Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 2:21:39 GMT -5
Many on this board believe Paul usurped Jesus’ doctrine. Even, we are told, to editing or even scripting the Gospels. The theory goes that these apostles built a church which was works based, hierarchical, sexist, homophobic, judgmental, exclusive and any other politically incorrect sin you care to think of. We are told that Jesus would have none of this. His was a message of love, tolerance and saved by grace. The story goes that Jesus built no church, established no ministry and made no rules.
So if Paul built this church and brutally “lorded” over its members – could he have totally scripted the entire New Testament? This is certainly Robert Eisenman’s case in his book, “James the Just” and, apparently, the opinion of a large segment of TMB members.
But if this is true, then WHO IS THIS JESUS IN REVELATIONS?
Revelations was written long after Paul died. The author is John, the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” BUT THIS JESUS IS WORKS BASED, HIERARCHICAL, SEXIST, JUDGMENTAL, CRUEL AND EXLUSIVE. You will never see this Jesus in saved-by-grace or once-saved-always-saved literature.
This Jesus was clearly works focussed: “I know your works” – Sardis “I know your works” – Ephesus “I know your works” – Smyrna “I know your works” – Thyratira “I know your works” – Pergamon “I know your works” – Philadelphia “I know your works” – Laodicea
This Jesus was exclusivist: But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam… Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
This Jesus was judgmental: Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place… I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works… he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet… …. thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
This Jesus was sexist: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
This Jesus was cruel: Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. … I will spue thee out of my mouth. I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
This Jesus didn’t love children: And I will kill her children with death;
The question is – given that many don’t believe this Jesus, is Revelations fake?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 2:48:45 GMT -5
First of all, it is not Revelations, never was, never will be. It is The Revelation given John. One Revelation, which indeed contained many things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 2:51:53 GMT -5
Thanks for that. We say "the book of Revelation" or simply "Revelations" And I hope I don't just get lots of replies, instead of answers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 3:10:00 GMT -5
Bert, obviously to some it is, to me, it is not. My question is, why do you even ask?
Recently an "Agape" study/worship group which I have been attending when possible have just completed a very detailed study of that Revelation. We have concluded that it is to be very real for those whom it is to be very real, and all others can be as you, full of questions, even denial. To us, there was nothing "fake" about it, although we did delve into that realm during our study. If someone wants to think it "fake" we concluded like everything else in the realm of biblical spirituality, "why not let them?"
We also concluded that the beliefs anyone holds should be just that, what they as an individual believe, We all chose to believe in our Creator as loving humanity so very much they are allowed to even make choices against such a Being, any existence and even consistency. Nonetheless, we concluded a day of Judgment awaits us and everyone, for those who receive that judgment now in life, there needs be no fear in the future, when nor wherever.
We finished with the conclusion that the belief(s) of the Bible days was/were individual, and when shared in common formed a group of believers known as the Church, which as a whole has not always been healthy likely because of individual and group complacency.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 10, 2014 5:39:17 GMT -5
Many on this board believe Paul usurped Jesus’ doctrine. Even, we are told, to editing or even scripting the Gospels. The theory goes that these apostles built a church which was works based, hierarchical, sexist, homophobic, judgmental, exclusive and any other politically incorrect sin you care to think of. We are told that Jesus would have none of this. His was a message of love, tolerance and saved by grace. The story goes that Jesus built no church, established no ministry and made no rules. So if Paul built this church and brutally “lorded” over its members – could he have totally scripted the entire New Testament? This is certainly Robert Eisenman’s case in his book, “James the Just” and, apparently, the opinion of a large segment of TMB members. But if this is true, then WHO IS THIS JESUS IN REVELATIONS?Revelations was written long after Paul died. The author is John, the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” BUT THIS JESUS IS WORKS BASED, HIERARCHICAL, SEXIST, JUDGMENTAL, CRUEL AND EXLUSIVE. You will never see this Jesus in saved-by-grace or once-saved-always-saved literature. This Jesus was clearly works focussed:“I know your works” – Sardis “I know your works” – Ephesus “I know your works” – Smyrna “I know your works” – Thyratira “I know your works” – Pergamon “I know your works” – Philadelphia “I know your works” – Laodicea This Jesus was exclusivist:But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam… Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. This Jesus was judgmental:Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place… I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works… he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet… …. thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
This Jesus was sexist:Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. This Jesus was cruel:Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. … I will spue thee out of my mouth. I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. This Jesus didn’t love children:And I will kill her children with death;
The question is – given that many don’t believe this Jesus, is Revelations fake?
