RE: Quoting Jesus...
No, you are wrong on this one Steve.
Bzzzt. Sorry. Not this time, but thanks for playing.
The Revelation was John the Apostle's vision of the Second Coming of Christ and its prelude.
The Apocalypse, the only book of prophecy in the New Testament was most likely not written by John the Apostle. First, it does not resemble the fourth gospel nor the Johannine epistles in style, grammar, or linguistic usage. Second, it was probably written in the late first century, more than likely after John, Zebedee's son had passed on to his reward. Finally, its attribution to "John the Presbyter" is taken from offhand comments made by Polycarp, which in turn were taken from comments made by one of his mentors, Propias, and Irenaeus and Athanasius after him simply assumed that Zebedee's son was to whom Polycarp referred. Dionysius, in the third century, with far better texts and a clearer oral tradition than we have today, attributed it to John the Presbyter, a person separate and apart from John the Apostle.
But let's leave that for a moment. I offer it so you will think twice about repeating second-hand misinformation. You say it was a "vision" of the second coming. First, the text says (in English), "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." The Greek word used is "pneumati," which means literally "spirit" or even "ghost." It is not a metaphor nor a near translation. The same word is used hundreds of times throughout the New Testament and the phrase is used several times. Its meaning and context are the same: it means literally in spriritual form, outside the corporeal plane. This is a standard setting for prophetic books. The prophet is literally removed from his body and taken to witness and hear certain truths. So to say it was a vision is technically as accurate as saying that when you see Andy at his desk in the morning, you've had a vision of him.
He wrote the dream (or vision, if you'd rather call it that) in which he attributed dialog to Jesus as he heard it in the vision. Jesus did not actually "say" that.
You can nudge it toward "dream" all you like, but that is your propaganda, not the truth, and the text does not support it. But when you say "Jesus did not actually say that," do you imply that the prophet is lying? Is he purposely misleading us? Not only does he tell us that these words came out of Jesus directly, he relates on more than one occasion that he is directed to remember what he has seen and heard exactly and write it down. Did he make it all up? No, he did not. Jesus had left the Earth for good, until his return. In order to deliver the message he chose to remove the prophet to the spiritual plane. He told the prophet what he wanted him to hear, showed him what he wanted him to see, directed him to write it down, and then returned him to the corporeal Earth. Even Father Raymond Brown, the doyen of liberal Bible scholars stops short of attributing the quotes to the prophet himself.
Maybe it was divine guidance, but to tell Andy that it is a direct quote from Jesus is misleading.
I don't understand why you make a distinction. Of course it was divine guidance, but what form would that guidance take? What evidence can you offer that conditions are other than the prophet has said they are? Could it be because Jesus says some things in the Apocalypse that are very uncomfortable for the liberal fairy tale? Could it be that the mystery of the Apocalypse is detrimental to attempts to turn Jesus, the Christ into some kind of latter-day hippie socialist poet-philosopher? Could it be that the mystery of the whole body of the New Testament makes those who seek to deny the godhead of the Christ very uneasy? To say that the Prophet had a "dream" and wrote it down is much easier on the new-age version of Christ's message than to know that Jesus might come and pull the spirit of the prophet out of his body to show him the truth.
No, I think it is you who is mislead. I promise you that if you come to a debate on the Bible with nothing more than a nifty TV show you watched, you will leave empty-handed.
Bzzzt. Sorry. Not this time, but thanks for playing.
The Revelation was John the Apostle's vision of the Second Coming of Christ and its prelude.
The Apocalypse, the only book of prophecy in the New Testament was most likely not written by John the Apostle. First, it does not resemble the fourth gospel nor the Johannine epistles in style, grammar, or linguistic usage. Second, it was probably written in the late first century, more than likely after John, Zebedee's son had passed on to his reward. Finally, its attribution to "John the Presbyter" is taken from offhand comments made by Polycarp, which in turn were taken from comments made by one of his mentors, Propias, and Irenaeus and Athanasius after him simply assumed that Zebedee's son was to whom Polycarp referred. Dionysius, in the third century, with far better texts and a clearer oral tradition than we have today, attributed it to John the Presbyter, a person separate and apart from John the Apostle.
But let's leave that for a moment. I offer it so you will think twice about repeating second-hand misinformation. You say it was a "vision" of the second coming. First, the text says (in English), "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." The Greek word used is "pneumati," which means literally "spirit" or even "ghost." It is not a metaphor nor a near translation. The same word is used hundreds of times throughout the New Testament and the phrase is used several times. Its meaning and context are the same: it means literally in spriritual form, outside the corporeal plane. This is a standard setting for prophetic books. The prophet is literally removed from his body and taken to witness and hear certain truths. So to say it was a vision is technically as accurate as saying that when you see Andy at his desk in the morning, you've had a vision of him.
He wrote the dream (or vision, if you'd rather call it that) in which he attributed dialog to Jesus as he heard it in the vision. Jesus did not actually "say" that.
You can nudge it toward "dream" all you like, but that is your propaganda, not the truth, and the text does not support it. But when you say "Jesus did not actually say that," do you imply that the prophet is lying? Is he purposely misleading us? Not only does he tell us that these words came out of Jesus directly, he relates on more than one occasion that he is directed to remember what he has seen and heard exactly and write it down. Did he make it all up? No, he did not. Jesus had left the Earth for good, until his return. In order to deliver the message he chose to remove the prophet to the spiritual plane. He told the prophet what he wanted him to hear, showed him what he wanted him to see, directed him to write it down, and then returned him to the corporeal Earth. Even Father Raymond Brown, the doyen of liberal Bible scholars stops short of attributing the quotes to the prophet himself.
Maybe it was divine guidance, but to tell Andy that it is a direct quote from Jesus is misleading.
I don't understand why you make a distinction. Of course it was divine guidance, but what form would that guidance take? What evidence can you offer that conditions are other than the prophet has said they are? Could it be because Jesus says some things in the Apocalypse that are very uncomfortable for the liberal fairy tale? Could it be that the mystery of the Apocalypse is detrimental to attempts to turn Jesus, the Christ into some kind of latter-day hippie socialist poet-philosopher? Could it be that the mystery of the whole body of the New Testament makes those who seek to deny the godhead of the Christ very uneasy? To say that the Prophet had a "dream" and wrote it down is much easier on the new-age version of Christ's message than to know that Jesus might come and pull the spirit of the prophet out of his body to show him the truth.
No, I think it is you who is mislead. I promise you that if you come to a debate on the Bible with nothing more than a nifty TV show you watched, you will leave empty-handed.
posted by Anonymous | 9:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home