Is the 'Book of Revelation' originally a Jewish Text that was later doctored by 'Christians' ?

a reply to: Akragon

I did know that but thank you. I think people put Paul above Jesus sometimes, I can't see that they are reading the same book sometimes

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

It was a trick question, not a Gnostic one, but you answered correctly. Paul calling himself Apostle is blasphemy, imo.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Aren't you the genius that said judas wasn't an Apostle. So you outrank Jesus, who names all twelve as apostles before he dies? Don't bother responding I'm looking for people that REALLY know their bibles, not ameteurs. I definitely wont be reading anything you post, as you sound like you know what your talking about, and even had me fooled. But not after that.

Did Judas go on a mission on behalf of the church or Christ? was he one of the ones sent ahead to organize things for Christ's visits? Was he alive at the time the bible starts to refer to the other disciples as apostles?

Judas may even technically qualify for the secular definition of an apostle but not the Biblical title of one of Jesus's apostles in the way I alluded to about there being other apostles.

This is not to say that Judas deserves any special injunction or sanction. He was part of the salvation plan. He was possessed at the time of the betrayal and he repented and tried to return the silver after he did it. His suicide also was probably not what it appeared. But because he wasn't alive at the time the disciples officially became apostles he could not be one of those apostles.

I can't believe someone would suggest that a Christian would ever dr. a biblical text!!! What's that, they all were? But it's the word of God. And can an inanimate object be Jewish? Why, because it was written by a Jew? Who was a Christian, btw, and since Christ makes an appearance, that would make it a Christian book. Based on Judaism. But it's about Jews unwanted Messiah so I don't think they are even claiming it. Yeah, it's a Christian book.

The question of "Is the Book of Revelation a Christian or Jewish Text?" is kinda like splitting hairs in my opinion. Thee word Christian at the time of its writing would have been something more akin to an adjective than a noun.

For example, to use the phrase "Christian" at the time of its writing would have been grammatically the same as saying "Essene" or "Herodians" or "Sadducees". Basically it was not viewed as "NOT Jewish" but rather a "SECT" of Judaism.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

You wrote: QUOTE

"I can't believe someone would suggest that a Christian would ever d[octo]r a biblical text!!! What's that, they all were? But it's the word of God. And can an inanimate object be Jewish? Why, because it was written by a Jew? Who was a Christian, btw, and since Christ makes an appearance, that would make it a Christian book. Based on Judaism. But it's about Jews unwanted Messiah so I don't think they are even claiming it. Yeah, it's a Christian book. UNQUOTE

Certainly in the form in which it exists to-day, the Apocalypse of Yohanon (whoever he was) aka Book of Revelation, has morphed (by 96 CE) or 'was doctored' into a Christian document (cf e.g. all those passages in which 'and the lamb' is added to a Jewish core image); but if we lift off the 'Christian' additions, we seem to be left with an earlier embedded thoroughly Jewish Apocalyptic End of Days text which is thoroughly 'Jewish' from beginning to end, although (like the Dead Sea Scroll Covenanters) Messianic Jews who were looking for a warrior Messiah to return in the Last Days and restore Jerusalem and Israel.

I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever that the imagery throughout the UrText of 'Revelation' is clearly taken from and is clearly based on the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g. The Image and the Beasts in Daniel, the Four Horses in Zechariah, the Plagues of Egypt in Exodus, the Four Living Creatures, the Carrion Feast of the Birds and the eating of the Scroll in Hezekiel etc., various images taken directly from the Tamid Daily Temple Psalms (Psalms 24, 48, 82, 94, 81, 93, 92 which were sung one per day throughout the Calendar week), extracts from the books of Isaiah (e.g. 31:29) & the Fall of Babylon images in Jeremiah, the 24 priestly families found in 1 Chronicles 25:7-31, the images of the darkened Sun and the Blood Red Moon in Joel, etc. etc. just to name a few.

Because it was thought that the 'days of Prophecy' were over by the 1st century CE, it became necessary for the original compiler(s) of these Hebrew prophecies to rifle through the Hebrew Tanakh (and other non-canonical non-biblical books, apparently) in order to expand upon existing Hebrew scriptures to suit their present circumstances of persecution (the process is called Midrash where new interpretations are given to older prophecies in the form of an adaptation well known to early Christians).

a reply to: Sigismundus

Your point? Christianity is jewish too then because the whole religion is built off Judaism(and more) so again, your point?

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

your name calling will get you no support from me to your false teaching.

By the way it is called revellation not the plural revelations fpr someone who read the bible it seems you cant even call it correctly.

Hey also John saw the Beast, he knew it was that Antichrist which should come, before he penned 1John and Revelation.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

You wrote QUOTE "Your point? Christianity is jewish too then because the whole religion is built off Judaism(and more) so again, your point?" UNQUOTE

My point is simple: a Christian writer or writers towards the end of the 1st century CE took a Jewish Apocalypse of the End of Days written during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome c. 66-72 CE (where the gentiles would wage war against them, and, according to the book, lose the War and be sent to perdition) and made it 'Churchy' by adding the phrases re: "Jesus" and "the Lamb" into the body of the text, thereby undermining the original flow of the words and ideas in the UrText. Moreover it is clear that by removing these later Christian 'interpolations' the underlying UrText (or Vorlage) remains intact and makes complete sense without these additions.

