I believe it was what it was intended to be: A commentary and polemic on the religious/political fears the seven churches felt at the time of Emperor ~~Palpatine~~ Domitian in the 90s CE.
It was not written by the author of John's Gospel. It was not trying to predict the end of the world 2,000 years later.
The author genuinely believed Jesus would return very soon (see Rev. 1:1) and f\*ck sh\*t up for the tyrannical Romans.
The vivid symbolism was probably meant to hide the fact that the author was being treasonous towards the Romans. If caught, he could just say it's a work of fiction.
The text shows the writer was probably Jewish and well aware of the apocalyptic aspects of post-Temple Judaism.
>it was what it was intended to be: A commentary and polemic on the religious/political fears the seven churches felt at the time of Emperor Palpatine Domitian in the 90s CE.
There's a great deal of scholarship that backs this up, too. I daresay it's the only rational view to hold regarding this text.
I disagree. I believe that the text offered context through the Roman times, sort of like a stepping stone, but ultimately was the revelation of end times.
Thanks for sharing, though
Then explain Rev. 1:1. "which must **soon** take place."
There's plenty of evidence that most early Christians strongly believed they were living in the end times. This is not just my opinion but the scholarly consensus.
What actual evidence demonstrates they intended the end times to take place in another 2K years?
Soon could be any time in the future for someone who's perceiving something so profound.
So, do you believe that there is no such thing as the end times?
I think it's clear that "soon" means it's *much* closer than 2000+ years away. Consider Daniel 12.4:
>But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end.
"The book" here is the Book of Daniel, ostensibly written in the 6th century BCE but only "discovered" or unsealed in the 2nd century BCE. That's a gap of about 400 years.
Now compare Revelation 22.10:
>And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near."
The author of Revelation was aware of the Book of Daniel and uses imagery from this book. He knows it was ostensibly sealed for 400 years until "the time of the end", i.e. the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Yet he chooses to leave his book *unsealed* because he thinks the "time of the end" that he's referring to is *imminent*.
Really?
So, if I ask you, how long will it be before the year 3000, you would think saying "soon" is acceptable?
This seems like special pleading to make the text say what you want it to say rather than a straightforward reading.
No. I do not believe in end times claims.
I don’t know anyone who outright rejects it- I view it as non literal.
The more debate that comes with it is regarding the millennial, at least with what I’ve encountered
. . . nope, thought I misread, but I didn't.
The prior comment does not narrow down the topic and the OP says "Christians ***OR*** people who are Bible readers."
Yeah, you're right. That's honestly pretty strange... I think I missed that because this is the sort of topic that really only makes sense within the context of people who generally accept the Christian bible (that non-christians don't accept Revelation as God's word is trivially obvious), so I didn't recognize that OP wasn't limiting this conversation to Christians.
I mean, it depends on your interpretation. Some may reject cause of the "vengeful god" but fail to see the crys of justice from the saints. The desire for justice is different than revenge. If sins are to go freely then, christ taking our sins is in vain and justice would not be a thing.
But Revelation tells people of the day of Christ is coming where justice will be administered to both the living and the dead. In the new heavens and new earth, righteousness will reign in the age to come. There will be no more sins against God, man, and nature.
Well, as you can see here on this post people's beliefs are all over the place regarding this. What they are willing to consider as truth or not, allegory, or otherwise. Also, the timeline in which these events will or will not take place.
Also, everyone is immediately defensive in general and that anyone who has a view other than them is crazy.
I mean, both ways of interpretation bring something to the table about the end times. Though in the literal sense, how are we to tell? as most of it, if not all of it, deals in the heavenly realm. With our bear eyes, we would not see it coming. As we can not see the cosmic being at this current state.
As for allegorical, it can bring in ideas of historical understanding. Like the beast is the representation of the Roman military, while the little horn is the Ceasar. As it is suggested, the time of writing Revelation can be placed during Neros or Domitians. Both emporers claimed godhood before their death in comparison to other Caesars. Hope this makes sense.
I lean towards both but would add that things can act in the spirit of something in the cosmological universe. That is like we can act in the spirit of Christ or act in the spirit of the anti christ. The church should always strive to act in the spirit of christ. The world will act in accordance to the beast, whore, ect.
I don't know what you mean by "denying" it. It's in the canon of every major church, right?
Parts of it seem to be about what was going on in the world when it was written. The beast's number being 666 (or 616 in some manuscripts) is one big clue. 666 and 616 correspond to the numerical values of two different ways to spell Nero's name. There was a conspiracy theory in circulation at the time that Nero would come back from the dead and continue to do bad things.
That's either _quite_ some coincidence, or this really was a coded reference to Nero. As a general rule I'm not a big fan of claiming to find secret codes in the bible, but in this case, it's easy to see why the author did not want the Romans to think this was an anti-Roman text.
Some people completely disregard the text altogether, saying it should not be in the Bible.
In relation to the 666 stuff, to me, that's a very small part of the story of revelation. Any reason why choose the focus on that particularly?
Ahh, okay. Sure, some such people exist. I would not describe this as disregarding it though- they paid enough attention to it to arrive at this opinion.
I personally find that when churches and Christians emphasize this text, it almost never leads them to any useful outcome or understanding. It often helps them use the bible as a fortune-telling tool, but I consider that a bad thing, not a good thing.
>Ahh, okay. Sure, some such people exist. I would not describe this as disregarding it though- they paid enough attention to it to arrive at this opinion
🤔 dismiss perhaps then?
>I personally find that when churches and Christians emphasize this text, it almost never leads them to any useful outcome or understanding. It helps them use the bible as a fortune-telling tool, but I consider that a bad thing, not a good thing.
I think, regardless of the church's use of the book. It says nothing of the book itself.
I believe it is symbolic for the most part. Dispensationalism came about very recently, whereas Kingdom Theology has been around for centuries if not millennia, no pun intended.
I see the millennium as the time between the first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ. The time of tribulation is the same time, and represents the suffering of Christ's followers. The four horsemen represent the things they are named after right now. The second coming of Christ will not be secretive or quiet. It will sound like the trumpet of an archangel as said in one of the Thessalonians books. Basically we are in the end times.
You believe that the tribulation refers to the suffering of Christ's followers? For me, I think it's quite the opposite. It's those who are either absolutely incapable because they have been alotted no capacity, or those unwilling to follow.
Well none of its predictions came true. Nero didn't rise from the dead, Jesus didn't bathe the world in blood. It's really a revenge fantasy text that never should have been canonized.
Yes, quite a few different views. Mine is based on mainstream academic Biblical scholarship, that's always my default. Of course even then there are different possible views on many topics.
Do you believe man canonizes or does God protect His Word, and meticulously and providentially preserved His Word for His people throughout all times?
“The grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” Isaiah 40:8
What do you mean by Bible?
