To this question, the answer would be a Revelation

[snopes]

For nearly 2,000 years, each succeeding generation of Christians has tried to puzzle out whether the Book of Revelation's spooky riddles and symbols has meant its own time was the end of time.

For many Christians, the Book of Revelation, attributed to the apostle John, continues to serve as God's countdown to his son's return to Earth in a final triumph over evil. Without it, they say, Christianity would be an incomplete story.

But is humanity finally facing the final chapter? Depends on who is asked.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,7700237.story

[Dropbear]

Here is a happy little list of predicted dates for the end - many using Revelations or other biblical calculation arguments.

You'd think they'd stop trying after a while.

Dropbear

[Tarquin Farquart]

The view of Preterism holds that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events that were fulfilled in the 1st century. This view depends critically on an early date of Revelation, c. 68, since any later date makes the "prophecy" postdate the events prophesied. Even accepting that date leaves a narrow margin of one to two years before the fulfillment occurs. Preterist interpretations generally identify Jerusalem as the persecutor of the Church, "Babylon", the "Mother of Harlots", etc. They see Armageddon as God's judgment on the Jews, carried out by the Roman army, which is identified as "the beast". Some preterists see the second half of Revelation as changing focus to Rome, its persecution of Christians, and the fall of the Roman Empire. It sees the Revelation being fulfilled in 70, thereby bringing the full presence of God to dwell with all humanity.

From the Wikipedia page on the Book of Revelation.

I have to say, this seems like a more reasonable explanation that those usually cited.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

From the Wikipedia page on the Book of Revelation.

I have to say, this seems like a more reasonable explanation that those usually cited.

Actually, holding to this view of Revelations (which I do) doesn't even necessarily depend on the date being before 70 AD. It is apocalyptic writing, which is not "prophecy" as in "predicting what is going to happen in the future". It could be written as it happened or even after it happened as a way to explain how to view and interpret the events, without being invalidated at all.


~we just finished several weeks of studying Revelations at my church, so it's still fresh in my mind. My priest holds to the "this is about stuff that happened already in the first century" view - the whole point about Revelation is that "in the end, no matter what happens, God is ultimately in control and things will be okay." I think the idea that it's some sort of history book of the future with exact countries and so forth is ridiculously egocentric - it just HAS to be written about OUR time, doesn't it? Because all of history has just existed to produce US and our little few decades here.

Puhleeze.

The Orthodox Church does not even read from Revelations in their liturgy (IIRC) because they consider it just too easy to misunderstand. I think they are on to something.

[Thera]

I really like that interpretation, I hadn't heard it before.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

~we just finished several weeks of studying Revelations at my church, so it's still fresh in my mind. My priest holds to the "this is about stuff that happened already in the first century" view - the whole point about Revelation is that "in the end, no matter what happens, God is ultimately in control and things will be okay." I think the idea that it's some sort of history book of the future with exact countries and so forth is ridiculously egocentric - it just HAS to be written about OUR time, doesn't it? Because all of history has just existed to produce US and our little few decades here.

I'm not a Christian, but I like your explanation.

[snapdragonfly]

Thanks - I find it much more comforting than the alternatives offered.

[jason13]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

The Orthodox Church does not even read from Revelations in their liturgy (IIRC) because they consider it just too easy to misunderstand. I think they are on to something.

The Eastern churches generally didn't include Revelation and other apocalyptic material (such as the popular Revelation of Peter) in their canon until a few centuries into the Christian era.

The Emergence of the New Testament Canon:

However, in the East (the Greek speaking parts of the world and Egypt), there was nearly universal refusal to allow apocalyptic writings into the canon until Western influence began to sway the Eastern Christians in the fourth century.

[Buckle Up]

In 2005 I seriously started to think the world was coming to an end. It started with the Tsunami, and that whole following year just sucked from start to finish - war, Katrina, etc. etc. Maybe I was watching the news too much, but you must admit 2005 was bad.

It's not so much that I think God is getting ready to sweep the faithful up to the sky and insert biochips into the rest of us, but more like I think we humans have gotten too arrogant for the earth's own good and she's not going to be able to take much more of it.

[callee]

Originally Posted by jason13

The Eastern churches generally didn't include Revelation and other apocalyptic material (such as the popular Revelation of Peter) in their canon until a few centuries into the Christian era.

The Emergence of the New Testament Canon:

That's alright. The east preserved James for the first century or so while the western church rejected it.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

The Orthodox Church does not even read from Revelations in their liturgy (IIRC) because they consider it just too easy to misunderstand. I think they are on to something.

There were several episodes of Chris Carter's Millenniumthat made me wish a license was required to write fiction based on Revelation.

"Put the Bible down, Mr. Carter, and step away from keyboard."

[rusynchick]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

The Orthodox Church does not even read from Revelations in their liturgy (IIRC) because they consider it just too easy to misunderstand. I think they are on to something.

ahh yes but if you know orthodox seminarians- thats the favorite book!

