/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Of course it should be Biblical canon. In the Gospels, Jesus speaks often of the end-times, and Revelation is consistent with what He says. Furthermore, we believe that Revelation was written by John the Apostle, so when Jesus says to His Apostles that some of them will not pass away til they've seen the end-times, John receiving the Revelation is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

>>810417

It's never been a favorite of mine, but first off the word canon, means a straight rod or rule, meaning that it is certified as teaching a true teaching, and as such can be read in church as part of the liturgy. The canon was fixed as it is in the 3rd century at Carthage, so clearly those bishops, who knew much better than we what kind of literature was worthy to be considered sacred, decided that the apocalypse of John fit the description.

I wouldn't mess with it, or consider it just an "orange man bad" trope.

>>810430

Interesting interpretation

>>810417

The book of Revelation has been, in my view, treated like a piece of putty that can be molded around whatever we're frightened of in the current age. I find this position untenable. Revelation is not about 2000 years of Christians who have no idea what it "really means". If that were true then it's essentially the opposite of a Revelation and more en-likened to an eternal riddle.

Now, the majority of people are futurists but my position lies under the moniker of "orthodox preterism".

Revelation is actually one of the main reasons you should have a great deal of trouble being an athiest. Because if I'm right, then Revelation stands apart as a particular instance of an event you will have no defense over. That type of event is known as prophecy.

Now I could say to you, "Look at all the prophecy in the Bible, what other God can very clearly declare what will happen and have it so consistently come to pass?". But you will say to me, "Starting from an initial prophecy they clearly wrote down what they thought happened as the fulfillment, or shifted the goalposts to get it to line up properly." Now I can argue against that, quite easily mind you, or I can simply bring up Revelation.

What is Revelation? The book tells us itself.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near."

Notice two things. It is a revelation of Jesus Christ, and it's purpose is to show Christians the things which must soon take place. In other words this book is prophetic. It is declaring something that will happen just like OT prophecy was. But then as we look through the rest of it, and almost all scholars will agree, we find direct parallels between Revelation and the Olivet Discourse. So much so infact, that the latter is commonly referred to as, "The Little Apocalypse".

What was the Olivet discourse?

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Some people dodge this but we question quickly, what is the "then" there for? It's presence is easily explained by Matthew 23 where Jesus pronounces woes on the pharisees. In Matthew 23, Jesus explicitly says that Jerusalem is left to them desolate. A judgement is prounounced.

We come to Matthew 24 where the disciples are looking back at the temple, a glorious magnificent wonder of architecture that has possibly never been rivaled in all of human history. A center stone of the israelite worship and identity. A solid declaration that God is with his people. But Jesus says it's about to be torn down. The disciples are noticably confused over this, but their confusion leads to curiosity when they ask next.

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Jesus then relates to them the "when" of these things (being the desolation) by giving them the signs they would see before the event took place. This event would be like no other in history in that it would be the complete desolation of the Old Covenant. Jews may pretend today, but they have literally no ability to keep the Old Covenant, no way to give sacrifices, and no priesthood to facilitate them.

>>810509

But now we tie this into the central thesis of this post, Jesus was prophesying over the destruction of the temple and the events surrounding 70A.D.. Did that happen? You will find most curiously that the proof of it's fulfillment lays in the physical evidence (There is no temple there now), the witness of a jewish historian (Josephus), the witness of a roman pagan (Tacitus), and all of the Christianized Jews who took Jesus' advice at face value and fled. You may not have known but when Jerusalem was originally seiged the Romans held victory in their grasp. The temple and jerusalem could have been destroyed right there but to the confusion of Josephus, the Roman army decides to up and leave. This is the most confusing event in all of military history. However, the Christians knew from Jesus' words that "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, flee to the hills". And they did, for right after the Romans left the Christians abandoned one of the greatest fortresses of the old world to flee into the mountains of Pella. More Jews entered the city to obtain safety, only for the Romans to show up again and curbstomp them so hard that the echos of brutality are still ringing throughout the world.

As an Orthodox preterist I find most of Revelation to be fulfilled around the events of 70 A.D. An event that was completely unthinkable yet prophesized by Jesus to happen within a generation, validated by the testimony of the Christian's enemies (Roman and Jew), and believed by Christians who took to the hills and lived; safe from the rivers of blood flowing in Jerusalem.

If that does not give you pause an a Athiest, I welcome you to study the history and context of this era. You may argue against other prophecies but you will never be able to argue against the divine nature of the one before us. You will never be able to question it's specific nature and say it was merely a general amalagram of vague enough statements such that any event could have fulfilled it.

Premillenialists will say this is all future, but they miss the context of the prophecy, and it's purpose both in passing judgement on apostate Israel, and securing the validity of Jesus as a prophet.

And that is an attempted introduction at what Revelations is about.

>>810417

Yes on biblical canon. Even if the events are metaphorical & already transpired, I feel it can be understood, much like many parts of the bible, as something that can be remembered & internalized today in our pursuit of having the rest of the world work together under Christianity to better ourselves to be ready for or prevent recurring.