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.

 

Author says Revelations and Christian Prophesy is simply wrong.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
I think all that is already apparent on ATS by people who claim to interpret culture through Revelations, but what was surprising to myself, is that the term "anti-Christ" does not occur in the biblical book at all.

edit on 25-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



Wrong.

1JO 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ.
Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son.

1JO 4:3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This
is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even
now is already in the world.

2JO 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in
the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver
and the antichrist.

And there are many other references.




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



You should see how we've come along. Every state has at least two libraries. There are even some cities that have their own schools. We're doing just great here.

Sorry, didn't even get past this part of your post, but LOL!!
Wow.
It bothers me greatly that folks of other nationalities still put the populace of the US in a 3rd world column.....

Yeah, I live in the middle midwest...and NO, we do NOT ride cows to school or work.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 

Interesting references and counter-points.

However, I think it's clearly intimated that the anti-Christ is not referred to in Revelations.
Here the concept of anti-Christian ideation is conflated with something Revelation calls "The Beast" by interpretation.

For the first John verse you mention it simply says "he is antichrist", or later, "he is the spirit of antichrist".
That could mean his beliefs or actions are against the general flow of the Christian movement (or he is "anathema", as the Catholics would later call it).

Nowhere does it speak of a, or the Antichrist as a person.
Which Bible translation adds those articles?

I have a KVJ and Good News Bible before me and nowhere does it have the articles "the", "a" or "an" from your interpretation, which would make it a singular person rather than an unsound quality.

So my quote from the KVJ for 1 John 2:22 is: "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is a antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

Here we get a lesson on the aspects of the Christian God, and you cannot deny one without being against them all.
If that makes the Antichrist, then their were millions of Antichrists in history.
In fact every Muslim would be the Antichrist, and every Jew.
(As they were variously also treated in Christianity.)

I think the main influence on this conflation between "the Beast" and being "antichrist" (note, it's not capitalized as a title) was that at a stage people thought that John from the Gospels was the same person as the John who wrote Revelations.
It is now accepted that they were wholly different people, and possibly neither of them wrote the Gospels or Revelations.

edit on 25-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Oh, the Artinquiry video of the interview with the author.
I skipped over that part of the tread, earlier.
OK, I watched it and made a couple comments on its YouTube page's comments section.

edit on 25-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

No, no other nationality thinks that.


Follow the previous posts and we just ended in some light sarcasm because the poster claimed he couldn't read the suggested book because he had no money, so I told him I'm using the book for free at the moment from our local library, so why can't he do the same?

I guess there are libraries, but perhaps people don't always use them, or think of them as user friendly.

Perhaps with all the technology we forget about libraries at times.

Yet, quoting from acknowledged books is allowed for research and academic purposes.
It's one of the few ways we can add to the body of knowledge on the Internet, and our favorite sites and topics.

So my question "Are there no libraries in the USA?" and the reply only had meaning in our short discourse.
It was somewhat sarcastic, because actually I think the US is one of richest nations on earth that produces scores of great academics, and I think they probably have the best libraries on earth.

edit on 25-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


And neither is the word homosexual found in any document in antiquity. To say the modern word does not mean the concept is not found in antiquity. We accept that Socrates was not only gay, but had sex with teenage boys, this is no surprise, but we don't see the word applied.

If someone takes the position that Biblical prophecy is allegorical or metaphorical, then you would have to make some conclusions...hence, the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem.

We know the temple was prophesied by Jesus to be destroyed utterly, and we know it happened in 70 AD. So how did the writer know this would happen when the writer died before the event? Not only that, we see that same prophecy in several Old Testament books, including Isaiah, Zechariah and Zephania. Even if Jesus were to have read it, that means the Romans would also have had to read it to fulfill the prophecy.

One thing that amazes me is this, evolutionists will say that creation was not created, that it suddenly existed, with the first thing to appear is light. Funny, that is exactly as the Bible says. The steps of evolution are in agreement with the steps taken in creation, isn't that interesting? Creationists believe the Causer was God, whereas evolutionists say they don't know the cause. Even the Popol Vuh has a creation myth..

Here is the story of the beginning, when there was not one bird, not one fish, not one mountain. Here is the sky, all alone. Here is the sea, all alone. There is nothing more –no sound, no movement.


This is consistent with the Biblical account. So I have to ask, did these ancient people read today's modern scientific journals before making that statement in their writings? The Bible says the earth was without form, and void. That means before the earth actually had a shape, and did this event occur? Yes, every evolutionary scientist will say this exact thing.

So if you want to take Biblical prophecy as nothing more than allegory, perhaps you and I are nothing more than metaphors.

Popol Vuh

This is the account of how all was in suspense, all calm, in silence; all motionless, quiet, and empty was the expanse of the sky.


