Theories on Revelations

parrai

I know it's difficult to ascertain it's actual meaning, but with so many perspectives between here and the other religion and spirituality forums, there must be a lot insightful opinions.

What do you think about The Book of Revelations. Any thoughts appreciated.

What is it about, not in synopsis, but what is the story of it? The colourful symbolism used in it, what do you decipher it as? How did it come about? Who was John?

charlemont

I'm not being a smart ass (for once) but I do recall watching a documentary on TV that claimed the book was written on Cyprus and the researcher was looking for links to proof that the author may possibly have been ingesting hallucinogenics i.e. Magic Mushrooms !!

Another part of that theory was that the author fled from the Holy Land and was describing a battle there..

That's all I remember from it and I honestly don't know anything else about the book.

parrai

charlemont wrote: »

I'm not being a smart ass (for once) but I do recall watching a documentary on TV that claimed the book was written on Cyprus and the researcher was looking for links to proof that the author may possibly have been ingesting hallucinogenics i.e. Magic Mushrooms !!

Another part of that theory was that the author fled from the Holy Land and was describing a battle there..

That's all I remember from it and I honestly don't know anything else about the book.

I have seen something along these lines myself, as when one reads it, it is what one would think.

georgieporgy

so much for free education.

Peregrinus

The Bible contains a variety of texts written in a variety of literary genres - poetry, song, history, genealogy, philosophy, fable, prophecy, etc.

The Book of Revelation is an example of the literary genre known as “apocalyptic literature”, and in fact it’s the only book in the bible written entirely in that genre.

It was a popular literary genre in its time, but it has completely disappeared, and the Bible is the only place most of us will ever encounter it. As a result we are unfamiliar with the genre and this makes it particularly difficult for us to wrap our heads around the text, and understand it as the (human) authors would have understood it, and as the original intended readership would have understood it.

In general, apocalyptic literature seeks to reveal (hence the name “Revelation” for this work) spiritual insights which are not easily discerned and (frequently) which address difficult spiritual problems (like “why do the just suffer while the wicked prosper?” and “how can a loving God allow his faithful people to suffer?”) They seek to reveal hidden meanings and hidden truths. Frequently, they underline this by presenting their message in the context of an “end of the world/end of time” scenario, and usually involves revelation by a heavenly messenger or an angel. This should not be understood as a prophecy that the end of the world will in fact unfold as described in the text; it merely signals that the author is claiming to reveal a mystery which can only be understood through divine revelation. The end of time is chosen as a setting because, it is understood, all things will be revealed then. The writer usually states explicitly that he is having a vision or a dream, as opposed to foretelling actual events.

Apocalyptic literature is usually anonymous or pseudonymous, because the author is claiming divine revelation as his authority, not his personal experience, merits, wisdom, etc. (This contrasts with other forms of prophetic writing, where the identity of the prophet, and the time, place and circumstances in which he prophesied, are usually made clear.) So, in response to the question “who was John?” the answer has to be “we don’t know, but his name probably wasn’t John”.

So, in that context, how are we to understand Revelations? Well, there is no one answer. The Christian tradition offers a variety of interpretations:

Preterist: The view that, in so far as Revelations refers even indirectly to any historical event, it is a coded to events occurring in the first century, i.e. before or at the time of the composition of the text. This view has traditionally been popular among Catholics.

Historicist: The view that Revelation offers an overview in allegorical terms of the broach sweep of salvation history, and therefore the events it describes can in some way be mapped onto historical events, including many which occurred after the work was written and many which have yet to occur. This view has been popular among Protestants, probably in reaction to Catholic preterism (though it’s not exclusive to them) and, in fact, we really find very little evidence of it before about the 17th century.

Futurist: The view that Revelation offers a (coded or literal) account of the end times. This view was unknown until the 16th century, and was developed by Catholics who used it to argue that the “whore of Babylon” couldn’t possibly the church of Rome because the entire work referred to the remote future. Despite its Catholic origins this view was enthusiastically taken up by some Protestants in the 19th and 20th century, and it has given us Harold Camping and the entire panoply of American evangelical end-time prophecy - raptures, tribulations, the works.

Idealist/Symbolic: The view that Revelation bears no relationship at all to any historical events, past or future, but instead is an allegory for the spiritual path/the struggle between Good and Evil.

