[fred_wilson]

> The book of Revelation also cites various signs that are metaphorical enough to be applied to just about anything.

If someone plans to, they should first read Revelation 22:18–19.

And Revelations isn’t the only prophetic work. Try Ezekiel.

> It's pointless to cite the Bible to defend a theological position

Understandable, but citing the Bible is fairly important in theology, though it should be done within context.

Sure, Judaism was word of mouth a long time, and that’s great. I personally can’t remember much, so I think referencing text is fine.

[fluoridation]

>If someone plans to, they should first read Revelation 22:18–19.

See, that's when you use literal reading. "I'm not adding anything to the text, I'm just interpreting it."

>And Revelations isn’t the only prophetic work. Try Ezekiel.

Ezekiel is clearly about events in our past, though.

>Understandable, but citing the Bible is fairly important in theology, though it should be done within context.

Meh. There's no internally consistent Christian theology that cites the Bible and doesn't involve generous amounts of cherry picking.

[stogot]

Its systematic theology is internally consistent; amazingly consistent given three thousand years across 66 books and dozens of authors. It’s the cherry picking and overemphas that gets one into trouble

[fluoridation]

>Its systematic theology is internally consistent

It's not. Christian dogma doesn't even obey the law of identity.

[stogot]

are you talking about the trinity?

[fluoridation]

I'm talking about the divinity of Jesus.

[stogot]

This is a widely researched topic by scholars. Is there something new or relevant you’re making a case for? Or is this purposefully obtuse