Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The book of Revelation was written by a man named John who was an exiled prisoner. He had nothing to do but write down his visions. But there was a lot of anger mixed with love.
What would you think about a modern day prisoner who was doing the same thing? When people are in isolation they can have all kinds of wild and crazy thoughts. Anger. Love. Resentment. Forgiveness. Etc. But would you really trust this person who was a criminal? Regardless of whether the person was exiled for a true crime or whatever. The thoughts of extreme judgement that a person could have is kind of troubling.
Does anyone else understand my point of view?
What he wrote were known things in Judaism that Christians don't know because they reject everything of Judaism, it is written in secret because he was a captive. Everything in the book must shortly come to pass because it is explaining how a Gentiles progressively walks in the fall holy days.
The Revelation is a fractured history of the End Times in Judaea. The W**** of Babylon is the Parthian Empire, who did not show up to support the Jewish Revolt. The beast with seven heads refers to the seven hills of Rome. There is a bunch of spurious interpretation of the smackdown as a religious event, but if you refer to the Roman histories, it's easy to see what actually happened. Like many religious fanatics, the author skated along the fringes of reality without actually engaging it. He was so obscure that Christians have generally interpreted it as a fortune telling prophecy rather than a history. Why the Romans thought it was worth including in the Bible is beyond me. Maybe it was to pacify some fanatical faction or other.
I like that. The seven heads - seven hills of Rome.,.of course. Babylon, makes sense if the Parthians hadn't moved the Capital to Cstesiphon yet. But it would mean that it would have to be written when the revolt had started to fail and the Parthians had sat on their hands.
The apostle you are referring to "whom Jesus loved" is probably Lazarus, since he is the one that Jesus raised from the dead and was at the bosom of Jesus (just like the "other" Lazarus was at the bosom of Abraham). But it's funny how everyone assumes it was John. I also believe it's possible that the exiled John could have been included in the gospel stories. But we really just don't know. And I don't trust anyone who claims to know one way or the other.
Lazarus at the bosom of Abraham, therefore the beloved disciple. Interesting.
I believe the word used was "disciple" (~ "mathetes").
Sure, a lot of Christians (mostly those seeking cult power) were calling themselves apostles instead of disciples thanks to Paul calling himself the 13th late apostle. Judas, as one of the 12 apostles, was also replaced along the way with someone else, supposedly. Such an occurrence was odd because Jesus tells his "12 apostles" at the time that they would be rulers over the 12 tribes of Israel as if one for each tribe. And Christians supposedly "needed" Jesus to be crucified.
Judas (being a certain type of Messianic Jew) would have also been under the impression that "no-one" could hurt the prophecized "last Messiah" and that the Messiah's triumph over Secular "Protect-all-Accepted-Religions" Rome and any other possible usurpers of Israel's sovereignty (although having taken away their sovereignty in sometimes even more merciful ways than their own stories describe of what they did to conquer the land to begin with) was a certainty.
It would be unlikely to think that Christians didn't believe that Jesus loved all his "true" disciples and that there were 12+ apostles "whom Jesus loved."
Lazarus at the bosom of Abraham, therefore the beloved disciple. Interesting.
I believe the word used was "disciple" (~ "mathetes").
Sure, a lot of Christians (mostly those seeking cult power) were calling themselves apostles instead of disciples thanks to Paul calling himself the 13th late apostle. Judas, as one of the 12 apostles, was also replaced along the way with someone else, supposedly. Such an occurrence was odd because Jesus tells his "12 apostles" at the time that they would be rulers over the 12 tribes of Israel as if one for each tribe. And Christians supposedly "needed" Jesus to be crucified.
Judas (being a certain type of Messianic Jew) would have also been under the impression that "no-one" could hurt the prophecized "last Messiah" and that the Messiah's triumph over Secular "Protect-all-Accepted-Religions" Rome and any other possible usurpers of Israel's sovereignty (although having taken away their sovereignty in sometimes even more merciful ways than their own stories describe of what they did to conquer the land to begin with) was a certainty.
It would be unlikely to think that Christians didn't believe that Jesus loved all his "true" disciples and that there were 12+ apostles "whom Jesus loved."
Yes, I always thought there was some lighthearted humor in the phrase "disciple whom Jesus loved" since he would have loved them all.
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that John was the disciple whom Jesus loved, the one that is identified as the one he loved is Lazarus...And this is the one who’s testimony is written...
Did you read the link I posted?
Come to your Messiah, Richard. He's calling to you.
Last edited by BaptistFundie; 11-10-2018 at 08:17 PM..
Come to your Messiah, Richard. He's calling to you.
No, I read the gospel of John..Nowhere I It does it state that John was the disciple whom Christ loved, it DOES say that Lazarus was the disciple whom Christ loved...And regarding your second comment, you really need to cut that out...I’m a Jew and your Jesus is not my messiah...He is yours, Christianity invented him and you can keep him...
Yes, I always thought there was some lighthearted humor in the phrase "disciple whom Jesus loved" since he would have loved them all.
John was the one he slept with. Galilee was an Alexandrian colony. Greek sexual practices would have been common.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