Instructional: Popular among Eastern Christians, this view holds that the work serves as a moral lesson to be at all times ready for the end times, whenever they may come, but rejects as blasphemous, or at least useless, any attempt to use the work to predict when or how they may come.

Paschal: On this view, Revelation is a commentary by early Christian which attempts to interpret and contextualize their own liturgical practices, and an attempt to relate the paschal liturgy to the broader life of the church and the understanding of salvation.

And there are other perspectives and interpretations besides these.

PDN

One thing you need to remember is that the Book of Revelation was written for a persecuted church. Therefore much of it uses coded language that would make sense to its Christian recipients, but which would be confusing to its Roman persecutors.

The same thing happens today in many parts of the world. For instance, when I travel to China I know that my text messages and emails concerning the underground church are being read by others, so I use codes that other Christians instantly recognise, but hopefully are just confusing to the authorities!

One of the problems is that our modern Christian culture is closer to that of the Romans than it is to the early persecuted church - so we end up getting confused by the Book of Revelation too!

The key things to remember are that the symbolism of Revelation is rooted in the Old Testament. Also, that the book was originally written to seven specific churches in Asia Minor. Any interpretation that ignores these core principles is likely to be spectacularly wrong (like the kind of lunacy we gad in this forum a year ago when a poster kept trying to interpret Revelation in the light of an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico!).

marty1985

Would the Omen movie be responsible for a lot of popular interpretations? I'm thinking of the 666 thing, is that actually referring to Nero, coded, like PDN says?

PDN

marty1985 wrote: »

Would the Omen movie be responsible for a lot of popular interpretations? I'm thinking of the 666 thing, is that actually referring to Nero, coded, like PDN says?

I am constantly amazed at how people form beliefs on theology and church history based on novels and movies. So people believe stuff because they watched the Omen or the Davinci Code.

It's a bit like me basing my views on marine biology on Finding Nemo, but there you go!

marty1985

Yes, that happens all the time, especially with history. I do, however, think The Omen was a special case because it was deliberately using the ambiguity involved to present myth as fact, so to speak, in other words to offer a specific interpretation only, to make it effective in scaring people. The movie wouldn't have worked if everyone in the audience had a theological background.

Baggio1

Revs is very much current events for me, it is written to confuse the enemies of the church for sure, symbolism etc is both symbolic and also a collection of clues about the times we are living in, even tho it was written at a time when persecution was rife, its in the very near future that the final persecution will begin in a global sense and it deals with those times. i think we only need to look around us to see how much is already happening, yes - we've always had hunger,disasters,earthquakes etc....but never to such a level of frquency and ferocity that things are happening these days. thats my 3 cents worth anyway

tommy2bad

Needs to be read in conjunction with other texts ,Daniel especially.

we've always had hunger,disasters,earthquakes etc....but never to such a level of frquency and ferocity that things are happening these days.

Global warming? or a 24 hour news cycle?

Baggio1

neither - global warming is a tax grabbing scam courtesy of Al Gore and crew....

24 hr news cycle ? i doubt it

Sonics2k

marty1985 wrote: »

Would the Omen movie be responsible for a lot of popular interpretations? I'm thinking of the 666 thing, is that actually referring to Nero, coded, like PDN says?

Sorry just wanted to clear one tinsey thing up.

The correct number is actually 616, 666 was a mistake.

The oldest Transcripts found put the number at 616.

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

Sorry just wanted to clear one tinsey thing up.

The correct number is actually 616, 666 was a mistake.

The oldest Transcripts found put the number at 616.

Not quite correct.

There is one fragment of a Third Century manuscript that lists the number as 661 rather than 666.

However, in the Second Century we have Irenaeus commenting that he knew of some manuscripts where a copyist's error read as 616 instead of 666.

So, if we go by careful scholarship rather than tabloid headlines, 661 is a possibility, but 666 is more likely to be the correct reading.

Sonics2k

PDN wrote: »

Not quite correct.

There is one fragment of a Third Century manuscript that lists the number as 661 rather than 666.

However, in the Second Century we have Irenaeus commenting that he knew of some manuscripts where a copyist's error read as 616 instead of 666.

