Revelations

[leftrightleftrightleft]

So I've just begun reading Revelation for the first time. I've read the Gospels multiple times. I've read the rest of the New Testament twice and I've read parts (though unfortunately not all, as yet) of the Old Testament.

I have avoided Revelation mainly because I don't get it. When I read Revelation or when I see passages from Revelation, its so markedly different from the stuff in the rest of the New Testament.

I mean, some people get all huffy about miracles in the Gospels and they get mad at some things in Paul's epistles. But over all, the books of the New Testament are fairly good, readable and believable. I mean, the letters are just that...letters. The Gospels are a fairly intriguing narrative. The books of the New Testament are all grounded, to some degree, in history and factual accounts.

Then I get to Revelation and I ask myself, "Okay, who broke out the 'shrooms?"

You think I'm joking but Revelation legitimately seems like an acid trip whereby John got some "Happy Mushrooms" and wandered off to commune with Jesus for a bit. Its so outlandish that I actually laugh at some aspects of it.

What am I supposed to be getting out of this book? What could possibly be taken as literal from this book?

Why was Revelation ever included in the Bible?

 

[drich0150]

You think I'm joking but Revelation legitimately seems like an acid trip whereby John got some "Happy Mushrooms" and wandered off to commune with Jesus for a bit. Its so outlandish that I actually laugh at some aspects of it.

How well do you think you could describe a war that takes place 2000 years in the future only using your current understand of nature and technology? To someone from that time period it would be you who sounds like he is on a trip.

What am I supposed to be getting out of this book?

That Jesus is coming back in a time that no one knows or can predict, and when He comes it will not be as the lamb of God but the lion. Meaning He is bring the judgment of God with Him.

What could possibly be taken as literal from this book?

Nothing, Everything. It depends on your perspective.

Why was Revelation ever included in the Bible?

As a gift of the holy Spirit to the last generation of Believers who will live in that time. Because when the Anti Christ comes He will bring "evidence or proof" that will speak to all who seek that sort of assurance. If not for the map of events plotted out by revelations, many more in the church would fall to the message that the anti Christ will bring.

Revelations is a road map for that last generation in a very specific time period. I isn't going to make sense till we are on that stretch of road.

 

[hedrick]

It's a vision. Of things the author probably didn't fully understand, and maybe was only given glimpses of. There are times when words aren't good enough, and you can only speak in song or maybe poetry.

I've only seen one exposition of the Revelation that does it justice. It's a video, in a series of videos presenting major NT stories in moderized form, called "Good God Theater". Their episode on the Revelation is a monologue by a drunk, with a jazz clarinet in the background. It's completely different from the rest of the DVD. it sounds weird, but somehow it works. But it works by trying to capture the mood and intent, and not the specifics.

 

[GrayAngel]

I don't think we're meant to understand it. Before Jesus came, they had revelations too. They had hundreds of predictions about who the Christ was and what events would surround Him, but they didn't understand it. When Jesus came, they had no idea what His purpose was. They imagined Him as some war hero who would free theme from Rome, not as someone who would die for the sins of the world.

I expect our views of Revelations would be the same. When we read it, it's hard to grasp what's being said, but in retrospect, it'll probably make much more sense to us after the events have taken place.

 

[Nephi]

If you look at the history of the Book of Revelation in the Church, you'll notice that it took the longest out of all of the books considered the New Testament to be canonized universally - and there are still Churches that have always rejected it as being non-canonical, and there are those that place it in a secondary/non-Liturgical level where it is useful but completely unnecessary.

My best response is to simply read it and if you get anything that enforces orthodox belief, then allow it to strengthen it, but don't try to think into the rest. It seems to be spiritually damaging to over-think/personally interpret Revelation and other such books.

 

[Hakan101]

So I've just begun reading Revelation for the first time. I've read the Gospels multiple times. I've read the rest of the New Testament twice and I've read parts (though unfortunately not all, as yet) of the Old Testament.

I have avoided Revelation mainly because I don't get it. When I read Revelation or when I see passages from Revelation, its so markedly different from the stuff in the rest of the New Testament.

I mean, some people get all huffy about miracles in the Gospels and they get mad at some things in Paul's epistles. But over all, the books of the New Testament are fairly good, readable and believable. I mean, the letters are just that...letters. The Gospels are a fairly intriguing narrative. The books of the New Testament are all grounded, to some degree, in history and factual accounts.

