Just Horsing Around - Not Enough Horses in the World to Fulfill Revelation 9:16

Ekklesian said:
How about striving to know the Scriptures better yourself? God doesn't reward knowledge to a slothful pursuit. One must seek it as for hidden treasure.
Click to expand...
Just saying for someone to “study harder” isn’t the answer to contested content. Forming an authentic base free from encroachment is a better starting point. Dr. Ehrman is a theology professor with a PhD from Princeton. His conclusions in such matters as literal versus figurative interpretation are different than yours. Would you tell him to spit out the milk and start eating meat? How ridiculous.
 
Literal, or figurative?....

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.


😉
 
aleshanee said:
i wonder how missionaries to peoples in the deepest amazon or the south pacific handled that part of scripture when they realized they were trying to share the gospel with cannibals?...:unsure: .... no.... seriously.... i really do wonder sometimes how they approached that subject..... ..

several years ago i posted the picture of the giant iron pot we use to have at the maritime museum which use to be on board all whaling ships - and were used for boiling down whale fat.... .. occasionally those ships would be wrecked and broken up on the shores of pacific islands where canibals lived and the natives there would salvage those iron pots - then put them to use.... . ..it;s not just a mythical cliche about missionaries being boiled in iron pots by cannibals and eaten.. .. it;s known to have happened a few times......
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the corny story of missionaries moving out to the jungles and bringing their food with them. The natives were fascinated by the fact that the missionaries would open a can with a picture of beans on it and beans were in the can... Open a can with a picture of corn , there was corn inside. The missionary then said, "You can bet we had their attention the first time we opened a jar of Gerber's."
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Just saying for someone to “study harder” isn’t the answer to contested content.
Click to expand...
I didn't say 'just study harder.' One has to have faith. So there would be some prayer involved, a bit of devotion.

DrHuk&Duck said:
Dr. Ehrman is a theology professor with a PhD from Princeton. His conclusions in such matters as literal versus figurative interpretation are different than yours.
Click to expand...
Well of course they are. He's an unbeliever.

​
​
Let's hope his conclusions are different than yours too. A study of the Scriptures that is not mixed with faith does no one any good. Rain on stony ground yields nothing but thorns and briars.

DrHuk&Duck said:
Would you tell him to spit out the milk and start eating meat? How ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I would tell him just the opposite, that he needs to be born again, that he needs to become as a little child and to desire the sincere milk of the word that he may grow thereby.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Being a great theologian, he’s probably familiar with Proverbs 10:19.
Click to expand...
i think they just don;t want anyone else in the conversation.. .... or... maybe they don;t want a conversation on this subject at all... so they resort to personal insults and put downs....... it;s become all too common here... ..they need their own private debate room where they can sit in a circle and trade slaps with each other.. ..and not be interrupted....
 
Ekklesian said:
Indeed. I would tell him just the opposite, that he needs to be born again, that he needs to become as a little child and to desire the sincere milk of the word that he may grow thereby.
Click to expand...
He'd probably take it as a personal insult or putdown, though.
 
aleshanee said:
speak for yourself son of jack.... . you are the one with the least evidence of being born again here....... ..so infatuated with yourself you are even talking to yourself now....
Click to expand...
In answer to something you asked in a post that has since been deleted:

Presuming John was as ignorant and superstitious as you suggested, and presuming he was whisked into the future like Scrooge to witness actual events as they unfold, not a Christmas in this case, but twentieth century warfare....

...which we now know isn't the case, as we're well into the twenty-first century...​
​
...but high tech warfare, whatever form that might take now that the Dispensational assertions of the last sixty or seventy years have proven bogus, I would say it more likely John would describe "iron beasts" on the ground and "iron dragons" in the air. Locusts...puh-leeze!

But that's presuming as you presume.

I do not presume that John, or first-century civilations, were so ignorant. There is no reason to. That's Hollywood, not history, and it's a view that is imposed upon the text, and not taken from it. Neither do I presume John was lacking the words to describe exactly what he saw.

But even if he were...we're told he was 'in the spirit' when he saw these things, which means his perception was supernatural. I don't think the fact that the tanks and choppers were mere machines could have or would have been hidden from him.

I come to the Revelation with the presumption that John faithfully described what he saw in the spirit...living creatures, not machines, and that the meaning and understanding of the visions were no less accessible to him or anyone of any latter day century.
 
Ekklesian said:
I didn't say 'just study harder.' One has to have faith.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And this goes to my original premise in my conversation with Ransom.
Ekklesian said:
He's an unbeliever.
Click to expand...
True, but in his earlier years, he was a Christian fundamentalist who attended Moody and Wheaton. He pivoted.
Ekklesian said:
Let's hope his conclusions are different than yours too. A study of the Scriptures that is not mixed with faith does no one any good.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen me claim to be an agnostic or atheist? I think there’s only one guy on the forum who claims such, and it’s not me.
Ekklesian said:
Indeed. I would tell him just the opposite, that he needs to be born again, that he needs to become as a little child and to desire the sincere milk of the word that he may grow thereby.
Click to expand...
This again goes back to my conversation with Ransom. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you missed those comments.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Literal, or figurative?....