Bible

Genesis: 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


Did these people read the same book? Did they converse on the same subject? If you say that the Popol Vuh account was translated by Christians to say the same thing, why have the Mayan descendants not disputed that? It is the same because the event took place as it happened and those people whom we today borrow the sciences from are the originators of scientific knowledge.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Iason321
 

Interesting references and counter-points.

However, I think it's clearly intimated that the anti-Christ is not referred to in Revelations.
Here the concept of anti-Christian ideation is conflated with something Revelation calls "The Beast" by interpretation.

For the first John verse you mention it simply says "he is antichrist", or later, "he is the spirit of antichrist".
That could mean his beliefs or actions are against the general flow of the Christian movement (or he is "anathema", as the Catholics would later call it).

Nowhere does it speak of a, or the Antichrist as a person.
Which Bible translation adds those articles?

I have a KVJ and Good News Bible before me and nowhere does it have the articles "the", "a" or "an" from your interpretation, which would make it a singular person rather than an unsound quality.

So my quote from the KVJ for 1 John 2:22 is: "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is a antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

Here we get a lesson on the aspects of the Christian God, and you cannot deny one without being against them all.
If that makes the Antichrist, then their were millions of Antichrists in history.
In fact every Muslim would be the Antichrist, and every Jew.
(As they were variously also treated in Christianity.)

I think the main influence on this conflation between "the Beast" and being "antichrist" (note, it's not capitalized as a title) was that at a stage people thought that John from the Gospels was the same person as the John who wrote Revelations.
It is now accepted that they were wholly different people, and possibly neither of them wrote the Gospels or Revelations.

edit on 25-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


I agree the "antichrist" is not a single person, but rather people becoming "antichrist". I just wanted to point out that it does mention antichrist in the Bible.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by SavedOne
 


And neither is the word homosexual found in any document in antiquity. To say the modern word does not mean the concept is not found in antiquity. We accept that Socrates was not only gay, but had sex with teenage boys, this is no surprise, but we don't see the word applied.

With homosexuality and antiquity it's a difficult issue.
"Homosexuality" actually referred to the love and attraction between the same gender and sex in the late 19th century.
Yet, in ancient times sex was understood as having an active and a passive partner, and the passive partner was usually a slave or a younger male. So in that sense it was not really "homosexuality", in Socratic or Platonic love.
Often it was not even carnal, but merely descriptive, as many suspect with Socrates, who may have been celibate.

So some historians argue that egalitarian homosexuality was a modern (Western) construction.
Others say egalitarian homosexuality did exist in Greece and Rome, but modern scholars have paid little attention to it.
Egalitarian homosexuality was mocked, because a male citizen who became passive "lowered" himself to the position of a woman or slave.
Caesar was mocked for it in his youth, although it might have been untrue.
However, it seems that some citizens were not mocked and lived in those relationships.

edit on 25-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
With homosexuality it's a difficult issue.
"Homosexuality" actually referred to the love and attraction between the same gender and sex in the late 19th century.
Yet, in ancient times sex was understood as having an active and a passive partner, and the passive partner was usually a slave or a younger male. So in that sense it was not really "homosexuality", in Socratic or Platonic love.
Often it was not even carnal, but merely descriptive, as many suspect with Socrates, who may have been celibate.

So some historians argue that egalitarian homosexuality was a modern (Western) construction.
Others say egalitarian homosexuality did exist in Greece and Rome, but modern scholars have paid little attention to it.
Egalitarian homosexuality was mocked, because a male citizen who became passive "lowered" himself to the position of a woman or slave.
Caesar was mocked for it in his youth, although it might have been untrue.
However, it seems that some citizens were not mocked and lived in those relationships.


Have you seen the paintings and statues and steles of porn in the Roman and Greek buildings? It is pretty evident that homosexuality was practiced.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Sure it was practiced.
And even where it was mocked, it was not legislated against.
It just made the passive male somewhat ridiculed, and the topic of gossip.

Some males took it personally, or even the allegations, but a few (just as now) frankly didn't give a damn.

I'll leave it at that, before we go on a major off-topic tangent.

The term "homosexual" was however only coined in the late 19th century.
"Homo" of course means the same.
Just because people are born the same sex, does not mean they have equal gender rights from birth.
So a male slave for example, was of the male sex, but he was not granted masculinity or manhood, and he could be used sexually in the ancient world like a female. This was not considered "homosexuality" back then, and was socially acceptable.
So these ancient forms of same-sex love, were just as different from our modern egalitarian Western human rights ideals as ancient heterosexuality (which was quite misogynistic, and had no clear age of consent).

But yes homosexuality, and homo-eroticism was always with us.

However lying with a male of equal social standing was not encouraged, because that lowered another male citizen to the position of a woman, slave, or the feminine.
But that was a huge double standard, even then.

