PDA

View Full Version : The Book Of Revelations


TSA
05-20-2008, 08:13 AM
Is gay.


It's probably the most ignornant shit in the bible. 7 headed squids and shit, fuckin babylon, marks of beasts, flying horses, the world blowing up and only christians being sent to heaven. jesus coming down with swords and shit when it was clear the guy was a total puss.


cool dude, but if someone said Ghandi was coming down with a sword i'd chuckle. both cool dudes, but come on man.


it was also added to the bible all after the fact. WAY after the fact, like the bible was written and some dude just slapped in on there 100s of years later






so my question is. Why do non chrisitans on this board and elsewhere in the paranoid world believe it so strongly and denounce the bible as a whole. This is probably as superstitious as the bible gets, but you accept it and denounce the bible for being superstitious

i used to be all KTL knawledge paranoid too, believing in illuminati and revelations and shit. This i grew out of it at the age of 17, early 17.


why do non christians constantly reference "the mark of the beast" "the anti-christ" "the beast with the 7 heads" "666" and so forth?

that shit is a looney tunes episode on PCP.

Edgar Erebus
05-20-2008, 11:09 AM
it was also added to the bible all after the fact. WAY after the fact, like the bible was written and some dude just slapped in on there 100s of years later




Gotta correct you on this one. "Some dude" was apostle John, and he wrote it at the end of his life (which was 'round 100 AD - nothing so special, he was younger than Jesus).

But I also think he was smoking something while writing that work. It's pretty well from a literary standpoint though, he was definitely best writer of all evangelists.

Machete
05-20-2008, 01:27 PM
Instead of Jesus coming down with swords, I think it should say Ric Flair coming down from the heavens giving every one of us a backhand chop to the chest.

BornPower
05-20-2008, 01:37 PM
Instead of Jesus coming down with swords, I think it should say Ric Flair coming down from the heavens giving every one of us a backhand chop to the chest.

madness and ignorance

BornPower
05-20-2008, 01:40 PM
It's probably the most ignornant shit in the bible. 7 headed squids and shit, fuckin babylon, marks of beasts, flying horses, the world blowing up and only christians being sent to heaven. jesus coming down with swords and shit when it was clear the guy was a total puss.



i used to be all KTL knawledge paranoid too, believing in illuminati and revelations and shit. This i grew out of it at the age of 17, early 17.

christians constantly reference "the mark of the beast" "the anti-christ" "the beast with the 7 heads" "666" and so forth?

that shit is a looney tunes episode on PCP.

you readin it wrong. study the passages in the original language and factor in that it's metaphorical and metaphysical.

if you don't know the ledge you're bound to fall off it.

TSA
05-20-2008, 01:44 PM
shut up nigga, your not a christian, im not a christian, i don't believe in that shit, you don't believe in that shit

BornPower
05-20-2008, 01:49 PM
shut up nigga, your not a christian, im not a christian, i don't believe in that shit, you don't believe in that shit

in times past, shamen told stories to the people. Anansi, scorpions, mosquitoes and other animals/people were used to illustrate fallicies in the human spirit. If i tell you a story about being raised from the dead and speaking with burning bushes, you'd assume that certain things were used in metaphor (you'd have to this anyway, just to make some kind of sense of the story).

If you don't believe this shit, why are you always talkin about it? Is this what you do all day at work?

LORD NOSE
05-20-2008, 02:43 PM
the bible is good reading even if its not meant to be taken literally pestilence and plagues swarms of locust make for a goood read.

why would death and destruction be good reading for you ?

hmmmm

V4D3R
05-20-2008, 02:45 PM
Try reading the book of Daniel now son.

Koolish
05-20-2008, 11:26 PM
it seems that those who agree with the bible the least never do anything but look at the surface, and never think deeper beyond what is read.

now when you say that 100 years after the Bible was written this guy decided to add something on, you're wrong.

the word Bible means holy books. the council of Nicaea were a group of men who decided that the texts referring to the beliefs of the Christian religion should be gathered together in one collection so that all who required full knowledge would be able to find it most conveniently. some books were disregarded wholly (The Book of Enoch, though it's found in Ethiopian Bibles) and some just managed to make it in (The Book of Revelation).

now the thing is, the book of revelations itself confirms that these are metaphors, here's the description of the woman babylon, and the beast with seven heads and ten horns.
Revelation 17:
9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction

though it has been debated, some believe that this is either an end of world prophecy, or just a way that Saint John the Divine could get out his political opinions without being killed in his day.

DrunkenMasta303
05-21-2008, 06:00 AM
the whore of babylon is a metaphor for all false religions in the world

and the wild beast symbolizes todays rulers which are the politicians

Memory Man
05-21-2008, 06:25 AM
http://foundingfather1776.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/aleister-crowley1.jpg

Trismegistos
05-22-2008, 10:14 PM
I think dismissing the book of revelation is ones own decision.

I believe that it is a very deep piece of work that works in imagery and a concealed message that was intended to be difficult to understand.

I think there is no one man that can unlock the mystery of revelation.

I do believe that there have been a lot of plausible explanations of Revelation. I also believe that Revelation is something that is seen as taking place in every generation, if it weren't people would dismiss it as in the first post. So I think if people look for signs they can interpret certain sections of revelation in current times.

diggy
05-23-2008, 01:10 AM
How legit is the book of revelations and it's author?

Just because he had these visions does not make him a prophet or messenger; it makes him a man with lots of visions.

Is everyone who has a vision a prophet/messenger?





Prophets/messengers usually have "signs".

Jesus had making the blind see, exorcising spirits, feeding many people with not much fish.

What was the author of revelations "sign" of prophethood?

Why was his vision added to the bible?

Trismegistos
05-23-2008, 10:34 AM
Those visions were had by John the beloved.

I think his acts justify him also as a prophet. If you accept that Jesus was a prophet, wouldn't he then show signs to his most beloved disciple?

Mic Tyson
05-23-2008, 12:10 PM
christianity is fake

hectis
05-23-2008, 11:00 PM
no the book is right it will all come to be ; the Jews. the muslims, oil prices, food prices, things worse then aids, the world that can easily be convinced and much more this is going to play a major roll in the end times and it is happening as I type this and as u read this

TSA
05-23-2008, 11:40 PM
oh shut up, he didn't say anything about aids and oil, he was talking about 7 headed monsters and flying horses, straight up, or we would have said "aids and oil"

hectis
05-24-2008, 12:08 AM
it does not matter if he said it or not it still has to do with everything

diggy
05-24-2008, 12:20 AM
Those visions were had by John the beloved.

I think his acts justify him also as a prophet. If you accept that Jesus was a prophet, wouldn't he then show signs to his most beloved disciple?

Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism also had visions. One of his visions was of John the baptist telling him that he is ordained to "the priesthood of Aaron".

Do u accept Joseph as a prophet ?

Should his book of mormonism and other works be included as part of the bible?

Would you read and follow his teachings?

Trismegistos
05-24-2008, 07:55 AM
Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism also had visions. One of his visions was of John the baptist telling him that he is ordained to "the priesthood of Aaron".

Do u accept Joseph as a prophet ?

Should his book of mormonism and other works be included as part of the bible?

Would you read and follow his teachings?

No

There are and have been so many that have come (and gone) that make claims of being Christ or associated to Christ.

I believe that Jesus was the Christ, that Muhammad is God's prophet and that the prophets were given visions and signs of things to come. I also believe that we are living in times when some of these things have already come to pass.

I'm confident and content in my beliefs.

Trismegistos
05-24-2008, 07:58 AM
oh shut up, he didn't say anything about aids and oil, he was talking about 7 headed monsters and flying horses, straight up, or we would have said "aids and oil"

I think you might find that you are incorrect on that one. There was mention of oil in Revelation.

Revelation 6:6

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny; and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

Trismegistos
05-24-2008, 08:11 AM
no the book is right it will all come to be ; the Jews. the muslims, oil prices, food prices, things worse then aids, the world that can easily be convinced and much more this is going to play a major roll in the end times and it is happening as I type this and as u read this

Keep the faith.

I had a period of time from around 1993-2001 where things became very clear to me. I made the connection between current events and passages in the bible.

I am happy to provide some insight in the future, but I know in advance that there would be a lot of opposition to what I say and it would cop a fair level of ridicule. Nonetheless I will share some basic information and will keep the most important information for a later date.

Edgar Erebus
05-24-2008, 08:33 AM
why would death and destruction be good reading for you ?

hmmmm


What an idiot. What an idiot, I still can't fucking, fucking believe what I read. What a moron. You ever read anything? Did you? Did you ever bother to read anything except some Nuwaubian or whatever rants?

Naaaaaah, don't read Ana Karenina - she ends under a train, it's bad reading for you, ain't it right, Sunny? And naaaaaaaah, don't read The Foreigner, 'cause he's a fucked up devil killing an Arabian, bad read. Naaaaaah, don't read War & Peace, it's a mass slaughter, many people died making it bad read. Naaaaaaaah, don't read any classic book, every one of them has something negative happening, don't read fucking Kafka, don't read fucking Zola or even fucking Umberto Eco, that's baaaaaaad books. And if you read 'em, it only proves you are a criminal, a fucked up person, or a destructive devil who reads and dreams about fucking destruction of everything.


Goddamn, Sunny, won't you please click here (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/login.php?do=logout&logouthash=e0b938f3de65fc80b2530868a5f74ed1)?

BornPower
05-24-2008, 11:28 AM
Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism also had visions. One of his visions was of John the baptist telling him that he is ordained to "the priesthood of Aaron".

Do u accept Joseph as a prophet ?

Should his book of mormonism and other works be included as part of the bible?

Would you read and follow his teachings?

Singers: Joseph Smith was called a prophet
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
He started the Mormon religion
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Blacksmith: There goes that kooky Joseph Smith

Customer: You know, he claims he spoke with God and Jesus.

Woman: Well, how do you know he didn't?

Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Joseph Smith was called a prophet-

Butler: Hey, Joseph! I told my wife that you spoke with God and Jesus, and she didn't believe it.

Smith: Well it's true. I did.

Wife: Where?

Smith: I was out in the woods, praying [a shot of him on his knees in the woods] I was asking God if I should be a Protestant, or a Catholic, or what? And suddenly God and Jesus appeared before me. [a bright light appears before him and he shields his eyes from the glare] And they said I should start my own church, because none of the others had it right. [the flashback ends] And that's exactly how it happened.

Butler: You see? You believe it now?

Wife: Well yeah, sure. Why would he make that up?

Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Many people believed Joseph
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

S.T.
05-24-2008, 04:50 PM
^^ Wack wack wack wack wack

BornPower
05-24-2008, 04:58 PM
lol

TSA
05-24-2008, 05:56 PM
I think you might find that you are incorrect on that one. There was mention of oil in Revelation.

Revelation 6:6

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny; and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

they don't mean the same oil and you're very aware of this.

hectis
05-24-2008, 08:08 PM
oh shut up, he didn't say anything about aids and oil, he was talking about 7 headed monsters and flying horses, straight up, or we would have said "aids and oil"

I said things worse then aids and oil prices will be one of the reasons this world ends it has already started to fuck shit up not only is gas high but it has made food prices to go threw the roof and most everything else we buy and OK so he did not say it but lots of prophets never say what they mean

Trismegistos
05-25-2008, 07:34 AM
they don't mean the same oil and you're very aware of this.

But you said that oil was not mentioned in Revelation and I am merely pointing out that it actually was.

What oil did they mean and how did they have a meaning or reasoning behind what you've essentially described as meaningless?

Now your quotes:

"It's probably the most ignornant shit in the bible" - That is your opinion.

"7 headed squids and shit" - There is no mention of a squid or shit!

"flying horses, the world blowing up and only christians being sent to heaven" - There is no mention of a flying horse, no mention of the world "blowing up" and certainly never the phrase "only christians being sent to heaven"

"jesus coming down with swords and shit when it was clear the guy was a total puss" - Again no mention of Jesus "coming down with swords" and really it is only your opinion that says that he is "a total puss".

What you have done is give your interpretation and opinion of the Book of Revelation.

I would say that your arguments have done nothing to diminish the importance of the Book of Revelation.

Peace

AcidPhosphate69
05-25-2008, 01:08 PM
oh shut up, he didn't say anything about aids and oil, he was talking about 7 headed monsters and flying horses, straight up, or we would have said "aids and oil"


You're retarded. First off, did you not get the whole metaphor thing? Like, taking this literally is stupid. Second, he COULD NOT have said oil and aids because well, those didn't fucking exist back then. Stop being a close-minded tool.

Cthulhu
05-25-2008, 11:28 PM
You're retarded. First off, did you not get the whole metaphor thing? Like, taking this literally is stupid. Second, he COULD NOT have said oil and aids because well, those didn't fucking exist back then. Stop being a close-minded tool.

And considering those things didn't exist back then, isn't it safe to arrive at the conclusion that it's NOT, in fact, a metaphor for events happening nowadays?

Most people don't realize that the Book of Revelations was just one of an entire genre of this type of literature, called (get this) apocalyptic literature In order to understand Revelations and other apocalypse literature, you have to understand the context of when they were written. Almost all pieces of apocalyptic literature were written by a group under persecution, and thus they contain vieled language about their enemy in question. If you place them in the proper historical context, it's easy to draw connections between the metaphors and events, people, places, and empires from that time period.

The Number of the Beast, for instance, is agreed by most Biblical Scholars to be a code for Nero.

Trismegistos
05-26-2008, 12:24 AM
And considering those things didn't exist back then, isn't it safe to arrive at the conclusion that it's NOT, in fact, a metaphor for events happening nowadays?

Most people don't realize that the Book of Revelations was just one of an entire genre of this type of literature, called (get this) apocalyptic literature In order to understand Revelations and other apocalypse literature, you have to understand the context of when they were written. Almost all pieces of apocalyptic literature were written by a group under persecution, and thus they contain vieled language about their enemy in question. If you place them in the proper historical context, it's easy to draw connections between the metaphors and events, people, places, and empires from that time period.

The Number of the Beast, for instance, is agreed by most Biblical Scholars to be a code for Nero.

I disagree.

Firstly, whilst Nero could be seen as the personification of the beast of Revelation based upon his acts and deeds, the use of gematria to identify the person is an exercise in futility. There would be so many candidates that would fit this method that there would be millions of beasts. When the number of the beast is finally revealed it will tie into one person in a way that has never been seen before. It is a mathematical code and matches a particular person.

Second, the way that you have mentioned a preterist view written to identify enemies of times passed that the author wanted to identify goes against the virtue of honesty. It would be one thing to identify ones enemies in a veiled way, but it would be completely unacceptable to state that it was a divine revelation.

Third, the preterist view does not explain Revelation but really only describes certain aspects which have been interpreted many ways.

Like I have said before, Revelation cannot be deciphered by one "man". I think it takes a collection of ideas and I think that in actual fact that it will only be fully understood when reviewed against events passed. It will be a testament for future generations that we had forewarning but could not understand the message.

hectis
05-26-2008, 12:30 AM
it is kinda funny the 666 thing like everytime there is some evil person or something like that people will always try to find 666 in there name some how

Trismegistos
05-26-2008, 02:18 AM
it is kinda funny the 666 thing like everytime there is some evil person or something like that people will always try to find 666 in there name some how

Very true. I think that we'll have clarity on the issue in about 10 years.

Cthulhu
05-26-2008, 09:54 AM
I disagree.

Firstly, whilst Nero could be seen as the personification of the beast of Revelation based upon his acts and deeds, the use of gematria to identify the person is an exercise in futility. There would be so many candidates that would fit this method that there would be millions of beasts. When the number of the beast is finally revealed it will tie into one person in a way that has never been seen before. It is a mathematical code and matches a particular person.

Second, the way that you have mentioned a preterist view written to identify enemies of times passed that the author wanted to identify goes against the virtue of honesty. It would be one thing to identify ones enemies in a veiled way, but it would be completely unacceptable to state that it was a divine revelation.

Third, the preterist view does not explain Revelation but really only describes certain aspects which have been interpreted many ways.

Like I have said before, Revelation cannot be deciphered by one "man". I think it takes a collection of ideas and I think that in actual fact that it will only be fully understood when reviewed against events passed. It will be a testament for future generations that we had forewarning but could not understand the message.