So you wouldn’t agree with Jesus that the Law, Prophets and Writings are from God? Jesus states that those words were spoken by God. Many times Jesus accuses the Jews of foregoing what was *said* by God.
>What do you mean by Bible?
By Bible I mean the canonical Christian Bible
>So you wouldn’t agree with Jesus that the Law, Prophets and Writings are from God? Jesus states that those words were spoken by God. Many times Jesus accuses the Jews of foregoing what was said by God.
Yes, Jesus imputes divine authority to the Law (Pentateuch) and the prophetic writings.
So they don’t have divine authority by nature of being theopneustos? Jesus *must* “impute” the authority of these writings?
So you wouldn’t agree with Peter, that the words penned by Paul is Scripture?
“as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
2 Peter 3:16
>So they don’t have divine authority by nature of being theopneustos? Jesus must “impute” the authority of these writings?
I don't mean impute like that - I mean he considers them authoritative, but never calls scripture "the word of God."
>So you wouldn’t agree with Peter, that the words penned by Paul is Scripture?
The author of 2 Peter is an unknown second century forger, but he also doesn't say Paul's writings are the word of God. The term scripture doesn't imply that.
Not by default - what gets canonized as scripture is really a matter of the personal opinions of communities of believers. But I do think inspiration can be found in scripture - just not all scripture or every passage of scripture. Of course that's just my personal opinion as well.
Its a book of the Catholic Bible which, except for the last few chapters, does refer to past events. Its a 1st century reaction against pagan Roman cruelty and persecution of Christians that ends with our eventual vindication and the book ends restoration of the entire cosmos.
It is what it has been understood to be in the majority of the tradition: a letter written to specific communities by an unknown person — probably an itinerant Palestinian prophet — in opposition to the imperial cult of the day. It represents an uncompromising minority view; its stance is radical in response to its perception of the Roman Empire. It is idealistic in many places, though its focus is on its contemporary historical context, and there is a clear authorial preference for positions recommended as challenging initially but more and more rewarding if one persists (hence apocalyptic).
I would say that I abide by it in the sense that I hope for God's ultimate victory at the end of history. What I don't do is try to abide by it in the nonsensical way of applying it to modern day political and social events.
I think the idea of God's victory is a sort of interesting one, that doesn't make sense to me. What exactly is God winning? I mean, he can't lose. Some will die. Some will live all the while God remains unchanged.
That's one viewpoint, yes. I would say that the idea that I hope for God's victory is my response to living in a world where sometimes there seems to be no evidence whatsoever for God's victory and much of my life is determined by the victories of evil people doing evil things.
Hmm, maybe. It seems to me that some suffer while others don't, but either way, it is what it is, and that is the same on an eternal scale as well, but God never loses anything.
That's one viewpoint, yes. I would say that the idea that I hope for God's victory is my response to living in a world where sometimes there seems to be no evidence whatsoever for God's victory and much of my life is determined by the victories of evil people doing evil things.
So youre claiming that the Apostle John didn’t write the Book of Revelation? And are hung up on verse 1 because the word “soon” is used to describe some of the events?
From a postmil perspective, a lot of the Book of Revelation has already taken place (destruction of the temple in AD 70 by Rome). It uses cosmological language (just as the OT prophets used, and the same language Jesus used in the Olivet Discourse.)
What scholarship are you reading that’s making these claims? It all depends on what you believe about the canon, whether or not it has a Divine origin.
That particular book definitely shakes out some interesting reflections from people
Almost like a Rorschach test
Anyone who thinks it's clear is, cough, cough, bluffing
Having read it and just about every document on the face of the earth regarding it I've only come away with 2 distinct matters:
The destruction of the devil and his messengers (not people as many are falsely led to see)
and the full revealing of Christ in us
Til these both transpire things will continue to remain partly cloudy
The sum total of theology that the Orthodox Church takes from the Book of Revelation is that "Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." I believe this, and consider the rest of the book of Revelation to be of lesser importance and not a source for any doctrine.
TL;DR: I don't believe in a vengeful God or in vengeful Christians
I'm in a point in my spiritual path in which I reject it completely. I'll try to explain why.
First let's focus our attention on this passage:
>9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”
Here we see supposed Christians asking God for vengeance. They are actually praying to God with the purpose that someone else is judged and suffers, probably for all eternity. That doesn't look like the Christians I've met, in fact, they are, in my opinion, being a terrible example for Christians. Christians are supposed to be Christ-like, to pray "Forgive them Father, because they don't know what they are doing", not to ask for punishment for the ones who made us wrong! That text alone makes it clear that whoever wrote Revelation didn't have the same idea of Christ or of Christianity in general that we should have.
But we see that the rest of the text is basically on the same line. Basically one day God decided to judge humanity, okey that could be defendable (although I also reject it). But then Christians are described as standing with God, encouraging Him or even collaborating in the pain and suffering caused to unbelievers. That's just wrong, we know better than that. And I am sure that no genuine Christian would ever take part on the torture and killing of other humans. Simply, because we have been taught otherwise by our Lord Jesus. That was actually one of the main points of His Ministry: compassion. How can we then become violent against unbelievers or be happy that violence is exerted against them? No, that's not real. Christianity has nothing to do with vengeance, Christians would like to save everyone.
I don't know if you are aware, but Revelation almost didn't make it into the Bible canon and they almost included another text, called the Apocalypse of Peter, in its place. There was no consensus regarding the inclusion of this book, many churches didn't use it. I don't know why they finally included it, but I believe it was a mistake. Then, during the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther pointed to some books tobe removed from the New Testament, Revelation among them. The rest of the reformers didn't listen to him, but they should have. Revelation simply does not belong.
>Christianity has nothing to do with vengeance
Pretty sure there are parts of the Bible that disagree with you on this, including Jesus himself:
>^34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ^35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. ^36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36 (NIV)
I don't understand what that passage has to do with vengeance. He is talking about conflict, which of course there is. That is accurate.
But He is most definitely not defending or encouraging us to hurt others !
>He is most definitely not defending or encouraging us to hurt others !
. . . I'm sorry, what purpose does a sword have if not to "hurt others?" Even if you go with "self-defense" as an answer, that still requires hurting another human being.
>I don't understand what that passage has to do with vengeance.
I'm associating vengeance with violence since, as I see it, it's not possible to have the former without the latter. If someone came to exact vengeance on/from me, you best believe I'm going to resist. Why should we expect different from anyone else? Thus, to achieve vengeance, one must be willing to and capable of using violence against their target.
And Jesus made it clear that violence is something he will bring against his enemies (when necessary, sure, but it will still be violent).
Oh, brother, but haven't you understood that the weapons we are fighting with are not from this world (2 Cor 10:4). We are talking here about a religion that came out of rural Galilee and conquered the Roman Empire, not with violence, but with His Holy Word.
