Is the apocalypse written by John a BIG HOAX?

[Journeyman]

did anyone look into the theory of combining 4 horsemen to 4 different zodiac signs.

I haven't seen this site before but Lavette Hawkins, who I've linked to in the thread I linked to in a previous post in this thread relates Biblical prophecy, including Revelation, to the Zodiac. You could get a general idea with this shorter video

obviously she's compressing a lot into a short space of time there!

 

[cyt456]

I haven't seen this site before but Lavette Hawkins, who I've linked to in the thread I linked to in a previous post in this thread relates Biblical prophecy, including Revelation, to the Zodiac. You could get a general idea with this shorter video

obviously she's compressing a lot into a short space of time there!

thanks, I saw this one person on YouTube connecting the dots between 4 living creatures and 4 horsemen
basically, he concluded, Aquarius (china and 2020 spring) corresponds to the first horseman, Taurus (Middle East and 2021 summer corresponds to the second horseman, leo (south American, 2022 fall) and then Scorpio (Alaska, 2023 winter).
he posted the video early this year, the Taurus one is very accurate so far.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-51355255 bbc reported news last year check out the label on the bus.
he also said trumpets will happen in between, mark the return of Jesus at late 2024
I don’t know, just another possibility

 

[rainerann]

It took a while to shift my perspective from a literal to an allegorical perspective. I started reading philo which is a really long way of saying that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. Really not what I would have expected it to be too. It is totally removed from the modern subject of religion and the way we distinguish between Jews and Christians. I actually enjoyed it a lot.

anyways, somehow the first thing that clicked was that the book of revelation is symbolic for the mind. Mind is not the best word because of the common meaning for this, which is separate from the spiritual side of things. The mind is somehow separate, and maybe it is separate for the sake of making the comparison to the second coming being a spiritual experience.

really the best comparison we have with the language we use is that the second coming is the same as experiencing a state of nirvana. Ideally, I would prefer a way to convert this into modern language better.

spiritual warfare might be a church version for this. It is like the objective of winning the battle that is not fought with flesh and blood. The beast would represent the flesh in some respect.

it would explain why the church is basically dead and not presenting miracles like the ones described in the Bible because they are taking something literally that is basically oppressing them. It is basically like handcuffing yourself to something.

it would explain why christianity is not something that can be eliminated and still represents the largest religion. There is truth. The truth is handicapped.

when this made sense, I did try to look up information on it and found this article about how the temple of Solomon is not literal that is fantastic. Basically, this explains how it is irrational to assume that the temple of Solomon would have been built according to the description in the Bible because the Bible describes a ton of people working several years on a building that is much smaller than herods temple and many other temples that were built in much less time with fewer people.

all of these aspects of the description of solomons temple are symbolic. This would explain why it is impossible to find evidence that Solomon ever existed. The temple of Solomon never existed, but the teachings are still beneficial.

the church is going to experience a major disruption soon. Twenty years ago, information like this was not readily available. Most people using the internet today are from a generation that were taught with more limitations to their ability to access information. They bring this with them when they log on to the internet, but the internet is going to change this by making information like this readily available to a larger audience in the coming years.

and as the scripture says, you will know them by their fruits. The church today just doesn’t have a lot to show for itself and is not growing presently even when you don’t consider the lack of evidence for a literal interpretation.

But this lack of evidence also doesn’t mean that the book of revelation is a hoax either.

The Esoteric Meaning of Solomon's Temple

Ever wonder if Solomon's Temple was literal or not? A little common sense and a few scriptures reveal that it is not, nor was it ever meant to be. It does, however, have awesome spiritual relevance to the mind and body of the individual!

www.spiritofthescripture.com

 

[rainerann]

Just on the subject of whether the Book of Revelation is divinely inspired, here's someone making the argument that it was planted in the Bible:

I’m wondering if anyone here has actually read isis unveiled? Blavatsky is mentioned in a negative way in this article, but I’m guessing that most people haven’t actually read this book.

years ago, I watched this documentary about the evils of theosophy. I can’t remember it well, but I like to look into things for myself and so I have almost finished isis unveiled at this point. It is a long book. My gosh it is long.

There is actually some good research in there. It isn’t all subjective interpretation. There was a lot of archeology, although I’m not going to go through my highlights because it was long and there were a lot.

But it dawned on me half way through that no one is this transparent with all of these details and intending this to be kept secret. I mean she just lays it all out there, and you may not agree with it, but when we talk about these things. The danger is in the Dr Jekyll and mr Hyde effect.

the problem is that the content creates the assumption that someone takes on the personality of mr Hyde when people aren’t looking. That is the concern with all of these suspicions that are posted around here. It centers around polarizing personalities.

I just don’t get the impression after reading this book that she has the polarizing personality that she is labeled with. When someone takes the trouble to document EVERYTHING that is contained in that book so that it can be published and distributed to anyone willing to read it, the possibility of a mr Hyde is reduced in my opinion.