So, if we go by careful scholarship rather than tabloid headlines, 661 is a possibility, but 666 is more likely to be the correct reading.

See this is why I take a slight issue with the Bible (and other Holy books), those little mistakes and all :P

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

See this is why I take a slight issue with the Bible (and other Holy books), those little mistakes and all :P

And presumably with the works of Galileo, Leonard Da Vinci and just about everybody else whose writings have been copied or translated at one time or another?

However, thankfully most reasonable people in the real world understand that errors will exist in the translation and transmission of any form of communication, therefore we have entire departments of universities dedicated to comparing different versions, weighing up the possibilities of which variants are most likely to be accurate, and engaging in debate about it.

Meanwhile, here in internet forum land, I really need to pray for more patience in dealing with the same muppetry repeated ad nauseam.

Sonics2k

PDN wrote: »

And presumably with the works of Galileo, Leonard Da Vinci and just about everybody else whose writings have been copied or translated at one time or another?

However, thankfully most reasonable people in the real world understand that errors will exist in the translation and transmission of any form of communication, therefore we have entire departments of universities dedicated to comparing different versions, weighing up the possibilities of which variants are most likely to be accurate, and engaging in debate about it.

Meanwhile, here in internet forum land, I really need to pray for more patience in dealing with the same muppetry repeated ad nauseam.

Well actually, yes sometimes.
I have a huge love of European history, theology and mythology. In fact my favourite figure of history was Da Vinci himself.
The difference between the Bible and DeVinci is that one was written over a thousand years ago and has been translated from Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to French, to English.
Da Vinci's work was written in Italian and Latin, was easily translated to English without any stop offs in between.

edit, apologies as we've gone offtopic, so ill stop now.

tommy2bad

Just as an aside what difference dose it make if it's 666 or 661 or 616? Isn't thw whole thing a symbol anyway or are we to assume its literal and start worrying about horses, slow beasts and all kinds of left behind nonsense?

Peregrinus

Sonics2k wrote: »

The difference between the Bible and DeVinci is that one was written over a thousand years ago and has been translated from Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to French, to English.
Da Vinci's work was written in Italian and Latin, was easily translated to English without any stop offs in between.

Not really.

The Revelation was written in Greek. Pretty well all of the English translations you will encounter are direct translations into English from Greek. The Greek text has also been translated into other languages, but the English translations are not made from those; they are made directly from the original Greek text.

(And the same is true for any modern translation of any book of the Bible.)

Soul Winner

There are three ways to view the book of Revelation. One view is to treat it as though it was written by a man who made it up on his own intending that people would think that it is a revelation from God in other words he was lying. Another is to view it as though it was inspired by a sinister force which took him over and made him see the things he claims to have seen, and the other is to view it in the context of what it actually claims itself to be and that is a supernatural revelation from Jesus Christ Himself.

If we take it with the first view then all kinds of interpretations can be made about the motives of the author, the social and political setting in which it was written, the target audience that he had in mind and so on. All these things can be speculated about ad-infinitum and we will never get full agreement on any of them because we can never go back and probe him on these things. One thing is sure though, if he did make it up but claimed that it was from God then he was lying about it right from the start. So if you start out with the assumption that it was merely the work of a lonely mortal mind then I see know reason to take it any more seriously than any other form of fictitious literature.

If we view it as though it was inspired by dark forces deliberately trying to deceive people by using this man and set up some new false worship or something then you would imagine that it would not glorify Jesus and God in the way that it evidently does.

However, if we view it as a divine supernatural revelation from Jesus Christ then we must assume that He intended us to understand its message. And the only way to begin to do that is to read what it has to say for itself first. What does the book itself claim to be? Let’s read the very first two verses.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw" Revelation 1:1-2

So if this statement is true then the book of Revelation is what God gave to Jesus who then gave to it His angel who then gave it to John for the express purpose of showing unto His servants the things which must shortly come to pass. I think that it is pretty clear and direct in this area. But like I said if you don't believe that it is a divinely given text then there is no point in trying to get any more meaning out of it than what the mortal man had intended it to convey in his day. But if we take the first two verses to be true then we have information that has come directly from the mind of God Himself.

