Support NeoGAF

[Che]

Neither am I. I'm an agnostic who finds Christian mythology interesting to study.



Do you have any evidence at all from credible Biblical scholars to support this? My understanding of the text is that the author saw the unfilfilled "prophecies" as things that would come to pass very shortly, destroying the Roman empire and its cult of emperor worship.



It's true that both Dan and Rev are part of the genre of Apocalyptic literature and existed to fulfill psychological needs to the audiences to whom they were written. There is some symbolism in common between the two books as well. However our discussion of Daniel showed that you were ignorant of the text's authorship and the history of Palestine at the time it was written. It appears that you are making the same mistake with Rev.



Are you talking about Rev 13:11? What possible evidence is there that that this beast (not a lamb as you quoted - the text says the beast's horns were like a lamb's so maybe that is what you were thinking of) represents the US? Furthermore, the text doesn't talk about what the two horns represent, except to say that they are like a lamb. Gilmour (The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible, pg 961) associates this beast with the beat of Rev 11:7. The fact that the beast has two horns like a lamb likely indicates that the beast is a mockery of Christ. Raymond Brown puts it thus (An Introduction to the New Testament, pgs 792-793, emphasis mine):





I assume you are referring to the first beast? Yes, this refers to first century Rome.



As is discussed in my quote from Brown, we can readily identify the beast with Emperor Nero. The survival of the beast from its wound can then be attributed to Domitian's reign. This interpretation fits well with the text and with history; it makes no sense to attribute it to current events.

OK, I was going to reply to heavenly but you just wrote my reply. Great post.

 

[pwn3d]

Thanks Che! I was a little hesitant to reply to him since I didn't want to derail the topic too much but I find it hard to resist when people get into eschatological ramblings.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

I really don't see how godless people or people that don't believe in god or God will change their lives any. I mean, liberals are liberals.

 

[Triumph]

How's the weather in Vancouver this time of year?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

A majority of the Founding Fathers were deists. Basically agnostics that believed that there may have been a god that formed earth and then abandoned it.




...
Many people came over to the Americas for religious freedom.

There were several Deists among the founders, but it's probably a stretch to say there were a majority. There were enough different points of view, certainly, to make the point that no one religious belief shoudl be the basis of government. Philosophically, the founds were certainly is step with the Age of Enlightenment, which put much value of natural law and the observable world and very little in mysticism or the unobservable. Also, Diests aren't exaclt agnostic. They believe in God, just not in his direct influence.

And to your last point, hell yeah.

I agree with just about everything else I edited out of your post.

 

[heavenly]

Neither am I. I'm an agnostic who finds Christian mythology interesting to study.



Do you have any evidence at all from credible Biblical scholars to support this? My understanding of the text is that the author saw the unfilfilled "prophecies" as things that would come to pass very shortly, destroying the Roman empire and its cult of emperor worship.



It's true that both Dan and Rev are part of the genre of Apocalyptic literature and existed to fulfill psychological needs to the audiences to whom they were written. There is some symbolism in common between the two books as well. However our discussion of Daniel showed that you were ignorant of the text's authorship and the history of Palestine at the time it was written. It appears that you are making the same mistake with Rev.



Are you talking about Rev 13:11? What possible evidence is there that that this beast (not a lamb as you quoted - the text says the beast's horns were like a lamb's so maybe that is what you were thinking of) represents the US? Furthermore, the text doesn't talk about what the two horns represent, except to say that they are like a lamb. Gilmour (The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible, pg 961) associates this beast with the beat of Rev 11:7. The fact that the beast has two horns like a lamb likely indicates that the beast is a mockery of Christ. Raymond Brown puts it thus (An Introduction to the New Testament, pgs 792-793, emphasis mine):





I assume you are referring to the first beast? Yes, this refers to first century Rome.



As is discussed in my quote from Brown, we can readily identify the beast with Emperor Nero. The survival of the beast from its wound can then be attributed to Domitian's reign. This interpretation fits well with the text and with history; it makes no sense to attribute it to current events.

Okay, I responded to you a couple of days ago, but my pc froze and I lost everything before I could save the post or submit it. I couldn't muster up the energy to retype what I wrote.

