Revelation is not Christian

[mee]

the thread title said, Revelation is not Christian


i would disagree with that, because i would say that the book of revelation is very much for christians to be interested in , especially as the opening words say that Jesus is showing his slaves the things that will take place.


and his slaves are christians doing his will.


But what really is an apocalypse?

Though dictionaries define it by using terms such as "an imminent cosmic cataclysm," the Greek a·po·ka´ly·psis basically means "unveiling" or "uncovering."


Thus, the last book of the Bible is properly entitled "A Revelation."

Here we find, not a mere fatalistic message of world doom, but an uncovering of divine truths that should build in our hearts a radiant hope and an immovable faith.




Revelation adds its testimony to many other Bible prophecies, showing that Jehovah God purposes to create new heavens and a new earth. (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1-5)



Primarily, its message is addressed to anointed Christians, whom Jesus has bought with his blood to become corulers with him in the new heavens. (Revelation 5:9, 10)



Nevertheless, this good news will also fortify the faith of those millions who look forward to everlasting life under Christ’s Kingdom. Are you one of these?



Then Revelation will strengthen your hope of living in Paradise, as part of the new earth, with the enjoyment of an abundance of peace, vibrant health, and an overflow of God’s provisions that will never end. (Psalm 37:11, 29, 34; 72:1, 7, 8, 16)



If you want to survive into that new world, it is urgent, yes, mandatory, that you pay attention to Revelation’s graphic description of the epoch-making climax now at hand.—Zephaniah 2:3; John 13:17.


Interpreting the Scriptures The mysteries locked up in the book of Revelation have for long baffled sincere students of the Bible.

In God’s due time, those secrets had to be unlocked, but how, when, and to whom?


Only God’s spirit could make known the meaning as the appointed time drew near. (Revelation 1:3)

Those sacred secrets would be revealed to God’s zealous slaves on earth so that they would be strengthened to make known his judgments. (Matthew 13:10, 11)

 

[seattlegal]

One of the points of revelation that is not being addressed is the attrocities man inflicts upon humanity and the world, before the intervention of God. Indeed the warning is that if not for direct intervention from God, the total destruction of mankind is imminent and short coming.

Forgiveness is one thing. Allowing the total destruction of all of mankind is another.

Revelation is not about forgiveness, but about a battle between those for God and those opposed to God (it is a mirror of the first battle that occured between the Creator and some of the created, as noted in Genesis).

The "prize" is human kind's existence, and the souls/spirits of those caught in the middle.

When Christ was crucified, man didn't know any better. Now we do...

v/r

Q

The irony about revelation (and other 'prophetic scripture') is the dual nature of the message. It was appropriate for the times then, and is apparently appropriate for the times now...or do you disagree?

I would have to agree with this. I see the dual (or duel ) nature of the book of Revelation as being both internal and external. In the internal sense, it is about the personal struggle we all go through during our personal spiritual development. We can express the Spirit of Christ, or the Spirit of Antichrist. From the internal sense, each of us can see the Kingdom of God and the Second Coming during our lifetime, and the struggle for our soul is up close and personal.

We can see the book of Revelation in the external sense when the love of the majority of people will grow cold due to the increase of lawlessness, as Jesus said in Matthew 24:12, and many will start to externalize their own internal struggle, even forming 'collectives' that might symbolically resemble some of the 'beasts' within the book of Revelation. JMHO.

 

[sonoman]

the thread title said, Revelation is not Christian


i would disagree with that, because i would say that the book of revelation is very much for christians to be interested in , especially as the opening words say that Jesus is showing his slaves the things that will take place.


and his slaves are christians doing his will.


But what really is an apocalypse?

Though dictionaries define it by using terms such as "an imminent cosmic cataclysm," the Greek a·po·ka´ly·psis basically means "unveiling" or "uncovering."


Thus, the last book of the Bible is properly entitled "A Revelation."

Here we find, not a mere fatalistic message of world doom, but an uncovering of divine truths that should build in our hearts a radiant hope and an immovable faith.




Revelation adds its testimony to many other Bible prophecies, showing that Jehovah God purposes to create new heavens and a new earth. (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1-5)



Primarily, its message is addressed to anointed Christians, whom Jesus has bought with his blood to become corulers with him in the new heavens. (Revelation 5:9, 10)



Nevertheless, this good news will also fortify the faith of those millions who look forward to everlasting life under Christ’s Kingdom. Are you one of these?



Then Revelation will strengthen your hope of living in Paradise, as part of the new earth, with the enjoyment of an abundance of peace, vibrant health, and an overflow of God’s provisions that will never end. (Psalm 37:11, 29, 34; 72:1, 7, 8, 16)



If you want to survive into that new world, it is urgent, yes, mandatory, that you pay attention to Revelation’s graphic description of the epoch-making climax now at hand.—Zephaniah 2:3; John 13:17.


