The Revelation of Jesus Christ is not myth.

[Ghada]

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The book of Revelation showing the Lord's coming again and His rule over nations, is not myth.

This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, that turn from the truth.

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

We see that making fabulous myths out of the Bible is nothing new, and is only for the purpose of turning from the truth of the Bible record.

The common error of Bible mythologists, is making plain language of past and future people and events only symbolic, rather than true as recorded on earth. Whether it's the Red Sea crossing, or the Lord's coming to inherit and rule all nations, the true Bible events are turned into only truistic fables, like that of Aesop.

The book of Revelation is not full of symbology, but of analogy.

Symbols are spiritual truths, not naturally seen on earth, whether as a creature or event. Analogies are earthly things reveal their spiritual character.

The tortoise and hair is symbolic of spiritual ways, and not an event on earth. The beast is analogy of a man on earth, that reveals his character.

Turning analogy of the true things on earth into symbols only, turns the Bible into another book of fables and myth.

Symbology is spiritual revelation not seen in nature. Analogy is for character analysis of earthly things. Neither symbology nor analogy do away with recorded history and prophecy of people and events in the Bible.

 

[Josheb]

The Revelation of Jesus Christ is not a myth

Who said it was a myth?

 

[Josheb]

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

To what, specifically, do you think Peter was referring since Revelation hadn't been revealed or written when he wrote those words just quoted? To what "fables," or tales might he have been referring?

 

[Josheb]

The common error of Bible mythologists, is making plain language of past and future people and events only symbolic, rather than true as recorded on earth.

Do you mind if I ask you a few questions to test your consistency with those words when it comes to reading Revelation's "plain language"?

 

[Josheb]

The book of Revelation is not full of symbology, but of analogy.

Symbols are spiritual truths, not naturally seen on earth, whether as a creature or event. Analogies are earthly things reveal their spiritual character.

The tortoise and hair is symbolic of spiritual ways, and not an event on earth. The beast is analogy of a man on earth, that reveals his character.

Turning analogy of the true things on earth into symbols only, turns the Bible into another book of fables and myth.

Symbology is spiritual revelation not seen in nature. Analogy is for character analysis of earthly things. Neither symbology nor analogy do away with recorded history and prophecy of people and events in the Bible.

?????

The nature of analogies is often symbolic. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive of one another, and scripture itself states somethings are symbolic, not just analogous.

Hebrews 9:8-10
The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly, both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

The book of Revelation does not use the word "symbol," but it does state one thing is a symbol for another thing.

Revelation 1:20
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

The lampstands are symbols, not analogies. The lampstands stand for something other than lampstands; they stand as symbols of the churches. The stars are symbols for the angels of those churches. On this particular occasion the symbols were explained so they would be recognized as symbols and their meaning stated and understood.

 

[Ghada]

Who said it was a myth?

Those who symbolize it into something else of their own mind and making.

 

[Ghada]

To what, specifically, do you think Peter was referring since Revelation hadn't been revealed or written when he wrote those words just quoted?

You mean what was Christ referring to, before revealing more through Jude and Revelation?

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

His coming of course. Just as 1 Peter 1 says:

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

To what "fables," or tales might he have been referring?

Old Jewish fables about the Lord on coming spiritually to the earth to reign, which has also been picked up by some Christians.

One of the reason the unbelieving Jews had Him crucified, was because they did not want to believe the Lord would come Personally to the earth, and others did not want it to be Jesus first coming to deliver them from their sins.

 

[Ghada]

Do you mind if I ask you a few questions to test your consistency with those words when it comes to reading Revelation's "plain language"?

So long as you stick to the plain words of the Bible, without reading in your own first.

 

[Ghada]

?????

The nature of analogies is often symbolic.

Not all according to common meaning of words and grammatical use.

The nature of an analogy is using known things, to teach manners by made-up events.

The nature of symbols are made up things, to reveal spiritual manners without any event.