Caesar, for example probably slept with the king of Bithynia as a career move, which resulted in much gossip.
He took this really badly, and had his revenge by seducing the wife of almost every Roman family who mocked him when he had the power.

edit on 25-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 



On both counts you quote, the author would be missing the excluded middle. There is a large mystery in the Bible concerning Water, Baptsim and rebirth. I attempted to resolve the mystery in this article. LINK

Armed with the possibility of the mystery, we can easily see three things. We are all here in the water of reality because, as Jesus says, "We must be born again." This is tied to Elijah and John the Baptist having power over the water. I outline this in the article above. Too much information to put here. If you understand Jesus words, it is easy to see that 7,000,000,000 souls are here on earth now. All eyes will see, even those who pierced Christ.

Revelation 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

When Christ says that he is coming soon, this must be in context to what He said about the sign that would be the ONLY sign we would get. This is the sign of Jonah. Again, the link above tells the entire story. Three days is how long Jonah was in the belly of the whale. Jesus said that if they destroyed the temple, he would raise it again in three days. Three days is three thousand years. The final day is the day of the Lord. By "Soon," he was saying that in two days. On the scale of one week, two days is soon. Six days is not soon.

How can we calculate the days?

Noah to Abraham is the 2000 year age of the Father
Abraham to Jesus is the 2000 year age of the Son
Jesus to today is the 2000 year age of the Holy Spirit

Day 7 is the day of rest and the reign of Christ for 1000 years. He will rule the nations and judge the Phariseess and Sadducees. Peter will feed the sheep and repent. Rome will be destroyed. Consider the false leaders just mentioned. What did John the Baptist say about their baptism back into life?

Matthew 3

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

How are we baptized? The Father baptized us into earth and air. Air is the word. We breathe nitrogen, which is 7 electrons, 7 protons and 7 neutrons. It is also oxygen, which is 8 electrons, 8 protons and 8 neutrons. 777 is God's number of completion. 888 is Jesus in Greek gematria. John, in revelation, said that we must overcome 666 with the Word (Christ). 6 electrons, 6 protons and 6 neutrons is Carbon.

Carbon is the mark of mankind. Carbon is fossil fuel. Carbon is what builds our technology (Fruit of knowledge). We are dying because of the pollution caused by our graven image of God's fruit. We must overcome by the Word of God and the breath of God.

How are we baptized? Earth, Air, Water and Fire.

Back to the next verse in Matthew 3

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Somebody might want to tell the author of the book mentioned by the OP that he needs to rethink his reasoning on Revelation.



edit on 25-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

A great extrapolation on Matthew, and baptism, water and air - and a very fascinating time-line.

However, I'm not quite sure of the sudden jump from that to the last sentence which suddenly says "the author is wrong".

Perhaps I've missed something?

But nevertheless, a very interesting post.


edit on 25-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

A great extrapolation on Matthew, and baptism, water and air - and a very fascinating time-line.

However, I'm not quite sure of the sudden jump from that to the last sentence which suddenly says "the author is wrong".

Perhaps I've missed something?

But nevertheless, a very interesting post.


edit on 25-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


I was referring to the author of the book in the OP mentioned, not Revelation.


edit on 25-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

Well, the message I got (just reviewing your post above) was that you see the symbolism in hindsight as three ages of human culture (the last being carbon, or fossil fueled based).

I'm sure you would say the author of the book is wrong, since you find a very symbolic Biblical meaning, just like the millennial Pastor Harold Camping did last year, who calculated a whole bunch of dates (dead wrong, as usual).

And this is the problem with Revelation and self-styled Christian prophets - nothing in those books is clear.
It's all symbols and numbers and gammatria, which makes historical sense for that time, but few believers want to hear that.

It is also the attraction for many.

But I guess looking at parts of the Bible in hindsight can reveal larger metaphorical truths.
Just like the creation myth(s) in Genesis can be seen as human culture moving from hunter-gathering to agriculture, and one can never go back to that state of connection with God and nature.
edit on 27-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

Well, the message I got (just reviewing your post above) was that you see the symbolism in hindsight as three ages of human culture (the last being carbon, or fossil fueled based).

I'm sure you would say the author of the book is wrong, since you find a very symbolic Biblical meaning, just like the millennial Pastor Harold Camping did last year, who calculated a whole bunch of dates (dead wrong, as usual).

And this is the problem with Revelation and self-styled Christian prophets - nothing in those books is clear.
It's all symbols and numbers and gammatria, which makes historical sense for that time, but few believers want to hear that.

It is also the attraction for many.

