Originally posted by jaywill Notice that FMF accuses the book of Revelation of being "cohesive". Shall we then suppose that he doesn't regard it as a "madman's dream"?
If that's to be your simplistic comeback on this issue, then it's clear that you have no idea what has really been under discussion all this time.
Originally posted by FMF So presumably you too think the Book of Revelation is not credible seeing as it is "someone simply saying this is or was the way it is"?
Or do you think it's "cohesive" because whoever wrote it - a team player right down to his corporate church cotton socks - cleverly made sure it was "cohesive"?
The book of Revelation is simply a reitoration in large part of the prophesies of the OT. Those who are not familiar with the Bible often make this mistake.
Originally posted by FMF If that's to be your simplistic comeback on this issue, then it's clear that you have no idea what has really been under discussion all this time.
============================
If that's to be your simplistic comeback on this issue, then it's clear that you have no idea what has really been under discussion all this time.
====================================
Originally posted by jaywill [b]============================
If that's to be your simplistic comeback on this issue, then it's clear that you have no idea what has really been under discussion all this time.
====================================
You said we were talking about me.
Seems you're the one totally confused.[/b]
its the last repose of the intellectually inept, when they have absolutely no recourse to reasonable argument, empty and void they must attack the personality!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie no, the hadith are the sayings of the prophet, and there is much speculation amoung muslim scholars as to which should be regarded as authentic, for as you are aware, some are quite strange indeed, this is not the case amoung christians, who generally regard the Anjil (new testament, that being the christian Greek scriptures, as the revealed word of God.)
But the Hadith is essentially a compilation of the Prophet's life, as the New Testament is a series of compliations about the Messiah's life. All three faiths, I believe, keep the Ten Commandments and Old Testament above any other sources.
Originally posted by whodey The book of Revelation is simply a reitoration in large part of the prophesies of the OT. Those who are not familiar with the Bible often make this mistake.
I am familiar with the bible. And I haven't made any mistake. It is "cohesive", consciously so, in order to feed the fetishism of bible 'scholars' while at the same time giving corporate Christianity the tools it realized it needed 400 years after Jesus' death.
Originally posted by jaywill You said we were talking about me.
The barrier to our discussion is the fact that you have memorized and internalized so much cant and dogma. So it's about you in that sense. Your only defence of The Book is to quote The Book itself. The Book is not "for real". Are you "for real"?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie its the last repose of the intellectually inept, when they have absolutely no recourse to reasonable argument, empty and void they must attack the personality!
"Intellectually inept"? Wow. Not heard that one before. It really hurts! Thanks for the gratuitous personal attack, which - as you say - the last repose of those who have absolutely no recourse to reasonable argument, and are instead empty and void.
Any thoughts on the validity of Muhammed's vision and "John"'s vision?
Any thoughts on jaywill's inability or unwillingness to stray beyond the bible/Book of Revelation itself in his'her efforts to establish the validity of the The Book of Revelation? (which is what I was alluding to when I said "This is about you, jaywill." )
Originally posted by jaywill You said we were talking about me.
Seems you're the one totally confused.
No, not at all. What was with the simplistic comeback?
If you keep ducking the argument with simplistic comebacks that display a lack of understanding of the challenge before you, yeah, perhaps your inability and unwillingness - as a bible scholar - to entertain any intellectual argument that clashes with the details of your rote learning - will become fair game for scrutiny... as in: 'jaywill's defence of the Book of Revelation is based on his inability to even consider anything that his certainty preculdes him from considering. Yeah, sure, I think "you" are part of this discussion.
I question the validity of "John"'s vision and writing. Your comeback seems to be "John"'s writing is valid because he had no doubt whatsoever that his writing was valid.
This line of argument seems to reveal more about you, jaywill, than it does about "John" or the Book of Revelation.
Originally posted by FMF "Intellectually inept"? Wow. Not heard that one before. It really hurts! Thanks for the gratuitous personal attack, which - as you say - the last repose of those who have absolutely no recourse to reasonable argument, and are instead empty and void.
Any thoughts on the validity of Muhammed's vision and "John"'s vision?
Any thoughts on jaywill's inability o o when I said "This is about you, jaywill." )
Try to keep to the topic in hand, eh?
yes i had to laugh at the irony of this myself, never the less, why are you inviting comments from me, for you will recall that according to your own decree, i was subject to an excommunication order, that is fine, for i do not wish of necessity, to kiss your glistening ruby encrusted ring, nor grovel before the fringes of your voluminous scarlet coloured garments every time I post a comment, nor be subject to enraged edicts through misconstrued perceptions.
i do have some thoughts on the matters at hand, but between you and me, they are dissipating into nothingness as we speak and probably best left to do so 🙂
Originally posted by FMF No, not at all. What was with the simplistic comeback?
If you keep ducking the argument with simplistic comebacks that display a lack of understanding of the challenge before you, yeah, perhaps your inability and unwillingness - as a bible scholar - to entertain any intellectual argument that clashes with the details of your rote learning - will become fair g reveal more about you, jaywill, than it does about "John" or the Book of Revelation.
You citicize me for knowing a bible book "by rote". I think if you're going to discuss it, or criticize it, you should be familiar with it. No?
===========================
I question the validity of "John"'s vision and writing. Your comeback seems to be "John"'s writing is valid because he had no doubt whatsoever that his writing was valid.
================================
Why do you question the validity of John's writing of Revelation then ?
Say, as compared to what? Are you saying "This biblical book I regard as valid disclosure from God. But Revelation I do not regard as valid disclosure from God."
You said something about "corporate" motives or some such accusation. Explain that.
Koran-vs-Bible
13 May '09 01:39
Back to Top