I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who takes every word of Scripture literally. I can't imagine anyone thinking the beasts of Revelation are actual beasts with ten heads & crowns on their heads, etc.

That's what I always thought!

Alabama Larry has said numerous times that the New Testament is God's spoken word, and that people have to follow what it says and we can't just pick and choose.

 

I'm very interested to hear his explaination on this.

 

Well, I agree with him that every word of Scripture is divinely inspired of God. And there are probably stories within the Bible that I believe literally happened that others would scoff at. But in no way, shape or form do I believe that I'm supposed to gouge out my eyes because of lust, or that at some point in the future (or past) a drunken harlot will ride atop a horrific beast (insert off-color joke from formerkywrestler here :lol:).

 

Even within the pages of Revelation itself, we're told that what we see is not literally what it means. Throughout John is told, "This is the meaning of what you saw." In fact, I believe Revelation was written with purposefully disguised language, but that's another topic for another day.

That's what I always thought!

 

I forgot about you. You're always the exception to the rule. :lol:

I forgot about you. You're always the exception to the rule. :lol:

In all seriousness, I find it interesting you chose that example. Out of all the stretches in reality, great events, and improbabilities you are supposed to believe in the bible --- why does the inclusion of a beast in it's armageddon theory give you pause? To me, that is one of the easier ones to take at face value. I've always pictured the biblical armageddon chocked full of all-powerful "I'm bringing hell with me" creatures. Why would armageddon not be over-the-top? It is the end of God's greatest creation...

 

There are MANY other things that would give me pause way before this, the Eucharist for example.

In all seriousness, I find it interesting you chose that example. Out of all the stretches in reality, great events, and improbabilities you are supposed to believe in the bible --- why does the inclusion of a beast in it's armageddon theory give you pause? To me, that is one of the easier ones to take at face value. I've always pictured the biblical armageddon chocked full of all-powerful "I'm bringing hell with me" creatures. Why would armageddon not be over-the-top? It is the end of God's greatest creation...

 

There are MANY other things that would give me pause way before this, the Eucharist for example.

 

That's an interesting question. I thought you were kidding, so my apologies.

 

I think that because of the rest of Revelation. There are instances in which John (the author & the one being given the visions) is told, "What you're seeing means something else." (it's not worded like that exactly, but you get my drift) For example Jesus tells John, "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." (Revelation 1: 19-20) So from the first chapter, it's indicative that this isn't to be taken literally.

 

Secondly, I hold the belief that Revelation is not a "Complete Idiot's Guide To The End Times" like it is often made out to be. Now, there are obviously references to the end of days, but I believe the vast majority of the book's prophecies saw a figurative fulfillment at the time period toward the end of the first century.

That's an interesting question. I thought you were kidding, so my apologies.

 

I think that because of the rest of Revelation. There are instances in which John (the author & the one being given the visions) is told, "What you're seeing means something else." (it's not worded like that exactly, but you get my drift) For example Jesus tells John, "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." (Revelation 1: 19-20) So from the first chapter, it's indicative that this isn't to be taken literally.

 

Secondly, I hold the belief that Revelation is not a "Complete Idiot's Guide To The End Times" like it is often made out to be. Now, there are obviously references to the end of days, but I believe the vast majority of the book's prophecies saw a figurative fulfillment at the time period toward the end of the first century.

In my first post I was just making a joke, so need for apologies, but thank you.

 

That's a pretty decent point. To be honest, I haven't read a Bible in some time. I think I actually sold mine to the used bookstore because it was a young adult version and had a bunch of fluff along with the actual books so I need to pick one up* and give Revelations a refresher read.

 

I guess that's where we differ, though I'll defer to someone with much more knowledge than I. I had the memory of it being a "Complete Idiot's Guide to the End Times" but as I early said, I might be wrong. I think my initial curiosity was incorrectly believing you couldn't believe that God would send down a ten-headed beast during armageddon. Either way, I recall Revelations being one of my favorite books so I definitely need to add The Bible to the bookshelf.

 

 

 

 

*You think Amazon.com has a Koran/Book of Mormon/Bible 3-pack?

In my first post I was just making a joke, so need for apologies, but thank you.

 

That's a pretty decent point. To be honest, I haven't read a Bible in some time. I think I actually sold mine to the used bookstore because it was a young adult version and had a bunch of fluff along with the actual books so I need to pick one up* and give Revelations a refresher read.

 

I guess that's where we differ, though I'll defer to someone with much more knowledge than I. I had the memory of it being a "Complete Idiot's Guide to the End Times" but as I early said, I might be wrong. I think my initial curiosity was incorrectly believing you couldn't believe that God would send down a ten-headed beast during armageddon. Either way, I recall Revelations being one of my favorite books so I definitely need to add The Bible to the bookshelf.

 

I think it's plausible that Revelation is predominantly about the end times. In fact, that is the mainstream belief among most evangelical Christians. It's just a theory with which I don't agree. Revelation is a very difficult writing to interpret, because it's written in a linguistic style totally foreign to our modern-day mind. I've likened it to a first century person picking up a 21st century political cartoon & seeing a picture of a Donkey and an Elephant about to duke it out in front of a huge white house. Of course, if we saw that we would know it means Democrats vs. Republicans vying for the White House. A first century person would be lost, because they're totally unfamiliar with our language & customs.

 

Revelation is a lot like that for us IMO, with its apocalyptic style of writing. Science fiction on anabolic steroids. It was utilized quite often in Biblical times. Today? Not so much.

You think Amazon.com has a Koran/Book of Mormon/Bible 3-pack?

 

This is all I saw

 

http://www.amazon.com/Insights-Exodus-King-David-Jesus/dp/1453663096/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1329949249&sr=8-3

To be honest, I haven't read a Bible in some time. I think I actually sold mine to the used bookstore because it was a young adult version and had a bunch of fluff along with the actual books so I need to pick one up* and give Revelations a refresher read.

 

If you really want one, let me know. I've got a few extra I could send your way.

It has always not only been interesting to me that Christians, primarily the first people to reference Bible, don't believe this and that Catholics do. I, for one, do not believe in transubstantiation. Call me a cafeteria Catholic

Luke talks about doing it in remembrance of Christ. That is pretty much how I ascribe to it, I do feel you should not do it in a state of anger or in a state of sin. The bible talks about it being eating and drinking death to do it that way. Then again I also think when Christ told Peter on this rock I will build my church he was meaning by Peter's actions and faith, not literally on this rock you are the Pope.

It has always not only been interesting to me that Christians, primarily the first people to reference Bible, don't believe this and that Catholics do. I, for one, do not believe in transubstantiation. Call me a cafeteria Catholic

 

Isn't this the backbone of what separates Catholicism from the rest of Christianity though?

Isn't this the backbone of what separates Catholicism from the rest of Christianity though?

 

I would say transubstantiation and confession are the two primary things that separate the Catholic church from Protestant churches, about 60/40. So in a word, yes.

Isn't this the backbone of what separates Catholicism from the rest of Christianity though?

 

I would say transubstantiation and confession are the two primary things that separate the Catholic church from Protestant churches, about 60/40. So in a word, yes.

 

I was thinking it was only a small part of the differences. I agree with CWB about confession being a big difference. Two others that I would add are infant baptism & papal infallibility.

I was thinking it was only a small part of the differences. I agree with CWB about confession being a big difference. Two others that I would add are infant baptism & papal infallibility.

 

I suppose I could qualify my statement by saying those things would be the major differences from the perspective of a Catholic.