So, here's the concise version...you're wrong, I'm right, so blah!

 

[heavenly]

Okay, I couldn't resist to respond. I hate to see the Bible get so violated in such a single post.

Neither am I. I'm an agnostic who finds Christian mythology interesting to study.

Christian mythology? Is that what you call it? Strange that you call yourself agnostic, but your view leans more towards preterism? Oh well, doesn't bother me one bit, your views are still wrong.

Do you have any evidence at all from credible Biblical scholars to support this?

Sure! I have God's Word, John the Revelator, Daniel the Prophet, Martin Luther the Reformer, and a host of others.

My understanding of the text is that the author saw the unfilfilled "prophecies" as things that would come to pass very shortly, destroying the Roman empire and its cult of emperor worship.

What "unfilled" prophecies? Be specific, please? You do know Revelation is 22 chapters deep. So, let's get the full scope and not shortchange ourselves.

It's true that both Dan and Rev are part of the genre of Apocalyptic literature and existed to fulfill psychological needs to the audiences to whom they were written. There is some symbolism in common between the two books as well. However our discussion of Daniel showed that you were ignorant of the text's authorship and the history of Palestine at the time it was written. It appears that you are making the same mistake with Rev.

Ignorant of Daniel's prophecies? Please! There's nothing to be ignorant of? The Bible makes it pretty clear what the prophecies entail. The Bible explains itself. Thus, the Bible should be used to define its own prophecies.

Your problem with Daniel is that you're separating the powers of Media and Persia as two separate entities on the prophecy timeline. The Bible doesn't do that. The Bible considers them two co-joining powers. However, the Medes were the stronger of the two. And don't forget "horns" represent "powers" or "kings".

Dan 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

The prophecies of Revelation aren't chronological. It's the same information told in 3 different angels. These prophecies cover the same time period.

a) 7 Churches - church history of God's people from Christ's time to our time. The 7th church, Laodicea, means "judgment, or judging of the people" And according to Daniel, we're already in that process.

b) 7 Seals - political history of God's people from Christ's time to our time

c) 7 Trumpets - military history of God's people from Christ's time to our time

Has the end-time issue of the "beast" will force all to worship him occured yet? Has the "mark of the beast" issue occured yet? Has the New Jerusalem and New Earth event occured yet? Have the wicked been thrown into the Lake of Fire yet? I think not. Thus, we have some unfilled prophecies yet to occur.

Likewise, the 3 different visions that Daniel saw cover the same time period from his day to our time.

a) King Nebby's dream - The stone "cut-out" of the mountain made w/o hands hasn't occured yet.

b) Dream of the beasts

c) Dream of the ram and the goat, and king of fierce countenance -

All of the 3 major prophecies in Daniel cover the same time period.

Are you talking about Rev 13:11?

Yes! Thanks for the correction.

What possible evidence is there that that this beast (not a lamb as you quoted - the text says the beast's horns were like a lamb's so maybe that is what you were thinking of) represents the US?

There's 2 different beasts in Rev. 13. The 1st beast has already been discussed in Daniel. The 1st beast ruled for 42 months; time, times and dividing of time; or 1260 days (which equals to 1260 years); pick and choose your preference, the number are all the same.

The 1st beast rose out of the "sea." Sea or waters in prophecy represent a multitudes of people or nations. That's where the 1st beast came from. The 2nd beast rose out of the "earth", earth in prophecy represents the opposite of "sea". Barren, no nations.

History tells us at the time of the end of the 1st beast, that this 2nd beast will rise. The Papacy power was defeated (wounded) in 1798, when the Pope died while held captive under the French military. So, what nation rose up around that time governed by 2 powers where there were no pre-existing nations?

The answer is U.S.A. When did the U.S. come into power as a nation? You know? And what 2 "powers" or "kings" govern U.S.? Democracy and Freedom of Religion. That's why our forefathers fled Europe. They didn't have that freedom in Europe under the Papal rule. They were killed and persecuted. They came here to escape that.

