Adam, Eve and the Apple.

[SkullKing]

So he basically writes a crazy manifesto while he's in exile.

Oh, I understand that.

I meant in the context of the bible as absolute truth, how can someone take the bible literally and take revelations symbolically?

[Hyena Dandy]

One suggestion is that it's symbolism, BUT it's literally a prophecy. Personally, I don't like it, but the idea is that it's a prophecy he LITERALLY saw, but it's a symbolic, allegorical warning.

[HYHYBT]

Oh, I understand that.

I meant in the context of the bible as absolute truth, how can someone take the bible literally and take revelations symbolically?

As it was explained to me... the parts of the Bible that read as instructions are to be taken at face value. The parts that are narrative are to be taken as literally true. But the visions, whether Revelation or Ezekiel or whatever, are neither of those. So you take as literally true that soandso saw a vision and this is an accurate description of it (just as you take it as truth that Jesus said "this is my body") but that doesn't mean that the *contents* of the vision aren't symbolic.

Of course, some people *do* believe Revelation to be a literal telling of the future. I don't see much point in worrying over it either way, and wouldn't even if I were a strict literalist otherwise. To me, that book doesn't even make enough sense to have solid ground for arguing about.

[Gravekeeper]

As it was explained to me... the parts of the Bible that read as instructions are to be taken at face value. The parts that are narrative are to be taken as literally true.

Really, thats still a pretty dangerous way of trying to interprete it. For me, I break it into three things: The fables that are there to teach a lesson ( The flood, the garden of eden, sodom & grommorah, etc ), the pseudo historical accounts ( The Gospels, etc ) and then the crazy. Such as Revelations.

You don't put your faith in crazy.

Its really pretty astonishing how much bullshit Revelations has caused when no one wanted it in the Bible to begin with except for one dickheaded Bishop that was obsessed with it. >.>

[Jaden]

I don't think writing Revelation off as "crazy" is entirely fair. There's actually quite a lot of interesting symbolism and imagery to be found in there, most of it to do with the plights Israel was facing, but some of it having to do with the things we as humans face every day. I don't think any of it was supposed to have anything to do with the end times.

Similarly, the second half of Daniel could easily be written off as crazy, and it's also often co-opted for eschatology purposes, but I prefer to think that much of it is about the defilement of the temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, along with his sacking of Jerusalem and general persecution of the Jews.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't think any of it was supposed to have anything to do with the end times.

I believe I already said that a few posts up ;p

[Jaden]

I believe I already said that a few posts up ;p

I know, but you also said it was crazy. I was just saying what I thought it was about, personally, having been raised in an environment where I was taught that Revelation was some kind of end times prophecy, and how I didn't think it was crazy despite the fact that I do not think Revelation is an end times prophecy.

[Gravekeeper]

It is crazy >.> Maybe not crazy in the way its typically accused of being crazy, but still pretty crazy.

[DrFaroohk]

Holy crap! I was just wondering how long the theory itself has been around.

But DrFaroohk, you might be asking, why must you know this?

Cuz I had just read it a few days before asking this, and then suddenly I saw someone on facebook posting these big elaborate rants about it, and he's known for "copying" things and not crediting them, and for some reason I enjoy pointing this out to him for some reason. The way he was writing these it sounded like "Hey, look at this theory I came up with all on my own that I've known about forever!"

[KabeRinnaul]

Indiana tried legislating the value of pi as 3.2 in 1897. It passed the House of Reps, but was tabled in the Senate.

In their defense, none of the representatives understood the math being used in the bill, and thought it was something to do with education.

The story.

[Mytical]

Revelations is the recount of a dream, that was also a prophecy, and what was witnessed by the person having the dream. So it has nothing to do with if the rest of the bible is symbolism or not. None..at all. As for symbolism, it would have to be..because he saw jesus as an actual lamb. Stop..think about that for just a second. Now..since we know that if we take that literally that Jesus would be a wool bearing animal..we can not take it literally. Period.

All of Revelations, being a dream and a dream usually has a lot of symbolism, is all about symbolism. Does not mean any of the rest of the bible is or is not symbolism. Just that Revelations, being about a dream, is.

[Gravekeeper]

Revelations is the recount of a dream, that was also a prophecy, and what was witnessed by the person having the dream.

