There's little reason to take Revelation seriously

By: Curtis Johnson
To: Steve Asher

-=> Quoting Steve Asher to Relatif Tuinn <=-

SA> My understanding is that the average WOA lacks the
SA> discernment to take me seriously. Not so much me,
SA> but topics such as the rise of the false church (Mystery
SA> Babylon) and the Beast 666. How will you respond to
SA> an "offer you can't refuse", in the form of a mark
SA> in your right hand or forehead for the purpose of
SA> buying or selling, which implies that you accept the
SA> Beast 666 as Messiah and worship him as God?

There's little reason to take Revelation seriously. Indeed, most of the early Christians did not place it in the canon; it was championed (ironically) by the less populous Western branch. It certainly cannot be by the same author as the Gospel of John. As late as the eleventh century it was not part of the canon of the independent church of Armenia; and it is one the of the NT books that Martin Luther thought was *not* the inspired word.

The hilarious record of those who took it seriously is further grounds for not taking Revelation seriously.

SA> Saying "is not" will not save you.

It will save one from the peculiar brand of paranoid delusion that "is so" leads to.