A revelation of the Revelation
The Revelation of John Fails an Examination for Canonicity
For all intents and purposes this revelation of the Revelation of John could be considered a refutation of the pre-tribulation rapture position since most all of the pre-tribulation idea is derived from the letter to the sixth church in the book of Revelation — that of Philadelphia — and also seems to be implied by saints being in heaven in both chapters four and five of the book before its judgments fall on the world. This refutation, though somewhat academic in nature, is necessary to the building of the case against current eschatological teaching trends by conservative Evangelicals. In this section I intend to substantiate the position that the New Testament book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is not worthy of canonical status because it has been historically disputed by those whose native language was Greek, it was not written by an apostle, it is self-contradictory in many places, it is doctrinally incompatible with the rest of the Bible, and it has been wrongly allowed into the canon of scripture by those church officials who were too far removed from the time it was written to be able to discern and determine its true origin.
This revelation has three parts, each disputing the claims of the book of the Revelation: historical evidence, stylometric evidence, and internal evidence. In successfully refuting the claims of the Revelations, with relief it will become suitably plain that we will not all be subject to the totalitarianism of the beast and his mark, as depicted in this so-called “revelation;” for according to the book of Daniel, chapter 11, verses 36 through 45, his oppression is limited to the Middle East. How aptly poetic justice is wielded by God: for the true Messiah/Christ was presented to national Israel and was rejected: a pseudo-messiah/christ will also be presented, and coming in his own name, him they will accept.
There is good reason for urgent inquiry into this matter. Too much emphasis has been placed upon the book of Revelations in interpreting the other end-time scriptures for laying out the predictions of the return of Christ according to the principle of “interpreting scripture with scripture,” but as Pat Robertson has said, “in Matthew 24 the second coming of Christ is “after the tribulation of those days.”” Further, in 1st Timothy 6:14, Paul admonishes, “Keep this charge without spot, blameless until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will manifest in his own time” This implies that we will be here until the second coming of Christ, and that there will be no prior secret rapture.
So, the question should be asked, ‘What is scripture?’ Many sincerely misguided believers have used Revelation to twist and distort the epistolary and gospelic sequences and signs regarding the second coming of Jesus Christ. Many theologians, who refuse to let go of the inerrancy/infallibility notion for the entire Bible as a whole unit, forgetting that it is merely a collection of books, and without regard to the question of the proper canonicity of the works that have been included in our New Testament, go through all types of spiritual gymnastics in order to be able to make all of its conflicting assertions ostensibly fit into some convoluted, over-all picture of the second coming of Christ, which does not hold up under close objective scrutiny. Removing the doubtful pseudo-works of 2nd Peter and the Revelation inevitably un-complicates the end time scenario.
For a clear example, the end of the world scenario in 2nd Peter chapter 3 is totally different from that of all of the other end time scenarios in the New Testament. The efforts of John Walvoord (king of the pre-tribulation rapture position) to refute the work of Bob Gundry have been effectively rebuffed, and with some reserve, I recommend Bob Gundry’s book: “First the Antichrist,” Baker Book House Co. ISBN: 0-8010-5764-7 (www.bookfinder.com). Though he hasn’t gone as far as I have in rejecting Revelation altogether, he does a pretty tidy job of proving the delusional ridiculousness of the pre-tribulation rapture position — despite his inclusion of the book of Revelation. My motive is, in love, to set people free from their enslavement to the “doctrines of men” imposed upon us regarding our Bible, and the stressful anxiety that comes from the sensational false teaching of those who have not checked out the facts for themselves.
