Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Revelation - The Way it Happened
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
The Book of Revelation - Apocalyptic Showdown
message 201:
by
Lee
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Dec 14, 2013 03:28PM
hmmm. You seem to confuse knowing what the Bible says with imagining Jesus could possibly endorse every opinion in it. That would be one schizophrenic Jesus, I think.
reply
|
flag
Lee statement:"Robert, are you (like Rod) discussing a sort of entrance exam to heaven?
I don't see it as an exam at all. It's a total change in our nature and desires. We are made to want what God wants. Even when we fail we are still struggling to desire what pleases God. We don't PRACTICE sinning.
It's one thing to struggle with alcohol or homosexuality. It's another to desire to take that to God's eternal Kingdom.
I've met many people that state: "If there's no sex or alcohol in Heaven then I don't want to go."
It's fun to tell them there's probably none in HELL either. :D
Let us consider Lee's alternative of heaven on earth. Surely there must be some criterion by which the most deserving from each congregation can be singled out (or have we become so egalitarian that even ax murderers are heavenly?). Then the rest of the congregation pitches in to send these deserving few to Maui at the Royal Kaanapoli Resort for the rest of their days to experience paradise.
... and STILL you both imagine heaven as a place you "go to." :( the Kingdom of Heaven is within.
Within? How boring. Are you saying the Eternal City of New Jerusalem is Within? Other people are within my...within? :D
I'm not saying anything. I'm quoting the Gospel of Luke. Opinions apparently differed.
I don't care about opinions. I want Biblical truth. :cp
Then you must guess which of the opinions in the Bible are the truth. Do you reject Luke's opinion?
I thought we already established that "heaven" was hierarchical. If you wish to remain at the lowest rung, Lee, that's your prerogative, but at least be big-hearted enough to let the rest of us climb.
Dude, I have been trying to help you climb beyond your bigotry to a higher rung. You keep resisting.
And what bigotry would that be, Lee?
We've been over this many times, Robert. The fact that your discrimination against gays is based on your religious beliefs does not give you an out...it's still bigotry, still causes extreme suffering.Nobody claims that the 911 attackers were not terrorists merely because their religion encouraged it. A terrorist is a terrorist, a bigot is a bigot, religion is not an excuse.
Yes, Lee, we've been over it - and you're still calling Jesus a bigot.
I'm calling Paul a bigot. Not Jesus.
Lee - if you wish to align with the secular crowd, fine, but don't try to pass yourself off as any kind of disciple for Christ. He's not really high on scoffers.
It makes me angry when you drag Jesus down with you, and in so doing encourage the unChristlike actions of millions of other bigots. You seriously have a twisted picture of Jesus in your head, Robert. By all accounts, he was precisely the compassionate, understanding person the Gospels portray him as. There is no evidence that underneath he was a secret bigot.
And that is why I have mostly ignored this thread. Silly.
David wrote: "No one believed in a pre-tribulation rapture until the 1800s. Mostly because it is not in the Bible at all, unless you stretch 1-2 verses (such as the one Lee mentioned). Why does your denom not ..."*******************************
Well-said, David.
That seems to be the general consensus David. Are you saying that everyone believed in a post-tribulation rapture? Or a mid-tribulation rapture? Or NO rapture?
A huge problem was many scholars could not separate Israel from the Church. Since Israel was not easily present as God's chosen people they assumed all prophecies that applied to them now applied to the Christian church.
But now we have an Israel Again. That changes everything. The Christian church and Israel are not both present in the tribulation.
I believe that unless people have a true faith in their heart that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the Bible is the God breathed Word of God, they are going to have a hard time understanding much of the Bible.Some of it has to be taken by faith because there are things the Bible does not give the answers to.
