write.
==============================================

John does not push his position in any way whatsoever. He identifies himself simply as "your brother". He does not say "John an Apostle of Christ" to emphasize any privilege or authority. Quite the contrary. He puts himself down on the level of every other Christian "brother" in the church.

Verse 9 says "I John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulations and kingdom and endurance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus."

Who then is the writer? He is another brother. He is simply a brother and a "fellow partaker". He is on the same level as any "fellow partaker" who is suffering with endurance for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

In fact there is no mention of ANY kind of church office of any kind. In Revelation there is no mention of apostles, elders, bishops, deacons. No official position of the church of ANY KIND is mentioned in the entire book. So this first specimen of yours falls flat on its face.

John's mentioning of Jesus as the "Faithful Witness" is a praise of Christ and in no way a exaltation of John. Is this your betrayal?

Jesus is the faithful witness by His own words and life:

"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one takes it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself ..." (John 10:17) So far from John uttering a betrayal, John simply echoes Christ's clear teaching about His faithfulness to His Father at the cost of His life.

"Even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father, and I lay down My life for the sheep." (v.15). He was faithful unto death on the cross for His sheep.

"I am the good Shepherd; the good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." (v.11)

John is not recommending his own authority. He is simply a brother with endurance, laboring for the kingdom of God as a fellow partaker. And He recommends His Master, Jesus the Faithful Witness to the will of His Father.


====================================
The "faithful witness" is the one who sees and speaks accurately and thus is to be trusted. John then goes on to convey Christ's message to the churches on earth.
==================================

That is right. And in the signs He come back to earth with a name of "the Word of God" (Rev. 19:13). He is called "Faithful and True" (v.11) emphasizing that He is steadfast as God's word. Rather than John betraying Jesus teaching, John is repeating. For Jesus taught that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away. His faithful words will outlast the physical universe. That is faithful!

John is not talking about his own faithfulness. He is recommending Christ's.

==================================
What follows are pages of raving.
====================================

So far I only have seen your suspicious and groundless raving. In the letters to the seven churches Christ speaks. His words include many severe rebukes of His own church.

He admonishes different churches in chapters two and three. He says the church in Ephesus has left her first love. He has this and that against her. He says the church in Pergamos dwells where Satan's throne is. The works of the Nicoliatans He hates. The teaching of the Nicoliatans He hates. Thyatira is filled with the deep things of Satan. Some of her children a spiritually sick. Sardis is dead. Laodicia is said to be lukewarm. Most of the churches are told to repent. He promises reward to those who overcome the surrounding religious degradation. He warns of discipline to those who will not repent.

You see in all of this some kind of clerical self exaltation ? No offices are recommended. There are only seven stars in His right hand. These signify the normal ones in the church who are messengers. These are full of light. No position is mentioned but only light. In the church position and office mean nothing in Revelation. Only overcoming, only spiritual shinning mean anything to Christ.

Jesus said His disciples were to be lights to the world. So there is no betrayal here.

=================================
These include the entire pagan, superstitious, dark tradition which had dominated the Western barbarian tradition until the arrival of Christianity.
=================================

Quite the contrary. To the church in Thyatira Jesus warns:

"But I say to you - the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they say - I put no other burden upon you." (2:24)

Rather than encourage paganism, Christ EXPOSES it as having no place in His church. And He speaks of "the deep things of Satan" to condemn the demonic and Satanic pagan ideas which infiltrated the church.

In this letter Christ speaks "And to the messenger of the church in Thyatira write: These things says the Son of God, He who has eyes like a flame of fire, ..." (v.18) Nothing is hidden from His penetrating eyes. No pagan practice or teaching can hide from His fiery gaze. "I am He who searches the inward parts and the hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your works." (v.23)

The secrets of men's hearts will be exposed in His judgment. No spiritual filthy practice, no idols of any kind will endure His judgment. That is the warning. You really have no case here.

Nothing in chapter one has been pointed out by you to be a betrayal. And your generalizations fail flat in the light of the details.

What other specifics do you have in this post ?

======================================
the mesmerizing beauty of the words and images cannot be denied - majestic, filled with foreboding, threats and promises - offering a tantalizing physical view of heaven, which Christ himself had so carefully avoided: providing, in fact, a complete and complex ready-made model for the obedient and credulous Christian imagination.
===========================================

Again your ignorance is exposed. The opening sentence in Revelation states that the revelation was made known to John "by signs"

"The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to Him to show to His slaves the things that must quickly take place; and He made it known by SIGNS, sending it by His angel to His slave John. (v1)

Therefore the revelation in this book is mainly composed of signs. The lampstands are a sign of the churches. The Lamb on the throne is a sign. The rainbow is a sign. These are symbols which had a profound spiritual significance.

