@pb1022 saidSo, the claim that "John" had a "vision" of Jesus, who was dead, while the writer was alone on an island is, according to you, "not history so it cannot be historically accurate"?
Revelation is about the future, not history so it cannot be “historically accurate.”
01 Feb 22
@fmf saidThe Apostle John’s vision was a vision of the future. How can the future events in his vision be historically accurate. They haven’t happened yet.
So, the claim that "John" had a "vision" of Jesus, who was dead, while the writer was alone on an island is, according to you, "not history so it cannot be historically accurate"?
@pb1022 saidOnce again, do you believe it is "historically accurate" that "John" had a "vision" of Jesus while the writer was alone on an island?
The Apostle John’s vision was a vision of the future. How can the future events in his vision be historically accurate. They haven’t happened yet.
@pb1022 saidThe claim that someone actually had this "vision of the future" and that the details of it were correctly recorded is either [1] "historically accurate" or [2] we have absolutely no way of knowing.
How can the future events in his vision be historically accurate. They haven’t happened yet.
01 Feb 22
@fmf saidA vision of the future is not history. It’s bizarre to question whether a vision of the future is “historically accurate.”
The claim that someone actually had this "vision of the future" and that the details of it were correctly recorded is either [1] "historically accurate" or [2] we have absolutely no way of knowing.
And since the person who had the vision is the same one who recorded it, yeah, I’d say he recorded it accurately.
01 Feb 22
@pb1022 saidWould you say the same of Frank R. Paul?
A vision of the future is not history. It’s bizarre to question whether a vision of the future is “historically accurate.”
And since the person who had the vision is the same one who recorded it, yeah, I’d say he recorded it accurately.