Why would it be unacceptable to claim it was divine revelation? (Keep in mind you're talking to a skeptic here, so I take claims of "divine" revelation to be pure bunk.) The point of apocalyptic literature was to give hope to that persecuted group by promising their savior would come down and wreak fiery vengeance upon the Seleucids/Romans/etc. (depending on the time period). Who's to say that the writer of revelations didn't understand his literary device to be divinely inspired?

As for the Nero thing, that's only one of the prevailing theories, not necessarily mine, although 666 is more than likely a mistranslation since the earliest surviving copy of Revelations says 616.

Trismegistos
05-26-2008, 09:42 PM
Why would it be unacceptable to claim it was divine revelation? (Keep in mind you're talking to a skeptic here, so I take claims of "divine" revelation to be pure bunk.) The point of apocalyptic literature was to give hope to that persecuted group by promising their savior would come down and wreak fiery vengeance upon the Seleucids/Romans/etc. (depending on the time period). Who's to say that the writer of revelations didn't understand his literary device to be divinely inspired?

As for the Nero thing, that's only one of the prevailing theories, not necessarily mine, although 666 is more than likely a mistranslation since the earliest surviving copy of Revelations says 616.

First part, it would be unacceptable to claim a divine revelation if you know that your message was not divinely inspired. It would imply that the message is purely political and would detract from those that gave divine messages before.

Second part, a message may be divinely inspired but it is a completely different thing to write about divine visions if one did not have them. It is a moot point, because I believe that Revelation was divinely inspired and that it foretold future events (not current events of the time).

666 & 616 have both been assigned to Nero using gematria and point out the weakness of gematria as an answer to the number of the beast.

You make valid points for a skeptic though :)

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-26-2008, 11:17 PM
Gotta correct you on this one. "Some dude" was apostle John, and he wrote it at the end of his life (which was 'round 100 AD - nothing so special, he was younger than Jesus).

It is not generally accepted that John wrote revelation, or the gospel of John. Though "christians" claim both books were written by John the Apostle, scholars find too many inconsistencies to attribute both works to the same person. Other suspected authors of the gospel of John are Lazarus, Paul, John Mark, and non-eyewitness authors.

The gospel of John is the most different from the others, and is at best written by someone trying to make themselves more important than how they are represented in the other gospels. As for Revelation, it is most likely a coded history, rather than an actual revelation. I have heard and read theories from EVERYWHERE, and EVERYONE can come up with their own interpretation. Truth is it is very irrelevant to the rest of the bible, and if true, the occurences told within should have happend a thousand years ago (at least).

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-26-2008, 11:19 PM
i think the stories in the bible are written to conceal analogys of natural laws parables and an esoteric knowledge

My thoughts exactly... on ALL sacred texts.

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-26-2008, 11:34 PM
the word Bible means holy books.

-Actually, it just means "book".

the council of Nicaea were a group of men who decided that the texts referring to the beliefs of the Christian religion should be gathered together in one collection so that all who required full knowledge would be able to find it most conveniently.

-Ehhhh! Wrong answer. The purpose of the Council was to resolve disagreements regarding the being of Jesus. To make a long story short- one group believed he was God, and one didn't. The Holy Roman Emperor, Constantine (who himself was not Christian until he died years later) formed the Council to have uniformity in his newly formed religion, Catholicism, which was a political move (evidenced in the fact that he himself did not declare himself a Christian until his death). This was the first Roe v. Wade as it was one of the most controversial topics of the time, except it was Arius (Arian Controversy) vs. Alexander (St. Alexander of Alexandria). Of 1800 bishops invited, around 300 attended and voila- Jesus is God. Easter no longer coincides with Passover, Meletius was schismatized, and a number of other results, but not the canonization of the bible.

or just a way that Saint John the Divine could get out his political opinions without being killed in his day.

-This is a new, yet increasingly popular scholastic interpretation. It is the most provable, and most of the "metaphors" can be attributed to occurences during that period.

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-26-2008, 11:41 PM
Is everyone who has a vision a prophet/messenger?

-By definition, yes, but not by God. The prophets of the New Testament were fortold- John the Baptist, and Jesus. Jesus told of another who would come after him, but did not say it would be John, and John does not fit his description. This prophecy left the door open for false-prophets (Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, etc.), but none fit the description (many believe Mohammed does fit the description, the timeline, and fulfills the prophecies about the one who would come after Jesus). The only "messengers" mentioned in the bible are "angels", and the only one who spoke directly with non-prophets (as well as prophets) was Gabriel. This also fits the claim of Mohammed being the prophet Jesus spoke of as Gabriel revealed his message to him (not that I necessarily believe any of this, but for contents sake).

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-26-2008, 11:45 PM
I think his acts justify him also as a prophet. If you accept that Jesus was a prophet, wouldn't he then show signs to his most beloved disciple?

-This title is a self-proclamation. Though other prophets had "protege's", they reproduced and/or did MORE than the previous prophet. John not only DIDN't do HALF of what Jesus did, he had no real occurences of his own. Elijah had Elishah, who's cadaver rose people from the dead... Moses had Joseph, who's trumpets made the walls of Jericho tumble. John the Baptist had Jesus, who... well... you know. Jesus had John who did WHAT? As great a prophet as Jesus was- the only real comparison is Elijah- why wouldn't his successor be so great??? Well, because John WASN't.

TSA
05-27-2008, 12:15 AM
it is kinda funny the 666 thing like everytime there is some evil person or something like that people will always try to find 666 in there name some how
that's exactly what im talking about

none of them are christian too, so why do they believe THAT part?

Trismegistos
05-27-2008, 02:21 AM
-This title is a self-proclamation. Though other prophets had "protege's", they reproduced and/or did MORE than the previous prophet. John not only DIDN't do HALF of what Jesus did, he had no real occurences of his own. Elijah had Elishah, who's cadaver rose people from the dead... Moses had Joseph, who's trumpets made the walls of Jericho tumble. John the Baptist had Jesus, who... well... you know. Jesus had John who did WHAT? As great a prophet as Jesus was- the only real comparison is Elijah- why wouldn't his successor be so great??? Well, because John WASN't.

Firstly, I like your posts. They are well structured and thought out and add to the discussion.

It would be hard to make a comparison from Elijah to Elisha and then from Jesus to the disciples. I think that we need to remember that there were 12 apostles. The apostles did have their miracles as set out in Acts. So whilst John was the beloved he was not the sole heir to teachings of Jesus.

In addition to that the prophets before Jesus were awaiting the messiah. The fact that the apostles identified Jesus as the Christ would then diminish what was written in terms of glorifying their own works. I would say that it was the knowledge that they knew the Christ that they would focus more on spreading the gospel rather than recording any miracles. Suffice to say there were miracles attributed to the apostles.

I don't understand your point when you say:

"As great a prophet as Jesus was- the only real comparison is Elijah- why wouldn't his successor be so great??? Well, because John WASN't"

The prophet Muhammad had no successor (in terms that he was the last prophet). Is there an expectation that a prophet must have a successor and that this successor must be better than they were to warrant their acceptance as a prophet?

Trismegistos
05-27-2008, 02:25 AM
that's exactly what im talking about

none of them are christian too, so why do they believe THAT part?

You disbelieve the entire book though don't you?

People try and workout the mystery behind 666 as is it is a puzzle. Plain and simple.

And I have already stated that gematria is the wrong way to look at it.

Trismegistos
05-27-2008, 02:35 AM
-Actually, it just means "book".


-This is a new, yet increasingly popular scholastic interpretation. It is the most provable, and most of the "metaphors" can be attributed to occurences during that period.

I disagree, I don't think that there has been explanation that justifies a preterist view.

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-27-2008, 06:35 AM
Firstly, I like your posts. They are well structured and thought out and add to the discussion.

-Thanks. I have these debates a lot...

It would be hard to make a comparison from Elijah to Elisha and then from Jesus to the disciples.

-You're taking what I said out of context. This was in reference to the assumption that John was a prophet- which he would have had to have been for the "Revelation" to have occured. Daniel was a prophet, and his book is the only one in the entire bible which even comes close to Revelations in terms of prophecy, yet Daniel is universally accepted as a prophet. Noone even claims John was a prophet, yet they accept Revelation as a "revelation"... that's a contradiction to established order in prophecy.

In addition to that the prophets before Jesus were awaiting the messiah. The fact that the apostles identified Jesus as the Christ would then diminish what was written in terms of glorifying their own works. I would say that it was the knowledge that they knew the Christ that they would focus more on spreading the gospel rather than recording any miracles. Suffice to say there were miracles attributed to the apostles.

-These last two comments are contradictory. Either no miracles were to be recorded, or their greatest were. Either way, "miracles" don't make anyone a prophet, rather "revelation" does. Paul believed in the "gifts of the holy spirit" (which have no biblical precedent), which could justify these miracles, and some prophetic actions (but not true prophecy). As referenced above, what John claims is much greater, and would require John to be a successor to Jesus as a prophet.

I don't understand your point when you say.

-This is a response to the suposition that John was a prophet. Only a prophet can receive revelation, and John claimed to receive "THE" revelation- a direct comparison of himself to Daniel as referenced in the similarities between both revelations. As a prophetic successor to Jesus, he would have to meet certain canonical requirements, including reproducing his miracles (this was a matter of "proof" not requirement to being a prophet, but all previous prophets showed some degree of "lesser" miracles than their successors).

The prophet Muhammad had no successor (in terms that he was the last prophet). Is there an expectation that a prophet must have a successor and that this successor must be better than they were to warrant their acceptance as a prophet?

-No. Again you took my comments out of context. What I said was that Jesus prophecied a successor- many believe it was Muhammad. The great "miracle" attributed to Muhammad is the perfect re-revelation of God's word in it's entirety- this would be consistent with his claimed "role", it would be consistent with prior prophecy, and it would meet the requirements previously set forth in scripture. BUT if Muhammed is Jesus's successor, this would mean John was not a prophet, and his "revelation" was not a prophecy. I am not saying I believe any, most, or some of this, simply laying out the biblical facts as I see them.

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-27-2008, 06:39 AM
I disagree, I don't think that there has been explanation that justifies a preterist view.

-You disagree with thousands of scholars by simply stating so. There would be no school of thought known as "preterist" if there was no explanation justifying that view. Obviously- if there are thousands of religious scholars discussing and adhering to "preterist" interpretations, then there are also "preterist" interpretations that justify having that view. That you don't accept those explanations would be a different argument completely, but that would leave this discussion open only to opinion and not logic and reason.

Trismegistos
05-27-2008, 07:00 AM
-You disagree with thousands of scholars by simply stating so. There would be no school of thought known as "preterist" if there was no explanation justifying that view. Obviously- if there are thousands of religious scholars discussing and adhering to "preterist" interpretations, then there are also "preterist" interpretations that justify having that view. That you don't accept those explanations would be a different argument completely, but that would leave this discussion open only to opinion and not logic and reason.


Not necessarily, I am open to someone else reasoning with me or showing a logical thought process that can explain the process to me. I am yet to be convinced. I just cannot see that the prophecies of Revelation took place in the 1st or 2nd Century AD. I also believe that there have not been events that adequately justify the prophecy being seen as complete.

I'll post something soonish to show that the prophecies can still be seen as occurring in current times (I'll admit it is only my opinion).

Peace

Trismegistos
05-27-2008, 08:11 AM
The Commission of the European Communities (also commonly called the European Commission) – consisting of 10 members, a president and 6 vice presidents selected by member states – is charged principally with formal and practical implementation of the rules issued by the Council of Ministers. It also helps prepare acts submitted to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The Commission, as executive, is both initiator and implementer.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1996 volume 4, p. 606

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy

Revelation 13:1

The common link between both is that there is/was an entity (both political) that has 7 heads (presidents) and 10 horns (members).

Now that is actual fact. The European Commission has since changed but given what has been achieved thus far and what will continue to happen I don't think that there would be a more fitting political entity.

I think also when consideration is given to the fact that the powers of the European Commission could be handed to a single full-term European President that will (as of writing) have a 30 month stint as President, then one could argue that the fulfillment of the prophecy could already be taking place.

Hence why I am against a full preterist view.

I have more to base my argument on than solely this point.

hectis
05-27-2008, 01:42 PM
that's exactly what im talking about

none of them are christian too, so why do they believe THAT part?


idk but 6 and 666 has forever been tied to the devil and so any person who is evil people seem to always find that number associaated with them but u can get 666 out of everyone

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-27-2008, 03:26 PM
I'll post something soonish to show that the prophecies can still be seen as occurring in current times (I'll admit it is only my opinion).

-I'll post something "preterist"... not because it's my opinion, but because I know there are logical preterist explanations (remember, the Temple of Solomon was destroyed around 70AD, and that is part of Revelation...)

Paul took Jesus's prophecies from a preterist standpoint (well, on retrospect now that his time has passed) because he thought HE was living in the end times. Throughout history scholars, religious leaders, pretenders, false prophets, anti-Christs, etc. have had "logical" explanations of what they thought were fulfillment of prophecy.

I'll do that when I get home... well, when I get bored enough to search the internet for it... lol.

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-27-2008, 03:39 PM
The Commission of the European Communities (also commonly called the European Commission) – consisting of 10 members, a president and 6 vice presidents selected by member states – is charged principally with formal and practical implementation of the rules issued by the Council of Ministers. It also helps prepare acts submitted to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The Commission, as executive, is both initiator and implementer.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1996 volume 4, p. 606

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy

Revelation 13:1

The common link between both is that there is/was an entity (both political) that has 7 heads (presidents) and 10 horns (members).

Now that is actual fact. The European Commission has since changed but given what has been achieved thus far and what will continue to happen I don't think that there would be a more fitting political entity.

I think also when consideration is given to the fact that the powers of the European Commission could be handed to a single full-term European President that will (as of writing) have a 30 month stint as President, then one could argue that the fulfillment of the prophecy could already be taking place.

Hence why I am against a full preterist view.

I have more to base my argument on than solely this point.

When considering fulfillment of prophecy one must consider exposure to that prophecy. Since the majority of Europe is or has been Catholic, it is hard to believe they would fulfill prophecy accidentally while knowing the prophecy. Jesus also knew the prophecies regarding the Messiah, and it is easy to believe most of his fulfillments were staged. That is another discussion...

As for the EU, it is not limited to 10 states. "The European Union is composed of 27 independent sovereign countries which are known as member states". There is one President, 27 commissioners (one for each member state), and 785 members of the European Parliament. Now, with the facts... how does that fit into your equation???

The Presidency lasts for only 6 months, and is often a "shared" Presidency of "three like minds" for 1.5years... not three as you stated... no vice presidents as you stated... no beasts, no horns, no whore of Babylon...

Trismegistos
05-27-2008, 04:55 PM
When considering fulfillment of prophecy one must consider exposure to that prophecy. Since the majority of Europe is or has been Catholic, it is hard to believe they would fulfill prophecy accidentally while knowing the prophecy. Jesus also knew the prophecies regarding the Messiah, and it is easy to believe most of his fulfillments were staged. That is another discussion...

As for the EU, it is not limited to 10 states. "The European Union is composed of 27 independent sovereign countries which are known as member states". There is one President, 27 commissioners (one for each member state), and 785 members of the European Parliament. Now, with the facts... how does that fit into your equation???

The Presidency lasts for only 6 months, and is often a "shared" Presidency of "three like minds" for 1.5years... not three as you stated... no vice presidents as you stated... no beasts, no horns, no whore of Babylon...

I know fully well the structure of the European Union and I can inform you that when the Maastricht Treaty was formed is when the European Union was formed. At that time it had the structure that I mentioned. Key in this is that formation of the European Union and the commitment to a single currency were both integral at that time and would be for years to come.

In terms of the European Presidency it is planned that there will be a single President from the 1st of January 2009 who will hold office for 30 month terms. Check the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

If the European Union had have kept the same structure before 1996 and continued to enlarge don't you think that there would be more people that would have started making a lot of noise?

One for democratic reasons and two because it is a fulfillment of prophecy.

And in terms of democracy there will be none. The President of the European Union will be chosen by the 27 heads of government locking themselves in a room and deciding the presidency. The United Kingdom, France and Germany have a pact so there will only be candidate that all three support.

