Author Topic: Revelation problem? (Read 1268 times)

fullarmor2 · « **on:** August 20, 2011, 04:06:02 AM »

I was reading the book of Revelation and became a little bothered by it. Bothered when I think of it as being literal. Or maybe none of it is literal?

micah7:9 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2011, 05:33:46 AM »

Quote from: fullarmor2 on August 20, 2011, 04:06:02 AM

I was reading the book of Revelation and became a little bothered by it. Bothered when I think of it as being literal. That God is actually going to torture the inhabitants of the Earth. The loving God that I believe in wouldn't do that. Is possible that the book is just some Roman Catholic garbage which was added to the bible, or that it is a corrupted text? Or maybe none of it is literal?

Torture????

Molly · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2011, 06:10:26 AM »

There are people [and on this board] who say the whole book is symbolic.

micah7:9 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2011, 06:48:03 AM »

Rev 1:1 A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it , having sent through his messenger to his servant John,

Definition of SIGNIFY

transitive verb
1
a : to be a sign of : mean
b : imply
2
: to show especially by a conventional token (as word, signal, or gesture)

Nathan · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2011, 02:59:38 AM »

Huge can of worms is what this is!!

I am one of those that Molly referred to and also what Micah posted on the definition of "how" it was written. It wasn't just the how, but the "to whom" also. But first, as Micah reveals, the book is a bood of signs and symbols. And for me, it's like EVERYTHING else in Scripture in that it "was" intended to be seen as a literal, a physical experience that they were about to endure . . .but it's only meant to be literal TO THOSE TO WHOM IT WAS LITERALLY WRITTEN TO.

Funny thing about Revelation, it's the one book that is taken out of context the most in comparison to all the other prophetic books of the Bible. For instance, the book of Jeremiah is basically the same "type" of writing as is the book of Revelation. It's all about the prophetic. So much so, that when Daniel himself was reading it, he realized that the prophecies given to Jeremiah were actually for "his" generation.

So . .. when WE read Jeremiah, we have no problem understanding that his prophecies were dealing with Israel and not the world. But Revelation? We're warped from the beginning . . .but . . .it's no different than the prophecies of Jeremiah were, it was for Israel just like all the rest of the Biblical prophecies.

It was pertaining to the destruction of the Old Covenant system that Jesus came to remove, but religious leaders chose to continue to embrace. Revelation is not about man, it's about jesus. it wasn't pertaining to the end of man's life on earth, it was about the end of the old religious system that was patterned after Jesus in the first place. But once he appeared in the flesh, following the patterns were no longer necessary . .problem was, they were so fixed on following patterns, they didn't recognize the very substance the patterns were pointing to.

Much like today's church and this UR message, which is only a part of the message God is raising up, but it's a big part . . .and instead of the religious crown seeing and embracing it, they to are rejecting it . . .

micah7:9 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2011, 03:46:08 AM »

You are very correct that the Book of Revelation it is "not about man," this is what it is Rev 1:1 The Unveiling of Jesus Christ
and it is a spiritual book not literal, why well here we are right from the Lord Himself Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.

Joh 4:24 God is spirit, and those who are worshiping Him must be worshiping in spirit and truth."

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.

At least thats I have been given to learn, Jesus REVEALS himself.

I do not believe that it opens up a huge can of worms

Nathan · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2011, 04:13:00 AM »

Once again . . .you baffle me. In other arguments against me, you tell me that what I share isn't Scriptural . . .then you go and put out this last post about how Scriptural things aren't to be emphasized naturally but spiritually . . .which has been my platform since I first started being on these boards. Half the Scriptures you quoted here are the same ones I've posted in sharing out the dimensional aspects of the Scriptures and how what is written is merely a "sign" pointing to what God has spoken "in" us. Christ is the centerpiece of it all. He is the "sound" of the voice.

