God meets God

[T.M.P.]

Hey Van, little off topic from this super interesting thread, but I have a question for you about scripture. I've recently become a bit of a bible student because my Mom has not been well and enjoys bible readings on visits.

Anyway, I noticed a few verses that didn't quite match up with my layman understanding of the end times and the popular understanding of the Bible narrative. The more I looked... the more I found. So, I became interested and searched on-line to find the explanation for the verses that did not seem to add up. The more I looked... the more I found. It's quite fascinating actually.

The verse from Hebrews that you quoted had the same problem and I had not even noticed it before. If you go back and look at the verse again, does it not appear that the writer of Hebrews was calling the time that God is speaking through his son "these last days"? Peter said the events of Pentacost were those spoken of by the prophet Joel that would happen in the last days.

The biblical evidence seems overwhelming to me that "the end of the world, book of revelation" type stuff has already been fulfilled a very long time ago. Even the book of Revelation itself starts like this:

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ,which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.

The second to last verse of Revelation says this:

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Regardless, this is probably not the place for doctrinal discussion, but I firmly believe that part of the reason that many people don't believe is because Christianity itself promotes a story that is quite unbiblical. There are literally hundreds of verses (in context) that disprove mainstream Christianity's interpretation of the Bible.

email me at shimatoree84@gmail.com if you are interested in further discussion.

You're probably asking the wrong person. Not only is he a certified idiot but VPM worships White Republican Jesus and the Conservative God of More Money. If you want the bible interpreted correctly, he's certainly not a good source.

If you want an accurate answer ask Goat, Moops or Nick Stromboli.

 

[T.M.P.]

What if you are the ignorant one? What if God really is the First Cause and you won't accept it? So let me get this straight. I will be attacked because I defend an attack on my faith? Also in the original post I was called out. And since I was I thought I would set the record straight from a biblical point of view. The video is garbage because it attacks certain Christian premises,and then won't look at the other side of the argument from a Bible perspective. Hey, I get it. You have to take it on faith that God is Eternal. You take it on faith because you were not there. I would argue that you have to take a lot on faith when it comes to evolution. You were not there either. So here we are with a quandary. None of were there in the beginning and we have to try to make sense of how we got here. I will take the testimony of God Himself. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. He also created everything in those places such as stars,moons,animals and people.

Gary Gygaz wrote in the monster manual that unicorns can fly up to three times a day. Which is asinine because they don't even have wings. Unless Thor gave unicorns magic beans like he did with the reindeer he has pulling his sleigh...

 

[Paterfamilias]

You're probably asking the wrong person. VPM worships White Republican Jesus and the God of More Money.

If you want an accurate answer ask Goat, Moops or Nick Stromboli.

Thanks! I would welcome a reply from anyone. Strangely I was previously unaffiliated biblically speaking, but the more I've studied the more a believer I've become. I just reject popular Christianity because of what I see as incredible misinterpretation of plain text. The more interesting question to me is why the mass delirium when it comes to reading comprehension.

Of course, I'm pretty new to the whole thing (about a year of serious study), so I'm quite open to other views.

 

[T.M.P.]

Thanks! I would welcome a reply from anyone. Strangely I was previously unaffiliated biblically speaking, but the more I've studied the more a believer I've become. I just reject popular Christianity because of what I see as incredible misinterpretation of plain text. The more interesting question to me is why the mass delirium when it comes to reading comprehension.

Of course, I'm pretty new to the whole thing (about a year of serious study), so I'm quite open to other views.

Moops is a really good source for this stuff. As is Goat.

Moop's view is that of a practitioner. His is a religious view. Probably a bit more biased towards the doctrine he believes. Goat is more historical. His is more theological and probably not as biased towards one particular doctrine.

VPM, is probably the worst example of a Christian I've ever met. Some accuse him of being a troll because his view is so tilted towards white right wing evangelical political beliefs that are anti-Christian at best and down right evil at worst. He's not Christ like in any way and I mean that with utmost sincerity.

When younger I was religious. Two years of required theology courses and five years of bible study after - turned me into an atheist. While I was studying, I balanced it with historical studies. I'm very much a studier of history. History shows the fallacy of all religions.

Good luck in your search...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What if you are the ignorant one? What if God really is the First Cause and you won't accept it? So let me get this straight. I will be attacked because I defend an attack on my faith? Also in the original post I was called out. And since I was I thought I would set the record straight from a biblical point of view. The video is garbage because it attacks certain Christian premises,and then won't look at the other side of the argument from a Bible perspective. Hey, I get it. You have to take it on faith that God is Eternal. You take it on faith because you were not there. I would argue that you have to take a lot on faith when it comes to evolution. You were not there either. So here we are with a quandary. None of were there in the beginning and we have to try to make sense of how we got here. I will take the testimony of God Himself. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. He also created everything in those places such as stars,moons,animals and people.