The explanation in Revelation 17:8 states:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

I have to go to work so I'll add more to the debate tonight. And in terms of the temple, the prophecy of Jesus was that not one stone would stand. There is still a whole section of wall.

TSA
05-27-2008, 05:43 PM
You disbelieve the entire book though don't you?

People try and workout the mystery behind 666 as is it is a puzzle. Plain and simple.

And I have already stated that gematria is the wrong way to look at it.
i dont disbelieve the whole book, just the silly shit, like 7 headed beasts from iraq and flying horses

TSA
05-27-2008, 05:49 PM
I know fully well the structure of the European Union and I can inform you that when the Maastricht Treaty was formed is when the European Union was formed. At that time it had the structure that I mentioned. Key in this is that formation of the European Union and the commitment to a single currency were both integral at that time and would be for years to come.

In terms of the European Presidency it is planned that there will be a single President from the 1st of January 2008 who will hold office for 30 month terms. Check the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

If the European Union had have kept the same structure before 1996 and continued to enlarge don't you think that there would be more people that would have started making a lot of noise?

One for democratic reasons and two because it is a fulfillment of prophecy.

And in terms of democracy there will be none. The President of the European Union will be chosen by the 27 heads of government locking themselves in a room and deciding the presidency. The United Kingdom, France and Germany have a pact so there will only be candidate that all three support.

The explanation in Revelation 17:8 states:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

I have to go to work so I'll add more to the debate tonight. And in terms of the temple, the prophecy of Jesus was that not one stone would stand. There is still a whole section of wall.

dude, its doesn't say the european union, germany, france, britian, contract, pact, negotitation, or europe in the entire book.

infact, another question, when all this 666 and end of the world talk comes up, why do ppl always find the 'hidden meanings' in western contexts or contexts that suit their time.

like NY rappers proclaiming Gullliani is 666 at through the 9s just cause he was being a dick to them in NY, and he could even bet Ron Paul in an election, let alone be the anti christ.

or Reagan being 666 cause he was a dick
or churchhill for some reason, idk


and who said the book was open for personal interpretation, that's just us trying to make ourselves more comfortable with something that we feel is profound and sounds ridiculous

the guy, more then anything, meant exactly what he said. like the rest of the bible meaning exactly what it says. it was 200 yrs ago, and doesn't make sense now, but in the end of the day it's not a riddle, it's supposed to be fact.

when he said whore of babylon he didn't mean Nancy Polosi because america is a super power like babylon and she's a leading figure in a empire just like babylon.

he meant a slut from babylon.

TSA
05-27-2008, 05:54 PM
I said things worse then aids and oil prices will be one of the reasons this world ends it has already started to fuck shit up not only is gas high but it has made food prices to go threw the roof and most everything else we buy and OK so he did not say it but lots of prophets never say what they mean
see, putting it in the context of his world and immediate reality.

it would have said food prices will go up, there will be riots in cameroon about it, oil will be expensive at the pump and so forth.

all prophets say what they mean. There's carnival swami's that say things all abstract but they do that so that you can interpret it as anything and they can say "see, i told you"

but muhammed, abraham, jesus, buddah, all said what they meant, jesus was less clear cause he used parables, but no metaphors and complex abstract meanings.

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-27-2008, 06:00 PM
I know fully well the structure of the European Union and I can inform you that when the Maastricht Treaty was formed is when the European Union was formed. At that time it had the structure that I mentioned. Key in this is that formation of the European Union and the commitment to a single currency were both integral at that time and would be for years to come.

In terms of the European Presidency it is planned that there will be a single President from the 1st of January 2008 who will hold office for 30 month terms. Check the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

If the European Union had have kept the same structure before 1996 and continued to enlarge don't you think that there would be more people that would have started making a lot of noise?

One for democratic reasons and two because it is a fulfillment of prophecy.

And in terms of democracy there will be none. The President of the European Union will be chosen by the 27 heads of government locking themselves in a room and deciding the presidency. The United Kingdom, France and Germany have a pact so there will only be candidate that all three support.

The explanation in Revelation 17:8 states:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

I have to go to work so I'll add more to the debate tonight. And in terms of the temple, the prophecy of Jesus was that not one stone would stand. There is still a whole section of wall.


Um, that still doesn't fulfill prophecy. First of all, the power given to a President, especially the President of the European Union is not absolute. Furthermore, the reign in Revelation is for 3.5 years of peace followed by 3.5 years of war, not 2.5. You're grabbin at straws buddy...

TSA
05-27-2008, 06:06 PM
that wutang latino is right, ppl also like to act like presidents are absolute dictators, and among all places the EU? good luck getting a president that can even declare war there, let alone be an anti christ.

Olive Oil Goombah
05-27-2008, 11:08 PM
The book of revelations is just a symbolic, artistic, humanistic way of looking at how the world will really end, or at least human existence.....

Its like poetry almost, a novel...blah blah blah.

TSA
05-28-2008, 01:59 AM
no it's not, there's no where that it's indicated he's being methaphoric, and if the world was gonna end and you knew it was gonna happen, you weren't gonna make it a riddle

plus how much credibility does this nigga have in saying "I know exactly how the world is gonna end"?

ppl try to call it all a methaphor cause it's to ridiculous to swallow, truth is it's probably 98% more likely he was dead serious

Trismegistos
05-28-2008, 04:07 AM
no it's not, there's no where that it's indicated he's being methaphoric, and if the world was gonna end and you knew it was gonna happen, you weren't gonna make it a riddle

plus how much credibility does this nigga have in saying "I know exactly how the world is gonna end"?

ppl try to call it all a methaphor cause it's to ridiculous to swallow, truth is it's probably 98% more likely he was dead serious

What credibility or knowledge do you have on the matter?

Your first post stated that there were "squids and shit" when it is never mentioned. If that was you trying to be funny I'd reccommend people read you rant against Cilvaringz' Death To America, now that was some funny shit. Ignorance and aggorance at its finest.

Trismegistos
05-28-2008, 04:40 AM
Um, that still doesn't fulfill prophecy. First of all, the power given to a President, especially the President of the European Union is not absolute. Furthermore, the reign in Revelation is for 3.5 years of peace followed by 3.5 years of war, not 2.5. You're grabbin at straws buddy...

Clutching at straws? I'm holding a handful of jewels and I have shown you one.

Read my post and the link again. Reports also said that Blair would take the job only if "it comes with real powers to intervene in defense and trade affairs"[41] Under the treaties, these areas are the prerogatives of the European Commission, Council and High Representative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council#Tony_Blair

Now it is common knowledge that Tony Blair will not be the first permanent President of the European Union. But it highlights a key indicator that one person interested in the position is looking at increasing the powers of the position before even taking office (or realistically being a chance to take office).

I never said that it was a complete fulfillment of the prophecy and I wouldn't state that the term is for 30 months when I know that The Bible mentions a period of 42 months, unless I was being honest about the situation. But if a candidate is not selected or a controversy similar to the Santer Commission occurs extending a presidency by 12 months would be a formality.

I am simply stating that there was a strong similarity between a rebuilt Roman Empire and someone that, based on their faith, was persecuted by the Roman Empire at the time.

I am patient on these matters. I have known of the European Commission resembling the Beast of Revelation for 12 years. It has taken that period of time for things to develop to where they are today and my patience will persevere until the prophecies are fulfilled (God willing). There is still a lot of water to pass beneath the bridge, who can judge what speed the river flows?

I can say this though, I'm happy for anyone to explain that the preterist view of Revelation or the prophecies of Christ have been completed.

Where is Christ? Where is the peace?

I'll also state that I am not singling out the European Union There is a lot wrong from international politics all the way down to macro level on the streets where we live, regardless of what country you live in.

There is a void of positive strong leadership at political levels and what strong leadership there is has generally arisen from different circles.

I'm happy to build with people and I am not phased by resistance. I've got nothing to gain from what I have written and I'm the first to state that the prophecy is not complete.

Trismegistos
05-28-2008, 04:43 AM
that wutang latino is right, ppl also like to act like presidents are absolute dictators, and among all places the EU? good luck getting a president that can even declare war there, let alone be an anti christ.

I'm sure that was what people thought in the 1930's in Germany and what other countries thought about Germany.

Who said anti-Christ?

What about those that are anti-Muhammad?

Do you not think that they are both from the same God?

Trismegistos
05-28-2008, 08:04 AM
see, putting it in the context of his world and immediate reality.

it would have said food prices will go up, there will be riots in cameroon about it, oil will be expensive at the pump and so forth.

all prophets say what they mean. There's carnival swami's that say things all abstract but they do that so that you can interpret it as anything and they can say "see, i told you"

but muhammed, abraham, jesus, buddah, all said what they meant, jesus was less clear cause he used parables, but no metaphors and complex abstract meanings.

Really, are you completely sure on that one?

The parable of the fig tree, the ten virgins, the mustard seed.........

The prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel.

Are they as clear cut as you say? I think they have some striking similarities to Revelation in both what is written and the imagery that it is written in.

It sounds like your looking for news reports rather than prophetic messages.

By the way it did say food prices would be high.

TSA
05-28-2008, 02:45 PM
What credibility or knowledge do you have on the matter?

Your first post stated that there were "squids and shit" when it is never mentioned. If that was you trying to be funny I'd reccommend people read you rant against Cilvaringz' Death To America, now that was some funny shit. Ignorance and aggorance at its finest.
well angry early adult male, my use of the term squids and shit is far beyond the point, my credibility comes in the fact that flying horses is far fetched, and you probably think religion is ignorant mumbo jumbo, but believe in anti christs when you don't believe in christ.

and Cilvaringz is a terrorist queer and your his lethafaced sex slave
with less then 1000 posts.....so i have no reason to address anything you say after this mark

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-28-2008, 03:24 PM
Trismegistos,

Parallels between your own interpretations of Revelations and current political situations mean nothing when you ignore key prophetic facts. First of all you are ignoring all Christian doctrine and precedence for prophecy, and you are also ignoring that of Judaism. You did not respond at all to the deficiencies I pointed out, and you simply keep piling on more and more misconceptions. That way it is easy to win an argument if you are speaking with someone who is #1- naive, #2- uneducated, #3- completely ignorant on religion, and #4- completely ignorant to rational debating methods... none of which am I.

Tony Blair is not a religious figure. How does that fit into your equation??? The figures spoken of in Revelation have political AND religious authority- something not prevalent in MODERN politics, but VERY common in John's time.

"But it highlights a key indicator that one person interested in the position is looking at increasing the powers of the position before even taking office (or realistically being a chance to take office)."

-That's like saying that because I thought about thinking about saying something that didn't happen but because I thought I said it and it happend I made it happen... wha??? Exactly.

"I never said that it was a complete fulfillment of the prophecy and I wouldn't state that the term is for 30 months when I know that The Bible mentions a period of 42 months, unless I was being honest about the situation. But if a candidate is not selected or a controversy similar to the Santer Commission occurs extending a presidency by 12 months would be a formality."

-You are still so far off from prophecy that any comparison is ridiculous- you even state "I never said it was a 'complete' fulfillment". If your interpretation is not a "complete fulfillment", and I am filling it with holes, then what's the point of even attributing these occurences to prophecy? BY THE WAY, the bible doesn't state 42 months- it says "his reign will be 3.5 YEARS of PEACE, followed by 3.5 YEARS of WAR"= 7 years. Where does your interpretation of EU law compared to Rev. even come close to this??? Where does the EU presidency come close to a religious figure who will rebuild the temple of Solomon???

"I have known of the European Commission resembling the Beast of Revelation for 12 years."

-Uhh... whatever. You haven't proven ANY resemblance. I was a Pentecostal preacher when I was younger (about 11 years ago now) and during that time I was exposed to this type of extremist Christian rhetoric. I had lively discourse with many "learned" ministers, none of which could prove ONE parallel that wasn't similar to ANY parallel in history, ie. a king is a king, so just because there are kings in Rev. and kings in present times doesn't mean it refers to present times.

"I'm happy for anyone to explain that the preterist view of Revelation or the prophecies of Christ have been completed."

-Have you read Revelation??? Apparently not. Some things were supposed to happen BEFORE Revelation, some PRESENTLY (to John), and some SHORTLY thereafter. I did not claim John was a prophet- YOU did. If a preterist view has correlations with actual occurences around the time of John's revelation, ie. the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, the acts of Nero, etc., yet there are things that did NOT occur- ie., the Temple of Solomon rebuilt, reinstitution of the sacrifice, and the return of Christ- that only serves to prove that John was NOT a prophet.

"I've got nothing to gain from what I have written and I'm the first to state that the prophecy is not complete."

-And yet you call it a "prophecy"??? Have you no knowledge of the word? You have failed to prove John is a prophet through prophetic succession and precedence, you have failed to prove he is a prophet by miracles, you have failed to prove he is a prophet by SELF PROCLAMATION, you have failed to prove he is the prophet PROPHESIED by Jesus to be his successor, and you have failed to prove that Revelation is a prophecy... why, then, do you still refer to it as such???

If a duck not only lacks feathers, but has a metal body, doesn't have wings rather a propeller, doesn't quack rather roars like an engine, and doesn't lay eggs rather allows people to enter it and control it- that's because it's not a frickin duck, it's a HELICOPTER!

WARPATH
05-28-2008, 03:35 PM
I'll say this much.

After those texts (bible,Quaran) were written the world changed.

TSA
05-28-2008, 04:14 PM
same thing with Thriller

Trismegistos
05-28-2008, 05:02 PM
-You disagree with thousands of scholars by simply stating so. There would be no school of thought known as "preterist" if there was no explanation justifying that view. Obviously- if there are thousands of religious scholars discussing and adhering to "preterist" interpretations, then there are also "preterist" interpretations that justify having that view. That you don't accept those explanations would be a different argument completely, but that would leave this discussion open only to opinion and not logic and reason.

Getting back to your earlier posts then.

This one is circular logic.

Thousands of scholars say it so, therefore it must be so.

Well thousands of scholars have put forward their theory on how and why the pyramids were built and there is still not full consensus or understanding on that matter.

Just a question, would scholars be funded by universities to look at Revelation in terms of events that have yet to be fulfilled and potentially highlight that a certain (European Union in my case) government resembles something from Revelation. I could not see that happening, they'll fund scholars to look at human rights, international laws and so forth but they would not fund something that could be seen as an attack towards a supra-national government.

Trismegistos
05-28-2008, 05:08 PM
-I'll post something "preterist"... not because it's my opinion, but because I know there are logical preterist explanations (remember, the Temple of Solomon was destroyed around 70AD, and that is part of Revelation...)

Paul took Jesus's prophecies from a preterist standpoint (well, on retrospect now that his time has passed) because he thought HE was living in the end times. Throughout history scholars, religious leaders, pretenders, false prophets, anti-Christs, etc. have had "logical" explanations of what they thought were fulfillment of prophecy.

I'll do that when I get home... well, when I get bored enough to search the internet for it... lol.

I'll admit that there are many "logical" preterist explanations that I have read. I just don't accept that all of Revelation was revealed in the first few centuries.

Trismegistos
05-28-2008, 05:13 PM
well angry early adult male, my use of the term squids and shit is far beyond the point, my credibility comes in the fact that flying horses is far fetched, and you probably think religion is ignorant mumbo jumbo, but believe in anti christs when you don't believe in christ.

and Cilvaringz is a terrorist queer and your his lethafaced sex slave
with less then 1000 posts.....so i have no reason to address anything you say after this mark

Still again, there is no flying horse in The Bible.

I didn't know that you had to have over a 1000 posts. I thought that Wulatino - Mangani has been making an excellent argument for someone with under a 1000 posts. Isn't it better to only put comments that you have some knowledge or passion about on the forum? Not just post a comment for every thread.

WARPATH
05-28-2008, 05:44 PM
Still again, there is no flying horse in The Bible.

I didn't know that you had to have over a 1000 posts. I thought that Wulatino - Mangani has been making an excellent argument for someone with under a 1000 posts. Isn't it better to only put comments that you have some knowledge or passion about on the forum? Not just post a comment for every thread.


