Is The Book of Revelation All About Me & My Generation?

by ClubSandwich 56 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ClubSandwich

  JWs believe the Book of Revelation offers an account of what is to come in their lifetime. But the problem is that every generation for the last 1900 years has thought the same thing. And, every generation has been wrong, even though each new one thinks it will be about me and my generation this time.

  Most reputable Bible scholars believe that Revelation, also called the Apocalypse of John, was not written to describe the future for people living today. Rather, it was written for1 st -century Christians in and around Rome. And while Revelation is a bizarre kind of book by today’s standards, apocalyptical books were not unusual in the ancient world.

  An apocalypse that almost made it into the Bible is the Apocalypse of Peter. The author claimed to be the apostle Peter and Christian communities as late as the 4 th century thought that this book should be included in the canon, either in place of the Apocalypse of John—Revelation—or alongside it.

  So what do you think, Is the Book of Revelation all about Me and My Generation?
  
  
  
• 

  Christ Alone

  Maybe, maybe not. There are various views about Revelation. Some say that most of it was fulfilled in the first few centuries and fortells the fall of Rome. Others interpret it literally and believe it to be future. The WTs interpretation is just silly, and any unbiased thinking person (and even some biased people) see that their interpretation is a pure fabrication.

  There are various reasons why Peter's apocalypse was left out of the canon. First, it was clear that it was written AFTER Peter had died. The Muratorian Fragment shows that many had doubts about it very early. Also, much of it was clearly taken from mythology, and doesn't match what other portions of scriptures say. For example, it's depiction of Hell is different than as described by Jesus. For example, nowhere in scripture is it suggested that the damned would be tortured by demons. That's a Greek notion. Peter himself said that the demons would be chained.

  One only needs to read the book to see that it doesn't fit in with the rest of scripture. This is one of the more easy books to see why it didn't make it into the canon of scripture.

  The Apocalypse of Peter also does not exist fully in a manuscript. We have 2 fragments, both of which are different versions of this book. The Greek and Ethiopian versions differ considerably, although they involve much of the same subject matter. In the Greek version, the disciples ask Jesus to show them believers who have passed from this world into righteousness. Christ shows them a wonderful vision of the redeemed, but He also shows them a terrible and frightening picture of the condemned. This scene has many similarities to the Greek myths of the underworld. Readers of Dante’s Inferno would find the descriptions in the Greek fragment oddly familiar.

  In the Ethiopian version, the disciples ask Christ to tell them some of the signs of the end times and to further explain the incident with the fig tree (Mark 11). Christ unveils a vision of the future that includes epic levels of destruction and chaos. This version also makes mention of the beautiful state of the righteous and the horrible torment of the unrighteous.
• 

  ClubSandwich

  CA, good comments on Peter's Apocalypse. One can easily see why it was not included in the canon. But why do you think Revelation made it? Do you think the theology of the 4th century had changed enough so that the ruling clergy were thinking this apocalypse applied to their generation? Surely the first readers of Revelation knew how apocalypes work. John was not trying to predict future events. Rather, he wanted to bring comfort and hope to the early Christians who were being persecuted in and around Rome. Help was on the way. God could be trusted to bring all things to a happy end.
• 

  Christ Alone

  One reason why certain books did not make it is when it was made clear that the book was not written by the one that it was credited to. That was one of the main reasons for rejecting Peter. When it became clear that it was not written by Peter, and actually written after his death, it was commonly rejected. However, the same is not true of John. We have quotes from early church fathers a few years after its writing verifying that it was written by the apostle John. This has been debated NOW, but then it was not. It was universally accepted that John wrote the letter.

  A study of the NT canon is fascinating. There are various reasons that books were either accepted or rejected. All gnostic writings were rejected. All books that they felt were not written by the apostles or close associates of the apostles were rejected. Books that clearly contradicted other portions of scripture were rejected.

  While Revelation reads like fantastic literature, and makes extraordinary claims, it does not directly contradict any other portion of scripture. It was believed to be written by the apostle John on Patmos. So it was included.

  Of course this is a very brief and basic list of reasons. I recommend this book by Bruce Metzger. It's very scholarly, and deep. But it's a subject that is absolutely fascinating whether you believe in the inspiration of the NT or not.

  http://www.amazon.com/The-Canon-New-Testament-Significance/dp/0198269544
• 

  PSacramento

  Like every book/letter in the bible, Revelation may have been written for Us ( believers) but it was NOT written TO Us.

  It was typical jewish apocalyptic literature/genre.

  While some of the lessons can be pertanent to Us now, most were aimed at the writers intended audience.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  The book of Revelation was written for first century Christians and first century churches prior to the great tribulation that would see Babylon, the great city where our Lord was crucified, destroyed. The closing chapters encourage those about to experience the persecution brought by Nero and inform them of satan's final defeat and ultimate justice restored. Well that's my understanding.

  None of this Obama antichrist nonsense.
• 

  Pterist

  Everybody would like to think so, especially hal lindsey, the WBTS and all the end time cults that made millions of dollars expounding on it.

  I don't need to inform my learned friends the many different views and eschatologies that emerge from this highly symbolic Jewish book, suffice to say, that your salvation or pleasing God does NOT depend on any date setting, but on a life lived in God's grace.

  Shalom
• 

  Christ Alone

  Here is a good article on the Apocalypse of Peter: http://www.ntcanon.org/Apocalypse_of_Peter.shtml

  Here is a translation of the book: http://www.us.oup.com/us/companion.websites/ehrman/PDF/LSAoP.pdf
• 

  Pterist

  Hi VanderHoven7.... I think we are talking the same language, I'm more on the side of Partial preterism, are you hyper/ full ?

  Shalom brother
• 

  steve2

  JWs believe the Book of Revelation offers an account of what is to come in their lifetime. But the problem is that every generation for the last 1900 years has thought the same thing.

  Very astute observations to which can be added the following: It's not just the JWs who hold the view that it offers an account of what is to come in their lifetime; so do numerous other 'end-times' groups do, each with their own ever-changing interpretations of Revelation.

  Revelation has rightly earned the reputation as perhaps the most psychotic book of the offical "canon" of the Bible. Why successive generations continue placing their earnestly feverish faith in a book riddled with psychotic ramblings is a clear indication that most believers leave their brains outside the room before they come inside.