So when we read the book we are reading it from the point of view of God through the eyes and pen of John. There's no point in trying to find the identity of John if we are no prepared to assume that it is a revelation from God. If we assume that it is a revelation from God then we can be sure that it is John because the book says that it's John. If the book is not a divine revelation then who cares who wrote it?

So with that in mind we can read the book based one of these two assumptions. All that is left to do is to try to find out what the book says about certain things that it describes. And we know that is is describing events which must take place prior to the end of this age. What other books in the Bible also make this claim? Well the book of Daniel for one makes this claim and this was a book that Jesus Himself quoted during His earthly Ministry. That being so we can be confident that these two books maybe taken together to get a better picture of the whole. And if we add to this process the phrase of Peter that "no prophecy of scripture is a private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20) then we are also scriptural justified in doing so.

Now we are starting to build a case. So the structure of the book is as follows:

1) Jesus speaks to John and tells him to write down the things that he has seen, the things which are i.e John's present and the things which must take place after this. Revelation 1:19 the key verse of the whole book

Notice in chapter 1 John writes down the things which he has seen. Chapter 2 to chapter 4 he writes to the churches which are in the present. And from chapter 4 onwards he is writing the things which must take place after this, the this in this case being John's present time of dealing with the Churches.

"After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." Revelation 4:1

You don't hear any more about the churches after this point in the book until you get to the marriage supper of the lamb in chapter 19 which (among other things) has led many people (myself included) to hold that at this juncture in chapter 4 John becomes representative of the Church itself and is caught away before the remaining events (namely God's wrath being poured out on the earth) take place, but that's a side road that we can into in more depth if anyone wants to. The point is that the key verse in this book is in chapter 1 verse 19.

"Write the things which thou hast seen (1), and the things which are (2), and the things which shall be hereafter (3);"

Once you read it like this it begins to structure itself. Chapter 4 on wards has to do with events that have not yet taken place. Which means that we are still living in the time of the churches or the church age, the age of the gentiles. As soon as God is finished dealing with the Gentiles in the Church age He will take His Church home and will turn His attention to the natural stock of the house of Israel. They and the world in general will go through a time of trouble unparalleled in history. This period is called 'The Tribulation the Great Tribulation', or Jacob's trouble (Jacob was renamed Israel) and it is during this time that God will make them see and recognize Him whom they have pierced.

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." Zechariah 12:10

And once God defeats all of His and their enemies He will set up a Kingdom that will last for a thousand years and then He will destroy Satan and create all things new, eradicating death, pain and suffering in the process. What a great God He really is. Praise His Name.

So if you're going to bother to read the book of revelation at all you have to either take it as though its just the fantasy of a deluded and maybe well meaning man. A deliberate deceit inspired by evil forces or as a revelation from God and proceed on either one of those basis. I don't see any other way of reading it. Now it just boils down to which one of these three premises you believe to be true. As a Christian who already believes in the Resurrection of Christ I have no problem with Jesus being able to reveal such things as these to His servants. What's the problem with that? Is there anything in the book that would suggest that there is Satanic involvement? How so? If it’s not a genuine revelation from God then the writer is either knowingly lying (because he is claiming it is from God) about it or he was deceived by a dark force and is genuinely reiterating what that dark force caused him to see or it’s a genuine revelation from God. The God hypothesis wins hands down.

P.S. Magic mushrooms? If the writer was on magic mushrooms enjoying his trip then some of the images that are specifically pointed out in the book to be symbolic of something or other would not be symbolic at all, they would be what they are to the one on the trip. Nobody who trips on magic mushrooms says that the things they hallucinated about where symbolic of anything, they're just images conjured up by the brain of an individual that in most case don't even make sense to that specific individual never mind a target audience, so its back to the drawing board with that theory. By the way that theory was postulated by Tony Robinson of the Time Team. Its a good one but it falls on its face in light of the actual text. But I suppose if you are already pre-disposed to disbelieve in the supernatural then I suppose its only natural to come up with stuff like this.

Anyway, its good to be back on Boards.ie, haven't been on here in ages. Just can't get a minute in work. Will try and login on a more regular basis. Its nice to see the old guard are still posting regardless. Keep the Faith...

tommy2bad

and the other is to view it in the context of what it actually claims itself to be and that is a supernatural revelation from Jesus Christ Himself

Or it could be an allegory relevant to the time it was written in. And like any good allegory it's applicable to other times as well, just not as a prediction, as a warning. Like 1984 or Brave New World if William Blake had written them.