Van, I was the first one to reply to the video, and I thought it was stupid. I was only responding to you because your answer was that there was a very specific First Cause God, and you proved it with scripture from one specific religious text. I thought that was silly, so I responded. I'm not "attacking you" at all.

And WTF does evolution have to do with this at all?

 

[Paterfamilias]

Moops is a really good source for this stuff. As is Goat.

Moop's view is that of a practitioner. His is a religious view. Probably a bit more biased towards the doctrine he believes. Goat is more historical. His is more theological and probably not as biased towards one particular doctrine.

VPM, is probably the worst example of a Christian I've ever met. Some accuse him of being a troll because his view is so tilted towards white right wing evangelical political beliefs that are anti-Christian at best and down right evil at worst. He's not Christ like in any way and I mean that with utmost sincerity.

When younger I was religious. Two years of required theology courses and five years of bible study after - turned me into an atheist. While I was studying, I balanced it with historical studies. I'm very much a studier of history. History shows the fallacy of all religions.

Good luck in your search...

I appreciate your thoughts man, as always. Digging in historically is probably a next step for me. Unfortunately, I view much of what is written in history books as dubiously as I view the writings found inside a fortune cookie. Still, it's something fun that Mom and I can study together. Better than watching that show with the Brits living in castles (can't remember the name of the show)

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I appreciate your thoughts man, as always. Digging in historically is probably a next step for me. Unfortunately, I view much of what is written in history books as dubiously as I view the writings found inside a fortune cookie. Still, it's something fun that Mom and I can study together. Better than watching that show with the Brits living in castles (can't remember the name of the show)

If you want to study the Bible historically, history books are the worst place to start. You'll need them eventually, but only for details. The place to start is by understanding how old texts are examined, and how the theories of biblical redaction were developed, and why they are probably accurate. Specifically, you need to read about the documentary hypothesis as it relates to the Torah, and learn about the four major sources of those books (J, E, P, D), and then learn about what the synoptic problem is, and the main solutions to it, especially the two-source hypothesis (which states that Mark and a lost sayings gospel Q were both used as sources for Matt and Luke).

Learning about the textual history first is important, because then it gives you a context in which to place the history you read. For example, certain changes in the religious structure of the region can shed light on why the P source wrote as he did. Recognizing which parts of Mark and Q were changed slightly by Matt and/or Luke help us understand what themes the writers are trying to focus on better. That sort of thing.

Now, if you're just looking for theology, and don't care as much about history, I agree with TMP. Ignore Van, and try to start a conversation with Moops and Nick. Also, we used to have two other really smart Christians around here, Doug and Sope, but they hardly ever stop by (although you might find them on the Cooler once in a while). If you listen to Van, all he's going to do is give you the Republican party platform with biblical citations.

 

[T.M.P.]

I appreciate your thoughts man, as always. Digging in historically is probably a next step for me. Unfortunately, I view much of what is written in history books as dubiously as I view the writings found inside a fortune cookie. Still, it's something fun that Mom and I can study together. Better than watching that show with the Brits living in castles (can't remember the name of the show)

Yea, history is as jacked as any other informational source. That goes doubly so for ancient texts.(yes, including the bible) Cross reference and verify.

This is something me and Zizkov recently talked about. You never find the full truth about the historical topic that you're reading or studying. It's always full of human bias, misinformation, etc. It's in small histories about related minutiae where insight is better found.

The history of ww2 is filled with so much propaganda that getting a real picture is almost impossible. American histories are blatantly biased. Reasoning was that the first histories written soon after the war are written with a nationalistic tilt.

IIRC the first four books published were all either backed or edited by the propaganda ministries, depts. of each country. And, those books were all used as a source for even more books, until those biases became truth. A study about the war in full will not show much light on that but a study of a particular tank or battle gives better insight and perspective.

Julius Caesar's book was written by him. Have to wonder how much is pure self promoting bullshit. Can you imagine what Tom Crean would write about himself.

When I was studying the bible, I got into this whole tangent about how the technology of the crossbow came to Europe. It came via trade routes, as trade from East to West has been extensive since the beginning of civilization.

Then it dawned on me - the eastern religious philosophies like "do not do unto others that which you would not want done to you", which was written in Confucius texts 500 years before coming west, travelled the same trade routes as technology and goods.

And, one of the proven cognitive biases many humans share, is that people believe things from far mystical places are more magical than things from domestic sources. So of course religious beliefs would be traded and adopted.

 

[Paterfamilias]

If you want to study the Bible historically, history books are the worst place to start. You'll need them eventually, but only for details. The place to start is by understanding how old texts are examined, and how the theories of biblical redaction were developed, and why they are probably accurate. Specifically, you need to read about the documentary hypothesis as it relates to the Torah, and learn about the four major sources of those books (J, E, P, D), and then learn about what the synoptic problem is, and the main solutions to it, especially the two-source hypothesis (which states that Mark and a lost sayings gospel Q were both used as sources for Matt and Luke).