That's like asking if JRR Tolkien's "The Hobbit" is fake. Of course it's not fake. It's a genuine, authentic, fantastical account of the writer's invention. Of course it's fake. It's a genuine, authentic, fantastical account of the writer's invention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 6:42:34 GMT -5
Many on this board believe Paul usurped Jesus’ doctrine. Stop right there on your first sentence bert. It's not a matter of "believing" in the existence of discrepancies between the recorded words of Jesus and the recorded words of Paul. It's a matter of reading and comparing, then the proof is right there in black and white. No "belief" is required when the truth is in plain sight. For those who "believe" otherwise, it is not really a belief, it is a delusion. The cognitive dissonance arises from the belief that it is impossible for discrepancies to arise within the bible. In that false premise, the truth is obscured.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 10, 2014 10:35:49 GMT -5
I certainly wouldn't take what John hallucinated and call it a Revelation. To him it very likely seemed very real. So he wrote it down. It appealed to some who like that kind of thing as they seem to continue to like it now. That doesn't mean it has any relevance in reality. It's was John's delusion. He had a right to it. But for us to take it as guidance, is ludicrous as so much of what is in the bible is. The bible is a collection of individual opinions about what they thought life and death was. Some of them thought about it more than others. Doesn't make any of it any more conclusive than all the opinions we have on TMB really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 11:23:18 GMT -5
Many on this board believe Paul usurped Jesus’ doctrine. Stop right there on your first sentence bert. It's not a matter of "believing" in the existence of discrepancies between the recorded words of Jesus and the recorded words of Paul. It's a matter of reading and comparing, then the proof is right there in black and white. No "belief" is required when the truth is in plain sight. For those who "believe" otherwise, it is not really a belief, it is a delusion. The cognitive dissonance arises from the belief that it is impossible for discrepancies to arise within the bible. In that false premise, the truth is obscured. I guess I must be "delusional" by your definition then, because I believe the scriptures to be God-breathed and inerrant. It's my belief that if the Bible is prayerfully read with each verse in context with the other verses in that chapter, book, and the entire Bible, anything that seems to be a discrepency or contradiction by our human understanding will be sorted out. Maybe not now, but eventually. Having an understanding, or at least the ability to look up, history and geography of that time would help also. Paul said he received the Gospel through a direct revelation of Jesus. If that is true, then how could he be contradicting what Jesus Himself preached? It seems to me there is a common theme in the New Testament...salvation solely through the death and resurrection of Jesus...we receive the Holy Spirit which creates new life in us...that same Spirit moves us to then perform good works in response to our salvation, out of thankfulness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 12:11:10 GMT -5
Stop right there on your first sentence bert. It's not a matter of "believing" in the existence of discrepancies between the recorded words of Jesus and the recorded words of Paul. It's a matter of reading and comparing, then the proof is right there in black and white. No "belief" is required when the truth is in plain sight. For those who "believe" otherwise, it is not really a belief, it is a delusion. The cognitive dissonance arises from the belief that it is impossible for discrepancies to arise within the bible. In that false premise, the truth is obscured. I guess I must be "delusional" by your definition then, because I believe the scriptures to be God-breathed and inerrant. You have lots of company on that view. The problem is, the facts state otherwise as the bible has quite a bit of error evidenced by contradiction. I used to approach it that way too but facts are facts and the angst from my cognitive dissonance melted away when I decided that truth was more important than a premise of biblical infallibility. Biblical errors don't bother me at all now that I have come to understand that the bible is a collection of writings by fallible people about their experiences and faith in God. God inspired? Definitely. God written? Definitely not. In fact, the