Revelation already fulfilled

stockholm_Syndrome

It appears to me Revelation was 'fulfilled' 1st century and we are fooling ourselves to think it applies to present times

Why ? Let's start with the opening statement:

A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him,+ to show his slaves+ the things that must shortly take place.

Hmm-- shortly take place ? This book was written in the first century wasn't it ? Is 2000 years later shortly ?

Lets jump ahead to verse 3 of this opening chapter....

Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it,+ for the appointed time is near.

Hmm-- appointed time is near ? This book was written in the first century wasn't it ?

Ok - so the opening statements specifically state the events are to occur shortly to when this book was written. Lets check out the closing chapter .....

6 He said to me: “These words are faithful* and true;+yes, Jehovah, The God who inspired the prophets, has sent his angel to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place.

Hmm-- the things that must shortly take place ? This book was written in the first century wasn't it ? We need more certainty though---any other verses?

7 Look! I am coming quickly.+ Happy is anyone observing the words of the prophecy of this scroll.”+

'I am coming quickly' - 2000 years is not what I would call quickly....

10 He also tells me: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near.

'the appointed time is near' This book was written in the first century wasn't it ?

20 “The one who bears witness of these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’”+

'I am coming quickly' - 2000 years is not what I would call quickly....

OK - so the focus of Revelation is the first century ---

cofty

Jesus promised that he would return in glory to judge the world and enthrone his 1st century followers within their natural lifetime.

They abandoned their wives and children based on this promise.

Jesus was a liar a fraud, a false prophet and a dangerous cult leader.

What I find funny about that book is that the opening statement matches the warning Jesus gave his followers at Luke 21:8. In other words, any student of Luke 21:8 has very good reasons to think that the author of Revelation is one of those false prophets that Jesus warned about. Who knows, maybe Luke 21:8 was emended/inserted by one of those very early christian theologians who didn't like the book of Revelation and wanted to discredit it.

never a jw

The book of Revelation is no different from Jehovah's Witnesses' books. It's all B.S. to make the believer (credulous) feel good and special, and make the BSer rich or/and powerful. These books, when there's enough support, represent a step backwards for humanity.

Half banana

Any book which needs to say "These words are faithful and true" is a dead give away that the words are spurious.

David_Jay

If I am not mistaken, Christians do indeed have a school of ecclesiastical thought called "preterism" in reference to the book of Revelation.

In Judaism we recognize a form of literary composition or genre that has come to be called "apocalyptic." Basically it is a way for either a religious or political writer (in the case of Judaism it was often a mixture of both) to comment on the intrigue of the day without getting in trouble for it (kings and despots of the ancient world were not appreciative of criticism).

Works like the book of Daniel are not viewed by Jews as prophecy, but this type of writing is where a critic of political intrigue commented on present and past world events as events that HAD BEEN foreseen, where enemies of Israel will get/got their just dues for their "evil deeds." The resulting march of nations was a tableu or paradigm where trust in Providence (and sometimes clever innuendo reflecting distaste for a certain dynasty) was presented under the guise of a series of visions of the future. The interpretation was strictly preterist.

The book of Revelation is viewed by some Christian exegetes as preterist, but groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses (who view Daniel as a prophecy) read Scripture literally. Therefore if the author was also composing the same type of genre, the JWs feel obliged by their literalist approach to read all references to visions of the future as literal prophecy.

The Searcher

Just a thought: not only does the language which you've highlighted indicate that Revelation was mostly applicable to its 1st century audience, but also the very fact that John never mentions a single word about Christians escaping the destruction of Jerusalem a few years earlier gives serious credibility to the view that Revelation was written prior to 66 C.E, and not around 96 C.E. as tradition claims. https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html

steve2

This "book" has caused more confusion and disappointment than almost any other book ever written - and still each year untold numbers of earnest believers assert they have got the correct handle on this most pompously mad set of writings ever bound together as part of "Scripture".

Truly, what the world needs now is not yet another stab at understanding utter rubbish.