Historical Evidence:
Now there are testimonies by early church fathers who claim that it was generally accepted that the Revelation was seen by the apostle John on the Island of Patmos during the time of Domitian, supposedly between A.D. 90 and 96. But they are merely restating what the Revelation says about Patmos. I will give in my own words a summation of what can be found regarding this subject in Scribner’s Ante-Nicene Fathers as follows below. These testimonies seem to stem from a single early tradition provided by Irenaeus who lived from A.D. 120-202 — a disciple of Polycarp — who, in turn, was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus fell into the misfortune of being identified as one with questionable motives by some critical scholars, as we will also see below. The chief complaint of Ante-Nicene dissenters to the acceptance of the Revelation for canonicity is its chiliasm. Chiliasm is the doctrine of the return of Christ to a 1000 year reign — known today as the Doctrine of the Millennium — and adherence to this position is called Millennialism. But according to Daniel chapter two there is to be no end to the reign of Christ. The Revelation was somewhat accepted by the latter church fathers after this apocalyptic document began to circulate more widely, eventually finding wide acceptance, becoming further removed from its source. Apparently, a millennium was initially incompatible with accepted early church doctrine concerning Jesus Christ, and the earliest proponent of it of record is Cerinthus — a contemporary of the apostle John, and also known of as the enemy of truth. There was a traditional story told that related how John the apostle came fleeing out of a public bath crying out, “Flee before the roof caves in, for Cerinthus the heretic is within!”
Eusebius, the Christian historian who lived in the third, and on into the fourth century, has preserved down to us quite a few testimonies, some of which I will refer to in support of my argument against the canonicity of the book of the Revelation. Others I have culled from extant works of the early church fathers published in Scribner’s ten volume “Ante-Nicene Fathers” of 1921. In examining the Westminster “New Testament Apocrypha” it is also telling how many apocalypses were forged under the name of an apostle by many others during the first two centuries. Surprisingly, it was commonplace in the first century to affix a popular name to a document to enhance its influence and cull an acceptance by the public. This is called pseudepigraphy. It is almost inexplicable, given what I have uncovered, that the tradition that the Apocalypse was of John the apostle was held as virtually unanimous, beginning in the second century, with only a few dissensions; but even Eusebius was unwilling to commit to its authorship, leaving it, rather, to the personal preference of his readers. Apparently, this unanimity began with the testimony of that one Irenaeus.
Irenaeus wrote that all the elders in Asia that associated with John, the disciple of the Lord, bore witness that John delivered the Revelation to them. For John remained among the early Christians until the time of Trajan. It is in this immediate connection that Irenaeus makes the extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the supposed testimony of those who were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty years. A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably false report as this is might well fall under a well-deserved suspicion. Irenaeus has historically been looked upon as orthodox, but it is telling that his name has been omitted in the Martyrology issued by Clement VIII, on the ground that his orthodoxy was open to suspicion.
Eusebius himself says, that of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the First of his epistles has been accepted without dispute, both in his own time, and in ancient times. But the other two epistles of John are disputed. He also said that in regard to the Revelation, the opinions of most men were still divided in his own time. In an earlier chapter of book III, Eusebius referred to Revelation as the “so-called” Apocalypse of John. He later repeated his reservation regarding the Revelation in his treatment of the canon, saying that after the other books of the New Testament he just listed, is to be placed, if it really seems proper, the Apocalypse of John. Later, in treating the disputed books, he includes Revelation there also. He said of the Apocalypse of John, that it could be included, if it seems proper, which book some reject, but which work others class with the accepted books.
Eusebius further related to us in book III chapter XXVIII that they of his time understood that in the first century Cerinthus, the author of another heresy, made his appearance. Caius of the third century, in book II chapter XXV, in the Disputation ascribed to him, had written concerning this Cerinthus, that by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great apostle, he brought before all marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown to him by angels; and that he said that after the resurrection, the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that our flesh, residing in Jerusalem, will again be subject to passions and pleasures. And being an enemy of the scriptures of God, he also asserted, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there was to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals. This is the origin of the Chiliasm.
Eusebius moreover relates to us, concerning the report of one Papias who lived A.D. 70-155, that in the seeking after of what the apostles themselves had said of those that had personally heard them, Papias mentions the name John twice in his enumerated list of apostles and elders. The first John he mentioned in connection with Peter, James and Matthew and the other apostles, clearly indicating the evangelist; but the other John he mentioned after a space, and places him among those outside of the number of apostles, putting Aristion ahead of him, and there he distinctly calls him a presbyter. There are those who have said that there were two persons in Asia that bore the name of John, and that there were also two tombs in Ephesus, each of which was called John’s. It is important to note this; for it is a good probability that it was the second John, if one is unwilling to admit that it was the first John, that saw the Revelation which is ascribed by name to a John. And Papias admitted that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, and he also says that he was himself was a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. For he mentioned them frequently by name, and gave their traditions in his writings.