So if you start out with the assumption that it was merely the work of a lonely mortal mind then I see know reason to take it any more seriously than any other form of fictitious literature.

So thats all of literature dismissed then?

you have to either take it as though its just the fantasy of a deluded and maybe well meaning man. A deliberate deceit inspired by evil forces or as a revelation from God and proceed on either one of those basis.

Why? and do you apply the same to all the rest of the bible?

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

Or it could be an allegory relevant to the time it was written in.

OK show us why anyone would think that.

tommy2bad wrote: »

And like any good allegory it's applicable to other times as well, just not as a prediction, as a warning.

Or it could be a prophecy of last day events. What is wrong with that theory?

So thats all of literature dismissed then?

Only in the sense of heeding literature as a warning. Would you consider Harry Potter as serious take on last day events? Would that make you not enjoy reading the books?

Why? and do you apply the same to all the rest of the bible?

Well if you believe that the Bible is inspired then yes, but is it? Depends on what you believe about it. I believe it is (well the main text contained within it anyway) so for me it would be a serious error of judgment to dismiss its warnings should it contain any. Of course someone who does't believe in it will not take anything it says seriously, but the question is why don't they believe in it? They are predisposed not to believe in it due to the world view that they are committed to. If one thinks himself a naturalist then anything to do with the supernatural is foolishness to him so going out the gate the Bible is not a reliable document to him. But to someone who intuitively believes in the supernatural the Bible is an attractive document that might be able to make sense out of life for that person. So it just boils down to the world view that you have internally committed yourself to. What's yours?

tommy2bad

Soul Winner so many questions I haven't time to answer now.
After dinner I'll get back to this, hope your still around.

tommy2bad

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK show us why anyone would think that.

It was good enough for St. Augustine

Or it could be a prophecy of last day events. What is wrong with that theory?

Dispensationalism You realy want to go down the Scofield Reference Bible route

Only in the sense of heeding literature as a warning. Would you consider Harry Potter as serious take on last day events? Would that make you not enjoy reading the books?
I do, thats why I referenced 1984


Well if you believe that the Bible is inspired then yes, but is it? Depends on what you believe about it. I believe it is (well the main text contained within it anyway) See here you are picking and choosing
so for me it would be a serious error of judgment to dismiss its warnings should it contain any.
Never said that
Of course someone who does't believe in it will not take anything it says seriously, but the question is why don't they believe in it? They are predisposed not to believe in it due to the world view that they are committed to. If one thinks himself a naturalist then anything to do with the supernatural is foolishness to him so going out the gate the Bible is not a reliable document to him. But to someone who intuitively believes in the supernatural the Bible is an attractive document that might be able to make sense out of life for that person. So it just boils down to the world view that you have internally committed yourself to.
No not world view, view of the bible yes
What's yours?

Already did that thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056445602

Soul Winner

Don't get me wrong. You're entitled to believe what you like about stuff. Doesn't mean you're right though. I need a bit more than what you posted in order for you to convince me. Citing Augustine is not really doing it for me yet. I need more. How about quoting something that he said on the subject or something? If some folks believe that the Bible is inspired or inerrant then the onus on the objector to that to prove otherwise. Same goes for anyone who believes it but who also wants to convince others of their position. That's what I tried to do in my original post about the book of Revelation, I think I did OK, not great but OK.

tommy2bad

Soul Winner wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. You're entitled to believe what you like about stuff. Doesn't mean you're right though.
I may well be wrong
I need a bit more than what you posted in order for you to convince me.
Not trying to convince anyone, just discussing it with friends
Citing Augustine is not really doing it for me yet. I need more. How about quoting something that he said on the subject or something?
Augustine took the view that revelations was applicable to now, bear in mind that Augustine wrote City Of God after Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410, similar to John and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad. So his take is relevant to how it would have been seen in a time of trial.
Augustine described two kingdoms of God. For the first resurrection, there is a kingdom where both those who obey the Commandments and those who disobey are found. For the second resurrection, there is a purified kingdom where only those who keep the Commandments can enter. This purified kingdom is perfect and utterly exempt from evil. So the earthly kingdom is both the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of heaven; whereas, in the next life, there will only be one kingdom, the one of heaven.
Augustine doesn't assume that revelations is about some coming event but that it is about the eternal struggle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of sin. Link to the whole thing here, best of luck, it's bloody long http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.toc.html

If some folks believe that the Bible is inspired or inerrant then the onus on the objector to that to prove otherwise. Same goes for anyone who believes it but who also wants to convince others of their position.
And inspired would mean what, that God put words in the mouth of.. If so why didn't He use plain words, why beasts horns and horsemen ?
That's what I tried to do in my original post about the book of Revelation, I think I did OK, not great but OK.