I am now reading my 2nd book on Revelation, with passage and then commentary. What I am reading is all based on what Lutherans believe, which is what I am. We do not believe in the Rapture nor a Millennium period. I am hoping to get a good grasp on it. For even though I don't quite understand it, I do believe in what my Faith teaches. This book I am reading now even explains the different types if grammar John uses, such as participles, dative, and all sorts of grammar terms I forgot and have to look up.
When it comes to the Bible, I want to understand everything as it was meant to be. I think a person has to do in depth study to really grasp some of it and for some the answers I believe God may be saving for us later in Eternal Life.
If you happen to read this book, Judy, its historical-critical approach will be quite unfamiliar I'm sure. :) I can get you a print copy at cost or an electronic copy free if you wish, for further discussion here.
I am Futurist and Amillennial. I think what John saw was the whole New Testament Era which is what I believe we are living in now.
My denomination teaches Amillennial and I have read 2 books to understand why. I wish I could explain it. But what I can say is that Jesus only comes back once, on Judgement day. He does not come back and rule for a 1000 years on Earth. I'd have to dig into my books to explain it in detail.
The books I read to explain Revelation are End Times by Wayne Mueller and Revelation by S. W. Becker. It is easy to understand when reading these books why there is no Rapture or 1000 year reign of Christ. I just wish it was easy for me to put in into words. The books have Scripture and then commentary and they relate to Scripture in the New Testament as well as the old Testament.
Judy - your position is shared by many and could well be the correct interpretation of End Times. But, keep in mind there are other interpretations with authors to promote them, who are equally as persuasive Biblically as the two you cite. Who knows, you may be Raptured despite your disbelief in it!
It is fascinating to attempt to read Revelation as a first century WARNING. Why be poetic or symbolic of an event that is right around the corner? How is this event useful to the next 2000 years?
If this letter was only for the 1st century: It failed heavily. Was John on an Island exile when it was written? Good luck getting it to the masses on time to mean anything.
Yet if Revelation is for the future: It means everything perfectly.
Is Jesus really coming back like a thief in the night - if he's coming with the armies of Heaven to fight against the masses of humanity? Revelation 19:
19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army.
Last time I checked: Jerusalem was destroyed. Did Jesus lose?
First-century Jerusalem is the whore of Babylon, Rod. Did you read the book?
Idealist mainly and Amillennial definitely. Most of the church fathers and early reformers seemed to have read Revelation that way. I pretty much agree with them on their reading.I must admit that the common slander that amillennialists are anti-semites is incredibly irritating to me. I think dispensationalists resort to that slander because their movement can be shown to be rather new in the church.
Erick, what does the "first resurrection" before the millennium mean to amillennialists? Rev 20:5. Who was resurrected, and when did it happen?
Lee wrote: "Erick, what does the "first resurrection" before the millennium mean to amillennialists? Rev 20:5. Who was resurrected, and when did it happen?"Amillennialists believe the first resurrection is a Spiritual resurrection (Jn. 5:24-26). The Greek words "anastasis", "egeiro" and "anistemi" etc which are usually translated as "raised" or "resurrection", can be used in a figurative sense for baptism (Rom. 6:5-7; Col. 3:1). This is how the first resurrection has been understood by the majority of orthodox church fathers and reformers. Like "palingenesis" or regeneration, anastasis or resurrection can be understood as the new birth or new life that is generated within a believer Spiritually. John 6:39-40, 44 knows of only one literal resurrection that takes place on the last day, not two. The word anastasis is never used in the plural in the whole New Testament. There is only one literal resurrection, the other is a figurative resurrection, which means the same as palingenesis or regeneration.
Could you name names for me, Erick? That will help me understand. Was John the Baptist (who was beheaded) resurrected in the spiritual resurrection...and what exactly does that mean, if he's sitting on a throne in heaven...and will John be resurrected again in a different body in the second resurrection? And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Lee wrote: "Could you name names for me, Erick? That will help me understand. Was John the Baptist (who was beheaded) resurrected in the spiritual resurrection...and what exactly does that mean, if he's sittin..."To honest with you, the kind of questions you are asking are not ones that I spend much time thinking about. They seem like the type of pedantic superfluo that medieval scholasticism and critics of the Bible made/make much of, but are really inconsequential in regards to any practical application of the faith.
