Originally Posted by aron
No and yes. No it is not off topic because my argument hinges upon Revelation. If it were not for Revelation putting "seven spirits in front of the throne" instead of our "Holy Spirit", then you couldn't connect all the dots that I do.
You would have Hargar telling the angel, "You are the God that sees me," and just brush it off. You would have Moses talking with YHWH in the Exodus account, and in Acts, Stephen says he was talking with an angel. So what? Also in Acts, you'd have an angel telling Philip going down to the south road out of Jerusalem, then the Holy Spirit telling him to run up to the Ethiopian's chariot, and so what? You'd have the "glory of the Son and of the Father and the holy angels" in Luke 9:26 and so what? Who cares? You'd have the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man in John 1:51, and not the Holy Spirit, and you can just shrug.... anomalies, all of it. Irrelevant.
But Revelation, for me, connects all the dots. The argument here is that John is connecting the dots; I'm just seeing John connect the "angel = spirit" dots, that are actually sprinkled throughout scripture.
Consider it like this: "He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire" (Psa 104:4; Heb 1:7). Here you have angels, spirits, ministers, and flaming fire. In Revelation you have seven spirits before the throne, seven stars in Jesus' hand which are the seven angels of the seven churches, seven flames burning before the throne, seven eyes of the Lamb which are the seven spirits which run to and fro throughout the earth, and the seven angels who stand before the throne (8:2). Now, it is either awful crowded there in front of the throne, or it is a lot simpler than we've perhaps considered. Just trying to take the easy road here; simplicity is elegance, in my view. I just see all the dots connected.
But yes it's arguably off topic because if you want to dismiss the book of Revelation as rambling delusion of unknown origin, then maybe you discount Jesus rising from the dead. It is also "disputed", after all. I mean, if you don't like Revelation then why pay any attention to my argument, anyway? I don't get it. I have clearly stated my premise. To me, the Bible has Genesis to Revelation, which are the primary sources. Then, supplemental sources are the Church Fathers, pseudipigrapha, etc... If you say, "Well, that is a good argument but I don't accept source X", then really why bother? Why even care about what I am writing? I don't get that. You dismiss the dots I am connecting, then you dismiss the whole argument out of hand.
Here I am simply assuming Revelation's canonicity. As did Lee, and the people who say "It is the sevenfold intensified Holy Spirit". That is an assumed part of the discussion. If you take that away you are taking yourself out of the discussion. So, anyway, off topic... yes and no. Or no and yes, take your pick.
|