Then I get to Revelation and I ask myself, "Okay, who broke out the 'shrooms?"

You think I'm joking but Revelation legitimately seems like an acid trip whereby John got some "Happy Mushrooms" and wandered off to commune with Jesus for a bit. Its so outlandish that I actually laugh at some aspects of it.

What am I supposed to be getting out of this book? What could possibly be taken as literal from this book?

Why was Revelation ever included in the Bible?

As outlandish as it seems, Revelations has a pretty serious tone. I assumed it was given to strengthen the hope of believers, especially those who will live when it takes place. I think nobody contests Revelations much because a lot of what it reveals hasn't taken place yet.

John seems to be describing what he sees in a literal way, but many of the details seem to be symbolic. Jesus' appearance, for instance: he has a double edged sword coming out of his mouth, is surrounded by seven golden lampstands, and holds "seven stars" in his hand. If you just look at this literally, without considering there might be significance behind this, Jesus looks pretty strange.

 

[Faulty]

Revelations alludes to the Old Testament over 500 times, and flows in content with many of it's end time prophecies, including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Psalms, Zechariah, Amos, Obadiah, Joel, and especially Daniel.

As such, you could really consider it an OT book in content, prophetic in it's coming fulfillment, and a NT book chronologically.

I love Revelations and have read it many times. Chapters 2 and 3 are some of my favorite passages of scripture.

 

[Faulty]

John seems to be describing what he sees in a literal way, but many of the details seem to be symbolic. Jesus' appearance, for instance: he has a double edged sword coming out of his mouth, is surrounded by seven golden lampstands, and holds "seven stars" in his hand. If you just look at this literally, without considering there might be significance behind this, Jesus looks pretty strange.

That's literally what he saw, seven stars and seven lampstands. Jesus said John saw these things:

As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, andthe seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches
Rev 1:20

Then Jesus proceeds to give a key to the book and gives an intrepretation of these things he saw which looked strange as things which are prophetic symbolism, that stars are the angels of the churches and the lampstands he saw are the seven churches.

Just like in the gospels, Jesus usually gave the meaning behind His symbols, but not always, or intrepretation and clarity can be found elsewhere. For example, the demonic swarms of locusts which arise out of the pit in chapter 9, can be viewed in greater detail in the book of Joel, because he spends more time describing this same event.

 

[razeontherock]

Then I get to Revelation and I ask myself, "Okay, who broke out the 'shrooms?"

What am I supposed to be getting out of this book? What could possibly be taken as literal from this book?

Why was Revelation ever included in the Bible?

I actually don't find that disrespectful at all! It is certainly a mystical experience, and the first thing to note is you get the title right in the thread, unlike in your thread title. It is significant to note that it is all ONE revelation, OF Jesus Christ, to John. So first, will any of us ever get as much out of it as John did?? Next, I am now reading what John's pupil wrote about what John taught him, about this book: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Next, Rev was the primary book accepted in Canon that was genuinely contested. The standard was, was it used in Church? Rev was not.

A key to Biblical understanding: Prophecies are always fulfilled exactly as spoken. Visions and dreams never are, but the physical event they refer to look quite unlike their Spiritual description. (What makes Rev difficult, is it contains BOTH.) So my main point is, do not go spending all your time looking for newspaper clippings that seem like they could be what Rev talks about

Pray for understanding, for the Lord to show you what He means. Even His own words can be very challenging, and they are very direct compared to most of the rest of the book. I will say go ahead and read it through, but do not expect too much understanding until you master the OT. Even just the sheer # of OT references is staggering, but the depth is even moreso.

Rev is all about worship

 

[Hakan101]

That's literally what he saw, seven stars and seven lampstands. Jesus said John saw these things:

As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, andthe seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches
Rev 1:20

Then Jesus proceeds to give a key to the book and gives an intrepretation of these things he saw which looked strange as things which are prophetic symbolism, that stars are the angels of the churches and the lampstands he saw are the seven churches.

Just like in the gospels, Jesus usually gave the meaning behind His symbols, but not always, or intrepretation and clarity can be found elsewhere. For example, the demonic swarms of locusts which arise out of the pit in chapter 9, can be viewed in greater detail in the book of Joel, because he spends more time describing this same event.