A decade or two after the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72CE) the split between Messianic Jews who 'believed in Jesus' and what would be called normative rabbinic Judaiesm (such as it was being reconstituted after the War) was more or less complete. But the Book of Revelation shows us a time when the two were enmeshed as groups within a larger group (i.e. of Diaspora Jews) with different emphases on salvation.

What this would then allow is a re-reading of the book as a whole, with its references to 'the Beast', 'the False Prophet' and "Babylon' in a pre-70 CE setting, some 30 years prior to the usually accepted dating of the book in c. 96 CE. The perpective of the authors of the primitive UrText Vorlag (original 'Jewish' version) is a radical disenfranchisement from the authority structures of pre70 CE Roman destruction of Jerusalem - and far from the martyr being 'Jesus', highlighted are the Two Witnesses in Rev. chapter 11 whose bodies are left to rot in the streets of Jerusalem.

In the same way that the basic apocalyptic texts of the Dead Sea corpus have their historical references as the parties and policies of the 1st century BCE, the original Jewish UrText of the Book of Revelation is most likely composed agains the 'backdrop' of local events in both Judaea and Rome in the 40s and 50s CE.

Clear as mud?

Is this like a home for people who want to show off their lack of knowledge? All anyone does is try to sound smarter than the next guy. If you need this to feel smart, sorry. I enjoy reading it, your desperate attempts to prove you know what your talking about. But when you know you know. That's why I stay in religious chats, my area of knowledge. I laugh at all of you who think you know the bible, but don't. I know YOU think you do. But you don't. I can tell because I do know it, and I understand it. So bark on so I can keep laughing.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Everything you say just shows how little you know about religion. You can't even comprehend why I find it ridiculous for a person who claims to have read the bible 20 times to refer to the Beast of revelation as the "Anti Christ". It's incorrect, no more, no less. And for the or any one or thing anti Christ to be thought of as the Anti Christ, wnen the Anti Christ is an incorrect term to begin with, is not a mistake a serious bible student makes, but one of a man seeking to glorify himself in Jesus name.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
That's why I stay in religious chats, my area of knowledge. I laugh at all of you who think you know the bible, but don't. I know YOU think you do. But you don't. I can tell because I do know it, and I understand it. So bark on so I can keep laughing.

I think you know what you believe to be true.

I don't feel you come from a purely secular fact finding mindset. You seem to have a religious bias.

I could be wrong. I'll just keep reading.

a reply to: Annee
I am biased towards people who are outwardly one thing, but don't take take the time to examine that thing in its entirety before claiming to be knowledgeable. Im not secular, my fact finding mission was for knowledge, and therefore unbiased. That would explain my having a non mainstream understanding, but an independent well researched one of the bible. I think it ridiculous to believe whatever you call god would be less reasonable than us, and damning someone to eternal torment for choosing the wrong religion is unreasonable by human standards, by God standards I imagine hed be insulted at the suggestion. Unless he's evil, but I have no reason to think he is.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
I think it ridiculous to believe whatever you call god would be less reasonable than us, and damning someone to eternal torment for choosing the wrong religion is unreasonable by human standards, by God standards I imagine hed be insulted at the suggestion.

That we can definitely agree on, even though I am secular.

I am of the "wanting to learn" --- not of the knowledgeable.

Peace

a reply to: Annee
But I absolutely appreciate your politeness and your input. I am a correctness junkie and am passionate about things I feel I have earned the right to state are facts. Truth of what the bible actually says is important to me whether or not I believe it happened. Bias comes from adopting a mindset opposed to opinions, and tends to develop IN the secular community. People who are of my thinking re: the bible usually study alone and research every opinion before forming one.

a reply to: Annee
Id recommend a cover to cover reading of your faiths book(s). Take advantage of the internet but always be skeptical, it is the internet. Religion is great in that it requires no human teachers. I wish more realized this. Sacred texts are the foundation, you just got to read, read and read more.
And imo, heaven vs hell should not be your motivation. If you need to be scared of hell to be a decent human, then your motives are avoidance of punishment vs just being a good person, who wants to learn about something greater than thereself.

a reply to: Sigismundus
I was being obviously sarcastic. It's a book, obviously has gone through changes, anything to do with ot themes in daniel or midrash which is Jewish oral tradition that eventually got written down, like lilith or Samael type stories was way beyond the scope of my quote which was mostly mocking the premise of debating the religious affiliation of the last book of the new testament. Is anyone unaware of judaisms influence on Christianity? It's not like christans stole or hijacked it like the thread suggests. It's pupose is prophetic, not historical.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
You are right I know absolutely nothing about religion. That is one thing we can agree on.

I have read my Bible more that 20 times.

We use Antichrist like we use Trinity that doesn't make it incorrect.