Next, the historian Eusebius relates to us an examination of the Apocalypse by one Dionysius, in chapter XXV of book VII. He was known as Dionysius the Great. He was born at the close of the second century, and lived almost to 265 A.D. He studied under Origen, and succeeded Heraclas as principal of the catechetical school in Alexandria. In 246 A.D. he succeeded Heraclas again as bishop of Alexandria. He participated in some of the early synods that had been held in those days. He was less interested in speculative questions, but leaned towards questions of a more practical nature. One of his books contains a discussion of the authorship of the Apocalypse which is unsurpassed in the early centuries as an example of keen, judicious, well-balanced literary criticism. As a man of impressive wisdom and moderation, he took an active part in all of the controversies of his day. He had sharp philosophical abilities and he was a practical theologian. In light of this his intellectual abilities must not be underrated.
He stated that some before his time had set aside and rejected the Apocalypse altogether, criticizing it chapter by chapter, and declaring it to be without sense or argument, and that they maintained that the title was fraudulent. For they said that it was not the work of John the apostle, nor was it a revelation, because it was covered thickly and densely with a veil of obscurity. He also says that they affirmed that none of the apostles, and none of the saints, nor anyone in the church was its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the Cerinthian sect, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. The doctrine which Cerinthus taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And since Cerinthus was devoted to earthly pleasures of the body, and altogether sensual in his demeanor, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist of those things which he desired, namely, the delights of bodily appetite and sexual passion, eating, drinking and marrying, in festivities and sacrifices, and the slaying of victims — all under the guise of a better grace with which he thought he could indulge his appetites.
Further, Dionysius quoted from the Apocalypse after his examination of it saying, “Blessed is he that keeps the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things…” He then said that he could not deny that the writer was called John, and that the book was the work of a John. But he also could not readily admit that the author was the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel and the First epistle were written. For he judged from the character of both of these works, in comparison with the forms of expression in the Apocalypse, and the entire execution of the Apocalypse, that the Apocalypse was not John’s; for the evangelist nowhere gave his name, nor set himself forth, neither in the Gospel nor in the Epistle. He further said that John never spoke as if referring to himself, or as if referring to another person, but that in contrast, the author of the Apocalypse introduces himself at the very beginning, saying, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him to show to his servants quickly; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John, who bears witness of the Word of God and of his testimony, even of all the things that he saw.” Then he notes that in the Apocalypse, the same writes as if in an epistle, using his own name: “John, to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace and peace be with you.” He then mentions that the evangelist did not prefix his name even to the First epistle; but that without any introduction prefixed, he begins with the mystery of the divine revelation itself as follows: “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes.” He also notes that neither in the disputed Second or Third epistles of John, though they tend to be very short, does the name John appear, but that there is merely written the anonymous designation, “the elder.” Dionysius then gives the contrasting observation that the author of the Apocalypse did not consider it enough to give his name once and to proceed with his work; but he mentions it again: “I, John, who saw and heard these things.” He then states that the one who wrote the Apocalypse was in fact called John, and it must be believed since the author himself says so; but who he really was is not apparent. This one did not say, as was often in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord, or the one who lay on his breast, or the brother of James, or the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord; for he would not have said such things if he had wished to show himself plainly. The writer of the Apocalypse says none of these things; but speaks of himself as our brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed because he had seen and heard the revelations.
Dionysius then said that he thinks that the author was some other John out of those in Asia, as he heard it said that there were two graves in Ephesus, each bearing the name John. And also from the ideas, and from the words and their arrangement, it may be reasonably conjectured that this John is different from John the apostle; for the Gospel and Epistle agree with each other and begin in the same manner. The one says, “In the beginning was the word.” The other says, “That which was from the beginning.” The one says, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only Begotten of the Father.” The other says the same thing slightly altered: “That which we have heard, That which we have seen with our eyes; That which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the Word of life, — and the Life was manifested.” For John, he says, introduces these things from the start, maintaining them in opposition to those who said that the Lord had not come in the flesh, as is evident from that which followed; and for this reason he also carefully adds, “And we have seen and bear witness, and declare to you the Life Eternal which was with the Father and was manifested to us. That which we have seen and heard declare we to you also.” John sticks with this and does not digress from his subject, but he discusses everything under the same heads and names.