Learning about the textual history first is important, because then it gives you a context in which to place the history you read. For example, certain changes in the religious structure of the region can shed light on why the P source wrote as he did. Recognizing which parts of Mark and Q were changed slightly by Matt and/or Luke help us understand what themes the writers are trying to focus on better. That sort of thing.

Now, if you're just looking for theology, and don't care as much about history, I agree with TMP. Ignore Van, and try to start a conversation with Moops and Nick. Also, we used to have two other really smart Christians around here, Doug and Sope, but they hardly ever stop by (although you might find them on the Cooler once in a while). If you listen to Van, all he's going to do is give you the Republican party platform with biblical citations.

Thanks Goat! As far as what specifically I'm looking for, I'm mostly curious, at this point, why popular Christianity interprets text (quite often) exactly opposite of the obvious writing. I don't even feel that I need to be a scholar to understand what "must shortly come to pass" means.

I think a lot of effort may have been put forth over the centuries to convince people that plain text means something altogether different than what the clearly intended meaning was. So, first of all I would like to know why average Joe Christian is so willing to overlook all of the verses that contradict what he has been taught to believe.

Regardless, you've given some interesting areas in which to begin a deeper study of the text itself.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Thanks Goat! As far as what specifically I'm looking for, I'm mostly curious, at this point, why popular Christianity interprets text (quite often) exactly opposite of the obvious writing. I don't even feel that I need to be scholar to understand what "must shortly come to pass" means.

I think a lot effort may have been put forth over the centuries to convince people that plain text means something altogether different than what the clearly intended meaning was. So, first of all I would like to know why average Joe Christian is so willing to overlook all of the verses that contradict what he has been taught to believe.

Regardless, you've given some interesting areas in which to begin a deeper study of the text itself.

I can answer your question about Rev 1.1. "Must shortly come to pass" is the English rendering of the Koine Greek phrase, dei genesthai en tachei, which literally means "must become (in) without delay." The same word (in a different form) is used in Rev 22.20, as well: erchomai tachy, or "I am coming without delay."

The word tachei and its various derivatives are used over 30 times in the New Testament, and they always imply a sense of haste in terms of something being a priority, but they do not necessarily imply a short time period based on any objective scale. In other words, nothing about the use of the word suggests it could only be used for weeks, but not years, or for years, but not decades, or for decades, but not millennia.

That's not to say you are wrong about your interpretation. I think it's clear that most early Christians - especially those in the late 1st C. and early 2nd C., after the destruction of the Temple, when Revelation was written - thought the second coming was going to happen very soon. Many of them probably imagined they would live to see it. However, the language in the book itself does not allow us to make an objective judgment about what is and is not considered "without delay."

 

[Paterfamilias]

I can answer your question about Rev 1.1. "Must shortly come to pass" is the English rendering of the Koine Greek phrase, dei genesthai en tachei, which literally means "must become (in) without delay." The same word (in a different form) is used in Rev 22.20, as well: erchomai tachy, or "I am coming without delay."

The word tachei and its various derivatives are used over 30 times in the New Testament, and they always imply a sense of haste in terms of something being a priority, but they do not necessarily imply a short time period based on any objective scale. In other words, nothing about the use of the word suggests it could only be used for weeks, but not years, or for years, but not decades, or for decades, but not millennia.

That's not to say you are wrong about your interpretation. I think it's clear that most early Christians - especially those in the late 1st C. and early 2nd C., after the destruction of the Temple, when Revelation was written - thought the second coming was going to happen very soon. Many of them probably imagined they would live to see it. However, the language in the book itself does not allow us to make an objective judgment about what is and is not considered "without delay."

Very interesting! I see that you are exactly the person I need to talk to. I have to run for the night, but I'm very interested in the Acts verse from above. In my view, it seems clear that Peter is quoting Joel from the old testament in telling his audience that this is that spoken of by the prophet Joel regarding things that would happen in the last days.

It seems highly likely that, even if it's just a Lord of the Rings type of tale, that the destruction of the 2nd Temple was the climax to the story... the second coming.. fulfillment of all that was written etc.

Anyway, gotta run. Thanks for the help!

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm very interested in the Acts verse from above. In my view, it seems clear that Peter is quoting Joel from the old testament in telling his audience that this is that spoken of by the prophet Joel regarding things that would happen in the last days.

I must have missed something. Not sure which verse from Acts you are talking about.

 

[PhyloeBedoe]

Van, I was the first one to reply to the video, and I thought it was stupid. I was only responding to you because your answer was that there was a very specific First Cause God, and you proved it with scripture from one specific religious text. I thought that was silly, so I responded. I'm not "attacking you" at all.

And WTF does evolution have to do with this at all?

You really believe that the video has no merit?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You really believe that the video has no merit?

I believe what I said at the beginning. It's a sophomoric attempt to disprove the cosmological argument that we all learned in Philosophy 100. People have been making the same case as that video for centuries. It has merit, but there have been plenty of responses to it over the years. It's not groundbreaking in any way whatsoever.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I must have missed something. Not sure which verse from Acts you are talking about.