Revelation I believe is a book that is highly metaphorical and symbolic; and as I already said, I am mainly idealist; so I am not sure if you are attempting to make me literalize the text in question in order for us to debate about what it means in that sense, or you really believe that gaining insight into these questions will help you understand Christianity. 1) I don't read it that way and 2) it won't.
I make no claims to having divine knowledge as to where John now resides, or whether or not he was regenerated. I assume he was. I have no idea what kind of body he will have any more than I know what kind of body I will have. The New Testament (specifically 1 Cor. 15:44) says that it is a Spiritual body. If you want more specifics, I have none to give you. Can I ask would a more detailed answer influence you to adopt Christianity as something more than a nice philosophy? Or is this simply an attempt to point out inconsistencies in the literal text? Fundamentalists love to get into those debates but I think they're worthless. Sort of like the soldiers casting lots for Jesus' clothes because they lack the insight to see where the value truly lies.
It isn't an attempt at anything, other than to understand the amillennialist view. When you said you were " Amillennial definitely," it sounded to me as if it were a studied opinion, and I was intrigued.
Lee wrote: "It isn't an attempt at anything, other than to understand the amillennialist view. When you said you were " Amillennial definitely," it sounded to me as if it were a studied opinion, and I was intr..."It doesn't seem like John The Baptist's current residence, future body and spiritual state, are questions that would be handled by amillennialists in any idiosyncratic way. You could probably ask the same questions to any Christian and get different responses that have nothing to do with their brand of eschatology. Any attempt to answer them is speculative at best.
Questions prompting a uniquely amillennial response might be: how do you handle all of the OT prophecies regarding Israel and it's restoration? Or: how do you address Isaiah and his prophecy regarding an earthly utopia?
A historical-critical analysis of scripture will help answer such questions without the need to "handle" anything, and the unanswerables (such as what, exactly, Isaiah really had in mind) must remain a mystery. A belief system, on the other hand, has no need of holes. You are free to believe as you wish to fill in the holes, such as where and how John resides today. I'm not really asking for truth, I'm just asking how Amillennialists think.
Lee wrote: "A historical-critical analysis of scripture will help answer such questions without the need to "handle" anything, and the unanswerables (such as what, exactly, Isaiah really had in mind) must rema..."I am sorry but I don't agree that a historical-critical analysis is the only method of scriptural interpretation. It is one aspect that needs to be kept in mind, but the Bible is a Spiritual work, not a work of plain history or of systematic philosophy. I find it somewhat ironic that no one would claim that I need to understand "historical-critical analysis" to understand and appreciate Coleridge or Blake but somehow it is necessary for the Bible.
Lee wrote: "A belief system, on the other hand, has no need of holes. You are free to believe as you wish to fill in the holes, such as where and how John resides today. I'm not really asking for truth, I'm just asking how Amillennialists think."
Fair enough. I could ask you whether aliens on a neighboring star system like blue cheese, simply because I want to know what you think about it; with the assumption that it is a question you should have wanted to answer and not left as a "hole" in your system of belief about extraterrestrial life. If the question is one you decline to answer because of it's speculative nature, that response should be taken with no offense on my part. Whatever your beliefs are about extraterrestrial life, I shouldn't assume that all questions regarding such beliefs are equally substantive.