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.


😉
Click to expand...
Well, many Catholics still believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, so even that’s disputed.
 
Ekklesian said:
In answer to something you asked in a post that has since been deleted:

Presuming John was as ignorant and superstitious as you suggested, and presuming he was whisked into the future like Scrooge to witness actual events as they unfold, not a Christmas in this case, but twentieth century warfare....

...which we now know isn't the case, as we're well into the twenty-first century...​
​
...but high tech warfare, whatever form that might take now that the Dispensational assertions of the last sixty or seventy years have proven bogus, I would say it more likely John would describe "iron beasts" on the ground and "iron dragons" in the air. Locusts...puh-leeze!

But that's presuming as you presume.

I do not presume that John, or first-century civilations, were so ignorant. There is no reason to. That's Hollywood, not history, and it's a view that is imposed upon the text, and not taken from it. Neither do I presume John was lacking the words to describe exactly what he saw.

But even if he were...we're told he was 'in the spirit' when he saw these things, which means his perception was supernatural. I don't think the fact that the tanks and choppers were mere machines could have or would have been hidden from him.

I come to the Revelation with the presumption that John faithfully described what he saw in the spirit...living creatures, not machines, and that the meaning and understanding of the visions were no less accessible to him or anyone of any latter day century.
Click to expand...
why don;t you take a flying leap back into the cesspool you came from.... .. i never said john was ignorant... and i never said he didn;t actually see precisely what he described.. ... i merely speculated on another possibility like so many others do... ...including many theologians a lot more intelligent and better educated than you are do... men actually serving God in churches ministering to congregations.. or teaching in universities. .. ...not spending the majority of their time on a keyboard acting out their frustrations to small handfuls of people on obscure forums - while imagining themselves the "the great teacher" like you do... ... ....so you can take all your presumptions and assumptions about what you think i said right back into the cesspit with you... . ... you made your own life the trash pile of misery it is... don;t come here and take it out on us.....
 
aleshanee said:
why don;t you take a flying leap back into the cesspool you came from.... .. i never said john was ignorant... and i never said he didn;t actually see precisely what he described.. ... i merely speculated on another possibility like so many others do... ...including many theologians a lot more intelligent and better educated than you are do... men actually serving God in churches ministering to congregations.. or teaching in universities. .. ...not spending the majority of their time on a keyboard acting out their frustrations to small handfuls of people on obscure forums - while imagining themselves the "the great teacher" like you do... ... ....so you can take all your presumptions and assumptions about what you think i said right back into the cesspit with you... . ... you made your own life the trash pile of misery it is... don;t come here and take it out on us.....
Click to expand...
Lol.


K
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
It’s saying we should start with what can and cannot be disputed, or at least as much to that starting point as is possible.
Click to expand...
You mean something where...
Ransom said:
...the literal sense (the straightforward meaning of the words according to their conventional definition) is impossible...
Click to expand...
?


Okay, but didn't you disqualify, or at the very least marginalize, that approach as 'human reasoning?'

But that's okay. Let's start there anyway. Can it be disputed that the Baptist is recorded as identifying Jesus as 'the Lamb of God?'
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Exactly. And this goes to my original premise in my conversation with Ransom.
Click to expand...
Well, not exactly. I qualified what I meant by faith. I didn't mean simply believing. I said, employing understatement, that there would be some prayer involved, a bit of devotion. Exercise, if you will.

And in the case of Ehrman, I didn't say he should merely believe, but desire, or hunger for, the sincere milk of the word.

It's not enough to simply believe the stories.

DrHuk&Duck said:
This again goes back to my conversation with Ransom. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you missed those comments.
Click to expand...
I didn't miss anything. You just have a problem with comprehension.
 
Ekklesian said:
But that's okay. Let's start there anyway. Can it be disputed that the Baptist is recorded as identifying Jesus as 'the Lamb of God?'
Click to expand...
I’m sure it can be disputed by an unbeliever. As a Christian, I choose to believe that the story is historically accurate. For example, the American Founding Father who arguably had the greatest impact on independence via his publication of Common Sense (Thomas Paine) did not believe in the historicity of Jesus. Nor does former Baptist minister and New Testament scholar, Dr Robert Price https://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/bio.htm

Going back to Dr. Ehrman, although an agnostic, he does believe in an historical Jesus. He and Dr. Price had a debate on the subject several years ago. It’s an odd thing for one atheist to argue for Jesus and another against, but that’s what happened:
 
Last edited:
Maybe 'recorded' was the wrong word. I was asking, can it be disputed that it is reported that John the Baptist announced Jesus as the 'Lamb of God?'

No, it can't be disputed. Whether or not one believes the report, it is in the Gospels. But I'm glad you presume that it's true.

Now, can it be intelligently disputed that the term 'lamb' is used metaphorically, and that John was not saying that Jesus was a young, bleating, and wooly quadruped?
 
Last edited:
Ekklesian said:
Now, can it be intelligently disputed that the term 'lamb' is used metaphorically, and that John was not saying that Jesus was a young, bleating, and wooly quadruped?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t believe that can be intelligently disputed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top