My bad! I only mentioned it briefly in my post VPM.

It's Acts 2:16 and the upshot of the story is that a crowd of people are witnessing something that they can't explain other than to say "Those men must be drunk". Peter replies that the men aren't drunk, but explains that what the crowd is witnessing are those things foretold by the prophet Joel to take place in the last days.

Tonight was my take dinner to Mom night. I told of the conversation here and she reminded me of a couple of more interesting facts that could use explaining by the pop Christians.

1) Everyone accepts that the book of Daniel contains some parallel prophecy to the book of Revelation.

• At the end of Daniel the angel tells Daniel to seal up the book for the time is far off.
• At the end of Revelation the angel tells John do not seal up the book because the time is at hand
• This shows me that is it's in God's vocabulary to differentiate between times that are near and far away in language that we humans can understand.

2) At the end of Deuteronomy 31, Moses is chastising the Israelites for their rebellion during their time in the Wilderness, and he begins to tell them what will befall the nation in its last days. Deuteronomy 32 (called the song of Moses) goes into detail about those last days and refers to that final generation as a wicked and crooked generation.

• In Matthew 16:4 Jesus refers to the generation to whom he is talking as an "evil and adultress generation"
• In Luke 9:41 Jesus refers to them as "You unbelieving and perverted generation"
• Finally in Matthew 24:34 Jesus says "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled"

There are about a gazillion more. There's no way that I could possibly think of them all and come close to pointing you to the right verses. Daniel chapter 12 (hopefully that's right) is a total deal breaker for the pop Christian paradigm.

Anyway, I'm back to the freebie where I belong

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My bad! I only mentioned it briefly in my post VPM.

It's Acts 2:16 and the upshot of the story is that a crowd of people are witnessing something that they can't explain other than to say "Those men must be drunk". Peter replies that the men aren't drunk, but explains that what the crowd is witnessing are those things foretold by the prophet Joel to take place in the last days.

Tonight was my take dinner to Mom night. I told of the conversation here and she reminded me of a couple of more interesting facts that could use explaining by the pop Christians.

1) Everyone accepts that the book of Daniel contains some parallel prophecy to the book of Revelation.

• At the end of Daniel the angel tells Daniel to seal up the book for the time is far off.
• At the end of Revelation the angel tells John do not seal up the book because the time is at hand
• This shows me that is it's in God's vocabulary to differentiate between times that are near and far away in language that we humans can understand.

2) At the end of Deuteronomy 31, Moses is chastising the Israelites for their rebellion during their time in the Wilderness, and he begins to tell them what will befall the nation in its last days. Deuteronomy 32 (called the song of Moses) goes into detail about those last days and refers to that final generation as a wicked and crooked generation.

• In Matthew 16:4 Jesus refers to the generation to whom he is talking as an "evil and adultress generation"
• In Luke 9:41 Jesus refers to them as "You unbelieving and perverted generation"
• Finally in Matthew 24:34 Jesus says "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled"

There are about a gazillion more. There's no way that I could possibly think of them all and come close to pointing you to the right verses. Daniel chapter 12 (hopefully that's right) is a total deal breaker for the pop Christian paradigm.

Anyway, I'm back to the freebie where I belong

Yeah, most of the NT writers probably thought they were in the last days. I'm guessing that's why the reference to Joel in Acts, but I didn't study Acts a whole lot (other than as an extension of Luke), so I can't say for sure. The language sure seems to suggest that's the case.

Early Christianity was undoubtedly an apocalyptic cult. The people writing these texts did not imagine the world had much longer left.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Yeah, most of the NT writers probably thought they were in the last days. I'm guessing that's why the reference to Joel in Acts, but I didn't study Acts a whole lot (other than as an extension of Luke), so I can't say for sure. The language sure seems to suggest that's the case.

Early Christianity was undoubtedly an apocalyptic cult. The people writing these texts did not imagine the world had much longer left.

The thing is the end of the world was never prophesied, but rather the end of the age... the old covenant age. Check out Matthew 24, where the disciples supposedly ask about the end of the world. The greek word used in the passage is aion, which means age or time cycle.

It is the pop Christian paradigm that is waiting for the end of the world, but the people of that time never understood it that way. In fact there was even a time when Paul had to convince a large group of them that they had not missed it. If they had understood it as the end of the world, there would be no need to convince them that they had not missed it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The thing is the end of the world was never prophesied, but rather the end of the age... the old covenant age. Check out Matthew 24, where the disciples supposedly ask about the end of the world. The greek word used in the passage is aion, which means age or time cycle.

It is the pop Christian paradigm that is waiting for the end of the world, but the people of that time never understood it that way. In fact there was even a time when Paul had to convince a large group of them that they had not missed it. If they had understood it as the end of the world, there would be no need to convince them that they had not missed it.

