[quote]pat wrote:
Of all the books in the bible, that one I think they should have left out. My opinion on the matter is that everybody is wrong about it. Until further notice, that’s my stance. Everybody is wrong about revelation. People have done a great deal of damage based on that book alone. I would say that most of whacko pseudo Christian weirdness is based on revelation. That’s my opinion and that’s all it is…[/quote]
Dude… WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON!!! No I’m not being over dramatic either… Isn’t this your mother fucking holy book? Is this not the fucking word of God? What I just read was absolutely positively blasphemy… Are you going to Christian hell now?
Super seriously now, how the fuck can you call this book the word of god then try to play editor for god… If god didn’t want revelation in the bible it wouldn’t be there. Now leave us real Christians to discuss the end of man as told by our god. [/quote]
As obnoxious and provocatious as you are…you have a point.
John wrote Revelation while in prison on Patmos. He wrote the letter to 7 churches in Asia Minor. These things dealt with the Roman government that was persecuting the Christians heavily at the time. He wrote in imagery that the Churches were familiar with, so that if these letters were confiscated by the Roman officials, they wouldn’t know that it was about them (or more specifically, their near future). If these doomsday preachers just studied a bit and looked at the history, they’d know. But unfortunately they’re after their own agendas, which is money…and making a cult for people to fall into.
Revelation is part of God’s Word. It is included for a reason.
Well, for my 2 cents, I obviously believe the Book of Revelation is important. Most people don’t know it was originally omitted from the Bible for about 100 years and then taken out again by Martin Luther during the Reformation. I know there is a lot of argument over its meaning (symbolic vs. literal), its authorship, and its date, but I truly believe from everything I’ve read and studied about it that it belongs in the Bible.
I don’t think how a person interprets it should cause any division in the Church. The study Bible I am currently using was put together by John MacArthur who states that Revelation is all full of future prophecies. I disagree, but I can see his viewpoint as valid. I also disagree with Luther, Calvin, and the likes interpretation on it, but again, I can see them as valid also.
[quote]pat wrote:
Of all the books in the bible, that one I think they should have left out. My opinion on the matter is that everybody is wrong about it. Until further notice, that’s my stance. Everybody is wrong about revelation. People have done a great deal of damage based on that book alone. I would say that most of whacko pseudo Christian weirdness is based on revelation. That’s my opinion and that’s all it is…[/quote]
Dude… WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON!!! No I’m not being over dramatic either… Isn’t this your mother fucking holy book? Is this not the fucking word of God? What I just read was absolutely positively blasphemy… Are you going to Christian hell now?
Super seriously now, how the fuck can you call this book the word of god then try to play editor for god… If god didn’t want revelation in the bible it wouldn’t be there. Now leave us real Christians to discuss the end of man as told by our god. [/quote]
The Book of Revelation was one of the most debated books in the Bible and was actually omitted during the Council of Laodicea which set the Biblical canon in 364. It wasn’t until 397 and the Council of Carthage that it was reluctantly accepted. The main argument was over it’s true meaning due to its heavy use of symbolism. There were also arguments over its authorship and the date it was written. These are all still things that are debated among Christian circles. That’s more or less what this thread is about. When the book was written, there was no code or guide to go by to make sure people interpreted right or wrong. It was mostly accepted because it provided a logical end to the Bible: the return of Christ, the destruction of satan, and the rebuilding of heaven on Earth. [/quote]
The heavy symbolism is why I don’t put much stock in it. You have to put a great deal of work into remotely understanding it. You have to know what the symbols mean to have any idea what it is actually saying. To really know, you got to go way back, understand John’s education and what those symbols mean to the culture back then and the maybe, maybe you can derive something out of it. I look at anybody who claims to have figured it out with a weary eye. They also tend to be the ones who do stupid shit in the name of the Lord. Those are the one I am afraid of, those who think they figured it out. I am far more comfortable with folks who don’t know what it means…
[quote]pat wrote:
Of all the books in the bible, that one I think they should have left out. My opinion on the matter is that everybody is wrong about it. Until further notice, that’s my stance. Everybody is wrong about revelation. People have done a great deal of damage based on that book alone. I would say that most of whacko pseudo Christian weirdness is based on revelation. That’s my opinion and that’s all it is…[/quote]
Dude… WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON!!! No I’m not being over dramatic either… Isn’t this your mother fucking holy book? Is this not the fucking word of God? What I just read was absolutely positively blasphemy… Are you going to Christian hell now?
