How many Christians don't believe in John's prophesy in Revelation?

How many Christians don't believe in John's prophesy in Revelation? Topic: How to write letter s in different styles
June 27, 2019 / By Elfa
Question: The way John writes Jesus' words feels like I'm not reading Jesus' words at all. They seem completely out of whack with what Jesus taught on earth and they're in a completely different literary style. I can understand if they're paraphrased, but if that's so then should people be so hung up on the meaning of every single letter?
Best Answer

Best Answers: How many Christians don't believe in John's prophesy in Revelation?

Cheryl Cheryl | 5 days ago
The book of relvilation is a very contriversal book, first 3 centuries many Bishops did not include it in their canon the Bishops who did tended to be like Polycarp who entered the Church through John. The Orthodox church only reads it before the paskaha (easter) Litrugy. When the canon was becoming more established by the early Church in councils Revelation just barly made it by the bare minum of required votes. The book is regularly taken out of context and missunderstood which was one of the reasons it is so contriversial and seem out of whak as you have noted. I would recomend asking on Orhtodox and catholic forms about the meanings as the book was not intended for people outside of the Church to read.
👍 138 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? How many Christians don't believe in John's prophesy in Revelation? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: How to write letter s in different styles

Cheryl Originally Answered: A question for Christians about John Chapter 1?
The problem with how John 1:1 is rendered in most Bibles comes down to mistranslation from the Koine Greek in which it was originally written. John 1:1 originally written in Koine Greek reads: "en archē eimi ho logos kai ho logos eimi pros • ho theos kai ho logos eimi theos." Key words to note:: ho = the; logos = Word; theos = God. In Koine Greek there is no ‘a’ or ‘an’ [indefinite article] only ‘the’ [definite article] where the definite article is not present, the indefinite article should be used. Literally translated into English John 1:1 would read: "en archē eimi ho logos – In beginning was the word kai ho logos eimi pros • ho theos – and the word was with the [Almighty] God kai ho logos eimi theos – and the word was (a) god. The absence of "ho" in the last sentence means that ‘a’ [the indefinite article] should be applied when translating. Then, not only is it correct according to KG rules, but it also MAKES SENSE because: How can the word be God and with God at the same time. John 1:13-14 Which were born (should be was born), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (this verse is expressly speaking of the Son, born not of blood nor flesh, nor the will of man, but of God) Goes on further to say that the Son became flesh and dwelt among us. The Son is the Word of God. Not only did he speak everything into existence, His purpose on earth was to teach us God's will.

Ashtaroth Ashtaroth
You said the key thing! It's literary style. Revelation is a composite of genres that include poetry, narrative, letter, prophesy and apocalyptic. These are not normally found in our day-to-day readings and so, we are not accustomed to their format. The Book of Revelation is also full of metaphor and simile which lead us to a somewhat incomprehensible jumble of words and meanings. Like most other things that we don't understand we usually walk away from it not wanting to look stupid or vain. This is God's inspired Word for it is Truth. Take some time and search for meaning in it. It is full of color and story and life and death. It is the culmination of Jesus story and you're part of it! Come, Lord Jesus.
👍 50 | 👎 4

Zophai Zophai
John uses a lot of Symbolic terms to describe the events of the Apocalypse. Many of the things John saw in vision were probably foreign to him. He probably just tried to describe them with what seemed more suitable to his learning. EDIT: in response to Cindy (top answer) - the pope did not decide what was in the bible, Emporer Constantine did with his pagan council of Nicea. Also Constantine invented the idea of a Pope. Where is a Pope mentioned in the Bible? All I can see are Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, Bishops. Sorry, no Popes there.
👍 46 | 👎 3

Sodi Sodi
Interesting concept. I'm not quite sure who this John of Patmos was, I don't think he is the previous writer of the book of John or one of Jesus' twelve. But anyway, his form of writing was very popular at the time he wrote the book of Revelation. Most writers used this type of writing signed their work with an anonymous name, Zeus or something like it. But John signed his real name to this body of work, that was unusual. You have to remember that at the time John wrote the book of Revelation, Christianity was under great persecution and that may be why John chose this style of writing as to be ambiguous, yet clear at the same time. With Jesus telling parables all the time, this type of writing doesn't necessarily seem that out of whack with His previous teachings. But, I do see what you mean, but I do think that John's choice of writing style has more to with the way the body of writing sounds to the reader. But regardless, I think your question is very interesting and gives us something to ponder. Ps: Averell A termed the writing correctly (I couldn't remember how to spell it). May God Bless You!
👍 42 | 👎 2