And the New Jerusalem in chapters 21 and 22 is the consumate sign. I can prove it to you very simply.

The New Jerusalem is called the Wife and the Bride of the Lamb. Now Paul's epistles tells us that the church is the Wife of Christ in Ephesians chapter 5. And if you don't like Ephesians to say so, I would refer you to John chapter 3 where Christ is the Bridegroom and His people are the Bride:

For John the Baptist states "He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears his him, rejoices with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. This joy of mine is therefore made full.

He must encrease and I must decrease." (John 3:29,30)

Not only Paul taught that Christ's disciples constituted His collective Bride, but John the Baptist says so also. John the Baptist is the friend of the bridegroom who is Jesus Christ. His bride are the disciples who are following Jesus. That would include John the Baptist's former disciples who are leaving him and following Christ whom the Baptist recommends. John the Baptist must decrease but Christ must encrease. The bride is simply the encrease of Christ by adding people TO Christ.

Now if Christ's church is the bride and the wife of Christ then a physcial city of any kind no matter how splendid cannot be His bride and wife. Therefore the city discribed as His Bride and Wife in Revelation 21 and 22 must be a sign.

New Jerusalem in chapters 21 and 22 like the golden lampstands which are the local churches in chapters 1, is a SIGN. It is a symbolic discription rather than a discription of the actual physical details of heaven.

Not only so. New Jerusalem is said to COME DOWN out of heaven from God and to come down out of God from heaven (comp. 3:12 and 21:2). If she is coming down OUT of heaven then she cannot BE heaven.


Here again also, John is just a slave said simply to be "His slave John". If your conspiracy theory of ecclesiatical charlatanism was true John would have been more likely to say "His great apostle John".

Let's see your post below to find your alledged "betrayals" of Christ's life and words. So far your specifics are very weak.

Originally posted by jaywill
So far your specifics are very weak.

So far yours are only taken from the bogus Book itself. Why don't you address the charges I am levelling at your Book rather than retreating into the safety of your own subjective certainties. This debate is about politics, it's about history, it's about histriography. The book could hardly be more obviously a technocratic ruse. Quoting from it is no defence. Liek I said, would you quote from the Nigerian e-mail story, convincing yourself it was true, even as you licked your wounds about your empty bank account?

Trainspotterish textual analysis of a Book whose very rationale and creation stands accused will not cut any ice here.

Originally posted by FMF
[Coffe'd up, I shall continue]

Once the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, the Seven Seal and the whores of Babylon, along with a false and facile division of the world into good and evil, had been given equal footing in the New Testament with the inherently uncontrollobly straight forward Sermon on the Mount, it was hardly surprising that the Christian languag telligent, manipulative people involved in what Jesus himself called "evil reasonings".

=====================================
Once the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, the Seven Seal and the whores of Babylon, along with a false and facile division of the world into good and evil, had been given equal footing in the New Testament with the inherently uncontrollobly straight forward Sermon on the Mount,
=========================================

In case you failed to notice, there is quite a bit of symbolic language in Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Zechariah, etc. And Jesus refered to these books.

So I tell you that the four horsemen in Revelation means the Beatles or the Gang of Four in China. So you blame Revelation for that?

Some of us do not take this way. We prefer to weigh all things with a more noble attitude to see if the interpretation is plausible. We study and ask "What are its strengths and weaknesses of this kind of interpretation?" I think you are blaming the writing of Revelation because there are some puzzling symbols in it, is silly.

Besides, Jesus said that there would be wars and rumors of wars in the end times. He also spoke of tribulations and famines. So at least three of the four horses are nothing new. They symbolize things plainly spoken of by Jesus in the Gospels.

===================
it was hardly surprising that the Christian language had been undermined to the point where it is as malleable as any old moon cult. In fact, more malleable. Pagan cults were often difficult for those in power to deform or manipulate because they combined strict public ritual with a narrow set of ironclad rules. Paul and his Epistles are often blamed for Christianity's strange tangents. But his contributions were merely early Church politics and policy.
====================================

The rest is just bluster.

Do you have any more specifics? You seem to want to take refuge in generalities. You are assuming the truth of the thing you set out to demonstrate. This is begging the question.