Interpreting the Scriptures The mysteries locked up in the book of Revelation have for long baffled sincere students of the Bible.

In God’s due time, those secrets had to be unlocked, but how, when, and to whom?


Only God’s spirit could make known the meaning as the appointed time drew near. (Revelation 1:3)

Those sacred secrets would be revealed to God’s zealous slaves on earth so that they would be strengthened to make known his judgments. (Matthew 13:10, 11)

"..and his slaves are christians doing his will."

This is not Christianity. Christians are not Muslims, Christians are not slaves to Allah, they are not slaves to Jesus. We are not even servants to Him. Please read the New Testament more carefully.

"No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."
--Jn 15:15

"Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."
--Gal 4:7

 

[Dream]

the end of spiritual authority arising from traditional religions losing their spiritual credibility for people of intelligence.

Interesting. I've been hearing that a lot lately, coming from a lot of directions from individuals of diverse backgrounds who've made up their own minds about it.

 

[mee]

Yes i agree it is very important to read the new testament very carefully ,then we can have the correct understanding of it .

In view of Jesus’ words at John 15:15, should Christians view themselves as his "slaves," or can we consider ourselves to be his "friends"? ​

We can and should be both. To see why, let us note what Jesus there said to his faithful apostles on his final night with them ​

"No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends. You are my friends if you do what I am commanding you. I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all the things I have heard from my Father I have made known to you."—John 15:13-15. ​

First, what did Jesus mean by saying that his loyal disciples were slaves?

He did not mean slaves in the sense that all human descendants of Adam are born imperfect, thus sold into or enslaved to sin. (John 8:34; Romans 5:18, 19; 6:16; 7:14) ​

As with Christians since then, the apostles were once enslaved in that way, but Jesus’ sacrifice would provide the means to free, or release, them. (1 Peter 1:18, 19; Galatians 4:5) ​

Yet, they did not thereupon become totally free. ​

As the apostle Paul later wrote, they were "bought with a price," Jesus’ blood, so they became slaves of God and of Christ.—1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:22, 23. ​

At John 15:15 Jesus was not suggesting that the faithful apostles who would shortly receive holy spirit and become anointed Christians were no longer slaves. (Compare John 15:20.) ​

Of course, servitude to God through Christ is not oppressive and death-dealing. It is loving and life-preserving. (2 Timothy 4:8; Titus 1:1, 2) ​

A Christian who gladly accepts the value of Christ’s blood and becomes a slave of God would face permanent death only if he later rejected that sacrifice and gave himself back over to sin, becoming a slave of it again. (Galatians 1:10; 4:8, 9; Hebrews 6:4-6) ​

Hence, Jesus’ disciples would continue to be slaves of God and of Christ, but they were even more than slaves. Why? ​

Jesus and the apostles understood that back then, in a normally cold or formal master-slave relationship, ‘a slave would not know what the master does.’ Normally, a human master would not confer with his purchased slave, nor would he reveal to him his private thoughts and feelings. ​

We can see from Jesus’ words, though, that it was different with the apostles. ​

He said: "I have called you friends, because all the things I have heard from my Father I have made known to you." (John 15:15) ​

Yes, as is common between dear friends, Jesus had disclosed to them details and understandings that had been secret. (Matthew 13:10-12; 1 Corinthians 2:14-16) ​

Though they were still servants, or slaves, of God by means of Jesus, the apostles enjoyed a warm intimacy that marked them also as trusted friends. (Compare Psalm 25:14.) ​

That can and should be true of us as well. What a privilege to have as Masters in heaven Ones who treat us as trusted and respected confidants, as friends!​

 

[mee]

yes reading the bible gives to greater understanding.


Christianized Jews, like Paul himself, were no longer slaves under the Law covenant that had been mediated by the prophet Moses.


They were now spiritual sons of God and were in the "new covenant" mediated by Jesus Christ, a Prophet greater than Moses.


That new covenant produces what the old Mosaic Law covenant failed to produce, namely, "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Exodus 19:5, 6; Hebrews 8:6-13; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6)


The "holy nation" that is in the new covenant is therefore a spiritual Israel, made up of Christians who are Jews or Israelites inwardly.


These have been circumcised in their hearts rather than outwardly in the flesh. So we read in Romans 2:28, 29.

 

[seattlegal]

the end of spiritual authority arising from traditional religions losing their spiritual credibility for people of intelligence.

Interesting. I've been hearing that a lot lately, coming from a lot of directions from individuals of diverse backgrounds who've made up their own minds about it.

Well, yes. Even Jesus spoke out against authorities who used traditions to nullify Godliness, such as in Matthew 15:1-20

 

[lunamoth]

Well, yes. Even Jesus spoke out against authorities who used traditions to nullify Godliness, such as in Matthew 15:1-20

Might we conclude that it's not a problem with the scripture, but a problem with the interpretation?

 

[seattlegal]

Might we conclude that it's not a problem with the scripture, but a problem with the interpretation?