I think the main problem with a lot of the information in it is that it is outdated because it is not so much a subjective philosophy as a 19th century survey of religions. She documents travels to various international places of worship and how she basically tries to integrate this information with what she knows and how it changes her understanding of things.

so I think people blur a lot of things with her writing because it is not orthodox and it is readily available to vilify. But the problem from an orthodox perspective really isn’t the other person shouting something from the housetop. It is the person who is trying to keep evil hidden in the house. These people don’t document hundreds and hundreds of pages for the critique of a larger audience.

looking for mr Hyde who is out there running about requires more discernment than going to a random bookstore and picking up a book where someone goes to great lengths to tell you almost anything and everything that they believe. I honestly don’t see the connection between Blavatsky and the book of revelation being a hoax at all even if Blavatsky supports a kabbalistic interpretation. She details one half of the book to criticisms of the church in addition to this. What role does someone who spends hundreds of pages criticizing the church have in playing a mind game where the book of revelation was placed on purpose to steer people towards enslavement with coded numbers only understood by a few?

what people struggle with is fear and trust issues. It is hard to trust someone who has different beliefs than you and sometimes there is good reason for this. They are more likely to be loyal to other people who agree with them.

and so a kabbalistic interpretation of revelation doesn’t make someone a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Quite frankly, people who write articles like this may very well be a wolf themselves. Having a kabbalistic interpretation of revelation is not the litmus test for evil.

for the record, my final conclusion on Blavatsky is that her information is somewhat outdated by advancements in travel and other technologies that help us see ancient history in a different way.

sometimes she seems to be long winded for the sake of being long winded, but this is common in older books that were the technology and entertainment of the time. Although, it is not empty the way many new age writings are. Even some of her contemporaries feel a little empty by comparison. It is also just a book. Just an old book that is free to read because it is in the public domain.

The Bible talks at length about not being superstitious and sometimes it seems like Christians are the most superstitious group of all. People write articles like the one I’m quoting as though Blavatsky wrote a book possessed by voodoo magic and then claim in response to articles like this that the book of revelation is just a collection of symbols that the elites are using to coordinate a coup.

“Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Luke 10:19

this is another reason that I don’t think the Bible is literal anymore. This is what the Bible says but all the Christians reading any article where Blavatsky is mentioned with cringe as though touching it with a ten foot pole is going to transfer evil onto them. If the Bible were literal, you would picture that it would be the opposite according to verses like this.

then there is the other crowd taking Blavatsky as almost gospel truth of something nefarious when she says that the book of revelation has kabbalistic meaning even though the book of revelation was written hundreds of years before Blavatsky was born.

so who was it that wrote the book of revelation? Did bill gates and company travel back in time to have it written 2000 years ago to give them a really good alibi? Should we be worried about the people who have the master copy that tells them to wait 2000 years before making a move to control humanity? If there is something inherently Hydish about the book of revelation, it centers around the people who wrote it and their motivations for doing this. Not on Blavatsky for having a different take and not even on the mr Hyde types out there who would seek to use it to their advantage. A kabbalistic interpretation does not automatically produce a desire to control humanity.

so many questions…anyone can try to answer if they want. I’m basically saying that all connections that are being made in this post are absurd.

 

[Journeyman]

I’m wondering if anyone here has actually read isis unveiled? Blavatsky is mentioned in a negative way in this article, but I’m guessing that most people haven’t actually read this book.

years ago, I watched this documentary about the evils of theosophy. I can’t remember it well, but I like to look into things for myself and so I have almost finished isis unveiled at this point. It is a long book. My gosh it is long.

There is actually some good research in there. It isn’t all subjective interpretation. There was a lot of archeology, although I’m not going to go through my highlights because it was long and there were a lot.

But it dawned on me half way through that no one is this transparent with all of these details and intending this to be kept secret. I mean she just lays it all out there, and you may not agree with it, but when we talk about these things. The danger is in the Dr Jekyll and mr Hyde effect.

the problem is that the content creates the assumption that someone takes on the personality of mr Hyde when people aren’t looking. That is the concern with all of these suspicions that are posted around here. It centers around polarizing personalities.

I just don’t get the impression after reading this book that she has the polarizing personality that she is labeled with. When someone takes the trouble to document EVERYTHING that is contained in that book so that it can be published and distributed to anyone willing to read it, the possibility of a mr Hyde is reduced in my opinion.

I think the main problem with a lot of the information in it is that it is outdated because it is not so much a subjective philosophy as a 19th century survey of religions. She documents travels to various international places of worship and how she basically tries to integrate this information with what she knows and how it changes her understanding of things.

so I think people blur a lot of things with her writing because it is not orthodox and it is readily available to vilify. But the problem from an orthodox perspective really isn’t the other person shouting something from the housetop. It is the person who is trying to keep evil hidden in the house. These people don’t document hundreds and hundreds of pages for the critique of a larger audience.

Lot of good points. I'll try and address them in a logical order.

I posted the article you replied to, but that wasn't an endorsement, it was simply something I'd found when trying to do my own due diligence on the Book of Revelation and it seemed to relate to this topic.

In turn, that due diligence came from things like the Downard quote and simple observation of the ways that TPTB seemed to be happy to follow the timeline of the book. To be honest my own position on the Bible is something of an odd one, I tend to believe there's been a mixing of good and bad teachings in there. I think the Gnostics were on to something in that regard. Probably one for another thread. Anyway, I'm not convinced the narrative of Revelation comes from the same source as the sermon on the mount.

On Blavatsky, no, not read her in her own words, although quite a lot about her elsewhere. I agree, the blanket condemnations of everyone that steps off the reservation are difficult to accept. I'd also put in that category the assumption that everyone who is approaching this from a non christian outlook is inevitably deceived or diabolically influenced etc. Steiner for instance gets that treatment but he seems from my reading to be very sincere in his beliefs. Bailey may be another matter, the whole Lucis trust thing and its adoption by the UN is unsettling, but that's another digression.

looking for mr Hyde who is out there running about requires more discernment than going to a random bookstore and picking up a book where someone goes to great lengths to tell you almost anything and everything that they believe. I honestly don’t see the connection between Blavatsky and the book of revelation being a hoax at all even if Blavatsky supports a kabbalistic interpretation. She details one half of the book to criticisms of the church in addition to this. What role does someone who spends hundreds of pages criticizing the church have in playing a mind game where the book of revelation was placed on purpose to steer people towards enslavement with coded numbers only understood by a few?

what people struggle with is fear and trust issues. It is hard to trust someone who has different beliefs than you and sometimes there is good reason for this. They are more likely to be loyal to other people who agree with them.

and so a kabbalistic interpretation of revelation doesn’t make someone a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Quite frankly, people who write articles like this may very well be a wolf themselves. Having a kabbalistic interpretation of revelation is not the litmus test for evil.

for the record, my final conclusion on Blavatsky is that her information is somewhat outdated by advancements in travel and other technologies that help us see ancient history in a different way.

sometimes she seems to be long winded for the sake of being long winded, but this is common in older books that were the technology and entertainment of the time. Although, it is not empty the way many new age writings are. Even some of her contemporaries feel a little empty by comparison. It is also just a book. Just an old book that is free to read because it is in the public domain.

I'm currently reading The Mystic Kaballa by Dion Fortune, not because I plan to rebel against God, but because I'm trying to understand this world and what all of this means. The more I learn of astrology, kabbalism etc the clearer it becomes that it intersects with Biblical texts and presumably a lot more as well.

The Bible talks at length about not being superstitious and sometimes it seems like Christians are the most superstitious group of all. People write articles like the one I’m quoting as though Blavatsky wrote a book possessed by voodoo magic and then claim in response to articles like this that the book of revelation is just a collection of symbols that the elites are using to coordinate a coup.

“Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Luke 10:19

this is another reason that I don’t think the Bible is literal anymore. This is what the Bible says but all the Christians reading any article where Blavatsky is mentioned with cringe as though touching it with a ten foot pole is going to transfer evil onto them. If the Bible were literal, you would picture that it would be the opposite according to verses like this.

then there is the other crowd taking Blavatsky as almost gospel truth of something nefarious when she says that the book of revelation has kabbalistic meaning even though the book of revelation was written hundreds of years before Blavatsky was born.

so who was it that wrote the book of revelation? Did bill gates and company travel back in time to have it written 2000 years ago to give them a really good alibi? Should we be worried about the people who have the master copy that tells them to wait 2000 years before making a move to control humanity? If there is something inherently Hydish about the book of revelation, it centers around the people who wrote it and their motivations for doing this. Not on Blavatsky for having a different take and not even on the mr Hyde types out there who would seek to use it to their advantage. A kabbalistic interpretation does not automatically produce a desire to control humanity.

so many questions…anyone can try to answer if they want. I’m basically saying that all connections that are being made in this post are absurd.

I have no good answers sadly! There's a couple of points where it could be useful to research. One is the council of Nicea, the choice to include Revelation say but exclude Enoch. The Bible would read very differently if those two books changed places. An awful lot of the stuff that's happening at the moment that seems to be paying lip service to Revelation also has some referencing of the Watchers or the return of the Nephilim. The Bible as we've been given it has very little to say about either, the details are all in the books that didn't make the final cut.

 

[rainerann]

Lot of good points. I'll try and address them in a logical order.

I posted the article you replied to, but that wasn't an endorsement, it was simply something I'd found when trying to do my own due diligence on the Book of Revelation and it seemed to relate to this topic.

In turn, that due diligence came from things like the Downard quote and simple observation of the ways that TPTB seemed to be happy to follow the timeline of the book. To be honest my own position on the Bible is something of an odd one, I tend to believe there's been a mixing of good and bad teachings in there. I think the Gnostics were on to something in that regard. Probably one for another thread. Anyway, I'm not convinced the narrative of Revelation comes from the same source as the sermon on the mount.

On Blavatsky, no, not read her in her own words, although quite a lot about her elsewhere. I agree, the blanket condemnations of everyone that steps off the reservation are difficult to accept. I'd also put in that category the assumption that everyone who is approaching this from a non christian outlook is inevitably deceived or diabolically influenced etc. Steiner for instance gets that treatment but he seems from my reading to be very sincere in his beliefs. Bailey may be another matter, the whole Lucis trust thing and its adoption by the UN is unsettling, but that's another digression.




I'm currently reading The Mystic Kaballa by Dion Fortune, not because I plan to rebel against God, but because I'm trying to understand this world and what all of this means. The more I learn of astrology, kabbalism etc the clearer it becomes that it intersects with Biblical texts and presumably a lot more as well.



I have no good answers sadly! There's a couple of points where it could be useful to research. One is the council of Nicea, the choice to include Revelation say but exclude Enoch. The Bible would read very differently if those two books changed places. An awful lot of the stuff that's happening at the moment that seems to be paying lip service to Revelation also has some referencing of the Watchers or the return of the Nephilim. The Bible as we've been given it has very little to say about either, the details are all in the books that didn't make the final cut.

fair enough. Im interested in books like the mystic Kabbalah for the same reason and might have to check that one out.

what do you think about the possibility that the book of revelation has become something of a self fulfilling prophecy for the Christian community because it is taken literally even though I don’t think it is meant to be taken literally?

 

[rainerann]

What if there was a second coming in the form of people realizing that the book of revelation is not literal and experiencing a second coming of Christ as a spiritual experience rather than a literal event?

 

[Nikōn]

then there is the other crowd taking Blavatsky as almost gospel truth of something nefarious when she says that the book of revelation has kabbalistic meaning even though the book of revelation was written hundreds of years before Blavatsky was born.

It was written around 1800 years before Blavatsky, and around 1200 before Kabbalah came into existence, speaking from an objective historical POV. Both Blavatsky and Kabbalah have nothing to do with John's Book.
People like to get on the Kabbalah, and similarly the "Gnostic" train and think that they're something special but both are late. The Gnostics came 2 centuries later. Unless one considers Paul Of Tarsus to be a Gnostic, then it is simply a later interpretation expanding on some of the troubling Platonist elements present in some passages of the New Testament.

If you've studied everything I have, you would finally come to the understanding that Platonism is the real "Satanic cult" behind which has been used to subvert the Abrahamic traditions since their inception. They call it the "Perennial Philosophy". With a Platonic metaphysical framework, you can easily de-Semitize (as the Abrahamic religions are Semitic, Jew/Arab) and allegorize everything to be representative of Plato's philosophy (and developments thereof, as we see for instance in Trinitarianism via Augustine, much like the Ten Sefirot in later normative developments of the Kabbalistic tree, and like Ismaili emanationism) even though it has zero actual basis.

 

[seekinheart]

It was written around 1800 years before Blavatsky, and around 1200 before Kabbalah came into existence, speaking from an objective historical POV. Both Blavatsky and Kabbalah have nothing to do with John's Book.
People like to get on the Kabbalah, and similarly the "Gnostic" train and think that they're something special but both are late. The Gnostics came 2 centuries later. Unless one considers Paul Of Tarsus to be a Gnostic, then it is simply a later interpretation expanding on some of the troubling Platonist elements present in some passages of the New Testament.

If you've studied everything I have, you would finally come to the understanding that Platonism is the real "Satanic cult" behind which has been used to subvert the Abrahamic traditions since their inception. They call it the "Perennial Philosophy". With a Platonic metaphysical framework, you can easily de-Semitize (as the Abrahamic religions are Semitic, Jew/Arab) and allegorize everything to be representative of Plato's philosophy (and developments thereof, as we see for instance in Trinitarianism via Augustine, much like the Ten Sefirot in later normative developments of the Kabbalistic tree, and like Ismaili emanationism) even though it has zero actual basis.

In other words be a Muslim

 

[rainerann]

It was written around 1800 years before Blavatsky, and around 1200 before Kabbalah came into existence, speaking from an objective historical POV. Both Blavatsky and Kabbalah have nothing to do with John's Book.
People like to get on the Kabbalah, and similarly the "Gnostic" train and think that they're something special but both are late. The Gnostics came 2 centuries later. Unless one considers Paul Of Tarsus to be a Gnostic, then it is simply a later interpretation expanding on some of the troubling Platonist elements present in some passages of the New Testament.

If you've studied everything I have, you would finally come to the understanding that Platonism is the real "Satanic cult" behind which has been used to subvert the Abrahamic traditions since their inception. They call it the "Perennial Philosophy". With a Platonic metaphysical framework, you can easily de-Semitize (as the Abrahamic religions are Semitic, Jew/Arab) and allegorize everything to be representative of Plato's philosophy (and developments thereof, as we see for instance in Trinitarianism via Augustine, much like the Ten Sefirot in later normative developments of the Kabbalistic tree, and like Ismaili emanationism) even though it has zero actual basis.

outside of the fact that there is no real evidence for the temple of Solomon or the exodus to defend the point that abrahamic religions are the victim of something, I find what you are saying incredibly interesting. Have you ever heard of the Plato and the creation of the Hebrew Bible by any chance? I haven’t had a chance to read it yet but it is on my reading list at the moment.

 

[Nikōn]

outside of the fact that there is no real evidence for the temple of Solomon or the exodus to defend the point that abrahamic religions are the victim of something

There is definitely lots of accepted secular evidence for the First Temple, it is not historically contested whatsoever, it is regarded by archeologists and historians as equally a real thing as the Second Temple.
Sure the Exodus is a different matter as it is said to occur very much further back in history, so what we would even expect to find surviving from so far back is more contentious on both sides.

have you ever heard of the Plato and the creation of the Hebrew Bible by any chance? I haven’t had a chance to read it yet but it is on my reading list at the moment.

No I haven't but I don't think such an idea can be taken seriously when the Tanakh (and related apocrypha) is absent of Platonic/Neopythagorean ideas, and that a large chunk of the Tanakh was written before Plato and the Neopythagorean school even existed (which is post-Exilic, post-1st Temple).

 

[Journeyman]

what do you think about the possibility that the book of revelation has become something of a self fulfilling prophecy for the Christian community because it is taken literally even though I don’t think it is meant to be taken literally?

What if there was a second coming in the form of people realizing that the book of revelation is not literal and experiencing a second coming of Christ as a spiritual experience rather than a literal event?

Maybe the deception is that push to take the book literally? If there's a truth to gnostic interpretations of the Bible, if Christ is telling us the answer lies within, then this could explain TPTB putting on an external show. Pushing horror and fantasy themes into the culture that portend a 'real life' fulfillment of revelation, whilst the allegorical or internal explanation is ignored. They would deceive people into worshipping a false messiah, even with a 'double bluff' element with a first false messiah introduced that's designed to fall, with the 'real' messiah then put in place.

I think some of that explanation can be found in Lavette's work. She says the Beast, the Woman etc etc are references to the skies. She also says we're a lot further along the events of Revelation than most realise. Which of course would seem far-fetched if they'd already occurred and all memory of them had been expunged.

It was written around 1800 years before Blavatsky, and around 1200 before Kabbalah came into existence, speaking from an objective historical POV. Both Blavatsky and Kabbalah have nothing to do with John's Book.
People like to get on the Kabbalah, and similarly the "Gnostic" train and think that they're something special but both are late. The Gnostics came 2 centuries later. Unless one considers Paul Of Tarsus to be a Gnostic, then it is simply a later interpretation expanding on some of the troubling Platonist elements present in some passages of the New Testament.

If you've studied everything I have, you would finally come to the understanding that Platonism is the real "Satanic cult" behind which has been used to subvert the Abrahamic traditions since their inception. They call it the "Perennial Philosophy". With a Platonic metaphysical framework, you can easily de-Semitize (as the Abrahamic religions are Semitic, Jew/Arab) and allegorize everything to be representative of Plato's philosophy (and developments thereof, as we see for instance in Trinitarianism via Augustine, much like the Ten Sefirot in later normative developments of the Kabbalistic tree, and like Ismaili emanationism) even though it has zero actual basis.

A very interesting post as there's evidence in recent developments in education, employment etc of social engineering steering towards a Platonic Republic with TPTB presumably fancying themselves as the perpetual ruling class.

I don't know if the rituals that are conducted in public are a true representation of the controllers beliefs, but they're clearly better described as pagan than conventionally satanic. In architecture, costume or through symbolism they typically reference Sumerian, Phoenician, Greek, Roman or Egyptian deities, Semiramis, Mithras, Ishtar, Saturn, Horus, etc. Some argue they're all Lucifer in different hats of course.

 

[billy t]

No, its not a hoax.



That is symbolic language. The book of Revelation is written in mostly symbolic language. It also talks about the dragon, the beast, the mark of the beast, God's seal, Babylon, lion, bear, leopard, mother of harlots, the pure woman etc. We've got to find out what all those symbols mean from the Bible to understand the message in the book of Revelation.

The Bible in the New covenant makes it clear that all who believe and accept Christ as their personal Saviour and submit to Him are Israel. The true Church of God is Israel regardless of one's nationality or genes. Paul especially explained this to both Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament:

Romans 2:28, 29, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart.”

Galatians 3:7, “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.”

Galatians 3:29, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Philippians 3:3, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

According to Paul and other apostles in the New Testament, a real Jew to God is anybody, Jew or Gentile who has personal faith in Jesus Christ and submits their wills to Him!

The apostle Peter struggled with this issue until God made it clear to him that God accepts all of us and there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. Peter said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34, 35).


Once we understand that being a Jew is no longer about genealogy, its about all those who believe and have faith in Christ, when we read Revelation we know that Israel and all the symbology referring to it, represents all the saved. So Israel, Jews, the 12 tribes, New Jerusalem, the woman of Revelation 12, God's people, the saints are the saved.


This is Revelation 21:10-13. Chapter 21 of Revelation is about the reward of the saints (Israel). God restores the earth to its former glory before sin came into the world. There is a “a new heaven and a new earth.” God’s original purpose in the creation of the earth is fulfilled as it is made the eternal home of the saved. The Holy City, the New Jerusalem (which is in heaven right now) comes out of heaven to earth with the saints in it, and it will be the centre, the capital city of God's glorious kingdom. Verse 3 says, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God."

The Holy City is a perfect square (verse 16). It is surrounded by a high wall (verse 12) and has 12 gates, 3 on each side of the city (verse 13). On each gate it is the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel (verse 12). There are also 12 foundations inscribed with the names of the 12 apostles (verse 14). The twelve tribes of Israel represent all the saved. They are all Israel as we understand from New Covenant teaching.

"Symbolic language". The thing is - the language in Revelation is not clear at all so it can be interpreted in multiple ways. I do not believe that God speaks in riddles. God uses clear language that everyone can understand.

 

[AspiringSoul]

Daniel 2 describes the Beast system as an image ie head, chest, arms and legs/feet. This wasn't to be taken literally, there wasnt a literal image of that type, obv it was a dream/vision, but it foretold something very real. I see no reason why the vision in Revelation is any different.

One problem with a lot of people is their inability to grasp contexts and chronology. If is something is mentioned later, it doesnt mean it is in chronoligical order. perfect example, Daniel 7 and 9 refert to the roman empire and related emperors. Daniel 8 and 11 relate to the greeks, the rise of antiochus epiphanes.

The basic truth is that in Matthew 24, Jesus spoke of the end of jerusalem (which was fulfilled in 70AD) but spoke of his second coming immediately after. This didn't happen. Likewise Jesus added that even he doesnt know when it will happen. The reason Jesus implied he was coming so soon after was because that is what it suggests in Daniel 7. ie the little horn was Titus, yet it spoke of Jesus's second coming from the clouds immediately after. This has resulted in christians trying to move the goalposts to suggest that those prophecies had other meaning, some sort of vague end times context (which isnt even the case).
Jesus even said that he had many more things to say but people couldnt bear to hear them. He said the holy spirit would reveal all the truth.

Whilst I give that over to islamic prophecy, ive found that the book of Revelation added a lot more depth to prophecies already told in islamic hadith. There are various prophecies which when combined with Revelation, make a lot of sense..but ill get to this shortly.

One thing ive picked up on quite recently is that prophecy seems to come into motion when the majority of people (belonging to that religion) becme aware of the prophecies ie they think about them, their mind is aware of them and then suddenly they come into fruitition. You had almost 1500 yrs of christianity and then the bible was translated into multiple languages. This is also relevant given the feet of iron/clay prophecy is about people and languages. It makes sense that no sooner was the bible translated, you had the colonial era.

Revelation 6's first horse prophecy is about CONQUEST. You had the colonial era. Countries like England, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium and France, were all former roman colonies...going on conquering the world.

the second horse prophecy is about war..and it was the consequence of colonialism. This leads to the end of ww2, a new era dominated by the US. Where does that lead? the age of capitalism, america and also, israel!!!! Exactly what the third horse was referring to. It describes trade and it also says 'do not harm the oil and wine'. oil and wine being symbols of israel.

Now the fourth horse is pretty much where we are headed towards, it is total combination of war, famine, etc, that is because the consequence of capitalism and consumerism, is destruction of the planet. Famine, animals attacking, prime examples of what happens when we destroy animal habitats and the ecosystem.


So far it seems Revelation was very accurate.
There are prophecies like 'wormwood', talk of stars falling from heaven, hard for me to make sense of them, with all manner of theories out there, i don't need to speculate.

Revelation 9 tells us about apollyon and the army of locusts. The 'angel of the bottomless pit'. This one is the most fascinating because it's so vague. It just happens that in islamic prophecy there is a vague character called 'dabbat al ard' who has a similar task.
the word dabba means creature/living thing..and al ard means 'the earth' So ironically some muslim translators, out of sheer ignorance decided to just call it 'the beast of the earth'. Totally a wrong interpretation because in islam, the beast of the earth' is dajjal..and this character is not dajjal/the antichrist, but a good figure who torments disbelievers for a period.

tradition (not hadith) describes this as a creature/angel who 'carries the staff of Moses and wears the ring of Solomon'. That's a huge clue...
the ring of solomon represented solomon's power/rule. It says in the bible, he ruled to the Euphrates. Likewise the staff of Moses is connected to the Nile and likewise the plagues inc the locusts.
So you have a Euphrates to Nile connection..which obv links to 'greater israel' which is what they're working on.

in addition to that, we have this hadith
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: iraq would withhold its dirhams and qafiz; syria would withhold its mudd and dinar and Egypt would withhold its irdab and dinar and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started, the bones and the flesh of Abu Huraira would bear testimony to it. (Book #041, Hadith #6923)

2/3 of this hadith has been fulfilled in our lifetime...iraq and syria have already happened.
(i should add that iran and afghanistan are also particularly important in islamic prophecy, which is why the BEAST has an obsession with those places).
I don't know how egypt gets involved, i know they have that Sissy guy ruling them right now,

furthermore the events in the above hadith, lead to the EUPHRATES WAR and that is exactly what happens in Revelation 9.

So far it's exactly the same.


You have the Rev 11 prophecy where it talks of the gentiles trampling over the out court for 1260 days. This is something ive gone into many times already, it is a direct prophecy of muslim rule over the temple mount, ending in 1948. The entire period of muslim rule, taking into account the crusade period where it was also lost, calculates to exactly 1260 lunar yrs.

You have Rev 12 where it tells us the true remnant/chosen ones of Judea, would find shelter in the wilderness for 1260 days away from satan. Muslims ruled the holy land for 1260 days. Zechariah 13 tells us the true remnant never quit the holy land, but remained there. The only way they could belong to the remnant was by believing in Jesus, so they were christian. Hence, they were quite obv absorbed into the 'palestinian' identity. This makes so much sense in light of Rev 12, given muslims ruled the holy land for 1260 lunar yrs..and ever since that period ended with the creation of israel, war was made against the palestinians..esp the children.
i'm not even reaching, this shit is literally true.

just like we know that the messianic kingdom will be without borders, walls and weapons, a 'peaceful and unsuspecting people', we have this state that quite literally fiights to expand it's borders, has partion walls, revels in it's technological success in arms and military equipement, inc spyware...and has mossad (as in all they do is breath suspicion). My point being that the fulfillment of prophecy is clearly giving us literal fulfillment in so many ways. the main reason some christians are clinging onto 'allegorical' ideas is because the truth of what is happening today...supports islam..and they cant handle that.

You have the whore of babylon prophecy...and ive already said that is the zionist cabal who are rich through usury. there is plenty of material in islamic prophecy directly linking to this theme in other ways. Whilst this isnt a literal whore, we know from the bible that the whore/adulteress/wicked woman, was always the judean nation whilst it was commited to spiritual idolatory. we learn from texts like Zech 5 and Habakkuk 2, Jeremiah 2 and 3, that this spiritual idolatory was the worship of money.

Finally you have the Beast system and the antichrist. it is quite literal. look at the UN flag and compare it to the roman flag, that is a clear cut proof it is a continuation of the roman empire.

 

[rainerann]

No I haven't but I don't think such an idea can be taken seriously when the Tanakh (and related apocrypha) is absent of Platonic/Neopythagorean ideas, and that a large chunk of the Tanakh was written before Plato and the Neopythagorean school even existed (which is post-Exilic, post-1st Temple).

when I first became a Christian, I assumed that scriptures like the psalms and other writings existed before Plato and that these writings were the source of the scriptures we have today.

however, in the past couple years of studying the history of the texts, I have learned that this is not the case. In fact, there is no real reference to the presence of Israel until the time of the elephantine papyri and even this reference requires making significant leaps to associate it with any kind of actual history of a literal israel.

technically, the text used to form the most fiercely defended version of the Bible otherwise known as the king James, did not exist until after Plato lived by hundreds of years. I have spent hours investigating this, which would otherwise have benefited me to have found something considering I have spent hours of my life over the past 20 years in the study of scripture.

I’m still open to the possibility of being wrong but you are going to need to source this post where you say that the Tanakh was written before Plato because technically, it is the other way around. The scriptures don’t really exist until the time when the Septuagint is said to have been written. This first version and reference to a written version of scripture is in Greek and happened after the time of Plato. I haven’t read the book that I referenced yet, but the premise is very plausible considering what I have found in my research of the subject.

 

[Nikōn]

when I first became a Christian, I assumed that scriptures like the psalms and other writings existed before Plato and that these writings were the source of the scriptures we have today.

however, in the past couple years of studying the history of the texts, I have learned that this is not the case. In fact, there is no real reference to the presence of Israel until the time of the elephantine papyri and even this reference requires making significant leaps to associate it with any kind of actual history of a literal israel.

technically, the text used to form the most fiercely defended version of the Bible otherwise known as the king James, did not exist until after Plato lived by hundreds of years. I have spent hours investigating this, which would otherwise have benefited me to have found something considering I have spent hours of my life over the past 20 years in the study of scripture.

I’m still open to the possibility of being wrong but you are going to need to source this post where you say that the Tanakh was written before Plato because technically, it is the other way around. The scriptures don’t really exist until the time when the Septuagint is said to have been written. This first version and reference to a written version of scripture is in Greek and happened after the time of Plato. I haven’t read the book that I referenced yet, but the premise is very plausible considering what I have found in my research of the subject.

I don't know what the heck you're going on about and where you're getting your dodgy information but there is evidence for people calling themselves Israelites going back to 12th century BCE and evidence of worship of YHWH going back around as far (the earliest manuscripts from books in the Tanakh or OT are another matter).
The exile of the Jews to Babylon aprox 8th century BCE is also attested by mainstream history.
Particular details between much earlier figures (Adam to Noah to Moses) are more question marks because how far back they are.

Whether or not the faith of the ancient Israelites, and the 1st and 2nd Temple Jews have a true religion or not, they definitely existed in ancient times with their varying diasporas, sacred sites and competing sects (not just ones like Pharisees and Sadducees but also the Samaritans who are still around today).


In non-Israelite sources there is attesting of their ancient existence:

Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mesha Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Both are dated far before your Papyri.

 

[rainerann]

I don't know what the heck you're going on about and where you're getting your dodgy information but there is evidence for people calling themselves Israelites going back to 12th century BCE and evidence of worship of YHWH going back around as far (the earliest manuscripts from books in the Tanakh or OT are another matter).
The exile of the Jews to Babylon aprox 8th century BCE is also attested by mainstream history.
Particular details between much earlier figures (Adam to Noah to Moses) are more question marks because how far back they are.

Whether or not the faith of the ancient Israelites, and the 1st and 2nd Temple Jews have a true religion or not, they definitely existed in ancient times with their varying diasporas, sacred sites and competing sects (not just ones like Pharisees and Sadducees but also the Samaritans who are still around today).


In non-Israelite sources there is attesting of their ancient existence:

Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mesha Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Both are dated far before your Papyri.

i was hoping you may have had something I hadn’t heard of before. I am aware of both of these stele and there is a problem relating both of them to a timeline that correlates to the scripture considering the evidence they have found in Israel suggesting that the account of Joshua cannot be considered literal since it would require multiple locations to have been decimated simultaneously, and there is no evidence of this.

then these writings would also control how we went about dating the book of Joshua, which makes the archeological efforts done in Israel even more difficult to assign to a literal history of the Bible.

as a result, it is logical to rethink whether these were even references to Israel in the first place. More than likely, they were made by zealous people investigating the area to specifically find evidence and not having anything come of it, they manipulated the stele innocently by presumptuously assigning it to the history of Israel.

in the hundred years since then, after years and years of effort, there is still nothing better than the one word reference in like 27 of the merneptah stele. You are posting this as though this stele gives an account of some kind. It is literally one word that is probably mistranslated because they literally were not able to come up with anything when the quest to prove a literal history began in the 19th century.

“
Line 27
The hieroglyphic reading of the word translated by Israel is "iisii-r-iar" and, in my book, I largely extended on its meaning. I have demonstrated that <<iisii-r-iar>> is in fact an Egyptian sentence meaning: those exiled because of their sin. Pharaohs Rams's II and Merneptah used this sentence when talking about the exiled Akhenaton's followers, forced to quit Egypt. The name of this people iisii-r-iar changed into Israel, through the alteration of the letter r into l.”