No, people of the time very much understood it that way. Early Christians thought the second coming of Christ and the end of the world was imminent. This wasn't some benign "end of the age or cycle." They thought the apocalypse was coming shortly. There is no doubt about that.

Look at Heb 1.2, which was mentioned earlier. "In these last days." The word translated "last" is eschatou, from which we get eschatology. It is used to refer to the very end of something. The ends of the earth. The end of time. Whatever. When that word is used, it refers to the actual end of something, not just a transition. Your take on this sounds more like 1960s Age of Aquarius interpretation, but I can assure you, that is not how the writers of these texts viewed it. They really thought the world was coming to an end, and soon.

 

[Paterfamilias]

No, people of the time very much understood it that way. Early Christians thought the second coming of Christ and the end of the world was imminent. This wasn't some benign "end of the age or cycle." They thought the apocalypse was coming shortly. There is no doubt about that.

Look at Heb 1.2, which was mentioned earlier. "In these last days." The word translated "last" is eschatou, from which we get eschatology. It is used to refer to the very end of something. The ends of the earth. The end of time. Whatever. When that word is used, it refers to the actual end of something, not just a transition. Your take on this sounds more like 1960s Age of Aquarius interpretation, but I can assure you, that is not how the writers of these texts viewed it. They really thought the world was coming to an end, and soon.

It seems odd that there would be a need to convince people that they had not missed the end of the world.

If it somehow is how I'm understanding it, it certainly would not be benign. The destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Levitical system would be the end of the world as they knew it. The temple was their connection to God and separation from God was a fate worse than death.

You've given me something to look into though.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It seems odd that there would be a need to convince people that they had not missed the end of the world.

If it somehow is how I'm understanding it, it certainly would not be benign. The destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Levitical system would be the end of the world as they knew it. The temple was their connection to God and separation from God was a fate worse than death.

You've given me something to look into though.

Remember, I am not the believer. I'm explaining these scriptures from an historian's standpoint. If you start with the assumption that everything in the Bible is true and must be made to comport with the real world, then you're not going to be able to get down with what I'm saying. Obviously the world did not end. But it's pretty clear that early Christians thought it was going to. And, no, the destruction of the Temple does not suffice. Much of the NT - notably Revelation for our purposes - was written after the Temple was destroyed, so they were talking about something else.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I'm approaching it from the standpoint of a piece of great literature first, and great literature isn't always what it seems to be at face value. Nathaniel Hawthorne, for example, wrote stories that weren't all that interesting taken at face value, but upon deeper inspection his genius emerges.

As far as the dating of Revelation goes, the text itself dates to a writing while the Temple was still standing. As a work of fiction, it wouldn't matter if he wrote it before or after, but you can only understand the story as he's telling it if you accept the dating that he gives you. Star Wars (the story) doesn't make any sense if I place it at the date of it's writing circa 1974-ish. I have to accept that it was a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

It's important to remember in the story that Revelation was originally written as a letter to 7 actual churches inhabited by real human beings. I copied and pasted this (below) from a website that discusses both the early and late dating of the book of Revelation.. I'll link it at the bottom for you to take a look at if you want. The portion that I copied and pasted is the most compelling evidence because it may have some historical validity as well as biblical.


Another point is that John wrote Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia (Revelation 1:4). The importance of this statement cannot be overlooked (even though it has been by many scholars). There is only one small window of time in which there were only seven churches in Asia. The early AD 60's. The apostle Paul established nine churches in that area, but only seven were addressed in Revelation. The reason for this is that the cities of Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, were all destroyed by an earthquake around AD 61. Laodicea was rebuilt soon afterwards, but the other two cities were not. This left only seven churches in Asia during the five years just prior to the beginning of the Roman/Jewish war.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm approaching it from the standpoint of a piece of great literature first, and great literature isn't always what it seems to be at face value. Nathaniel Hawthorne, for example, wrote stories that weren't all that interesting taken at face value, but upon deeper inspection his genius emerges.

As far as the dating of Revelation goes, the text itself dates to a writing while the Temple was still standing. As a work of fiction, it wouldn't matter if he wrote it before or after, but you can only understand the story as he's telling it if you accept the dating that he gives you. Star Wars (the story) doesn't make any sense if I place it at the date of it's writing circa 1974-ish. I have to accept that it was a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

It's important to remember in the story that Revelation was originally written as a letter to 7 actual churches inhabited by real human beings. I copied and pasted this (below) from a website that discusses both the early and late dating of the book of Revelation.. I'll link it at the bottom for you to take a look at if you want. The portion that I copied and pasted is the most compelling evidence because it may have some historical validity as well as biblical.


