The Christian view of the apocalypse

[ohgar]

I read Revelation and while it talked a lot about a lamb who spoke with a dragon's voice, and a beast with 7 heads and 8 horns, I didn't see anything about an "antichrist" or a "new world order." I also noticed that only a few thousand people, who "have not defiled themselves with women," are supposed to be saved. So where does all this other shit come from? Someone explain this to me. Also, doesn't "Babylon" sound exactly like the United States to you?

[Rathma]

[rumborak]

Trying to make any sense of Revelation is a fun exercise, but probably in the long run means you'll hand out flyers outside of baseball stadiums.

On a related note, I somehow ended up reading the Ten Commandments on Wikipedia, and was actually surprised at the wording of commandment 3:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

The first part seems to indicate that essentially any kind of imagery is not allowed. I understand of course that it was uttered to curb the ancient practice of worshiping nature deities; but, the wording goes beyond that I think.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

I agree that any practice of creating images is potentially crossing that line. 

[theseoafs]

Oh, I didn't know that the commandment was wording that way. It reminds me of the corresponding Islamic law.

[rumborak]

Oh, I didn't know that the commandment was wording that way. It reminds me of the corresponding Islamic law.

Yeah, I thought the same. Even though, doesn't Islam only apply it to images of Muhammed? Or is that qualifier also a convenient "look the other way" like in this case?

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

as for the OP, I understand Revelation to be of "things which must shortly take place" (1:2), ie. things that happened within that generation with allusions to greater things happening in the future.  in any case, I don't buy into most of the popular and often sensational interpretations of revelation.
the antichrist reference was made by the same author (John) in his other letters, and I imagine some simply use the term in interpreting revelation.
the new world order, in my understanding, is simply a modern interpretation of what the book was meaning.

John opens the book by highlighting that he is writing of things that are about to come to pass and that he is using symbolism.  I think these are two critical things to keep in mind when interpreting the book.

[theseoafs]

Oh, I didn't know that the commandment was wording that way. It reminds me of the corresponding Islamic law.

Yeah, I thought the same. Even though, doesn't Islam only apply it to images of Muhammed? Or is that qualifier also a convenient "look the other way" like in this case?

rumborak

Well, there's disagreement even among Muslims about how this works.  Wikipedia tells me that Sunni Muslims take exception to visual depictions of all prophets (including, of course, the Judeo-Christian ones like Jesus and Moses).

[jammindude]

Babylon would be *all* religions that claim to represent God, but deny him by their works.   They ride on the back of politics....the wild beast...all the human governments of the world. 

[bosk1]

as for the OP, I understand Revelation to be of "things which must shortly take place" (1:2), ie. things that happened within that generation with allusions to greater things happening in the future.  in any case, I don't buy into most of the popular and often sensational interpretations of revelation.
the antichrist reference was made by the same author (John) in his other letters, and I imagine some simply use the term in interpreting revelation.
the new world order, in my understanding, is simply a modern interpretation of what the book was meaning.

John opens the book by highlighting that he is writing of things that are about to come to pass and that he is using symbolism.  I think these are two critical things to keep in mind when interpreting the book.

This. I would say that the popular "Christian view of the apocalypse," which came about some time well after Revelation was written, is an interpretation that, while popular nowadays, isn't really supported by the text.  But it's a tough book to really get one's mind around, that's for sure.  There are a number of passages within it where it is much easier to eliminate some possibilities of what they do NOT mean than to state definitively what they DO mean.

[hefdaddy42]

In my humble opinion, Revelation uses apocalyptic imagery and symbolism to deliver a message of hope to early Christians facing persecution under the Romans.  And that's pretty much the majority of it.

