The Book of Revelation

There is no anti-Christ. Revelations is a bunch of jibber jabber that sounds like it was written by a schizophrenic acid casualty.

 

Yeah....Trump is not the Anti-Christ. Whew. He is simply a convicted felon, pervert, adulterer, treasonous, liar and Russian shill who happily betrayed his country to his Russian masters...but definitely NOT the Anti-Christ.

So glad we cleared that up.

 

I wish I could remember who and where, but someone once found somewhere in the Book of Revelation a reference to the wires on the Beatles' electric guitars.

 

Protestant reformer Martin Luther was contemptuous of the book and labeled the author as smug in his first preface for his translation.
In his 2nd 1530 translation he was more accepting of its place but not it's apostolic provenance.

Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther on the Book of Revelation - Dr. Matthew L. Halsted
גֵּר־וְתוֹשָׁב: Martin Luther's Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)

"And then there’s Martin Luther, the acclaimed Protestant Reformer. In the first preface of his translation of Revelation in 1522, Luther’s descriptions are also quite negative. He describes the book as being “neither apostolic nor prophetic,” saying further that he “can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it” (LW 35:398). After accusing the author of Revelation of being somewhat smug and rather puzzling, Luther confesses, “My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it” (LW, 35:398-399).Martin Luther"

"Luther later discarded this preface and replaced it with a new one in 1530. The second preface doesn’t carry the same negative tone as the first. In fact, he thinks readers can indeed “profit” from the book, particular in terms of finding “comfort” in the hope it emits, as well as the “warning” it gives with respect to trials and persecution (LW 35:409). He ends his new preface with the following paragraph:

"Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely."

 

Do you have hard evidence of this? Not assumption or interpretation, but real evidence.

 

You sound like the kind of fundamentalist I was as a youngster (having been raised that way, it wasn't a choice). I remember, when I first started questioning some of the "Word of God," asking my high-school English teacher (yes, she would bring up her Southern Baptist religion in a public school class), "What about some isolated tribe in the Amazon or somewhere who have never heard of the Bible or the gospel and so aren't saved?" Her answer was, "I believe their blood is on our hands." I wanted to say "bullshit" but didn't.

 

Trump is not the Antichrist, but he is definitely everything opposite of what Christ represents. For that reason I find it very strange that so many Christian support him. I would never support a person that has stolen from hundreds of hardworking people and is a convicted rapist

 

Other than the CIA and members of the National Security Council discussing how they were horrified that Trump had shared top secret intelligence, and Russian Foreign Secretary Lavrov publicly thanking Trump for passing the intelligence to him? You mean, other than those things??

 

It was all about abortion. The evangelicals supported Trump to get rid of Roe v. Wade, which he did. I guess they support him now out of gratitude, I have no idea. (Pro-life Trump, what a laugh. If he had made Stormy pregnant, he would have paid for an abortion in a New York minute.)

 

You already know the answer.

 

That's painting with a broad brush. Both the Democrats and Republicans can believe or disbelieve an interpretation. Those religious convictions are based more on denomination that political affiliation and in far smaller numbers than you imply.

I'm confused about your objective for this thread. Are you rejecting discussion of any interpretation that does not match your preferred interpretation

The title Christ is translated through the Greek from the Hebrew Moshiach translated as Messiah in English. It means 'anointed', and there were many messiahs, or anointed people in the Hebrew scriptures. Priests, kings, prophets including Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, Samson, Saul, David, Samuel.

I think your conclusion faulty. All Jews of that era, and even today believe they are children - sons and daughters - of God. The Isaiah 7:14 does not apply to Jesus. Isaiah was foretelling the birth of another child.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/QUOTE]

 

The Republican Senate Intelligence Committee released their report with evidence that the Trump campaign knowingly accepted help from Russia in the 2016 election.

Surely you are aware of THAT.

 

I suppose you mean revealing the intelligence regarding the Islamic state. I’ll say straightaway that I think that was highly unwise of Trump to do and wish he had not done it.

How does that prove that Trump has Russian masters? All it proves is that he unfortunately revealed classified information.

You can perhaps argue that that is a betrayal of our country, although I’m not sure that’s a strong argument. The stronger argument is that it betrayed our intelligence ally who gave us the information. I accept that as a betrayal.

A president’s handling of classified information falls into a different category from all the rest of us. First off, the president has the authority to declassify information as he sees fit. This was stated in a Washington Post article on the subject.

The other aspect is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the president sets foreign policy. So if the president deems revealing some information is in our country’s best interest, he has the right to do it. We can always argue that it’s not in our country’s interest, but again, it’s his choice.

 

Yes, I am aware of that. But how does that show that the Russians are Trump‘s masters? Seems to show more that Trump used the Russians not the other way around.

But to be clear, I do not approve of his actions. I’m just challenging the idea prevalent on TH that Trump is a puppet of Putin. I would like to see hard evidence of that before I accept it. That’s all.