Book of Revelation:Commentary on the End of the Roman Empire or of our times? (gospel, blood)

[Ozzie]

A recent documentary inspires a thread on the Book of Revelation. I am not a Bible scholar, nor a Christian. However, I wonder how literally this Book should be interpreted. Presuming Christians here on the forum are conversant with scholarly opinion on this Book, how should John's words be interpreted: as a commentary on the Romans and Caligula in particular, or as a prophetic message about the end of days to come?

[Moni_Gail]

One documentary I watched on this very subject suggested it was about Nero and not Caligula. :shrug Though I must say I'd more readily believe that than the end of the world bit that many subscribe to.

[wizanda]

I have written an article on the end being forged as it repeats word for word, how he bowed in front of the same angel and told not to a chapter between and then changes the context and wording; also closing the book, which wouldn't have been known until canonized.
The start also appears fake where they added sprinkling of blood, as that is Balaam teaching and wasn’t there to begin, as it mistakenly identifies Christ.

Also the author is not the same author as that of the gospels, as the wording is different, John was adept at writing Greek the author of Revelations isn’t and makes basic grammatical flaws.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Moni_Gail

One documentary I watched on this very subject suggested it was about Nero and not Caligula. :shrug Though I must say I'd more readily believe that than the end of the world bit that many subscribe to.

It doesn't matter if it was written for Nero or Caligula.

The point is simply: does John's apocalypse address an ancient persecution? Did it have meaning to the original audiences?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

A recent documentary inspires a thread on the Book of Revelation. I am not a Bible scholar, nor a Christian. However, I wonder how literally this Book should be interpreted. Presuming Christians here on the forum are conversant with scholarly opinion on this Book, how should John's words be interpreted: as a commentary on the Romans and Caligula in particular, or as a prophetic message about the end of days to come?

1) The canonical book "Revelation" is written in the form of apocalypse patterned after Jewish apocalyptic which usually addresses the fall of a government currently persecuting the author's group. It is written in highly symbolic language, framing the fall of the powerful government in cosmological terms (eg., the fall of such a powerful government can only happen if the stars fall out of the heavens, etc).

2) The symbolic language only makes sense if it has some relationship to contemporary situations (eg., the situation of the author/audience) - not situations present after 2000 years - or even 100 years.

So it can't be interpreted literally at any time, but the symbols only make sense to the specific context of the original author/audience.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

The point is simply: does John's apocalypse address an ancient persecution? Did it have meaning to the original audiences?

It may well be the meaning those audiences got from the text. And their meaning may be just one "correct" meaning to get from it.

However, I wonder how that fits with ideas that there will be some grand golden age after all the dust settles. The Hebrew prophets go into that as well.

Well, actually pretty much every religion has that sort of thing. Even some "mythologies" do. (like Ragnarok for the Norse)

[Booko]

2) The symbolic language only makes sense if it has some relationship to contemporary situations (eg., the situation of the author/audience) - not situations present after 2000 years - or even 100 years.

So it can't be interpreted literally at any time, but the symbols only make sense to the specific context of the original author/audience.[/quote]

I would dispute this to some extent, AE, as the way I stumbled on my current religion was studing eschatologies from various religions, including John's Apocalypse of course. Not that I would've made the connection without Zoroastrian prophecies, because I doubt I would've.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Booko

I would dispute this to some extent, AE, as the way I stumbled on my current religion was studing eschatologies from various religions, including John's Apocalypse of course. Not that I would've made the connection without Zoroastrian prophecies, because I doubt I would've.

So what's the dispute?

[Moni_Gail]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

It doesn't matter if it was written for Nero or Caligula.

The point is simply: does John's apocalypse address an ancient persecution? Did it have meaning to the original audiences?

Ah, then I will definitely bow out of this one since that was the only helpful thing I had to add to the discussion.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Moni_Gail

Ah, then I will definitely bow out of this one since that was the only helpful thing I had to add to the discussion.

awww, it's ok.