What about Elijah and the flaming chariot? :learning:

Trismegistos
05-28-2008, 05:44 PM
Trismegistos,

Parallels between your own interpretations of Revelations and current political situations mean nothing when you ignore key prophetic facts. First of all you are ignoring all Christian doctrine and precedence for prophecy, and you are also ignoring that of Judaism. You did not respond at all to the deficiencies I pointed out, and you simply keep piling on more and more misconceptions. That way it is easy to win an argument if you are speaking with someone who is #1- naive, #2- uneducated, #3- completely ignorant on religion, and #4- completely ignorant to rational debating methods... none of which am I.

Tony Blair is not a religious figure. How does that fit into your equation??? The figures spoken of in Revelation have political AND religious authority- something not prevalent in MODERN politics, but VERY common in John's time.

"But it highlights a key indicator that one person interested in the position is looking at increasing the powers of the position before even taking office (or realistically being a chance to take office)."

-That's like saying that because I thought about thinking about saying something that didn't happen but because I thought I said it and it happend I made it happen... wha??? Exactly.

"I never said that it was a complete fulfillment of the prophecy and I wouldn't state that the term is for 30 months when I know that The Bible mentions a period of 42 months, unless I was being honest about the situation. But if a candidate is not selected or a controversy similar to the Santer Commission occurs extending a presidency by 12 months would be a formality."

-You are still so far off from prophecy that any comparison is ridiculous- you even state "I never said it was a 'complete' fulfillment". If your interpretation is not a "complete fulfillment", and I am filling it with holes, then what's the point of even attributing these occurences to prophecy? BY THE WAY, the bible doesn't state 42 months- it says "his reign will be 3.5 YEARS of PEACE, followed by 3.5 YEARS of WAR"= 7 years. Where does your interpretation of EU law compared to Rev. even come close to this??? Where does the EU presidency come close to a religious figure who will rebuild the temple of Solomon???

"I have known of the European Commission resembling the Beast of Revelation for 12 years."

-Uhh... whatever. You haven't proven ANY resemblance. I was a Pentecostal preacher when I was younger (about 11 years ago now) and during that time I was exposed to this type of extremist Christian rhetoric. I had lively discourse with many "learned" ministers, none of which could prove ONE parallel that wasn't similar to ANY parallel in history, ie. a king is a king, so just because there are kings in Rev. and kings in present times doesn't mean it refers to present times.

"I'm happy for anyone to explain that the preterist view of Revelation or the prophecies of Christ have been completed."

-Have you read Revelation??? Apparently not. Some things were supposed to happen BEFORE Revelation, some PRESENTLY (to John), and some SHORTLY thereafter. I did not claim John was a prophet- YOU did. If a preterist view has correlations with actual occurences around the time of John's revelation, ie. the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, the acts of Nero, etc., yet there are things that did NOT occur- ie., the Temple of Solomon rebuilt, reinstitution of the sacrifice, and the return of Christ- that only serves to prove that John was NOT a prophet.

"I've got nothing to gain from what I have written and I'm the first to state that the prophecy is not complete."

-And yet you call it a "prophecy"??? Have you no knowledge of the word? You have failed to prove John is a prophet through prophetic succession and precedence, you have failed to prove he is a prophet by miracles, you have failed to prove he is a prophet by SELF PROCLAMATION, you have failed to prove he is the prophet PROPHESIED by Jesus to be his successor, and you have failed to prove that Revelation is a prophecy... why, then, do you still refer to it as such???

If a duck not only lacks feathers, but has a metal body, doesn't have wings rather a propeller, doesn't quack rather roars like an engine, and doesn't lay eggs rather allows people to enter it and control it- that's because it's not a frickin duck, it's a HELICOPTER!

That way it is easy to win an argument if you are speaking with someone who is #1- naive, #2- uneducated, #3- completely ignorant on religion, and #4- completely ignorant to rational debating methods... none of which am I.

I'd like to think that I am not naive, uneducated, completely ignorrant on religion or to rational debating methods.

See you don't actually know me, and I am not the sum of my posts. I don't discuss these issues with people because people do not react kindly to hearing different to what they believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Blair is not a religious figure. How does that fit into your equation??? The figures spoken of in Revelation have political AND religious authority- something not prevalent in MODERN politics, but VERY common in John's time.

I was simply using Tony Blair as an example of a person that was keen on the position. I was not saying that he was anything more than that. I stated that he would not be the first permanent EU president.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it highlights a key indicator that one person interested in the position is looking at increasing the powers of the position before even taking office (or realistically being a chance to take office)."

-That's like saying that because I thought about thinking about saying something that didn't happen but because I thought I said it and it happend I made it happen... wha??? Exactly.

I was just showing an example. That before the position has even been created a person that was identified as a candidate was already seeking more powers to go along with the position. Nothing like your example provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Have you read Revelation??? Apparently not. Some things were supposed to happen BEFORE Revelation, some PRESENTLY (to John), and some SHORTLY thereafter. I did not claim John was a prophet- YOU did. If a preterist view has correlations with actual occurences around the time of John's revelation, ie. the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, the acts of Nero, etc., yet there are things that did NOT occur- ie., the Temple of Solomon rebuilt, reinstitution of the sacrifice, and the return of Christ- that only serves to prove that John was NOT a prophet.

I have read Revelation. How do you think that I have drawn a comparison. I have stated that I do not agree with a full preterist view because there are so many things that are not fulfilled.

Is your argument that the writer of Revelation merely wrote up a disguised version of historical events and current events (at that time) and then went forth to issue a false prophecy. So is only what can be identified then true, and then what cannot be identified declared false? Under what assumption and under what authority.

Again this is circular logic. Only what we have seen is true and what has not come to pass is false. Is that the way you are presenting it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am happy to have the debate with you. I have pointed out that your posts are logical arguments and that you do a fairly good job of presenting them.

Don't be offended that I state that I do not wholeheartedly agree with a preterist view.

All that should be taken from what I have posted here is that in the early 90's the European Union resembled the Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns for a period of time.

Mention of terms, politicians and additional information was merely trying to illustrate how the words written in Revelation have a strong similarity to a recent event.

I'm happy to keep building. Highlight the areas that you want me to go back over in terms of what I have not answered for you.

And again I am back off to work so I will take a look tonight.

Peace

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-28-2008, 06:41 PM
Thousands of scholars say it so, therefore it must be so.

-That's not at all what I said. What I said was thousands of scholars have preterist interpretations, and therefore they must have there own various preterist explanations in order for so many to believe so (whether or not their interpretations are correct is irrelevant because that is not what you stated- you stated there were "no preterist explanations").

Well thousands of scholars have put forward their theory on how and why the pyramids were built and there is still not full consensus or understanding on that matter.

-Alas, in this case we would be arguing whether or not the pyramids were built. Seeing as how the scientists would be arguing "how" they were built, I would be arguing that they believe they have evidence that the pyramids "were" built.

Just a question, would scholars be funded by universities to look at Revelation in terms of events that have yet to be fulfilled and potentially highlight that a certain (European Union in my case) government resembles something from Revelation. I could not see that happening, they'll fund scholars to look at human rights, international laws and so forth but they would not fund something that could be seen as an attack towards a supra-national government.

-This is your most naive statement. What about all these Christian colleges and universities? You don't think the various denominational colleges study these prophecies and these arguments??? I don't know what country you live in, but in America there are thousands of colleges devoted to just that, and various other religious ends...

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-28-2008, 07:08 PM
[I]See you don't actually know me, and I am not the sum of my posts. I don't discuss these issues with people because people do not react kindly to hearing different to what they believe.

-That's an emotionalist attempt at ignoring my arguments. You are, in ad-hominem, attacking the fact that you disagree with me, and confusing it with the lack of facts in your argument. I am not stating any animosity towards you disagreeing with me, rather fabricating answers and adjusting as they are rebutted. You have sunk away from affirmative assertions, and are slowly retreating into "faith" because you cannot back up any of your earlier and rebutted claims.

[I]I was simply using Tony Blair as an example of a person that was keen on the position. I was not saying that he was anything more than that. I stated that he would not be the first permanent EU president.

-So you make a completely irrelevant remark in your rebuttal, I state it is completely irrelevant, and you admit it was completely irrelevant? What's the point of making the statement???

[I]I was just showing an example. That before the position has even been created a person that was identified as a candidate was already seeking more powers to go along with the position. Nothing like your example provided.

-An example of what? Your "example" doesn't apply to prophecy because nothing about your example FITS the prophecy. Are you saying that you are taking information from news sources, peicing them together, and predicting the fulfillment of a prediction based on your prediction being similar in your own eyes to the original prediction? So you're the prophet of a prophecy? LOL! Right...


[I]I have read Revelation. How do you think that I have drawn a comparison. I have stated that I do not agree with a full preterist view because there are so many things that are not fulfilled.

-You did not say you agreed with any BIT of preterist interpretations, and you said they lacked any explanation. Even under your new claim, any "partial" belief in a "prophecy" pretty much nullifies the entire prophecy because anyone can be "partially" right about ANY prediction, especially when the believer is the one skewing the interpretation.

[I]Is your argument that the writer of Revelation merely wrote up a disguised version of historical events and current events (at that time) and then went forth to issue a false prophecy. So is only what can be identified then true, and then what cannot be identified declared false? Under what assumption and under what authority.

-Now you ask me a question and try to answer it with some simple minded response you assume I would have? I am suggesting the writer of Revelation was in no way inspired by God, nor did he have a "revelation", nor was he a prophet, and any "prophetic" coincidences within the book are mostly related to mythical ambiguities, knowledge of the current and future political climates through logic and common sense, knowledge of the current and future religious climates through logic and suppositions, bias of the interpreter and the manipulation of information. Kinda like Nastradamus...

[I]Again this is circular logic. Only what we have seen is true and what has not come to pass is false. Is that the way you are presenting it?

-Why do you ignore everything I say and then formulate ridiculous answers to questions you are asking me and that I have already answered? You are not referring at all to any of my rebuttals on your position that John was not a prophet, so this last statement of your is completely irrelevant.


[I]Don't be offended that I state that I do not wholeheartedly agree with a preterist view

-Pointing out your ad-hominem rebuttals is not being offended, it's pointing out your manipulative responses. I am not attacking your statements at all, as you have provided no facts to attack with other facts, rather you have changed positions, adjusted arguments, manipulated responses, and completely ignored my rebuttals and responses. First you denied a preterist view posessed "ANY" explanation, now you hold that you just don't "wholeheartedly agree with a preterist view"... that statement would require "SOME" acceptance...

[I]All that should be taken from what I have posted here is that in the early 90's the European Union resembled the Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns for a period of time.

-You have not proved this in any way. There are much criteria not met, and you have even provided false information on the issue, whcih now you are attempting to correct by saying "o, not now, but in the early 90's". If that statement held any water, the rest of Revelation would have occured by "the LATE 90's".

[I]Mention of terms, politicians and additional information was merely trying to illustrate how the words written in Revelation have a strong similarity to a recent event.

-But I have been making the point that you did NOT make any correlation. Why do you keep going back to the same argument if I have already punched a hole in it?

LORD NOSE
05-28-2008, 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PALEHORSE http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1178222#post1178222)
the bible is good reading even if its not meant to be taken literally pestilence and plagues swarms of locust make for a goood read.

why would death and destruction be good reading for you ?

hmmm

PsYkOsUs
05-28-2008, 09:19 PM
Simply put:

Religious text.. Any religious text = Mind control.. I don't care what mainstream belief-system you follow, it was all written by wolves to control the sheep... These "shephards" will lead you all over the "ledge" if you let them... God.. Any god simply does not exist in any of the forms you read on paper or otherwise.

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-28-2008, 09:41 PM
Simply put:

Religious text.. Any religious text = Mind control.. I don't care what mainstream belief-system you follow, it was all written by wolves to control the sheep... These "shephards" will lead you all over the "ledge" if you let them... God.. Any god simply does not exist in any of the forms you read on paper or otherwise.

-You're right... your word supercedes all logic and understanding. We should all bow down to your word because you said so... We should all mindlessly follow your uninformed opinion... wait! That's mind control! You're so smart! You almost got me! Shucks!

PsYkOsUs
05-29-2008, 12:22 AM
-You're right... your word supercedes all logic and understanding. We should all bow down to your word because you said so... We should all mindlessly follow your uninformed opinion... wait! That's mind control! You're so smart! You almost got me! Shucks!


That's all it took for you to believe them, right, so why not..? You believe in God, because you were taught to.. Not because you know,and certainly not because you can utilize your five senses to assume it's righteousness.. It defies logic, so don't approach religion from a logical perspective; it can't be done. That said: How do you know I'm not God. I can't prove that I am.. You can't prove that I'm not.. That's the whole basis of your belief is it not..? Just in-case..? You believe in something that may or may not exist.. There's certainly no proof of or lack their of.. Have you even read the Bible..? Most "religious" people have not read, or even attempted to understand their religious text, yet they'll argue over it's legitamacy all day.. Funny.

Trismegistos
05-29-2008, 07:42 AM
Wu-Latino Mangani,



I have put your comments in bold italics and have replied to what you have written. Please take a look and give me a reply on the matter.



I'll post something "preterist"... not because it's my opinion, but because I know there are logical preterist explanations (remember, the Temple of Solomon was destroyed around 70AD, and that is part of Revelation...)

Can you please provide a preterist argument that logically identifies the works of Revelation?

Can you also show where the destruction of the Temple of Solomon is mentioned in Revelation?

And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

The Western Wall is the remnant of the Second Temple. Not every stone has been thrown down regardless of what the “scholars” might say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the EU, it is not limited to 10 states. "The European Union is composed of 27 independent sovereign countries which are known as member states". There is one President, 27 commissioners (one for each member state), and 785 members of the European Parliament. Now, with the facts... how does that fit into your equation???

The Presidency lasts for only 6 months, and is often a "shared" Presidency of "three like minds" for 1.5years... not three as you stated... no vice presidents as you stated... no beasts, no horns, no whore of Babylon...

I have shown that the European Commission did in fact have vice presidents and that there is a proposed period of 3 year terms commencing on the 1st of January 2009.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
if you are speaking with someone who is #1- naive, #2- uneducated, #3- completely ignorant on religion, and #4- completely ignorant to rational debating methods... none of which am I.

I have definitely not tried to imply that you are naďve, uneducated, completely ignorant on religion or completely ignorant to rational debating methods. I actually commended you in one of my first posts because I like the way that you structure your arguments. I still do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Blair is not a religious figure. How does that fit into your equation???

I did not state that Tony Blair was a religious figure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-You are still so far off from prophecy that any comparison is ridiculous- you even state "I never said it was a 'complete' fulfillment". If your interpretation is not a "complete fulfillment", and I am filling it with holes, then what's the point of even attributing these occurences to prophecy? BY THE WAY, the bible doesn't state 42 months- it says "his reign will be 3.5 YEARS of PEACE, followed by 3.5 YEARS of WAR"= 7 years. Where does your interpretation of EU law compared to Rev. even come close to this??? Where does the EU presidency come close to a religious figure who will rebuild the temple of Solomon???

My post was trying to highlight that, in my opinion, another section of Revelation was fulfilled by the similarity between the European Commission and the Beast of Revelation. Your ability to poke holes stems from the fact that I have not tried to offer a complete interpretation of Revelation due to the fact that I believe that it is still in the process of happening at the moment. I am only pointing out one verse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was a Pentecostal preacher when I was younger (about 11 years ago now) and during that time I was exposed to this type of extremist Christian rhetoric.

I don’t think me proposing a view is extremism. Can you point out what statements that I have made that would qualify as being extremist?

Also, I would further state that there would likely be as many people that see Revelation as unfilled as there would be that agree with a full preterist view or outright reject the book of Revelation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you read Revelation???

Yes I have read Revelation. Was that a question or is it ad-hominem abusive?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and you have failed to prove that Revelation is a prophecy... why, then, do you still refer to it as such

Habit. But you might want to take the issue up with Hell Razah because he also states “prophecies how this world will be destroyed in one hour”. That was a reference to Revelation because there is no other prophecy in the Bible that talks about destruction in one hour.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Alas, in this case we would be arguing whether or not the pyramids were built. Seeing as how the scientists would be arguing "how" they were built, I would be arguing that they believe they have evidence that the pyramids "were" built.