The former analize known manners, and the other reveals unseen spiritual things.

Making the Lord's Millennium only symbolic without the event, is turns it into an unseen myth.

and scripture itself states somethings are symbolic, not just analogous.

Exactly. And the Bible is plain about it. There are a few in the Bible, as well as in Revelation.

They do not include the Lord's coming to earth the first time alone as the Lamb of God, nor the second time as Lord and King with angels and resurrected saints, to reign over all nations for a thousand years,

Hebrews 9:8-10
The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly, both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

You change the Bible from figure to symbol only, and so dismiss the earthly truth with only a fable.

Calling the Lord's Millennial reign a symbol, without acknowledging the event on earth, is the same as calling the past temple at Jersualem a symbol only, that never acknowledges it stood on earth.

You prove the point of turning earthly things into symbols only, and making the Bible only fabulous myth.

Both the old temple at Jeruslaem, and the new temple of the Lord's reign, can exemplify greater things while standing on earth.

The book of Revelation does not use the word "symbol," but it does state one thing is a symbol for another thing.

True. Which includes the stars and candlesticks, the woman in the sun, and mystery babylon.

It does not include the Lord coming to smite all nations, and rule them with a rod of iron with His resurrected saints.

The Lord will stand on earth to enter His glorious new temple in jersualem, from which He will all nations on earth.

He'll also be surrounded by the all the land given to Abraham and his natural seed, that He first promised to Abraham walking on earth, and is prophesied by Ezekiel in the Spirit of Christ.

 

[Josheb]

You mean what was Christ referring to, before revealing more through Jude and Revelation?

No, I meant what I asked.

To what was Peter referring? Peter could not have been referring to anything later written in Revelation because Revelation hadn't been written.

His coming of course. Just as 1 Peter 1 says:

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

That coming to which Peter is referring had already come. Peter stated he was an eyewitness of it, and it occurred in the last times.

1 Peter 1:20-21
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

The OT prophecies about the Messiah coming in the last times, last days, was already fulfilled by the time God inspired Peter to write his first epistle. The Messiah had appeared (past tense) in the last times.

Old Jewish fables....

Are irrelevant and meaningless.

 

[Josheb]

Those who symbolize it into something else of their own mind and making.

What about those who correctly interpret the symbols scripture uses?

For example, while talking about the old and new covenants the author of Hebrews states,

Hebrews 9:8-10
The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly, both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

The things the author cited in that narrative are explicitly stated to be symbols and symbols for (those living in) the time when the author wrote those words. Similarly, sometimes images represent other very real, tangible objects or persons. Scripture may not use the word "symbol," but a symbol is, by definition, "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract" (Oxford dictionary). We see this sort of thing throughout scripture. Revelation is filled with them. One example is Rev. 1:20,

Revelation 1:20
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

In that particular example the "mystery" was revealed or explained. It was, therefore, no longer a mystery. John saw lampstands and stars. Jesus explained to him the lampstands (symbols) are the churches (reality) and the stars (symbols) are the angels of those churches (reality).

Not myth.



If I understand the op correctly what you mean to say is that there are some people who abuse allegorical interpretation (which is an otherwise valid means of reading scripture when done correctly, exegetically), to make the entire Bible nothing more than something symbolism; it's not true in any factual sense but it is true in a purely and solely symbolic sense.

Is that what you mean? (a simple yes or no will suffice)

 

[Josheb]

So long as you stick to the plain words of the Bible, without reading in your own first.

I think you will find I read the Bible much more plainly than you.

First, let me say I completely agree with you the book of Revelation showing the Lord's coming again and His rule over nations is not myth. Nothing I post in this conversation can be or should be read or construed in any way to say I think Revelation, Jesus' coming, and Jesus' rule over nations is a myth. I also completely agree making myths out of the Bible is nothing new. My academic studies include anthropology, sociology, and social psychology and I am well familiar with the premise of the Bible as myth in modernity with the phenomenologies of people like Heidegger, Husserl, and Sarte, the archetypology of folks like Joseph Campbell and blatant and misguided heresies of the Jesus Seminar. I also agree, at least in part, symbols [can be] spiritual truths not naturally seen on earth.

