Question re: REVELATION

Amazing

Recently I read some information that state the Catholic Church now admits that the Apostle John definitely did not write the Bible book of Revelation. Also, another source stated that Revelation may not be an 'inspired canonical' book. Rather, Revelation may be the work of a raving lunatic imprisoned on Patmos, who had illusions of grandeur, and may have been on drugs as he invented this fantasy we call also call Apocalypse. For now, I am leaving out the sources until I can confirm if there is any legitimacy to them.

But, what does anyone here know about the Book of Revelation? What is the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church on this book? Did St. Augustine, in his reported work "City of God" actually writes to refute the legitimacy of Revelation? And, if the Bible book of Revelation (Apocalypse) is indeed not a canonical book, but the work of a lunatic, then does this not cast a serious pall on the Christian faith? Or, at least discredit many modern Evangelical and Apocalyptic groups as being hoodwinked by some fictional crap posing as the work of St. John?

I am curious as to what you all have to say. Thanks. - Amazing

Silverleaf

Hello Amazing,

You wrote:

Rather, Revelation may be the work of a raving lunatic imprisoned on Patmos, who had illusions of grandeur, and may have been on drugs as he invented this fantasy we call also call Apocalypse.

All I can say is, finally, a reasonably explanation of Revelations.
Thanks!

Silverleaf

bboyneko 2

I think that if we took the Beatles YELLOW SUBMARINE and made it into a book that you could make all kinds of cool prophetic intepretations from it.

And Look! There came from the heavens a great cylinder encrusted with translucent jewels, and thru them could be seen the faces of men like sons of god, and they rode upon me on a great rainbow of many colors...and LO! There were were many weird blue creatures who played intstruments in praise of the lord.

-Dan

Free2Bme

I'm with Silverleaf,
Thanks for the laugh!

Free

Abaddon

But it seemed only so, for the Blue Creatures of Mean were servants unto the blue one, and were not indeed playing instruments at all, as music wrote great fear and pain in the little bastards (god, bboyneko 2, big mistake, that's like leaving Leia out of Star Wars).

For it had come to pass that the Meanies of Blue had invaded Pepperland, and had smotten the inhabitants of Pepperland with a smitting of exceeding smiteyness. And the inhabitants of Pepperland said "lo!", and bewailed their fate, as they were good people, lovers of music, pop-art gardens,rather nice really, with the only thing that could be said against them being an unfortunate enthusiasm for facial hair.

"Lo!" they said, and then all was still, as the Meanies of Blue had worked a magic that the Priests of Pharoh would have loved to have pulled when Moses pulled that shit with his staff. The music that had once filled the air now left noticable gaps in the sky.

And the great cylinder landed upon the hights of a lawn in Pepperland, arriving in what is commonly called the nick of time, and the Beatles (for it was they) alighted and battled for the music, smitting the creatures of blue especially the really scarey one with the gloves, and the flying hand, and those guys on stilts with their deadly stealth apples.

And it came to pass that, Lo! There sounded a drum, a guitar, and a bass, and there proved to be a sign in the Heavens, and a woman arrayed with stars, and John turned his face unto heaven and said;

"Hello Yoko."

Moxy

excellent beatles parodies guys.

but i actually would like to hear about this issue. sounds interesting. it does seem odd that john never mentions the revelation in all the stuff that he was sposed to have written _afterward_ and it also apparantly fails miserably in a textual comparison with the gospel and epistles of john.

mox

Frenchy

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “At the end of the second century the Apocalypse was acknowledged by the historical representatives of the principal churches as the genuine work of John the Apostle.” The reference goes on to name some of the church ‘fathers’ who believed John to be the author: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Bishop Hippolytus. It goes further to state: “Clement and Origen believed without hesitation in its Joannine authorship. They were both scholars and men of critical judgment. Their opinion is all the more valuable as they had no sympathy with the millennial teaching of the book. They contented themselves with an allegorical interpretation of certain passages but never ventured to impugn its authority. Approaching more closely the apostolic age we have the testimony of St. Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century. From Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl., IV, xviii, 8), as well as from his dialogue with the Jew, Tryphon (c. 81), held in Ephesus, the residence of the apostle, we know that he admitted the authenticity of the Apocalypse.”

While it acknowledges that there have been some opponents of this view it states: “But although the authorities giving evidence against the authenticity of the Apocalypse deserve full consideration they cannot annul or impair the older and unanimous testimony of the churches. The opinion of its opponents, moreover, was not free from bias.”

I hope that answers your question as to how the Catholic Church views this subject.

Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Bible has this to say, in part: “As there has been much controversy concerning the authenticity of this book; and as it was rejected by many for a considerable time, and, when generally acknowledged, was received cautiously by the Church;” There’s quite a lengthy article about it in this reference work.

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Amazing

Hi Frenchy: Thanks for the Encyclopedia comments. What edition of the Catholic Enclcyopedia? Also, I understand that the admission of the Church that I spoke of is more recent than their Encyclopedia. I am wondering if anyone has heard of this new stated position, and where I can find the documentation. Thanks. - Amazing

noidea

OMG!
Does this mean that they also have "New Light"???????????????

Yadirf

Amazing

:But, what does anyone here know about the Book of Revelation?

Plenty. But you haven't the ability to understand. For example: I could tell you that the name on the harlot's forehead is not her own as commonly thought. But, instead, is the name of the beast that she rides. (Chapter 17) I could tell you that the name on the forehead of Jesus is his father's name (Jehovah). (Chapter 19, verse 12) Those are merely the tip of the iceberg in the way of examples but I could tell you a LOT of magnificent things about the book of Revelation, Amazing, and produce solid reasons. But with the mind that you have, you wouldn't be able to benefit from my having done so.

Too bad!

Friday
.

Question re: REVELATION

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Share this