• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

I really hate the book of Revelation

hiscosmicgoldfish

Liberal Anglican
Mar 1, 2008
3,592
59
✟19,267.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
And the book of Daniel.

I used to believe that these books were the word of God. Now I believe that they are completely false. I can’t stand all the rubbish that people go on about with eschatology, endlessly quoting from Daniel and Revelation. If you are led by the Spirit, eventually it becomes clear, that not everything that ‘they’ included in the bible is the word of God.

There is not going to be any mark of the beast. There is no antichrist, and never will be. The book of Revelation is totally devoid of the love of God. It is a rant by a very angry, disgruntled and unloving individual, who wanted the peoples of the world killed by God, in revenge for the activities of the Romans, back two thousand years ago, when people didn’t know any better.
 

Shane R

Priest
Site Supporter
Jan 18, 2012
2,465
1,326
Southeast Ohio
✟716,758.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
You are missing the message of hope in both books. In Daniel, the hope of the coming 'Son of Man'. In Revelation, the future joy outlined in the 22nd chapter. The beauty is the consistency and connection of the message in these books, as well as the rest of the canon, when properly interpreted.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,506
7,326
North Carolina
✟336,381.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And the book of Daniel.

I used to believe that these books were the word of God. Now I believe that they are completely false. I can’t stand all the rubbish that people go on about with eschatology, endlessly quoting from Daniel and Revelation. If you are led by the Spirit, eventually it becomes clear, that not everything that ‘they’ included in the bible is the word of God.

There is not going to be any mark of the beast. There is no antichrist, and never will be. The book of Revelation is totally devoid of the love of God. It is a rant by a very angry, disgruntled and unloving individual, who wanted the peoples of the world killed by God, in revenge for the activities of the Romans, back two thousand years ago, when people didn’t know any better.
Speaking of rants. . .

In the faith,
Clare
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,355
Clarence Center NY USA
✟245,147.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I save my dislike ( I do not hate anything in the Bible) for Numbers and Dueteronomy and all those begats wherever they pop up. Revelation is kind of interesting and keeps my attention.
 
Upvote 0

Soulgazer

Christian Gnostic
Feb 24, 2011
3,748
90
Visit site
✟26,903.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And the book of Daniel.

I used to believe that these books were the word of God. Now I believe that they are completely false. I can’t stand all the rubbish that people go on about with eschatology, endlessly quoting from Daniel and Revelation. If you are led by the Spirit, eventually it becomes clear, that not everything that ‘they’ included in the bible is the word of God.

There is not going to be any mark of the beast. There is no antichrist, and never will be. The book of Revelation is totally devoid of the love of God. It is a rant by a very angry, disgruntled and unloving individual, who wanted the peoples of the world killed by God, in revenge for the activities of the Romans, back two thousand years ago, when people didn’t know any better.
I can't say I hate them. I just don't use them and don't consider them scripture.
 
Upvote 0
E

Enkil

Guest
And the book of Daniel.

I used to believe that these books were the word of God. Now I believe that they are completely false. I can’t stand all the rubbish that people go on about with eschatology, endlessly quoting from Daniel and Revelation. If you are led by the Spirit, eventually it becomes clear, that not everything that ‘they’ included in the bible is the word of God.

There is not going to be any mark of the beast. There is no antichrist, and never will be. The book of Revelation is totally devoid of the love of God. It is a rant by a very angry, disgruntled and unloving individual, who wanted the peoples of the world killed by God, in revenge for the activities of the Romans, back two thousand years ago, when people didn’t know any better.

Daniel has one of the greatest fulfillments of prophecy ever, which, beyond predicting Alexander, the Persian empire, the Romans, and other events, also give the timeline for the destruction of the Jewish temple and the coming of Messiah. After the Messiah is "cut off," the people of the prince "that shall come" will destroy the city and the sanctuary. This was fulfilled in 70AD, when the city and sanctuary were destroyed on the same day, in the same month, that they were first destroyed by the Babylonians.

The concept of an anti-Christ isn't limited to Revelation, but is found in multiple parts of the New Testament.
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟25,389.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And the book of Daniel.

I used to believe that these books were the word of God. Now I believe that they are completely false. I can’t stand all the rubbish that people go on about with eschatology, endlessly quoting from Daniel and Revelation. If you are led by the Spirit, eventually it becomes clear, that not everything that ‘they’ included in the bible is the word of God.