And how does a lamb speak? A lamb speak through their laws in the legislative body. U.S. started off as a nation for the people, but very soon, they will speak as a dragon (devil) through their laws...co-mixing religion and politics. This religio-political system is what defined the Papacy during the Dark Ages. And this is how U.S. will give life to the 1st beast.

You can see it now. RCC is influencing our gov't more than you dare to admit. It's funny, because I think more seculars see what's coming more than mainstream Christianity, although most don't know one lick of the Bible or its prophecies.

Furthermore, the text doesn't talk about what the two horns represent, except to say that they are like a lamb.

My silly friend, the Bible decodes itself. What does the Bible say "horns" are?

Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

I assume you are referring to the first beast? Yes, this refers to first century Rome.

Yes and No.

Ultimately, the 1st beast is the Papacy, but in Rev. 13, it's a composite of all the beasts in Daniel's 2nd vision. Which the Roman Papacy was. It contained bits and pieces of eaching preceding power before it: Babylon, Medes-Persia, Greece, and Pagan Rome. There's no way you can decode what this beast is w/o looking at Daniel first.


I live in U.S.A and I love my country. But if God's Word say U.S.A will throw away it's Constitution one day, and persecute people who loves Him like the Papacy of old, then I have to believe it will happen. I can see it happening right now. The Papacy is regaining their powers through us. I know there are many loving and sincere followers in RCC, but the Bible talks about the unbiblical system, not the people. And we are headed for some rough time ahead. Be prepared.

 

[demon]

Biblical scholar.....the word of God............


I stopped reading there.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Sure! I have God's Word, John the Revelator, Daniel the Prophet, Martin Luther the Reformer, and a host of others.

I am disturbed by this line.

 

[heavenly]

Biblical scholar.....the word of God............


I stopped reading there.

I'm sure those sincere and innocent Jews that were misguided by the "scholarly" Pharisees in Jesus' time regret their participation in crucifying Him. The ones that eventually turned to christianity before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Back then, the Pharisees misapplied the prophecies concerning Jesus 2nd Coming to His 1st Coming as a Lamb. And the same is happening in our time...as far as christians misappling the prophecies concerning the Beast and Anti-Christ.

The Bible trumps any "so-called" Biblical scholar. The Bible is so simple for any child to honestly study it and gain understanding. But that's the problem with christians today. Rather than studying for themselves, they seek the knowledge of others. Which can be very dangerous if those "so-called" scholars are wrong just like the Pharisees.

 

[heavenly]

I am disturbed by this line.

How come? You have the Bible, God's Word. And then you have the "face" of the Reformation in Martin Luther. Do you know that he and many others pre, current, and post-Reformation agreed that the Papacy was the beast and the anti-christ.

Do a study on it, my friend.

And that's the problem with mainstream christianity. Not only are they not honestly studying for themselves...they are forgetting their history too! I mean, why do we even have "protestant" churches? We are not protesting anything anymore. Instead, we are grasping hands with the Papacy in which many of our forefathers died from their evil hands.

 

[demon]

The bible is not "God's word". The burden of proof lies on you to prove that it is God's word. Have fun with that. Until then, your views rely on absolutely nothing but faith in something you cannot prove, and therefore have no place in a rational discussion.

And yes, it is quite disturbing, especially in this day and age, to see someone take the bible with such literal sersiousness and treat it as an ultimate truth when they have no rational, evidential reason to. It wouldn't be quite so disturbing if it weren't for the fact that such people are in charge of running this country. That's not just disturbing, but scary.

 

[brooklyngooner]

How come? You have the Bible, God's Word. And then you have the "face" of the Reformation in Martin Luther. Do you know that he and many others pre, current, and post-Reformation agreed that the Papacy was the beast and the anti-christ.

Do a study on it, my friend.

And that's the problem with mainstream christianity. Not only are they not honestly studying for themselves...they are forgetting their history too! I mean, why do we even have "protestant" churches? We are not protesting anything anymore. Instead, we are grasping hands with the Papacy in which many of our forefathers died from their evil hands.

Well, I'm not religious, "my friend," so I'm none too concerned with views of the papacy. What I was referring to was your logical fallacy that begs the question regarding God and the Bible that's at the very root of your arguments.