It isn't the Book of Revelations that scares me. There always seems to be some sort of disasters or events that can be used as signals of the end-of-times.
What scares me would be those individuals that feel they need to participate and assist God with bringing about end-of-times.

[BamaRainbow]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

Actually, holding to this view of Revelations (which I do) doesn't even necessarily depend on the date being before 70 AD. It is apocalyptic writing, which is not "prophecy" as in "predicting what is going to happen in the future". It could be written as it happened or even after it happened as a way to explain how to view and interpret the events, without being invalidated at all.


~we just finished several weeks of studying Revelations at my church, so it's still fresh in my mind. My priest holds to the "this is about stuff that happened already in the first century" view - the whole point about Revelation is that "in the end, no matter what happens, God is ultimately in control and things will be okay." I think the idea that it's some sort of history book of the future with exact countries and so forth is ridiculously egocentric - it just HAS to be written about OUR time, doesn't it? Because all of history has just existed to produce US and our little few decades here.

Puhleeze.

The Orthodox Church does not even read from Revelations in their liturgy (IIRC) because they consider it just too easy to misunderstand. I think they are on to something.

Not intending to be too nitpicky, but I'm curious just how deep your study was as you refer to "RevelationS" three times. The book's title is "Revelation" (singular). (It'd be a heck of a lot easier if the book had been titled "The Apocalypse of John"--as it's listed at www.earlychristianwritings.com, a pretty decent site covering much of the writings that were ultimately culled from to create the New Testament as it's now known.)
Aside from that, you're pretty much on the mark.
www.biblegateway.com has a pretty extensive series of commentaries on Revelation (often, commenting on single verses).

[barbrainey]

There is another variation of preterism, and it is that it was written around 94 A.D., but its focal point is impending Roman persecution of Christians, especially in Asia Minor to which the book of Revelation was primarily directed. The first three chapters contain letters from John addressed to seven churches in Asia Minor. "Babylon, the Mother of Harlots" of Rev. 17 according to this view, represents emperor worship. Going back to the book of Daniel, King Nebaccanezzar makes a gold statue to represent himself and commands that everyong bow down and worship it. Also, the city of Rev. 18 is Rome, not Jerusalem, since this city sits on seven hills, which Jerusalem does not.

The preterist view that Revelation was written before 70 A.D. and that it describes God's judgment on the Jews was developed by one James Stuart Russell around 1878 or so. It is espoused by one Edward E. Stevens and Don K. Preston.

See http://www.armageddonbooks.com for books on preterism.

Barbara R.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

There is another variation of preterism, and it is that it was written around 94 A.D., but its focal point is impending Roman persecution of Christians, especially in Asia Minor to which the book of Revelation was primarily directed. The first three chapters contain letters from John addressed to seven churches in Asia Minor. "Babylon, the Mother of Harlots" of Rev. 17 according to this view, represents emperor worship. Going back to the book of Daniel, King Nebaccanezzar makes a gold statue to represent himself and commands that everyong bow down and worship it. Also, the city of Rev. 18 is Rome, not Jerusalem, since this city sits on seven hills, which Jerusalem does not.

This is what I was taught at a fairly early age. The notion is that DCLXVI (666) encrypts a rude message about Nero or Domitian, etc. etc. IIRC, Isaac Asimov promotes it in his guide to the Bible.

Silas

[matches]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

This is what I was taught at a fairly early age. The notion is that DCLXVI (666) encrypts a rude message about Nero or Domitian, etc. etc. IIRC, Isaac Asimov promotes it in his guide to the Bible.

Silas

666 is only the number of the beast in the Latin translation.

In the original Greek the number is 616.

The Nero reference still holds in Greek, which is why most scholars think that is who is being referenced as the Beast.

[hoitoider]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

Also, the city of Rev. 18 is Rome, not Jerusalem, since this city sits on seven hills, which Jerusalem does not.

Isn't that up for debate? A lot of Christian sites say Jerusalem was built on seven hills (not really sure if that's true, though it also came up on a few Jewish sites). I've also heard Istanbul (Byzantium) mentioned.

Of course there's also Richmond, Virginia (the Confederacy) as well as Lynchburg, Virginia (Jerry Falwell?).

[Quantum Leap2]

Yes it may well be who you ask about end times, the global warming dread people, the Mayan Calender 2012 prediction, The Dooomsday Clock people, the New Age people, or Christian theologians.

In Revelations, hard to understand tho it may be, is not the only place in the bible that tells the end time tale. Daniel and Matthew 24, and Jesus, Himself predict it.
One sign was that the Jews would return to Israel; after 2000 years ,unheard of about any other nation they did return in 1948. Another sign is Israel signing a 7 year peace treaty to be broken in the middle, as the beginning of the tribulation times.

According to theologians almost all of the prophecies in the bible have been already fulfilled, except the end times ones.

[callee]

Originally Posted by matches

666 is only the number of the beast in the Latin translation.

In the original Greek the number is 616.

not to sound snippy, but to which original Greek are you referring?