fallibility of the bible makes it more relevant and meaningful to me....and certainly much easier to understand. Definitely. That makes 1st century writings much more understandable. The gnarly problem is when the principles change as evidenced by Bert's revelation of how different Jesus is from what was espoused by Paul and Peter regarding the hierarchical power structure. Paul really didn't understand that part. Most believers will affirm that they received the gospel through a direct revelation of Jesus, yet believers are in a habit of contradicting Jesus and each other all the time. This shouldn't be anything to fear, it's how life works, we're all learning and even Paul had some things to learn. Peter is one of the most contradictory characters of them all. He got the message right from the living source (not in a vision like Paul) and still got it wrong over and over. That doesn't make him hellbound, it just makes him predictably human like the rest of us. Your statement is a Pauline interpretation. An interesting study for anyone would be to try to forget the common themes in the post-Jesus NT and study only what Jesus says about salvation. It's not easy to do as we saw with Bert's response to my baseline of Jesus Only regarding the power structure.....he quickly switched over to Paul to present a contrary view to Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 10, 2014 18:55:21 GMT -5
I certainly wouldn't take what John hallucinated and call it a Revelation. To him it very likely seemed very real. So he wrote it down. I seldom disagree with you snow, but I sure do this time! Revelation is an extremely carefully-crafted writing pulling together prophecies and writings from the Old Testament and other sources. One scholar found 644 references to other scriptures! There is no way this book could have been hallucinated and then written down. John of Patmos pored over scripture for months (at least) to create this masterpiece.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 19:08:22 GMT -5
Clearday, has the "power" thread moved to this thread?
The Book of Revelations was written by John the Apostle. If this is fake then we must assume John's Gospel is also fake. And Matthew, Mark and Luke are also fake.
Power issues become moot.
But if it's true then we see the evidence of a church building, hierarchical controlled and ministry based faith.
Jesus was absolutely focused upon authority - both heavenly and worldly. His sermons are full of references to kings, lords, masters etc., for whose office He held respect.
He said He was building His "church." He gave His Sunday home church his imprimatur by attending it on three occasions. He gave his own Apostles authority over His church. He gave them "signs" to demonstrate their authority - (to non- believing pagans and Jews, and to the church itself.) He gave his Apostles power to judge, even in the Resurrection. He gave us a Ministry. He explained the nature of that Ministry, lived it Himself, explained why it was the way it was, and why the old temple worship was done. He warned of the punishment to those who disbelieved - far worse to those who once "knew" or ought to have known. He told of some having a greater place in the kingdom, some less, and some not at all. And He said he would destroy the nation for whom He was sent because they "knew not the time of their visitation."
In other words, Jesus in the Gospel is identical to the Jesus of the Book of Revelations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 19:17:51 GMT -5
Dubious Disciple quote - "John of Patmos pored over scripture for months (at least) to create this masterpiece."
Maybe it was as he said, it was a revelation given to him? When John saw the collapse of the Christian churches, "no more the candle, no more the voice of the bride and bridegroom" do you think he was studying 20th and 21st Century church history? I mean, John didn't know anything about churches, or candles or weddings in a Christian context back then because these things didn't exist in the Apostolic Church. And Christianity was powerfully in ascendance in his day - not declining.
So, what scripture did he read to come up with this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 20:22:20 GMT -5
Bert, is the doctrine taught on the shores of Eire around 1900 in such places as Enniskillen, Rathmolyn and Crocknacreave (County Fermanaugh) fake?
|
|
|
Post by pianoman2 on Apr 10, 2014 20:38:59 GMT -5
Bertie, good to see you hanging in there tooth and nail. You may want to get a safety cable in case you fall, but it looks like you are hanging in there and may even have some converts.
