Are we allowed to like AI art?

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by shovelquest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why are there no writings of these believers in tactics's writings? In roman historical writings at the time? Hmm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not the one making any claim other than not buying the claim that is being made about revelations being a weird history book that nobody could understand for 2000 years, and there is no evidence of that besides "coinkidinks".

Also why are there actual historical accounts written at the same time, that are NOT in code, about the same events?

Why would John need to write about this historical event in secret code?

Tacitus, suetoniu, pliny the Younger and Juvenal Satrier.

These are all historians of the time, freely writing about nero's persecution of Christians and jews, and the destruction of the temple.


Not to mention at the time of the council naciea there was even more robust writings on the historical persicution of jews and Christians!

Why would they put a weird, prophetic, re-imagining of such an important historical event, rather than just write about it outright by any of the other historical writers and Christians at the time?

Eusebius of Caesarea is considered the father of church history, why would they not put his historical writings in there other than some exiled prepper on an island speaking in code?