Contrary to what you may believe, Christians do not make things up as they go along just to plug in "holes." Spiritual revelation is not a matter of picking and choosing what one likes and dislikes and providing answers to everything regardless of whether it has been revealed or not.
lol...I don't state that I believe in "extraterrestrials, definitely." It just seems to me that if you believe you are living in the millennium, with Jesus and lots of spiritually-resurrected people ruling us from heaven, that you would have some picture in your head of what that really means.Do I dare ask where you imagine Satan to be, and what you think of all your fellow Christians who claim to be combating Satan now?
ps: by "historical-critical," I do not mean assuming everything written is meant as a historical record. I mean Isaiah is best understood by putting it in its historical setting. And, yes, you CAN understand Blake and Coleridge better by reading from an 18th-century perspective.
Lee wrote:"lol...I don't state that I believe in "extraterrestrials, definitely."lol. No kidding. It was meant to serve as an example of what may be considered worthwhile questions and non-worthwhile questions by using a hypothetical analogy. Being "definitely amillennial" doesn't mean I "definitely" know the status of John The Baptist. I am afraid the two are not logically connected in any way, shape or form. The association is a rather bizarre one.
Lee wrote: It just seems to me that if you believe you are living in the millennium, with Jesus and lots of spiritually-resurrected people ruling us from heaven, that you would have some picture in your head of what that really means.
Yeah, but you would be wrong. Being Spiritually aware of the truth of something is way different than seeing it as if you were watching a sitcom. While revelations can come in dreams and by other methods, I have been given no picture of John's status, nor does the Bible address it. It is an "alien and blue cheese" kind of question. It really has no bearing on amillennialism.
Lee wrote:Do I dare ask where you imagine Satan to be, and what you think of all your fellow Christians who claim to be combating Satan now?
Is the question inferring the notion of Satan as a physical entity that is chained in a certain locale? If that is the intimation, than I would say he is nowhere. If you know rightly that he is a spirit being, than I would say start looking into yourself to see whether he may be hiding there. I mean no disrespect, but the binding and the loosing has to do with human beings and their inner state. It's also a battle that is either won or lost by one's own freedom of choice.
Lee wrote:ps: by "historical-critical," I do not mean assuming everything written is meant as a historical record. I mean Isaiah is best understood by putting it in its historical setting.
Yes, I know what you meant and I disagree that all of it comes down to that, because writings such as this transcend all such notions that would seek to pigeonhole the text into petty scholasticism. If you want to squeeze the life out of something, ask an academician to tear it apart critically. It's like trying to figure out what makes a butterfly beautiful and meaningful by dissecting it. I would imagine that the point I am making is probably a lost one.
Lee wrote:And, yes, you CAN understand Blake and Coleridge better by reading from an 18th-century perspective.
I see. A man is only a product of his time. Technically, they did a lot of their work in the 19th century, but I digress. Poets trapped in a context that is here one moment and gone the next. It is left up to the historico-critical academicians with their scalpels to reveal the real meaning for us. God save me from butchers.
haha. you're going to fit in well here, Erick. Nobody butchers scriptures like runaway fundies, and you'll meet a few
Lee wrote: "haha. you're going to fit in well here, Erick. Nobody butchers scriptures like runaway fundies, and you'll meet a few"I am not a fundamentalist, but the new religion that calls itself "Biblical scholarship/criticism" I dislike as well.
I wrote this elsewhere to a professor I was debating with. It is a poetic analogy like the one I made above. Since everyone here are my contemporaries, I don't think there is any reason it cannot be understood exactly the way I meant it:
"I have a very good eye for inconsistency but to read the Bible through the lens of literary criticism is to utterly miss the point. It is akin to doing a study of the chemical composition of a fine wine and then believing that that is as good, if not better, than tasting the wine itself! It's even worse when people who believe that nonsense make other people believe that they have a better grasp of the wine when they have never even tasted it. Almost certainly the people believing them have never tasted it either. What you have is a bunch of people arguing about the chemical composition of the wine and none of them have even tasted it! The whole thing is comical; and really the epitome of irony, since the Bible itself predicts that that is what people would do with it. Even genuine scholars rarely agree on how to interpret anomalies in the Bible. They are hardly trustworthy as spiritual authorities. I've read much scholarship, some of it's good, a lot of it is shoddy, but I do not take what they say as gospel. I know better."
