Isn't the Book of Revelation just a fable and not literal?

[polonius]

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/0

Introduction to Revelation " New American Bible Revised Edition

This much, however, is certain: symbolic descriptions are not to be taken as literal descriptions, nor is the symbolism meant to be pictured realistically. One would find it difficult and repulsive to visualize a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes; yet Jesus Christ is described in precisely such words (Rev 5:6). The author used these images to suggest Christs universal (seven) power (horns) and knowledge (eyes). A significant feature of apocalyptic writing is the use of symbolic colors, metals, garments (Rev 1:13"16; 3:18; 4:4; 6:1"8; 17:4; 19:8), and numbers (four signifies the world, six imperfection, seven totality or perfection, twelve Israels tribes or the apostles, one thousand immensity). Finally the vindictive language in the book (Rev 6:9"10; 18:1"19:4) is also to be understood symbolically and not literally. The cries for vengeance on the lips of Christian martyrs that sound so harsh are in fact literary devices the author employed to evoke in the reader and hearer a feeling of horror for apostasy and rebellion that will be severely punished by God.

[polonius]

Onewithhim posted:

Jesus said that we must have faith, and I do have faith in him that he actually IS "the way, the truth and the life." There are many reasons why I believe that he really is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. I think we have discussed these things here on these threads. So when he says something, as recorded by his Apostles and others, I tend to believe him.

"Jesus said to him [Thomas]: 'Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.'" (John 20:29)

https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-writes-letter-members/

I only recently bought Eusebius Ecclesiastical History and have flipped through it. I was shocked to see in Book 1, Chapter 13, a supposed letter from Jesus to King Agbarus!
In his reply, Jesus blesses Abgar for believing without seeing (an allusion to John 20:29), but informs the king that he cannot come because he needs to fulfill his mission, that is, by being crucified. After his ascension, however, he will send an apostle to heal the king.

Do you believe that Jesus actually wrote this letter?

Eusebius was the historian and right hand man for the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine. One of the things Eusebius wrote was that the victors write the historian to fit into their own narrative. Eusebius, one of the church leaders, was a politician to his core. While being an original leader of the Arian movement, he wouldn't vote for or against Arius, so that his position with Constantine remained intact. The role of the "beast with two horns like a lamb" was to "deceive" those "who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13:11-14).

RESPONSE: Do you believe the book of Revelation to be fictional or divinely inspired?

[showme]

Onewithhim posted:

Jesus said that we must have faith, and I do have faith in him that he actually IS "the way, the truth and the life." There are many reasons why I believe that he really is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. I think we have discussed these things here on these threads. So when he says something, as recorded by his Apostles and others, I tend to believe him.

"Jesus said to him [Thomas]: 'Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.'" (John 20:29)

https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-writes-letter-members/

I only recently bought Eusebius Ecclesiastical History and have flipped through it. I was shocked to see in Book 1, Chapter 13, a supposed letter from Jesus to King Agbarus!
In his reply, Jesus blesses Abgar for believing without seeing (an allusion to John 20:29), but informs the king that he cannot come because he needs to fulfill his mission, that is, by being crucified. After his ascension, however, he will send an apostle to heal the king.

Do you believe that Jesus actually wrote this letter?

Eusebius was the historian and right hand man for the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine. One of the things Eusebius wrote was that the victors write the historian to fit into their own narrative. Eusebius, one of the church leaders, was a politician to his core. While being an original leader of the Arian movement, he wouldn't vote for or against Arius, so that his position with Constantine remained intact. The role of the "beast with two horns like a lamb" was to "deceive" those "who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13:11-14).

RESPONSE: Do you believe the book of Revelation to be fictional or divinely inspired?