I disagree with the statement, "The book of Revelation is not full of symbology, but of analogy."

A symbol and an analogy are (or at least can be) two forms of representation. Typically, an analogy is a comparison or representation where the representation can be taken literally whereas in symbolism any literal interpretation is excluded. An analogy usually contains some similarity that is explanatory. For example, in the Revelation 1 passage John sees seven lampstands. In his vision he sees actual lampstands but in reality what is standing before Jesus is the churches. Real lampstands do exist but the lampstands in the vision are not literally lampstands; the lampstands stand for the churches. When correctly understood the lampstands are components of a vision that is about the churches standing before Jesus. Verse 20 explicitly states the lampstands re the churches, the ecclesias.

That is symbolism, not analogy. The lampstands are symbols. They symbolize the churches and their presence before Christ. That does not make what John saw a myth. So, here's my first question:


Is it your position there are NO symbols in the Bible at all? To word it another way, is it your position the Bible does not contain any symbols at all, anywhere? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Josheb]

Not all according to common meaning of words and grammatical use.

Well, since I quoted the definitions found in the dictionary and provided examples directly from scripture and read those verses plainly, exactly as written, that is not true.

It is you who is using the terms to mean something other than what the normally mean in ordinary grammatical usage.

The nature of an analogy is using known things, to teach manners by made-up events.

Completely incorrect.

Try doing a Google search for "define symbol," "define analogy," and "how many figures of speech are there?" The search results should provide Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam, and Net dictionary definitions of the first two terms should the last search should turn up sources explaining around 20-25 figures of speech many of which are employed in analogies. Analogies come in many forms.

I would also like you to reread the op in light of your comment an analogy is used to teach manners by made-up events. Why? Because the op explicitly states Revelation, Jesus' coming, and nations' rule is not myth. The op also states the book of Revelation is full of analogy.

• Revelation is not myth.
• Revelation is full of analogy.
• Analogies teach made-up events.

Post 9 contradicts Post 1.


Fix that. Fix it before we proceed.

 

[Josheb]

Making the Lord's Millennium only symbolic without the event, is turns it into an unseen myth.

I think the word "symbolic" is being confused with "figurative."

Many Bible believing Christians think the words "one thousand years" are literal. The mean exactly what they state, "one thousand years" means one thousand years. Most Bible believing Christians disagree. Because of the frequent use of symbols and other figures of speech in prophecy and the fact Jesus is now King of Kings and Lord of all lords the words, "one thousand years" are read to mean "a very long, unspecified, period of time." Most Christians think it is the literalist who is abusing God's word by reading it literally where it is intended by God to be read figuratively.

Symbols do not have anything to do with it.

I'm gonna repeat that: symbols have nothing whatsoever to do with reading "one thousand years figuratively.

Premillennialists are the only Christians who read "one thousand years" literally. Everyone else reads those words figuratively. Amillennialists, Post-Millennialists and Idealists read those word figurately, but they still read Revelation, Jesus' coming and Jesus' rule of the nations to be true. I am among them. I completely agree with you: Revelation is not myth. I completely agree with you: Jesus' is coming is not a myth. I completely agree with you Jesus' rule of the nations is not a myth. Most Christians believe these things but that does not mean they read "one thousand years" literally and the fact is Premillennialists make up only one fourth of the eschatological spectrum.

As I noted in the previous post, there are 20-25 figures of speech. The Bible employes them all. That is one of the things that makes the Bible so unique. No other literature of the time does what scripture does with language. The Bible set new standards in many ways. The truth lies in correctly reading and understanding the symbols, analogies, and figures of speech because a lot of people misunderstand them. They think it's all a myth, not just the book of Revelation.


