Revelations: A False Prophecy

Thanks and luck to Pro. Pro is making a claim and challenging the status quo, therefore has the burden of proof, as acknowledged in the comments. In light of this, I need only nullify Pro's arguments and leave the resolution unsupported, without necessarily proving the negative of the resolution. Besides, proving the negative would be nigh impossible considering that Biblical passages are the only source permitted. Pro's resolution leans on two main assertions: Assertion 1: Apart from the Book of Revelation, the books of the Bible are in agreement. This assertion must be true in order for Revelation to be considered incongruous. If the other books of the Bible are not in agreement, Revelation can't be singled out without extra-biblical evidence, which the rules of this debate disallow. Assertion 2: The Book of Revelation significantly conflicts with the other books of the Bible. This assertion must be true, or else there is no Biblical basis for singling out Revelation as incongruous. If Pro fails to uphold either of these assertions, he fails to uphold the resolution. As my purpose here is the negation of Pro's arguments, I will begin with rebuttals. Rebuttals 1. Silent Jesus Pro claims that Jesus could not have spoken to John, the author of Revelation, because Jesus stated in John 14:26 that the Holy Ghost would "teach you [disciples] all things." First, this argument is built on a non sequitur. The premise that the Holy Ghost would teach all things does not exclude the possibility that anyone else, including Jesus, would also teach. The Bible itself encourages others to teach. Colossians 3:16 says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another..." What are the letters of instruction Paul writes to the churches if not attempts to teach believers? Pro states, "Christ decreed that only the Holy Ghost would do such things", but that is not the case in the quoted passage. Jesus decreed that the Holy Ghost would teach, not that only the Holy Ghost would teach. Second, another issue with this argument is the possible vagueness of "all things". Unless the Holy Ghost would teach the disciples how to pilot a helicopter, how to play Mario Kart, and how to build a time machine, "all things" was actually referring to specific things. Those specific things are not identified in the quoted passage, and may not have included the contents of Revelation. Third, another Biblical event, the conversion of Saul, refutes Pro's claim that Jesus would not speak outside of the Holy Ghost after his ascension. Acts 9:3-5 says, "And as he (Saul) journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest..." If Jesus would speak directly to Saul and give him instruction, why wouldn’t he speak directly to John and give him Revelation? 2. Jesus, the Last Prophet Pro's second argument claims that the Book of Revelation is invalidated by Jesus' words in Mark, "I have foretold you all things." First, we again face the possibility that "all things" is a vague generalization, unless Jesus foretold to the disciples every detail of every second from that moment until the end of time. A more specific definition for "all things" is not provided in the quoted passages. Second, Jesus himself contradicts Pro's assessment. In John 16:13, Jesus states, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth (Holy Ghost), is come... he will show you things to come." According to Pro, since Jesus has already "foretold you all things," he is being redundant by sending the Holy Ghost to "show you things to come". If Jesus can be redundant once, why can't he be redundant a second time when he gives John of Patmos the Book of Revelation? Third, the Bible records at least one other instance after Jesus’ ascension of someone who was not Jesus prophesying the future. Acts 11:28 recounts that a prophet named Agabus foretold a time of "great dearth throughout all the world." In verse 29, the disciples took his words to heart and sent aid to other believers. Verse 28 also notes that the prophecy came true. If Jesus' statement in Mark 13:23 "contradicts the entire premise of the book of Revelations", as Pro claims, how does Pro explain why the disciples did not already know about the "great dearth" before Agabus prophesied it? Why did Agabus need to prophesy, instead of just remembering what Jesus had already said? So far, Pro has not upheld Assertion 1. The Bible is not in agreement with Pro's assessment of the quoted verses, therefore those verses cannot be used to invalidate Revelation.