Converts to what, I don't know but keep up the work. One day this little light will go on and there will appear a bubble that says "That makes no sense and in fact is the opposite of what I read and know to be true". Til then, keep on clawing for the 2x2's and watch as it slowly shrinks to next to nothing as more truth comes out about it..........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 20:57:48 GMT -5
Bert, is the doctrine taught on the shores of Eire around 1900 in such places as Enniskillen, Rathmolyn and Crocknacreave (County Fermanaugh) fake? To be honest I am not sure. I know where you come from, but the exact doctrine, **** as they (rather than their enemies)really spelled out **** I am not sure of. But there's some doctrine even in Scientology I am happy with (ie family, ethics, no drugs etc.!) so it's all a spectrum. You would have to spell out any particular doctrine for comment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 20:59:00 GMT -5
Bertie, good to see you hanging in there tooth and nail. You may want to get a safety cable in case you fall, but it looks like you are hanging in there and may even have some converts. Converts to what, I don't know but keep up the work. One day this little light will go on and there will appear a bubble that says "That makes no sense and in fact is the opposite of what I read and know to be true". Til then, keep on clawing for the 2x2's and watch as it slowly shrinks to next to nothing as more truth comes out about it.......... er, thanks Pianoman. What part of the message to the seven churches in Revelation do you think I am struggling with? (plenty elsewhere in Revelations to give you a headache!!!)
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 10, 2014 21:22:08 GMT -5
I guess I must be "delusional" by your definition then, because I believe the scriptures to be God-breathed and inerrant. You have lots of company on that view. The problem is, the facts state otherwise as the bible has quite a bit of error evidenced by contradiction. I used to approach it that way too but facts are facts and the angst from my cognitive dissonance melted away when I decided that truth was more important than a premise of biblical infallibility. Biblical errors don't bother me at all now that I have come to understand that the bible is a collection of writings by fallible people about their experiences and faith in God. God inspired? Definitely. God written? Definitely not. In fact, the fallibility of the bible makes it more relevant and meaningful to me....and certainly much easier to understand. Definitely. That makes 1st century writings much more understandable. The gnarly problem is when the principles change as evidenced by Bert's revelation of how different Jesus is from what was espoused by Paul and Peter regarding the hierarchical power structure. Paul really didn't understand that part. Most believers will affirm that they received the gospel through a direct revelation of Jesus, yet believers are in a habit of contradicting Jesus and each other all the time. This shouldn't be anything to fear, it's how life works, we're all learning and even Paul had some things to learn. Peter is one of the most contradictory characters of them all. He got the message right from the living source (not in a vision like Paul) and still got it wrong over and over. That doesn't make him hellbound, it just makes him predictably human like the rest of us. Your statement is a Pauline interpretation. An interesting study for anyone would be to try to forget the common themes in the post-Jesus NT and study only what Jesus says about salvation. It's not easy to do as we saw with Bert's response to my baseline of Jesus Only regarding the power structure.....he quickly switched over to Paul to present a contrary view to Jesus. Thanks for this. I never liked Paul (always thought he had a lot of 'opinions' that just made life harder for people, especially women), and now I have some understanding of why not. When I was a 2X2, I didn't mind the gospels, loved the Sermon on the Mount. But I tended to spend my time in the Old Testament on kinda personal stuff (like, when God was talking directly to people - I was somehow able to ignore all the wars and the killings.): When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. Instincts are a gift, even if you don't have an intellectual explanation for them at the time.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 10, 2014 22:26:14 GMT -5