I hear you, Erick. The amazing thing about this wine is that its chemical compound is H2O. Scholars disect it and analyze it and it always turns up water. Yet it tastes like wine, especially if you are never shown what you are tasting.I love this about the Bible. For thirty years, I merely enjoyed the taste without looking beneath. But now, it is even more fascinating.
Is there not room for truth? Can we not see that we have turned water into wine, learn the trick, and make our lives better for it?
Erick wrote: "If you want to squeeze the life out of something, ask an academician to tear it apart critically. It's like trying to figure out what makes a butterfly beautiful and meaningful by dissecting it."I'm glad we share an appreciation for the beauty of the Bible. It seems like I am constantly trying to lift people out of their fundamentalist, read-it-like-a-history-book rut to see how amazingly well-crafted the Bible is, with its multitude of poetic voices and opinions about God.
Believe it or not, there are people who imagine the stars will someday fall from the sky, because the Bible told them so.
Lee wrote:Is there not room for truth? Can we not see that we have turned water into wine, learn the trick, and make our lives better for it?"Is that really the truth? That would indeed be a trick if the understanding of a bygone age is required to read the Bible now. In other words, if I assume I must put myself in the remote past to read the Bible, how in the world can I apply it today? Seems to me an evident contradiction and a major obstacle to it being "the truth." If truth is not eternal, is it truth?
We're getting a bit too philosophic for my taste. Maybe an example would help. Sticking with the topic of Revelation, for example, the truth is that John of Patmos was writing about Nero Caesar as the Beast of the Sea, was warning his fellow Christians to avoid the evils of the Imperial Cult, was thoroughly immersed in first-century Christian issues. That is the unbending truth. While we may find inspiration and direction from reading Revelation in our age, it still behooves us to remember the truth: it was not written for us, but for first-century Christians with first-century struggles, sharing first-century dreams. That knowledge should temper how we read it.
Lee wrote:"I'm glad we share an appreciation for the beauty of the Bible. It seems like I am constantly trying to lift people out of their fundamentalist, read-it-like-a-history-book rut to see how amazingly well-crafted the Bible is, with its multitude of poetic voices and opinions about God"Poetry, like much of the Bible, is an intuitive art form. Meaning, it is the epitome of inspirational creative writing. Thus, I think it is a fitting comparison. I do believe that the Bible is poetic to a large extent, but not in the sense that it is just a collection of highly imaginative opinions. I also believe that fundamentalists have lost the ability to see the poetry of the Bible in their attempts to over literalize the text. That being said, I find the academic approach to the Bible absolutely reprehensible. It attempts to make a competing religion that is really godless in theory and in practice. Bart Ehrman and people cut from that cloth, pretend that they appreciate the Bible, but their MO is only to cast dispersions on taking it as Spiritual truth. Fundamentalists are largely to blame for this. These Bible critics believe because fundamentalists have said that every detail in the Bible is literally infallible, that poking holes in that flawed theory is eo ipso to poke holes in Christianity. The whole thing is a farce. Two false notions of Christianity competing over their egotistical rubbish. Neither understand the Bible, they just bicker over competing idolatries. I would say that fundamentalists are often more likely of having a sincere faith, whereas Bible scholars like Ehrman and others, are usually agnostics, atheists, deists, global religionists etc etc. Fundamentalism would still be closer to genuine Christianity than any of the above. The kind of nihilism that is evident in the religion that goes under the name "Bible criticism" is not something I have much love for -and that doesn't mean I am not acquainted with their theories.
Lee wrote: "Believe it or not, there are people who imagine the stars will someday fall from the sky, because the Bible told them so."
I won't pretend to know just what is going to happen in the eschaton, but the idea that the world will always be the way it is now, is not something I feel convicted to believe or accept.
