Revelation - Jesus is seen on a horse in the sky?

The book of Revelation contains the description of an armed horseman in white appearing in the heavens who goes about conquering the nations. I have seen many Christians interpret this vision literally, to conclude that the horseman (who according to them is Jesus) would literally be seen riding a horse in the sky. I believe the vision of the horseman, like that of the strange beasts, the whore and the four colored horsemen are just...symbolic visions that represent future events. We may not see Jesus literally return on a white horse in the skies, just like how we wont see beasts rising out of the sea and land or horsemen running around creating havoc. ___________________________________________________The vision of the horseman in the sky could simply be a spectacular but symbolic representation of a more down to earth appearance of the horseman, who in my opinion would keep a low profile and would be known only by the armies he would fight alongside with. To the rest of the world under the control and influence of the anti-Christ, Jesus would be a militiaman waging war against the anti-Christs hi-tech armies. Even if he did appear on TV proclaiming to be who he really is, the world expecting to see Jesus on a horse in the sky...would dismiss him as a fraud. Only God knows best what will happen.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I agree that the best interpretation is non-literal.
This is the comment I made in my Revelation series;

The rider on the white horse is followed by the "armies of heaven", clothed in white linen and riding on white horses of their own.
They resemble the "riders from heaven" who make an appearance, on their own or in groups, in some of the stories of 2 Maccabees. For example;
"They were still near Jerusalem when a rider attired in white appeared at their head, brandishing golden weapons. With one acccord they all blessed the God of mercy and found themselves filled with courage..."-2 Maccabees ch11 v8
We can take it that this army has the same purpose- coming to the aid of God's people against their enemies.

sk0rpi0n
I have seen many Christians interpret this vision literally,

If what you say is true, then you must live near a pocket of fundamentalist christians.
Most do not take it literally.

Most Christians understand that the book of Revelation is not to be taken literally. It's all figurative and imagery. Very few Christians take the bible absolutely literal. And nearly all Christian theologians admit that they have no idea what Revelations really means ... or if it means anything at all. But all credible Christian theologians agree that it's full of imagery.

@ DISRAELI.... The Islamic view of Jesus' return is that he would return to defeat the anti-Christ and his armies...not to destroy non-Christian civilians as maintained by many Christians. The heavenly army like you said would be guiding human soldiers fighting alongside Jesus. God knows best.

FlyersFan

sk0rpi0n
I have seen many Christians interpret this vision literally,

If what you say is true, then you must live near a pocket of fundamentalist christians.
Most do not take it literally.

Most Christians understand that the book of Revelation is not to be taken literally. It's all figurative and imagery. Very few Christians take the bible absolutely literal. And nearly all Christian theologians admit that they have no idea what Revelations really means ... or if it means anything at all. But all credible Christian theologians agree that it's full of imagery.

My point was that revelation is filled with spectacular imagery...representing more ''down to earth'' events in the future. The vision of the horseman is just that...a vision. The real thing could just have the ''horseman'' driving a helicopter or a pickup truck. God knows best.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I'm not even sure that Revelation is trying to describe a literal battle.
The chapter seems to jump straight from "the Word appears" to "it's all over".
My take on that is that the arrival of the Word "in power" disables all human power, making a literal battle unnecessary".

DISRAELI
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

I'm not even sure that Revelation is trying to describe a literal battle.
The chapter seems to jump straight from "the Word appears" to "it's all over".
My take on that is that the arrival of the Word "in power" disables all human power, making a literal battle unnecessary".

well, if Revelation describes a literal ''evil power'', then there would be a literal ''war'' to stop it. The anti-Christ/Dajjal would rise to power...and would need to be stopped by force. A lot of events in Revelations are veiled references to modern day politics and international affairs. God knows best.

reply to post by DISRAELI


What you may not understand is that if you are reading the bible and trying to interpret any part of it as truth, then you are a fundamentalist. The entire book is written as though each character has the ultimate understanding of god. So their stories are written as though they are truth. What you dont seem to understand is that your confusion springs from the idea that these stories should make sense. They dont make sense because they were written by deluded individuals. So stop wishing for the end of the world.

You say that the four horsemen could take any form. Well then you could mistake anything for a horseman. Jesus could take any form? Then your able to mistake anyone for jesus. As long as you interpret the book as truth the more and more mistakes you will make trying to make sense of it and reality.

