OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The more I think about it, the more I think Muck meant simply that we can take any "prophesy" and interperate the facts as being in accord with that Prophesy. It's why our daily horoscopes have "meaning" to some people, if it says "You'll be lucky in love today" and you end up getting laid, you think "Holy Mother of Pear, I'm glad I'm a Taraus!" But.. as we (Well... most of us, anyway) know, there is no predictive value in Astrology.

The more I think about Apocalyptic prophesy, the more I believe it has nothing to do with any real "end times" at all, and has everything to do with giving people a reason to believe the rest of the stuff in the Bible. Kind of a Scared Straight philosophy. You'd better believe, cause if you don't, when the end gets here (and its' going to be really nasty) you're in big big trouble. Without the apocalypse, people aren't compelled to worry much about what the Bible says. With it, well... hell.. it could be a matter of days until the end gets here, so I better keep my act together.

You can take any time in history and find relatively "convincing" arguments that the people of the time were certain the apocalypse was upon them.... the last time it was absolutely certain it was all over but for the fire and brimstone was when 1999 became 2000... another time was when 999 became 1000... among other times... usually around a "round" year... since man seems to think that when God pulls the plug on this it has to happen on a round year... I guess... Anyway... despite what a man in 1000 AD would cite as conclusive evidence that the end was near, here we are.

By the time 3000 get here, assuming we havent destroyed ourselves, I'm pretty confident we'll be able to assume the Apocalypse is still just right around the corner. We want to believe our time is important. It's not.

 

[jwinslow]

The more I think about Apocalyptic prophesy, the more I believe it has nothing to do with any real "end times" at all, and has everything to do with giving people a reason to believe the rest of the stuff in the Bible. Kind of a Scared Straight philosophy. You'd better believe, cause if you don't, when the end gets here (and its' going to be really nasty) you're in big big trouble. Without the apocalypse, people aren't compelled to worry much about what the Bible says. With it, well... hell.. it could be a matter of days until the end gets here, so I better keep my act together.

If I was going to add something mainly to scare people straight, I'd have done so in a less confusing manner.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If I was going to add something mainly to scare people straight, I'd have done so in a less confusing manner.

Might work... but there's also a good deal of inherent fear that goes along with something that's so hard to "understand" that you can't do anything but ask your church to figure it out for you.

 

[Bleed S & G]

The more I think about it, the more I think Muck meant simply that we can take any "prophesy" and interperate the facts as being in accord with that Prophesy.

Yup, very easy to do.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks
The more I think about it, the more I think Muck meant simply that we can take any "prophesy" and interperate the facts as being in accord with that Prophesy.

It is true that prophesy that addresses the future (as there are other types of prophesy) can be interpreted and applied many different ways, but it is not true that all interpretations or applications are equal.

 

[CookyPuss]

The more I think about Apocalyptic prophesy, the more I believe it has nothing to do with any real "end times" at all, and has everything to do with giving people a reason to believe the rest of the stuff in the Bible. Kind of a Scared Straight philosophy. You'd better believe, cause if you don't, when the end gets here (and its' going to be really nasty) you're in big big trouble. Without the apocalypse, people aren't compelled to worry much about what the Bible says. With it, well... hell.. it could be a matter of days until the end gets here, so I better keep my act together.

Actually, it is quite the opposite. Apocalyptic prophesy almost always emerges from oppressed and persecuted groups. It brings a message of hope: God will smite your enemies and your suffering in this world will be rewarded. Remember, John who received the "Revelation" was an exile on the Island of Pathos due to his Christian beliefs. It was written during the reign on Nero (almost certainly the Anti-Christ figure) who blamed the fire of Rome on the Christians setting off wide spread persecution. The prophecy of Daniel came during the 2nd exile of Israel with its not so thinly veiled references to Nebuchadnezzar.

These books were written to audiences of desperate people who were in a sense experiencing the "end of the world" at least as they knew it. The message was one of reassurance that God will prevail and the evil they faced would be punished. Not so much written with a fear of hell, but the hope of heaven/return to the promised land.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Actually, it is quite the opposite. Apocalyptic prophesy almost always emerges from oppressed and persecuted groups. It brings a message of hope: God will smite your enemies and your suffering in this world will be rewarded. Remember, John who received the "Revelation" was an exile on the Island of Pathos due to his Christian beliefs. It was written during the reign on Nero (almost certainly the Anti-Christ figure) who blamed the fire of Rome on the Christians setting off wide spread persecution. The prophecy of Daniel came during the 2nd exile of Israel with its not so thinly veiled references to Nebuchadnezzar.

