A while back, A, as you may or may not recall, you created a thread called “UR’s…When was our names written in the book of life?”.
Your argument in your initial post depended on a position the rest of us disagreed with, but which you insisted was absolutely correct and that we were just trying to avoid having to admit was right so that we could be universalists. After hammering on your error relentlessly, you eventually admitted you were wrong and (tried to) adjust your argument appropriately.
Before you did that, though, I compiled together an analysis of your argument, critiquing it both directly in regard to its logic and accuracy to scriptural data, and then indirectly by providing an extremely in-depth scriptural analysis of the end of RevJohn, chapter and verse. As you may or may not recall, this was provided in the thread called “JRP on the Final Chapters of John’s Revelation. This latter portion (Part 4, comprising about half my reply) was pulled together from posts I had already written on this forum, which you hadn’t bothered to look up yourself. (But I had been wanting to pull them together into one place for a while anyway, so this was a good excuse to do so. 
)
In that thread:
1.) I argued that blotting out of the Book of Life is a real possibility, referring point by point in eight references to six verses of scripture (Rev 3:1-6). I also compared this result favorably to another set of scriptural verses (Rev 2:1-6).
2.) In considering a hypothetical defense you might try (although frankly I was sure you wouldn’t–correctly sure, as it turns out ), I argued that being erased out of the book of life isn’t necessarily a hopelessly final judgment. In doing so I referred at least ten times in detail to five verses (within the group of Rev 3:14-22); plus again at least four times back to 2:5, 3:3, 3:5; plus once to at least five verses from Heb 12 (5-11, as a set, though not explicitly mentioned as those verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses from Heb 12 I was talking about.) I also made a passing comparative reference to Rev 18:16 (though not explicitly mentioned as that verse, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verse or verses from scripture concerning the whore of Babylon, including in RevJohn, I was talking about there.)
3.) Before summarizing Part 2 (Part 1 having been a clarification of how I would NOT be critiquing your argument, in your favor); I briefly mentioned a line of approach (although I also said my critique doesn’t require this line of approach) where I adduced Rev 2:17 as evidence that everyone entering the kingdom of heaven after having not had their names found there in judgment, in the sense that all who are finally saved must have new names written into the book, commensurate with the salvational change wrought in us. Since I didn’t positively use this in my own argument, nor use this directly against your position, I won’t count it in the tally; but being a completist, I’m mentioning it here in passing.
4.) Before finishing up this Part, I mentioned that your references to Matt 10:32 and Luke 12:8 weren’t going to help shore up the fatal weakness of your argument–but since I didn’t go any farther discussing 10:32, I won’t count this in the tally. I did go farther discussing some relevant material and content from 12:8-10 in three references; but since I didn’t directly marshal that against your argument (or in favor of my own), calling it “a whole other discussion”, I won’t count those references in the tally. (But being a completist, I’m mentioning it here in passing.)
Now moving into Part 3:
5.) I agreed with what you said in regard to John 3:3 and Rev 20:15. I think I can fairly count those refs in the tally; but in the interest of being conservatively minimal (since I didn’t remark on them in any detail), I won’t count those as scriptural references on my part of the discussion.
6.) I did however refer, in more detail than you did–correctly against your incorrect application of this verse, as you later finally admitted–to Rev 17:8, as well as to Phil 4:3 and Rev 20:15. Call it two references (some people have names recorded; some do not) to three verses (two of which testify to the same thing). Though not explicitly mentioning Phil 4:3 and Rev 20:15, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses concerning people’s names being found in the Book of Life I was referring to.
I reiterate this point a little later, as well as referring back to my discussion on early chapters of RevJohn, but I won’t count those as extra references.
I will however count as detailed reference to relevant verses, this paragraph:
For sake of being conservatively minimal, I will only count this as one reference, and won’t try to tally up all the scriptures I was thereby referring to (again). I was, of course, entirely correct in this reference (as you yourself eventually had to admit, though you avoided admitting I, among others of us here, was right about this all along.)
