Understanding Revelation

I post this link because Mike Gorman was a fellow 1973 Glen Burnie (MD) High School graduate.

Can Revelation be Understood? Michael J. Gorman Responds – Overthinking Christian

Probably not. In addition to feasting on this:

John clearly was consuming a lot of these:

@mcpapa

I think the first few chapters are easier because they are letters written to churches discussing good things and bad things. The other chapters have a mixture of ambiguous and unambiguous symbolism.

Its really not that hard if you focus on what is clear as opposed to what is unclear.

For example, it is clear that the seven lamposts are churches and the Son of Man that walks among them is Jesus.

So what is the message? Jesus is active in the church.

We have no idea why the son of man is wearing a robe to his feet, has a golden sash, eyes of fire, or hair as white as snow.

What we do know is that the Son of Man is Jesus and that the lampstands are churches.

People get confused with trying to interpret things that we can't possibly understand. So when I read revelation I focus on the big picture.

Imagine taking a magnifying glass to the Louvre and someone put a picture in front of you. You can only look through the magnifying glass at a close up distance. You would have no shot at figuring out what the picture is. If you take a step back and view the picture in its entirety you could then see that is was the Mona Lisa.

When reading the different little scenarios in Revelation, just look at the story as a whole and focus on what you know for fact. Then, while still complicated, it is not too complicated to understand.

Probably not. In addition to feasting on this:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]63058[/ATTACH]

 

 

John clearly was consuming a lot of these:

 

[ATTACH]63059[/ATTACH]

It's a different John that ate locusts and honey. That was John the Baptist. This is John the brother of James and one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. He also wrote the Gospel of John and the 3 Epistles of John.

Something to help with the strange visions etc. is to remember it is a certain genre of literature called apocalyptic. This kind of imagery and cataclysmic occurrence is common in this genre of literature. It is probable that those who were receiving the Book of Revelation as its first readers understood the imagery much better than we do removed by so many centuries and detached from the circumstance in life to which it was first addressed.

PP1 gives some good advice about how to approach it with understanding.

It's a different John that ate locusts and honey. That was John the Baptist. This is John the brother of James and one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. He also wrote the Gospel of John and the 3 Epistles of John.

 

Something to help with the strange visions etc. is to remember it is a certain genre of literature called apocalyptic. This kind of imagery and cataclysmic occurrence is common in this genre of literature. It is probable that those who were receiving the Book of Revelation as its first readers understood the imagery much better than we do removed by so many centuries and detached from the circumstance in life to which it was first addressed.

 

PP1 gives some good advice about how to approach it with understanding.

@ScienceFriction

IS that really what the pictures meant? You thought that John the Baptist, who was executed during Jesus' lifetime, was the one who wrote Revelation?

@ScienceFriction

 

IS that really what the pictures meant? You thought that John the Baptist, who was executed during Jesus' lifetime, was the one who wrote Revelation?

That's CLOSE to what they meant! After more than twenty readings of the NT (and more than that of the Gospels), I am well aware that JTB purportedly ate the locust and honey. I am also well aware that the Gospel writer is thought to have been a disciple of JTB before meeting Jesus. Both men may very well have had similar tastes in bugs. As a side note , I have often considered JTB's odd diet largely symbolic of his role in redemptive history. Perhaps he ate locusts, perhaps he even dipped his locusts in honey. Maybe he never chowed down on the insect at all. Regardless, as you well know , the Apostle John described locusts in rather great detail in Revelation. Who knows, maybe he tried a locust or two , like the Baptist John. For fun, I'm assuming that's the case. Locusts aside, I'm convinced the Apostle John likely included a few magic mushrooms as part of his diet.

Btw, I am not the first person to suggest that maybe the Gospel writer not named Matthew, Mark , or Luke was under the influence of hallucinogens.

That's CLOSE to what they meant! After more than twenty readings of the NT (and more than that of the Gospels), I am well aware that JTB purportedly ate the locust and honey.

He was actually a member of the Essenes. There was a whole group of Jews who lived in the wilderness eating locust. They did it as a way of protesting the ritualism of the sadducees.

He was actually a member of the Essenes. There was a whole group of Jews who lived in the wilderness eating locust. They did it as a way of protesting the ritualism of the sadducees.

You may well be right. Of course, I didn't see them doing it so I say maybe they did. I don't know for sure. I wouldn't be surprised if they ate worse. Andrew Zimmern eats lamb balls and blood sausage and he doesn't live in the wilderness.

The four Gospels have always been my favorite books of the Bible to read, but I've always found it interesting to try to make sense of the Bible's 66th book.

The four Gospels have always been my favorite books of the Bible to read, but I've always found it interesting to try to make sense of the Bible's 66th book.

I preached a whole series through the book. I could send you........ o'h who am I kidding

The four Gospels have always been my favorite books of the Bible to read, but I've always found it interesting to try to make sense of the Bible's 66th book.

It's not just you, it is the most difficult Book of the Bible to interpret in a detailed fashion. However, the general message of Revelation is fairly easy to understand.

I preached a whole series through the book. I could send you........ o'h who am I kidding

Not even sure what that means but.... I would hope, as a preacher of the Gospel , you would never deem it pointless to share your knowledge with anyone. You may or may not recall but I requested a sermon and notes from you

about end times prophecy almost two years ago.

I consider myself to be a deeply, deeply spiritual person. I feel that connection to the Universal Source(God, if you will) every time I look to the heavens and breathe in the magnificence of the cosmos. Admittedly, I do have serious problems with man's religions, including the various religious texts that are considered by so many to be divinely inspired documents. The spiritual part of me is very much real and very important to me.

Not even sure what that means but.... I would hope, as a preacher of the Gospel , you would never deem it pointless to share your knowledge with anyone. You may or may not recall but I requested a sermon and notes from you

about end times prophecy almost two years ago.

 

I consider myself to be a deeply, deeply spiritual person. I feel that connection to the Universal Source(God, if you will) every time I look to the heavens and breathe in the magnificence of the cosmos. Admittedly, I do have serious problems with man's religions, including the various religious texts that are considered by so many to be divinely inspired documents. The spiritual part of me is very much real and very important to me.

I'm a little confused about this statement. By Universal Source do you mean the Supernatural?

Not even sure what that means but.....

It was a joke. The "....." was supposed to be a dramatic pause. My timing must have been off.