If the book were meant to tell a story of truth then it would be easily understandable. But even people who consider themselves devout believers disagree on all of the main story plots. Since there is and can be no consensus of really any part of it, then why do you put so much worth in the words?

reply to post by Woodcarver

That is not the usual definition of "fundamentalist", but arguing over the more general question of "believing the Bible" would go beyond the topic of Skorpion's thread.

sk0rpi0n

DISRAELI
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

well, if Revelation describes a literal ''evil power'', then there would be a literal ''war'' to stop it. The anti-Christ/Dajjal would rise to power...and would need to be stopped by force. A lot of events in Revelations are veiled references to modern day politics and international affairs. God knows best.

You say "veiled references". I say you have interpreted them to fit your world view. The text is vague at best. Anyone can interpret vague words to mean any thing they want. You do get that right? Many other people have claimed to understand this or that part of the bible. What makes you think you have got it figured out or even that your close? Your feelings about it?

FlyersFan

sk0rpi0n
I have seen many Christians interpret this vision literally,

If what you say is true, then you must live near a pocket of fundamentalist christians.
Most do not take it literally.

Most Christians understand that the book of Revelation is not to be taken literally. It's all figurative and imagery. Very few Christians take the bible absolutely literal. And nearly all Christian theologians admit that they have no idea what Revelations really means ... or if it means anything at all. But all credible Christian theologians agree that it's full of imagery.

Hey flyer, so what parts of the bible do you take literally? And why? If im not mistaken you do consider yourself a christian right? So you believe a great deal of the story? What is your control when your testing truthful claims against symbology? This is a very serious question, and im asking you because you seem to have a better grip than some others around here.

@woodcarver....You say "veiled references". I say you have interpreted them to fit your world view. The text is vague at best. Anyone can interpret vague words to mean any thing they want.

Those vague words can be interpreted to reveal real-time events...as long as all the pieces fit.

DISRAELI
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

That is not the usual definition of "fundamentalist", but arguing over the more general question of "believing the Bible" would go beyond the topic of Skorpion's thread.

I dont think so as im only asking for proof of claims or at least an explanation of how he reasoned his thoughts through. Very on topic.

sk0rpi0n

@woodcarver....You say "veiled references". I say you have interpreted them to fit your world view. The text is vague at best. Anyone can interpret vague words to mean any thing they want.

Those vague words can be interpreted to reveal real-time events...as long as all the pieces fit.

Yes "interpreted" lots of people interpret these words. Why do you interpret them the way you did?

reply to post by Woodcarver

Now I see what was happening.
You were responding to what Skorpion said, but you accidentally did it in the form of a reply to my own post. That was the source of the confusion. I thought you were talking to me.

DISRAELI
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

That is not the usual definition of "fundamentalist", but arguing over the more general question of "believing the Bible" would go beyond the topic of Skorpion's thread.

By the way i didnt use fundamentalist as an accusation. It is the proper term for most christians today in america.

I understand that you are of the muslim faith, but if you stick to the more traditional practices and tennets of your religion then you would also be considered a fundamentalist muslim.

Fundamentalist christians are really any of those who claim belief in the supernatural truth and innerancy of the bible, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, the ressurection of christ, the second coming of christ.

So when i walked into this thread and saw the conversation i just called a goose a goose.

reply to post by Woodcarver

I am not of the muslim faith.
Skorpion, the OP of this thread, is of that faith.
I am a Christian, and I've been trying to demonstrate the fact in most of the threads I've been writing over the last four years, including the Revelation series and the thread "How an atheist became a Christian" (which rather gives the game away).

@ Woodcarver...

So when i walked into this thread and saw the conversation i just called a goose a goose.

Not interested in explaining religion 101 to non-believers. Read the stickied thread on top. These threads are meant for people who already accept certain religious concepts. Its not our duty to first convince non-believers of certain concepts before proceeding to get into the details.

Woodcarver
By the way i didnt use fundamentalist as an accusation. It is the proper term for most christians today in america.

That's inaccurate. The vast majority of Christians are NOT fundamentalists. Fundamentalist Christians take the entire bible as the literal Word of God. The vast majority of Christians DO NOT. The Baptists and Church of Christ and Pentecostal type churches do. But the Catholics, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Russian and Greek Orthodox, and Methodists do not.

Christianity in the USA

The fundamentalists make up 30% of the protestants meaning 70% of the protestants are not fundamentalists. Also on top of that - Catholicism is the largest christian religious denomination in the USA - being 25% of the population. And Catholics DO NOT take the entire bible literally like a fundamentalist protestant would.

When it comes to the book of Revelation ... it wasn't accepted by the Christian church until ~ 500 AD. During all that time, almost all the 'big names' (like Polycarp) dismissed the book of Revelation as meaningless. Even after the year 500 AD when it was accepted by those that ran the Church, the vast majority of the Christian people still couldn't be bothered with it. It has nothing to do with salvation and it's impossible to decipher.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Polycarp thought it wasn't important, thats new to me