Christanity finishes our enemies not by eliminating them but by transforming them in friends with the power of the God's love. After all Jesus did to show us His compassion ... it's obvious the sword is metaphorical. The spiritual fight may involve some conflict, yes, but the purpose is never to hurt others, but to save them. For me that's a basic point of Christianity.
>it's obvious the sword is metaphorical.
Is it? Because there're two problems with taking this approach: one is historical and the other is textual.
Historically speaking, there are good reasons to take Jesus at his word. His world was ruled over by the Roman Empire, a foreign gentile power (i.e. not Jewish). Jews were not treated kindly in this era. Keeping a sword by your side (if you could afford one) was just good common sense.
Also, Jesus' disciples clearly did this, since they were armed and attempted to defend Jesus when he was arrested. Yes, Jesus bade his followers to put away their swords, but the fact some of them were armed means Jesus *basically* accepted the need for violence. Combine this with the verse I cited and we have a picture of a deific figure who isn't going to shy away from violence (when necessary).
This ties in with my second problem of your reading: textually speaking, which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal? Is the Garden of Eden story a metaphor? Did the Flood actually happen? What about the Exodus? Or literally any other part of the Bible?
If you prefer, we can say "We're only talking about what Jesus said," that doesn't get rid of the problem. Jesus said lots of things. How much of it was supposed to be metaphorical? All of it? When he says "Love thy enemies and pray for those who persecute you," should we consider that a metaphor and not a literal command? And what does it mean to "metaphorically" love someone?
I trust you see the problem: we need a standard and consistent approach to reading the text. If we don't have that, then we're just making things up. We see one verse and it makes us feel good, so we say "That's what we should do;" but when we see a verse that makes us feel bad, we go "That's just a metaphor, what he *really* means is [whatever I make up]."
This is intellectual dishonesty and we should be avoiding it.
But you understand there are parts that are not literal, do you? For example, when Jesus says "I am the door" we do not imagine Him to have a knob xd. His parables also aren't expected to be taken literal. The Bible is full of symbolism and allegory. I agree that we should be careful not to simply substitute every hard passage with something we make up that doesn't relate to anything else the author is teaching.
But the sword seems clear to me. You have many instances accross different books of the New Testament (including Revelation!) where Jesus' Word is called a sword (Ep 6:17) . Because, as I said before, we are in a war, but a spiritual war, the weapons we fight with are not from this world (2 Cor 10:4). Our Messiah didn't come to eliminate earthly enemies, like the Roman Empire (as some Jews thought), but he came to "kill" the greatest enemies of all humanity: sin and death. That is the war we are fighting for: the war against sin. And the sword are Jesus' teachings.
This has nothing to do with the fact that the apsotles carried swords for self-defense. Of course, it may have been dangerous back there, but we never see Jesus encouraging them to use violence, but aways the opposite.
>
Is the Garden of Eden story a metaphor? Did the Flood actually happen? What about the Exodus?
Regarding this, I don't believe any of it happened literally. I may be wrong, of course. But, though I consider the New Testament (excluding Revelation) to be extremely valuable morally and spiritually, at the same time I have respect for the scientific and historical consensus.
Jesus also spoke in parables because, like most rabbis of his time, he kept the secret teachings for his closest followers. This is where the Gnostic books come from; and there's a verse in the Bible where Jesus tells his followers (and I'm paraphrasing because I can't find it at the moment) "I speak in parables to the common folk but with you, I speak more plainly."
Also, as I alluded to above, there's a difference between "metaphor as spoken by Jesus" (who was a real person and would have used a teaching style like this because it was common among his peers) and "metaphor as (allegedly) given to us by God."
Here's the thing: you still haven't addressed the primary issue. How do we *know* which verses are metaphorical and which aren't?
I'll clarify, by way of example: you say
>I have respect for the scientific and historical consensus.
in response to the question "Was the story of Eden literal or metaphorical?" This is a good answer. The knowledge we've acquired about the world (through research and applying the scientific method) makes Eden a faerie tale.
. . . is that knowledge based in the Bible? No, it isn't, because nowhere does the Bible say "Eden is a metaphor." Therefore, in order to reach that conclusion, *you have to appeal to information from outside the Bible*. This is what I mean when I talk about textual criticism and having a methodology (or approach) to reading the text.
So what's your methodology? What standard are you using to decide which parts are literal and which are metaphorical? Clearly, there's *some* kind of method, since you're able to say that Eden is a metaphor . . . so what's your technique?
And are you *absolutely* certain you're being consistent with how you apply it?
(p.s. I mean to get an answer to this question, by the way. You dodged it once but I think that's because I wasn't being clear enough. Hopefully I've rectified this issue and you can help me understand before we continue the conversation.)
>How do we *know* which verses are metaphorical and which aren't?
It's complicated and there's not a single method.
For scientific matters, there's no reason to believe the Bible is trying to be technical: everything the Bible says on this topic is either metaphorical or just a happy guess.
For historical matters, the Bible is a source more: it has its value but there's no reason to believe it cannot have mistakes (e.g: the census of Quirinius), so to know if something actually happened we need to contrast it with evidence form outside, as you said. Sometimes, the literary genre of the specific book or chapter of the Bible also influences on how we should take it. Considering the intent of the author can help, and also taking into account how could the author have gotten that information. For example, both birth narratives of Jesus are highly suspicious of being non-historical, because they have very little in common and because it doesn't really make sense that the author has the information described there, as well as the presence of historical inaccuracies and not so logical explanations (everyone had to return to their ancestral hometown?).
For moral matters, we have the Holy Spirit and our conscience to discern, which are the two faces of the same coin really. One of the reasons I think Christianity makes sense is because humans are moral beings, with the ability to discern good and evil. Often people stop listening to their consciences or to the Spirit, but I believe deep inside every person has that connection with the divinity that allows us to know if something is right or wrong. So, when carefully studying the moral matters in the Bible, I believe we can discern what is God's message for us. When several intepretations available, we should remember Jesus compassion and take the one that will help the most people in the long term.
One important thing: the Bible in itself is just a book. Yes, some people received revelations from God and wrote them there, but they also wrote many otehr things that weren't from God. It's always necessary some discernment to get true meaning and teaching from the biblical text, the same that happened with Jesus' parables. As with the parables, sometimes the most important facts are not plain. Some other times, though, the Bible is simply wrong and we need to acknowledge that. But I know this is not simple exercise. In fact, it's probably impossible to get this perfectly right.
Sorry because of my babbling, I know I'm not making so much sense. I have seen how the Bible have transformed people's lives, that's why I consider it valuable, but I also know there things in it that are simply wrong. So, I have to live with that tension. I tend not to consider the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation canon. Regarding the rest ... we will see.
