It's an apocalyptic prophecy. It's very abstract/fantastical so it's usually interpreted as being metaphorical. It is where the term 'anti christ' comes from
The term appears earlier before revelations to any person who disagrees with his teachings. Some people like to interpret that the beast of revelations is like one particular extra anti-christ, and have made many strange logical comparisons that I do not understand.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yeah, you're right, I meant to say the 'concept of' the anti christ, in the way that people often use it (a singular person of great evil and influence)
1 year ago
Anonymous
From what I've heard the whole antichrist thing may refer to Emperor Nero. Nero was the emperor who persecuted Christians the most, and some people have found a way to translate both 616 and 666 to Caesar Nero.
>are there any illegitimate books in the bible?
No.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" — 2 Timothy 3:16
Yes, and I think that the gnostic Gospels are of special importance. They probably got removed because they were too "direct" in its teachings. They were discovered for a reason.
so what makes it true but not doctrine? i don't understand how it could be accepted and rejected
1 year ago
Anonymous
get a pentecostal in the room with say a baptist and watch them argue about the gifts of the holy spirit and whether or not eachothers practice is satanic in nature.
the pentecost is true, according to the bible, but interpretation of the events gets sectarians at eachothers throats sometimes.
1 year ago
Anonymous
this "gifts of the holy spirit" being something that is not canon but still true, right?
1 year ago
Anonymous
the tongues of fire in acts 2 are very much canon. what that part of scripture means to believers is what will be argued.
1 year ago
Anonymous
also 1st corinthians details gifts of the holy spirit. very much canon. doctrinal beliefs about what it means is where you're going to get arguments between various sects.
oh, i know that. that's why i made the OP. i assumed the other poster was referring to something else. idk whats true and whats not so i'd like to get some opinions
its a bunch of writings collected over time by more than one spiritual group, each of which has multiple sects, not all of which got along at all. the old testament is hebrew, sure, but it's not the entirety of hebrew collected writings either. the new testament along with it was collected into this "book" called the bible and lots of stuff was deemed not worthy by a particular sect in power, which shaped the entire narrative. the testament of the life of jesus has way more detail than is in the officially published new testament. look to the apocrypha, look to the stuff found in nag hammadi. for best results, start getting acquainted with hebrew, greek and latin. start looking into translations of particular words in different books to learn how much nuance is casually glossed over by basic-b***h religious "study"
the books of Enoch offer an interesting glimps into details on fallen angels interacting with humanity, how a holy man of god became Metatron with lots of details on heavenly realms where the angels do their business.
I am very skeptical of the book of revelation, especially since its authorship is entirely unknown
what is it about
Imagine if Jesus did meth
>bro it's like X on CRACK!!!
that means nothing
Lean
It's an apocalyptic prophecy. It's very abstract/fantastical so it's usually interpreted as being metaphorical. It is where the term 'anti christ' comes from
The term appears earlier before revelations to any person who disagrees with his teachings. Some people like to interpret that the beast of revelations is like one particular extra anti-christ, and have made many strange logical comparisons that I do not understand.
Yeah, you're right, I meant to say the 'concept of' the anti christ, in the way that people often use it (a singular person of great evil and influence)
From what I've heard the whole antichrist thing may refer to Emperor Nero. Nero was the emperor who persecuted Christians the most, and some people have found a way to translate both 616 and 666 to Caesar Nero.
Basically a tale of the apocalypse, but if the storyteller was on shrooms.
>are there any illegitimate books in the bible?
No.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" — 2 Timothy 3:16
so does that include lost and rejected books
Yes, and I think that the gnostic Gospels are of special importance. They probably got removed because they were too "direct" in its teachings. They were discovered for a reason.
Books were not rejected on a historical basis but rather scriptural. Still true just not doctrine.
so what makes it true but not doctrine? i don't understand how it could be accepted and rejected
get a pentecostal in the room with say a baptist and watch them argue about the gifts of the holy spirit and whether or not eachothers practice is satanic in nature.
the pentecost is true, according to the bible, but interpretation of the events gets sectarians at eachothers throats sometimes.
this "gifts of the holy spirit" being something that is not canon but still true, right?
the tongues of fire in acts 2 are very much canon. what that part of scripture means to believers is what will be argued.
also 1st corinthians details gifts of the holy spirit. very much canon. doctrinal beliefs about what it means is where you're going to get arguments between various sects.
There are plenty of apocryphal books, there is one for example in which Jesus makes clay birds and gives them life. Cool stuff.
pretending "the bible" is one book has been a huge mistake.
im not familiar with the bible so can you explain what you mean by that
not him, but the bible is a collection of writings from multiple authors that some israelite decided to string into one book
oh, i know that. that's why i made the OP. i assumed the other poster was referring to something else. idk whats true and whats not so i'd like to get some opinions
its a bunch of writings collected over time by more than one spiritual group, each of which has multiple sects, not all of which got along at all. the old testament is hebrew, sure, but it's not the entirety of hebrew collected writings either. the new testament along with it was collected into this "book" called the bible and lots of stuff was deemed not worthy by a particular sect in power, which shaped the entire narrative. the testament of the life of jesus has way more detail than is in the officially published new testament. look to the apocrypha, look to the stuff found in nag hammadi. for best results, start getting acquainted with hebrew, greek and latin. start looking into translations of particular words in different books to learn how much nuance is casually glossed over by basic-b***h religious "study"
the books of Enoch offer an interesting glimps into details on fallen angels interacting with humanity, how a holy man of god became Metatron with lots of details on heavenly realms where the angels do their business.
The book of Jasher is mentioned in the old testament I think.
Joshua 10:13
the whole thing