But I guess looking at parts of the Bible in hindsight can reveal larger metaphorical truths.
Just like the creation myth(s) in Genesis can be seen as human culture moving from hunter-gathering to agriculture, and one can never go back to that state of connection with God and nature.
edit on 27-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


Like science, you can construct a theory to disallow God, but in the end, God is the only puzzle piece that will fit the overall context. The symbolism in the Bible is not a matter of conjecture. Rightly dividing truth from symbol is less about misplaced concreteness and more along the lines of Anagnorisis leading to Peripeteia. Discovery and sudden realization is a paradigm sift, while fantasy is conjecture shifting reality toward self-will. Fantasy and conjecture are produced by imagination and creation. Discovery and realization are produced by inquiry and intellect receiving truth.

Knock and the door is opened. Seek and you find. The Holy Spirit of God leads by knowledge from the experience of virtue. Humility, rather than pride, allows God to give as opposed to our own will to take as a thief. Once the symbols are properly seen, the information in context to the truth emerges plainly. All reality is in layers. The more you know, the deeper you can see. The more you see, the broader your awareness. The more you place yourself in context with truth, the less error blinds your vision. This is something that is experienced to be known fully.

Harold Camping is a good example of creating a context rather than receiving rightly divided truth. His predictions were more about his own will than the will of God realized. The paradox in this is like temperature. The degrees of hot and cold are still one thing. My awareness may be broad, but someone else will be higher on the scale. If the person with more awareness than me hears my words, they immediately know the lower layer that I am experiencing. For him, the problem is the same. Someone else has defined the symbols to yet another degree on the scale. The root truth is what we would all like to find in the end.


edit on 27-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I got my used copy of the book, A History of the End of the World: How the Most Controversial Book in the Bible Changed the Course of Western Civilization by Jonathan Kirsch in the mail, Saturday. Like I mentioned earlier, it was basically free plus the shipping, so they must have it down to where they can make a few cents on that by maybe a volume account with the post office. Mine is a former library book so it has that nice protective layer of plastic which protects the dust cover, where the book is pretty ugly if it did not have the cover. anyway, it has the catalog label on it, so if you are at your county library and want to find it, the number is:
228.06 KIRSC
I ordered this first, out of nine books for this month and got it last (probably on account of the cheaper mailing type), so it is competing with other books for my attention and I have not read an awful lot of it yet. I could make an observation on it at this time which is: It gives a nice concise overview of the entire Book of Revelation over four pages, on 8-11, which in itself is worth the cost, that is, if you buy it like I did for next to nothing, which is common for a book that was a bestseller, where there are lots of used copies available.

edit on 7-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Well I'm pleased you got a bargain (I also sometimes do on many books, although I prefer the flea-market).
Here they tell me often you'd have to pay somebody to grab a slightly dated Christian book (unless it's on the occult or homosexuality).
So a few cents for a contemporary academic orientated text is alright.
Then we haven't gone to the dogs quite yet.


edit on 7-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
On page 14 of Kirsch's book, he says (apparently about the writer of Revelation) , "He offers the ultimate insult to Jews who do not embrace Jesus as Messiah by insisting that Christians are the only authentic Jews." as one item in a list of egregious examples of what is wrong in the Book of Revelation.
There is a couple things wrong with this claim by Kirsch, starting with the problem that John does not say that. I should quote the verse which seems to me to best match this paraphrased or interpreted excerpt from Revelation.

Listen! I am going to make those people from the synagogue of Satan – who say they are Jews yet are not, but are lying – Look, I will make them come and bow down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

Kirsch makes another insinuation in his book that if a Jew was ever to try to read Revelation they would be immediately put off when they see that it calls Jews the synagogue of Satan. We really don't know who the angel in the story is talking about exactly but I think it would be safe to assume that he is not designating Jews as the synagogue of Satan. More likely it is a case of there being two different camps of Christians in this city where on one side you have those who believe you must become a practitioner of the laws of the Jews before becoming a Christian. I would compare it to a congregation calling themselves Messianic Jews where if you talk to each of the members, you would find out that none of them are actually Jews but more like apostate Christians who think they can be like Jesus by keeping the law, while ignoring the fact that Jesus never claimed to have kept the law.
Now this does not mean I need to condemn these people, but I would if they told me I was going to hell for not being like them. Well, this is what I would imagine the situation was in this example given to John in vision, where the one pretend Jew Christian group is telling the normal Christians they are going to hell for not pretending to be Jews.
edit on 8-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Revelations is highly suspect. The author was a very old man ... living under extreme duress in exhile ... probably with physical and mental ailments that older folks have. His 'dreams' could easily be the dementia driven dreams of someone who is very religious and who has had a very difficult life.

Anyways .. revelations is unimportant in the long run. It has nothing to do with salvation .. just curiousity.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

It has nothing to do with salvation .. just curiousity.

My opinion is that it does.

What I believe is that Revelation takes all the ideas that were around at the time about the Messianic Age, and shows how all those expectations were met and fulfilled in the coming of Jesus and the Gospel of Jesus going out into the world.

The problem with interpretations is people's inability to see literature for what it is and turn it into a road-map for the future, which it was never intended to be.

edit on 10-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join