Originally posted by FMF
So far yours are only taken from the bogus Book itself. Why don't you address the charges I am levelling at your Book rather than retreating into the safety of your own subjective certainties. This debate is about politics, it's about history, it's about histriography. The book could hardly be more obviously a technocratic ruse. Quoting from it is no defence. Li ...[text shortened]... nalysis of a Book whose very rationale and creation stands accused will not cut any ice here.

================================
So far yours are only taken from the bogus Book itself.
======================================

Nice assertion. You've been debunked sir.

"John your BROTHER." Real flaunting of his ecclesiatical authority, huh ?

======================================
Why don't you address the charges I am levelling at your Book rather than retreating into the safety of your own subjective certainties.
========================================

You proposed scant few specifics. What you did submit was quite clearly refuted sir.

You assert that pagan idolatry is permeating the book. But that is illogical that the writer would do that and then put such words in Christ's mouth condemning and warning His own church of its inclusions.



========================================
This debate is about politics, it's about history, it's about histriography.
==================================

I think you started out to say "Obviously the writing in the Book of Revelation is that of charlatans."

Upon noticing the weakness of your case (I don't know if you have even READ Revelation to be frank) you switched to a debate on textural criticism - ie. "Well, it wasn't even written until 400 years after thus and such". YOU wanted to dodge and get into politics.

There is no argument that many parts of the Bible have been abused and misused. I don't blame that misuse on the text of the Bible that has been written.

I see you. You like the Sermon on the Mount. Good. Instead of condemning the rest that you may find more difficult you should learn from others who could help you. No, I did not say take in EVERY tom, dick, and harry that claims to have the insight into difficult books. But retreating into an attitude that those more difficult portions are the work of charlatans and Jesus didn't speak them, that is a pitiful excuse.

I guess you would say James Joyce didn't write 90% of Ulysses. because it is a difficult book. Are you going to say Igmar Bergman only directed 5% of The Seventh Seal because it is a difficult motion picture?

Besides, are there no challenges of interpretation in the so called Sermon on the Mount? What is this attitude? Is it that you say "Aha ! Now THIS I can do. It is simple!"

Yea right. TRY IT.

Matthew 5 through 8, in fact has some rather difficult sayings in it as well. You cannot pick what fits your taste and say "Now Jesus SAID THAT." You cannot dismiss difficult passages and say "Now JESUS, I KNOW DIDN'T SAY THAT. THAT IS the word of CHARLATANS. Whoever wrote Revelation just wants my money."

By the way. The great WHORE BABYLON in Revelation has to mean the degraded Christianity. She assumes to be the WIFE but Christ does not acknowledge her as such. She is in contrast to the Wife and Bride.

Not only so, But His people are caught up in her as captives. So He says "Come out of her MY PEOPLE".

If you understood how BABYLON represents a place of captivity and distraction from God's goal (as in the Old Testament) you could better realize that BABYLON in Revelation must mean a New Testament age CAPTIVITY where His people have been carried off AWAY from God's heart's desire.

Charlatans would leave OUT chapters 17 and 18 rather than included it, I think.


Humble yourself. Learn from others. Learn with discernment. I do not suggest you be careless.

Originally posted by jaywill
You've been debunked sir.

Whatever rings your bell, friend.

Originally posted by FMF
Whatever rings your bell, friend.

Oh FMF, you are being facetious? will you argue with Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome! or will you continue in your masquerade?

Originally posted by FMF
Whatever rings your bell, friend.

Good morning. First of all I apologize for any enjurious tone. Sometimes skeptics just get my jaws tight. But I repent of a mean sounding tone. I wish you were just a little more open minded and willing to receive some help.

I may open up a post on Christ in Revelation. Once you see Christ in Revelation you have hardly time left to be too distracted with horns, earthquakes, frogs, dragons, hailstones, locusts, etc. There is a LOT of lot of CHRIST in this wonderful book.

No, it is not whatever rings my bell.

There is nothing wrong with you saying " I enjoy this part of the Bible. I get something out of this part of the Bible." That is all well and good. Far be it from me to rob you of that.

But if you go on to say "Now this I don't like at all. It is way too difficult, too obscure, and there have been too many disputations over it. THEREFORE I deem that charlatans wrote it. And most certainly their only reason for doing so was to either have political power over me or get my cash."

This kind of thinking reveals more YOUR vivid imagination in paranoia.

If I asked you to detail to me exactly WHAT in Revelation the charlatans wrote to get political power over you, I am afraid that upon careful analysis you would see that your vivid imagination is in play.

