My discussion with Faiz about the so-called failed prophecies of Jesus and the book of Revelation

  1. Radio silence once again from Christian land…LOL!!
  2. Like

      1. You are using the wrong interpretive method for the book of Revelation.
      2. William Hendriksen’s book “More than Conquerors” is excellent to show how Revelation should be correctly interpreted:
      3. Page 43
      4. “Proposition 6
      5. The seals, trumpets, bowls of wrath and similar symbols refer not to specific events, particular happenings, or details of history, but to principles…..of human conduct and of divine moral government……..that are operating throughout the history of the world, especially throughout the new dispensation”
      6. From an amillenialist viewpoint your article on Revelation is a non-sequitur.
      7. “34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”
      8. “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”
      9. To answer the first question, when shall the destruction of the temple occur, Jesus could have had in mind the physical generation of his day.
      10. To answer the second question, when shall the end of the world occur, Jesus could have been thinking of the wicked unbelieving generation as a spiritual entity that would continue to exist until the end of time.
      11. In my view he is using the word generation in a double sense to answer both questions. Thus there is no failed prophecy.
      12. Like
    • LOL, of course now that it’s been shown that the prophecies in Revelation failed to come true, some Christians shift gears and claim that it’s all simply a metaphor. Perhaps you can explain why the author had to go to such elaborate lengths, describing earthquakes and plagues, when he could have just as easily said described the “principles of human conduct”. I mean, seriously…just be honest with yourself and admit that the author was simply mistaken instead of resorting to such ridiculous arguments.

      Why on earth would we assume that “generation” didn’t simply mean Jesus’ generation? Isn’t it strange that you conveniently assume that one question referred to the destruction of the temple, which you know already occurred, but the second question is somehow referring to the end of the world, which hasn’t occurred yet? Isn’t that a little too convenient?


    1. There is precedence for this figure of speech in the preaching of Jesus and the OT:
    2. Deuteronomy 1:35 “No one from this evil generation shall see the …
    3. “No one from this evil generation shall see the good
      land I swore to give your ancestors, …
      // – 17k
    4. Luke 11:29 As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked …
    5. … As the crowd pressed in on Jesus, he said, “This evil generation keeps asking
      me to show them a miraculous sign. But the only sign …
      // – 19k
    6. Matthew 12:45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits …
    7. … That will be the experience of this evil generation.” … …
      // – 20k
    8. Matthew 12:39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation …
    9. … But Jesus replied, “Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous
      sign; but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah. …
      // – 18k
    10. Like
    • And your point is?

      So far, you have presented no reason to believe that “generation” didn’t refer to Jesus’ generation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s