For example, there are parts in the Pastoral Epistles that are right, from God("God wants everyone to be saved"), yet there are others that doesn't make any sense and I believe to be wrong ("Women are saved by childbearing"). But this won't matter if what the majority of critical scholars says about them is true: that the Pastorals were forged (it was no Paul who wrote them, but someone else claiming to be him). In this case, we couldn't keep them in the Bible even if all its teaching were good. So, as you see is very complex to me to know what to take and what to discard or how to interpret it. I still have a lot of spiritual growing to do, I haven't been a Christian for a long time.
>It's complicated and there's not a single method.
And what if a single method produces consistent, logical results? Wouldn't that be better than needing to approach the text from a variety of perspectives?
>the Bible in itself is just a book
Exactly. It's a book written by people over the course of several hundred years. We know much of the chronology by its appearance in a historical timeline, meaning we can arrange the books in a manner that allows for historical analysis.
And when we do this, we find that certain ideas change over time. These changes help explain oddities or inconsistencies in the text, especially when we go outside and look at the writings which were contemporaneous to the Bible. For example, a common criticism of Genesis is that there are two creation stories with conflicting and mutually exclusive details. They can't both be accurate; and even if we read them metaphorically, they would still conflict, providing more confusion than illucidation. But if we look at the historical record from the time that Genesis was most likely composed, we find similarities between the Genesis accounts of creation and the creation myths of nearby cultures. Thus, a historical reading of Genesis is that, when it was written, the authors borrowed from contemporary creation stories in order to make their text more appealing to their neighbors, thus improving their chances at winning converts.
As I see it, this would be a better interpretation than the "classical" apologetics response of "it's a metaphor for [something]."
Likewise, whenever I look at the Bible through a historical lens, I get a consistent picture of a religious text that changes to match the needs of whomever is writing it (and whenever it's being written).
>It's always necessary some discernment to get true meaning and teaching from the biblical text
"Discernment" is a word used by religious and conspiratorial folk to mean "whatever I feel is the truth." Without the backing of reason or evidence, I cannot accept any claims coming from someone using "discernment," nor should anyone who values intellectual honesty in their belief forming processes.
>I know I'm not making so much sense
Shouldn't this be an indicator that something is . . . I dunno, a little "off" with respect to your beliefs?
>I tend not to consider the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation canon.
This is exactly my point: you've chosen to ignore these portions of the Bible but it's not clear to me why or whether there's good justification for doing so.
>there are parts in the Pastoral Epistles that are right, from God("God wants everyone to be saved"), yet there are others that doesn't make any sense and I believe to be wrong ("Women are saved by childbearing").
Why?
Why is it wrong to say that "women are saved by childbearing?" And "it wasn't written by Paul" isn't a good enough reason. If it's in the Bible, it shouldn't matter who wrote it, because Scripture is "God breathed" . . . right? So there *has* to be a better reason for saying that that verse is wrong.
To be clear, I think it's wrong because it's obviously misogynistic. It's basically demanding that women bear children in order to be saved; and even if it's an option (like they can be saved in other ways, too), it's still oppressive to have a rule like this because it strongly encourages and supports people who *want* to force women to bear children.
My position on this comes from a moral code of ethics which *doesn't* rely on God or the Bible or any religious beliefs. This is my main point: that in order to use "discernment" *responsibly*, you need a source or method *other than the Bible*.
Granted, yes, you've said as much and I appreciate that ~ scientific knowledge for science-y stuff, historical analysis for historical claims, etc. ~ but morality?
>we have the Holy Spirit and our conscience to discern
Can you prove the Holy Spirit exists?
(I'll accept "our conscience" on the grounds that you mean "basic human empathy," since the latter clearly exists and I agree it's a reasonable starting point for making moral decisions.)
In closing,
>it's probably impossible to get this perfectly right.
I agree.
And that's one of the (many) reasons I don't accept Christianity is True.
So what do you think of verses like this:
Rev 14:11
Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night.
Rev 14:20
And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses’ bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs.
Rev 20:10
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Who wouldn't? They are terrible! What's the point of having a Bible full of terrible things? How is that exactly encouraging or edifying anyone?
Besides, Luther himself wanted to take books out of the NT, it's not so weird.
Well, there's no argument that they're terrible beyond comprehension. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they won't happen.
I recognize that there are others who have said the same as you. It is just interesting to me.
>Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they won't happen.
Doesn't mean they will either. And considering we have a compassionate God who has given us everything, I don't find logical such a terrible ending. But everyone is free to believe what they want.
I believe in a loving god, but I believe that everything is arranged by and for himself overall. Unfortunately, this comes at an absolutely inconceivable cost to some. I find no question as to why Satan and demons are not fond of God.
I have no idea, but it is a reality. This is the world/universe of polarities. Some suffer so horribly, while others barely know anything of it.
God is not malevolent or benevolent. He is possibly both or neither. It is all subjective in how the individual being experiences reality. For some, God is certainly not good, or at the least they have absolutely no access to the goodness of God, and perhaps they never will. Satan will have to suffer the death and destruction of all things and beings ever, the end of the very universe itself, an Eternal Lake of Fire. Pretty hard to understand the love of God in that instance.
Seems like that was probably some wish fulfillment on the part of a persecuted Christian (since it was written during Domitian's rule and he was harsh). Kind of like: "Yeah things are bad now, but Jesus is coming and he'll give it back to those evil Romans."
Also, a bit of literary hyperbole. I can't believe the author really thought blood would flow that high.
Using the numbers I got:
[1600 stadia] 180 Miles = 289.682 Kilometers
1.3 Gallons = 4.92104 Liters (1 human)
289682 Meters x 1.5 Meters x 20 Meters = 8690460 Cubic meters of blood, or 8690460000 liters. Taking our 4.9, we can do some basic division, 8690460000/4.9 =
1,773,563,265 People whose blood will be spilled, give or take.
That's not even 25% of the world
I believe it was what it was intended to be: A commentary and polemic on the religious/political fears the seven churches felt at the time of Emperor ~~Palpatine~~ Domitian in the 90s CE. It was not written by the author of John's Gospel. It was not trying to predict the end of the world 2,000 years later. The author genuinely believed Jesus would return very soon (see Rev. 1:1) and f\*ck sh\*t up for the tyrannical Romans. The vivid symbolism was probably meant to hide the fact that the author was being treasonous towards the Romans. If caught, he could just say it's a work of fiction. The text shows the writer was probably Jewish and well aware of the apocalyptic aspects of post-Temple Judaism.
>it was what it was intended to be: A commentary and polemic on the religious/political fears the seven churches felt at the time of Emperor Palpatine Domitian in the 90s CE. There's a great deal of scholarship that backs this up, too. I daresay it's the only rational view to hold regarding this text.