Lee wrote: "We're getting a bit too philosophic for my taste. Maybe an example would help. Sticking with the topic of Revelation, for example, the truth is that John of Patmos was writing about Nero Caesar as ..."Sorry, I do not agree -either that the text is an obsolete one, or that the point I am making is a philosophical one. I am not posting on a philosophical forum. The point I am making is a valid one. If the Bible, including the Book of Revelation, is true, it must have eternal value, otherwise it is not true. Seems pretty common sense to me. I don't think it requires a doctorate in philosophy to understand or see the logic of that point. Regardless of whether or not John had in mind an immediate context, the Spiritual ideas can be applied to recurring life situations; if there is indeed truth to be found there.
The implied notion that humanity and time is some random chain of events without meaning, purpose or connection is what I mean when I say that the academic approach is a godless one. It functions under the misguided and devious subtext that life is ultimately without divine purpose, but that is exactly what the Bible points to it having. What it really implies, though it remains unstated, is that the Bible has NO divine influence and that man is the only god there is. Pretty awful idea. Because this is a point that is always implied, but mostly unstated, it indicates that all of this is the product of self-delusion and the attempt to delude others at the same time. It is an attempt to remove divine context and make the Bible only a book and nothing more. It makes man the only measure of truth.
We may be bickering over the meaning of "true." You say "If the Bible, including the Book of Revelation, is true, it must have eternal value, otherwise it is not true." In other words, Forest Gump is true, while my great grandfather's life (already forgotten) is false.You are correct that the academic approach IS godless. It is where we must start. We begin with what we know to be true. If we still find God in the writings, then that's wonderful. If we have to shape our understanding of God to match the facts, that's called honesty.
So...to get back to details, was John of Patmos, or was he not, writing to a first-century audience about first-century issues? Can we agree that in John's mind, 666 = Nero Caesar, for example? From your Amillennial viewpoint, I suspect you agree.
If you can answer in the affirmative, then I recognize that you appreciate the basic historical truth. That's probably why you favor amillennialism. From there, Revelation can be extended to include deeper, spiritual truths. We may see a divine hand in the publication of Revelation. Each century can understand Babylon on its own terms, etc. Futurists may even see Nero Caesar as a typology of another beast yet to come (which, in popular lore, has been tied to the antichrist). Preterists can believe the New Jerusalem has already descended to earth. Skeptics can throw up their hands and say "well, John sure guessed wrong that time." All of that is our religious prerogative, once the facts are established.
But if we don't begin with a solid, historical-critical approach to scripture, then we're just building castles in the air with no foundation.
Lee wrote: "We may be bickering over the meaning of "true." You say "If the Bible, including the Book of Revelation, is true, it must have eternal value, otherwise it is not true." In other words, Forest Gump ..."I am afraid your point and association is not a logical one from what I can tell. Forest Gump is a fictional character, your grandmother must have been a living breathing person. You wouldn't be here otherwise. Not sure what the connection between them and truth is.
Lee wrote: You are correct that the academic approach IS godless. It is where we must start. We begin with what we know to be true. If we still find God in the writings, then that's wonderful. If we have to shape our understanding of God to match the facts, that's called honesty.
Wrong. One does not start with a negative (i.e. no God) to get a positive (i.e. God). One must start with a positive and base all other judgments on that. Your point is illogical and will never reach truth because it is in fact a false presupposition. Your facts are not facts. Scholarship is based on conjectural theories, not facts. All of the people who wrote the Bible, like your grandmother I assume, are no longer here to ask. All historical evidence has mostly disappeared. Treating Bible scholarship like it is gospel truth is silly in my opinion. They rarely agree even among themselves on how to interpret the Bible. Even when they do agree, it doesn't make it fact, let alone, truth. Truth is not determined by ballot and theory.