In this case you would be going against “thousands of scholars” and their logical argument. I’d respect your right to do so and would listen due to the fact that there is no 100% proof positive argument, much the same as Revelation.

It would be good to read your views on this matter in another thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is your most naive statement. What about all these Christian colleges and universities? You don't think the various denominational colleges study these prophecies and these arguments??? I don't know what country you live in, but in America there are thousands of colleges devoted to just that, and various other religious ends...

No I am simply stating that to my knowledge there is not a major educational institute that I know of that has scholars that publish peer reviewed papers on Revelation being interpreted in modern terms and identifying current governments. Find me a paper and I’ll read it. I want it to be peer reviewed and I also want it to state that the said scholar is an employee of university x and that the University endorses the paper.

I’ll explain why I don’t see this as something that occurs and it is due to the fact that there are performance requirements of just about every type of employment. A person employed for that purpose would feel pressured to identify certain events even if they were not occurring due to the fact that there would be an expectation of some evidence of performance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an emotionalist attempt at ignoring my arguments. You are, in ad-hominem, attacking the fact that you disagree with me, and confusing it with the lack of facts in your argument. I am not stating any animosity towards you disagreeing with me, rather fabricating answers and adjusting as they are rebutted. You have sunk away from affirmative assertions, and are slowly retreating into "faith" because you cannot back up any of your earlier and rebutted claims.
I am not fabricating answers. I have explained things in my terms. I definitely have not sunk away from my affirmative assertions and I’ve always been content in my faith. My faith will not harm you.

I will reaffirm though that the European Commission resembled the Beast of Revelation and I believe that it is a highly likely candidate for others to consider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally Posted by Trismegistos file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/DANIEL%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1187182#post1187182)
[I]I was simply using Tony Blair as an example of a person that was keen on the position. I was not saying that he was anything more than that. I stated that he would not be the first permanent EU president.
-So you make a completely irrelevant remark in your rebuttal, I state it is completely irrelevant, and you admit it was completely irrelevant? What's the point of making the statement???
I don’t understand your argument there. I used factual information to show that Tony Blair was interested in the position if it came with more “powers”. I didn’t state that Tony Blair was anything more than interested in the position and I also stated that he would not be the first permanent EU President.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-An example of what? Your "example" doesn't apply to prophecy because nothing about your example FITS the prophecy. Are you saying that you are taking information from news sources, peicing them together, and predicting the fulfillment of a prediction based on your prediction being similar in your own eyes to the original prediction? So you're the prophet of a prophecy? LOL! Right...

I’ll state again that, in my opinion, that the European Commission matched the Beast of Revelation. The numbers fit (10 & 7), it is a political entity, it is part of a rebuilt Roman Empire (though that is not stated in Revelation, it could be seen as relevant).

I’m not a prophet of a prophecy. I am presenting some information and am now arguing my point.

You did not say you agreed with any BIT of preterist interpretations, and you said they lacked any explanation. Even under your new claim, any "partial" belief in a "prophecy" pretty much nullifies the entire prophecy because anyone can be "partially" right about ANY prediction, especially when the believer is the one skewing the interpretation

I do not agree with full preterism and I am yet to see a logical argument of preterism that I agree with. You are right however that preterists have their opinions based on their own logical arguments, I just don't agree with their argument. I think similar to your view on the Pyramid.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Now you ask me a question and try to answer it with some simple minded response you assume I would have? I am suggesting the writer of Revelation was in no way inspired by God, nor did he have a "revelation", nor was he a prophet, and any "prophetic" coincidences within the book are mostly related to mythical ambiguities, knowledge of the current and future political climates through logic and common sense, knowledge of the current and future religious climates through logic and suppositions, bias of the interpreter and the manipulation of information. Kinda like Nastradamus...
I kind of preferred Illmatic to Nastradamus but that is another topic!
I believe that Revelation was divinely inspired.
It seems like you have changed your perspective on the matter. Earlier on you are stating that Revelation was a re-telling of current events for the 1st Century AD. It now seems that you are stating that it is a sweeping prophecy of future events and that it is an ambiguous attempt at picking by a calculated knowledge of what may come to pass. Which is it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-Why do you ignore everything I say and then formulate ridiculous answers to questions you are asking me and that I have already answered? You are not referring at all to any of my rebuttals on your position that John was not a prophet, so this last statement of your is completely irrelevant.

John was an apostle, the beloved disciple of Jesus. There are 12 apostles they have their own term separate to others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-You have not proved this in any way. There are much criteria not met, and you have even provided false information on the issue, whcih now you are attempting to correct by saying "o, not now, but in the early 90's". If that statement held any water, the rest of Revelation would have occured by "the LATE 90's".
I could use the first sentence against your arguments. Where have I provided “false” information? I could say that you have provided “false” information. The destruction of the temple is not mentioned in Revelation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will conclude with one final argument and question for you to give consideration and reply to.

If, as you suggest
“the writer of Revelation was in no way inspired by God, nor did he have a "revelation", nor was he a prophet, and any "prophetic" coincidences within the book are mostly related to mythical ambiguities, knowledge of the current and future political climates through logic and common sense, knowledge of the current and future religious climates through logic and suppositions, bias of the interpreter and the manipulation of information”
Then explain to me why RZA and Killah Priest have used the words of Revelations in their lyrics? Are they wrong to quote the book of Revelation? I can show many examples of where RZA has either directly quoted Revelation or has made a definite reference to Revelation. Many of those involved with the Wu have referenced Revelation.
I have put forth my arguments and I have addressed the issues you have raised. If I have not addressed an issue simply put it as a question and I will attempt to address it.
Apologies on the fact that I don't know how to use the quote feature correctly.


PEACE

Trismegistos
05-29-2008, 09:48 AM
What about Elijah and the flaming chariot? :learning:

Good point. It was the whirlwind that took them up though :hooray:

Still not actually a description of a flying horse in the same manner that Elijah has not been said to have the ability to fly. But if someone is in the air be they person or horse then I guess they are flying. Regardless of whether they have wings.

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-29-2008, 10:16 AM
That's all it took for you to believe them, right, so why not.

-You have no idea what I believe. My arguments herein are against the statement that John was a "prophet" and "Revelation" was a "prophecy". If I did as you state I did, I would be arguing on the opposition to my current arguments... don't you think?

You believe in God, because you were taught to.. Not because you know,and certainly not because you can utilize your five senses to assume it's righteousness.

-Again, you have no idea what I believe... and much less what I was "taught". I know this isn't a formal debate, but seriously, can you guys educate yourselves and shy away from ad-hominem arguments???

It defies logic, so don't approach religion from a logical perspective; it can't be done.

-It can be done. What you are referring to is the traditional application of that logic. That it has not been done en masse is a different argument.

That said: How do you know I'm not God. I can't prove that I am.. You can't prove that I'm not.

-That is a simplistic argument. I can prove you do not fit a rational, religious, scientific, or dictionary definition of God. Your lack of understanding, your suppositions, your inferences, and your lack of knowing ME let me know you, at least, are not God according to my beliefs in the attributes of God.

That's the whole basis of your belief is it not.

-Again, you have no idea what I believe. You are making your own arguments against yourself, and attacking them as if I am having this debate with you...

Just in-case..? You believe in something that may or may not exist.. There's certainly no proof of or lack their of.

-Actually, my beliefs are pretty grounded in what can be proven as fact, and very few of my beliefs are theoretical, but based on logic nonetheless.

Have you even read the Bible..? Most "religious" people have not read, or even attempted to understand their religious text, yet they'll argue over it's legitamacy all day.. Funny.

-Why, of course I have. Actually I had the bible memorized in English and Spanish by the time I was 7. Thanks for asking. Later, I read the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, various versions of the bible, the Tanakh (jewish canon), The Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Book of Urantia, and many many many other books. Thanks for asking though! Unfortunately, none of this has anything to do with any of your arguments buddy...

Silencer Ak 47
05-29-2008, 10:31 AM
I think H.O.L.Y. means Hour Observance of the Last Years
in which they wrote the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
I think Jesus is here in this generation now in human flesh roaming the earth traveling just like any other human being after he broke out the crucifing of the cross and lived in the Dead Sea caves for more years. I also think they twisted the bible because it is a giant book. For real!!!

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-29-2008, 02:51 PM
Can you please provide a preterist argument that logically identifies the works of Revelation?

-Are you now reverting to your original argument and rescinding your comments that you actually believe "some" preterist interpretations??? You're hilarious... The reason I never posted those arguments is because before I had the chance to you changed positions and admitted to believing "some" and not accepting the book as "full" prophecy. You have already proven my points against your argument.

Can you also show where the destruction of the Temple of Solomon is mentioned in Revelation?

-Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 establish the framework upon which John's Revelation is based. Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 outline the events of Revelation 6-19. Matthew 25 corresponds to the same time frame as Revelation 20. Though John does not refer directly to the destruction of the Second Temple (actually the third, as this was the Temple of Herod), but his story correlates to those by the apostles surrounding the same events. You can't affirm or deny Revelation without affirming or denying the texts which correspond to it's writing.

The Western Wall is the remnant of the Second Temple. Not every stone has been thrown down regardless of what the “scholars” might say.

-The "Western Wall" is part of an earlier prophecy which states this wall will never fall. Did Jesus contradict the earlier prophets, or was he referring to the overall structure of the surrounding buildings during the Olivet Discourse? I think in light of HIS knowledge of prophecy, and the supposed knowledge of prophecy of the readers, it is safe to say the Western Wall would not be including in this complete destruction, just as Lot was not included in the complete destruction of Soddom and Gommorah (for scripture's sake). (The Midrash writes that God promised that the Western Wall will never be destroyed- Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 2:8)

I have shown that the European Commission did in fact have vice presidents and that there is a proposed period of 3 year terms commencing on the 1st of January 2009.

-There were never 10 member states "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_accession# Listed_by_accession_date"" until Jan. 1981, when Greece joined, and that only lasted for 5 years until Spain and Portugal joined in 1986.

There were six Vice Presidents for a 10 year period (1985-1995), under the Delors (I,II, and III) Commission- not consistent with the prophecy. None of the Commissioners were religious figures, and the number of VPs is chosen by each presiding President. During the majority of that period there were 12 members states. Your math is off, and does not fit the "prophecy".

The "proposed" term period is #1- inconsistent with the "prophecy", and #2- does not coincide with the number of VPs. You can pick and choose numbers from here and there and throw them around, but you have no logical numerical correlation between the "prophecy" and the reality.

I did not state that Tony Blair was a religious figure.

-Yet you are associating him with a "prophecy" that refers to religious figures...

My post was trying to highlight that, in my opinion, another section of Revelation was fulfilled by the similarity between the European Commission and the Beast of Revelation. Your ability to poke holes stems from the fact that I have not tried to offer a complete interpretation of Revelation due to the fact that I believe that it is still in the process of happening at the moment. I am only pointing out one verse.

-This reiterates my point. You can't choose one verse out of context and ignore the whole chapter. That is the fundamental error in religion- taking things out of context. Not only have I just proven your correlation to be false, it is irrelevant to the verse you speak of.

I don’t think me proposing a view is extremism. Can you point out what statements that I have made that would qualify as being extremist?

-Belief and literal adherence to Apocalyptic prophecy is the root of extremism.

Also, I would further state that there would likely be as many people that see Revelation as unfilled as there would be that agree with a full preterist view or outright reject the book of Revelation?

-Again, you are readjusting your argument. It is you who denied the existence of a preterist explanation (and did so again in your current post) which is contradictory to your own beliefs, and your belief that "many people...agree with a full preterist view". How can you "believe" that people "believe" if you believe they have no explanation for that belief?

Yes I have read Revelation. Was that a question or is it ad-hominem abusive?

-Ad-hominem does not equal abusive, #1, #2- observing your lack of consistency is hardly an ad-hominem attack, as I am not attacking your person, personality, or education, rather your arguments and grasp of the topic herein- completely acceptable in debate.

Habit. But you might want to take the issue up with Hell Razah because he also states “prophecies how this world will be destroyed in one hour”. That was a reference to Revelation because there is no other prophecy in the Bible that talks about destruction in one hour

-Hell Razah is not engaged in debate with me. The translation for "hour" in the bible does not translate to an "hour" on your clock, rather a period of time. Semantics? Yes. But what's that got to do with this debate?

No I am simply stating that to my knowledge there is not a major educational institute that I know of that has scholars that publish peer reviewed papers on Revelation being interpreted in modern terms and identifying current governments. Find me a paper and I’ll read it. I want it to be peer reviewed and I also want it to state that the said scholar is an employee of university x and that the University endorses the paper

-The Harvard Divinity School has published works on the subject, and all works are reviewed by staff, magazines, peers from other universities, etc. There are extensive works, and I do not hold the burden of proof on this matter. Look it up, and educate YOURSELF. They are there. I don't want to read them, nor search them for someone who has provided no rational argument supporting their position...

I’ll state again that, in my opinion, that the European Commission matched the Beast of Revelation. The numbers fit (10 & 7), it is a political entity, it is part of a rebuilt Roman Empire (though that is not stated in Revelation, it could be seen as relevant)

-12 states from 86-95 (then 15)... the dates of the 6 VPs... how do your numbers match again??? Rebuilt Roman Empire? You can't have the "rebuilt roman empire" if the seat of the monarchy is not in Rome... The HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE would include the Holy See (Vatican City)... really getting into deep water you really don't know how to navigate...

I do not agree with full preterism and I am yet to see a logical argument of preterism that I agree with. You are right however that preterists have their opinions based on their own logical arguments, I just don't agree with their argument. I think similar to your view on the Pyramid.

[QUOTE=Trismegistos;1188115]It seems like you have changed your perspective on the matter. Earlier on you are stating that Revelation was a re-telling of current events for the 1st Century AD. It now seems that you are stating that it is a sweeping prophecy of future events and that it is an ambiguous attempt at picking by a calculated knowledge of what may come to pass. Which is it?

-You seem confused. My very first rebuttal to your statement was that John was not a prophet. I went on to say "revelation" was not a prophecy. I never said "revelation" was a "re-telling of current events for the 1st Century AD" (where do you make this stuff up from???). I never said it was a "prophecy of the future"... how could I if I said it was NOT a prophecy???

John was an apostle, the beloved disciple of Jesus. There are 12 apostles they have their own term separate to others.

-What does being an apostle have to do with being a prophet? Absolutely NOTHING. Furthermore, only John (or the Gospel of John which may not be the same John) refers to John as "the beloved desciple of Jesus". "I am Superman. Everyone call me Superman from now on! Because I said so"!

Then explain to me why RZA and Killah Priest have used the words of Revelations in their lyrics?

-So if the Rza refers to Harry Potter in his lyrics that makes it true??? LMFAO! If I thought Rza was an authority on religion I would follow his every word. Unfortunately I don't adhere to "someone else's" philosophy. I educate myself- I don't hear lyrics and take them for their word. That's just a ridiculous testament to your naivette... I am not trying to offend you, rather help you. You just can't adhere to other people's words without a foundation.

Trismegistos
05-29-2008, 05:09 PM
-Are you now reverting to your original argument and rescinding your comments that you actually believe "some" preterist interpretations??? You're hilarious... The reason I never posted those arguments is because before I had the chance to you changed positions and admitted to believing "some" and not accepting the book as "full" prophecy. You have already proven my points against your argument.

Then you have not as you stated nor as asked. You too, are hilarious.



-Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 establish the framework upon which John's Revelation is based. Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 outline the events of Revelation 6-19. Matthew 25 corresponds to the same time frame as Revelation 20. Though John does not refer directly to the destruction of the Second Temple (actually the third, as this was the Temple of Herod), but his story correlates to those by the apostles surrounding the same events. You can't affirm or deny Revelation without affirming or denying the texts which correspond to it's writing.

But you stated that "the destruction of the temple was in Revelation". You also stated that you had The Bible memorized in two languages by the age of 7. Yet you have mistakenly quoted the wrong chapter. You have provided no evidence of the Destruction of the Temple being in Revelation.


