[allaboutauto.us]

I like horses. Revelation 19:11 talks about a white horse. Who is on it? Is this past, present ot future?

[MpNelQTU]

Well, you have to understand that the book of Revelations belongs to a whole body of apocalyptic literature generated in the second half of the first century, AD, not all of which is Christian.

Also of key importance is the fact that the book is allegorical, which completely negates the notion that everything in the Bible is literally true, as allegory is not literal but figurative. It is designed to be interpreted and it is designed to be obscure.

Who's the guy on the white horse? That's easy:



and if you like horses, you're better off sticking with the Old Testament or ancient Greek literature, both of which are a lot more horsey than the Gospels.

[BartRonalds]

I agree it was written in the second half of the first century, and I agree that the language is cryptic and symbolic. Many people believe it was written by John, the Apostle, who was imprisoned on an island. Do you think that that is why it was written in a fashion that would be confusing to Romans unfamiliar with the Old Testament?--to protect against further persecution of believers? John, in his Gospel, wrote of the “Word.” He made it clear that the Word was/is Jesus. Do you think John meant that the person on the White Horse was Jesus? Also, is this past, present, or future?

Well, you have to understand that the book of Revelations belongs to a whole body of apocalyptic literature generated in the second half of the first century, AD, not all of which is Christian.

Also of key importance is the fact that the book is allegorical, which completely negates the notion that everything in the Bible is literally true, as allegory is not literal but figurative. It is designed to be interpreted and it is designed to be obscure.

Who's the guy on the white horse? That's easy:



and if you like horses, you're better off sticking with the Old Testament or ancient Greek literature, both of which are a lot more horsey than the Gospels.

[Vomazoono]

I like horses. Revelation 19:11 talks about a white horse. Who is on it? Is this past, present ot future?

Of course, it's Mister Ed.


You would do well to read too much into the words of John of Patmos. Exiled to the Island of Patmos, it is altogether likely he would have regularly consumed the amanita muscaria mushrooms common to the area. Their psychoactive properties are quite well known. Rather than John's vision of the white horse being past, present or future, you might first want to consider that it may well have been a drug-induced hallucination. Interesting, but of no use as prophecy or scripture.

[scoussysows]

If I had to compare the book of Revelations to anything it would be surrealist poetry. And I think it's about as meaningful. It doesn't make sense (or even read well) in the original Greek, so it's not even good literature.

I don't think the allegorical language was an attempt to confuse "the Romans" or Roma authority; it probably would have made more sense to a Roman versed in the mystery religions of the time than it would have to the average Jew.

Who's the guy on the white horse? I covered that: it's Charles Nelson Reilly.

Could he be Jesus? Only you belong to one of the Christan sects who believe God and Jesus are interchangeable, that Jesus is "king of kings and lord of lords". And remember, not all Christians believe that.

[durootrium]

[laperuzdfhami]

Well, you have to understand that the book of Revelations belongs to a whole body of apocalyptic literature generated in the second half of the first century, AD, not all of which is Christian.

Also of key importance is the fact that the book is allegorical, which completely negates the notion that everything in the Bible is literally true, as allegory is not literal but figurative. It is designed to be interpreted and it is designed to be obscure.
.

When people use the term "literally true", they most likely aren't using it in the sense of figures of speech, allegories, etc.

[ibupronec]

[gariharrr]

When people use the term "literally true", they most likely aren't using it in the sense of figures of speech, allegories, etc.

You've not dealt with any Fundamentalist Christians. Many of them believe that Revelations is [i]literally[/i[ true, and that the end times will play out exactly as laid out, with all the horses, demons and opening of seals.

[timgreyuvcz]

You've not dealt with any Fundamentalist Christians. Many of them believe that Revelations is [i]literally[/i[ true, and that the end times will play out exactly as laid out, with all the horses, demons and opening of seals.

Any day now. Supernatural SIGNS

[GDRussiayear]

Any day now. Supernatural SIGNS

That's almost Timecube crazy.

[Trotoleterm]

Mr. Morley, do you know Mr. Robinson personally? If not, how can you say he has not dealt with those kinds of people? Moreover, many of those people know that Revelation is using symbolic language. They know that Jesus is not literally a “Lamb,” for example. Also, why do you make Revelation plural?

You've not dealt with any Fundamentalist Christians. Many of them believe that Revelations is [i]literally[/i[ true, and that the end times will play out exactly as laid out, with all the horses, demons and opening of seals.

[wbeachcomber]

Mr. Morley, do you know Mr. Robinson personally? If not, how can you say he has not dealt with those kinds of people? Moreover, many of those people know that Revelation is using symbolic language. They know that Jesus is not literally a “Lamb,” for example. Also, why do you make Revelation plural?

Because if he had, he wouldn't have posted what he did.

And if you interpret the "Lamb" in Revelations to be Jesus, then you're admitting that it is a figurative work and that the entire Bible isn't literally true, which throw the arguments of Fundamentalist Christians out the window.

Why do I make it plural? Force of habit; I'm used to people referring to it as "Revelations", so I've fallen into doing it myself.

It we use its true title -The Revelation of John- then we get even closer to the truth of what the book actually is: it's not a document of what has happened, what is happening or what's going to happen; it's one man's visions. It's a personal, rather than universal document.

[pfcwlkxav]

Because if he had, he wouldn't have posted what he did.

And if you interpret the "Lamb" in Revelations to be Jesus, then you're admitting that it is a figurative work and that the entire Bible isn't literally true, which throw the arguments of Fundamentalist Christians out the window.

Why do I make it plural? Force of habit; I'm used to people referring to it as "Revelations", so I've fallen into doing it myself.

It we use its true title -The Revelation of John- then we get even closer to the truth of what the book actually is: it's not a document of what has happened, what is happening or what's going to happen; it's one man's visions. It's a personal, rather than universal document.

