The Book Of Revelations

[WuLatino- MANGANI]

[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]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PALEHORSE
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]

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]

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]

-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]

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 naïve, 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 [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/DANIEL%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
[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]

What about Elijah and the flaming chariot?

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

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]

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]

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]

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...

[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.

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]

-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=WuLatino- MANGANI;1188578]

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]

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]

-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

-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]

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]

Proof of the picture as stated.