Revelations: A False Prophecy

First, I will address Pro's words about Assertion 1. This debate is about whether the Book of Revelation is in accord with the rest of "scripture", and therefore Biblically valid. In Pro's setup, he states that "all statements must be backed up by scripture".Of course, we could ask why any scripture should be considered authoritative over any other, but that's a matter for another debate, as it confronts the premises of the resolution rather than the resolution itself. This debate is built on the premise that other scripture is indeed more authoritative than Revelation itself, and can be used to prove that Revelation is "false". Thus, Assertion 1 exists hand-in-hand with Assertion 2, because if each book of the Bible were to disagree with the others, it stands to reason that any one of them could be "false", negating their authority to falsify Revelation. Revelation may conflict with one book, but what if it agrees with another? The unity of the other scripture is the only way that they can jointly have the authority to cast doubt on the Biblical validity of Revelation.However, Pro has now tried to "narrow the playing field" by claiming that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have more authority than other scripture. Unfortunately, as Pro did not limit our sources to those four books in his setup, I cannot be bound by this modification. It will be at my discretion whether to stay within the Gospels.I also feel it necessary to question Pro's claim. He states that "Christianity puts Christ's words above all others," but if we don't know that the other books are accurate and authoritative, how do we know any better of the Gospels? The men who canonized the books of the modern Christian Bible seemed to think that each was valid. If they were mistaken in regards to non-Gospel books, why should their opinion of the Gospels be trusted? Again, if we are to accept details such as these as "given" in the debate, they should be specified as such at the beginning. Otherwise, they must be argued and proven along with everything else.Rebuttals1. Silent JesusPro concedes this point.2. Jesus the Last ProphetPro agrees that it can't be shown Biblically what "all things" referred to.Pro does not attempt to rebut my contention that Jesus stated that the Holy Ghost would "show you things to come."Both of the above are enough to negate Pro's corresponding argument, without the help of Agabus. However, Pro's rebuttal of my Agabus point does not deny that the disciples responded to Agabus' prediction, implying that they did not already know of the coming dearth, and implying that the "all things" Jesus foretold did not include the dearth. This reinforces my point that we do not know what "all things" actually were, therefore we do not know that they included the prophecies of Revelation.3. The FuturePro argues that, in keeping with the words of Matthew 6:33-34, we should not concern ourselves with tomorrow. If this is true, I'm curious why Jesus "foretold you all things" in Mark 13:23, and why the Holy Ghost "will show you things to come" in John 16:13. If the Holy Ghost and Jesus himself were in the business of thinking about tomorrow and telling others about it, the idea that Revelation, its author, or its readers are somehow wrong to do the same holds little weight. This argument fails both Assertion 1 and Assertion 2, all without leaving the Gospels.Pro goes on to point out that Revelation has been exploited for money. While this is true, is there any part of the Bible that hasn't? Christian book stores are packed wall-to-wall with author's attempts to make money from rehashing the Bible and its contents. Major movies like Noah, Exodus: Gods and Kings, and The Passion of the Christ rake in millions of dollars. Every Sunday, pastors across America collect thousands of tax-free dollars so they can continue to air condition their massive, expensive sanctuaries. Christianity is replete with greed. This is hardly an excuse to single out the Book of Revelation.4. Bad Doctrine4a. Pronouncing Judgment on CollectivesPro states that Revelation is in conflict with Matthew 18 because it pronounces judgment on collectives. While I don't understand how Pro's verses denounce such pronouncement, I don't really need to. Just a few chapters later, in Matthew 23:13-15, Jesus passes judgment on a collective with three separate pronouncements of "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" He does not bother to point out individuals, instead condemning two entire professions to "the greater damnation." If Jesus could criticize and judge a collective, why is it wrong for Revelation to do the same?4b. SmyrnaPro argues that being "faithful unto death" is contradicted by Jesus in John 11:25-26. However, Jesus' words seem to be very similar to those of Revelation. He states, "...he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." Is believing in Jesus not the same as being faithful? It is implied that, in order to attain life, one must continue to believe in Jesus, and that a cessation of belief would also mean the cessation of life. Thus, one would need to be faithful in believing until death in order to attain life.Jesus goes on to say, "..and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." It seems clear he's not referring to physical death here, as he stated in the previous verse, "though he were dead, yet shall he live." How is living in Jesus and believing in Jesus not the same as being faithful? It follows Jesus' logic to assume that if one can attain the reward of life by living and believing in him, cessation of living and believing in him would revoke the right to the reward. Thus, being "faithful until death" is implicit in the words of Jesus.4c. PergamosPro's criticisms of Revelation 2:13-14 are challenged when the full text is examined:13. "I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth."14. "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication."Verse 13 is not a condemnation of the church at Pergamos. It is a compliment. John states that they have held fast and not denied the faith, even though they live in a place so awful that it could be called Satan's seat.As for verse 14, John states that some of the people in the church hold the doctrine of Balaam, and then lists some of the things that Balaam taught Balac. This list of offenses may be more an indictment of Balaam and his attitudes toward God than a description of practices followed by the Pergamos church. In the time of Balaam, recorded in the Old Testament book of Numbers, eating certain foods, such as pork, was considered unclean and unholy. This same mindset was observed by some people when it came to food offered to idols, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:7, "...for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled." He goes on to advise care in exercising liberty when it could mean hurting those whose faith is weaker than yours.With this in mind, it's possible that John was not condemning eating food offered to idols, but was condemning the careless attitude with which Balaam practiced an act that had the potential to hurt others. John's statement in verse 14 that Balaam taught Balac "to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel" seems to confirm this line of reasoning.