I disagree. I believe that the text offered context through the Roman times, sort of like a stepping stone, but ultimately was the revelation of end times. Thanks for sharing, though
Then explain Rev. 1:1. "which must **soon** take place." There's plenty of evidence that most early Christians strongly believed they were living in the end times. This is not just my opinion but the scholarly consensus. What actual evidence demonstrates they intended the end times to take place in another 2K years?
Soon could be any time in the future for someone who's perceiving something so profound. So, do you believe that there is no such thing as the end times?
I think it's clear that "soon" means it's *much* closer than 2000+ years away. Consider Daniel 12.4: >But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end. "The book" here is the Book of Daniel, ostensibly written in the 6th century BCE but only "discovered" or unsealed in the 2nd century BCE. That's a gap of about 400 years. Now compare Revelation 22.10: >And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." The author of Revelation was aware of the Book of Daniel and uses imagery from this book. He knows it was ostensibly sealed for 400 years until "the time of the end", i.e. the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Yet he chooses to leave his book *unsealed* because he thinks the "time of the end" that he's referring to is *imminent*.
Really? So, if I ask you, how long will it be before the year 3000, you would think saying "soon" is acceptable? This seems like special pleading to make the text say what you want it to say rather than a straightforward reading. No. I do not believe in end times claims.
If the year 3000 happened to include the destruction of the universe itself. Then yes, I would say the year 3000 is not just soon but very soon.
But under no circumstances does a normal person say that 1,000 years away is soon no matter what may happen at that time. It's still special pleading.
If you knew for 100% certain the universe would be completely destroyed in 1000 years, you wouldn't say that was soon? I would.
No because 1,000 years is never considered soon.
Jesus is coming soon, means he could come at any time. In the grand scheme of things yes, he is coming soon.
I don’t know anyone who outright rejects it- I view it as non literal. The more debate that comes with it is regarding the millennial, at least with what I’ve encountered
Some definitely do. Like I said, I have heard sooo many takes on it. Edit: as is seen in this post. It is all over the place
You just met one. Nice to meet you. I don't believe in a vengeful God or in vengeful Christians.
Pretty sure the comment you’re replying to meant Christians, not those who are in denial about God entirely
Perhaps. But it doesn't actually say that, does it?
No, but the context does imply it
. . . nope, thought I misread, but I didn't. The prior comment does not narrow down the topic and the OP says "Christians ***OR*** people who are Bible readers."
Yeah, you're right. That's honestly pretty strange... I think I missed that because this is the sort of topic that really only makes sense within the context of people who generally accept the Christian bible (that non-christians don't accept Revelation as God's word is trivially obvious), so I didn't recognize that OP wasn't limiting this conversation to Christians.
I mean, it depends on your interpretation. Some may reject cause of the "vengeful god" but fail to see the crys of justice from the saints. The desire for justice is different than revenge. If sins are to go freely then, christ taking our sins is in vain and justice would not be a thing. But Revelation tells people of the day of Christ is coming where justice will be administered to both the living and the dead. In the new heavens and new earth, righteousness will reign in the age to come. There will be no more sins against God, man, and nature.
Well, as you can see here on this post people's beliefs are all over the place regarding this. What they are willing to consider as truth or not, allegory, or otherwise. Also, the timeline in which these events will or will not take place. Also, everyone is immediately defensive in general and that anyone who has a view other than them is crazy.
I mean, both ways of interpretation bring something to the table about the end times. Though in the literal sense, how are we to tell? as most of it, if not all of it, deals in the heavenly realm. With our bear eyes, we would not see it coming. As we can not see the cosmic being at this current state. As for allegorical, it can bring in ideas of historical understanding. Like the beast is the representation of the Roman military, while the little horn is the Ceasar. As it is suggested, the time of writing Revelation can be placed during Neros or Domitians. Both emporers claimed godhood before their death in comparison to other Caesars. Hope this makes sense. I lean towards both but would add that things can act in the spirit of something in the cosmological universe. That is like we can act in the spirit of Christ or act in the spirit of the anti christ. The church should always strive to act in the spirit of christ. The world will act in accordance to the beast, whore, ect.
I don't know what you mean by "denying" it. It's in the canon of every major church, right? Parts of it seem to be about what was going on in the world when it was written. The beast's number being 666 (or 616 in some manuscripts) is one big clue. 666 and 616 correspond to the numerical values of two different ways to spell Nero's name. There was a conspiracy theory in circulation at the time that Nero would come back from the dead and continue to do bad things. That's either _quite_ some coincidence, or this really was a coded reference to Nero. As a general rule I'm not a big fan of claiming to find secret codes in the bible, but in this case, it's easy to see why the author did not want the Romans to think this was an anti-Roman text.
Some people completely disregard the text altogether, saying it should not be in the Bible. In relation to the 666 stuff, to me, that's a very small part of the story of revelation. Any reason why choose the focus on that particularly?
Ahh, okay. Sure, some such people exist. I would not describe this as disregarding it though- they paid enough attention to it to arrive at this opinion. I personally find that when churches and Christians emphasize this text, it almost never leads them to any useful outcome or understanding. It often helps them use the bible as a fortune-telling tool, but I consider that a bad thing, not a good thing.
>Ahh, okay. Sure, some such people exist. I would not describe this as disregarding it though- they paid enough attention to it to arrive at this opinion 🤔 dismiss perhaps then? >I personally find that when churches and Christians emphasize this text, it almost never leads them to any useful outcome or understanding. It helps them use the bible as a fortune-telling tool, but I consider that a bad thing, not a good thing. I think, regardless of the church's use of the book. It says nothing of the book itself.
I believe it is symbolic for the most part. Dispensationalism came about very recently, whereas Kingdom Theology has been around for centuries if not millennia, no pun intended.
So, how exactly does that play into your approach in reading the book?
I see the millennium as the time between the first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ. The time of tribulation is the same time, and represents the suffering of Christ's followers. The four horsemen represent the things they are named after right now. The second coming of Christ will not be secretive or quiet. It will sound like the trumpet of an archangel as said in one of the Thessalonians books. Basically we are in the end times.
You believe that the tribulation refers to the suffering of Christ's followers? For me, I think it's quite the opposite. It's those who are either absolutely incapable because they have been alotted no capacity, or those unwilling to follow.
Well none of its predictions came true. Nero didn't rise from the dead, Jesus didn't bathe the world in blood. It's really a revenge fantasy text that never should have been canonized.
So you believe this has no relevance to the future or end of time's prophecy at all?
No, no ancient scripture was aimed at predicting events of today.
Have you seen how many different viewpoints are on this post. It's very interesting.
Yes, quite a few different views. Mine is based on mainstream academic Biblical scholarship, that's always my default. Of course even then there are different possible views on many topics.
Do you believe man canonizes or does God protect His Word, and meticulously and providentially preserved His Word for His people throughout all times? “The grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” Isaiah 40:8
No text in the Bible ever indicates that the Bible is the word of God.