-The "Western Wall" is part of an earlier prophecy which states this wall will never fall. Did Jesus contradict the earlier prophets, or was he referring to the overall structure of the surrounding buildings during the Olivet Discourse? I think in light of HIS knowledge of prophecy, and the supposed knowledge of prophecy of the readers, it is safe to say the Western Wall would not be including in this complete destruction, just as Lot was not included in the complete destruction of Soddom and Gommorah (for scripture's sake). (The Midrash writes that God promised that the Western Wall will never be destroyed- Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 2:8)

That would be YOUR interpretation of prophecy.



-There were never 10 member states "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_accession# Listed_by_accession_date"" until Jan. 1981, when Greece joined, and that only lasted for 5 years until Spain and Portugal joined in 1986.

There were six Vice Presidents for a 10 year period (1985-1995), under the Delors (I,II, and III) Commission- not consistent with the prophecy. None of the Commissioners were religious figures, and the number of VPs is chosen by each presiding President. During the majority of that period there were 12 members states. Your math is off, and does not fit the "prophecy".

The "proposed" term period is #1- inconsistent with the "prophecy", and #2- does not coincide with the number of VPs. You can pick and choose numbers from here and there and throw them around, but you have no logical numerical correlation between the "prophecy" and the reality.

I never said anything about member states or the size of the European Union. I said that the Commission resembled the (in my opinion) the Beast of Revelation. Plain and simple, no mention of actual terms or actually identifying any single person with the position.



-Yet you are associating him with a "prophecy" that refers to religious figures...

No I was associating the position with the prophecy. I merely used Tony Blair as an example.


-This reiterates my point. You can't choose one verse out of context and ignore the whole chapter. That is the fundamental error in religion- taking things out of context. Not only have I just proven your correlation to be false, it is irrelevant to the verse you speak of.

I have also proven that the verse you speak of does not exist within Revelation. You made no attempt to address the question of the Temple with in Revelation. Furthermore you did not admit to an error in quoting the Bible.


-Belief and literal adherence to Apocalyptic prophecy is the root of extremism.

Is it really. I thought that there were many types of extremism.



-Again, you are readjusting your argument. It is you who denied the existence of a preterist explanation (and did so again in your current post) which is contradictory to your own beliefs, and your belief that "many people...agree with a full preterist view". How can you "believe" that people "believe" if you believe they have no explanation for that belief?

Yet earlier you state that others do not know your beliefs but then you believe that you know my beliefs. I do not agree with a full preterist view and I have not seen a partial preterist view that I agree with. Many others would be the same. I am voicing my opinion. Obviously you must also not approve of partial or full preterist views because you do not believe it is a prophecy.


-Ad-hominem does not equal abusive, #1, #2- observing your lack of consistency is hardly an ad-hominem attack, as I am not attacking your person, personality, or education, rather your arguments and grasp of the topic herein- completely acceptable in debate.

Likewise I am doing the same.


-Hell Razah is not engaged in debate with me. The translation for "hour" in the bible does not translate to an "hour" on your clock, rather a period of time. Semantics? Yes. But what's that got to do with this debate?

We are not discussing what an hour is here at the moment. You asked why I refer to it as prophecy and I am pointing out the Hell Razah has done so in his lyrics. So the question is was Hell Razah wrong?



-The Harvard Divinity School has published works on the subject, and all works are reviewed by staff, magazines, peers from other universities, etc. There are extensive works, and I do not hold the burden of proof on this matter. Look it up, and educate YOURSELF. They are there. I don't want to read them, nor search them for someone who has provided no rational argument supporting their position...

I'll take that point on board and look into it


-12 states from 86-95 (then 15)... the dates of the 6 VPs... how do your numbers match again??? Rebuilt Roman Empire? You can't have the "rebuilt roman empire" if the seat of the monarchy is not in Rome... The HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE would include the Holy See (Vatican City)... really getting into deep water you really don't know how to navigate...

Are you able to navigate through this? I wouldn't be the only one to see the European Union as a rebuilt Roman Empire, especially when they go to Rome to sign the initial treaty and when they sign the Constitution of The European Union before a giant statue of Caesar.


[quote=Trismegistos;1188115]I do not agree with full preterism and I am yet to see a logical argument of preterism that I agree with. You are right however that preterists have their opinions based on their own logical arguments, I just don't agree with their argument. I think similar to your view on the Pyramid.



-You seem confused. My very first rebuttal to your statement was that John was not a prophet. I went on to say "revelation" was not a prophecy. I never said "revelation" was a "re-telling of current events for the 1st Century AD" (where do you make this stuff up from???). I never said it was a "prophecy of the future"... how could I if I said it was NOT a prophecy???

Go back to your first posts where you stated that most of these things were seen as happening around first century and where you equated the number of the Beast to Nero.


-What does being an apostle have to do with being a prophet? Absolutely NOTHING. Furthermore, only John (or the Gospel of John which may not be the same John) refers to John as "the beloved desciple of Jesus". "I am Superman. Everyone call me Superman from now on! Because I said so"!

No you asked if I thought John was a prophet. No he is an apostle.


-So if the Rza refers to Harry Potter in his lyrics that makes it true??? LMFAO! If I thought Rza was an authority on religion I would follow his every word. Unfortunately I don't adhere to "someone else's" philosophy. I educate myself- I don't hear lyrics and take them for their word. That's just a ridiculous testament to your naivette... I am not trying to offend you, rather help you. You just can't adhere to other people's words without a foundation.

This last quote I'm going to address when I get back from work tonight.

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-29-2008, 11:10 PM
Then you have not as you stated nor as asked. You too, are hilarious.

-Again, why would I prove something you have admitted to believing? You make no sense...

But you stated that "the destruction of the temple was in Revelation". You also stated that you had The Bible memorized in two languages by the age of 7. Yet you have mistakenly quoted the wrong chapter. You have provided no evidence of the Destruction of the Temple being in Revelation.

-Having memorized the bible by age 7 doesn't mean I remember where everything is (or that I still have it memorized in order). #1, and #2- I already explained my misstatement. EITHER WAY the explanation for the misstatement, nor the misstatement is essential to making the point I was making, nor to the overall rebuttal. Mistakes in a debate don't nullify the argument, rather the position of the argument and the merit of the facts relevant to that argument. You stated John was a prophet, revelation is a prophecy of what is yet to come, and preterist interpretations of revelation have no explanation. I stated A- He is not a prophet, and therefore B- revelation is NOT a prophecy, and C- you can't have interpretations without an explanation, in this case a preterist interpretation. You went on to say many other things which I have rebutted, none of which required the above statement to be completely true, rather the correction of my misstatement fully explains the logic behind my misstatement.

That would be YOUR interpretation of prophecy.

-Uhh... no. Midrash is an explanation of prophecy by Jewish scholars. This midrash happens to be widely accepted by Jews, and it is THEIR interpretation, not mine. I don't need an interpretation to explain why the Western Wall still stands because I don't believe the prophecy.

I never said anything about member states or the size of the European Union. I said that the Commission resembled the (in my opinion) the Beast of Revelation. Plain and simple, no mention of actual terms or actually identifying any single person with the position.

-You are such a manipulator of statements. It would be more noble of you to accept you were wrong in your interpretation, rather than watering down your statements more and more as I rebut them.

No I was associating the position with the prophecy. I merely used Tony Blair as an example.

-Again, you are manipulating what you said, in this case diminishing the importance of what you said within your own context. It seems you want me to completely disregard the majority of your arguments without you ever conceding you were wrong...

I have also proven that the verse you speak of does not exist within Revelation. You made no attempt to address the question of the Temple with in Revelation. Furthermore you did not admit to an error in quoting the Bible.

-#1- I sure did, #2- what the hell does that have to do with the argument??? The temple being in revelation doesn't prove or disprove my point. Read what I said.

Is it really. I thought that there were many types of extremism.

-Religious extremism is based on Apocalyptic beliefs and literal adherence to those beliefs and teachings. Show me an example of religious extremism that does not involve Apocalyptic beliefs.

Yet earlier you state that others do not know your beliefs but then you believe that you know my beliefs. I do not agree with a full preterist view and I have not seen a partial preterist view that I agree with.

-Uhhh... I wasn't in a debate with the person, nor had I written the statements he attributed to me. Big difference buddy- you have written volumes about your beliefs... you've only manipulated them over and over again because you can't concede that you were wrong.

Likewise I am doing the same.

-You have not attacked my arguments, grasp of the topic, or rebutted any of the facts I have provided. All you have done is manipulated both of our statements as if we are having a completely different discussion in which none of what you originally said was said, and in which none of my rebuttals were ever written.

We are not discussing what an hour is here at the moment. You asked why I refer to it as prophecy and I am pointing out the Hell Razah has done so in his lyrics. So the question is was Hell Razah wrong?

-You are trying to make me engage in a fantasy debate with a party that is not present because you cannot defend your own arguments with logical statements of fact. When Hell Razah engages me in debate you will know what I think of his statements.

Are you able to navigate through this? I wouldn't be the only one to see the European Union as a rebuilt Roman Empire, especially when they go to Rome to sign the initial treaty and when they sign the Constitution of The European Union before a giant statue of Caesar.

-Why would you want to sound superstitious and uneducated? What does this statement have to do with anything you have said? The first treaty was signed in Paris in 1951 when they formed the ESCC. The Treaty of Rome formed the EEC and was signed in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, not in front of a statue of Caesar (as if it matters ANYWAYS). The Treaty of Maastricht was signed on February 7, 1992 in Maastricht, the Netherlands, and is the treaty that established the European Union.

Go back to your first posts where you stated that most of these things were seen as happening around first century and where you equated the number of the Beast to Nero.

-It's one thing when you insult my intelligence, but now you are just lying. If you can repost where I said the above statement I will concede.. so far you just look like a liar.

No you asked if I thought John was a prophet. No he is an apostle.

"Originally Posted by Trismegistos
I think his acts justify him also as a prophet. If you accept that Jesus was a prophet, wouldn't he then show signs to his most beloved disciple?"

-Doh! You lied again... tisk tisk tisk... Funny how you can scroll up in these damn forums and see exactly what someone REALLY said...

Trismegistos
05-30-2008, 05:33 AM
-Again, why would I prove something you have admitted to believing? You make no sense...

I have stated that I do not believe in a full preterist view, I have not seen a logical preterist view that I agree with. Regardless of whether you show one or not, you do not know my beliefs. You only know what brief information I have posted.



-Having memorized the bible by age 7 doesn't mean I remember where everything is (or that I still have it memorized in order). #1, and #2- I already explained my misstatement. EITHER WAY the explanation for the misstatement, nor the misstatement is essential to making the point I was making, nor to the overall rebuttal. Mistakes in a debate don't nullify the argument, rather the position of the argument and the merit of the facts relevant to that argument. You stated John was a prophet, revelation is a prophecy of what is yet to come, and preterist interpretations of revelation have no explanation. I stated A- He is not a prophet, and therefore B- revelation is NOT a prophecy, and C- you can't have interpretations without an explanation, in this case a preterist interpretation. You went on to say many other things which I have rebutted, none of which required the above statement to be completely true, rather the correction of my misstatement fully explains the logic behind my misstatement.

This is the first time that you admitted to a misstatement. In your prior post you were asked for evidence of where the destruction of the temple appeared in Revelation. You quoted Matthew, Mark and Luke but made no mention of Revelation after previously stating that the destruction of the temple was mentioned in Revelation.

That is a fairly important aspect of the argument when you had previously stated in another post that you "had the Bible memorized in two languages by the age of seven". That implies to others that you are more of an authority on the Bible than other posters (myself included).

Also if I make an error or perceived error you label me a liar, yet when you make an error it is a "misstatement".


You can't affirm or deny Revelation without affirming or denying the texts which correspond to it's writing.

Does that mean that your denial of Revelation therefore means that you deny the texts that correspond to it?



-Uhh... no. Midrash is an explanation of prophecy by Jewish scholars. This midrash happens to be widely accepted by Jews, and it is THEIR interpretation, not mine. I don't need an interpretation to explain why the Western Wall still stands because I don't believe the prophecy.

Point taken. But why do you use prophecies that you do not believe in to argue your point.


-You are such a manipulator of statements. It would be more noble of you to accept you were wrong in your interpretation, rather than watering down your statements more and more as I rebut them.

Why I am I wrong? Because you say so? I would have argued the point differently knowing that you were going to dissect every word that I have written. Regardless I still stand by original comparison of the European Commission and the Beast of Revelation. I also still stand by my belief that preterist views are incorrect because the prophecy is not yet fulfilled.


-Again, you are manipulating what you said, in this case diminishing the importance of what you said within your own context. It seems you want me to completely disregard the majority of your arguments without you ever conceding you were wrong...

Again I am a manipulator.


-#1- I sure did, #2- what the hell does that have to do with the argument??? The temple being in revelation doesn't prove or disprove my point. Read what I said.

You were the one that mentioned the Temple to bolster your argument and stated that it was in Revelation. It is important in terms of highlighting that you arguments are not infallible.

You can no longer stand by that argument as it is not mentioned in Revelation. You are attempting to drag our debate into other books of the Bible.


-Religious extremism is based on Apocalyptic beliefs and literal adherence to those beliefs and teachings. Show me an example of religious extremism that does not involve Apocalyptic beliefs.

Extremist is a perjorative term and religious extremism implies that there is an associated belief system and the major religions all have some form of apocalyptic message of the future. Therefore it is going to be an aspect of any religion.

I would say that those labeled as "Islamic extremists" by today's media in fact are actually freedom fighters and that their perceived "extremism" is not based on apocalyptic teachings but rather on adherence to the belief system as a whole. If the average person fighting occupation in Iraq was interviewed my assumption would be that they would not state that they are fighting because of the impending apocalypse but that they are fighting the occupation of their country and attack on their way of life and their culture.

Here is an article on extremism for you to read if you wish:

http://econ.ucsd.edu/~elib/rex.pdf (http://econ.ucsd.edu/%7Eelib/rex.pdf)



-Uhhh... I wasn't in a debate with the person, nor had I written the statements he attributed to me. Big difference buddy- you have written volumes about your beliefs... you've only manipulated them over and over again because you can't concede that you were wrong.

I was wrong not to come stronger in my initial posts. I think that I have also "punched a few holes" in your argument. I don't think either of us are going to back down on our core beliefs, but others reading can make their own judgment.


-You have not attacked my arguments, grasp of the topic, or rebutted any of the facts I have provided. All you have done is manipulated both of our statements as if we are having a completely different discussion in which none of what you originally said was said, and in which none of my rebuttals were ever written.

I think were both thinking alike here. We are on opposite paths and you have made about as much sense to me as I have to you.

I have rebutted a number of your "facts". That there were vice presidents in the European Commission, that the destruction of the Temple was not written in Revelation, that the Constitution of the European Union was signed before a giant statue of Caesar. It seems you also ignore arguments that have come your way.


-You are trying to make me engage in a fantasy debate with a party that is not present because you cannot defend your own arguments with logical statements of fact. When Hell Razah engages me in debate you will know what I think of his statements.

Personally I don't think Hell Razah could be fucked debating either of us about the matter. But you attack my use of the word prophecy when referring to Revelation and I am pointing out that a a prominent figure of Wu has also referred to "prophecies how this world would be destroyed in one hour". You went off course and started debating about the length of an hour. I don't believe that you would front on Hell Razah over his use of the word prophecy in regards to something written in Revelation.

I am not trying to make you engage in a fantasy debate. I am stating that I doubt that you would take this debate to Hell Razah.

I also think that the words of other Wu members is of importance in this debate because firstly, this a Wu-Tang forum and secondly you are rocking Wu in your name. In my opinion it is therefore acceptable to raise the point of Hell Razah, The Rza and Killah Priest sighting Revelation when you deny the writings of the book.


-Why would you want to sound superstitious and uneducated? What does this statement have to do with anything you have said? The first treaty was signed in Paris in 1951 when they formed the ESCC. The Treaty of Rome formed the EEC and was signed in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, not in front of a statue of Caesar (as if it matters ANYWAYS). The Treaty of Maastricht was signed on February 7, 1992 in Maastricht, the Netherlands, and is the treaty that established the European Union.

The Treaty of Paris was signed in Paris and The Treaty of Rome was signed in Rome. One followed the other and one was of much greater scope than the other.