There is not going to be any mark of the beast. There is no antichrist, and never will be. The book of Revelation is totally devoid of the love of God. It is a rant by a very angry, disgruntled and unloving individual, who wanted the peoples of the world killed by God, in revenge for the activities of the Romans, back two thousand years ago, when people didn’t know any better.

Hello hiscosmicgoldfish, nice to meet you.

Just as a suggestion it might help to discuss what it is about prophecy, and these two books in particular that you dislike. It might be that in discussion of these issues you could work through this.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

interpreter

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2004
6,309
157
78
Texas
✟7,377.00
Faith
Anglican
And the book of Daniel.

I used to believe that these books were the word of God. Now I believe that they are completely false. I can’t stand all the rubbish that people go on about with eschatology, endlessly quoting from Daniel and Revelation. If you are led by the Spirit, eventually it becomes clear, that not everything that ‘they’ included in the bible is the word of God.

There is not going to be any mark of the beast. There is no antichrist, and never will be. The book of Revelation is totally devoid of the love of God. It is a rant by a very angry, disgruntled and unloving individual, who wanted the peoples of the world killed by God, in revenge for the activities of the Romans, back two thousand years ago, when people didn’t know any better.
They are both the word of God. The Revelation has been unfolding since 312 AD, on October 28th, when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow. The earth is now ruled by the 4th horseman, the US, that was founded by George Washington who rode a pale horse. Our weapons bring hell and death.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Part of the reason that the book of revelation isn't understood and even doesn't make any kind of sense to some people is because of certain false doctrines that they have. Some of the book of revelation is clear to everyone, but much of the symbolic portions of the book are unclear because people have false doctrines that prohibt them from correctly understanding that symbolism. The manchild section is a big one. Those that think they understand it don't understand it completely also because of the same reason. When the rapture occurs, who the manchild is, what the 7 churches signify, create big stumbling blocks for people until they know what they are, then everything falls into place and makes perfect sense.

I went to a church once that officially refused to try and understand what the book of revelation was about because they had no idea. I have heard comprehensive explanations from some, like Hal Lindsay in his book the late great planet earth, and he is off but not completely. It's a good start, if you have nothing else better.

Me personally, I never heard an explanation that made sense to me, till i heard the one I know believe. And it clicks with me as the correct meaning. You know the feeling when you get a revelation from god about what a scripture means, that sort of clicking.
 
Upvote 0

hiscosmicgoldfish

Liberal Anglican
Mar 1, 2008
3,592
59
✟19,267.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Hello hiscosmicgoldfish, nice to meet you.

Just as a suggestion it might help to discuss what it is about prophecy, and these two books in particular that you dislike. It might be that in discussion of these issues you could work through this.

God bless.

Yep. This is what I think...

Daniel was written after the facts. It’s a fraud. The whole book is about the empire of the Greeks, the Seleucids and the Ptolemaic rulers. Antiochus IV is the main character. The book was written in 167 BC, during the Maccabean revolt, to give encouragement to the Jews, who were being persecuted by Antiochus, as nobody in history was as bad as Antiochus as far as the Jews were concerned.
I don’t know of any scholar who thinks that Daniel was written back in the Babylonian exile. Daniel isn’t about Jesus, although it has a messianic angle to it. The prince involved was Onias 3, a Jewish priest.

The world was predicted to end after the demise of Antiochus, and the angel Michael was the one who would ‘stand up for your people’, and not Jesus returning to earth. It didn’t happen obviously.
The whole book is just history, made to look like prophesy. During the Maccabean uprising, one of the writers made a prediction about Antiochus, which didn’t happen. You can see it in the 11 chapter.

I read some time ago, a book about Daniel, and the writer (a believer with a PHD) was trying to make out that there is a break in the flow of the last chapters of the book, where it goes into a prophesy about a future antichrist.
The break is placed actually where the prediction didn’t happen historically. Antiochus expired in Persia, not in Palestine. How could that possibly be about a future Antichrist? Someone running around Palestine, fighting with the King of the South; yeah, the Ptolemaic ruler; why not just come out with it, and be honest and say it was the Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt, at that time, instead of being all cryptic and saying ‘the King of the South’. It’s actually infuriating, to have believed such a load of old rubbish. ‘And the King of the North shall do such and such’; having known all along that it was about Antiochus.

Someone over on eschatology said that I was destroying people’s faith with my opinions on these books, and I know these things upset people, but hopefully people have a stronger faith, despite having to face the truth, about the bible.