Revelation, as with book of Daniel, as reported in Daniel 12:10, is sealed from the "wicked", just as the parables of Yeshua, are sealed from the wicked, or those without ears to hear (Mt 13:13). When Revelation unfolds, the "wicked" will still not understand, even after 1/3 of them are "killed" (Revelation 9:18). Revelation will be of no use to the "wicked", whether they are among the walking dead, or buried with their brothers in the grave. Supposedly they can turn away from wickedness, but many will not (Revelation 9:21).

[polonius]

Revelation, as with book of Daniel, as reported in Daniel 12:10, is sealed from the "wicked", just as the parables of Yeshua, are sealed from the wicked, or those without ears to hear (Mt 13:13). When Revelation unfolds, the "wicked" will still not understand, even after 1/3 of them are "killed" (Revelation 9:18). Revelation will be of no use to the "wicked", whether they are among the walking dead, or buried with their brothers in the grave. Supposedly they can turn away from wickedness, but many will not (Revelation 9:21).

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you really believe that?

2. My friend Ralph may be writing a similar book called Revelations 2. Will you believe what he writes?

If you believe one but not the other, what credible evidence exactly are you relying on?

Or are you just making the argument "as reported in..."?

[bjs]

Revelation, as with book of Daniel, as reported in Daniel 12:10, is sealed from the "wicked", just as the parables of Yeshua, are sealed from the wicked, or those without ears to hear (Mt 13:13).

Hold on! In another thread you wrote:

Whatever way you go, Luke and Acts, possibly written by Luke, and supported by stories from Paul, would have to be heavily bolstered by Paul as a ghost writer,
viewtopic.php?t=33936&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

And you have repeatedly called Paul a false apostle.

If the Gospel of Luke had the false apostle Paul as a ghost writer then how can you trust it? Dont you reject Lukes gospel, which contains more parable than any other? How do you even know what parables Jesus really told?

Wouldnt it mean that, according to your claims, Paul was the actual author of the parables normally attributed to Jesus!



Plus, Matthew and Luke have several passage that are word for word the same. How can you quote Mathew as if it is a reliable source while discrediting Luke as having Paul as a ghost writer?

[polonius]

BJS posted:

Plus, Matthew and Luke have several passage that are word for word the same. How can you quote Mathew as if it is a reliable source while discrediting Luke as having Paul as a ghost writer?

RESPONSE: Paul ended his writing career in 64 AD when he was executed. Mark wrote in 70 AD. Both Luke and Matthew writing in 80 AD, copied Mark. About 90% of Matthew's gospel copies Mark sometimes word for word.

The gospel writers were not eye witnesses to what they wrote and wrote decades after the fact.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

[showme]

Revelation, as with book of Daniel, as reported in Daniel 12:10, is sealed from the "wicked", just as the parables of Yeshua, are sealed from the wicked, or those without ears to hear (Mt 13:13).

Hold on! In another thread you wrote:

Whatever way you go, Luke and Acts, possibly written by Luke, and supported by stories from Paul, would have to be heavily bolstered by Paul as a ghost writer,
viewtopic.php?t=33936&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

And you have repeatedly called Paul a false apostle.

If the Gospel of Luke had the false apostle Paul as a ghost writer then how can you trust it? Dont you reject Lukes gospel, which contains more parable than any other? How do you even know what parables Jesus really told?

Wouldnt it mean that, according to your claims, Paul was the actual author of the parables normally attributed to Jesus!



Plus, Matthew and Luke have several passage that are word for word the same. How can you quote Mathew as if it is a reliable source while discrediting Luke as having Paul as a ghost writer?