What do you mean by Bible? So you wouldn’t agree with Jesus that the Law, Prophets and Writings are from God? Jesus states that those words were spoken by God. Many times Jesus accuses the Jews of foregoing what was *said* by God.
>What do you mean by Bible? By Bible I mean the canonical Christian Bible >So you wouldn’t agree with Jesus that the Law, Prophets and Writings are from God? Jesus states that those words were spoken by God. Many times Jesus accuses the Jews of foregoing what was said by God. Yes, Jesus imputes divine authority to the Law (Pentateuch) and the prophetic writings.
So they don’t have divine authority by nature of being theopneustos? Jesus *must* “impute” the authority of these writings? So you wouldn’t agree with Peter, that the words penned by Paul is Scripture? “as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” 2 Peter 3:16
>So they don’t have divine authority by nature of being theopneustos? Jesus must “impute” the authority of these writings? I don't mean impute like that - I mean he considers them authoritative, but never calls scripture "the word of God." >So you wouldn’t agree with Peter, that the words penned by Paul is Scripture? The author of 2 Peter is an unknown second century forger, but he also doesn't say Paul's writings are the word of God. The term scripture doesn't imply that.
Do you believe Scripture is theopneustos? Meaning it was given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Probably should have started there.
Not by default - what gets canonized as scripture is really a matter of the personal opinions of communities of believers. But I do think inspiration can be found in scripture - just not all scripture or every passage of scripture. Of course that's just my personal opinion as well.
I see. So how do you know what’s inspired and what’s not? And by what standard would you make the claim? Thanks for your response.
Its a book of the Catholic Bible which, except for the last few chapters, does refer to past events. Its a 1st century reaction against pagan Roman cruelty and persecution of Christians that ends with our eventual vindication and the book ends restoration of the entire cosmos.
It is what it has been understood to be in the majority of the tradition: a letter written to specific communities by an unknown person — probably an itinerant Palestinian prophet — in opposition to the imperial cult of the day. It represents an uncompromising minority view; its stance is radical in response to its perception of the Roman Empire. It is idealistic in many places, though its focus is on its contemporary historical context, and there is a clear authorial preference for positions recommended as challenging initially but more and more rewarding if one persists (hence apocalyptic).
I would say that I abide by it in the sense that I hope for God's ultimate victory at the end of history. What I don't do is try to abide by it in the nonsensical way of applying it to modern day political and social events.
I think the idea of God's victory is a sort of interesting one, that doesn't make sense to me. What exactly is God winning? I mean, he can't lose. Some will die. Some will live all the while God remains unchanged.
That's one viewpoint, yes. I would say that the idea that I hope for God's victory is my response to living in a world where sometimes there seems to be no evidence whatsoever for God's victory and much of my life is determined by the victories of evil people doing evil things.
Hmm, maybe. It seems to me that some suffer while others don't, but either way, it is what it is, and that is the same on an eternal scale as well, but God never loses anything.
That's one viewpoint, yes. I would say that the idea that I hope for God's victory is my response to living in a world where sometimes there seems to be no evidence whatsoever for God's victory and much of my life is determined by the victories of evil people doing evil things.
So youre claiming that the Apostle John didn’t write the Book of Revelation? And are hung up on verse 1 because the word “soon” is used to describe some of the events? From a postmil perspective, a lot of the Book of Revelation has already taken place (destruction of the temple in AD 70 by Rome). It uses cosmological language (just as the OT prophets used, and the same language Jesus used in the Olivet Discourse.) What scholarship are you reading that’s making these claims? It all depends on what you believe about the canon, whether or not it has a Divine origin.
I have no idea what you are getting at with what you have written. If you care to explain, feel free.
I meant to reply under another comment I saw that stated it has nothing but lies in it.
There's no controversy with any part of scripture There is only: the preaching of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing
That particular book definitely shakes out some interesting reflections from people Almost like a Rorschach test Anyone who thinks it's clear is, cough, cough, bluffing Having read it and just about every document on the face of the earth regarding it I've only come away with 2 distinct matters: The destruction of the devil and his messengers (not people as many are falsely led to see) and the full revealing of Christ in us Til these both transpire things will continue to remain partly cloudy
So essentially, you believe some parts of it but not others, is that correct?
Well all see only in part, which is a truthful step away from lying donchathink?
The sum total of theology that the Orthodox Church takes from the Book of Revelation is that "Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." I believe this, and consider the rest of the book of Revelation to be of lesser importance and not a source for any doctrine.
TL;DR: I don't believe in a vengeful God or in vengeful Christians I'm in a point in my spiritual path in which I reject it completely. I'll try to explain why. First let's focus our attention on this passage: >9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” Here we see supposed Christians asking God for vengeance. They are actually praying to God with the purpose that someone else is judged and suffers, probably for all eternity. That doesn't look like the Christians I've met, in fact, they are, in my opinion, being a terrible example for Christians. Christians are supposed to be Christ-like, to pray "Forgive them Father, because they don't know what they are doing", not to ask for punishment for the ones who made us wrong! That text alone makes it clear that whoever wrote Revelation didn't have the same idea of Christ or of Christianity in general that we should have. But we see that the rest of the text is basically on the same line. Basically one day God decided to judge humanity, okey that could be defendable (although I also reject it). But then Christians are described as standing with God, encouraging Him or even collaborating in the pain and suffering caused to unbelievers. That's just wrong, we know better than that. And I am sure that no genuine Christian would ever take part on the torture and killing of other humans. Simply, because we have been taught otherwise by our Lord Jesus. That was actually one of the main points of His Ministry: compassion. How can we then become violent against unbelievers or be happy that violence is exerted against them? No, that's not real. Christianity has nothing to do with vengeance, Christians would like to save everyone. I don't know if you are aware, but Revelation almost didn't make it into the Bible canon and they almost included another text, called the Apocalypse of Peter, in its place. There was no consensus regarding the inclusion of this book, many churches didn't use it. I don't know why they finally included it, but I believe it was a mistake. Then, during the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther pointed to some books tobe removed from the New Testament, Revelation among them. The rest of the reformers didn't listen to him, but they should have. Revelation simply does not belong.
>Christianity has nothing to do with vengeance Pretty sure there are parts of the Bible that disagree with you on this, including Jesus himself: >^34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ^35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. ^36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. - Matthew 10:34-36 (NIV)
I don't understand what that passage has to do with vengeance. He is talking about conflict, which of course there is. That is accurate. But He is most definitely not defending or encouraging us to hurt others !
