Considering that the apostle John wrote the book of Revelation based on the visions that he saw while on the island of Patmos, and since there was no second witness there to see what he saw, should we not consider the book of Revelation in light of the WTS requirement that there be 2 or more witnesses when an accusation is made? He made accusations against and condemned religion, politics and commerce...where is his second witness?
Should we discount the book of Revelation?
by Warrigal 9 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
StinkyPantz
Should we discount the book of Revelation?
Yes, along with the other 65 books.
-
Room 215
I wish we could.... a sizeable minority of the clerics who ruled on the canon thought so, but did not prevail-- the book made it into the canon by the skin of its teeth...
-
integ
When using Dr. David Hawkins' kinesiologic testing procedure, the book of Revelations calibrates (per the scale of human consiousness) at 75, which is below the critical level of 200 (anything below 200 is considered to be destructive). John calibrates at 70. You can find out more about this fascinating stuff in the book POWER VS. FORCE.
-
Francois
As a matter of fact, I agree with Stinky. I think we should not only discount the entire thing, we should give it away for free. Especially Revelation. No second witness dontcha know?
francois
Hey Stinky - What's the haps with your car and the wreck and stuff?
-
onacruse
Warrigal, this topic touches on something that I have, for the first time in my life, really started to examine openly: the selection of the Bible canon. Remember that chart in the back of the Scripture Inspired book, a list of various sources that "showed" what books were considered canonical, and when? I never really looked at it the way I should have: canon selection was by no means as cut-and-dried as I presumed. It took several decades, and for some of the books, several centuries, to be considered canonical; even now the canon is not ecumenically defined.
I dislike lengthy posts (especially copy-and-paste), but I thought the following excerpt was very illustrative of the torturous history of NT selection, as well as the turmoil of the early Christian church. So, here is a part (about 1/4 of the section, and perhaps the least interesting)(typed with my own 2 little fingers ): From The Interpreter’s Bible (Vol 12, pp. 351-354):
However, it is certain that by the end of the second century Revelation was known and used throughout Christendom not only as a book of prophecy but also as a part of the canon of the New Tetsament, with the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, generally considered to be its author. At the same time, there were some who disputed both its canonical status and its apostolic authorship.
There may be some reflections of Revelation in Hermas, Ignatius, and Barnabas, but this cannot be stated definitely. More certainly, however, we are assured by Andreas in the prologue to his commentary that Papias of Hieropolis in Phrygia, who flourished before 150, knew Revelation and considered it to be inspired. Likewise, Justin Martyr, who lived in Ephesus around AD 135 before moving to Rome, writing about 155-60 states:
And, further, a man among us named John, one of the apostles of Christ, prophesied in a Revelation made to him that they who have believed our Christ will spend a thousand years in Jerusalem, and that afterwards the universal, and, in one word, eternal resurrection of all at once, will take place, and also the judgement. (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 81)
This is the earliest specific mention of Revelation extant and the first attestation of its supposed authorship by the apostle John. Whether Justin considered it to be scripture is difficult to decide, but the probabilities are against its canonical standing at this date.
Somewhat later, around 165, Melito, bishop of Sardis, one of the cities to which the apocalypse was originally addressed, wrote a treatise on Revelation which unfortunately is lost. Consequently it is impossible to determine what he thought about its scriptural status and its authorship. However, the very fact that he wrote a treatise about it is testimony to the prestige it enjoyed in Sardis in his day.
One of his contemporaries, Theophilus, the sixth bishop of Antioch, wrote a polemic against a certain heretic named Hermogenes, in which he used testimonies or quotations from Revelation to refute the heretic and to advance his own arguments, thereby testifying to its circulation in Syria.
In Rome the book of Revelation was well received before the end of the second century, for Justin Martyr, no doubt, reflects Roman as well as Ephesian opinions regarding its character. Furthermore, the authoritative Muratonian Canon, which gives the list of Christian writings accepted as scripture in Rome around the year 200, states that Revelation was written by the apostle John to seven churches and includes it with the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture. There were those, however, who would not permit the latter to be read in the church, but this restriction did not apply to Revelation.
It gets more interesting, as the history up through Dionysius of Alexandria (~250), Eusebius (~325), Cyril of Jerusalem (~350), and Chrysostom (~400) shows continued conflict about Revelation's stature. Perhaps most thought-provoking of all: Revelation was one of the more readily accepted books!
I liked the concluding thoughts:
CraigThis brief survey of the stages by which Revelation came to be accepted as scripture and a part of the New Testament shows that from the middle of the second century, if not earlier, it was a mysterious and disputed book. On the other hand, there can be little question that its first readers, those persecuted Christians to whom it was originally addressed, experienced little difficulty in understanding and appreciating its message; for not only were they, like its author, steeped in apocalyptic thought and imagery, but the book was directed toward their own precarious situation. But when the time and situation for which it was written had passed, its acceptance as scripture created difficulties which persist to the present day.
-
Warrigal
Thanks, Craig and all the others who posted to this topic. In a recent confrontation with the local elders over the 2 witnesses rule I mentioned how much the WTS relies on the book of Revelation and how their prophecies of the future are based upon the writings therein. I felt that if the 2 witness rule is valid in cases of child molestation; how much more so should it be valid when considering the writings of a man upon whom the WTS bases so much of its 'troof'.
-
pseudoxristos
It is likely that the author of the book of Revelation and the author of the Gospel of John are not the same person. If the Apostle John was the actual writer, he could have given the book more authority by referring to himself as the Apostle John or the Disciple John instead of using "servant" or "brother".
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; Rev 1:1 (ASV)
9 I John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Rev 1:9 (ASV)
The grammar in the book of Revelation is significantly simpler than that of the Gospel of John.
It needs to be thrown out and replaced with a Steven King Novel.
pseudo
-
onacruse
Pseudo, yes indeed. The preface I quoted above continues;
Furthermore, if the dating of Revelation toward the end of the first century is reasonably correct, it is doubtful that it could have been by John the son of Zebedee. For according to a statement attributed to Papias before the middle of the second century, which is supported by other evidence, John, like his brother James, was killed by the Jews before the year 70, while the temple was still standing...In this connection it is somewhat beside the point to contend with Dionysius that the great difference in style, grammar and ideas between Revelation and the Fourth Gospel proves that the apostle did not write the former; for such an argument assumes the apostolic origin of the Gospel. One can agree with Dionysius, however, that the two books could not have been written by the same author.
Curioser and curioser.
Craig
-
Dansk
Interesting thread - and Craig has done his homework!
If you get chance, read 'A Short History of the Bible' by Bronson C. Keeler ISBN 1-58509-205-3 (THANK YOU, BRUCE!!). Published in 1881, it has been reproduced and is available from The Book Tree, P.O. Box 16476, San Diego, CA 9216 Tel: (800) 700-8733
This wonderful easy to read but engrossing work proves that the Bible is definitely not inspired and was never considered so until centuries after Christ's death. Once again, politics - and nothing but politics - is responsible for the growth of the Bible and the belief in it. Read here where the origin of "Believe or be damned" comes from!
I'm formerly a staunch believer in the Bible (Dub life ) but this book is truly enlightening. Suffice to say, I now concur with Stinky and Francois!!
Dansk