The book of Daniel remained in the Jewish canon, even though it was proved to be false, and then it was adopted by the early church. I believe that this error has been taken through the ages, by the church, who won’t admit to the truth of the matter.
The ‘antichrist’ was Antiochus IV, it’s over with. I think the idea of the antichrist was taken by the writer of 2 Thessalonians, and projected into a Christian future, instead of realising what the book of Daniel was actually about.
This is the theory that I have of late. Where did the idea of an antichrist come from? Some say it is derived from Persian dualistic beliefs. It's a Persian idea, that made it over into Jewish thought. I don't think that 2 Thessalonians was written by Paul. I think it was someone pretending to be Paul.
This 'man of sin' supposedly goes into the Temple (whatever that is) and claims to be God. Well, Antiochus IV did that, he claimed to be divine. (That's what 'Epiphines' means).
Maybe the early Christians had read an antichrist into Daniel. And now some people think that this is still going to happen in a rebuilt Jewish Temple. I don't. (Mainly because I don't think a rebuilt Temple could be a 'Temple of God' as it is an insult to the sacrifice of Jesus; having set up animal sacrifice again).
I saw Grant Jeffrey on the God TV, explaining how all that animal sacrifice could be acceptable, to Christian way of thinking. He was saying that it is a sort of 'looking back' ritual, looking back to the sacrifice of Jesus. But that is not scriptural as far as I know, I think they just made that up.

It is of the age of the ancient world, not of today. It's what a Greek or a Roman would have done. Is anyone going to believe an antichrist who would do that, in Jerusalem, in this day and age? I don't think so.
It is very 'Jerusalem centric', and the world is a much bigger place than Israel, although to the writers of Daniel, everything was about Israel and Jerusalem.
What about the idea that 'the Temple' is the Christian people? Maybe that theory has something going for it. Although, I don't see why the writer of 2 Thessalonians would have to be cryptic, in that letter, so that now no one is sure what he meant. I think it is more likely that the writer was talking about a literal Temple of God, in Jerusalem. I don't know if the Temple still stood at that time of writing. It probably did. Who knows.

(Thanks to the person who said they would pray for me). I consider myself to be an orthodox Christian, although my opinions give much offense, I can’t help that, it just drives me mad. Revelation is even worse. Have you noticed that nobody bothers with Revelation? There are no books out there which investigate that book. Except about 1000 books which try to interpret it, all different conclusions.

Because the predictions in Daniel didn’t come about, people like Grant Jeffrey’s used to make out that it was about the Romans. Well not really, as that never happened, so it must be about a revived Roman empire of the future. I have spent a lot of time trying to get to the truth of the book of Daniel. The truth is that the book cannot be about the Romans, and that is easy to prove.

And Hal Linsey is still going on about a revived Roman Empire in Europe. It didn't happen back in the 1980's. If there is an antichrist, it is not the non existant antichrist of Daniel. I think maybe that we have been so inculturated with the book of Revelation, it is so well known. Until you step back and examine that book critically and think about it. Really read it, and don't miss out the first chapters.
 
Upvote 0

barryrob

Junior Member
Mar 20, 2008
821
15
✟23,616.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Marital Status
Married
And the book of Daniel.

I used to believe that these books were the word of God. Now I believe that they are completely false. I can’t stand all the rubbish that people go on about with eschatology, endlessly quoting from Daniel and Revelation. If you are led by the Spirit, eventually it becomes clear, that not everything that ‘they’ included in the bible is the word of God.

There is not going to be any mark of the beast. There is no antichrist, and never will be. The book of Revelation is totally devoid of the love of God. It is a rant by a very angry, disgruntled and unloving individual, who wanted the peoples of the world killed by God, in revenge for the activities of the Romans, back two thousand years ago, when people didn’t know any better.


Think again:-

1 John 2:18
"...even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour.


Why would an unloving God say:-

Revelation 21:3-5
. . .With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” 5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also, he says: “Write, because these words are faithful and true.”


rob
 
Upvote 0

ptomwebster

Senior Member
Jul 10, 2011
1,484
45
MN
Visit site
✟1,922.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And the book of Daniel.

I used to believe that these books were the word of God. Now I believe that they are completely false. I can’t stand all the rubbish that people go on about with eschatology, endlessly quoting from Daniel and Revelation. If you are led by the Spirit, eventually it becomes clear, that not everything that ‘they’ included in the bible is the word of God.

There is not going to be any mark of the beast. There is no antichrist, and never will be. The book of Revelation is totally devoid of the love of God. It is a rant by a very angry, disgruntled and unloving individual, who wanted the peoples of the world killed by God, in revenge for the activities of the Romans, back two thousand years ago, when people didn’t know any better.