Another point is that John wrote Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia (Revelation 1:4). The importance of this statement cannot be overlooked (even though it has been by many scholars). There is only one small window of time in which there were only seven churches in Asia. The early AD 60's. The apostle Paul established nine churches in that area, but only seven were addressed in Revelation. The reason for this is that the cities of Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, were all destroyed by an earthquake around AD 61. Laodicea was rebuilt soon afterwards, but the other two cities were not. This left only seven churches in Asia during the five years just prior to the beginning of the Roman/Jewish war.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html

Ecclesia has an agenda, and they are trying to make it fit. Much of the language of Revelation only makes sense with a late 1C or early 2C date, such as the use of "Babylon" as an epithet for Rome, which only came into use after the destruction of the Temple. Also, the theology is decidedly Gnostic, and that suggests a later date, as well. Obviously, we don't have all the information necessary, but nothing about the text fits in the 60s or even 70s. It's a late writing. Even early church tradition understood that it was written near the very end of the 1C.

Admittedly, this is one place where, again, you need to distinguish between theology and history. You see the book's obvious references to the destruction of the Temple as evidence that it was predicting said destruction, but an historian sees it as evidence that the author was already aware of the destruction. Historians do not - cannot - assume divine guidance. The author of the book clearly thinks of Rome the way Jews and Christians did after the destruction of the Temple, and he clearly describes a Christian theology that did not exist (as far as we know) prior. Therefore, it is most likely a late 1C work.

 

[Paterfamilias]

n

Ecclesia has an agenda, and they are trying to make it fit. Much of the language of Revelation only makes sense with a late 1C or early 2C date, such as the use of "Babylon" as an epithet for Rome, which only came into use after the destruction of the Temple. Also, the theology is decidedly Gnostic, and that suggests a later date, as well. Obviously, we don't have all the information necessary, but nothing about the text fits in the 60s or even 70s. It's a late writing. Even early church tradition understood that it was written near the very end of the 1C.

Admittedly, this is one place where, again, you need to distinguish between theology and history. You see the book's obvious references to the destruction of the Temple as evidence that it was predicting said destruction, but an historian sees it as evidence that the author was already aware of the destruction. Historians do not - cannot - assume divine guidance. The author of the book clearly thinks of Rome the way Jews and Christians did after the destruction of the Temple, and he clearly describes a Christian theology that did not exist (as far as we know) prior. Therefore, it is most likely a late 1C work.

The problem, as I see it, is that you also assume some of the tremendously flawed ideas about the text that pop Christianity holds. For example...

Mystery Babylon of Revelation can't possibly be Rome. Mystery Babylon is referred to as Mother of harlots and only Jerusalem had previously been referred to as whore or harlot. In fact, it's often repeated theme of the OT for the prophets to refer to Jerusalem as a whore or harlot due to her spiritual fornication "How the faithful city has become a harlot" (Isaiah 1:21).... [Israel] you trusted in your beauty and played the harlot because of your fame and poured out your harlotry on every passer-by who might be willing.(Ezekiel 16:15). Also, earlier in Revelation the city is referred to as "where also our Lord was crucified". Jesus himself even called them an adultress and perverse generation.

Mystery Babylon can only be Jerusalem and any other interpretation is outside of the plain text of the bible. This is why I view Christianity itself as the biggest enemy to the bible. They promote and have promoted for some 2000 years a non-biblical interpretation of the bible. This is why even an unbiased historian like yourself is unable to help me in my studies, as you too are influenced and even married to mountains of untruths. The story, as I see it, interprets itself quite clearly and that interpretation is often quite the opposite of what has been proposed by church history. Since I reject church history for being decidedly unbiblical, I don't see how you can help me any further.

I certainly appreciate your patience and willingness to discuss the topic though... see ya on the freebie!

 

[Moops]

You were witnessing, and you still are. I'm just pointing out that you are worshipping a false god based on an untrue book. Just trying up help you out, is all. If you want to ignore te truth, that's cool. Some people simply aren't ready to see it. Maybe in your next life.

The natural do not understand spiritual things. Don't worry, you'll get your wish.

Unfortunate.

 

[outside shooter]

From the thread title, I was expecting a discussion on Belichick and Brady...

 

[mike41703]

Ecclesia has an agenda, and they are trying to make it fit. Much of the language of Revelation only makes sense with a late 1C or early 2C date, such as the use of "Babylon" as an epithet for Rome, which only came into use after the destruction of the Temple. Also, the theology is decidedly Gnostic, and that suggests a later date, as well. Obviously, we don't have all the information necessary, but nothing about the text fits in the 60s or even 70s. It's a late writing. Even early church tradition understood that it was written near the very end of the 1C.

Admittedly, this is one place where, again, you need to distinguish between theology and history. You see the book's obvious references to the destruction of the Temple as evidence that it was predicting said destruction, but an historian sees it as evidence that the author was already aware of the destruction. Historians do not - cannot - assume divine guidance. The author of the book clearly thinks of Rome the way Jews and Christians did after the destruction of the Temple, and he clearly describes a Christian theology that did not exist (as far as we know) prior. Therefore, it is most likely a late 1C work.

4:15am?

 

[mike41703]

From the thread title, I was expecting a discussion on Belichick and Brady...