I did not state that the Treaty of Rome was signed in front of a statue of Caeser. You are manipulating my words now, see we can both play this game.

I stated that the signing of the Constitution of The European Union was signed before a statue of Caesar. I stand by that and can provide pictures to prove it.

I don't think it is superstition to be concerned about a Treaty being signed in front of Caesar. I think that based on the deeds of the Romans and their persecution of Christians and especially Christ making reference to Caesar and stating:

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's

Then obviously I am entitled to be concerned. It is not superstition. It is based on both reason and knowledge. My reason is my knowledge of what Rome did to Christians and the Jews.

I would also like to draw a comparison (an example) and state that if I seen a supranational government signing their constitution before a statue of Adolf Hitler or a large painting of him, then I would say "hold the fuck on, what's going on". If it happened in another 2,000 years I would hope that people then would say "hold on, what are we doing?".

That is not superstitious, it is merely prudence in terms of watching your politicians and what they are doing.

Also another point. You were wrong to condemn my earlier argument that there was a president and six-vice presidents. You stated that there was not and were also incorrect on that matter.


-It's one thing when you insult my intelligence, but now you are just lying. If you can repost where I said the above statement I will concede.. so far you just look like a liar.

My mistake, I read another persons post and attributed it to you. I wholeheartedly apologize on that point. I was wrong and you were right on that point.


"Originally Posted by Trismegistos
I think his acts justify him also as a prophet. If you accept that Jesus was a prophet, wouldn't he then show signs to his most beloved disciple?"

-Doh! You lied again... tisk tisk tisk... Funny how you can scroll up in these damn forums and see exactly what someone REALLY said...

Again, you have pointed out an inconsistency in what I have written. It is not an inconsistency in my beliefs.

I think I have pointed out that when you make an error it is a misstatement and when I seem to make an error it is a "lie".

You have also called me a liar, uneducated, manipulator and extremist and have accused me of attacking the person rather than the argument.

I'm yet to get back to you regarding the Rza and I will do so soon.

Trismegistos
05-30-2008, 10:43 AM
If, as you suggest:

“the writer of Revelation was in no way inspired by God, nor did he have a "revelation", nor was he a prophet, and any "prophetic" coincidences within the book are mostly related to mythical ambiguities, knowledge of the current and future political climates through logic and common sense, knowledge of the current and future religious climates through logic and suppositions, bias of the interpreter and the manipulation of information”

My original comment:

Then explain to me why RZA and Killah Priest have used the words of Revelations in their lyrics? Are they wrong to quote the book of Revelation? I can show many examples of where RZA has either directly quoted Revelation or has made a definite reference to Revelation. Many of those involved with the Wu have referenced Revelation.



-So if the Rza refers to Harry Potter in his lyrics that makes it true??? LMFAO! If I thought Rza was an authority on religion I would follow his every word. Unfortunately I don't adhere to "someone else's" philosophy. I educate myself- I don't hear lyrics and take them for their word. That's just a ridiculous testament to your naivette... I am not trying to offend you, rather help you. You just can't adhere to other people's words without a foundation.

Firstly, I don't think I need the type of help that you are offering. You call me uneducated, naive, a liar, a manipulator and an extremist. I am happy to build with someone and happy to have my walls knocked down if I have built my interpretation on a false foundation, but you have not convinced me of that.


-So if the Rza refers to Harry Potter in his lyrics that makes it true??? LMFAO!

Is that your rebuttal? Harry Potter is a known piece of fictional writing written by J.K. Rowling. There is absolutely no doubt about that. And you laugh at me as if to scoff at what I have written.

I asked you to explain to me why Rza and Killah Priest have used sections of Revelation in their lyrics if, as you say, that "the writer of Revelation was in no way inspired by God, nor did he have a "revelation", nor was he a prophet".

You did not address the question. So I will state it very clearly:

1) If Revelation is untrue as you have stated, then where the Rza and Killah Priest both wrong in quoting it in their lyrics?

2) Or is it alright in your opinion to quote a book that is a false prophecy because it is simply a lyric?


If I thought Rza was an authority on religion I would follow his every word. Unfortunately I don't adhere to "someone else's" philosophy. I educate myself

That is a contradiction of sorts. Firstly you state that if Rza was an authority on Religion you would follow his every word but then go on to state that you don't adhere to someone else's philosophy.

There are plenty of people that have some form of "authority on Religion" from different religions. They have the "title" to accompany their position. Would you follow their "every word" based on the fact that they claim they are an "authority"? I would expect not and it would be incorrect to do so when we are given our own minds to think.

Which then leads me to my next point. Why are you so adamant about me conforming to your beliefs and opinions through your attack of my initial comments and subsequent comments? Am I not entitled to think for myself? Have I not educated myself and bought something new to the table?


I don't hear lyrics and take them for their word. That's just a ridiculous testament to your naivette...

Where have I stated that? Because I have asked you your opinion on whether the Rza and Killah Priest are wrong to quote Revelation if you are right as you say?

I think there are lyrics of both Rza, Killah Priest and others that are instrumental in people learning. There are many people that come to this forum that have developed new knowledge from the lyrics of the Rza and Killah Priest. Many have stated openly in some threads.

http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20319


If I thought Rza was an authority on religion I would follow his every word.

I never stated that Rza was an authority on religion. But since you have mentioned it I'll give you a brief taste of some of his lyrics in regards to Revelation:

Feet resembles Christ's description from the Bible - Revelation 2:15

Pierced lung minute from tongue double-edged - Revelation 2:16
Rolling with the Lamb, twelve tribe's a hundred and forty four thousand chosen - Revelation 7:4 - 17
Unloyal snakes get thrown in boiling lakes of hot oil - Revelation 19:20

And if you want to claim that these are merely just lyrics and should not be taken at face value then I would urge you to listen to Impossible and read the Wu-Tang Manual and see where Rza talks about the line:

The most benevolent king, communicating through your dreams

And read where Rza mentions that he is talking about himself and how people had dreams of Rza before meeting him.

Furthermore go back and listen to A Day to God is 1,000 years, Impossible, Twelve Jewelz, Dangerous Mindz, Re-United, A Day in the Life, Wu World Order etc etc

Go back and watch Protect Ya Neck and you'll notice at 3:13 Rza holding the Holy Bible. Straight away he demonstrated that there was a spiritual overtone to his work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuA5dDm0f34

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have only scratched the surface of this argument and I have not even mentioned Killah Priest yet.

And as a disclaimer this is not trying to get you to engage in a fantasy debate. These are clear questions regarding your statements and how they conflict with what Wu-Tang have had in their lyrics.

Trismegistos
05-30-2008, 03:03 PM
Proof of the picture as stated.
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm80/trismegistos444/Speech1a.jpg

WuLatino- MANGANI
05-30-2008, 03:37 PM
Proof of the picture as stated.
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm80/trismegistos444/Speech1a.jpg

Wow! You're right! Those devil worshippers! It's the end of the world! Tu ganaste, yo perdi... tu me lo mamaste, yo te lo meti... sorry I even attempted to argue with such an enlightened individual. You are definitely the epitome of knowledge... I sincerely apologize for thinking I could match wits with such a guru of finding pictures of the internet of insignificant meaning...

OMFG do you know the significance of this? The room where they actually signed the constitution is even worse- it featured a huge statue of Pope Innocent X!!! But wait! Then they all went to DISNEYLAND and had an ORGY in a room with a big statue of MICKEY MOUSE!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!

V4D3R
05-30-2008, 03:45 PM
U both need to build in here more often - though with no Ad Hominems.

Trismegistos
05-30-2008, 04:00 PM
Wow! You're right! Those devil worshippers! It's the end of the world! Tu ganaste, yo perdi... tu me lo mamaste, yo te lo meti... sorry I even attempted to argue with such an enlightened individual. You are definitely the epitome of knowledge... I sincerely apologize for thinking I could match wits with such a guru of finding pictures of the internet of insignificant meaning...

OMFG do you know the significance of this? The room where they actually signed the constitution is even worse- it featured a huge statue of Pope Innocent X!!! But wait! Then they all went to DISNEYLAND and had an ORGY in a room with a big statue of MICKEY MOUSE!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!

And earlier

-That's an emotionalist attempt at ignoring my arguments. You are, in ad-hominem, attacking the fact that you disagree with me, and confusing it with the lack of facts in your argument. I am not stating any animosity towards you disagreeing with me, rather fabricating answers and adjusting as they are rebutted. You have sunk away from affirmative assertions, and are slowly retreating into "faith" because you cannot back up any of your earlier and rebutted claims.

I think your debating skills are wandering my friend. Is this the level of your rebuttal? I thought you stated that you get into these debates quite often!

Numerous times you have degraded me and now you unleash the sarcasm. I'm not the fool you make me out to be and think the fact that your attacking me shows some weakness on your part.

And you mentioned ad hominem, but I believe that your the one attacking me and not the substance.

Keep going though. I could really start to take your arguments apart, especially when the quality of your rebuttals is dropping off and not actually addressing the earlier issues.

Trismegistos
05-30-2008, 04:08 PM
U both need to build in here more often - though with no Ad Hominems.

Thanks. I'm trying to keep things positive from my end and also trying to build.

I hope that not everyone sees me as an uneducated, lying, manipulating, naive extremist.

I hope that some can see some validity in some of the points I am making.

Trismegistos
05-30-2008, 06:25 PM
WuLatino - MANGANI,

I challenge you to respond to the questions that I have posed in previous posts. You are the one that talked up your debating skills, you are the one that has the Bible memorized, you are the one that has stated that Revelation is not prophecy.

Respond to my questions. Especially in regards to Rza and Killah Priest quoting Revelation. Your last argument about Harry Potter was not even close to addressing the relevance of the question.

Also your statement:


But wait! Then they all went to DISNEYLAND and had an ORGY in a room with a big statue of MICKEY MOUSE!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!

That is sure to win a debate every time.

So my challenge to you is:

1) Respond to my points.

2) Answer my questions in regards to Rza and Killah Priest.

You have stated that you are educated, that you have the Bible memorized, that your experienced in debating these matters. The challenge to you now is prove it.

Mic Tyson
05-31-2008, 01:57 AM
i don't even need to read this whole thread to know that
1)it ain't goin nowhere
2)no one is going to convince the other person that they are right
3)yall take religion TOO seriously
4)and your probably wrong anyway cuz we don't know exactly what revelations was talking about, who it was written by, etc. we can only make smart guesses

WuLatino- MANGANI
06-01-2008, 12:07 AM
So my challenge to you is:

1) Respond to my points.

2) Answer my questions in regards to Rza and Killah Priest.

You have stated that you are educated, that you have the Bible memorized, that your experienced in debating these matters. The challenge to you now is prove it.

-You've not only not proven any of your points in which I engaged you in debate. You've taken arguments I have made out of context and concentrated on those, rather than on your failed arguments, to which i was "con". When you decide to debate honorably, responding to my arguments, and without making shit up about what I said or didn't say, then you will have regained "some" respect with me. Until then I have no respect for your lack of adherence to logical debate

2- I will answer whatever the fuck Rza has to ask me to him in person. You are neither of their representatives, nor do you know a fuckin inkling of their philosophies to be in here talkin shit like you all about what they teach.

WuLatino- MANGANI
06-01-2008, 12:11 AM
3)yall take religion TOO seriously

-My points were from an anti-religous perspective; ie. I countered his statement that John was a prophet, his statement that Revelation is a prophecy, and his comparisons of the EU to the "beast" of Revelation. Someone is a little "too religious", but that cetainly is not me...

4)and your probably wrong anyway cuz we don't know exactly what revelations was talking about, who it was written by, etc. we can only make smart guesses

-Not exactly the point I was making, but the point you are making only supports my arguments. I do not claim to know all the secrets of Revelation, but I do know HIS points were misguided at best.

Mic Tyson
06-01-2008, 12:18 AM
-My points were from an anti-religous perspective; ie. I countered his statement that John was a prophet, his statement that Revelation is a prophecy, and his comparisons of the EU to the "beast" of Revelation. Someone is a little "too religious", but that cetainly is not me...



-Not exactly the point I was making, but the point you are making only supports my arguments. I do not claim to know all the secrets of Revelation, but I do know HIS points were misguided at best.


mangani i wasn't talkin about u in particular or anybody really, but i know there are some people that are taking religion way to seriously on this thread. especially on this site, there are so many different views, u might as well not even bother in a debate

Trismegistos
06-01-2008, 01:16 AM
-Not exactly the point I was making, but the point you are making only supports my arguments. I do not claim to know all the secrets of Revelation


And earlier:



I am suggesting the writer of Revelation was in no way inspired by God, nor did he have a "revelation", nor was he a prophet, and any "prophetic" coincidences within the book are mostly related to mythical ambiguities, knowledge of the current and future political climates through logic and common sense, knowledge of the current and future religious climates through logic and suppositions, bias of the interpreter and the manipulation of information. Kinda like Nastradamus...



So what is it? Are they "secrets" or "mythical ambiguities, knowledge of the current and future political climates through logic and common sense, knowledge of the current and future religious climates through logic and suppositions, bias of the interpreter and the manipulation of information"?


Funny how you can scroll up in these damn forums and see exactly what someone REALLY said...

Ironic isn't it?

Trismegistos
06-01-2008, 03:48 AM
I'll use words to respond to your posts.

-You've not only not proven any of your points in which I engaged you in debate. You've taken arguments I have made out of context and concentrated on those, rather than on your failed arguments, to which i was "con". When you decide to debate honorably,

Is this debating honorably?


liar


extremist


uneducated


naive


You are definitely the epitome of knowledge... I sincerely apologize for thinking I could match wits with such a guru of finding pictures of the internet of insignificant meaning...

OMFG do you know the significance of this? The room where they actually signed the constitution is even worse- it featured a huge statue of Pope Innocent X!!! But wait! Then they all went to DISNEYLAND and had an ORGY in a room with a big statue of MICKEY MOUSE!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!

Quite honorable isn't it!


responding to my arguments, and without making shit up about what I said or didn't say, then you will have regained "some" respect with me. Until then I have no respect for your lack of adherence to logical debate

Are you ready for it?


The Presidency lasts for only 6 months, and is often a "shared" Presidency of "three like minds" for 1.5years... not three as you stated... no vice presidents as you stated... no beasts, no horns, no whore of Babylon...

But then you went and changed your mind on that one later when your skills of using google came to the fore!


There were six Vice Presidents for a 10 year period (1985-1995), under the Delors (I,II, and III) Commission- not consistent with the prophecy.

And in one of your posts:



Actually I had the bible memorized in English and Spanish by the time I was 7. Thanks for asking. Later, I read the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, various versions of the bible, the Tanakh (jewish canon), The Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Book of Urantia, and many many many other books.

But you had already stated how good your memory was when you stated:

remember, the Temple of Solomon was destroyed around 70AD, and that is part of Revelation...

Then you tried to justify your misstatement by stating:


Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 establish the framework upon which John's Revelation is based. Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 outline the events of Revelation 6-19. Matthew 25 corresponds to the same time frame as Revelation 20. Though John does not refer directly to the destruction of the Second Temple (actually the third, as this was the Temple of Herod), but his story correlates to those by the apostles surrounding the same events. You can't affirm or deny Revelation without affirming or denying the texts which correspond to it's writing

but yet you state:


and any "prophetic" coincidences within the book are mostly related to mythical ambiguities, knowledge of the current and future political climates through logic and common sense, knowledge of the current and future religious climates through logic and suppositions, bias of the interpreter and the manipulation of information.

and


I do not claim to know all the secrets of Revelation

Make up your mind. What is Revelation? Is it secrets, a collaboration of sections of the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke or is it coincidences?

You contradict yourself.

And there is more:



Rebuilt Roman Empire? You can't have the "rebuilt roman empire" if the seat of the monarchy is not in Rome... The HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE would include the Holy See (Vatican City)... really getting into deep water you really don't know how to navigate...

Really? Have you ever heard of a fellow named Constatine or Constantinople?

Why mention the Holy Roman Empire? I didn't.



really getting into deep water you really don't know how to navigate...

Yep sure, I'll take your word on it!




