Revelation 1 describes what John witnessed as he gazed upon the LORD Jesus Christ

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Revelation 1

Let each one remember what Revelation says, regarding the appearance of Christ, which the Apostle John saw, not a made up variety according to the ‘dude mentality of the hip hop generation’ or those who aren’t able to grasp what the Scriptures say.

Driscoll makes statements which are not Biblical. Driscoll isn’t capable of “beating up Christ” - his statement is disrespectful, not to mention cocky. Furthermore he adds to the Word of God by his insolent, vulgar statement regarding the LORDS appearance as quoted below exposes his crude depiction of what the LORD Jesus Christ looks like is represented in his (Driscoll’s lack of Scriptural knowledge) made up version of Christ’s physical appearance.

“In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:19

GOD the Son should never be referred to in terms such as these, there is no excuse, the WARNING is very clear.

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Matthew 12

Here is one of Mark Driscoll’s quotes:

“Mark Driscoll: There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity.”

Mark Driscoll, Relevant Magazine

KRM, what do you think?

He may be popularly thought of in conjunction with the Emergent Movement, but that seems to be more a matter of style than content.

and if we are going to play this way.

I have read a number of your posts as well.

My sense is that there is a tendency for your posts to make assertions of certainty regarding the interpretation of scripture which are not supportable.

In somes cases your interpretations would arguably appear to have been simply wrong (comments on the son of god comment in Daniel for example).

In some cases you appear to insist on a specific interpretation where the material is clearly ambiguous.

Do remember that reading the Bible is interpretation. There will be many interpretations and what is most critical is what the interpretation says to the reader. Given the history of how this document was created, the liklihood that any of the details as we read them today was either written or intended exactly as we read them today is quite low, except for perhaps the trivial cases.

So my sense is your interpretations at times would appear to be quite “brittle”. That is to say that your comments suggest that you have difficulty in accepting that an interpretation might differ from yours and just possibly both interpretations might be reasonable.

I don’t think that I can argue with you.

I will note that the amount of time in each mode would seem to vary from person to person.

I have witnessed other conversations you have had, not only with me but others here on the blog. What I see is your tangled use of Scripture, which leads no where. I don’t know if its a game or just a pass time, but it serves no purpose.

You enjoy leading a path/discussion through a maze which isn’t profitable, as far as your finally coming to an understanding of the Scriptures.

This serves no useful purpose Musing.

We need the one-on-one time alone with God, of course. But the Bible is full of references to us being together, such as the verses about being various parts of the body, what to do when we come together to worship, & also the verse in Hebrews about not neglecting to come together.

Somehow the alone time with God & the time with fellow believers work together to mature & grow us as Christians. Each is dependent on the other.

IOW, if we merely “went to church” without having prayed & worshiped on our own, we have nothing to bring to others. But also, God will use what we learn from other believers when we are again alone with Him.

acutally I am suggesting that as discussed Jesus did not per se need his disciples.

It is perhaps a more interesting question did the disciples need the disciples, and this is perhaps far more analogous to the situation around the church, and possibly provides a stronger basis for your argument.

This is, however, a more involved process, and we will now get into a detailed discussion of Acts and the Epistles and how they should be interpreted.

So I believe your initial position is reasonably well refuted.

And to simplifiy the second argument: thoughout the history of the Christian church from the begiinning there has been a tension between an apporach basedon solitary spirituality, and an approach based on fellowship.

And I do not find in Church history or in the Gospels a clear resolution one way or the other. My sense is that it really depends on the individual.