 

[heavenly]

demon and brooklyngooner , your arguments about whether the Bible is a valid, insipirational literary piece from the Heavens above have nothing to do with the debate pwned and I are having. So, I don't feel obligated to direct my attention towards that at this time or in this thread.

 

[AssMan]

Does anybody really win here? You got the conservatives who wants god in politics and with the liberals, the opposite.

 

[heavenly]

Here's a few of "Biblical scholars" that you wanted.

Martin Luther:

"We are convinced that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist" (What Luther Says, ed. Ewald M. Plass, Vol. 1, 34). "You should know that the pope is the real, true, final Antichrist, of whom the entire Scripture speaks, whom the Lord is beginning to consume with the spirit of his mouth and will very soon destroy and slay with the brightness of his coming, for which we are waiting" (Plass, op. cit., Vol. 1, 36, 37).

John Calvin:

"Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God. The head of that cursed and abominable kingdom, in the Western church, we affirm to be the Pope. When his seat is placed in the temple of God, it suggests that his kingdom will be such that he will not abolish the name of Christ or the Church. Hence it appears that we by no means deny that churches may exist, even under his tyranny; but he has profaned them by sacrilegious impiety, afflicted them by cruel despotism, corrupted and almost terminated their existence by false and pernicious doctrines; like poisonous potions, in such churches, Christ lies half buried, the Gospel is suppressed, piety exterminated, and the worship of God almost abolished; in a word, they are altogether in such a state of confusion that they exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather than of the holy city of God" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 12).

Heinrich Bullinger:

"By the little horn many understand the kingdom of Mohammed, of the Saracens and of the Turks. . . . But when the apostolic prophecy in Second Thessalonians 2 is more carefully examined, it seems that this prophecy of Daniel and that prophecy of the apostle belong more rightly to the kingdom of the Roman pope, which kingdom has arisen from small beginnings and has increased to an immense size" (trans. from Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel Sapientissimus Dei Propheta (Daniel the Most Wise Prophet of God), chap. 7, fol. 78v).

Nicholas Ridley:

"The head, under Satan, of all mischief is Antichrist and his brood and the same is he which is the Babylonical beast. The beast is he whereupon the whore sitteth. The whore is that city, saith John in plain words, which hath empire over the kings of the earth. This whore hath a golden cup of abominations in her hand, whereof she maketh to drink the kings of the earth, and of the wine of this harlot all nations hath drunk; yea, and kings of the earth have lain by this whore; and merchants of the earth, by virtue of her pleasant merchandise, have been made rich.

"Now what city is there in the whole world, that when John wrote, ruled over the kings of the earth; or what city can be read of in any time, that of the city itself challenged the empire over the kings of the earth, but only the city of Rome, and that since the usurpation of that See hath grown to her full strength?" (A Piteous Lamentation of the Miserable Estate of the Church in England, in the Time of the Late Revolt from the Gospel, in Works, 53).

 

[909er]

Does anybody really win here? You got the conservatives who wants god in politics and with the liberals, the opposite.

Except the majority of conservatives (the segment I like to call REAL conservatives) DESPISE this kind of government interference.

 

[pwn3d]

Okay, I couldn't resist to respond. I hate to see the Bible get so violated in such a single post.

If anything, you're the one who's violating it with wierd interpretations. You know, most of the Biblical scholars I read are Christians - Brown, for instance, was Catholic. Your interpretation of Revelation and Daniel is a peculiarity of American Evangelicalism, and is a minority view among Christianity as a whole.

Sure! I have God's Word, John the Revelator, Daniel the Prophet, Martin Luther the Reformer, and a host of others.

It's funny you cite Martin Luther - IIRC, Luther expressed distaste for the book of Revelation.

Christian mythology? Is that what you call it? Strange that you call yourself agnostic, but your view leans more towards preterism? Oh well, doesn't botherme one bit, your views are still wrong.

I'm using mythology in an academic, not pejorative sense. Read Joseph Campbell to see an example of what I mean. And yes, I am agnostic, but I can certainly appreciate the Bible as literature. And as I said above, my views on the text are generally in accord with accepted Biblical scholarship, and are cognizant of history. You have repeatedly shown you are ignorant of the historical context of the Biblical text.