Dionysius then says that anyone carefully examining the works of the apostle will find the phrases, “the life,” “the light,” “turning from darkness,” frequently occurring in both the Gospel and First epistle; also they will continually find, “truth,” “grace,” “joy,” “the flesh and blood of the Lord,” “the judgment,” “the forgiveness of sins,” “the love of God towards us,” the commandment that “we love one another,” that we should “keep the commandments,” the “conviction of the world, of the Devil, and of Antichrist,” the “promise of the Holy Spirit,” the “adoption of God,” the “faith continually required of us,” “the Father and the Son,” these phrases occur everywhere. Then as one whose primary language is Greek he judges that it is plainly obvious that one and the same character marks the Gospel and the First epistle throughout; but that the Apocalypse is different from these two writings; even foreign to them; not touching, nor in the least bordering upon them; almost, so to speak, without even one syllable in common with them. Further, he says that the Epistle does not mention nor does it contain any intimation of the Apocalypse, nor does the Apocalypse of the Epistle; yet even the apostle Paul gives some indication in his epistles of his revelations, though he has not written the revelations out.
Dionysius further notes that it can also be seen that the diction of the Gospel and the First epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse; for the former two were written not only without error regarding the Greek language, but also with elegance as to their expression, their reasoning, and their entire structure; and again, this observation is from a man whose primary tongue is Greek. He then says that the Gospel and First epistle are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatsoever; for their writer has both of the prerequisites of discourse — that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression — as the Lord had bestowed both upon him. Dionysius does not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received some knowledge and prophecy. He perceives, however, that the writer’s dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. Dionysius then closes by saying that it is unnecessary to point these things out here, for he would not have anyone think that he said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for he wrote only with the purpose of showing clearly the differences between the writings of both Johns.
Dionysius further said that some have ascribed the Apocalypse to Cerinthus the heretic, and so also has Caius himself ascribed that book to the same. The differences between the accepted and well-known writings of John and that of the Apocalypse have been sufficiently established. Now if it weren’t for all of the Revelations’ stylistic and internal problems listted below, John MacArthur’s arguments against Dionysius for the authorship of the book would be convincing in spite of the obvious differences between it and those widely accepted as of John. I would even be willing to consider that John Mark might have written it, but it contains too much error to be of apostolic origin, or even of God’s Holy Spirit. Therefore, the above arguments demonstrate that the apostle John is not the author of the Apocalypse erroneously attributed to him.
Stylometric Evidence:
This brings us now to the stylometric analysis of the works attributed to the apostle John. In Bible Code research the Torah has been recently put to the computer, bringing out some very interesting results. So also, in the stylometric study of documents by Sir Anthony John Patrick Kenny and his team of researchers, the New Testament itself has been subjected to the computer, using ninety-nine factors for determining the authorship of certain books when compared to the writings generally accepted by most all Bible scholars as genuine works of the authors they are attributed to. Restated in other words, the author’s team computerized ninety-nine factors in the analysis of the works of the New Testament in order to be able to determine the authenticity of each document as to authorship in comparison with those which are universally accepted as authentic without dissention. In order to obtain the list of elements considered for each category, and all of the charts and graphs depicting the results of each analysis, you must obtain the book, “A Stylometric Study of the New Testament” by Anthony Kenny, 1986, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-826178-0 (www.bookfinder.com). To divulge the results of each individual element is beyond the scope of this writing, since the intention of this writer is to merely report only the applicable findings necessary to support his argument against the canonicity of the Apocalypse or Revelation. A summary in my own words of the resultant findings in chapter thirteen of the above mentioned book follows. It deals exclusively with the Johannine problem.