Sodi Originally Answered: Trinitarian Christians, if John 17:3 is true.?
"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" (John 1:1). First I would like to point out what John does not say. Notice that John does not say that, "In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was also God." Had John been a Trinitarian we would expect him to say something to this effect to be consistent with Trinitarian doctrine. To find a Trinity in his words we are forced to redefine the word "God" in the middle of a verse. John would be saying that the word was with God the Father but that the word was God the Son. But that is not what he said. The same God whom John identifies the word as being with is the one whom he states that the word is (the word was with God and the word was God). Trinitarians claim that the distinction is justified because the second phrase contains the article before God (ton theon) but that the last phrase does not (theos). My first response would be: Why does the presence of the article demand that this is God the Father? Why not God the Holy Spirit? For some reason, when a Trinitarian reads "God" they first assume it is a reference to God the Father unless they have reason to believe otherwise. Somehow the Father is more "God" than the other two persons. Second, I would simply point out that almost every time the phrase "God the Father" or "God our Father" appears in Scripture, the article is lacking. This includes every one of Paul’s benedictions as well as several other verses (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal. 1:1,3; Eph. 1:2; Eph. 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 2:11; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1,2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phm. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:17; 2 John 1:3; Jude 1:1). So there is no justification to claim that the second theos in John 1:1 does not refer to God the Father simply because there is no article. Finally, John was a devout Jew who had no concept of persons in the Godhead. The only God he knew of was God the Father. Therefore, to identify the word as God was to identify him as the Father. I have also heard it claimed that the Greek word pros (with) means "in a face to face relationship" in this passage. Now pros can mean "in a face to face relationship," but this would only hold true in our passage if it is first demonstrated that the word is another person than theos (God). If, however, the word does not refer to a person in this phrase then it would still mean "with" but not "in a face to face relationship." That it does not refer to a person can be seen in the parallel account by the same author in 1 John. In a very similar statement, John says "What was from the beginning . . . concerning the Word of Life . . . which was with (pros) the Father and was manifested to us" (1 John1:1,2). God’s life was with him, but not "in a face to face relationship" with him. God’s life is not a separate person from himself and neither is his word. I believe that the word of God is simply a reference to the expression of God. In Revelation 19:13 (John writing again), Jesus is called "the Word of God." The book of Hebrews tells us that, "God . . . has spoken to us in his Son" (Heb. 1:1,2). Jesus is himself the content of what God has spoken. He is the visible "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3, KJV). "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18, KJV). The word translated "declared" in this last verse is exegeomai, from which we get the word exegete. Jesus has "made known," "explained," "described" or "revealed" God. To use colloquial terminology, he’s the spittin’ image of his daddy. No one can see God, but you can see his glory. Jesus is "the brightness of his glory" (Heb. 1:3). Trinitarians often use analogies to express their concept of God, such as the three points on a triangle, the three states of water or three interconnected circles. Analogies can be helpful, if they accurately express the reality. However, they can be very damaging if they do not. The only analogy that I am going to use is found in Scripture. Jesus is said to be both the root and a branch (Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; Rom. 15:12; Rev. 5:5; especially 22:16). This is beyond our comprehension. You cannot diagram it; you can’t explain it, but this is what Scripture says. Scripture does not state that God is three points of a triangle, but it does state that Jesus is both the root and a branch. This we must affirm whether or not we can explain it. And I believe that this will answer the issue of distinction which we see in the Bible. From the viewpoint of Jesus as root, he is God Almighty and can be called such. From the viewpoint of Jesus as a branch, he can legitimately be distinguished from God. He is both the Creator and part of the creation. How this is possible I do not know, but this is what Scripture affirms. Attention has also been drawn to the fact that the pronouns which follow are in the masculine. It has been claimed that because of this, the word must be a person. Now when such a claim is made, I must conclude that either the person who said it knows very little about the Greek language or they are not being fully honest with what they are saying. The rules of Greek grammar require that pronouns must agree with the nouns they represent in case, number and gender. Since the word logos (word) is masculine, its pronoun would of necessity be masculine! For example, the word church (ekklesia) is feminine. So the church is called a "she" in the Greek whenever a pronoun is used. No one would claim that this makes the church a person. This can also be seen where John later calls the comforter (parakletos) a "he." Commenting on this, Greek scholar Daniel Wallace makes this observation: The use of ekeinos [he] here is frequently regarded by [Trinitarian] students of the NT to be an affirmation of the personality of the Spirit. . . . But this is erroneous. In all these Johannine passages, pneuma [spirit] is appositional to a masculine noun. The Gender of ekeinos thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of pneuma. The antecedent of ekeinos, in each case, is parakletos [comforter], not pneuma. . . . Thus, since parakletos is masculine, so is the pronoun. . . . Indeed, it is difficult to find any text in which pneuma is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender. Finally, I would also like to state that this is how we are to understand statements of Christ’s preexistence. In the beginning was the logos (word). Whether we want to say the word of God, the expression of God or the glory of God, this is what existed in eternity past, not an eternal second person in the Godhead. Jesus is the visible representation of the one invisible God. It can be said that he was with God and it can be said that he was God, but this does not make God himself multiple persons for the scriptures emphatically teach that God is one. Brad Oneness Pentecostal

If you have your own answer to the question how to write letter s in different styles, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.