You did good, thats why I thought it worth answering
Revelations could be about TEOTWAWKI and be advise on how to be on the winning side. But what would that add to the bible? Why would God who advised against seeking such information then put it in a postscript?
The thing is written in language thats rhetorical, like Axel of evil, or mother of all wars. It's part coded polemic against the Roman Empire, part reassurance that all will end well and mostly it's about keeping the faith, atonement and reconciliation. Its a work of great imagination and poetry, why see it as anything else?

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

You did good, thats why I thought it worth answering
Revelations could be about TEOTWAWKI and be advise on how to be on the winning side. But what would that add to the bible? Why would God who advised against seeking such information then put it in a postscript?
The thing is written in language thats rhetorical, like Axel of evil, or mother of all wars. It's part coded polemic against the Roman Empire, part reassurance that all will end well and mostly it's about keeping the faith, atonement and reconciliation. Its a work of great imagination and poetry, why see it as anything else?

Because as Christians we believe that Christ rose from the dead and is alive today and forever more. So when one of His Apostles claims that he was given this Revelation by Christ Himself then the first thing for us to do is to at least hear him out and give him the benefit of the doubt. But like I explained to you earlier, those with a predisposition against anything supernatural have to explain it away with something that fits in with their world view. That's fine with me but don't expect me to buy that explanation. If you're comfortable with it then great, you are welcome to believe whatever you like. I don't have to convince you otherwise. But if you want to convince me that it is as you say then I need more than your opinion. You need to back it up with a really good reason or reasons why its better to view it that way. So, over to you, I'm all ears.

tommy2bad

So when one of His Apostles claims that he was given this Revelation by Christ Himself

Hold on John wasn't an apostle, traditionally John was thought to be the same John as John the apostle but thats not the current understanding.
As I said I'm not trying to convince anyone, I just don't see a need to read more into something than is necessary. Seeing it as promising future events doesn't add anything to our understanding of God or faith or morals.

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hold on John wasn't an apostle, traditionally John was thought to be the same John as John the apostle but thats not the current understanding.

Explain more please.

As I said I'm not trying to convince anyone, I just don't see a need to read more into something than is necessary.

You assume that that's what people are doing. How do you know they're not reading into it what was intended to be read?

Seeing it as promising future events doesn't add anything to our understanding of God or faith or morals.

I disagree completely with that synopsis. Of course it adds to our understanding of God. If its a true revelation then it reveals the manner in which He is going to act at some point in the future.

Newsite

tommy2bad wrote: »

Seeing it as promising future events doesn't add anything to our understanding of God or faith or morals.

Doesn't really make sense I'm afraid. It's like saying one book of the Bible is less important than another.

tommy2bad

Newsite wrote: »

Doesn't really make sense I'm afraid. It's like saying one book of the Bible is less important than another.

No it isn't, why do you think that removing the prophetic element makes it less worthy?
Soul Winner, I post more tomorrow, we'll get onto Occam's razor and danger of misinterpretation and all kinds of mad theologies if you want.
I'm not saying that it isn't a prophesy of TEOTWAWKI just asking what dose that add that we don't already know and why then do we need to see more than we can be certain off.
Hey I'm as lost as the rest of us lapsed heathens, maybe I can learn something here.

Sonics2k

Newsite wrote: »

Doesn't really make sense I'm afraid. It's like saying one book of the Bible is less important than another.

Just a pondering here, I was told very recently in a thread on this forum that RCC discounts a lot of the Old Testament because Jesus changed things a bit.

Is this the case or not? I've been unable to get a straight answer on this one.

lmaopml

I think peregrinus summarised how people may view Revelations or try to understand it's meaning. Understanding - as we should, that we don't know the day or hour etc. but would be wise to read and absorb, given that we have no idea when - and that a 'judgement' is there..