These books were written to audiences of desperate people who were in a sense experiencing the "end of the world" at least as they knew it. The message was one of reassurance that God will prevail and the evil they faced would be punished. Not so much written with a fear of hell, but the hope of heaven/return to the promised land.

From my understanding jewish people do NOT believe in the after life like christians do.. there is no 'heaven'

one of the things with this book that cacthes my fancy, compare it with the islam version and you'll be amazed at how you can tie one in with the other.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Actually, it is quite the opposite. Apocalyptic prophesy almost always emerges from oppressed and persecuted groups. It brings a message of hope: God will smite your enemies and your suffering in this world will be rewarded. Remember, John who received the "Revelation" was an exile on the Island of Pathos due to his Christian beliefs. It was written during the reign on Nero (almost certainly the Anti-Christ figure) who blamed the fire of Rome on the Christians setting off wide spread persecution. The prophecy of Daniel came during the 2nd exile of Israel with its not so thinly veiled references to Nebuchadnezzar.

These books were written to audiences of desperate people who were in a sense experiencing the "end of the world" at least as they knew it. The message was one of reassurance that God will prevail and the evil they faced would be punished. Not so much written with a fear of hell, but the hope of heaven/return to the promised land.

Very well stated and it gets to the heart of Paul's statement that the purpose of prophesy is edification (1 Corinthians 14:5).

You also bring up the important point that the Bible is written by people who were oppressed at some point in their lives, many while they wrote. I don't think most people really realize this.

 

[Muck]

The more I think about it, the more I think Muck meant simply that we can take any "prophesy" and interperate the facts as being in accord with that Prophesy. It's why our daily horoscopes have "meaning" to some people, if it says "You'll be lucky in love today" and you end up getting laid, you think "Holy Mother of Pear, I'm glad I'm a Taraus!" But.. as we (Well... most of us, anyway) know, there is no predictive value in Astrology.

Essentially that was my point.

We've all seen countless shows where people go back & pour over history until they find something they can try to fit into Nostradamus' triplets.

When you get to the point where you are trying to make things fit you stop looking for alternate explanations that don't fit your preconceived belief.

ie Hisler = Hitler rather than Hisler = Danube

IMO it's pretty obvious that Paul and other early Christians believed they were living in the end of days (well primarily because Jesus told them so). Those living in the late 10th century (900s) were absolutely convinced they were living the last days. The same cycle continues over and over throughout the centuries...believing you are living in the end times is hardly anything new or even unique in the annals of Christendom.

999, 1260, 1420, 1967, 1988, 1999, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/israel/index.html?inline=2001 all passed by without the end as was predicted by some...

Matthew 24:36 - But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

(Of course in 24:34 Jesus said it would happen within their lifetime, but you can't have everything I suppose)

 

[buckeyegrad]

From my understanding jewish people do NOT believe in the after life like christians do.. there is no 'heaven'

True, most Jews do not conceive of heaven the same as Christians. Although religious Jews do believe there will be an afterlife, most admit that they don't know what it will be like (although the Orthodox Jews will tell you they will be the only ones there), but they do believe they being the chosen people of God assures a place of good standing with God in it.

one of the things with this book that cacthes my fancy, compare it with the islam version and you'll be amazed at how you can tie one in with the other.

Comparisons are not surprising as Islam borrowed a lot of ideas of Judaism and Christianity.

 

[CookyPuss]

From my understanding jewish people do NOT believe in the after life like christians do.. there is no 'heaven'

Not in the sense of a heaven that you die and go to immediately. That would be true of the early Christians and the writer of Revelation as well. The modern idea of "heaven" developed over time and with many influences. Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God coming to earth, not individuals going to heaven. Jews certainly believed in heaven, and a lucky few were assumed there including Moses and Elijah but they did not die and were raised. When the coming of the Kingdom of God (better translated as God's Kingly Rule) did not happen, other beliefs began to take precidence. The idea of modern heaven actually has much more root in Greek philosophy than Judaic thought.

One needs only to look at the Lord's Prayer to hear Jesus' thoughts on the subject. In the prayer, he petitions that "God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Again, the focus is on the heavenly realm coming to earth and not the other way around. Jewish tradition teaches that with the coming of the Messiah and God's rule on earth is the resurrection of the dead (who have been in a state of slumber in sheol) and the judgement. The book of Revelation follows the expectation that this was all to happen soon with Jesus' resurrection being the first fruits of the greater resurrection. With the passing of time the fervor of the expectation that this "could happen tomorrow" began to fade and heaven became a place of cherubs and fluffy clouds where your grandma and first puppy dog await you. Our modern vision of hell was largely influenced by Dante's Inferno.