My faith calls Revelation The Apocalypse .

[dxpfmP0l]

Mr. Morley, we seem to be carrying on a dialogue on more than one thread. You wrote that Mr. Robinson would not have posted what he did if had dealt with Fundamentalist Christians. I am a Christian who believes in the fundamentals of Christianity, and I also believe Revelation. Like many Christians you describe as Fundamentalists, I believe Jesus is not literally a lamb (like the one I showed and got a prize for at a farm show in Harrisburg about 5 years ago). I also know that Jesus is not literally a lion, as Revelation also says. The lion part refers to Jesus’ power and authority; the lamb part refers to his meekness and willingness to be the sacrificial lamb that Abraham told his son Isaac about way back in Genesis. I also believe every lamb sacrificed in the Old Testament pointed to the then coming Messiah Isaiah 53 spoke of.

You also wrote the following: “And if you interpret the ‘Lamb’ in Revelations to be Jesus, then you're admitting that it is a figurative work and that the entire Bible isn't literally true, which throw the arguments of Fundamentalist Christians out the window.”

Again, it’s Revelation (singular), but, more significantly, your concept of Fundamentalist Christians is untrue. I now many, and whereas they almost all would affirm the whole Bible to be true, they would not necessarily say “literally” true in the way you seem to mean. Parts of the Bible are also poetic. Trees do not literally clap hands. It’s speaking about joyous celebration, not trees literally growing hands and clapping. I know of no Fundamentalist Christian who believes such. Are you sure you are not setting up a straw man?

Finally, you wrote: “It we use its true title -The Revelation of John- then we get even closer to the truth of what the book actually is: it's not a document of what has happened, what is happening or what's going to happen; it's one man's visions. It's a personal, rather than universal document.”

The very first verse of the book shows differently: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” Does it say anywhere in the entire book that it is, as you say, the Revelation of John? It’s the “revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Second, it speaks of things that must “soon take place.” Since Revelation 11 speaks of the fall of Jerusalem, I see it as having been written before 70 AD. I also see the “soon take place” as referring to the soon fall of Jerusalem. See especially verse 13. Contrary to what you wrote (“it's not a document of what has happened, what is happening or what's going to happen”), the Lord Jesus said the opposite. See Revelation 1:19—“Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later."

It certainly also represents itself as a “universal” document, but I’ve written enough for now.

Because if he had, he wouldn't have posted what he did.

And if you interpret the "Lamb" in Revelations to be Jesus, then you're admitting that it is a figurative work and that the entire Bible isn't literally true, which throw the arguments of Fundamentalist Christians out the window.

Why do I make it plural? Force of habit; I'm used to people referring to it as "Revelations", so I've fallen into doing it myself.

It we use its true title -The Revelation of John- then we get even closer to the truth of what the book actually is: it's not a document of what has happened, what is happening or what's going to happen; it's one man's visions. It's a personal, rather than universal document.

[SpecialOFFER]

The very first verse of the book shows differently: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” Does it say anywhere in the entire book that it is, as you say, the Revelation of John? It’s the “revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Second, it speaks of things that must “soon take place.” Since Revelation 11 speaks of the fall of Jerusalem, I see it as having been written before 70 AD. I also see the “soon take place” as referring to the soon fall of Jerusalem. See especially verse 13. Contrary to what you wrote (“it's not a document of what has happened, what is happening or what's going to happen”), the Lord Jesus said the opposite. See Revelation 1:19—“Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later."

Prophecy should always be taken with a Lot's Wife-sized grain of salt. In Matthew 10:23, Christ told his disciples, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." In effect, he said he would return in their lifetime. In Mark 14:62 claimed the Sanhedrin would, "see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Once again, a claim that Christ would return within the life of his contemporaries. But it didn't work out that way, did it?

There has always been an element of Christianity that has claimed the end times or the Rapture where right around the corner. And for the 2000 years they've been saying it, they've been wrong. There's much truth and beauty to be had in the New Testament. None of it is in The Book of Revelation.

[rorsvierwelia]

That's almost Timecube crazy.

But it gets better. It seems the new date for the Rapture is some time in the next week or so. Nice of them to tell me--it saves me the trouble of doing Christmas shopping for my Xtian family and friends.

[feannigvogten]

Finally, you wrote: “It we use its true title -The Revelation of John- then we get even closer to the truth of what the book actually is: it's not a document of what has happened, what is happening or what's going to happen; it's one man's visions. It's a personal, rather than universal document.”

The very first verse of the book shows differently: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” Does it say anywhere in the entire book that it is, as you say, the Revelation of John? It’s the “revelation of Jesus Christ.”

It's the Revelation of John, as it contains what was revealed to John in a vision. For it to be called the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" it would have to document visions of Jesus, and sadly, we have nothing in his own hand.

When studying ancient literature, the first title applied to a work is the one commonly used, hence this book is known as "The Revelation of John". Likewise, the play commonly known as "Oedipus Rex" (Oedipus the King) is correctly known as "Oedipus Tyrrannus" (Oedipus the tyrant or usurper).

Book of Revelation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Stasher11]

There has always been an element of Christianity that has claimed the end times or the Rapture where right around the corner. And for the 2000 years they've been saying it, they've been wrong. There's much truth and beauty to be had in the New Testament. None of it is in The Book of Revelation.

Christianity has always been an apocalyptic religion, from its very beginning. It was born in a time and place (the Roman Empire in the first century AD) where things were falling apart. The Dutch have a great term that describes it well, "The world turned upside-down."

Christianity was just one of many mystery cults that became popular in that time and place. Partially though Darwinian selection (it absorbed traits of all the other cults in came into contact with) and partial through the actions of Constantine several centuries later, it emerged as the dominant religion in the region.