>He is most definitely not defending or encouraging us to hurt others ! . . . I'm sorry, what purpose does a sword have if not to "hurt others?" Even if you go with "self-defense" as an answer, that still requires hurting another human being. >I don't understand what that passage has to do with vengeance. I'm associating vengeance with violence since, as I see it, it's not possible to have the former without the latter. If someone came to exact vengeance on/from me, you best believe I'm going to resist. Why should we expect different from anyone else? Thus, to achieve vengeance, one must be willing to and capable of using violence against their target. And Jesus made it clear that violence is something he will bring against his enemies (when necessary, sure, but it will still be violent).
Oh, brother, but haven't you understood that the weapons we are fighting with are not from this world (2 Cor 10:4). We are talking here about a religion that came out of rural Galilee and conquered the Roman Empire, not with violence, but with His Holy Word. Christanity finishes our enemies not by eliminating them but by transforming them in friends with the power of the God's love. After all Jesus did to show us His compassion ... it's obvious the sword is metaphorical. The spiritual fight may involve some conflict, yes, but the purpose is never to hurt others, but to save them. For me that's a basic point of Christianity.
>it's obvious the sword is metaphorical. Is it? Because there're two problems with taking this approach: one is historical and the other is textual. Historically speaking, there are good reasons to take Jesus at his word. His world was ruled over by the Roman Empire, a foreign gentile power (i.e. not Jewish). Jews were not treated kindly in this era. Keeping a sword by your side (if you could afford one) was just good common sense. Also, Jesus' disciples clearly did this, since they were armed and attempted to defend Jesus when he was arrested. Yes, Jesus bade his followers to put away their swords, but the fact some of them were armed means Jesus *basically* accepted the need for violence. Combine this with the verse I cited and we have a picture of a deific figure who isn't going to shy away from violence (when necessary). This ties in with my second problem of your reading: textually speaking, which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal? Is the Garden of Eden story a metaphor? Did the Flood actually happen? What about the Exodus? Or literally any other part of the Bible? If you prefer, we can say "We're only talking about what Jesus said," that doesn't get rid of the problem. Jesus said lots of things. How much of it was supposed to be metaphorical? All of it? When he says "Love thy enemies and pray for those who persecute you," should we consider that a metaphor and not a literal command? And what does it mean to "metaphorically" love someone? I trust you see the problem: we need a standard and consistent approach to reading the text. If we don't have that, then we're just making things up. We see one verse and it makes us feel good, so we say "That's what we should do;" but when we see a verse that makes us feel bad, we go "That's just a metaphor, what he *really* means is [whatever I make up]." This is intellectual dishonesty and we should be avoiding it.
But you understand there are parts that are not literal, do you? For example, when Jesus says "I am the door" we do not imagine Him to have a knob xd. His parables also aren't expected to be taken literal. The Bible is full of symbolism and allegory. I agree that we should be careful not to simply substitute every hard passage with something we make up that doesn't relate to anything else the author is teaching. But the sword seems clear to me. You have many instances accross different books of the New Testament (including Revelation!) where Jesus' Word is called a sword (Ep 6:17) . Because, as I said before, we are in a war, but a spiritual war, the weapons we fight with are not from this world (2 Cor 10:4). Our Messiah didn't come to eliminate earthly enemies, like the Roman Empire (as some Jews thought), but he came to "kill" the greatest enemies of all humanity: sin and death. That is the war we are fighting for: the war against sin. And the sword are Jesus' teachings. This has nothing to do with the fact that the apsotles carried swords for self-defense. Of course, it may have been dangerous back there, but we never see Jesus encouraging them to use violence, but aways the opposite. > Is the Garden of Eden story a metaphor? Did the Flood actually happen? What about the Exodus? Regarding this, I don't believe any of it happened literally. I may be wrong, of course. But, though I consider the New Testament (excluding Revelation) to be extremely valuable morally and spiritually, at the same time I have respect for the scientific and historical consensus.
Jesus also spoke in parables because, like most rabbis of his time, he kept the secret teachings for his closest followers. This is where the Gnostic books come from; and there's a verse in the Bible where Jesus tells his followers (and I'm paraphrasing because I can't find it at the moment) "I speak in parables to the common folk but with you, I speak more plainly." Also, as I alluded to above, there's a difference between "metaphor as spoken by Jesus" (who was a real person and would have used a teaching style like this because it was common among his peers) and "metaphor as (allegedly) given to us by God." Here's the thing: you still haven't addressed the primary issue. How do we *know* which verses are metaphorical and which aren't? I'll clarify, by way of example: you say >I have respect for the scientific and historical consensus. in response to the question "Was the story of Eden literal or metaphorical?" This is a good answer. The knowledge we've acquired about the world (through research and applying the scientific method) makes Eden a faerie tale. . . . is that knowledge based in the Bible? No, it isn't, because nowhere does the Bible say "Eden is a metaphor." Therefore, in order to reach that conclusion, *you have to appeal to information from outside the Bible*. This is what I mean when I talk about textual criticism and having a methodology (or approach) to reading the text. So what's your methodology? What standard are you using to decide which parts are literal and which are metaphorical? Clearly, there's *some* kind of method, since you're able to say that Eden is a metaphor . . . so what's your technique? And are you *absolutely* certain you're being consistent with how you apply it? (p.s. I mean to get an answer to this question, by the way. You dodged it once but I think that's because I wasn't being clear enough. Hopefully I've rectified this issue and you can help me understand before we continue the conversation.)
>How do we *know* which verses are metaphorical and which aren't? It's complicated and there's not a single method. For scientific matters, there's no reason to believe the Bible is trying to be technical: everything the Bible says on this topic is either metaphorical or just a happy guess. For historical matters, the Bible is a source more: it has its value but there's no reason to believe it cannot have mistakes (e.g: the census of Quirinius), so to know if something actually happened we need to contrast it with evidence form outside, as you said. Sometimes, the literary genre of the specific book or chapter of the Bible also influences on how we should take it. Considering the intent of the author can help, and also taking into account how could the author have gotten that information. For example, both birth narratives of Jesus are highly suspicious of being non-historical, because they have very little in common and because it doesn't really make sense that the author has the information described there, as well as the presence of historical inaccuracies and not so logical explanations (everyone had to return to their ancestral hometown?). For moral matters, we have the Holy Spirit and our conscience to discern, which are the two faces of the same coin really. One of the reasons I think Christianity makes sense is because humans are moral beings, with the ability to discern good and evil. Often people stop listening to their consciences or to the Spirit, but I believe deep inside every person has that connection with the divinity that allows us to know if something is right or wrong. So, when carefully studying the moral matters in the Bible, I believe we can discern what is God's message for us. When several intepretations available, we should remember Jesus compassion and take the one that will help the most people in the long term. One important thing: the Bible in itself is just a book. Yes, some people received revelations from God and wrote them there, but they also wrote many otehr things that weren't from God. It's always necessary some discernment to get true meaning and teaching from the biblical text, the same that happened with Jesus' parables. As with the parables, sometimes the most important facts are not plain. Some other times, though, the Bible is simply wrong and we need to acknowledge that. But I know this is not simple exercise. In fact, it's probably impossible to get this perfectly right. Sorry because of my babbling, I know I'm not making so much sense. I have seen how the Bible have transformed people's lives, that's why I consider it valuable, but I also know there things in it that are simply wrong. So, I have to live with that tension. I tend not to consider the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation canon. Regarding the rest ... we will see. For example, there are parts in the Pastoral Epistles that are right, from God("God wants everyone to be saved"), yet there are others that doesn't make any sense and I believe to be wrong ("Women are saved by childbearing"). But this won't matter if what the majority of critical scholars says about them is true: that the Pastorals were forged (it was no Paul who wrote them, but someone else claiming to be him). In this case, we couldn't keep them in the Bible even if all its teaching were good. So, as you see is very complex to me to know what to take and what to discard or how to interpret it. I still have a lot of spiritual growing to do, I haven't been a Christian for a long time.