[rumborak]

I just tried to find a movie that portrayed revelations, but failed to do so. Probably for good reason, an actual faithful adaptation would drive people away if anything.

rumborak

[Sigz]

I just tried to find a movie that portrayed revelations, but failed to do so. Probably for good reason, an actual faithful adaptation would drive people away if anything.

rumborak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind:_The_Movie

[rumborak]

That's not what I mean though. That's just some drama plot with revelations backdrop. I'm looking for a The Passion Of The Christ kind of movie that just portrays what's written in the books. You know, the lions with wings and thousand eyes under the wing, the stars that get handed keys ...

Now that's a kickstarter project people could get behind I think.

[Sigz]

Well, I was more just joking because Left Behind is a hilariously horrible movie anyways 

But yeah, that actually would be an interesting (if completely batshit) movie to see.

[ohgar]

That's not what I mean though. That's just some drama plot with revelations backdrop. I'm looking for a The Passion Of The Christ kind of movie that just portrays what's written in the books. You know, the lions with wings and thousand eyes under the wing, the stars that get handed keys ...

Now that's a kickstarter project people could get behind I think.

Terry Gilliam should direct.

[Vivace]

In order to understand any book from the Bible you need to understand where it came from, who wrote it, why it was written, the literal form, its historical significance, etc. For example The Book of Daniel was written during the exile of the Jews in Babylon. You need to take the content of the book and find someway to unravel it according to the literary form it is using, and then from there you can get a basic idea of what it is trying to reveal. Biblical Commentaries will help.

[rumborak]

From what I heard, a leading theory for Revelations was drug consumption.

rumborak

[snapple]

That's not what I mean though. That's just some drama plot with revelations backdrop. I'm looking for a The Passion Of The Christ kind of movie that just portrays what's written in the books. You know, the lions with wings and thousand eyes under the wing, the stars that get handed keys ...

Now that's a kickstarter project people could get behind I think.

Holy shit. That may be the coolest idea I've heard in a long time. I want to be one of the four horsemans, please.

[Adami]

That's not what I mean though. That's just some drama plot with revelations backdrop. I'm looking for a The Passion Of The Christ kind of movie that just portrays what's written in the books. You know, the lions with wings and thousand eyes under the wing, the stars that get handed keys ...

Now that's a kickstarter project people could get behind I think.

By Mel Gibson.

[Ħ]

From what I heard, a leading theory for Revelations was drug consumption.

rumborak

Tells you a lot about the scholarly community that come up with such theories.

[rumborak]

Can you honestly say you didn't read Revelations and wonder the same?

rumborak

[Ħ]

I did not read Revelations and wonder the same. /honest

[Scheavo]

From what I heard, a leading theory for Revelations was drug consumption.

rumborak

Tells you a lot about the scholarly community that come up with such theories.

Many cultures have used hallucinogens in religious and spiritual matters. Considering the time and the era, and not beyond doubt, especially considering the known effects. Many people believe they help them communicate with "God," or something of the like, especially in more ancient communities. Hell, even fasting will give you an altered state of mind, and that's really the key issue here.

[Vivace]

From what I heard, a leading theory for Revelations was drug consumption.

rumborak

So much for trying to get the intellectual and civilized ball rolling on this one. 

[rumborak]

Why is everybody so pissy about this? Let's be honest here, if Revelations weren't part of a revered canon of theology, everybody in this forum would immediately assume either drug consumption or a psychotic episode upon reading it.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

Not really.  And frankly, I've never read a serious biblical scholar who suggested such a thing.

[Scheavo]

Probably because you have to look at it more anthropologically. Psychedelic and drug use was quite rampant in human history, and is quite rampant. Enough so, that it seems to be part of what it means to be human, alive and curious. It also leads to many numerous reports of experiencing "God," or some other sort of spiritual experience. Combine the two facts, and it's not beyond doubt that the authors of the Bible, at some point in their life, took some sort of psychedelic.

[snapple]

Why is everybody so pissy about this? Let's be honest here, if Revelations weren't part of a revered canon of theology, everybody in this forum would immediately assume either drug consumption or a psychotic episode upon reading it.

rumborak

I've actually always joked that the author wrote what he saw in a really bad trip.

rumborak

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

In my humble opinion, Revelation uses apocalyptic imagery and symbolism to deliver a message of hope to early Christians facing persecution under the Romans.  And that's pretty much the majority of it.

