I'm not entirely sure Revelations should be in the Bible.

I'm not entirely sure Revelations should be in the Bible. I accept it because I'm not trying to form my own religion, but my mind has its doubts. If we know a thing by its fruits, what good fruits has John's apocalypse born? I see a lot of anti-biblical schizos misusing it all the time, but I don't know of any orphanages or hospitals built under revelations justification. Also, there was a good deal of historical doubt about it, given that it doesn't really sound like the Bible.

I am seriously asking for some good arguments here. Regardless of whether I am convinced, I will not actively dissuade anyone from believing it should be part of the canon. I mean this to be a good faith discussion of the book.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >RevelationSSSSS
    an easy tell that you didn’t read it
    It’s
    >The Revelation of Jesus Christ [which God showed into him…]

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      As written down by someone who wasn’t Jesus Christ

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      im being serious here anon. a lot of heresy books say that as well. is there something in it which you think makes it obviously true, or some external fact? i would honestly like to know.

      • 6 months ago
        Ο Σολιταίρ

        It
        1. Doesn’t contradict the rest of scripture
        2. Is obviously inspired by the Holy Ghost
        3. Corroborates other scriptures

        It’s actually a very easy read. It makes sense that popular culture would sensationalize and commercialize THE authoritative book on the End of the World.
        It’s “Revelation” singular not plural btw
        Says it on the top of each page when you read it

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >what good fruits has John's apocalypse born?
    It heavily inspired X/1999, which is CLAMP's finest work and one of the best manga ever written

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's mean to predict the triumph of God over the devil, of good over evil. Its purpose is to remind people "don't worry, in the end, good will triumph"

  4. 6 months ago
    Dirk

    >revelations (plural)
    Classic indicator that the opinion to follow will be ignorant and moronic

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for the spirit of correction and apostolic teaching brother.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >yeah, so, I've been reading through the Gospel of Johns
        >the what?
        >The Book of Johns, you know?

        you open the book and it says real big what the title is. If you can't even get the title right we're gonna assume you didn't read it. And then you go and make a thread about something you didn't even read?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I've read through John plenty of times. I don't really read rev.

      • 6 months ago
        Dirk

        yw
        Just for the record I did not read the rest of your post

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    i imagine this is how people acted the first time the prophets started prophesizing, and the same attitude towards their books, until prophecy came true.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most of the imagery in Revelations and all the "Sometime in the future, a bunch of crazy stuff will happen resulting in the restoration of the Golden age forever" shit is drawn from Isaiah. Isaiah was a really popular and important book during Jesus' time because it was a spiritual balm for people who were pissed about the Roman occupation.
    Now, you could say that is a positive thing because it seems like it's consistent with really old work and therefore thematically appropriate, or you could say that it's a negative thing because any moron could have cribbed Isaiah, added some science fiction shit, and sold it to morons.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >new version of the same thing someone said back then when Isaiah was written, saying it copied the Exodus

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      i heard a pretty good argument last night that its actually already done with. but that doesn't really change my opinion. the fruits thing still applies. I have never seen it used in a positive way. And no one in this thread has shown me a positive way its been used.
      I know of a lot of embarrassments to the religion which the athiests use, as well as a lot of heresies, and things like the JWs which it spawned. But I genuinely have trouble resolving the fruits guideline with its legacy and the history of doubt stemming from eusebius.

      I still accept it because its not my job to determine what is and isn't in the canon, and there is a role for the church fathers to play, im just saying privately i wrestle with it.

      • 6 months ago
        Dirk

        You mean preterism?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I think so. I was driving through a few states and someone i like had a podcast on it. But like I said I'm not an athiest, so I don't find anything in it to be impossible, that's not my issue with it.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            Partial preterism is an orthodox (not eastern) view that tends to correspond with postmillennialism. Full or hyper preterism is heresy.
            Atheists tend to suppose it was written after 70 AD by someone pretending to be John, so it wasn't prophesy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If it was a book 1 paragraph long that just said "pray lots and lots", I would still take issue with it if it were the origin of so many heretical sects, grifters, schizos, and general bad things. The content doesn't bug me.
            But on any theology forum ive ever used, the schizos are always going on about rev, and it did damage my view of the book.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            Postmil preterism is the opposite of those schizos you're seeing. They're all futurist premil dispensationalists freaking about a fake rapture and credit cards

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dirk I understand you know more about this than me. This is acknowledged and you may accept my concession. But if you're going to respond for my benefit, I would prefer you do so without all the jargon, so I can actually understand what you are saying. I have some knowledge of historical theology, but zero as pertains to modern protestant interpretive frameworks. And I know nothing about rev, because I view it as something we're specifically told not to worry about.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            I appreciate your earnestness and I'm sorry for laying on the banter.
            There's not really any way around the terminology

            Millennium: the thousand year reign of christ (revelation 20)
            Premil: we are before the millennium
            Postmil: we are after the millennium
            Amil: it's just a symbol
            Any of these can view the "thousand" number as not literally a thousand years

            Dispensationalism: a 19th century framework for interpreting the periods of how god deals with men in history. Gained popularity among anglo evangelicals. Zionism and rapture theology follow from dispensationalism.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Only Muslims are afraid to remix the great P Jdaddy and J boys spoken word.
    >May peace be upon them
    go forth son and drop a new album of phat zealot beats to start a new path.

    If Mohammad and Joseph Smith can do it so can you

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus was the last prophet, so Paul's letters and John's hallucinations shouldn't be in the Bible.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *