Diserner
Well-known member
And what would you say to someone who says it's just metaphor, since Revelation is full of symbols?
You know, like the parable of the rich man...
The Hypostatic Union- the 2 Natures in Christ
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
And what would you say to someone who says it's just metaphor, since Revelation is full of symbols?
You know, like the parable of the rich man...
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Some have tried to explain these verses by insisting these people represent those who are killed during the "tribulation period". I tend to lean toward an allegorical application of the Book of Revelations. I'm not a Amillennialist. I'm a "hodgepodge" of various things. I believe the vast majority of all Scripture has been fulfilled in the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Diserner
Well-known member
i feel u bro
I see that you bypassed my question. I'll answer yours but I will not continue if you persist on not answering my questions.
Revelation 1:2 declares that what was recorded was what John actually saw, no figurative metaphors.
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must [a]shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,
2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.
Now can you answer my question concerning Rev 6:9-11?
Diserner
Well-known member
Ugh. I didn't "bypass" your question, I asked a clarifying question that speaks to what your question even is.
If you accept a metaphorical interpretive principle, it changes the framework of your question and possible answers.
If you continue to forsake the principle of charitable interpretation and function as an accuser of the brethren, dialogue will be fruitless.
Try to avoid jumping the gun and immediately going for a character assassination.
You already know I reject soul sleep.
So you are asking a question that I already told you.
The "something else" that everyone does, is go to heaven or hell. a state of purity and bliss or torment and darkness.
You need to make that clear. Many posters are fond of rabbit holes so I wanted to cut that possibility off right away.
I accept what John declared in Rev 1:2, in that whatever John recorded in Revelation is what John literally saw in visions, no figurative metaphors.
Many posters are fond of rabbit holes so I wanted to cut that possibility off right away.
The conversation is about which conscious state(s) does a soul find itself in the after-life (Hades) before Judgment Day/ Resurrection. Is it unconscious, conscious (Rev 6:9-11), subconscious ("sleep"), or another conscious state? Now would be a good time for you to explicitly tell us exactly where you stand.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
To me, one of the prominent verses to be found in this discussion is
2Pe 1:13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder,
2Pe 1:14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me.
I do see room for a metaphorical application associated "seeing" a vision. I'm think about the vision Peter had relative to the Gentles being accepted.
Which brings me to a point I'd like to make relative to the Book of Revelations. I've struggled with the canonical inclusion of Revelations for many many years. I believe it contains truth. However, I'll make an argument that often gets me in trouble with my fellow Christians...
Paul was forbidden to reveal what He saw when he was carried away "in the body or out of the body" in the "third heaven". He used the words "unlawful to speak/utter".
However, you see the opposite this relative to the "John's" vision.
Just mentioning this. Take it for what it is worthy. I don't criticize either side of the canonical acceptance of Revelation.
Thanks for your comments. I'm no expert in apocalyptic literature by any stretch of the imagination. Revelation has been debated for 2000 years and we are not going to unravel its mysteries in one afternoon.To me, one of the prominent verses to be found in this discussion is
2Pe 1:13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder,
2Pe 1:14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me.
I do see room for a metaphorical application associated "seeing" a vision. I'm think about the vision Peter had relative to the Gentles being accepted.
Which brings me to a point I'd like to make relative to the Book of Revelations. I've struggled with the canonical inclusion of Revelations for many many years. I believe it contains truth. However, I'll make an argument that often gets me in trouble with my fellow Christians...
Paul was forbidden to reveal what He saw when he was carried away "in the body or out of the body" in the "third heaven". He used the words "unlawful to speak/utter".
However, you see the opposite this relative to the "John's" vision.
Just mentioning this. Take it for what it is worthy. I don't criticize either side of the canonical acceptance of Revelation.
Nevertheless, the intention of Revelation is to reveal, as best as it can, the difficult but triumphant future that awaits all Christians.
John does attempt to do just that by recording as best as he could what he literally did see. Those were visions of future events. Those visions contained dynamic images that he described as best as he could. John had an enormous task on how to describe spiritual visions. How can one possibly do that? He tried to be as literal as possible but he had to fall back on similes or symbolic images or allegorical terms or apocalyptic language in order to be as objectively descriptive as possible. Communication was paramount so subjective terminology like metaphors would have been minimized in order to minimize confusion on the part of the reader.
Just think of a scene that needs to be described as clearly as possible, like a crime scene. Do you throw in subjective terms in there? You need to stay as objective and literal as possible.
What's the difference between 50/50 and half and half?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Generally no disagreement from me. Even metaphorical/allegorical represents ultimately have a literal application. They must or they are meaningless.
Diserner
Well-known member
Did you know half-n-half actually has between 10.5% to 18% milkfat?
It's not even an exact amount.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I'm an Aussie so unfamiliar with the term half and half referring to dairy produce. Learn something every day.
I agree. My point is that for anyone to claim that Revelation is just or even predominately metaphoric is to render Revelation purely subjective and thus open to anyone's interpretation. I don't believe that was John's intention.