To me, I see the liturgical overture as a theme, the personification of the evangelists is fairly clear, and so too is the son of man who judges. I relate it very much to Catholic Mass, but I know this is only my own understanding -

I think the Church included it for a reason - that will become clear I'm sure given time. It's both the past and future....the timeline is not so clear though.

tommy2bad

Sonics2k wrote: »

Just a pondering here, I was told very recently in a thread on this forum that RCC discounts a lot of the Old Testament because Jesus changed things a bit.

Is this the case or not? I've been unable to get a straight answer on this one.

Any help? http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/cathold.stm

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

Just a pondering here, I was told very recently in a thread on this forum that RCC discounts a lot of the Old Testament because Jesus changed things a bit.

Is this the case or not? I've been unable to get a straight answer on this one.

I doubt very much if anyone said that. Can you link to it?

Peregrinus

Sonics2k wrote: »

Just a pondering here, I was told very recently in a thread on this forum that RCC discounts a lot of the Old Testament because Jesus changed things a bit.

Is this the case or not? I've been unable to get a straight answer on this one.

No, it's not true.

We do read the OT very much in the light of the NT, but I don't think that's uniquely Catholic; it's common to all Christian traditions.

Sonics2k

PDN wrote: »

I doubt very much if anyone said that. Can you link to it?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75411343

I posted some of the "odder" rules and laws from the Bible, and then CMPunked came along and said this

CMpunked wrote: »

I notice you didnt post anything from the NT?
You should know that all you have posted is from the jewish torah. Also known as the Law.

When Jesus came, he said he was doing away with the old law for those who follow him.

You should know what your quoting before you try using it to insult someone, my friend.

So what he said was that they don't count, because Jesus was "doing away with the old law", but I've seen other Christians state that this is not the case.

Newsite then added this

Newsite wrote: »

A common misconception. The laws relating to slavery, not mixing two of the same fabric, shellfish, etc, related to the ceremonial law (or Mosaic, relating to Moses, author of Leviticus). These laws were laid down for the primitive people of the time, but ceased to apply with the New Covenant, the coming of Christ.

So my question here really is this, why is it that some of the rules still apply, but not others? Which is exactly what these posters have said.

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75411343

I posted some of the "odder" rules and laws from the Bible, and then CMPunked came along and said this



So what he said was that they don't count, because Jesus was "doing away with the old law", but I've seen other Christians state that this is not the case.

Newsite then added this


So my question here really is this, why is it that some of the rules still apply, but not others? Which is exactly what these posters have said.

Er, neither of those posters are Catholics. So their views hardly provide a basis for saying what Catholicism does.

Neither are they saying that the Old Testament should be discounted. They are saying it should be read and understood in the light of the New Testament.

Soul Winner

lmaopml wrote: »

the timeline is not so clear though.

I don't think that to be the case. We know the book was written in the latter half of the 1st century at the latest so it was during the time of the Roman Empire's occupation in Judea. John is given specific instructions to write the things which he has seen, the things which are (i.e. the things in John present time, namely the churches) and the things which must take place after this, the this being John's present time circa AD65 to AD95.

We get another clue of a time line later on in the book when the angel gives the explanation about the beast that will ascend from the bottomless pit or the abyss.

"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:" - Revelation 17:8

The beast was not in John's day but shall ascend from this abyss at some future date. We know from history that most of the things described in the book have not yet come to pass which means they are still to take place at some future time. If this is a true revelation from God then we can rest assured that the things it describes will come to pass. Just because we do not know the exact hour or day does not mean we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore the book.

That these things might take place at any time should keep the Christian on his/her toes, not that every Christian needs this but I find the fear of God very motivating and helps get my mind off of myself and onto Him. I know that using fear as a motivator is frowned upon by the modern age especially when it comes to God because it makes God out to be some kind of bully but I disagree completely with this picture. If it was the action of men then I would agree that it is evil. But the scripture says that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.

