I take issue with the author of those passages. Revelations wasn't always going to be in the canon, you know. It was debated. We can't just take every stoner outlook as "gospel".
This seems to be a popular myth, but the reality is quite the opposite. Revelation has better 2nd and 3rd century attestation to it's authenticity than most New Testament books (Meaning, the number of sources that cite it as being scripture or quote from it as scripture). Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all witness to it as authentic scripture and that it was written by the apostle John. The fact that there seems to be no confusion about who wrote it in the early church is also significant.
You don't actually see any recorded objection to the book of Revelation until the 3rd century; and that is because someone had theological objections to it - not because they had any real historical reason to believe the apostle John had not written it.
An accusation of Revelation's questionable canoncity would stand on firmer ground if the historical witness was even partially silent or uncertain about the canonicity of Revelation. However, we see the expect opposite: Very early and strong attestation to it, with no source claiming it to be spurious or questionable and it's referenced by more sources of that period than most other books in the New Testament. By comparison, Revelation is on extremely firm ground.
So it's misleading to say that Revelation's canonicity was "debated" when no such debate could said to have taken place until two hundred years later, and even then was resolved before the century was over.. Everything we have would suggest that Revelation was established scripture with a known author but then later someone wants to throw it out because they objected to it's content (sound familiar?).
I am not misrepresenting the fact Satan is NOT in the story of Adam and Eve.
Revelation says he is. You're arguing with scripture, not me.
You are trusting biblical authors who have noted that stupid people are blessed because only stupid people can believe them.
You are once again misrepresenting what scripture says by dishonestly summarizing it's content.
You'll find no scripture that supports your accusation. Go ahead and try to quote some.
I would think then that you would care more about accurately representing what the Bible says when you summarize it's content.
Jesus told me to judge a tree by its fruit. The problem soon became that I could no longer ignore just how rotten even biblical fruit was. Go read the Quran if you want everyone's characterizations white-washed to make them more "noble". In the bible, EVERYONE HAS ISSUES.
I'm not sure what you mean by judging Biblical fruit. Are you talking about the people in the Bible?
Of course everyone but Jesus in the Bible has issues - That's what we would expect to find in a real book about real people involved in real history.
Part of why we see the Bible record people's failings as well as their triumphs is so that we can learn from their failures and take heart from the fact that even flawed and broken people can be redeemed, changed for the better, and used by God.
Why would you see that as a problem?
I just think that when NT authors lie (to be fair, at best maybe they were using non-canon sources we do not have, which would make them only right in the sources they used, not objectively), it should be called out.
Is there a single thing in the New Testament you could prove to be a lie?
Ask yourself if it's Jesus you follow, or Paul and John.
I have, and found that everything Jesus said lines up with everything Paul and John said in their letters. It's the same God, same Jesus, and the same Gospel.
If you think they aren't giving the same message than you're welcome to try quoting scripture that would demonstrate that.
This is why Jesus needs to really keep tabs on what he says. After all, anyone who calls someone a "fool" is going to hell, but Jesus said the Jewish clergy were foolish, so ...
I can understand why that might confuse you, however, this merely comes from a misunderstanding on your part about the words being used and their context.
Matthew 5:22 and Luke 11:40 use different words that are translated into English as fool. Raka vs Aphrones. The former is a term of derision and contempt, more akin today to how we'd use a curse word or racial slur, which in it's context reflects that someone is wrong for holding hate in their heart towards their brother which is reflected by their using this word. The later is merely a term that simply means foolish, without reason, senseless, etc.
This is why some translations leave "raka" untranslated in Matthew 5:22, because there's no direct English equivalent for it. Translating it as fool is not the best choice.