No difference. We often use phrases like "there's a 50-50 chance" so I used a 50/50 shorthand rendition of that. In retrospect, I should have inserted a % in there to be clear like 50%/50%.
civic
Well-known member
We cannot discount the fact Paul was unique as an Apostle, his gifting, knowledge as Peter mentions in 2 Peter 3. He was taught personally for 3 years by the Risen/Ascended Son of God in the desert. Paul is the deep theologian in the group and whoever wrote Hebrews. I think people get to caught up in the details in Revelation and not the big picture. Jesus wins in the end just like scripture teaches in many other places from the OT prophets, NT Apostles and Jesus Himself in the gospels and Revelation. Just my 2 cents fwiw.
Complete
Well-known member
'And when he had opened the fifth seal,
I saw under the altar
the souls of them that were slain for the word of God,
and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying,
How long, O Lord, holy and true,
dost thou not judge and avenge our blood
on them that dwell on the earth?
And white robes were given unto every one of them;
and it was said unto them,
that they should rest yet for a little season,
until their fellowservants also and their brethren,
that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.'
(Rev 6:9-11)
Hello @synergy, @dizerner,
I would like to address your reference to Revelation 6:9-11.
First of all, this is a vision, a 'vision' of events that will take place on 'the Lord's day', or in, 'the day of the Lord', shown to the Apostle John by the Angel of the Lord. God speaks elsewhere of the blood of the dead 'crying out' to Him from the ground (Gen. 4:10), but no one would suggest that the dead person himself were doing so.
These 'souls' or 'dead persons' were slain, they had been martyred. These slain are represented as 'speaking' and 'asking' by the figure of speech called 'prosopopoeia' or 'personification- ( this figure is employed when the absent are spoken or (or to) as present; when the dead are spoken of as alive; or when anything (e.g., a country) is addressed as a person) : They ask, how long it will be before the earth should be judged, and their blood avenged. The word, 'souls' 'is put for persons by the figure 'Synecdoche' or 'transfer' (where the part is put for the whole). These 'souls' are personified and represented as waiting: They themselves were dead, for in Revelation 20:4, John sees them again, and it says, 'they lived again' in the first resurrection. 'The rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished' (Revelation 20:5).
What John sees is a vision for the purpose of instructing him; just as Jotham's parable instructed the men of Israel when he represented trees as 'speaking' (Judges 9).
* For the dead do not speak (Psalm 115:17): This is the testimony of Scripture concerning the state of the dead:-
'The dead praise not the LORD,
neither any that go down into silence.'
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
* Reference made to:- 'Figures of Speech Found in The Bible' by E.W. Bullinger
Last edited:
You must be talking about Rev 1:10. κυριακη is Sunday in English. So John was in Church on Sunday when he was enraptured by the Holy Spirit.'And when he had opened the fifth seal,
I saw under the altar
the souls of them that were slain for the word of God,
and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying,
How long, O Lord, holy and true,
dost thou not judge and avenge our blood
on them that dwell on the earth?
And white robes were given unto every one of them;
and it was said unto them,
that they should rest yet for a little season,
until their fellowservants also and their brethren,
that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.'
(Rev 6:9-11)
Hello @synergy & @dizerner,
I would like to address your reference to Revelation 6:9-11.
First of all, this is a vision, a 'vision' of events that will take place on 'the Lord's day', or in, 'the day of the Lord', shown to the Apostle John by the Angel of the Lord.
(Rev 1:10) I came to be in the Spirit in the Lord's day (κυριακη ημερα) and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Revelation 1:2 declares that what was recorded was what John actually saw.
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must [a]shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,
2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.
Are you telling me that John is recording things that he did not see like a tree "speaking"? If so, you're contradicting what John declared.
The intent of Revelation is to reveal, as objectively and clearly as it can, the difficult but triumphant future that awaits all Christians.
John does attempt to do just that by recording as best as he could what he literally did see. Those were visions of future events. Those visions contained dynamic images that he described as best as he could. John had an enormous task on how to describe spiritual visions. How can one possibly do that? He tried to be as literal as possible but he had to fall back on similes or symbolic images or allegorical terms or apocalyptic language in order to be as objectively descriptive as possible. Communication was paramount so subjective terminology like figure of speeches or metaphors would have been minimized in order to minimize confusion on the part of the reader.
Just think of a scene that needs to be described as clearly as possible, like a crime scene. Do you throw in subjective terms in there? No. You need to stay as objective and literal as possible.
Since I haven't been here for a while, a joke I heard today. A Jewish father goes to his rabbi and says, You're not going to believe this. My son has left home and become a Christian. The rabbi looks at the man and says, well you're not going to believe this. My son also left home, and he also became a Christian. The man says, what are we going to do? The rabbi says pray to God. That's always the answer. So they pray to God and God says, Hey, you're not going to believe this...I praise the Tri-Unity Of the One God- the Shema who is Immutable, Eternal, Impeccable and most of all Loving.
lets see who can digest or choke on the above.
The point I would make with that joke is that it speaks to Jesus as God's Son. As God's Son, that would, if kept separate, make Him God Jr. A second God. That, to me, completely defeats the purpose of being unitarian, and believing in Jesus. The word son isn't necessarily a biological term. It can also mean (if I remember correctly) the image of, or of the same substance. (Something like that.) So as the Son of God, He is also God, or a God. I believe God is One BEING, made up of three co-existing, co-eternal PERSONS. So no contradiction in terms. (Please correct my understanding if it is too far off.)