As much as you hate it you sure love talking about it, and it's clear you have never read the books with understanding.
 
Upvote 0

tansy

Senior Member
Jan 12, 2008
7,027
1,331
✟50,979.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well. I don't understand properly what Daniel and Revelation say, and all the different ideas tend to be confusing, so I just wait and see.
Have to remember that at the time of Jesus, not many people understood the prophecies about Jesus coming to earth the first time round, and didn't recognise who He was.
 
Upvote 0

Soulgazer

Christian Gnostic
Feb 24, 2011
3,748
90
Visit site
✟26,903.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I suppose it's because I was a fool.
It's easy to get sucked into the post-modern hype.
"Babylon" in Revelation is Rome; that part is easy to figure out. Babylon destroyed the first temple, and Rome the second. From there it just re-iterates Daniel with an Apocalyptic sect spin.

Rome is central to many apocalyptic spins. The church in Rome was going to be put under the auspices of the government, and her and her "daughters" or spin off churches were going to lead the whole world into evils.

I can't say it happened, unless everybody on these boards wants to admit to being followers of the anti-christ, but it was a common fear that also shows up in some gnostic texts such as "Gnostic Peter":
{Jesus Said} "And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."
There was a great deal of fear and infighting among the various sects- The Roman Christians were afraid of the outlying Christians whom were afraid of the Roman Christians. Pretty much like today. People never change, just the technology.
 
Upvote 0

hiscosmicgoldfish

Liberal Anglican
Mar 1, 2008
3,592
59
✟19,267.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
It's easy to get sucked into the post-modern hype.
"Babylon" in Revelation is Rome; that part is easy to figure out. Babylon destroyed the first temple, and Rome the second. From there it just re-iterates Daniel with an Apocalyptic sect spin.

Rome is central to many apocalyptic spins. The church in Rome was going to be put under the auspices of the government, and her and her "daughters" or spin off churches were going to lead the whole world into evils.

Yes, Babylon is Rome. And Mystery Babylon was the mystery religions of the Roman Empire. The popular colours of the Romans were purple and red, and that’s why Mystery Babylon wears those colours. Luther and the reformers thought that Mystery Babylon and the antichrist was the papacy. So do the SDA church.
Revelation predicts that Rome would be totally wiped out; as it says it has a millstone around it and is flung into the sea, if I remember rightly. Didn’t happen, false prophesy. One of a whole book of false prophesies.

No one on this forum has addressed any of the points I made, which means that no one is interested, or that I am correct and have won the argument. I can’t discuss anything on eschatology, as I don’t believe that any of the scriptures that they are using are canonical, except for what Jesus said about it in the gospels.
Revelation makes use of Daniel, which was another apocalyptic writing, same sort of genre of that age, the intertestamental period. Daniel was written about 200 BC, during that time, when the prophets of Israel had long since gone quiet, for whatever reason.
The ten horns of Daniel’s fourth beast are the ten Greek kings of the Seleucid dynasty. Antiochus IV was the little horn, the 11 th king, who ‘plucked up by the roots’ three other potential kings, in the line of succession. That’s the solution to the mystery; it works and is proved by history.
Revelation looks at Daniel, misreads it, and transposes those ten horns onto the mythical hydra beast. Revelation says that those ten horns rule for a while with the beast. So it was thought that Rome would have some sort of Decemvirate rule, with a demonic leader at the head, probably someone like Nero.
And then Jesus would storm in and settle everything; killing everybody so that they are all up to their necks in blood. That was Revelation’s solution for Daniel, because they didn’t see what Daniel was about.

The fourth beast of Daniel cannot be Rome, because Rome did not crush and trample over the previous empire of the Persians. Rome did not conquer Parthia, so it can’t be Rome. The fourth beast is the Greek Empire.
The statue of Nebuchadnezzar is part of a belief that there would be four great empires, before the end. There is no mention of the Islamic Empire, no mention of the British Empire; nothing about the domination of Palestine and Jerusalem for centuries by the Muslims.

Revelation makes use of practically every visionary prophet in the OT. The book of Joel is butchered in Rev. Chapter nine. This John, whoever he was, claims to be the greatest prophet ever, a combination of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and everyone else.
‘John’, was probably a non-Christian Jew, (not Christianity as it became) who had been exiled to the island of Patmos, where the Romans put all the crackpots; that is a little known fact of history.
There is a little bit of evidence that he might have been ‘John the Presbyter’, once the pastor of a church, but I think it might have been written by a small team of people, as it is a big effort.
I think the book is heretical, (I know this is the unorthodox forum), but since when does the Holy Spirit have seven spirits? The Holy Spirit is one, not seven. But as no one is interested in discussing the matter, that’s all.
 