Right, that's what I meant, sorry I did not clarify. I meant to say that Jesus' appearance and the other details in Revelations are literal, but they also have symbolic meaning. The OP was saying it was outlandish, I was trying to point out there is significance behind the literal details.

 

[golgotha61]

So I've just begun reading Revelation for the first time. I've read the Gospels multiple times. I've read the rest of the New Testament twice and I've read parts (though unfortunately not all, as yet) of the Old Testament.

I have avoided Revelation mainly because I don't get it. When I read Revelation or when I see passages from Revelation, its so markedly different from the stuff in the rest of the New Testament.

I mean, some people get all huffy about miracles in the Gospels and they get mad at some things in Paul's epistles. But over all, the books of the New Testament are fairly good, readable and believable. I mean, the letters are just that...letters. The Gospels are a fairly intriguing narrative. The books of the New Testament are all grounded, to some degree, in history and factual accounts.

Then I get to Revelation and I ask myself, "Okay, who broke out the 'shrooms?"

You think I'm joking but Revelation legitimately seems like an acid trip whereby John got some "Happy Mushrooms" and wandered off to commune with Jesus for a bit. Its so outlandish that I actually laugh at some aspects of it.

What am I supposed to be getting out of this book? What could possibly be taken as literal from this book?

Why was Revelation ever included in the Bible?

One of the reasons the book was canonized was because the author was John the apostle and being an apostle he was a spokesman for God and he was accepted as a prophet which was one of the requirements for canonization.

It may be helpful to consider that Revelation is an example of apocalyptic literature which puts it into another category of interpretation and explanation. "Elements that would position a section on the apocalyptic side of the continuum include rich symbolism, visions, conversation with spiritual beings, and cosmic catastrophe leading to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. In general, apocalyptic literature can be characterized as simply using a slightly different medium for conveying the prophetic word of God.

The use of symbols in apocalyptic literature has often created confusion and uncertainty for interpreters. Many books offer icredible revelations of the symbolic meaning of this or that passage from the apocalyptic literature. Much confusion is caused, however, by one's mistakenly treating the vision of a prophet as the message."(A Survey of the Old Testament by Hill and Walton).

An example of this would be Zechariah 1:8-11 where the vision is horses in a grove of myrtle trees. The mistake would be for Israel to look for a group of horsemen and riders in a grove of myrtle trees when the message really was for Israel to understand that the Lord was still concerned about Jerusalem (vv. 14-17)
The book of Revelation is one of the past, present, and future.

 

[bling]

First and foremost: These are all letters in the New Testament written to first century Christians. This is not our mail, but we are reading other people’s mail.

This was written after most of the other letters were written, but the Gospel of John was probably even later. The point is John would have knowledge of at least some other letters getting around and how they got out (they were being seen and read by non- Christians (gentiles especially).

This is coming after the cruel destruction of Jerusalem, which would have generated lots of questions about what God was going to do with these cruel Romans.

Rev 1:3 “…because the time is near”. Tells us this is coming about soon.

As has been stated above:

It may be helpful to consider that Revelation is an example of apocalyptic literature which puts it into another category of interpretation and explanation. "Elements that would position a section on the apocalyptic side of the continuum include rich symbolism, visions, conversation with spiritual beings, and cosmic catastrophe leading to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. In general, apocalyptic literature can be characterized as simply using a slightly different medium for conveying the prophetic word of God.


The use of symbols in apocalyptic literature has often created confusion and uncertainty for interpreters. Many books offer icredible revelations of the symbolic meaning of this or that passage from the apocalyptic literature. Much confusion is caused, however, by one's mistakenly treating the vision of a prophet as the message."(A Survey of the Old Testament by Hill and Walton).


So the question is why did John write this way?

Apocalyptic literature is used to describe most previous prophecies of destruction : the first and second destruction of Jerusalem, destruction of Egypt, destruction of Babylon, destruction of the Mede-Persian Empire, and destruction of others. Partly this seems to be done to disguise who is being destroyed so if the nation found out about the prophecy they would not try to destroy Israel for saying such a thing. So what would happen to Christian caught with a letter giving obvious prophecies concerning the destruction of Rome?