I certainly wouldn't take what John hallucinated and call it a Revelation. To him it very likely seemed very real. So he wrote it down. I seldom disagree with you snow, but I sure do this time! Revelation is an extremely carefully-crafted writing pulling together prophecies and writings from the Old Testament and other sources. One scholar found 644 references to other scriptures! There is no way this book could have been hallucinated and then written down. John of Patmos pored over scripture for months (at least) to create this masterpiece. You have studied this book way more than I have so I would say you have more insight that I do. However, from what I have studied about it, it seems to be a combination of his experiences, what he has studied as you point out, but also a portion of it seems like a disconnect from reality. Like he slips into delusional states and mixes it all together. It's an interesting book and quite symbolic. I still don't think I would say it can be called a Revelation though. That's my take on it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 11, 2014 0:36:29 GMT -5
I certainly wouldn't take what John hallucinated and call it a Revelation. To him it very likely seemed very real. So he wrote it down. I seldom disagree with you snow, but I sure do this time! Revelation is an extremely carefully-crafted writing pulling together prophecies and writings from the Old Testament and other sources. One scholar found 644 references to other scriptures! There is no way this book could have been hallucinated and then written down. John of Patmos pored over scripture for months (at least) to create this masterpiece. John could have studied the scripture for a long time and "created" a sci-fi masterpiece, getting references to older documents to verify his work, OR he could have been so steeped in the knowledge of the OT documents, that he simply did hallucinate it all.
Even in hallucinations a person does need background knowledge for the hallucinations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 1:26:34 GMT -5
I seldom disagree with you snow, but I sure do this time! Revelation is an extremely carefully-crafted writing pulling together prophecies and writings from the Old Testament and other sources. One scholar found 644 references to other scriptures! There is no way this book could have been hallucinated and then written down. John of Patmos pored over scripture for months (at least) to create this masterpiece. John could have studied the scripture for a long time and "created" a sci-fi masterpiece, getting references to older documents to verify his work, OR he could have been so steeped in the knowledge of the OT documents, that he simply did hallucinate it all.
Even in hallucinations a person does need background knowledge for the hallucinations. could have
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 11, 2014 9:48:18 GMT -5
Dubious, I do have a question though. John would not have been able to study any of the gospels that we have now because they were not around to study at that point. He would have had his Hebrew books and writings, but the NT wasn't in existence when he is said to have written Revelation. So when you say there are references in revelations to other writings, it is possible that the other writings were written AFTER John did his writing and some of the references were just actual references in the gospels to John's writings. In other words, he was the source of some of the things you believe he referenced. Not saying this is true, but it is a thought knowing the gospels were not written by who they are named after and not by eye witnesses and after the destruction of Jerusalem.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 11, 2014 14:57:23 GMT -5
There is quite a difference in something that is a "fake" and something that isn't.
definition of fake: not true or real : meant to look real or genuine but not real or genuine
I don't think that John "faked" the book of Revelation.
However, that doesn't mean that the book of Revelation is an accurate prophecy some kind end of the world scenario. It doesn't even mean that John meant it to be that.
It is only what some people to day seem to want to believe and insist that it is a true prophecy of end times.
No one really knows why John wrote that book, some biblical scholars even believe that it was more than one writer.
There isn't even a clear consensus on WHEN it was written.
We could all speculate until doomsday (pun intended ) about Revelation and be no clearer on what was in the mind of John than we are now.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 11, 2014 15:07:10 GMT -5
John could have studied the scripture for a long time and "created" a sci-fi masterpiece, getting references to older documents to verify his work, OR he could have been so steeped in the knowledge of the OT documents, that he simply did hallucinate it all.