Upvote 0

Soulgazer

Christian Gnostic
Feb 24, 2011
3,748
90
Visit site
✟26,903.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, Babylon is Rome. And Mystery Babylon was the mystery religions of the Roman Empire. The popular colours of the Romans were purple and red, and that’s why Mystery Babylon wears those colours. Luther and the reformers thought that Mystery Babylon and the antichrist was the papacy. So do the SDA church.
Revelation predicts that Rome would be totally wiped out; as it says it has a millstone around it and is flung into the sea, if I remember rightly. Didn’t happen, false prophesy. One of a whole book of false prophesies.

No one on this forum has addressed any of the points I made, which means that no one is interested, or that I am correct and have won the argument. I can’t discuss anything on eschatology, as I don’t believe that any of the scriptures that they are using are canonical, except for what Jesus said about it in the gospels.
Revelation makes use of Daniel, which was another apocalyptic writing, same sort of genre of that age, the intertestamental period. Daniel was written about 200 BC, during that time, when the prophets of Israel had long since gone quiet, for whatever reason.
The ten horns of Daniel’s fourth beast are the ten Greek kings of the Seleucid dynasty. Antiochus IV was the little horn, the 11 th king, who ‘plucked up by the roots’ three other potential kings, in the line of succession. That’s the solution to the mystery; it works and is proved by history.
Revelation looks at Daniel, misreads it, and transposes those ten horns onto the mythical hydra beast. Revelation says that those ten horns rule for a while with the beast. So it was thought that Rome would have some sort of Decemvirate rule, with a demonic leader at the head, probably someone like Nero.
And then Jesus would storm in and settle everything; killing everybody so that they are all up to their necks in blood. That was Revelation’s solution for Daniel, because they didn’t see what Daniel was about.

The fourth beast of Daniel cannot be Rome, because Rome did not crush and trample over the previous empire of the Persians. Rome did not conquer Parthia, so it can’t be Rome. The fourth beast is the Greek Empire.
The statue of Nebuchadnezzar is part of a belief that there would be four great empires, before the end. There is no mention of the Islamic Empire, no mention of the British Empire; nothing about the domination of Palestine and Jerusalem for centuries by the Muslims.

Revelation makes use of practically every visionary prophet in the OT. The book of Joel is butchered in Rev. Chapter nine. This John, whoever he was, claims to be the greatest prophet ever, a combination of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and everyone else.
‘John’, was probably a non-Christian Jew, (not Christianity as it became) who had been exiled to the island of Patmos, where the Romans put all the crackpots; that is a little known fact of history.
There is a little bit of evidence that he might have been ‘John the Presbyter’, once the pastor of a church, but I think it might have been written by a small team of people, as it is a big effort.
I think the book is heretical, (I know this is the unorthodox forum), but since when does the Holy Spirit have seven spirits? The Holy Spirit is one, not seven. But as no one is interested in discussing the matter, that’s all.
I consider most of the texts of the New Testament to be fan fiction. However, they suffice. I prefer the Hauptbriefe, but I like the gospels also. I reconcile the knowledge that they are probably not all that accurate with the knowledge that they represent some of the highest of spiritual aspirations ever recorded.
 
Upvote 0

interpreter

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2004
6,309
157
78
Texas
✟7,377.00
Faith
Anglican
It's easy to get sucked into the post-modern hype.
"Babylon" in Revelation is Rome; that part is easy to figure out. Babylon destroyed the first temple, and Rome the second. From there it just re-iterates Daniel with an Apocalyptic sect spin.

Rome is central to many apocalyptic spins. The church in Rome was going to be put under the auspices of the government, and her and her "daughters" or spin off churches were going to lead the whole world into evils.

I can't say it happened, unless everybody on these boards wants to admit to being followers of the anti-christ, but it was a common fear that also shows up in some gnostic texts such as "Gnostic Peter": There was a great deal of fear and infighting among the various sects- The Roman Christians were afraid of the outlying Christians whom were afraid of the Roman Christians. Pretty much like today. People never change, just the technology.
Wrong. Babylon the great harlot is not Rome. It is Moscow which sits on 7 hills and many waters (5 seas). Moscow was briefly aligned with Hitler the antichrist.
 
Upvote 0