Revelations, as I mentioned, is essentially anti-Roman propoganda written by a fundementalist Jew exiled to an island in Turkey. Shortly after the Romans sacked Jerusalem. Which was a hell of a blow to Christians at the time because there was no miracle or divine intervention that should have stopped the Romans. Revelations was written to bolster the faithful and stick it to the Romans.

Its basically "Yes they sacked Jerusalem, but God's gonna kick their ass, you watch!".

It's war propoganda to restore morale written by a fundie who, ironically, was actually railing against Jesus's teachings. He disagreed with what the Disciples were preaching. John of Patmos is basically the original right wing frothing fundie. There was never a time in Christian history where Christianity agreed with itself. Revelations is the right wing of the time ( Fundamentalist Judaism ) railing against the left. ( Jesus's Disciples spreading his message of reformation of Torah law ).

Jesus was teaching things that were appalling to fundamentalist Jews ( Accepting gentiles as followers without forcing the Torah on them, female leaders of churchs, marriage with gentiles, etc ). In Revelations, he rants about churchs accepting gentiles as being synagogues of Satan and what not. He refers to a female church leader as a Jezebel, which at the time was basically saying she was a secret pagan whore. -.-

Revelations was included because it was politically advantagous to one of the Bishops at the time. Who used it as a political attack. A dude so frothing at the mouth they exiled him 5 times.

[Jaden]

For the record, Gravekeeper, you may be right, but I'm not seeing anything in the wiki articles on either Athanasius or Revelation about his role in having the book included in canon. Can you provide some other source which does? I'm curious, myself.

Furthermore, I would contend that the "synagogues of Satan" passage you refer to is taken gravely out of context. This passage, Revelation 2:9,

"I know your tribulation and your poverty ( but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."

could be taken to mean that...except he's writing to the church of Ephesus right above that. Now, I'm not claiming to be an expert on ancient Christian churches, and couldn't tell you much about the others, but I know for a fact that Ephesus was a church organized by Paul the Apostle, who was both a Roman citizen and very much into the integration of Jews and Gentiles. Now, he's not extremely positive towards the church of Ephesus, but it has nothing to do with their mixed congregation. Revelation 2:2-5

"I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent."

Actually, it sounds to me like he's railing against similar churches to some we have nowadays - maybe they can call out what's wrong, but they sure don't seem to do what's right. He admonishes the church of Ephesus from straying from its original purpose...which was largely accepting everybody, regardless of being Jewish or Gentile.

With this in mind, the "synagogues of Satan" verse seems to speak more to the notion of those who claim to be faithful followers and aren't, and are rotting congregations from the inside with their false teachings. It's not the only time the Bible uses the word "Jew" symbolically, as in, simply referring to God's chosen people, which at this point included both Jews and Gentiles.

[Gravekeeper]

For the record, Gravekeeper, you may be right, but I'm not seeing anything in the wiki articles on either Athanasius or Revelation about his role in having the book included in canon. Can you provide some other source which does? I'm curious, myself.

Thats not a hard one, Google is your friend. Athanasius was one of its chief proponents. Revelations was very controversal even at the time and it was only one of many books of Revelations that were floating around. But most such books were repressed by the Church as they were against its political agenda.

Furthermore, I would contend that the "synagogues of Satan" passage you refer to is taken gravely out of context.

Thats not my personal opinion, I'm mainly referring to the work of Elaine Pagels. Whose work in this field is quite extensive to say the least. She specializes in the historical side of this stuff.

could be taken to mean that...except he's writing to the church of Ephesus right above that.

No, he's writing to the church of Smyrna. Ephesus is the section before that.

[Jaden]

Thats not my personal opinion, I'm mainly referring to the work of Elaine Pagels. Whose work in this field is quite extensive to say the least. She specializes in the historical side of this stuff.

Well, I'm not really concerned with whose opinion it was. I love studying both theology and philosophy, and I've formed my own opinions after my own research.

No, he's writing to the church of Smyrna. Ephesus is the section before that.

Right, I know, hence why I said "right above that" The context of the entire chapter is important. The "synagogue of Satan" comment was directed at Smyrna, but he also wrote somewhat mixed comments towards the church of Ephesus, none of which implied any problems with their mixed congregation, hence why I strongly question the idea that John was against Gentile inclusion.