Lee wrote: So...to get back to details, was John of Patmos, or was he not, writing to a first-century audience about first-century issues? Can we agree that in John's mind, 666 = Nero Caesar, for example? From your Amillennial viewpoint, I suspect you agree.
Hold on. Let me ask him. Oh wait... he's no longer here physically. I guess we can't ask him personally. So there goes the idea that we can become contemporaneous with John and know precisely what he was thinking. Was he addressing first century Christians? Yes. Does that logically mean that the text is thereby obsolete and has only value, or even primary value, for first century Christians? No. One does not necessitate the other. First century Christians found value in the text and so do I. There is no reason that one should prevent the other. Even if the number 666 fit the letters of Nero, that does not mean that that was what he intended. There is such a thing as coincidence. That is still a theory, not a fact, even if there may be circumstantial evidence to support it. Scholarship deals in theories, not facts.
Lee wrote:If you can answer in the affirmative, then I recognize that you appreciate the basic historical truth.... All of that is our religious prerogative, once the facts are established.
Once again, your facts are not facts, they are theories. It is very important to know the difference. Treating scholars like dispensers of infallible truth is as ridiculous IMO, if not more so, than fundamentalists who believe every detail in the Bible is literally and historically infallible.
Lee wrote: But if we don't begin with a solid, historical-critical approach to scripture, then we're just building castles in the air with no foundation.
While I don't mind taking such into account, you make evident the very problems I have with it as the main method e.g. treating theories as facts, ascribing to egotistical secular scholars divine authority, removing Spiritual inspiration, making the text obsolete, using man as the gauge of truth etc etc.
Oh, dear. We need to define the word "fact" next, I guess, or soon you'll be claiming that evolution or relativity or the existence of a historical Jesus is a non-fact. We know these things not because of our own knowledge but by relying upon the experts in their fields. Will there be a few fringe (honest) researchers who insist Jesus never lived? Sure, but they are in a small minority. The evidence is too great, I'd say a certainty within a 1% margin of error, and I'm happy with the word "fact" for that. I'm aware it's an imprecise word to use, but it's quicker than saying "it's almost certainly a truth."
So when I speak of "fact," I speak of what we can be reasonably certain is true, given the research of those who dedicate their lives to the field. The evidence that John wrote about Nero Caesar is overwhelming enough that every studied scholar of Revelation, conservative or liberal, surely reaches that conclusion. It's somewhat of a no-brainer ... at least as much of a certainly as the existence of a historical Jesus, wouldn't you say?
btw, I find your disdain for scholars a bit disconcerting.
Your definition of certainty and mine may differ considerably. I believe it most likely does. Very few things that are of reasonable certitude is trusted simply because some scholars said so. Like all human beings they fall victim to inflated self opinion. And they are doing it more and more. Books that are nothing but pseudo-scholarly drivel are now flooding the market every year. By respected scholars like Bart Ehrman no less. I reviewed one pseudo-scholar not that long ago. I have no problem with genuine scholarship. Look at my shelf. I'm well read. My issue is the kind of religious veneration these people are accumulating nowadays. I find it incredibly disturbing. That's why I have been calling it another religion. It is functioning like one. It even centers around a sacred text that it believes it has the real meaning and interpretation of. That's the beginning of every cult that ever was.Whether John was writing about Nero Ceasar, or someone else, is not of paramount importance to me. I have no problem thinking that Rome and Nero were reasonable symbols, just as Babylon was a reasonable symbol for John. My gripe is putting such stock into such a reading that one trivializes the Spiritual import of the text. I believe your approach, and the approach of much scholarship out there, is attempting to do just that. My only interest is what God intends to say, not what scholars say that it says. Does that make my approach clear enough so that it's obvious why I have an issue with putting too much stock into conjecture?
I think we're cool, Erick. I didn't mean to harp on the Nero Caesar thing, it just happened to be the example we were discussing.I'm still curious about some of your amillennialist views--I'm intrigued by your view of Satan being bound--but it can wait for another day.