And the reason why I said it DOES open a can of worms is because the subject of Revelation get's very conjestive in nature as many try to apply it literally, others say it's all allegory, and others say it's both literal and spiritual and the the literal portion dealt with A.D. 70 and that generation. Then . . .there are still others that believe it's both literal and spiritual and the literal part is yet to happen . . .thus . . .a CAN OF WORMS.

micah7:9 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2011, 06:35:39 AM »

Nathan I just reread your work, it is a good work. I did not find any verses that I posted in your work.(I didnt see any)
Either way the first verse in The Revelation of Jesus Christ opens telling us it is a book of (signified) signs and symbols as He reveals Himself in us.

And verse 10 tells us John said,"I was(caused to be G1096) in(fixed in position G1722) the spirit (G4151) on(fixed in position)the
Lord's(belonging to the Lord(G2960) Day(G2250 tame, that is, gentle; the time and space between dawn and dark)"

It is all spiritual. [/b]( I do believe there maybe some things revealed that may happen literally.)

I, know, now this is just me, but I do not see the relationship of Matt. 24 and the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
I do believe Matt.24 happened in 70 AD.

k)

jabcat · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2011, 03:51:09 AM »

To everyone, but Nathan I know this is one of "your" topics - no arguing, truly interested;

I thought it was an interesting comment that Revelation should be seen as the OT prophecies, i.e., aimed primarily/solely(?) at Israel. We've also talked about some of Paul's writings going further than Revelation re: UR concepts, and a copy of scripture based on time written. Not getting into textual criticism (discouraged) - accepting Revelation is part of the scriptures - yet still taking the above stance, where might Revelation be more accurately placed in the scriptures, rather than the last Book - giving it the "final, end-times apocolyptic" presence that it currently has?

Also going with the above, what do we do with the "problem" (disagreement, contradicting evidence) as to when Revelation was written? (Some say prior to 70 AD, probably most say after 70 AD).

I'd like to hear some good thoughts on those things.

Nathan · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2011, 04:36:09 PM »

Actually, I do happen to have some stuff to throw in to hopefully help out in some of the reasoning here . . .

Why is it the last book of the Bible?

First, it's not because of the "idea" that it's pertaining to the end of the world. But instead, it's because of the "way" it's written in that it's considered an "Apocolyptic" book.

Believe it or not, there were questions concerning all the books from Hebrews on through Revelation as to whether they should be added into the canon of Scriture. "That's" why the books are organized the way they are. There was specific criteria used to deciding whether or not a book would be considered part of the canon. One was, that the author of the book was obvious and verified. That put Hebrews in question because the author is uncertain. Some felt it was Paul who wrote it, others felt it was . . .nuts . . .can't remember the names . .but there were a couple other church leaders of that day who were also known to write a letter or two and because the way Hebrews seems to flow differently from the Epistles that Paul "did" write, many felt that either he had a ghost writer type of guy write it for him, or someone else all together, either way, Hebrews is located toward the end of the New Testament for that reason. Rather than remove it from the canon, they agreed, that because of the rich content, that it was authentic so they put it in the back.

Another criteria was the length of the letter, they had to be more than just a couple paragraphs . . .but . .. because again of the content in richness and it was clear who the authors were, the smaller books such as 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, 1, 2, Peter and James were toward the back as well.

But for Revelation, in that day, there were MANY apocolyptic books floating around between the churches. John's wasn't the only one. But John's "was" the only one that was authentic . . .many others were written by extremists who would sign as forgers of a disciple so that more people would believe them. It was actually the reason why the canon was put together in the first place. So that there'd be some continuity in the church over-all. It's why the Catholic Bible is different from ours in they've included a number of other books that the canon didn't.

there are actually a rather large number of canon Scriptures . . .I mean a large number of different bibles . . .not a large number of books, all though most of us are already aware of that. There are 66 books in "our" canon of Scripture . . .here a WIKIPEDIA link to the various ones put together over the years and a description of who did it and why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canonical_texts

redhotmagma · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2011, 05:37:02 PM »

http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp

the most biblical explanation of canonization I've read. By that I mean, he actually pulls passages from the bible, and puts the history surrounding that with it as it relates. For instance

2Pet:19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

Saying this is why canonization was left to him, and John.