QFTQFTQFTQFT

I almost posted the same thing less eloquently, so thank ya hef

[Ħ]

The way scholarship is supposed to work is not by suggesting just any old explanation that you want as long as it fits. You really need to have evidence for that sort of thing. Do we have any evidence that the author of Revelation was on drugs? No.

[hefdaddy42]

The way scholarship is supposed to work is not by suggesting just any old explanation that you want as long as it fits. You really need to have evidence for that sort of thing. Do we have any evidence that the author of Revelation was on drugs? No.

This.

[Scheavo]

The way scholarship is supposed to work is not by suggesting just any old explanation that you want as long as it fits. You really need to have evidence for that sort of thing. Do we have any evidence that the author of Revelation was on drugs? No.

Then is it equally ridiculous to posit what said person might eat or drink? If I said an Egyptian peasant, whom I know nothing about other than the fact that he is a peasant, had a lot of mead during his life, I am saying this using evidence and scholarly research.

Meanwhile, there's a bevy of evidence supporting the fact that psychedelic drug use was somewhat common in ancient times, especially for mystics, shamans, and religious persons.

Plus, there's a difference between saying that the author of the Bible is 100% for sure talking about a drug trip, and saying that there's a fairly good chance psychedelic drug use was involved in the experiences leading up to the Bible, and other religious texts. It's not as if this is just a statement made out of thin air, or pulled out of someones ass. It's an inference based upon two things: the existence and use of psychedelics, and the effects of psychedelics. It's enough evidence to make it a possibility.

[Ben_Jamin]

The way scholarship is supposed to work is not by suggesting just any old explanation that you want as long as it fits. You really need to have evidence for that sort of thing. Do we have any evidence that the author of Revelation was on drugs? No.

Then is it equally ridiculous to posit what said person might eat or drink? If I said an Egyptian peasant, whom I know nothing about other than the fact that he is a peasant, had a lot of mead during his life, I am saying this using evidence and scholarly research.

Meanwhile, there's a bevy of evidence supporting the fact that psychedelic drug use was somewhat common in ancient times, especially for mystics, shamans, and religious persons.

Plus, there's a difference between saying that the author of the Bible is 100% for sure talking about a drug trip, and saying that there's a fairly good chance psychedelic drug use was involved in the experiences leading up to the Bible, and other religious texts. It's not as if this is just a statement made out of thin air, or pulled out of someones ass. It's an inference based upon two things: the existence and use of psychedelics, and the effects of psychedelics. It's enough evidence to make it a possibility.

The same as saying he wrote down what he saw in his visions, dreams. I can definitely see Revelations as a collection of dreams that connected.

[Ħ]

The way scholarship is supposed to work is not by suggesting just any old explanation that you want as long as it fits. You really need to have evidence for that sort of thing. Do we have any evidence that the author of Revelation was on drugs? No.

Then is it equally ridiculous to posit what said person might eat or drink? If I said an Egyptian peasant, whom I know nothing about other than the fact that he is a peasant, had a lot of mead during his life, I am saying this using evidence and scholarly research.

Meanwhile, there's a bevy of evidence supporting the fact that psychedelic drug use was somewhat common in ancient times, especially for mystics, shamans, and religious persons.

Plus, there's a difference between saying that the author of the Bible is 100% for sure talking about a drug trip, and saying that there's a fairly good chance psychedelic drug use was involved in the experiences leading up to the Bible, and other religious texts. It's not as if this is just a statement made out of thin air, or pulled out of someones ass. It's an inference based upon two things: the existence and use of psychedelics, and the effects of psychedelics. It's enough evidence to make it a possibility.

You don't need any evidence to show that something is a possibility. It doesn't make a difference how many possibilities there are out there for the origination of Revelation. All that matters is what is most likely. And it's most likely that the author was not on drugs.