What "unfilled" prophecies? Be specific, please? You do know Revelation is 22 chapters deep. So, let's get the full scope and not shortchange ourselves.

There are plenty we can go through, so I'll pick one. Rev 17:14 says that an anticipated 8th Roman Emperor will be conquered by the lamb and his followers. Rev 19:19-21 says that the emperor and his false prophet, which scholars identify as the representative of the cult of emperor worship, will be cast alive into a lake of fire. Obviously, we know that the Roman empire did not end this way.

Ignorant of Daniel's prophecies? Please! There's nothing to be ignorant of? The Bible makes it pretty clear what the prophecies entail. The Bible explains itself. Thus, the Bible should be used to define its own prophecies.

But you can't understand the Bible without understanding the historical context in which the books of the Bible were written. The Bible didn't just fall out of the sky. The books which are included in the biblical canon (which is different for the Protestant church, the Catholic Church, the Ethopian church, etc) were written over a long period of time by different people. The process of canonization took a long time as well - some books which were accepted as scripture were eventually rejected from the canon. The Biblical authors come from extremely different cultures than ours, and the whole point of higher criticism is to figure out what they actually said!

Your problem with Daniel is that you're separating the powers of Media and Persia as two separate entities on the prophecy timeline. The Bible doesn't do that. The Bible considers them two co-joining powers. However, the Medes were the stronger of the two. And don't forget "horns" represent "powers" or "kings".

Incorrect! The Medes were not the stronger of the two. As I pointed out in the Daniel thread, the Persians conquered Media ten years before they conquered Babylon. The Persians started out as a vassal state of Media, overthrew them in 550BC, and then overthrew Babylon in 539 BC. How can you possibly think you understand the Biblical text when you don't even understand basic history!

Dan 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

The author of Daniel is partly correct here, since Media was overthrown by Persia (and Persia is the larger horn, indicating the author understood it is more powerful), but the author is incorrect in his assumption that Babylon was overthrown by Media (probably from Jeremiah). Furthermore, you associate the ram in this vision with the chest and arms of the statue when there is no reason to do so. Daniel says that the chest and arms represented an empire that was inferior to the Babylonian empire, but we know from history that the Persian empire lasted longer than the Babylonian empire and encompassed more land area. Hence, the best interpretation is that the second empire was Media, since as we saw above the author thought that Media conquered Babylon. Your interpretation doesn't even fit with the text!

The prophecies of Revelation aren't chronological. It's the same information told in 3 different angels. These prophecies cover the same time period.

Yes - the time period is the first century. The author of Rev expected the end to come very soon. This is a common feature of apocalyptic literature.

a) 7 Churches - church history of God's people from Christ's time to our time. The 7th church, Laodicea, means "judgment, or judging of the people" And according to Daniel, we're already in that process.

Where are you getting this from? The book says that the letters are addressed to 7 churches and names the churches. These were seven churches in Asia Minor. Brown cites this rather well (pg 782):

"When we come to the great visions of chaps. 4ff., we need to keep reminding ourselves that these are reported in order to convey a message to the Christians of those cities. Part of the misuse of Rev is based on the misunderstanding that the message is primarily addressed to Christians of our time if they can decode the author's symbols. Rather the meaning of the symbolism must be judged from the viewpoint of first century addressees - a meaning that needs adaptation if we are to see the book as significant for the present era".

Again, as I have demonstrated already, Daniel refers to events around the time 164 BC. There is no reason to think of him referring to events far in the future when the events of that time have a one to one relationship with the text.

b) 7 Seals - political history of God's people from Christ's time to our time

Again, what evidence do you have for this? You seem to like making assertions. The imagery from the seals is taken from Hebrew Bible passages (for example, we can see the four horsemen in Zech 1:8-11, 6:1-7; also, some of the events may have been inspired by events at the time, like the Partian attacks on the Romans).

c) 7 Trumpets - military history of God's people from Christ's time to our time.

Again - evidence??? Why are these not eschatological symbols?