Pretty much everything else I've read (and I did a major study of canonization a few years ago) reads something to the effect: we don't really know how canonization was finished. Sometime around the nicene council is the first we have of a canon, many things were disputed, but the general consensus, was the 66 we have now were accepted by the early church fathers so thats what we've got.

I believe Revelation belongs at the back for a couple reasons.
1. it was the last book written
2. it is the culmination of the entire Bible in its message, the unveiling of Christ in us. Its almost like the key to the rest of the Bible, a microcosm of the whole.
3. thats the way it sits in the original order which is found in almost all of the codex (what is plural for codex? codex', codexs, codexii?)

Nathan · « **Reply #11 on:** August 22, 2011, 06:11:13 PM »

Yeah, I agree, I'd probably have put it at the end as well. I like your perspective in how it kinda brings a closure to the Bible's over all message as a whole.

Love wins.

sheila · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2011, 09:41:57 PM »

it scares me to death that they almost left out Revelations of Christ,too. I'm sorry,if I offend those of you that put faith in the Nicene counsel of 325

Roman emporer Constantine!. A lot of the things discussed at that counsel'an approved' by them would brand many of you here,including myself,

as heretics.for ex;Arius..branded heretic because he beleived only son come from Father,and not co-eternal.That 'son" was unequal with God,

[the Father is greater] Monoarchiastist also decreed heretics.One God working and manifesting in different modes..

.they were in agreement with 'novtianism" any who outnof fear death compromised or denied faith under severe persecution/disfellowshipped....I couldn't help but think

of Peter denying the Lord 3 times..and the Lord forgiving him on that one. seems like these fine church leaders branded Peter a heretic there

I AM NOT SUBORDINATE TO ANY COUNCIL OF MEN..BUT TO THE HOLY SPIRIT,THE FATHER,AND JESUS CHRIST

redhotmagma · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2011, 09:56:24 PM »

Quote from: redhotmagma on August 22, 2011, 05:37:02 PM

http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp

Pretty much everything else I've read (and I did a major study of canonization a few years ago) reads something to the effect: we don't really know how canonization was finished. Sometime around the nicene council is the first we have of a canon, many things were disputed, but the general consensus, was the 66 we have now were accepted by the early church fathers so thats what we've got.

this part was me being sarcastic, as everything else I've read gives an unsatisfactory (at least to me) explanation.

sheila · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:14:28 PM »

please don't think that I directed my post at you. It was a reaction to the mere word'nicene council" and was directed at that'concept"

redhotmagma · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:27:55 PM »

I was pretty sure that was the case, just wanted to clarify

sheila · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:34:51 PM »

micah7:9 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 23, 2011, 01:47:37 AM »

Psalm 119:160 The sum of thy word, is truth, and, age-abiding, is every one of thy righteous regulations.

Does it really matter what order of the books? His Words... The SUM (ALL) is Truth, and age-abiding.

John 6:63 "..... the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life;"

John 4:24 God is spirit.....

fullarmor2 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 23, 2011, 06:22:24 AM »

Thanks for the responses. I apologize for the way I came across with the opening post here, I was a bit frustrated at that time. Its just that when you read about those seals being opened and then the terrible consequences of that, its just hard to understand what it all means.

fullarmor2 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 23, 2011, 06:33:46 AM »

Quote from: micah7:9 on August 20, 2011, 05:33:46 AM

Torture????

I here ya. I shouldn't have used that word. Torture comes from a sadistic heart. And obviously God's purposes for allowing evil or causing evil to befall people is never sadistic. I know that God is doing the refiner's fire thing on people with good intentions.

micah7:9 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 23, 2011, 06:51:58 AM »

Quote from: fullarmor2 on August 23, 2011, 06:33:46 AM

Quote from: micah7:9 on August 20, 2011, 05:33:46 AM
Torture????

