01 Feb 22
@divegeester saidWhy don't you read it for yourself?
Who is doing the casting into the lake of fire?
@kellyjay saidNone of this works for me.
When you read history, things that people say occurred, there are many things to consider. The NT has more going for it than any ancient text there in the realm of copies, copies written in the different languages, copies very close to the time of the events that they occurred in, little things only an eye witness would know versus someone who was making it up, witness that ...[text shortened]... ng a story they heard. So yes, historically, John's vision, I believe, actually occurred as written.
01 Feb 22
@fmf saidMy reasoning on these matters apparently doesn't work for you. Why do you ask for something you were already told? Do you think my answer will change?
With this book and its authorship specifically, why do you think it is accurate?
01 Feb 22
1 edit
@divegeester saidCould be, and is by you correct? I'd ask you what other books of the 66 you find fictional, but I think that in your case, what books do you believe are true could be the shorter list, or can you throw them all out and only cherry-pick a few verses you like while discounting everything else?
The book of Revelation could be described as science fiction.
01 Feb 22
@fmf saidCorrect, and it is what it is, no matter what we or anyone else thinks about its truthfulness. We look at reality; we don't mold it to suit us; we only do that with our opinions, not reality itself.
And so we have both shared our perspectives on this issue of historicity.
01 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidI am asking about a specific book. What evidence do you have that someone actually had this vision described in Revelation?
My reasoning on these matters apparently doesn't work for you. Why do you ask for something you were already told? Do you think my answer will change?
"The NT has more going for it than any ancient text there in the realm of copies, copies written in the different languages..." etc. etc. doesn't really apply to the historicity of this vision of "John"?
01 Feb 22
1 edit
@kellyjay saidThe reality is that the only "evidence" that this book is authentic is the fact that the writer says the book he wrote is authentic. That's the reality that we can agree on, right. And another reality is that the book attesting to its own authenticity is enough for you to attest to its authenticity as well, yes?
We look at reality; we don't mold it to suit us; we only do that with our opinions, not reality itself.
@fmf saidHistorically, you can look at the writings of John and those that were his disciples; they too are historical that lived pasted his life. Life is a continuum from generation to generation; what we write about the things that were witnessed, those there who followed who knew them, and those who knew them. Church history, look it up.
I am asking about a specific book. What evidence do you have that someone actually had this vision described in Revelation?
"The NT has more going for it than any ancient text there in the realm of copies, copies written in the different languages..." etc. etc. doesn't really apply to the historicity of this vision of "John"?
01 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidI think that it's merely literature written decades after Jesus was executed.
Historically, you can look at the writings of John and those that were his disciples; they too are historical that lived pasted his life.
Church tradition may well say that someone called "the Apostle John" wrote a Gospel and he also wrote Revelation [or that the gospels were written the men they were named after] but that doesn't make these things historical facts.