Has the end-time issue of the "beast" will force all to worship him occured yet?

It did occur, it was Roman Emperor worship. Perhaps you've heard of it? Like I pointed out before, it's easy to show that the author identifies the beast with Emperor Nero, since the author of Rev explicitly says the number of the beast is 666, and Hebrew gematria of Nero's greek name gives us 666. Furthermore, some ancient manuscripts of Rev have 616 instead of 666. If you apply the same procedure to Nero's Latin name the letters of his name add up to 616. The miraculous survival of the beast is Domitian's reign.

Has the "mark of the beast" issue occured yet??

Sure. We've positively identified the beast with Nero/Domitian. We also know that Roman coins had the emperor's head on them. Early Christians didn't like having to use the coins since they saw them as graven images. Also, the Greek word for mark here is charagma. This word was a technical term which was used for a Roman stamp that appeared on commercial documents. The word is also was used to mean a brand, such as was applied to disobedient slaves. The mark of the beast was therefore very likely a figurative way for the author of Rev to express that Christians were "branded" as slaves to the Roman Empire.

Has the New Jerusalem and New Earth event occured yet? Have the wicked been thrown into the Lake of Fire yet? I think not. Thus, we have some unfilled prophecies yet to occur.

No they did not occur, as I mentioned above. The author of Rev was clearly referring to events in his time (as was Daniel). These people thought that the end was at hand and their writing reflected it. Obviously, we now know that this was wrong.

Likewise, the 3 different visions that Daniel saw cover the same time period from his day to our time.

Nope. As I argued in the Daniel thread, the visions referred to events in the second century BC, which is when scholars believe Daniel was written. There's also plenty of evidence that the text was written at that date.

a) King Nebby's dream - The stone "cut-out" of the mountain made w/o hands hasn't occured yet.

Because the author of Daniel expected Antiochus IV to be overthrown and replaced by God's Kingdom on earth. He was wrong.

b) Dream of the beasts.

Which very likely refer to Babylon, Media, Persia, and Alexander the Great's empire.

c) Dream of the ram and the goat, and king of fierce countenance -

All of the 3 major prophecies in Daniel cover the same time period.

The king of fierce countenance is Antiochus IV. There is no reason to think otherwise.

 

[MoxManiac]

Christianty is an obsolete pile of crap that was cooked up to explain the unexplainable back when we didn't know shit about the universe.

Yes, I went there. And i'll gladly accept a ban for such an flammitory statement. It would be worth it.

 

[pwn3d]

Here's a few of "Biblical scholars" that you wanted.

Martin Luther:

Why the heck are you quoting Luther? When I said credible Biblical Scholars I meant modern scholars who have spent their lives studying the Bible, have good credentials and publish in academic journals. Luther's so out of date that citing him is a joke. Not only that, as I mentioned above Luther didn't like the book of Revelation. He said he could 'in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.' (see Wikipedia). Given that your interpretation depends so heavily on Revelation, I wouldn't think that Luther was a good choice. Incidentally, Luther also didn't like Esther, Hebrew, James and Jude, and his German Bible initially excluded them. If he had been the only one in charge of forming the canon your bible would look very different!

John Calvin:

How is Calvin a contemporary Biblical scholar?

Heinrich Bullinger:

"By the little horn many understand the kingdom of Mohammed, of the Saracens and of the Turks. . . . But when the apostolic prophecy in Second Thessalonians 2 is more carefully examined, it seems that this prophecy of Daniel and that prophecy of the apostle belong more rightly to the kingdom of the Roman pope, which kingdom has arisen from small beginnings and has increased to an immense size" (trans. from Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel Sapientissimus Dei Propheta (Daniel the Most Wise Prophet of God), chap. 7, fol. 78v).

Funny you keep citing scholars from the 1500s as credible today. I get kick out of it when fundamentalists cite Nelson Glueck as being an authority in Biblical Archaeology; not to demean his contributions, of course, but it shows their ignorance of the past 50 years of archaeology. You on the other hand seem to prefer to ignore the past 500 years of research.

Nicholas Ridley:

Same thing applies - I don't think I need to say more.