Philosophy Now Forum

.











.......................................................................















.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

Since you have absolutely nothing to say, please don't waste space on my thread. Thanks.

rantal wrote:"The existence of a sect called Nicolaitanes in the second century is attested by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexander." The Commentary for Schools, Edited by C. J. Ellicott, DD.

Bill's responce seems more appropriate though

all the best, rantal

First of all, please don't write in green ink since it is hard to read. Secondly, as I mentioned, the word Nicolaitanes is original to the book of Revelation, written during the year 96 AD in the first century. Thirdly, mentioning Bill brings into question your own intellectual level.

.







..................................................................









As I stated before...initially you may feel like the guy that taps-out in the above GIF.


But I set you free.



Free to speak about other things.

Free to explore & develop another philosophy.



Initially I had to tie you up tight.


But that's over now.



We respectfully shake hands and move on.






.

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:"The existence of a sect called Nicolaitanes in the second century is attested by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexander." The Commentary for Schools, Edited by C. J. Ellicott, DD.

Bill's responce seems more appropriate though

all the best, rantal

First of all, please don't write in green ink since it is hard to read. Secondly, as I mentioned, the word Nicolaitanes is original to the book of Revelation, written during the year 96 AD in the first century. Thirdly, mentioning Bill brings into question your own intellectual level.

Yes, you did indeed say that but since there were Nicolaitanes to which the word refers, your claim is not credible.

I am sorry you are unable to comprehend Bill, perhaps you should consider that the reason is more to do with you than he

all the best, urban

The word "Nicolaitanes" is original to the book of Revelation, as attested to by Biblical scholars. Because you seem to be a lot like Bill, let me explain it further. What that means is that the word "Nicolaitanes" didn't exist before the book of Revelation was written.

bobevenson wrote:The word "Nicolaitanes" is original to the book of Revelation, as attested to by Biblical scholars. Because you seem to be a lot like Bill, let me explain it further. What that means is that the word "Nicolaitanes" didn't exist before the book of Revelation was written.

You miss the point, that Nicolitanes existed to be mentioned in Revelation is sufficient to show that the word was in use prior to Revolations, you would need to show that the word was coined expressly for Revelation and that you have failed to do.

all the best, urban

rantal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The word "Nicolaitanes" is original to the book of Revelation, as attested to by Biblical scholars. Because you seem to be a lot like Bill, let me explain it further. What that means is that the word "Nicolaitanes" didn't exist before the book of Revelation was written.

You miss the point, that Nicolitanes existed to be mentioned in Revelation is sufficient to show that the word was in use prior to Revolations, you would need to show that the word was coined expressly for Revelation and that you have failed to do.

all the best, urban

I suggest you do a little research. Please allow me to reiterate: the word "Nicolaitanes" is original to the book of Revelation, and did not exist prior to it. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

An honest laugh is an expression of one´s view of things.
Who are the two men laughing ? Any famous actors ?
Do they laugh at the Bible ?

Laughing is therapeutic.
Jesus probably laughed too, even if the Gospels do not mention it.

duszek wrote:An honest laugh is an expression of one´s view of things.
Who are the two men laughing ? Any famous actors ?
Do they laugh at the Bible ?

Laughing is therapeutic.
Jesus probably laughed too, even if the Gospels do not mention it.

That may be true, but the book of Revelation and "The Ouzo Prophecy" are deadly serious, my friend.

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The word "Nicolaitanes" is original to the book of Revelation, as attested to by Biblical scholars. Because you seem to be a lot like Bill, let me explain it further. What that means is that the word "Nicolaitanes" didn't exist before the book of Revelation was written.

You miss the point, that Nicolitanes existed to be mentioned in Revelation is sufficient to show that the word was in use prior to Revolations, you would need to show that the word was coined expressly for Revelation and that you have failed to do.

all the best, urban

I suggest you do a little research. Please allow me to reiterate: the word "Nicolaitanes" is original to the book of Revelation, and did not exist prior to it. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

The thing is that you just saying that the word originates in Revelations is not sufficient, where is your evidence

all the best, urban

rantal wrote:The thing is that you just saying that the word originates in Revelations is not sufficient, where is your evidence?

All I can say is, if you don't believe me, prove all the Biblical scholars wrong by citing an authoritative source on the internet.

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:The thing is that you just saying that the word originates in Revelations is not sufficient, where is your evidence?

All I can say is, if you don't believe me, prove all the Biblical scholars wrong by citing an authoritative source on the internet.

You have yet to cite a biblical scholar

all the best, rantal