Interesting.

I thought you had a truck to run out in front of...

 

[Moops]

The problem, as I see it, is that you also assume some of the tremendously flawed ideas about the text that pop Christianity holds. For example...

Mystery Babylon of Revelation can't possibly be Rome. Mystery Babylon is referred to as Mother of harlots and only Jerusalem had previously been referred to as whore or harlot. In fact, it's often repeated theme of the OT for the prophets to refer to Jerusalem as a whore or harlot due to her spiritual fornication "How the faithful city has become a harlot" (Isaiah 1:21). Also, earlier in Revelation the city is referred to as "where also our Lord was crucified". Jesus himself even called them a adultress and perverse generation.

Mystery Babylon can only be Jerusalem and any other interpretation is outside of the plain text of the bible. This is why I view Christianity itself as the biggest enemy to the bible. They promote and have promoted for some 2000 years a non-biblical interpretation of the bible. This is why even an unbiased historian like yourself is unable to help me in my studies, as you too are influenced and even married to mountains of untruths. The story, as I see it, interprets itself quite clearly and that interpretation is often quite the opposite of what has been proposed by church history. Since I reject church history for being decidedly unbiblical, I don't see how you can help me any further.

I certainly appreciate your patience and willingness to discuss the topic though... see ya on the freebie!

Wow.

Anyway I haven't read this whole thread yet since I haven't the time right now but I wanted to leave you with these to go forward with until I find the time ...

There are all types of Christians out there. You probably want to look at the Preterist view of prophecies if your goal is to align scripture with your thoughts that much of prophecy is already fulfilled. And I am not saying that it isn't. It is not a requisite for salvation. I too have struggled with determining which prophecies have been fulfilled and which have not and listening to some end time preachers on TV discuss a verse and think to myself, "Hasn't that happened already?" But the bible can be a jigsaw puzzle and unless you are clergy, its hard to devote that time to the study. It makes sense as Jesus spoke in parables to confound those who walk in the flesh. My pastor admits to the partial preterist view while still being open to Holy spirit direction.

Also many people have an issue with apparent errors in the bible. A conference was convened in Chicago of all places that addressed this...essentially stating that the bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts and although none still exist, they can be inferred. And that isn't to say the translations aren't flawed or that they aren't misinterpreted for being literal or figurative or poetic. (Also note that the KJV is the only english version considered inspired that was not translated for profit.) I haven't read all of the statements and denials.

Finally, the only way to get a clear understanding is to accept Christ, walk in His way, get the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and let Him guide you into all Truth. You will experience truth like you never imagined.

Sorry I can't go into more. I just can't be very long-winded about this today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy
Also click the link for Biblical Inerrancy which goes into KJV-only and Textus Receptus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

 

[Paterfamilias]

Wow.

Anyway I haven't read this whole thread yet since I haven't the time right now but I wanted to leave you with these to go forward with until I find the time ...

There are all types of Christians out there. You probably want to look at the Preterist view of prophecies if your goal is to align scripture with your thoughts that much of prophecy is already fulfilled. And I am not saying that it isn't. It is not a requisite for salvation. I too have struggled with determining which prophecies have been fulfilled and which have not and listening to some end time preachers on TV discuss a verse and think to myself, "Hasn't that happened already?" But the bible can be a jigsaw puzzle and unless you are clergy, its hard to devote that time to the study. It makes sense as Jesus spoke in parables to confound those who walk in the flesh. My pastor admits to the partial preterist view while still being open to Holy spirit direction.

Also many people have an issue with apparent errors in the bible. A conference was convened in Chicago of all places that addressed this...essentially stating that the bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts and although none still exist, they can be inferred. And that isn't to say the translations aren't flawed or that they aren't misinterpreted for being literal or figurative or poetic. (Also note that the KJV is the only english version considered inspired that was not translated for profit.) I haven't read all of the statements and denials.

Finally, the only way to get a clear understanding is to accept Christ, walk in His way, get the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and let Him guide you into all Truth. You will experience truth like you never imagined.

Sorry I can't go into more. I just can't be very long-winded about this today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy
Also click the link for Biblical Inerrancy which goes into KJV-only and Textus Receptus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

Thanks for the comments and links Moops! I'm very familiar with preterism as it was on a natural collision course with some of the things I found myself researching. However, I'm effortig greatly to remain unaffiliated with an ideology as I believe that the ideology itself becomes a religion.

I hope to continue to let the text interpret itself. I know that it's probably a losing battle, but I have the advantage of spending most of my life uninfluenced due mostly to apathy toward the subject.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Sure is a lot of analyzin' goin' on.

 

[outside shooter]

Sure is a lot of analyzin' goin' on.

Some people take their fairy tales VERY SERIOUSLY

What's next, a big debate on dragon fighting?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

From the thread title, I was expecting a discussion on Belichick and Brady...

Annnnnd....... Banned.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The natural do not understand spiritual things. Don't worry, you'll get your wish.