Answer me this:

Psalm 50:10
For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.

Does God own the cattle on 1001 hills? Does God own the cattle on 1002 hills? How about 10,000 hills? What about cattle in the valleys? Does God own them, too? Does God own the cattle wading in streams? How many streams? Are we to read Psalm 50:10 to say, "For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on [only] a thousand hills"? Is it okay to stick in the word "only" when we read that verse? Maybe the "only" should also be put in front of the "cattle" so the verse reads, "For every beast of the forest is Mine, [only] the cattle [only] on a thousand hills."


Sometimes "plain reading" is not "literal reading". Sometimes the plain reading of the text is figurative, not literal. When it comes to the "one thousand years" of Revelation 20 there is much debate but that does NOT mean those who read the words figuratively think Revelation is a myth.



Answer me this, too:

Have you done much studying on the various doctrines of eschatology held by Christendom over the last 2024 years? (a simple yes or no will suffice)

 

[Ghada]

To what was Peter referring? Peter could not have been referring to anything later written in Revelation because Revelation hadn't been written.

You mean the Spirit of Christ did not know what was coming unto the end, when revealing such things to the prophets and apostles?

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Your manner of reading the Bible like other books of men, is your problem. You actually think the Bible writers were only adding their own understanding to what was written before them.

And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

This is why you thihk you can add your own understanding to the whole Bible.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies.

 

[Ghada]

That coming to which Peter is referring had already come. Peter stated he was an eyewitness of it, and it occurred in the last times.

That coming of the Lord to earth, is prophecied many times without distinction between His first and second.

That is why His first coming in the flesh as servant, was rejected by many demanding He only come with power to rule other men.

And with the same unbelief, many deny He will come again with power to rule all men, because He delays:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Scoffing Christians after His first coming in Peter's day, spoke of His coming again, as His coming.

That coming to which Peter is referring had already come.

True. The first coming of the Lord in the flesh, when He laid down His kingly power to become a servant on earth.

and it occurred in the last times.

True again. His first coming did begin the last days.

His second coming will end the last days, when coming with His power for all eyes to see on earth.

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Are you now saying Jesus did not know the manner of His own coming a second time?

The Messiah had appeared (past tense) in the last times.

True. He has not yet appeared to end these last times.

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The resurrected Messiah shall apear (future tense) a second time.

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Neither Paul nor John saw His appearing a second time.

In your fondness for making a timeline of prophecy fixed to when it is written, then the last verse of the Bible is still calling for our Lord to come again to earth with power for all inhabitors of the earth to see.

Are irrelevant and meaningless.

True, just as much as Christian ones.

 

[Ghada]

What about those who correctly interpret the symbols scripture uses?


Hebrews 9:8-10
The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly, both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

The things the author cited in that narrative are explicitly stated to be symbols and symbols for (those living in) the time when the author wrote those words.

The problem is not temporal things being symbolic, but of denying the temporal truth to make it only symbolic.

That includes the sun standing still, the Red Sea crossed, the Lord coming in the flesh as a servant, the rich man tormented in hell, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Ananias and Sapphyra slain dead by the Spirit, the resurrected Lord seen by John on Patmos, the Lord coming again with glory seen by all on earth, and the Lord ruling all the earth from His holy hill of Zion.

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

When the symbolism of the temporal is wilfully separated from the temporal, then the sumbolic event is made a myth only. (It's the same manner of separating the Lord's salvation from our works...)

The tortoise and the hair is a fabulously true allegory only, not a temporal event. The Lord appearing a second time will be a fabulous event, with plenty of allegory about the good Potter breaking an old vessel into pieces, and righteously separating them between good and bad.

Revelation 1:20
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

In that particular example the "mystery" was revealed or explained. It was, therefore, no longer a mystery. John saw lampstands and stars. Jesus explained to him the lampstands (symbols) are the churches (reality) and the stars (symbols) are the angels of those churches (reality).