When the team compared the known works of the apostle John to the Apocalypse, the two works were most often found to be on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum from each other. John uses nouns less than most other writers, the Apocalypse uses them more. There were more than the average number of indicative verbs in John, and less in the Apocalypse. John uses adjectives sparingly, the Apocalypse uses them copiously. John prefers demonstratives, and the Apocalypse avoids them all together. John makes use of verbs above the average expected rate, while the Apocalypse comes in at about half that rate. The list of differences could be extended without too much difficulty.
The team found the same contrast when they went to a finer detail of study. John uncommonly prefers the Greek verb, “einai,” and the Apocalypse uses it about only half as often. Among Greek conjunctions, “kai” is used more than twice as often in the Apocalypse as in John. Further, with the other twelve conjunctions and particles that the team selected for special study, there were significant differences between the rates for these two subjects in ten out of twelve cases. When they turned to Greek prepositions, the team found that the preference of John for “pros,” and the Apocalypse’s preference for “epi,” sharply marked them off from each other.
When the Team studied the article they found that the Apocalypse had the highest rate for the whole New Testament, while John came in below the NT average. The distributions for case, gender, and number also revealed massive differences between both of the works, in respect of both the article and the noun. John preferred the nominative to the genitive, and the Apocalypse had the opposite preference. John preferred the masculine very strongly over the feminine, in the Apocalypse there was very little difference between the frequencies of the two. Like contrasts in gender preferences occurred with several types of adjectives.
When the team went to verbs, there were significant differences with regard to tense and voice; John’s preference for the present tense contrasted with the Apocalypse’s preference for the aorist tense. John’s extreme preference for the active voice contrasted with the Apocalypse’s tolerance for the passive voice.
Regarding syntax, in the majority of cases John correlated better with the writings of Paul than with the Apocalypse, and likewise, the Apocalypse correlated better with the writings of Luke and of Paul than with John.
Using the aforementioned ninety-nine features the team measured the closeness between these two subjects in the New Testament by observing how the rate for each feature correlated between book and book. John is further away from the Apocalypse than from any other work in the New Testament, and likewise, the Apocalypse is further from John than from any other work in the New Testament. The distance between them is greater than the distance between the writings of John and the writings of Paul or between the Apocalypse and the Gospel of Mark.
Therefore the apostle John cannot be the author of the Apocalypse. This was a minority view in antiquity, but is slowly becoming a prevailing one today outside of the camp of conservative Evangelical scholars.
Internal Evidence:
The end time aspect of this publication is not only to be found in chapters 68 through 71 of the Synoptic Record, and in the first two chapters of 2nd Thessalonians together with 1st Thessalonians 4:13-18, and the last part of 1st Corinthians 15, but it is also in part to be found throughout this remaining section of refutation supporting the end time scenario without the inclusion and influence of the book of Revelation. It remains for me to reveal the inconsistencies within the book of Revelation that conflict, both with itself, and with the rest of the Bible — mostly those New Testament scriptures generally acknowledged as genuine by most scholars. I shall concentrate primarily on doctrinal contradictions and internal discrepancies since these alone, together with all of the above information, should be sufficient to cast doubt on the applicability of this apocalyptic document to current eschatological teaching — and then I will touch on some peripheral points of contention also.
In Deuteronomy 18:20 a prophet is to be esteemed genuine if what he says comes to pass. In Deuteronomy 18:22 we are to likewise ignore one whose words have not come to pass. Since it is declared two times in the Revelation itself, “...what must shortly come to pass” in 1:1 and 22:6, and that nothing within it, as of yet, has come to pass in almost two thousand years — let alone “shortly” from the time when it was written — this so-called “prophet” may be safely ignored.
