@moonbus saidAgreed. All we can really say about him is that his name was John and he lived on the island of Patmos. (And perhaps that he had a very vivid imagination, owned a mushroom farm).
First, modern biblical scholars are in general agreement that the author of the final book of the NT is not identical with either the author of the Gospel of John or the apostle known as "the beloved disciple."
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYes, the Book of Revelation is quite hallucinogenic. The stuff of nightmares.
Agreed. All we can really say about him is that his name was John and he lived on the island of Patmos. (And perhaps that he had a very vivid imagination, owned a mushroom farm).
@ghost-of-a-duke saidMy own perspective is the only one I am here to express. I am not here to recite the rationales and excuses of credulous people who embrace ancient manipulations. If you believe that the writers who called themselves "John" believed they were describing "literal facts" with their metaphors and allegories - while actually believing they were somehow NOT using metaphors and allegories - then so be it.
The only surprise here is that you are unable to see beyond your own perspective.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAnd why do you think this is what "we can really say" about the writers of Revelation?
All we can really say about him is that his name was John and he lived on the island of Patmos.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAnd what is it you think these words are evidence of? Do you think they establish that "these words are trustworthy and true"?
"The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”
Rev 22:6
I could be wrong (and often am) but understood that John penned the book of Revelation before he wrote his account that forms part of the gospels? ...... and although Revelation looks like the result of sprinkling LSD on his Capacino instead of chocolate, there's some very interesting stuff crystallising from Rev 13 that appears to be matching up to current times, particulalry the mark of the beast, and arguable the great deception.
1 edit
@medullah saidAs with the quatrains of Nostradamus, one can find some current event or other which can be made to fit the ‘prophecy’.
I could be wrong (and often am) but understood that John penned the book of Revelation before he wrote his account that forms part of the gospels? ...... and although Revelation looks like the result of sprinkling LSD on his Capacino instead of chocolate, there's some very interesting stuff crystallising from Rev 13 that appears to be matching up to current times, particulalry the mark of the beast, and arguable the great deception.
@fmf saidBecause that's what the text says. His name was John. He came from Patmos. And why drop the word 'All' from the start of my sentence, changing its meaning?
And why do you think this is what "we can really say" about the writers of Revelation?
"we can really say" about him - As though I was giving complete validity, when I actually said '"all we can really say about him" was how he identified himself in the text, namely that his name was John and came from Patmos. - Which John? No idea. Almost certainly not the 2 Johns he's been linked to over the centuries. More than one writer? Who knows.
All we really know is that he identifies himself as John from Patmos. The rest is ongoing speculation.
@fmf saidThey establish the writer himself either believed they were or else wanted others to believe they were. (Obviously),
And what is it you think these words are evidence of? Do you think they establish that "these words are trustworthy and true"?
This thread pertains to whether passages in Revelation are literal. So there is some relevance to the discussion, is there not, when the writer says "these words are trustworthy and true"? - Why say that if the book was only intended as metaphor?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI think continued speculation as to whether the author knew his writings were allegorical or experienced in the way he says they were (indeed, after proclaiming their truth) is extremely self-serving for the speculators when they claim that the events they saw were pointedly not true and that the authors had to be lying about what they experienced.
They establish the writer himself either believed they were or else wanted others to believe they were. (Obviously),
This thread pertains to whether passages in Revelation are literal. So there is some relevance to the discussion, is there not, when the writer says "these words are trustworthy and true"? - Why say that if the book was only intended as metaphor?
But as we've already seen in these forums, such behavior is common, especially when it counters something they think they know to be "true".
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo you believe that it is literally true because that is what the text says?
Because that's what the text says. His name was John. He came from Patmos. And why drop the word 'All' from the start of my sentence, changing its meaning?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt doesn't change its meaning in terms of the point I made, and besides, the complete sentence is quoted by my post.
And why drop the word 'All' from the start of my sentence, changing its meaning?
@suzianne saidIf you believe that the notion that people "will be tortured with fire and burning sulfur, while the holy angels and the Lamb look on" is "literally true" or that the writers of Revelation believed it was "literally true", so be it.
I think continued speculation as to whether the author knew his writings were allegorical or experienced in the way he says they were (indeed, after proclaiming their truth) is extremely self-serving for the speculators when they claim that the events they saw were pointedly not true and that the authors had to be lying about what they experienced.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidDo you actually think the writer saying, about his own writing, that "these words are trustworthy and true", and saying it IN that piece of writing he's talking about, is evidence of something?
This thread pertains to whether passages in Revelation are literal. So there is some relevance to the discussion, is there not, when the writer says "these words are trustworthy and true"? - Why say that if the book was only intended as metaphor?