Some have suggested that schizophrenia might be the cause of visions and prophetic words.
The Writer of Revelation
by watson 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AK - Jeff
The later adoption of this book as Biblical 'canon' may be rooted in more than acceptance among the Church Presbyter of it's inspiration IMO. Revelation is chocked full of control tactics. It may have worked among early readers to resist the influence of the Romans, but later it worked to instill general fear into its readers - including me.
'John' hated the Romans, their currency, their gods, their materialism. Though it may have been written as a part of the general apocalyptic thinking of the Jewish culture - as is evidenced by the borrowing from Daniel and Enoch - it was later an instrument in the hands of the Church, perhaps explaining it's acceptance as inspired over other works that competed for canonicity.
Interesting to me is how attached the 'cultish' side of Christianity is to this book, including the evangelical churches, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other doomsday groups. It equips them like no other to control the flock. It is a fitting Ω to the Bible in that regard, and surely the author had no idea his poetic wanderings on parchment would carry so much weight for so long among so many.
Jeff
-
watson
Revelation seems like one incredible piece of art.
What is taken from it is in the eye of the beholder. One reader will see 144,000 as a literal number, and another reader will take it as a representative number. A person reading it in the first century might see the book one way, and another reader sees it differently in the 5th or 6th or 21st century.
-
Leolaia
I find it most rewarding to read Revelation alongside its close 'cousins': 4 Ezra, Sibylline Oracles 4, and 2 Baruch. These are Jewish apocalypses written around the same time and they share a common outlook and body of motifs. They help put the apocalypse written by "John of Patmos" (whoever he was) in a more intelligible literary context, as they deal with many of the same concepts and issues discussed in Revelation.
Thoughtful comments, AK - Jeff and watson. One can only wonder how Christianity would have developed if something like the Odes of Solomon (a lovely collection of hymns praising God, with close conceptual parallels to the Johannine literature) was canonized instead of Revelation.
-
cameo-d
One can only wonder how Christianity would have developed if something like the Odes of Solomon (a lovely collection of hymns praising God, with close conceptual parallels to the Johannine literature) was canonized instead of Revelation.
Leolaia--that is a most striking thought!
-
cameo-d
Watson,
Here's a little tidbit I ran across recently. It's from this page: http://www.inspiredbooks.com/Old-Testament-Prophecy.htm
I find it odd, because this Urantia book also refers to Jesus as being Michael, which I know WT promotes that sort of twisted confusion.
Personally, I think Rev. was written as a blueprint for an Illuminati/Demon Angels-Aliens game plan. I think these events as they "happen" will appear to be scriptural, but are actually being contrived purposely to bring about a global agenda/end times deception.
The Revelation to John will be used in bits and pieces. The Urantia Book tells us that:
UB 1555 When in temporary exile on Patmos, John wrote the Book
of Revelation which you now have in greatly abridged and
distorted form. This Book of Revelation contains the surviving
fragments of a great revelation, large portions of which were
lost, other portions removed, subsequent to John’s writing.It is preserved only in fragmentary and distorted form. Because of this information I have used Revelation sparingly and only when it builds upon a line of prophecy already established previously in scripture. The "collaborator" in Revelation is no longer Melchizedek, but instead Jesus/Michael for the first time, as the "age of the gentile Christians" begins.
-
BurnTheShips
One thing seems almost certain: the writer was not John the Apostle of Jesus.
I don't know. There were several "Johns", the Apostle being one of them. Here are some early opinions and an entry from Historia Ecclesiastica:
From the Wikipedia entry:
Early views
A number of Church Fathers weighed in on the authorship of Revelation. Justin Martyr avows his belief in its apostolic origin. Irenaeus (178) assumes it as a conceded point. At the end of the 2nd century, we find it accepted at Antioch, by Theophilus, and in Africa by Tertullian. At the beginning of the 3rd century, it is adopted by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen of Alexandria, later by Methodius, Cyprian, and Lactantius. Dionysius of Alexandria (247) rejected it, upon doctrinal rather than critical grounds. Eusebius (315) inclined to class the Apocalypse with the spurious books. [12] Jerome relegated it to second class. [12] Most canons included it, but some, especially in the Eastern Church, rejected it. It is wholly absent from the Peshitta. [12]
From Eusebius' History of the Church (326 AD):
Afterward he [DIONYSIUS] speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John. "Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticizing it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity. And they affirm that none of the apostles, rend none of the saints, nor any one in the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion; that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace. But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension, and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in every part. For if I do not understand I suspect that a deeper sense lies beneath the words. I do not measure and judge them by my own reason, but leaving the more to faith regard them as too high for me to grasp. And I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I do not understand it."
After this he examines the entire Book of Revelation, and having proved that it is impossible to understand it according to the literal sense, proceeds as follows: "Having finished all the prophecy, so to speak, the prophet pronounces those blessed who shall observe it, and also himself. For he says, 'Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things' (Rev 22:7-8). Therefore that he was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written. For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book, that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle."
Farther on he [Dionysius] adds: "But John never speaks as if referring to himself, or as if referring to another person. But the author of the Apocalypse introduces himself at the very beginning: 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him to show unto his servants quickly; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare witness of the word of God and of his testimony, even of all things that he saw' (Rev 1:1-2). Then he writes also an epistle: 'John to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace be with you, and peace' (Rev 1:4). But the evangelist did not prefix his name even to the Catholic Epistle; but without introduction he begins with the mystery of the divine revelation itself: 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes' (1 John 1:1). For because of such a revelation the Lord also blessed Peter, saying, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my heavenly Father' (Matt 16:17). But neither in the reputed second or third epistle of John, though they are very short, does the name John appear; but there is written the anonymous phrase, 'the elder' (2 John 1; 3 John 1). But this author did not consider it sufficient to give his name once and to proceed with his work; but he takes it up again: 'I, John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and in the patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus' (Rev 1:9). And toward the close he speaks thus: 'Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things' (Rev 22:7-8). But that he who wrote these things was called John must be believed, as he says it; but who he was does not appear. For he did not say, as often in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord, or the one who lay on his breast, or the brother of James, or the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord. For he would have spoken of these things if he had wished to show himself plainly. But he says none of them; but speaks of himself as our brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed because he had seen and heard the revelations. But I am of the opinion that there were many with the same name as the apostle John, who, on account of their love for him, and because they admired and emulated him, and desired to be loved by the Lord as he was, took to themselves the same surname, as many of the children of the faithful are called Paul or Peter. For example, there is also another John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, whom Barnabas and Paul took with them (Acts 12:25), of whom also it is said, 'And they had also John as their attendant' (Acts 13:5). But that it is he who wrote this, I would not say. For it not written that he went with them into Asia, but, 'Now when Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem' (Acts 13:13). But I think that he was some other one of those in Asia; as they say that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name of John." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.25.1-16)
-
BurnTheShips
Some have suggested that schizophrenia might be the cause of visions and prophetic words.
Or the use of religious psychadelics such as peyote, ayahuasca, and teonanactl.
BTS
-
Leolaia
Yeah, I think it is best to say that the author of Revelation and the author of gospel of John were probably different people. One point against John the son of Zebedee being the author is the tradition (possibly reflected in Mark) that he was martyred early. But the historicity of this tradition, like most early Christian traditions, is very hard to evaluate.