 

[lvbuckeye]

The more I think about it, the more I think Muck meant simply that we can take any "prophesy" and interperate the facts as being in accord with that Prophesy. It's why our daily horoscopes have "meaning" to some people, if it says "You'll be lucky in love today" and you end up getting laid, you think "Holy Mother of Pear, I'm glad I'm a Taraus!" But.. as we (Well... most of us, anyway) know, there is no predictive value in Astrology.

agreed.

The more I think about Apocalyptic prophesy, the more I believe it has nothing to do with any real "end times" at all, and has everything to do with giving people a reason to believe the rest of the stuff in the Bible. Kind of a Scared Straight philosophy. You'd better believe, cause if you don't, when the end gets here (and its' going to be really nasty) you're in big big trouble. Without the apocalypse, people aren't compelled to worry much about what the Bible says. With it, well... hell.. it could be a matter of days until the end gets here, so I better keep my act together.

that's just it, though. Revelation is NOT a prophecy of what will happen in the end times. it's the Revelation of JESUS CHRIST. there is a distinct difference, which is lost on most Americans.

You can take any time in history and find relatively "convincing" arguments that the people of the time were certain the apocalypse was upon them.... the last time it was absolutely certain it was all over but for the fire and brimstone was when 1999 became 2000... another time was when 999 became 1000... among other times... usually around a "round" year... since man seems to think that when God pulls the plug on this it has to happen on a round year... I guess... Anyway... despite what a man in 1000 AD would cite as conclusive evidence that the end was near, here we are.

once again, you are using a modern definition of the word "apocalypse" which quite literally did not previously exist. "apocalypse" literally means "revealed" or "unveiled" in Greek. there is no reference to 'end time disasters.' that connotation is the result of church leaders attempting to stop the Reformation by inventing new doctrine.

By the time 3000 get here, assuming we havent destroyed ourselves, I'm pretty confident we'll be able to assume the Apocalypse is still just right around the corner. We want to believe our time is important. It's not.

by now, i think my point should be clear. the Book starts with this verse: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass..."

it doesn't say, 'things that will happen in the end times.' it says. 'things which must shortly come to pass.'

again, a sense of history is paramount in understanding the Revelation. for instance, the knowledge that the futurist view which is currently en vogue in the US was penned by the Jesuit Ribera as a direct rebuttal/ dismissal of the Protestant Reformation should help put that fallacious doctrine in the correct light.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Not in the sense of a heaven that you die and go to immediately. That would be true of the early Christians and the writer of Revelation as well.

Again, the focus is on the heavenly realm coming to earth and not the other way around.

No, not true. The early christians believed in reincarnation, i just read that recently.. the church changed their stance on that in like year 1000 something.

yes, Christ taught of the kingdom coming here.. and that is what revelation is about.

Grad, the comparisons are more like this.. where the first big figure is the leader of the beast system.. theres is "God" leading one big world system. ours continues on to say Jesus returns, and slays the anti-christ in front of the prophets in Israel.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Actually, it is quite the opposite. Apocalyptic prophesy almost always emerges from oppressed and persecuted groups. It brings a message of hope: God will smite your enemies and your suffering in this world will be rewarded. Remember, John who received the "Revelation" was an exile on the Island of Pathos due to his Christian beliefs. It was written during the reign on Nero (almost certainly the Anti-Christ figure) who blamed the fire of Rome on the Christians setting off wide spread persecution. The prophecy of Daniel came during the 2nd exile of Israel with its not so thinly veiled references to Nebuchadnezzar.

sure. i mean, when you boil it all down, isn't it pretty much about trusting that God will save you from those who oppress you? read the Psalms, they're full of those prayers. the reference to Nero is interesting, and not one that i will quickly disagree with; though i would add the qualifier that the antichrist is NOT one specific person. the antichrist is an archetype, just as there are Messianic archetypes in the Old Testament; Moses and Joshua to name two... Gideon also comes to mind, as well as the most prominent OT figure: King David.

These books were written to audiences of desperate people who were in a sense experiencing the "end of the world" at least as they knew it. The message was one of reassurance that God will prevail and the evil they faced would be punished. Not so much written with a fear of hell, but the hope of heaven/return to the promised land.

ah, yes. the hope... at first blush, i missed it, but on the second time through the truth jumped out. after all, Wayne Woodrow Hayes himself said that the greatest thing was not to win, but to hope.

 

[Muck]

again, a sense of history is paramount in understanding the Revelation. for instance, the knowledge that the futurist view which is currently en vogue in the US was penned by the Jesuit Ribera as a direct rebuttal/ dismissal of the Protestant Reformation should help put that fallacious doctrine in the correct light.

You know I think we all just completely misunderstood what you were trying to say...

I have a feeling everyone was just waiting for your first bit of "proof" to be the establishment of Israel in '48.