Super seriously now, how the fuck can you call this book the word of god then try to play editor for god… If god didn’t want revelation in the bible it wouldn’t be there. Now leave us real Christians to discuss the end of man as told by our god. [/quote]
As obnoxious and provocatious as you are…you have a point.
John wrote Revelation while in prison on Patmos. He wrote the letter to 7 churches in Asia Minor. These things dealt with the Roman government that was persecuting the Christians heavily at the time. He wrote in imagery that the Churches were familiar with, so that if these letters were confiscated by the Roman officials, they wouldn’t know that it was about them (or more specifically, their near future). If these doomsday preachers just studied a bit and looked at the history, they’d know. But unfortunately they’re after their own agendas, which is money…and making a cult for people to fall into.
Revelation is part of God’s Word. It is included for a reason.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
Of all the books in the bible, that one I think they should have left out. My opinion on the matter is that everybody is wrong about it. Until further notice, that’s my stance. Everybody is wrong about revelation. People have done a great deal of damage based on that book alone. I would say that most of whacko pseudo Christian weirdness is based on revelation. That’s my opinion and that’s all it is…[/quote]
Dude… WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON!!! No I’m not being over dramatic either… Isn’t this your mother fucking holy book? Is this not the fucking word of God? What I just read was absolutely positively blasphemy… Are you going to Christian hell now?
Super seriously now, how the fuck can you call this book the word of god then try to play editor for god… If god didn’t want revelation in the bible it wouldn’t be there. Now leave us real Christians to discuss the end of man as told by our god. [/quote]
The Book of Revelation was one of the most debated books in the Bible and was actually omitted during the Council of Laodicea which set the Biblical canon in 364. It wasn’t until 397 and the Council of Carthage that it was reluctantly accepted. The main argument was over it’s true meaning due to its heavy use of symbolism. There were also arguments over its authorship and the date it was written. These are all still things that are debated among Christian circles. That’s more or less what this thread is about. When the book was written, there was no code or guide to go by to make sure people interpreted right or wrong. It was mostly accepted because it provided a logical end to the Bible: the return of Christ, the destruction of satan, and the rebuilding of heaven on Earth. [/quote]
I have a question:
If these councils were truly guided by the Holy Spirit, why the need for “argument”, “debate” and “reluctance”? Was there more than one Holy Spirit in the room? Or just a bunch of men arguing and debating?
[quote]pat wrote:
Of all the books in the bible, that one I think they should have left out. My opinion on the matter is that everybody is wrong about it. Until further notice, that’s my stance. Everybody is wrong about revelation. People have done a great deal of damage based on that book alone. I would say that most of whacko pseudo Christian weirdness is based on revelation. That’s my opinion and that’s all it is…[/quote]
Dude… WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON!!! No I’m not being over dramatic either… Isn’t this your mother fucking holy book? Is this not the fucking word of God? What I just read was absolutely positively blasphemy… Are you going to Christian hell now?
Super seriously now, how the fuck can you call this book the word of god then try to play editor for god… If god didn’t want revelation in the bible it wouldn’t be there. Now leave us real Christians to discuss the end of man as told by our god. [/quote]
The Book of Revelation was one of the most debated books in the Bible and was actually omitted during the Council of Laodicea which set the Biblical canon in 364. It wasn’t until 397 and the Council of Carthage that it was reluctantly accepted. The main argument was over it’s true meaning due to its heavy use of symbolism. There were also arguments over its authorship and the date it was written. These are all still things that are debated among Christian circles. That’s more or less what this thread is about. When the book was written, there was no code or guide to go by to make sure people interpreted right or wrong. It was mostly accepted because it provided a logical end to the Bible: the return of Christ, the destruction of satan, and the rebuilding of heaven on Earth. [/quote]
The heavy symbolism is why I don’t put much stock in it. You have to put a great deal of work into remotely understanding it. You have to know what the symbols mean to have any idea what it is actually saying. To really know, you got to go way back, understand John’s education and what those symbols mean to the culture back then and the maybe, maybe you can derive something out of it. I look at anybody who claims to have figured it out with a weary eye. They also tend to be the ones who do stupid shit in the name of the Lord. Those are the one I am afraid of, those who think they figured it out. I am far more comfortable with folks who don’t know what it means…
[/quote]
I agree that it’s the most difficult book to interpret. I think that’s why so many people get it wrong is that they intepret it with modern standards. The literalists, usually the Futurists, I believe are the ones that have the most far fetched ideas about it. Of course you’re bound to get some end of the world preachers that try to capitalize and people’s fears, but I think that’s why proper interpretation and discussion are so important. I don’t know how much symbolism John assumed people could figure out versus how much was not figured out at that time, but something tells me the first century audience it was written for understood it a lot better than modern scholars that have spent years studying it.