Account Suspended

I was really hoping for something better. Your response also avoids the fact that I was actually asking for a historical reference that demonstrates that the actual scriptures existed before Plato. Neither of these references would answer that question because it is as I have already realized. There is no evidence that the scriptures existed before Plato. The first reference to scripture is the Greek version after Plato had already died. It is entirely plausible that Plato is involved in the creation of the Hebrew Bible even as you admit that they remain associated with these writings even if you think you can disassociate yourself from their association with it.

the mesha stele is evidence of Moab and evidence that ancient writings from this nation existed before Plato. Even if we agree to disagree about the reference to Israel in this reference, it is not evidence that the Bible in written form existed prior to the existence of plato. There is no evidence that it did.

I made the reference to the elephantine papyri because it still represents a document is considered to have been written by someone who would identify as a Jew even though the reference is sketchy and does not support an awareness or adherence to anything that would represent a history of practicing mosaic law within this document. Therefore, it suggests that these writings did not exist among people who represented a literal ancient Israel.

if this is the way you have already responded to the question already, I doubt you have more to offer because obviously you would want to lead with the best reference. Thanks anyway. Have a nice day.

 

[Nikōn]

i was hoping you may have had something I hadn’t heard of before. I am aware of both of these stele and there is a problem relating both of them to a timeline that correlates to the scripture considering the evidence they have found in Israel suggesting that the account of Joshua cannot be considered literal since it would require multiple locations to have been decimated simultaneously, and there is no evidence of this.

then these writings would also control how we went about dating the book of Joshua, which makes the archeological efforts done in Israel even more difficult to assign to a literal history of the Bible.

as a result, it is logical to rethink whether these were even references to Israel in the first place. More than likely, they were made by zealous people investigating the area to specifically find evidence and not having anything come of it, they manipulated the stele innocently by presumptuously assigning it to the history of Israel.

in the hundred years since then, after years and years of effort, there is still nothing better than the one word reference in like 27 of the merneptah stele. You are posting this as though this stele gives an account of some kind. It is literally one word that is probably mistranslated because they literally were not able to come up with anything when the quest to prove a literal history began in the 19th century.

“
Line 27
The hieroglyphic reading of the word translated by Israel is "iisii-r-iar" and, in my book, I largely extended on its meaning. I have demonstrated that <<iisii-r-iar>> is in fact an Egyptian sentence meaning: those exiled because of their sin. Pharaohs Rams's II and Merneptah used this sentence when talking about the exiled Akhenaton's followers, forced to quit Egypt. The name of this people iisii-r-iar changed into Israel, through the alteration of the letter r into l.”

Account Suspended

I was really hoping for something better. Your response also avoids the fact that I was actually asking for a historical reference that demonstrates that the actual scriptures existed before Plato. Neither of these references would answer that question because it is as I have already realized. There is no evidence that the scriptures existed before Plato. The first reference to scripture is the Greek version after Plato had already died. It is entirely plausible that Plato is involved in the creation of the Hebrew Bible even as you admit that they remain associated with these writings even if you think you can disassociate yourself from their association with it.

the mesha stele is evidence of Moab and evidence that ancient writings from this nation existed before Plato. Even if we agree to disagree about the reference to Israel in this reference, it is not evidence that the Bible in written form existed prior to the existence of plato. There is no evidence that it did.

I made the reference to the elephantine papyri because it still represents a document is considered to have been written by someone who would identify as a Jew even though the reference is sketchy and does not support an awareness or adherence to anything that would represent a history of practicing mosaic law within this document. Therefore, it suggests that these writings did not exist among people who represented a literal ancient Israel.

if this is the way you have already responded to the question already, I doubt you have more to offer because obviously you would want to lead with the best reference. Thanks anyway. Have a nice day.

Ketef Hinnom scrolls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@seekinheart does she have a strong argument against the Old Testament?

 

[Nikōn]

I was really hoping for something better. Your response also avoids the fact that I was actually asking for a historical reference that demonstrates that the actual scriptures existed before Plato. Neither of these references would answer that question because it is as I have already realized. There is no evidence that the scriptures existed before Plato. The first reference to scripture is the Greek version after Plato had already died. It is entirely plausible that Plato is involved in the creation of the Hebrew Bible even as you admit that they remain associated with these writings even if you think you can disassociate yourself from their association with it.

You keep mentioning this but still have not given any potential examples of Platonist influence on the Tanakh (OT).
I'd like to see what you think would be "Platonist influence".

even as you admit that they remain associated with these writings even if you think you can disassociate yourself from their association with it.

You are lying through your teeth. I said NEW TESTAMENT (via the Gospel of John, Epistles of John and some of the letters attributed to Paul), not the Tanakh (OT)

 

[rainerann]

Ketef Hinnom scrolls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@seekinheart does she have a strong argument against the Old Testament?

well I suppose that is a little better. Still not a indicator of the existence of the law of Moses before Plato. You would think there would be evidence of this considering the way the law encompasses a way of life. It would have touched every part of their life and the way they lived and there is no evidence of anyone following the law of Moses after all this time when we are able to construct a whole history of ancient Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia based on archeology. There is no ability to do this with the concept of an ancient Israel because it probably never existed the way the Bible describes. This is the conclusion of Israeli archeologists at this point.