Related to this is a statement Jesus makes in Luke 21:8 (I shall use normal Gospel scripture references herein). The context is: Jesus’ disciples asking him for signs of his second coming. In Matthew 24 and Mark 13 the last days Jewish-Christian version is given with the Antichrist standing in the third rebuilt temple; and in Luke 21 the pre-second temple destruction Gentile version is given, with no Antichrist in the temple. If his coming were ever imminent over the last 1,960 years — and it was not — then the signs to watch for would be irrelevant to that span of time, and only relevant to the time Israel was restored in the last days with the temple rebuilt. (As long as the second Jewish temple remained intact it seemed that imminence was indeed applicable.) We are indeed cautioned not to be procrastinators by several statements Jesus makes in Matthew 25, but this does not imply imminence. The predicted destruction of the Jewish temple by Jesus gives credibility to the rest of his predictions that followed through its fulfillment in A.D. 70. Paul thought the coming of the Lord to be imminent because the second Jewish temple was still standing while he was alive. After what happened to Israel in 70 A.D. — the destruction of the temple and the world-wide scattering of the people — of necessity Israel had to be back in the land according to prophecy, and the Jewish temple had to be likewise rebuilt a third time, before the Abomination of Desolation could first stand, and then before Jesus could even afterward come back — if we are to seriously take his words in Mt. 24 and Mk. 13 at face value. Jesus pointedly said in Luke 21, verse 8, “See to it that you are not led astray. For many will come in my Name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not run after them.” The author of the Revelation says twice, “The time is at hand,” in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 (cf. 2Nd Th. 2:1-3), therefore, do not run after this so-called “prophet” named “John.”
The first item of contention is Revelation’s inherent, over-all salvation by works versus faith point of view. In Rev. 3:5, overcoming to prevent your name from being blotted out from the book of life, if it were at all possible, is a work. The doctrine of the eternal security of the believer is effectively emasculated by this statement of Revelation — if it were indeed true as stated therein. The sovereign election of the believer by God based upon his foreknowledge is not so thwarted by such a failure of work (cf. 1St Pet. 1:2; John 3:18; 6:44; 10:27-30; Luke 10:20; Rom. 8:29-30).
In Rev. 22:18-19 preserving the book of Revelation is illegitimately made to be a factor in our salvation (cf. Tit. 3:5). We are all saved the same way — by grace through faith — not by works (cf. Eph. 2:8-9). Christ will never leave us nor forsake us (cf. Heb. 13:5). Nothing can put a space between us and the love of God (cf. Rom. 8:33-39). In all of Revelation it is repeatedly implied that our salvation is maintained by works of righteousness or predicated upon whether we do or do not do something, rather than by what is true: we are saved positionally by grace through faith when we first commit to Christ, and our lives are being saved practically over time by that same grace through faith as we apply ourselves to growth on into Christian maturity. The whole of New Testament theology states that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works. We are to repudiate any element of human works of righteousness applied to salvation, in favor of the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, which is alone acceptable to God. It follows, then, that our salvation is maintained solely by the grace of God through our continuing linear faith, and our resultant works in obedience demonstrate that saving faith, and that we are not saved by any works of righteousness apart from that faith. Works are the resultant fruit of our salvation and faith — not the cause of them. Those with few works are saved yet as by fire. They are the seed choked by weeds in the Parable of the Sower of Matthew chapter 13. Those with no works at all are relegated to hell, because no fruit at all indicates that no salvation has occurred — as depicted by the branches separated from the vine in John chapter 15 — and that a relationship with Jesus Christ is there lacking (cf. Mt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; James. 2:14-26). Even those with improperly motivated works only such as movie stars who give to charities, are also not saved, because they have no relationship with the Savior, and thus no life (cf. Mt. 7:15-23; 25:1-13). Throughout the Revelation salvation by works is repeatedly alluded to. My own point of view regarding Rev. 22:18-19 is that I am saved and rewarded by grace through faith in Christ Jesus — not whether or not I accept and preserve the book of Revelation. This passage was written by one who wanted no-one else to mess with his work since he was guilty of the same. The sin in him saw the same sin in others (cf. Rom. 2:1) as it was common practice to do so by many in the first century.
