What the fuck is the Book of Revelation? Why is it even considered

"Christianity" is the result of Constantine declaring by government fiat that the hundreds of minor Christ cults were to be unified into one single orthodoxy. Plenty of shit doesn't make sense and is contradictory because in the original Christ cult it came from it wasn't but it DID conflict with other Christ cults. It doesn't make sense because there is no sense to it, it's political fuckery for the sake of power grabs.

Be thankful Constantine had the good sense to stop groups like the Sethians or whatever group used the Gospel of Eve from getting a seat at the discussion table. "Vague anti-Roman propaganda purposefully made esoteric to get around censorishp about the Jews striking back at the evil anti-semitic roman bastids" is nothing to eating semen or the snake from genesis being Jesus.

>>1802405

Because people got John of Patmos and John the Apostle mixed up

Even though it's widely accepted John the Evangelist didn't write it they still have somehow retconned it into the canon

>>1802425
nothing compared to*

>>1802405

>it is too fantastical and too bizarre, and whatever message it attempted to convey is so vague (to all except those who understood the context, presumably) so as to render it useless, even for theological purposes.

So basically the same as genesis.

>Lol talking snakes

Yeah Revelation has basically been a thorn in the side of the church for a long time. If you start looking too closely at the Bible though you'll wonder how the fuck any of it is acceptable as a foundational text of the religion we know as Christianity today. There's a reason that Christianity has a long tradition of heresy and schism and it's all because of that inconsistent mess of a book.

this is why it's the best religion btw fuck the koran

It's a piece of apocalyptic literature. It's a genre that used to be quite common (especially among Jews during the second temple period), and eventually lost popularity. The basics of the genre are that it is made up of prophetic writings that are written in the form of divinely revealed information, and usually relate to end times scenarios. They also typically use obscure and bizarre imagery to convey information, and they usually had a message to convey about the present. In basic terms, apocalyses were written entirely in symbolism.

The issue is that the genre fell out of use and most people don't realize this or recognize the symbols used in these writings, which means they don't' really understand what's going on. If you're trying to interpret anything in an apocalypse literally, you're doing it wrong. John's in particular is about Christian persecution in Rome.

>>1802437
I agree, all of the Christian books are contradictory clusterfucks - however, you must agree that Revelations tops them all in terms of sheer mindfuckery. It makes no sense: nobody can make heads or tails of the imagery it describes. Is it Jewish? Is it Greek? Is it Gnostic?

File: laughing bird.jpg (764KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 798x1200px

>>1802463
>Christian persecution in Rome
>implying

>>1802405
But it is incredibly interesting
There is all that talk about God sending his people home on big metal birds; nobody being able to buy or sell without the "mark of the beast" on their forehead or wrist; the demonic horse-locust-scorpions stinging people into terrible agony where they can't die; and a bunch of other messed up things.

>>1802463
Does the apocalyptic genre purposefully make its symbolism as bizarre and crazy as possible so as to make it appear as though there is something 'hidden' in it, so as to empower the priestly figures who can 'decipher' them? Because that's the vibe I'm getting.

>>1802471

john was obviously huffing cave gas

>>1802485
Sort of. In general, they tend to contain pretty anti-authoritarian messages and other radical things. Using obscure language makes it easier to deny you're talking about dissent.

But yeah, in a wider context, it makes the text seems more mystical, and was likely supposed to give it more weight as something with actual divine relation behind it.

>>1802478
There was definitely Christian backlash after Nero scapegoated them. I guess I put it too briefly, though. Revelation isn't only about persecution, it's also about avoiding Romanizing/Hellenizing the church because of the belief that doing so would destroy the religion.

>>1802485

No, it's pretty straight forward. "Babylon" is Rome. the reason Christians deny this obvious truth and claim MUH METAPHORS is because Rome is long dead, so it doesn't make sense for Christian "prophecies" to still refer to it.

>>1802515
>Babylon

That's only one of the elements. You have the Beast, the Dragon, the Seven Trumpets/The Seven Seals, the Two Witnesses, the Star Wormwood, the Woman, etc...

>implying all books of the bible aren't fiction
Nonetheless Revelation relates neatly with Daniel and Jesus' own Olivet Discourse, "harmonizing" (in the minds of the church partisans and ideologues) Old and New Testaments.

>>1802571
Just to clarify, Anon, I'm an atheist. I don't believe any of them are real. However, I still find it extremely odd that Revelation should not only be included in the NT canon, but should be so prevalent in Christian thought, despite its odd nature.

>>1802425
>Gospel of Eve
>The only known content from it are a few quotations by Epiphanius (Panarion, 26), a church father who criticised how the Borborites used it to justify free love, by practicing coitus interruptus and eating semen as a religious act.
What could've been...

>>1802584
Yeah. And they left out the Book of Enoch which is the best book of that universe. Go figure.

>>1802592
Epiphanius is well-known for being a liar of the worst degree - everything that fucker wrote down should be taken with a grain of salt.

>>1802584
The people putting the Bible together wanted an ending to their book, and something talking about the end times is a logical ending point. The Revelation of John won out out because apostolic connections were required for books to be canonized and people thought John of Patmos was John the apostle. It's prevalent in though because Christianity has always been an apocalyptic religion.

Its inclusion and importance make a lot of sense when you learn about the history and culture behind it. The only real issue is with people misinterpreting it because they don't understand its actual purpose.

Would Christianity change in terms of teachings/doctrine if Revelation was removed or acknowledged as apocrypha?

File: 1470441836053.png (145KB, 359x330px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 359x330px

>>1802592
>Christians literally needed a Roman emperor to force them to stop slurping semen

I find it funny that the author really believed he was living in the end times and that the Roman Empire was the last empire prophecized in Daniel and Nero was the last emperor, and yet Christians from all subsequent generations think that he is talking about their own generation.

>>1802603
My historical sides.

>Nazarenes

>>1802609
This.

Idiot Christcucks back in the 1st century legitimately thought the End of Days was going to occur in their lifetimes. Getting it wrong, since day one.

>>1802609
>>1802673
Ever heard of preterism?

>>1802695
Of course. And what of it?

>>1802794
Seems like you didn't hear about it before this conversation.

>>1802808
Preterism is a backpedaling mechanism for Christians. "Oh, it already happened, that's why!"

(Even though The Second Coming, resurrection of the dead, and Final Judgment - all explicitly announced by Jesus - have not yet occurred in this Preterist system).

>>1802808
>Christians will invent a new doctrine for every error in the bible.
Preterism is a fringe doctrine, it does not "save" the bible and the majority of Christians don't believe in it.

>>1802429
not really.
It was widely known that was likely. Eusebius's Church History is basically "John doesn't really write or talk like the Apostle. Likely another guy *shrug* Moving on."