If these councils were truly guided by the Holy Spirit, why the need for “argument”, “debate” and “reluctance”? Was there more than one Holy Spirit in the room? Or just a bunch of men arguing and debating? [/quote]A legitimate question that I just now saw. There was and is one Holy Spirit guiding the church headed by redeemed, but sinful men in exactly the manner He saw fit. Actually the whole of divine history is just like this. Evidence to you of it’s human origin and evidence to me of nothing. This is simply the way God has always worked.
If these councils were truly guided by the Holy Spirit, why the need for “argument”, “debate” and “reluctance”? Was there more than one Holy Spirit in the room? Or just a bunch of men arguing and debating? [/quote]A legitimate question that I just now saw. There was and is one Holy Spirit guiding the church headed by redeemed, but sinful men in exactly the manner He saw fit. Actually the whole of divine history is just like this. Evidence to you of it’s human origin and evidence to me of nothing. This is simply the way God has always worked.
[/quote]
“There was and is one Holy Spirit guiding the church headed by redeemed,” ← And who is this precisely?
I would guess, if I were to translate it into English is that God’s will be done, through the Holy Spirit, whether we are worthy or not, and whether or not we know it. We can argue, but if God wants it, he gets it. So people arguing in a room maybe folks trying to resist or trying figure out the will of God.
It has been put many times that through faith, we are now the hands, feet, mouth, eyes, and ears of Christ on Earth. We just screw if up with regularity, and yet it persists and grows. It may seem man is at work, but our fantastic ability to f-up the most mundane of tasks requires the Almighty get involved in someway, otherwise none of Christianity would have died with Christ.
Pat, could you restate this please. What do you mean by "otherwise none of Christianity would have died with Christ. ".
As for the Apocalypse and eschatology in general? I am certain of much of what I just cannot buy. What I actually do believe is still forming. I misspoke a while back when I said I could never be a premillenarian. I meant pretribulationist, which I most definitely could never be. I have read solid reverent works propounding a host of plausible end time theology from scripture which actually goes somewhat along with t is saying. Eschatology is rough and the book of the Revelation doesn’t make it any easier… I will not be dissuaded however from the notion that it had definite purpose to the people it was directly written to.
If these councils were truly guided by the Holy Spirit, why the need for “argument”, “debate” and “reluctance”? Was there more than one Holy Spirit in the room? Or just a bunch of men arguing and debating? [/quote]A legitimate question that I just now saw. There was and is one Holy Spirit guiding the church headed by redeemed, but sinful men in exactly the manner He saw fit. Actually the whole of divine history is just like this. Evidence to you of it’s human origin and evidence to me of nothing. This is simply the way God has always worked.
[/quote]
“There was and is one Holy Spirit guiding the church headed by redeemed,” ← And who is this precisely?
I would guess, if I were to translate it into English is that God’s will be done, through the Holy Spirit, whether we are worthy or not, and whether or not we know it. We can argue, but if God wants it, he gets it. So people arguing in a room maybe folks trying to resist or trying figure out the will of God.
It has been put many times that through faith, we are now the hands, feet, mouth, eyes, and ears of Christ on Earth. We just screw if up with regularity, and yet it persists and grows. It may seem man is at work, but our fantastic ability to f-up the most mundane of tasks requires the Almighty get involved in someway, otherwise none of Christianity would have died with Christ.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty good way of looking at things I’ve never thought about. I think you meant Christianity would have died with Christ, but I could be wrong. Mankind has and will continue to use the Word of God to preach their own agenda or to simply turn away from it completely. It seems more likely in the eyes of history that if a religion should have persisted it would have come from a place like Egypt, Rome, Greece, Persia, Babylon, Assyria, or one of the other great empires. Yet it was the religion that began with a small group of believers against the wills of one of those empires that spread to cover more of the world than any other religion.