Even in hallucinations a person does need background knowledge for the hallucinations. could have Virgo, can you answer the question of this thread, "Is the Book of Revelation fake?" in any more of an affirmative way?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 11, 2014 15:35:57 GMT -5
Dubious, I do have a question though. John would not have been able to study any of the gospels that we have now because they were not around to study at that point. He would have had his Hebrew books and writings, but the NT wasn't in existence when he is said to have written Revelation. So when you say there are references in revelations to other writings, it is possible that the other writings were written AFTER John did his writing and some of the references were just actual references in the gospels to John's writings. In other words, he was the source of some of the things you believe he referenced. Not saying this is true, but it is a thought knowing the gospels were not written by who they are named after and not by eye witnesses and after the destruction of Jerusalem. I propose in my book that Revelation was written about 80 CE. My work is historical/critical, so I tie it to historical events as best I can, and this timeframe fits the best for that kind of analysis. That means Revelation was written after Mark but probably before the other gospels. However, Mark didn't seem to influence Revelation so much (unless you think Revelation's description of the war came solely from Mark's description). More likely, Revelation was actually combating the passive portrayal of Jesus in Mark, insisting on a more traditional messianic figure. But there are TONS of references to Hebrew scriptures and to other Jewish writings. The book of Enoch considerably influenced Revelation (and other New Testament documents). So did the book of Jubilees...that's where the idea of a replacement city for the destroyed Jerusalem (the New Jerusalem) descending out of heaven comes from. You are right, though, that some Jewish writings very similar to Revelation came after Revelation. We don't always know who borrowed from whom. Did Revelation borrow from Esdras, from the later books of Enoch, etc? Depends on how you date them. How about this verse: "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders. " That's in 2 Thess, which I argue borrowed from Revelation rather than vice versa. I think it was written about 90 CE. Is that before or after Rev? Depends on how you date them.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 11, 2014 15:42:47 GMT -5
We could all speculate until doomsday (pun intended ) about Revelation and be no clearer on what was in the mind of John than we are now. I disagree again. I think we have considerable historical evidence to know what John was thinking about as he wrote. I went verse-by-verse through the whole book, explaining its first-century context.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 11, 2014 16:55:20 GMT -5
We could all speculate until doomsday (pun intended ) about Revelation and be no clearer on what was in the mind of John than we are now. I disagree again. I think we have considerable historical evidence to know what John was thinking about as he wrote. I went verse-by-verse through the whole book, explaining its first-century context. DD, I do respect your research of the scripture and realize that you have spent a lot of time & effort on the subject.
The book of Revelation[ has been quite controversial throughout history amongst biblical scholars.
Do I understand it correctly that Revelation isn't considered canonical by some of the Christian denominations? In particular, the Eastern Orthodox?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 11, 2014 17:23:14 GMT -5
I certainly wouldn't take what John hallucinated and call it a Revelation. To him it very likely seemed very real. So he wrote it down. It appealed to some who like that kind of thing as they seem to continue to like it now. That doesn't mean it has any relevance in reality. It's was John's delusion. He had a right to it. But for us to take it as guidance, is ludicrous as so much of what is in the bible is. The bible is a collection of individual opinions about what they thought life and death was. Some of them thought about it more than others. Doesn't make any of it any more conclusive than all the opinions we have on TMB really. Snow ~ You make it real hard on those who take the Bible as being inerrant from Genesis to Revelation. However, perhaps it never was meant to be taken literally and that's where the discrepancy lies ~ we are reading more into scripture than was intended?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 11, 2014 18:02:46 GMT -5
I certainly wouldn't take what John hallucinated and call it a Revelation. To him it very likely seemed very real. So he wrote it down. It appealed to some who like that kind of thing as they seem to continue to like it now. That doesn't mean it has any relevance in reality. It's was John's delusion. He had a right to it. But for us to take it as guidance, is ludicrous as so much of what is in the bible is. The bible is a collection of individual opinions about what they thought life and death was. Some of them thought about it more than others. Doesn't make any of it any more conclusive than all the opinions we have on TMB really. Snow ~ You make it real hard on those who take the Bible as being inerrant from Genesis to Revelation. However, perhaps it never was meant to be taken literally and that's where the discrepancy lies ~ we are reading more into scripture than was intended?
I think that 'reading more into scripture than was intended' is an understatement; an understatement of, not only the year, but a couple of millennium, or would that be "millennia" for more than one millennium?
|
|