I here ya. I shouldn't have used that word. Torture comes from a sadistic heart. And obviously God's purposes for allowing evil or causing evil to befall people is never sadistic. I know that God is doing the refiner's fire thing on people with good intentions.

thinktank · « **Reply #21 on:** August 23, 2011, 05:27:38 PM »

Quote from: fullarmor2 on August 23, 2011, 06:22:24 AM

Thanks for the responses. I apologize for the way I came across with the opening post here, I was a bit frustrated at that time. Its just that when you read about those seals being opened and then the terrible consequences of that, its just hard to understand what it all means.

You just goto trust that God will do what is right. The scriptures say to except punishment for sins and do not complain. This is something I am getting to grips with. The wicked shall not escape judgment, their sins are laid bare without Holy blood to cover them. Will they repent? Perhaps , but the scriptures cannot be broken.

Nathan · « **Reply #22 on:** August 23, 2011, 05:33:06 PM »

Quote from: fullarmor2 on August 23, 2011, 06:22:24 AM

Thanks for the responses. I apologize for the way I came across with the opening post here, I was a bit frustrated at that time. Its just that when you read about those seals being opened and then the terrible consequences of that, its just hard to understand what it all means.

Just to get the revelating juices flowing in this, I believe as John described seeing "who" it was that opened the first seal . .. it is clear that it's Christ as he "is" the Lamb that had been slain . . .which is saying that it was while Jesus manifested here in the flesh that the seal was broken and the prophecies following were directly connected to Jesus ministry and purpose. Seeing this "lamb as though it had just been slain" for me is saying "when" these things were unfolding in that Jesus is the Lamb and seeing him just being slain indicates that the things unfolding in the vision were things that were beginning to takiplace immediately after Jesus death and resurrection as he was the Lamb that had just been slain. It all has to do with Israel and her relationship with God, the fact she was embracing the old religious system whereas Jesus was established a New Covenant . . .the old had to be removed and that's what all the symbolism is referring to, the uprooting of that old system which took place back in A.D. 70.

jabcat · « **Reply #23 on:** August 24, 2011, 12:17:15 AM »

Quote from: Nathan on August 23, 2011, 05:33:06 PM

"when" these things were unfolding in that Jesus is the Lamb and seeing him just being slain indicates that the things unfolding in the vision were things that were beginning to takiplace immediately after Jesus death and resurrection as he was the Lamb that had just been slain. It all has to do with Israel and her relationship with God, the fact she was embracing the old religious system whereas Jesus was established a New Covenant . . .the old had to be removed and that's what all the symbolism is referring to, the uprooting of that old system which took place back in A.D. 70.

I like the sound of this. We still haven't addressed the question of when it was written, which IMO, would have a huge impact on the above. As I said (and many know) it's disputed as to when Revelation was written, but I'd say by far most say it was after 70 AD. Reliable, convincing info on that anyone?

jabcat · « **Reply #24 on:** August 24, 2011, 12:38:50 AM »

Maybe the most compelling "info" as far as when Rev. was written, is in the scriptures themselves?

I found this, written by Eric Adams that makes a lot of sense to me;

The arguments concerning the date of Revelation are very technical, on both sides. Nevertheless, there is one fairly obvious point in favor of a pre-AD 70 date.

Revelation 17:10 tells us when the book was written.

"There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time" (Revelation 17:10).

This verse is referring to seven kings, who are emperors of Rome. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has yet to come. This means that five have died. The sixth is currently reigning. The seventh is not yet ruling.

Claudius was the fifth emperor of Rome, and he died in AD 54. Nero was the sixth emperor, and he reigned from AD 54-68. The book of Revelation was written during his Nero's reign.

News:

Author Topic: Revelation problem? (Read 1268 times)