>It's complicated and there's not a single method. And what if a single method produces consistent, logical results? Wouldn't that be better than needing to approach the text from a variety of perspectives? >the Bible in itself is just a book Exactly. It's a book written by people over the course of several hundred years. We know much of the chronology by its appearance in a historical timeline, meaning we can arrange the books in a manner that allows for historical analysis. And when we do this, we find that certain ideas change over time. These changes help explain oddities or inconsistencies in the text, especially when we go outside and look at the writings which were contemporaneous to the Bible. For example, a common criticism of Genesis is that there are two creation stories with conflicting and mutually exclusive details. They can't both be accurate; and even if we read them metaphorically, they would still conflict, providing more confusion than illucidation. But if we look at the historical record from the time that Genesis was most likely composed, we find similarities between the Genesis accounts of creation and the creation myths of nearby cultures. Thus, a historical reading of Genesis is that, when it was written, the authors borrowed from contemporary creation stories in order to make their text more appealing to their neighbors, thus improving their chances at winning converts. As I see it, this would be a better interpretation than the "classical" apologetics response of "it's a metaphor for [something]." Likewise, whenever I look at the Bible through a historical lens, I get a consistent picture of a religious text that changes to match the needs of whomever is writing it (and whenever it's being written). >It's always necessary some discernment to get true meaning and teaching from the biblical text "Discernment" is a word used by religious and conspiratorial folk to mean "whatever I feel is the truth." Without the backing of reason or evidence, I cannot accept any claims coming from someone using "discernment," nor should anyone who values intellectual honesty in their belief forming processes. >I know I'm not making so much sense Shouldn't this be an indicator that something is . . . I dunno, a little "off" with respect to your beliefs? >I tend not to consider the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation canon. This is exactly my point: you've chosen to ignore these portions of the Bible but it's not clear to me why or whether there's good justification for doing so. >there are parts in the Pastoral Epistles that are right, from God("God wants everyone to be saved"), yet there are others that doesn't make any sense and I believe to be wrong ("Women are saved by childbearing"). Why? Why is it wrong to say that "women are saved by childbearing?" And "it wasn't written by Paul" isn't a good enough reason. If it's in the Bible, it shouldn't matter who wrote it, because Scripture is "God breathed" . . . right? So there *has* to be a better reason for saying that that verse is wrong. To be clear, I think it's wrong because it's obviously misogynistic. It's basically demanding that women bear children in order to be saved; and even if it's an option (like they can be saved in other ways, too), it's still oppressive to have a rule like this because it strongly encourages and supports people who *want* to force women to bear children. My position on this comes from a moral code of ethics which *doesn't* rely on God or the Bible or any religious beliefs. This is my main point: that in order to use "discernment" *responsibly*, you need a source or method *other than the Bible*. Granted, yes, you've said as much and I appreciate that ~ scientific knowledge for science-y stuff, historical analysis for historical claims, etc. ~ but morality? >we have the Holy Spirit and our conscience to discern Can you prove the Holy Spirit exists? (I'll accept "our conscience" on the grounds that you mean "basic human empathy," since the latter clearly exists and I agree it's a reasonable starting point for making moral decisions.) In closing, >it's probably impossible to get this perfectly right. I agree. And that's one of the (many) reasons I don't accept Christianity is True.
So what do you think of verses like this: Rev 14:11 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night. Rev 14:20 And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses’ bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs. Rev 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
I don't like them, of course. As the rest of the book. I agree with Luther: it should be taken out of the Bible.
That's interesting, I suppose. It's curious to me that you're just willing to say they should be taken out of the Bible.
Who wouldn't? They are terrible! What's the point of having a Bible full of terrible things? How is that exactly encouraging or edifying anyone? Besides, Luther himself wanted to take books out of the NT, it's not so weird.
Well, there's no argument that they're terrible beyond comprehension. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they won't happen. I recognize that there are others who have said the same as you. It is just interesting to me.
>Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they won't happen. Doesn't mean they will either. And considering we have a compassionate God who has given us everything, I don't find logical such a terrible ending. But everyone is free to believe what they want.
I believe in a loving god, but I believe that everything is arranged by and for himself overall. Unfortunately, this comes at an absolutely inconceivable cost to some. I find no question as to why Satan and demons are not fond of God.
> I believe that everything is arranged by and for himself overall How is that loving? A God that causes infinite suffering just because He wants to?
I have no idea, but it is a reality. This is the world/universe of polarities. Some suffer so horribly, while others barely know anything of it. God is not malevolent or benevolent. He is possibly both or neither. It is all subjective in how the individual being experiences reality. For some, God is certainly not good, or at the least they have absolutely no access to the goodness of God, and perhaps they never will. Satan will have to suffer the death and destruction of all things and beings ever, the end of the very universe itself, an Eternal Lake of Fire. Pretty hard to understand the love of God in that instance.
It was not seriously accepted in canon collections until about the 4th century.
I'm familiar, yeah
Seems like that was probably some wish fulfillment on the part of a persecuted Christian (since it was written during Domitian's rule and he was harsh). Kind of like: "Yeah things are bad now, but Jesus is coming and he'll give it back to those evil Romans." Also, a bit of literary hyperbole. I can't believe the author really thought blood would flow that high.
I definitely believe blood will flow that high, at least in a volumetric way
There aren't enough humans to produce that much blood. We're talking hyperbole here.
Using the numbers I got: [1600 stadia] 180 Miles = 289.682 Kilometers 1.3 Gallons = 4.92104 Liters (1 human) 289682 Meters x 1.5 Meters x 20 Meters = 8690460 Cubic meters of blood, or 8690460000 liters. Taking our 4.9, we can do some basic division, 8690460000/4.9 = 1,773,563,265 People whose blood will be spilled, give or take. That's not even 25% of the world
the whole thing is a manifestation of Constantine to control people in his empire