Of course. That's why some of the supposedly spiritual authorities lose their spiritual credibility. "By their fruits you will know them."-- Matt 7

 

[Dondi]

The Jewish Christian writers of the Gospels researched the Jewish epic, Isaiah and Psalms, in order to make it conform to prophesies of a Suffering Servant, not Israel, but Jesus and Jesus as suffering servant Messiah. Less than probably 400 years divided writers of the Old Testament from the New Testament.

But there has been recent light in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other archeological evidence that some pre-Christian Jews also believed in a Messiah that would suffer and die. They based these things on the same scriptures. How do you know that the Gospel writers weren't just confirming what was already written about the Messiah?

 

[sonoman]

But there has been recent light in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other archeological evidence that some pre-Christian Jews also believed in a Messiah that would suffer and die. They based these things on the same scriptures. How do you know that the Gospel writers weren't just confirming what was already written about the Messiah?

The only way to judge whether or not Torah and Tanakh scriptures presage the coming of Jesus as the Messiah is to go to Jewish scriptural authorities who know the most about all the meanings of the words and letters of the written Hebrew. Greek-speaking Jews who wrote the Gospels were using the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament and made mistakes, big ones, such as mistranslating Isaiah's word "almah" for "virgin" when it means "young woman".

My point is that even Jews of the day may not have been all that familiar with their religious texts in Hebrew but were familiar with apocalyptic books, like the Book of Enoch, and it looks as if Paul knew about the gnostic "Redeemer" idea in Jewish gnostic texts which fits his cosmic Christ model. The Essenes had different texts, the DSS reflect another set of Jewish beliefs, there was the Ebionites, still another Jewish Christian sect, so yes, you are right in that in late B.C., early A.D. there were Jewish sects that had Messianic expectations of a different sort of Messiah, even different from the Joseph type which is still a warrior king Messiah and not the cosmic Redeemer whose ritualized death redeems sinners that Jesus represents.

 

[Quahom1]

The only way to judge whether or not Torah and Tanakh scriptures presage the coming of Jesus as the Messiah is to go to Jewish scriptural authorities who know the most about all the meanings of the words and letters of the written Hebrew. Greek-speaking Jews who wrote the Gospels were using the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament and made mistakes, big ones, such as mistranslating Isaiah's word "almah" for "virgin" when it means "young woman".

My point is that even Jews of the day may not have been all that familiar with their religious texts in Hebrew but were familiar with apocalyptic books, like the Book of Enoch, and it looks as if Paul knew about the gnostic "Redeemer" idea in Jewish gnostic texts which fits his cosmic Christ model. The Essenes had different texts, the DSS reflect another set of Jewish beliefs, there was the Ebionites, still another Jewish Christian sect, so yes, you are right in that in late B.C., early A.D. there were Jewish sects that had Messianic expectations of a different sort of Messiah, even different from the Joseph type which is still a warrior king Messiah and not the cosmic Redeemer whose ritualized death redeems sinners that Jesus represents.

The irony here, is that the "scholars" of the age that put the biblia together "did" understand the languages of scripture. And they chose these books to become the Christian Bible. And they did so for reasons we can't fathom, except to say that they did not want the life of Jesus to go away (something about the rocks and the ground crying out for God if man did not).

Also there is the small matter of the Jewish leaders of the time "hating" the new followers of the alleged Christ. They didn't do so well keeping themselves together, much past 70 years after the Rabbi's demise. I wouldn't put much merit into their attempts to validate Christ, since their hearts weren't in it to begin with...

 

[sonoman]

The irony here, is that the "scholars" of the age that put the biblia together "did" understand the languages of scripture. And they chose these books to become the Christian Bible. And they did so for reasons we can't fathom, except to say that they did not want the life of Jesus to go away (something about the rocks and the ground crying out for God if man did not).

Also there is the small matter of the Jewish leaders of the time "hating" the new followers of the alleged Christ. They didn't do so well keeping themselves together, much past 70 years after the Rabbi's demise. I wouldn't put much merit into their attempts to validate Christ, since their hearts weren't in it to begin with...

Yes, there is that. It is quite weird to me, as a Christian with Jewish ancestry, how Jesus' clear separation from Pharaisic Judaism has been now almost totally pushed under the rug of the new "Kosher" Christianity that embraces Jews and Judaism as fellow believers and thank you, but Jesus never meant those things he said....but he did.

 

[Quahom1]

Yes, there is that. It is quite weird to me, as a Christian with Jewish ancestry, how Jesus' clear separation from Pharaisic Judaism has been now almost totally pushed under the rug of the new "Kosher" Christianity that embraces Jews and Judaism as fellow believers and thank you, but Jesus never meant those things he said....but he did.

Actually Jesus was quite clear that he came for the Jews, and the gentiles were granted access after the Jews rejected what was offered. As I recall, we gentiles are the grafted branches on the tree of life...