If Revelation is too hard for you put it on the back burner. Don't toss it out man. There is plenty of difficult symbolism in other prophetic books. Even Jesus' own parables contain some symbolism at times.

I was very tempted to go through the so called Sermon on the Mount and draw so many parellels to each passage in the book of Revelation. You should be surprised.


Blessed are the poor in spirit. He says that the pure in heart will SEE GOD. (Sermon on the Mount)

Jesus tells Laodicea that she is blinded and self satisfied. She needs eyesalve to wash her eyes that she may SEE. (Rev.)


Jesus says the meek shall inherit the earth (Sermon on the Mount).

John writes that Christ has made them a kingdom of priests who will reign on the earth. (Revelation).


Jesus says blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Sermon on the Mount).

The crowd in chapter 7 of Revelation hunger and thirst no more. Christ will lead them to fountains of waters of life. The Firstfruits in chapter 14 follow the Lamb whereever He goes. They hunger and thirst for Christ as their righteousness to follow Him wherever He may go (Revelation).


There are so very many parellels. There is no betrayal friend.

I would humbly suggest that you obtain a Recovery Version of the Bible from Living Stream Ministry. Or perhaps just the New Testament portion Recovery Version - www.recoveryversion.org.

Read prayerfully the footenotes in Revelation following all the references and checking to see the plausibility of so many interpretations.

The Bible interprets itself. If I tell you that the four horsemen represent the Beatles you can be pretty certain that is some kind of Nostradomas kind of occult prediction. But if you go elsewhere in the Bible and carefully ask "Let me see. How ELSE is this kind of symbolism used in the divine book. Most likely its usage here in Revelation should be at least similar"

Then you are on a better track. Then you are on a safer track.

The RECOVERY VERSION of the New Testament has excellent footenotes. Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. They give it away free. I get no cash from this little advertizement. I recommend it for your spiritual progress.

The NT part they send you free.

Four times in the book of Revelation John says that he was "in spirit" (Rev. 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10)

This means that John was in a prayerful disposition. You have to pray over this book. You have to have a regenerated human spirit that is one with the Lord spirit (1 Cor. 6:17; Eph. 1:17; John 4:24; ROmans 1:9; 8:16)

You have to be in a praying atmosphere excercizing your mingled spirit. I don't even know if you have been born again in your human spirit. I fear that you are reading this but have no idea what I am talking about.

You like the Sermon on the Mount? It says "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."

Pure in heart is to have a single heart. A heart focused on one thing that is to see God. A complicated heart is seeking too many things at one time. A pure heart is a single eye to focus your desire on one thing - on God. If you come to the Bible to seek God and only God you will see clearly. By practice you will see more and more.


Pray for me that I would always have a pure heart to come to the Bible to see God. I want to fiz my focus on seeing God not politics, religion, culture. I want to be poor in spirit, not thinking I am so rich and have no need to receive help from God or from saints of God.

And I seek His mercy that I would not be offended in Him. I would not pick and choose what in the Bible I can trust Jesus said (because it matches my opinion and dispositional bent) and throw the rest away because I have not YET grown spiritually to appreciate its more difficult portions.

Originally posted by jaywill
I wish you were just a little more open minded and willing to receive some help.

To describe your creed - and especially the way you arrive at it, and the intellectual feedback loop that feeds it - as "open minded" makes a mockery of what those words actually mean. I do not mean this as an insult. Honestly, I don't. I am not "willing to receive help", as you say you wish. I only tossed the Book of Revelation into the discussion on this thread because I have long felt that it forms a kind of litmus test for the "moronic nature" thing, although I would never be so uncouth as to use the word "moronic" in this regard. However, I believe what I have drawn out from you - a proposterous forensic analysis of a text that was clearly concocted by charlatans in order to not only withstand such a forensic analysis, but also to manipulate the mental and spiritual vulnerabilities of people like you - is a case of QED to autonomous spiritual people like me. The Church that Jesus Christ inspired - by his words and deeds on earth, all witnessed and documented, and not what some nobody ("John?", yeah, right!) claimed he said to him in a dream, (something you claim to "prove" is true based on quoting from this guy's own account of his own dream! ) - lost its way when the Book of Revelations was added to the Bible. You are at peace with it. Good for you. So. No, no. I am not willing to "receive help". You have totally got the wrong end of the stick. If my children grew up with beliefs and mental processes like yours I would be utterly devastated. I would still love them, of course. But I would be utterly devastated and ashamed of the intellectual and spiritual upbringing I had given them.

No offence intended.