Paul was a ghost writer in the fact that no one either heard or saw what happened in the wilderness but Paul. He would be the only original source for the differing accounts in Acts about the wilderness excursion. The third party witnesses with respect to Luke 1:1-3 were not named. As Paul heard nothing directly from Yeshua, any events passed on to Luke by Paul would have been third party witness statements, which are not allowable in establishing any matter of fact (Matthew 18:16) & (Dt 19:15). According to Luke 1:1-3, he used "eyewitnesses" and not a single eyewitness. If Luke was written in 80 AD, some of those eyewitnesses were getting well into their age by the time of the writings of the unknown author of Luke. As for any history written by the victorious Roman Catholic Church, well, look at the source. If the fruit is rotten, then look for the rotten tree. If the tree is rotten, look for the rotten fruit. (Mt 7:16-18)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 34 by onewithhim]

3 Denotes emphasis; also indicates intensity. (Rev.4:8; 8:13; 16:13,19)

6 Signifies imperfection, something not normal, monstrous. (Rev.13:18; see 2 Samuel 21:20)

10 Signifies completeness in a physical way, as to things on earth. (Rev.2:10; 12:3; 13:1; 17:3,12,16)

It follows that 1000 signifies completeness emphasised (10x10x10).

Good observation. And 144,000 shows completeness emphasized (12 X 12).

Yes, but not, however, just 12x12, but rather, 12x12x10x10.

You are exactly right.

I do hit the bullseye now and again!

All Israel, Jews inwardly, all who are sealed when the age of grace ends.

Yes, you have it. "Jews inwardly," spiritual Jews, as it were.

[onewithhim]

Onewithhim posted:

Jesus said that we must have faith, and I do have faith in him that he actually IS "the way, the truth and the life." There are many reasons why I believe that he really is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. I think we have discussed these things here on these threads. So when he says something, as recorded by his Apostles and others, I tend to believe him.

"Jesus said to him [Thomas]: 'Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.'" (John 20:29)

RESPONSE: Jesus said???? Precisely what verifiable evidence do you have that Jesus actually said this? How many witnesses reported this? Also note that whoever wrote "John's Gospel" did so in 95 AD or later. Jesus died in about 30 A.D.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

You are talking to people here who believe that the Bible was inspired by God. I believe that Jesus really did say that, though we have no physical proof.

Why don't we discuss what the Bible says and then how people or organizations measure up to what it says?

[onewithhim]

Onewithhim posted:

Jesus said that we must have faith, and I do have faith in him that he actually IS "the way, the truth and the life." There are many reasons why I believe that he really is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. I think we have discussed these things here on these threads. So when he says something, as recorded by his Apostles and others, I tend to believe him.

"Jesus said to him [Thomas]: 'Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.'" (John 20:29)

https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-writes-letter-members/

I only recently bought Eusebius Ecclesiastical History and have flipped through it. I was shocked to see in Book 1, Chapter 13, a supposed letter from Jesus to King Agbarus!
In his reply, Jesus blesses Abgar for believing without seeing (an allusion to John 20:29), but informs the king that he cannot come because he needs to fulfill his mission, that is, by being crucified. After his ascension, however, he will send an apostle to heal the king.

Do you believe that Jesus actually wrote this letter?

No. I believe that all the material inspired by God is in the Bible canon we now have (without the Apocrypha).

[showme]

Revelation, as with book of Daniel, as reported in Daniel 12:10, is sealed from the "wicked", just as the parables of Yeshua, are sealed from the wicked, or those without ears to hear (Mt 13:13). When Revelation unfolds, the "wicked" will still not understand, even after 1/3 of them are "killed" (Revelation 9:18). Revelation will be of no use to the "wicked", whether they are among the walking dead, or buried with their brothers in the grave. Supposedly they can turn away from wickedness, but many will not (Revelation 9:21).

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you really believe that?

2. My friend Ralph may be writing a similar book called Revelations 2. Will you believe what he writes?

If you believe one but not the other, what credible evidence exactly are you relying on?

Or are you just making the argument "as reported in..."?

Revelation is complimentary to the Law and the prophets, and especially to Daniel. One provides light unto the other. If you understand one, you will have light unto the other. If one has neither, they remain in darkness. The world remains in darkness. The world rejected the light in favor of the "big lie". The world tries to make God in their own light/image. That leads to death and destruction, and Revelation is pretty precise in why and how that destruction comes about.