True. Neither was the woman clothed with the sun ever a temporal person.

When you make the temporal event of the Lord's coming again to earth, which is seen by all, then you make the prophets and aposltes testifying of it, into myth makers only. Including Jesus Himself:

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

The sign of His appearing a second time will be His coming with clouds for all on earth to see. Making it only a symbolic sign, without the event, is making Jesus and His prophets liars, since they speak of it a true even to be verified by all eyes on earth.

Your personal manner of applying the uneventful symbols in the Bible to prophesied events of the Bible, is the same unbelieving manner of them that make the Bible just another book of myths by men.

Joseph Cambell made a career of it, and would certainly welcome you as a disciple of his indeed.

If I understand the op correctly what you mean to say is that there are some people who abuse allegorical interpretation

Which is when a person and event in the Bible is made only allegorical. Or only a parable, such as some do with torment of hell.

(which is an otherwise valid means of reading scripture when done correctly, exegetically)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Exegesis of Scripture is good for teaching and instruction from persons and events recorded and prophesied in the Bible. It is evil myth-making when taken away from the person and event learned from.

Exegesis can show where there is Bible allegory for people, places, and events. The handwriting of ordincnaces written against us were allegoricaly naild to the cross, and were certainly written on stones hewn from a mountain.

Making tepmroal things of the Bible into allegories only, is not exegesis, but is making myth of the Bible, when someone doesn't want to believe there is such a person, place, or event.

, to make the entire Bible nothing more than something symbolism; it's not true in any factual sense

True. And many make the Bible nothing more than fabulaous tales and myths of men. Which you also surgically do in parts you don't want to believe, such as the Lord appearing a second time as lightning for all to see from earth.

but it is true in a purely and solely symbolic sense.

The only purely and solely symbolic sense in the Bible, is when only symbol alone is being revealed.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

When the Bible is distinctly only symbol, then that makes perfect sense. Making any person, place, and event in the Bible purely and solely syumbolic, makes no sense except to wanna be myth makers.

Is that what you mean? (a simple yes or no will suffice)

No.

 

[Ghada]

I think you will find I read the Bible much more plainly than you.

First, let me say I completely agree with you the book of Revelation showing the Lord's coming again and His rule over nations is not myth. Nothing I post in this conversation can be or should be read or construed in any way to say I think Revelation, Jesus' coming, and Jesus' rule over nations is a myth.

So, you don't not believe the Lord has already come again, to reign with Christians on earth?

The Lord will return with clouds to rule on earth with His resurrected saints?

Or, do you believe both?

I also completely agree making myths out of the Bible is nothing new.

Not at all. And I have found those who do it, are really at issue with the commandments and law of the Lord.

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
They think if they can intellectually undo the history and prophecy of miraculous events recorded in the Bible, then they think they can do away with His word of judgment by works.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[Ghada]

I disagree with the statement, "The book of Revelation is not full of symbology, but of analogy."

I am speaking of the symbolism that is not literal, which many try to make the Bible out to be, especially the book of Revelation.

Typically, an analogy is a comparison or representation where the representation can be taken literally

Here is where we come from different angles. A Bible analogy, that is not only symbolic, is taken from a person and event. It's not just something that 'may be' taken laterally. The record must first be believed literally, else it is made only a fable.

whereas in symbolism any literal interpretation is excluded.

By this definition, you provoke my declaration that the book of Revelation is not full of symbolism, but of analogy.

Therefore, list the things in Revelation, that you say are only symbolic, and see if we agree.

 

[Josheb]

You mean the Spirit of Christ did not know what was coming unto the end, when revealing such things to the prophets and apostles?

No. God, and His Spirit, are omniscient.

This is why you thihk you can add your own understanding to the whole Bible.

I do not think that and the attempt to attack me fails, along with the insinuation I'm a false prophet....

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies.

Should I expect anything posted will be addressed, or just more ungodly ad hominem?