Moving into Part 4:
7.) No less than five detail references to Rev 22:17.
8.) No less than four detail references to Rev 22:14. Plus one composite reference to an important detail (where those outside the New Jerusalem may wash, i.e. the river(s) of life) testified in at least Rev 7:17, 22:1 and 22:17. I didn’t explicitly mention those three verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to (especially at the end of RevJohn) showing where those whose robes need washing can wash their robes, one verse of which I had just explicitly discussed on this topic in the preceding paragraph. Beyond this, I also made no less than four detail references to three verses from GosJohn 7:37-39.
9.) one reference to Rev 22:15, in context with at least three details (one each) from 22:14, 22:17, and 22:11, as well as one passing comparative detail reference to at least Rev 21:27 and Rev 21:8. For sake of conservative minimism, I’ll count that last one as only one detail reference to only two verses (the ones within the range of immediate discussion), although by saying “the typical list in RevJohn and elsewhere” I could fairly add more verses to that composite reference. I didn’t explicitly mention those latter five verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to (especially since I had just recently explicitly mentioned some of them contextually.)
10.) At least two detail references to Rev 21:8 (in context with previous details, as before, and afterward of course).
11.) At least two detail references to Rev 21:27.
12.) At least two detail references to Rev 21:25.
13.) No less than seven detail references to Rev 21:24,25. Plus one detail reference to a whole bunch of scriptural testimony in RevJohn and beyond, i.e. that the “nations” are typically the pagans who do not yet know God. For sake of conservative minimism, I will count that as one composite reference to only two scriptural verses, namely Isaiah 60:3 and 5, which shows the nations under great darkness turning to the light and so coming out of their darkness into the light of the New Jerusalem. (Since as you may or may not recall, Isaiah 60 has a close relationship with the details and meaning of Rev 21 & 22. ) I didn’t explicitly mention those two verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to: ones where “the nations” mean those who do not yet worship God, or who at the time of the reference are converting to worship God.
14.) At least two detail references to Rev 19:19; plus two detail references to 19:21; plus one (extremely important) detail reference to 19:15; plus one general comparative reference to at least two verses from Psalm 23:4, 6. I didn’t explicitly mention three of those verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to.
15.) I next spend some time discussing contexts from various RevJohn verses so far, including at least 8 details from 10 verses most of which had been previously discussed in detail (Rev 21:22-26; 22:1, 5, 14-15, 17); plus a comparative detail reference to at least three verses from Romans 10:6-8 (which I could expand upon beyond those verses). I didn’t explicitly mention any of those references with chapter-and-verse cues, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to: especially since most of them were ones I had just explicitly discussed.
16.) After referring yet again to at least five details from at least three verses (Rev 22: 14-15, 17) in the developed context with at least three more verses (Rev 21: 24-26), I add in at least one contextual detail reference from Rev 22:2, and at least five contextual details from Rev 21:6; as well as at least seven contextual details from Rev 21:4-5. I only explicitly cited chapter and verse references for three of those scriptures because I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to: especially since most of them were ones I had just explicitly discussed.
17.) I now compare this contextually with no less than 36 details (maybe more) from four verses of Rev 7:9-12 and Rev 27:7. For sake of conservative minimism, I won’t count further reference nearby to a host of important details from scriptural references I have already discussed, nor will I tally in a comparative reference of several details to Rev 2: 1-7–but being a completist, I will still mention here that I did in fact discuss them in this portion of the article.
18.) Next up: no less than 16 details contextually mentioned from the seventeen verse set of Ezekiel 47:1-17. Plus a comparative textual reference to at least Rev 13:1. Plus a detail from at least Rev 21:11. Plus a detail from Rev 4:6. Plus at least fifteen details from the four verses of Rev 15:1-4. Plus at least fourteen details from Deut 32:34-43 (arrived at from reference in RevJohn, and of which I could have gone into more detail on). Plus a comparative reference to Heb 10:30-1.
