A Question For People of All Faiths.

Theories? ... debate? ... necessarily? (implying it could go either way)
I've been studying this for decades, and the complexity of it is truly astonishing, in my opinion, there simply are no one-word kinds of answers to most serious questions regarding end-time Prophetic study, I've found. But am I to believe that somebody else's theory is going to necessarily rewrite my present conclusions which took me over 10 years of tearing Scripture apart to arrive at? (as yet, I have not observed my present findings to be inadequate for describing this present darkness) Short answer: it's not.

Do I have all the answers, or is my research better than the next person's? May that never be thought nor said. In fact, I would be highly honored to even speak with the individual alive today who has discovered everything that can be known about the Bible and has moved on to more challenging works.

What exactly are we trying to determine here? ... I think you were concerned that Revelation is not chronological, which -- if that Book was merely a fiction piece written by a modern author -- it would still seem to follow the sequential order presented, just from a literary POV. It begins with a slightly troubled world that progresses into greater and greater states of turmoil, finally ending with a "Hero" riding in from the sky with an army, destroying the villain(s) and establishing a permanent world of peace. What, in your view, should not be seen as chronological about that?

Think of it in cinematic movie format. Can you imagine if everyone in the theater sat and reordered each chapter of the movie into their own interpretations? That would be a chaotic disaster. There must be a system to it, or else there's no point to it.

No? . . .

The greatest evidence of truth is how it pierces the heart of the individual , as it has you, and the anger which has arisen out of your heart. That is the only proof that you need in regard to evidence.

The New Testament is filled with the same reaction from others, like yourself, who, when confronted with the fact of truth (Jesus,) their hearts filled with anger and spilled out from their lips. Beyond that, I don't think there is anything that would convince you otherwise, since it seems by your statement regarding Jesus, that he never existed, the case has been settled in your heart. Why take the time to prove anything to someone who has already chosen not to believe? In most cases, it only hardens the heart even more. The more truth presented, the more it is rejected and the harder the heart becomes.

The only thing you need to do is focus on the anger that is rising up out of you, it has nothing to do with what you think or have stated in your post, it goes much deeper than that. If the unbelieving ever needed a sign, a genuine sign of proof, the hearts response would be that proof.

I have already retracted that statement about not believing Jesus existed - I do, in fact, believe he was a historically real, but I've yet found anything that convinces me he was the Son of God, and I find your arguments do not elicit an emotional response from me at all. You're right that I was angry and lost my temper, but I have apologised for that - it was frustration due to your inability to see things from my point of view, which, I guess, is the source of most conflict between humans. I guess we're all just human after all, eh? Again, though, you've done nothing to warrant my short-tempered response, so I'll apologise again.

Just to clarify, the anger I felt was not due to confrontation with the "truth" of Christ, but rather at what I (probably wrongly) perceived as your utter intransigence to exploring key issues in your faith - like the idea of what if...? - and I have no bones to pick with anyone who sees Jesus Christ as their path to God. I simply have no inclination in that direction; from a purely emotional/spiritual base, that claim simply rings false to me, but only to me. I'm willing to admit right now my faith is not 100% blind, but I feel enriched and invigorated by the relationship I have with the Creator I already have, and that is enough for me to accept my faith as true - although I understand that would not convince anyone else, and nor would I expect it to, or force anyone else to accept my belief just because the so-called 'proofs' I have are good enough for me. When it comes down to it, I don't believe proof could ever be absolute, or where would the element of faith come in? If there was a proof, then we'd simply have knowledge, and not faith.