Getting a vision or a dream canonized

Originally posted by jaywill
Well, the jist of that suggestion was really that the book of Revelation was not simply the result of some visions. It was the culmination of John's witness as one of the twelve disciples of Christ.

You reckon it was the same "John"?

Originally posted by jaywill
I like to read real life testimonies and things that actually occurred.

The Book of Revelation?

Originally posted by JS357
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

"Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[38] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Other tradtitions, ...[text shortened]... lowing tables reflect the current state of various Christian canons."

(see link for tables)

"Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[38] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Other tradtitions, [sic] while also having closed canons, may not be able to point to the exact years in which their respective canons were considered to be complete. The following tables reflect the current state of various Christian canons."

"While the church did not give official recognition to the canon prior to the late fourth century, it is misleading to say there was no recognition before then. Like the Old Testament books, there is ample evidence available to confirm that the inspired books were received immediately as such, circulated, and even collected. The problem of the New Testament is somewhat different, however, in that the New Testament books were written during a half century period by some eight or nine different writers, having destinations ranging from individuals (e.g., Philemon) to groups of churches (e.g., I Peter) located in centers extending from Jerusalem to Rome. The problem of transportation and translation would tend to obscure the authority and authenticity of books even though they had already gained recognition by the original recipents."

[A General Introduction to the Bible, Giesler and Nix, Moody Press, pg. 181]

Originally posted by FMF
The Book of Revelation?

Yes. The book of Revelation is marvelous as a conclusion to the whole Bible. The whole Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ. And the book of Revelation is the climax. And since [edited] the past tense is often used there, it communicates that from the viewpoint of God, these things have already taken place. These things, from God's frame of reference have ALL already been accomplished.

Now, remember that it says the things were made known to John "by signs" (Rev. 1:1) . Most of us realize that there is therefore an awful lot of symbolism being used in the book of Revelation.

Originally posted by jaywill
Yes. The book of Revelation is marvelous as a conclusion to the whole Bible. And sense the past tense is often used it communicates that from the viewpoint of God, these things have already taken place.

You think [presumably among other reasons] that Revelation was 'the viewpoint of God" because "the past tense is often used" ?

Originally posted by FMF
So what kind of instance of "God moving in a huge way so everyone knew He was doing something" would it take for you to accept the addition of a new book to the canon?

For me Revelation is a continuance of prophecies already made in the OT. For example, the beast in Revelation is spoken of in Daniel. The Millenial Reign is spoken of in Ezekial etc. There are variace specifics, such as the mark of the beast and the 144,000 that are not mentioned elsewhere, but for the most part is simply a different perspective of the same prophecies.

I guess for it to divorce itself from the scriptures it would need to contradict the scriptures to such a degree that it could not be apart of a cannonized Biblical text.

Originally posted by FMF
You think [presumably among other reasons] that Revelation was 'the viewpoint of God" because "the past tense is often used" ?

Yes. This is a real book on actual time travel.

If you want a real live account of a man traveling in time to the future, you've got that in the book of Revelation.

Satan is in the lake of fire.
The New Jerusalem is built.
Christ and His saints are reigning forever and ever.

From the divine viewpoint of Him who inhabits eternity, it has all already been accomplished.

John saw me there in the New Jerusalem.
I hope he saw you there too.

The past tense used often emphasizes that it cannot fail to come to pass. It has already come to pass to Him who transcends time.

Originally posted by whodey
For me Revelation is a continuance of prophecies already made in the OT. For example, the beast in Revelation is spoken of in Daniel. The Millenial Reign is spoken of in Ezekial etc. There are variace specifics, such as the mark of the beast and the 144,000 that are not mentioned elsewhere, but for the most part is simply a different perspective of the sam ...[text shortened]... radict the scriptures to such a degree that it could not be apart of a cannonized Biblical text.

Is it possible that the writer or writers of Revelation were familiar with the content of the OT?

Originally posted by jaywill
Yes. This is a real book on actual time travel.

If you want a real live account of a man traveling in time to the future, you've got that in the book of Revelation.

Satan is in the lake of fire.
The New Jerusalem is built.
Christ and His saints are reigning forever and ever.

From the divine viewpoint of Him who inhabits eternity, it has all ...[text shortened]... es that it cannot fail to come to pass. It has already come to pass to Him who transcends time.

Is there any way you can render your assertions a little more objective?

Originally posted by FMF
Is there any way you can render your assertions a little more objective?

Is there any way you can render your assertions a little more objective?

Oh, I do fake it sometimes. But I am at heart an unrepentant evangelist.

You have to get me in the mood to sound detached and objective. Otherwise I am an unrepentant propagandist.

Do you believe that there is such a thing as true propaganda ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Do you believe that there is such a thing as true propaganda ?

I suggest you start a thread about it if you want to discuss it.

Originally posted by FMF
I suggest you start a thread about it if you want to discuss it.

In case you didn't notice the Bible is all about bringing people into a subjective experience with God.

To view the book rightly is to have that realization. Maybe you thought the Scriptures just exists to tickle your intellectual curiosity ?

I approach the Bible as it is intended to be approached.
But I perceive your desire for me to leave "your" public discussion. So maybe I will.

Originally posted by FMF
I am not asking you to say what God "must do". I am asking what kind of thing "beyond the normal" it would take to convince you. Maybe you can offer an illustrative example or two?

I've told you a couple of times now, something only God could get credit
for! If some natural event occurs those thing happen all the time.
Kelly

Originally posted by jaywill
Maybe you thought the Scriptures just exists to tickle your intellectual curiosity ?

You think this is my view on 'why the scriptures exist'?