19.) I go back “to recap a bit” for the next paragraph. For sake of a conservatively minimal tally, I won’t count this host of details referenced from many scriptures–but only because it would take me a while to tally them up, and I’m getting more than a little bored having to do this against the (frankly) insane or willfully irresponsible claim that I am not referencing scripture and its contexts in making my position.
20.) I compare at least one detail from Rev 21:24 to at least two details from Rev 1:6 and 5:10; as well as to at least two details from John 3:31 and 8:23-24 (among several other refs I could mention, but won’t for sake of a conservatively minimum tally). Along the way I contextually mention at least two details from Rev 22:14-15, 17 again; as well as a hugely important contextual detail from Rev 19:15 again.
21.) Next up: discussion of at least four very important details (one of which is routinely obscured in English translations from the Greek) from Rev 21:27; as well as referring to at least four details from 21:25-26.
22.) A contextual recap of details already mentioned from chapter 22, especially five details from 22:14-15, 17 again.
23.) At least three details discussed while checking differences between the (so-called) Textus Receptus and more extensively grounded modern text-critical editions of RevJohn (the UBS or the Nestle/Aland) on verse 21:24. Plus reference to at least one detail from verse 23. At least seven details from Rev 21:25 and 22:1-2, 14-15, 17, are mentioned again.
24.) An extensive comparison is made, porting language from RevJohn into equivalent statements from Rom 11:16-24. No less than 27 details are mentioned along the way.
That brings us to the end of only those four parts of what I wrote concerning the final chapters of RevJohn. The conservatively minimum running tally so far: no less than 236 references to details from no less than 150 scripture-verse references. (Actually somewhat more in both cases, as I didn’t tally up some things I could have included.)
This total absolutely does NOT include all the references to details from scriptures I have made elsewhere in (what can only be most loosely described as) conversation with you on this particular topic (i.e. what’s going on at the end of RevJohn). For example, it does NOT include all the references I made when detailing correspondences between Isaiah 60 and the end of RevJohn, in the same thread you are currently reading (which work you have chosen to ignore); and it does NOT include all the references I made when (somewhat more briefly) working out this same analysis again from a different direction (starting at the beginning of Rev 21 and going forward, instead of starting near the end of Rev 22 and working backward)–which can also be found in the thread you are currently reading, and which again you have chosen to simply disregard.
If you want to find out the content of all that, then GO READ THE POSTS! I am not going to reproduce all the content here.
Already done, long ago. This shows how much you cared to pay attention. In other words, you didn’t want to pay attention. And when it became painfully obvious, even to you, that I was actually citing scripture more accurately and more validly than you, you decided to try to rig the game by asking for something other than “intelligent results with scriptural references attached to them”, “compiling all the accurate data and logical validity in putting together data”.
Instead, you decided to insist upon ultra-simplistic non-contextual answers to complex questions: a ridiculously game-rigging tactic (as I exemplified when I used the same protocols back in counter-challenges which you couldn’t answer either without voiding your own protocols). Because that was the only way you could figure out to “beat” me.
If I actually answer according to the quote I just reproduced from you, you pretend I never answered or just wave the attempt off as worthless. If I answer according to the ridiculously game-rigging protocols, and provide NO compilation of data and validity, then you don’t go on to ask for contexts. You immediately pat yourself on the back on having “beat me” and laughingly chide me.
The only person impressed by this tactic around here, however, is you.
I will repeat one more time: if you aren’t lying about caring about the contexts, then GO DISCUSS THE CONTEXTS I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ABOUT WITH TONS OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE!! If you don’t care about the contexts, and only want to feel to yourself like you’ve “won” somehow, then it really does not matter a single solitary bit what I do, you’ll find some way to wriggle it around in your mind to protect yourself, at any cost, including logical absurdity.
But then so much for any serious conversation from you.
<that’s sarcasm, if you couldn’t tell>