It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jdposey
I noticed in your first paragraph, five times, you made the statement, “ I Don’t Believe ,” and once, you made the statement, “ I Don’t See.” Everything after that, which you stated in the following paragraphs, are coming out of that foundation of unbelief and incapability of seeing.
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by OptionToChoose
The book is written in a ton of metaphorical prophetic symbolism, based on earlier prophetic writings, so it’s not to be taken as literal. As to its linier writing, that has also been disputed and there are arguments which show that sections of it may be cyclic and that it jumps around in history. There are definite areas of it that deal with the end times, then it will go backwards and talk about something dealing with Rome, which has already happened.
Originally posted by rexpop
And, please don't tell me that my beliefs are based on unbelief and inability to see the truth. It's insulting and an untenable argument to make.
Originally posted by Cythraul
Just another example of falsities and contradictions in the Bible.
"God is forgiving and loves all his children... buuut when we say 'forgiving' we actually mean merciless, and when we say 'all' we actually mean just those of God's children who have submitted themselves." ...
Originally posted by WolfofWar
IF a god exists, and created all we have, it would have simply made the physics of the universe, and let its magic unfold.
Theres no reason for an omnipotent god to stand over every little thing and micromanage, when he can just let life blossom through making the rules of nature.
Originally posted by jdposey
Yes, maybe then you will understand what lead to Jesus' death
Like I have said, I never intended to insult anyone and, concerning all you have said in rebuttal to me, I have not felt insulted.
Originally posted by jdposey
Yes, maybe then you will understand what lead to Jesus' death
Jesus never died. Jesus never existed. He didn't die for anybody's sins, he's fictitious.
Originally posted by rexpop
Originally posted by jdposey
Yes, maybe then you will understand what lead to Jesus' death
Jesus never died. Jesus never existed. He didn't die for anybody's sins, he's fictitious.
If you had to ask what the most debated aspect of the book of Revelation is, many would probably point to its symbols and their meaning. However, the chronology of the events described in Revelation would have to be a close second if not a surprise upset. And of course, the two are related. The more you understand the one, the more you understand the other.
Perhaps the best way to introduce the chronological model asserted in this study is to first briefly talk about two basic existing theories regarding the chronology in the book of Revelation. Although rendered generically for the purpose of illustration, these two basic alternative models represent opposing sides of the spectrum.
The first basic model is what could be called a "simple" or "singular chronology." This "simple chronology" model very straightforwardly suggests that the events described in the book of Revelation take place in the order in which they appear in the book. Under this model, from start to finish, events written first occur before events written later all the way through to the end of the book.
The strength of this model is its simplicity. The greatest weakness, however, is the fact that the resulting interpretation is one where seemingly unrepeatable events happen multiple times.
The second basic model is what could be called an "a-chronological" model. The term "a-chronological" is intended to denote the central concept of the model in which the elements of the book are viewed without regard for any chronology. It might be said that the underlying premise to this model is that Revelation was not written or intended to outline or denote a chronology in the first place. And consequently any attempts to decipher or construct such a chronology from the details are misguided to begin with. Given how the "simple chronology" so quickly results in ridiculous repetition, it is easy to see how someone could become convinced that it is impossible to reconcile the details of Revelation into a coherent chronology.
The greatest strength of this model is perhaps that it does solve the central problem created by the "simple chronology" approach. It removes the ridiculous repetition. However, there are perhaps two equally significant problems with this model. One has to do with the shear amount of symbol detail and the other has to do with chronology itself.
The exact order of events in Revelation has been a much debated topic in Bible prophecy. Some believe Revelation is sequential, others believe it contains several visions that repeat and recap. This question is critical to our overall eschatology.
The real debate in Revelation, however, concerns the numbered groups of seven. There are seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials. Certainly, the numbered groups are sequential within each group. That is why they are numbered one through seven. But this does not necessarily mean that one group follows another in succession. If this was the case, one would expect to find a single group of twenty-one judgments. Pre-tribulationists, with some exceptions, generally believe each of these groups follow the previous group. This author is convinced that Revelation follows a similar format as Daniel, with each series of seven being a recapping and magnification of a portion of the tribulation covered in the previous sequence. The view presented here is illustrated by the diagram below, where the prophetic portion of Revelation is divided into four sections, each climaxing with the second coming of Christ.
In Christianity, Universalism refers to the belief that all humans will be saved through Jesus Christ and eventually come to a harmony in God's kingdom. A related doctrine, apokatastasis, is the belief that all mortal beings will be reconciled to God, including Satan and his fallen angels. Universalism was a fairly commonly held view among theologians in early Christianity: In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality, and one (Carthage or Rome) taught the endless punishment of the lost. The two major theologians opposing it were Tertullian and Augustine.[citation needed] In later centuries, Universalism has become very much a minority position in the major branches of Christianity, though it has a long history of prominent adherents.
Clement of Alexandria considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture. Eusebius,Historia Ecclesiae (VI.14.1) described a work of Clement's that gave "abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures, not even omitting those that are disputed, I mean the book of Jude and the other general epistles. Also the Epistle of Barnabas and that called the Revelation of Peter." So the work must have existed in the first half of the second century, which is also the commonly accepted date of the canonic Second Epistle of Peter.
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment is a seventh-century Latin manuscript, that contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170. The fragment lists all the works that were accepted as canonical by the churches known to its anonymous original compiler.
The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which some of us will not allow to be read in church, though it isn't certain whether this refers to the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the quite different Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, the latter of which, unlike the former, was gnostic.