Unfortunate.

I understand spiritual things just fine. I have no problem with your religion. Back off mine.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Hey, if you want to worship some two-bit goatherder god because an old book tells you to, I won't stop you. Freedom of religion, you know. But when you make it a point to proselytize, expect it to come right back at you.

You sayin' Phyloe wasn't proselytizin' atheism?

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Only in Christ is the veil taken away.

Sounds like a Stevie Nicks lyric.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You sayin' Phyloe wasn't proselytizin' atheism?

No. I wasn't even talking about Phyloe.

 

[T.M.P.]

Sounds like a Stevie Nicks lyric.

Somewhere Lindsey Buckingham plays a wimpy note.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

n

The problem, as I see it, is that you also assume some of the tremendously flawed ideas about the text that pop Christianity holds. For example...

Mystery Babylon of Revelation can't possibly be Rome. Mystery Babylon is referred to as Mother of harlots and only Jerusalem had previously been referred to as whore or harlot. In fact, it's often repeated theme of the OT for the prophets to refer to Jerusalem as a whore or harlot due to her spiritual fornication "How the faithful city has become a harlot" (Isaiah 1:21).... [Israel] you trusted in your beauty and played the harlot because of your fame and poured out your harlotry on every passer-by who might be willing.(Ezekiel 16:15). Also, earlier in Revelation the city is referred to as "where also our Lord was crucified". Jesus himself even called them an adultress and perverse generation.

Mystery Babylon can only be Jerusalem and any other interpretation is outside of the plain text of the bible. This is why I view Christianity itself as the biggest enemy to the bible. They promote and have promoted for some 2000 years a non-biblical interpretation of the bible. This is why even an unbiased historian like yourself is unable to help me in my studies, as you too are influenced and even married to mountains of untruths. The story, as I see it, interprets itself quite clearly and that interpretation is often quite the opposite of what has been proposed by church history. Since I reject church history for being decidedly unbiblical, I don't see how you can help me any further.

I certainly appreciate your patience and willingness to discuss the topic though... see ya on the freebie!

Babylon was a common epithet for Rome among Jews - but only after the destruction of the Temple. This has nothing to do with church history or church interpretation. This is an historical fact.

Is it possible that the Babylon of Revelation is something else? Sure. But Rome makes sense, and it fits not only with late 1C language usage, but also with other parts of the book, and this timing also matches the theology found within, as well.

I'm not saying it's settled that Revelation is late 1C, but it's far more likely that it was written in 95 than 65.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Babylon was a common epithet for Rome among Jews - but only after the destruction of the Temple. This has nothing to do with church history or church interpretation. This is an historical fact.

Is it possible that the Babylon of Revelation is something else? Sure. But Rome makes sense, and it fits not only with late 1C language usage, but also with other parts of the book, and this timing also matches the theology found within, as well.

I'm not saying it's settled that Revelation is late 1C, but it's far more likely that it was written in 95 than 65.

There are some today who think that America is Mystery Babylon of Revelation, and in a lot of ways it fits and makes sense too. The issue is there is only one city that fits certain criteria contained in the book, such as the city "where also our Lord was crucified".

What I'm trying to do is, first of all, keep my study confined to the pages of the bible itself. At this point, I'm not interested in commentaries and the like. If I'm going to study it at all, I want to let the book have a chance at interpreting itself. I probably wouldn't even be on this rabbit trail at all, if not for the fact that, on my first day of reading, I found something that was completely and clearly in opposition to popular teaching. That kind of thing grabs my interest as I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Why would bible thumpers twist or sometimes completely ignore the text of their hallowed book? I'm sure few have gotten interested in the bible in this fashion, but I'm a sucker for anything that might involve a cover up, disinformation or brainwashing. In that regard I think I've found something that can keep me busy for a long while

What has me mostly intrigued is, what is it about the true interpretation of this book that brought about a 2000 year effort to distort it? I get it, the vast majority will think it's foolishness... dragon fighting or whatever, but hey.. it's where I'm at and it's pretty fascinating to me.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What I'm trying to do is, first of all, keep my study confined to the pages of the bible itself. At this point, I'm not interested in commentaries and the like.

As I said at the beginning, that's the right place to start. Where information beyond the text helps is when trying to put everything into context. That's what I was referring to with "the details."

Again, if you think the Bible is an inspired text, there's only so much help I can give you, because my view ignores that possibility. Not because it's impossible, per se, but because it's untestable and unprovable. So, for example, you might reject the idea that Babylon is the United States for theological or textual reasons, but I reject it for a much simpler one: the person who wrote Revelation didn't know what the United States was.

So, when you get to the point you are interested in historical or academic takes on the Bible, I hope some of the things I've offered will be of interest, but from where you seem to be sitting right now, you'll probably be more interested in what Moops had to say, because he was speaking as someone who does assume the text is inspired, and that's going to lead to a different way to frame the text that's probably closer to your own than mine is.