Uhh... no. Midrash is an explanation of prophecy by Jewish scholars. This midrash happens to be widely accepted by Jews, and it is THEIR interpretation, not mine. I don't need an interpretation to explain why the Western Wall still stands because I don't believe the prophecy

Those same Jewish scholars deny that Jesus is the Messiah and that Muhammad is God's messenger.

I don't understand why you so strongly advocate using someone else's interpretation of a prophecy that you do not believe yourself. You leave yourself open.


Having memorized the bible by age 7 doesn't mean I remember where everything is (or that I still have it memorized in order)

What?

Why state in the first place that you have it memorized if you quote the wrong sections? Unless your trying to imply that you are more learned than the rest of us.


2- I will answer whatever the fuck Rza has to ask me to him in person.

Send my regards!


You are neither of their representatives
Now your point would be relevant if I actually claimed to represent them.

But I am not the one posting with Wu-Tang in my name.

And another point, of all the groups that I have known to be affiliated with Wu-Tang Clan I have only known Wu-Syndicate to have rocked Wu in their name and they aren't anymore. You & your group are rocking Wu-Tang in your name. Purely a marketing move in my opinion and surely your sales will be higher with Wu-Tang in your name than if it were not in your name. Best of luck in regards to sales.

But people who support Wu-Tang have come to expect quality when we see or hear the Wu-Tang name or logo. I look for people to be razor sharp with their thoughts.

I mentioned Rza, Killah Priest and Hell Razah to highlight that you are unintentionally and inadvertently going against what they have been singing about when you state that "I am suggesting the writer of Revelation was in no way inspired by God, nor did he have a "revelation", nor was he a prophet".

Now Rza & Killah Priest have on numerous occasions quoted and referenced Revelation in their lyrics. I have raised that because your view that Revelation is false implies that Rza and Killah Priest do not know what they are singing about and that they are promoting false prophecy.

Ask Rza why he quotes Revelation.


nor do you know a fuckin inkling of their philosophies to be in here talkin shit like you all about what they teach.

How do you know that without knowing me?

WuLatino- MANGANI
06-01-2008, 11:35 AM
Obviously you're more interested in what you've got to say than anyone else... I don't see anyone co-signing for ONE thing you've said, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone... Believe what you want, buddy...

Urban_Journalz
06-01-2008, 11:35 AM
One of the main "problems" with all Scripture, is that one of the many cop-outs, because in truth, that's all it is, is that a lot of people are telling you, "Don't take it literally."

Not to be funny or anything, but God is not an emcee, He has no need for the use of metaphors. This is not to say that he doesn't use them, because The Qur'an is laced with them, but in such a way that either you're left convinced, or you're left wanting to forget you ever read it. These metaphors are meant to uplift the mind and indeed "REVEAL" something to the reader.

The Book of Revelations I haven't read in it'e entirety, however, what I have read thusfar does make a lot of sense. The question is wether it's a part of the original Gospel. Every scrpture speaks of disasters that are to come after the time of the revelation.

I think the very idea of labelling something, "impossible", wether using that very word, or implying it with your attitude, shows just how primitive one's own thinking really is.

The only reason why someone wouldn't believe in the strange beasts spoken of in The Book of Revelations, or the beasts seen n "The Chronicles of Narnia", is because they're merely someone who only believes what they see.

Just because there are depths in the ocean that our cheap ass submarines can't go beyond because the pressure will crush them, doesn't mean and shouldn't ever suggest to the truely wise person, that there's nothing beyond that point.

For a moment, let's assume that what Thoth (pbuh) was true, and that, "Far in the future, invaders will come from the deep." From there, he tells us to find his weapon, and conquer. This would mean that none of our weapons would be strong enough to penetrate the hides of these invaders, because after having been as such great depths, they would be well adapted to the water pressure.

I see more and more that the same thing that happened to ancient peoples that became so arrogant in their knowledge that it destroyed them, is only repeating itself.

Trismegistos
06-01-2008, 11:53 AM
Obviously you're more interested in what you've got to say than anyone else... I don't see anyone co-signing for ONE thing you've said, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone... Believe what you want, buddy...

Anyway Mangani I'm content with where I am at.

Do have that conversation with Rza if you ever get the chance. I think it would be positive for you to build with him.

I don't want to get involved in the negativity, you pointed out my mistakes and I done the same back. I could have taken things much further but it is all peace as far as I'm concerned.

And on to your musical abilities. You've got tons, your gifted. All the best with Wu-Tang Latino. Please do me a favour, whilst representing Wu-Tang always come strong. Strong in lyric, strong in logic, strong in wisdom

I'll buy the album and I recommend others support you.

Peace and good luck

Urban_Journalz
06-01-2008, 12:00 PM
Anyway Mangani I'm content with where I am at.

Do have that conversation with Rza if you ever get the chance. I think it would be positive for you to build with him.

I don't want to get involved in the negativity, your pointed out my mistakes and I done the same back. I could have taken things much further but it is all peace as far as I'm concerned.

And on to your musical abilities. You've got tons, your gifted. All the best with Wu-Tang Latino. Please do me a favour, whilst representing Wu-Tang always come strong. Strong in lyric, strong in logic, strong in wisdom

I'll buy the album and I recommend others support you.

Peace and good luck

Much respect man.

That was some true Jedi shit. :yes:

Mic Tyson
06-01-2008, 12:10 PM
Anyway Mangani I'm content with where I am at.

Do have that conversation with Rza if you ever get the chance. I think it would be positive for you to build with him.

I don't want to get involved in the negativity, your pointed out my mistakes and I done the same back. I could have taken things much further but it is all peace as far as I'm concerned.

And on to your musical abilities. You've got tons, your gifted. All the best with Wu-Tang Latino. Please do me a favour, whilst representing Wu-Tang always come strong. Strong in lyric, strong in logic, strong in wisdom

I'll buy the album and I recommend others support you.

Peace and good luck

thats one of the most mature posts ive seen since i been on this site. when most people are arguing they start throwin a bunch of insullts and cussin niggas out but u decided not to be a bitch about it. much respect

WuLatino- MANGANI
06-03-2008, 03:32 PM
I'll buy the album and I recommend others support you.

Peace and good luck

Thanks for the support... hopefully we can still have more of these debates!

Trismegistos
06-04-2008, 06:25 AM
Thanks for the support... hopefully we can still have more of these debates!

No probs with the support the remix is strong and anytime for a debate so long as we keep em positive.

Peace Magani

bad boy T
06-05-2008, 11:07 AM
Is gay.


It's probably the most ignornant shit in the bible. 7 headed squids and shit, fuckin babylon, marks of beasts, flying horses, the world blowing up and only christians being sent to heaven. jesus coming down with swords and shit when it was clear the guy was a total puss.


cool dude, but if someone said Ghandi was coming down with a sword i'd chuckle. both cool dudes, but come on man.


it was also added to the bible all after the fact. WAY after the fact, like the bible was written and some dude just slapped in on there 100s of years later






so my question is. Why do non chrisitans on this board and elsewhere in the paranoid world believe it so strongly and denounce the bible as a whole. This is probably as superstitious as the bible gets, but you accept it and denounce the bible for being superstitious

i used to be all KTL knawledge paranoid too, believing in illuminati and revelations and shit. This i grew out of it at the age of 17, early 17.


why do non christians constantly reference "the mark of the beast" "the anti-christ" "the beast with the 7 heads" "666" and so forth?

that shit is a looney tunes episode on PCP.

How can a bible be gay use your cerebellum before you type idiotic language like that

GreenPoop!
06-15-2008, 08:06 PM
John the Revelator
Put him in a elevator
Take him up to the highest high
Take him up to the top where the mountains stop
Let him tell his book of lies

John the Revelator
He's a smooth operator
It's time we cut him down to size
Take him by the hand
And put him on the stand
Let us hear his alibis

By claiming God as his only rock
He's stealing a god from the Israelite
Stealing a god from a Muslim, too
There is only one god through and through

Seven lies, multiplied by seven, multiplied by seven again
Seven angels with seven trumpets
Send them home on the morning train
Well who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
All he ever gives us is pain
Well who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
He should bow his head in shame

Bye-bye
Bye-bye
Bye-bye
Bye-bye

Seven lies, multiplied by seven, multiplied by seven again
Seven angels with seven trumpets
Send them home on the morning train
Well who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
All he ever gives us is pain
Well who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
He should bow his head in shame

Bye-bye
Bye-bye
John the Revelator
Bye-bye
John the Revelator
Bye-bye
John the Revelator

Edgar Erebus
06-15-2008, 08:32 PM
You wrote it?

WuLatino- MANGANI
06-15-2008, 10:00 PM
John the Revelator
Put him in a elevator
Take him up to the highest high
Take him up to the top where the mountains stop
Let him tell his book of lies

John the Revelator
He's a smooth operator
It's time we cut him down to size
Take him by the hand
And put him on the stand
Let us hear his alibis

By claiming God as his only rock
He's stealing a god from the Israelite
Stealing a god from a Muslim, too
There is only one god through and through

Seven lies, multiplied by seven, multiplied by seven again
Seven angels with seven trumpets
Send them home on the morning train
Well who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
All he ever gives us is pain
Well who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
He should bow his head in shame

Bye-bye
Bye-bye
Bye-bye
Bye-bye

Seven lies, multiplied by seven, multiplied by seven again
Seven angels with seven trumpets
Send them home on the morning train
Well who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
All he ever gives us is pain
Well who's that shouting?
John the Revelator!
He should bow his head in shame

Bye-bye
Bye-bye
John the Revelator
Bye-bye
John the Revelator
Bye-bye
John the Revelator

-That's a hot song... Depeche Mode

Memory Man
06-16-2008, 08:27 PM
Anyone interested in the imagery present in the book of Revelation might want to read "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" by Robert Eisenman & Michael Wise. A ton of the imagery and language used in Revelation is also present in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and is specific to the radical Essene, Nazarene and Zadokite communities of first century Judaism. Reading Revelation without any background in first century Jewish apocalyptic literature is like trying to read hieroglyphs without the Rosetta Stone.

P.S. Revelation is commonly credited to John the Evangelist, not the unnamed "beloved" disciple associated with the Gospel of John.

WuLatino- MANGANI
06-18-2008, 07:25 PM
Yo Memoryman, are you my cousin or somethin???

Memory Man
06-19-2008, 04:34 AM
haha, probably.

Memory Man
06-19-2008, 05:10 AM
Mangani, you ever read "James, The Brother Of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman?

Trismegistos
06-19-2008, 07:10 AM
Mangani, you ever read "James, The Brother Of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman?

You two want a room?

Just seen your challenge Magani and I'm reading over it and it looks like you've put a bit of effort into it!

The Void
06-22-2008, 08:41 PM
The beast with Seven Heads is metaphorical for the Roman Empire, European Union, etc. Possibly even the Vatican / Illuminati.

The last Chapter of Daniel, 12 (the number of Completion) tells mostly of the Times before the Final Judgement.

Daniel speaks of the Second Coming of Christ some 500 years before Jesus' birth. The Sword he holds is the Sword of Truth, the Word of God that all men and women will hear to either accept of reject.

Trismegistos
06-26-2008, 07:23 AM
yea thats what i was trying to say

Where did Magani say that?

WARPATH
06-26-2008, 12:09 PM
The whole idea that the world is going to end, in my opinion, is bad idea to promote.

It helps the metality that: oh fuck the world is gonna end anyways why should I care.

We should be concerned for our children, our childrens chidlren and so forth. The world will conitinue on in the world we left for them and they will be forced to live with our mistakes.

Trismegistos
06-26-2008, 04:45 PM
The whole idea that the world is going to end, in my opinion, is bad idea to promote.

It helps the metality that: oh fuck the world is gonna end anyways why should I care.

We should be concerned for our children, our childrens chidlren and so forth. The world will conitinue on in the world we left for them and they will be forced to live with our mistakes.

It is more to do with the end of days rather than the end of time or human existence. It is clear that things go on past that point, but it is not all smooth sailing. I think it would also promote the wrong idea if we thought that the world and the human race would go on forever.

100pr00f
06-26-2008, 05:00 PM
i wanna see are sun expload..and take earth off the space maps or the moon knocked out of orbit and get cought in are gravitaion pull
so if we wanna go to the moon we can just drive their

100pr00f
06-26-2008, 05:04 PM
sounds as if i was smoking weed...i think im just going crazy from long work days

WARPATH
06-26-2008, 06:37 PM
It is more to do with the end of days rather than the end of time or human existence. It is clear that things go on past that point, but it is not all smooth sailing. I think it would also promote the wrong idea if we thought that the world and the human race would go on forever.

Why? Why is this idea wrong?

TSA
06-27-2008, 01:20 AM
if you guys aren't christians, why do you believe this stuff?


why is the part in the bible that says "love thy neighbor" the white man's fantasy brain washing tool, but the part that says "A seven headed monster from the come from the water and rule the world" make perfect sense?


white people > KTL.

Trismegistos
06-27-2008, 02:18 AM
Why? Why is this idea wrong?

Because resources are finite, humans consume vast amounts, we are destructive by nature etc etc

Humans will not exist forever in a physical form.

WARPATH
06-27-2008, 10:51 AM
Because resources are finite, humans consume vast amounts, we are destructive by nature etc etc

Humans will not exist forever in a physical form.

Humans are not destructive by nature, it's a learned behavior.

Resources are infinite, as long as we respect the earth. Their is so much surplus that gets wasted every day.


Humans don't have to consume vast amounts either, that's another learned behavior.

LORD NOSE
06-27-2008, 03:59 PM
The whole idea that the world is going to end, in my opinion, is bad idea to promote.

It helps the metality that: oh fuck the world is gonna end anyways why should I care.

We should be concerned for our children, our childrens chidlren and so forth. The world will conitinue on in the world we left for them and they will be forced to live with our mistakes.

"the World' doesn't equal "the earth"

the world is the popular world culture - society -

saying it will end is the same as saying that it will change - a new order will be established - the earth will be here until it is is not here anymore

WARPATH
06-27-2008, 05:53 PM
"the World' doesn't equal "the earth"

the world is the popular world culture - society -

saying it will end is the same as saying that it will change - a new order will be established - the earth will be here until it is is not here anymore

I was reffering too it as whole, society, people, land, and government.

But there always room for change, it doesn't have to change for the negative.

That's what I feel that Revelations promotes.

Trismegistos
06-27-2008, 06:45 PM
I was reffering too it as whole, society, people, land, and government.

But there always room for change, it doesn't have to change for the negative.

That's what I feel that Revelations promotes.

Read chapter 20-22. Things do improve!

Trismegistos
06-27-2008, 06:47 PM
Humans are not destructive by nature, it's a learned behavior.

Resources are infinite, as long as we respect the earth. Their is so much surplus that gets wasted every day.


Humans don't have to consume vast amounts either, that's another learned behavior.

Resources on earth are finite. Your other two arguments are valid.

WARPATH
06-30-2008, 12:33 PM
Resources on earth are finite. Your other two arguments are valid.

As long as we don't waste our water resources...

Plants will live. And we all drink and eat. The ecosystem is designed to replenish it's self.

But,

As long as we continue to move from the earth or a natural way of living, we destroy the ecosystem, which causes are resources to become finite.

Think of the surplus that is wasted everyday.

The population can not continue to consume the environment the way it does. But, that doesn't mean the earth can not support us, if we changed our lifestyles.

Trismegistos
07-01-2008, 05:08 AM
As long as we don't waste our water resources...

Plants will live. And we all drink and eat. The ecosystem is designed to replenish it's self.

But,

As long as we continue to move from the earth or a natural way of living, we destroy the ecosystem, which causes are resources to become finite.

Think of the surplus that is wasted everyday.

The population can not continue to consume the environment the way it does. But, that doesn't mean the earth can not support us, if we changed our lifestyles.

In terms of renewable resources your mostly right.

Oil, coal, gold, platinum, gas, iron are examples of finite resources.

Food crops, pine plantations etc are infinite depending upon other circumstances (such as maintaining our ecology system).

WARPATH
07-01-2008, 11:05 AM
In terms of renewable resources your mostly right.

Oil, coal, gold, platinum, gas, iron are examples of finite resources.

Food crops, pine plantations etc are infinite depending upon other circumstances (such as maintaining our ecology system).



Oil, coal, gold, platinum, gas, iron

These are substances we can live without.