So there is good fear and there is bad fear. Fear of getting hit by a car when crossing the road could save your life because it makes you look up and down. Not fearing getting killed in battle might endanger both you and your buddies. So it depends where the fear is placed. And when dealing with a Just and Righteous God we ought to fear because as we are He would be Just and Right to wipe us all out because we fall short of His perfect standard of righteousness. But He has chosen to cover our short failings and place us in Christ for simply trusting Him with our lives. Those who are faithful in this regard receive another righteousness which is not gained by keeping the law of works but rather keeping the law of faith. He promises that those who are in Christ by faith will not be condemned and no wrath will fall upon them because Christ took that wrath for them, this is the Gospel and it is not being preached in the main by modern Christianity, they (for the most part) are still telling people that they can make it in by their own merits under the law. Any preacher who preaches this message is of the devil because it is a false message and not from God. If the shoe fits wear it.

So I for one do not want to be around when the events described in the book of Revelation start to come to pass. My hope is that I will be taken out of here when it kicks in, but that's another subject.

Sonics2k

PDN wrote: »

Er, neither of those posters are Catholics. So their views hardly provide a basis for saying what Catholicism does.

Neither are they saying that the Old Testament should be discounted. They are saying it should be read and understood in the light of the New Testament.

I'm sorry, but when somebody says "doing away with" and "ceased to apply with the coming of the New Covenant" it very clearly says it should be discounted, and at no point did they say, hint or suggest that they should be read and understood in the light of the New Testament.

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm sorry, but when somebody says "doing away with" and "ceased to apply with the coming of the New Covenant" it very clearly says it should be discounted, and at no point did they say, hint or suggest that they should be read and understood in the light of the New Testament.

I think you're confusing yourself by using distinct and separate terms as if they are interchangeable.

The old ceremonial laws of Judaism were fulfilled with the coming of Christ, so are not considered as binding on Christians today.

But that is a very different thing from saying that any of the Old Testament is discounted. Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, view the Old Testament as inspired by God. The Old Testament records God dealings with the Jewish people and, as such, is informative and certainly not to be discarded or discounted.

Peregrinus

Sonics2k wrote: »

So my question here really is this, why is it that some of the rules still apply, but not others?

Christians offer various accounts of this, Sonics, but one of the dominant accounts (and one which is shared by the Jews) is that the detailed moral codes Given to Moses and set out in the books of Exodus and Leviticus on their own terms apply, and have always applied, only to Jews. God has never expected non-Jews to observe them.

Genesis does present a very sketchy moral code which is given at a much earlier period to Noah and his descendants (which, within the framework of Genesis, means to the whole of humanity). The Jewish tradition identifies just seven commandments in that code (as opposed to the 613 commandments addressed to Jews). They are

- No idolatry
- No murder
- No theft
- No sexual immorality
- No blasphemy
- No eating flesh taken from a living animal
- The establishment of law courts

The first thing we notice is that these are fairly vague. A commandment against sexual immorality, for instance, leaves it up to the believer (or the community of believers) to work out which behaviour is moral, and which immoral. This has to be done from reason, experience, etc. On one view, the commandment does little more than tell us that sexual behaviour is morally significant, and we should be attentive to this.

The second thing we notice - and this ties in with the first - is that this morality is at least partly communal. The individual, for example, cannot establish law courts; only the community can do that. And this in turn reinforces the view that the discernment of moral behaviour is a communal as well as an individual endeavour.

Finally, we note that long before Noah comes along Cain is punished by God for the murder of his brother Abel, even though at that point God has given no explicit commandment against murder. The inference is that murder, theft, sexual immorality etc are not wrong because God has forbidden them. Rather, God has forbidden them because they are wrong, and they can be discerned to be wrong even before God says anything on the subject. Hence it was just of God to punish Cain for the murder of Abel.

Where’s all this going? Well, the overall message is that general morality, relevant to everybody (as opposed to observance of the Law, expected of Jews) is not a matter of lengthy, detailed and precise commandments, or even necessarily of commandments at all. Rather it is something that we can (and are expected to) work out for ourselves and our communities through the application of reason, observation, reflection and conscience. For Christians that process is of course heavily influenced by our engagement with scripture, including the Old Testament. But it’s not a question of saying “Does the Old Testament forbid it? Then it’s wrong!” It’s more a question of saying “what can we learn from the treatment of this in the Old Testament (or in the New Testament) in light of our faith, our reason, our experience, etc?"