The next is a glaring example of inconsistency where we are supposed to accept the status-quo series of events as coming from God by means of angelic revelations. If God were truly involved in these revelations, then there would be no errors in this work at all. In Revelation 6:12-17, the sixth seal is opened by the Lamb, and the coming of the Lord in judgment upon those who dwell upon the earth is evidently portrayed. 2Nd Thessalonians 1:3-10 says that the second coming of Christ brings both deliverance and retribution for the saved and the lost at the same time — so also does Matthew 25:31-46. John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24 and 12:48 all say that we will be raised up and judged on the last day — not seven years before the last day — one second coming where both saved and lost are dealt with at the same time. Both 2nd Thessalonians 1:3-10 (the key operative words in the King James being “when” in verses 7 and 10), and 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12 align perfectly with Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 24:29-31; Dan. 12:1-3; Mark 13:24-27 and Luke 21:25-28, 34-36. The apostasy of the Church occurs first (2nd Th. 2:3, 6-7; Mt. 24:9-14; Mk. 13:9-13), then the Antichrist appears next, causing great tribulation (2nd Th. 2:3-4, 8-11; Mt. 24:15-28; Mk. 13:14-23; Dan. 11:31-12:1), and then follows the second coming of Jesus Christ after those days of tribulation (2nd Th.1:6-10; 2:12; Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28). These passages are all in agreement together against the Revelation.
Wherein the inconsistency of Revelation lies is that the seventh seal contains seven trumpet judgments, and the seventh trumpet contains seven vial judgments, and one of the trumpet judgments contains five months, and one of the vial judgments ends with a thousand years. Jesus states unequivocally in John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; and 12:48 that he will raise us up at the last day — it is not seven years before the last day, nor is it five months before the last day, let alone all the time required for all the other referenced judgments to fall upon the earth, nor is it 360,000 more days before the last day if we include a millennium. This John of Revelation makes the Jesus in the Gospel of John out to be either a liar or a lunatic!
If we allow for the testimony of Revelation, it clearly shows the sixth seal actually produces the judgment of God — the Day of the Lord — upon those who dwell upon the face of the earth, and the saints of God who come out of the Great Tribulation (cf. Rev. 7:14; Mt. 24:21, 29) are in heaven next before the seventh seal brings more judgments. This would tentatively line up with Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28; 1st Th. 4:13-5:11; 2nd Th. 1:6-2:3; 1st Co. 15:50-57 and Dan. 12:1-3 if we allow; but if Jesus raises us up at the last day as he does say, this does not allow for any more time for the catastrophes that follow, let alone a thousand years for a millennium.
Next, according to 1st Corinthians 15 we are to be raised up at the last trumpet — maybe the 100th trumpet-blast at the Feast of Trumpets. In Revelation the seventh trumpet is supposedly to be the last trumpet, where according to other New Testament texts, we are to be caught up at that time together with those who have died in the resurrection of the just (cf. 1St Co. 15:51-57; 1st Th. 4:13-5:11; 2nd Th. 1:6-10; 2:1-3; Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28; Dan. 12:1-3, 12-13; Job 19:24-27; Is. 26:19-21; Ps. 49:15; Joel 2:30-32; Luke 17:26-37; 21:34-36; Mt. 24:37-51). This is to happen “when” (2nd Th. 1:7,10 KJV) the wrath of God is poured out at the same time on the inhabitants of the earth who in the Revelation are attempting to hide from his judgment at the sixth seal in Rev. 6:12-17, which is apparently the second coming of Christ at the end of the tribulation (Mt. 24:29). This is to be one second coming where Christ deals with both the saved and the lost at the same time (cf. 2Nd Th. 1:6-10; Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 25:31-46). Prophecy teachers would have us believe that Jesus is only talking to Jews in Mt. 24 and Mk. 13 — he may be talking to Jews, but he is also talking to believers in Christ, and therefore the young Church; so when they ask in Matthew 24:3, “What shall be the sign of your coming?” he is not answering to Jews only, but also to believers, and therefore the young Church. (What person practicing orthodox Judaism would be reading in Matthew for information?) There is no sign given, nor prophecy told, of a secret rapture seven years before the tribulation’s end. It is a doctrine of man. But there is a very public resurrection at the end of time — the end of the tribulation (Mt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27). Again, the verses of John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24 and 12:48 all together tell us that Jesus will raise us up on the last day — not seven years before the last day! Obviously, if we allow, the saints “who came out of great tribulation” are in heaven after this second coming as depicted in Rev. 7:9-17. I am truly sorry, but repetition and inculcation is needed in order to overcome the persistent brainwashing of Christian minds by the teachings of John Darby and his followers on this matter over the last 150 years of Evangelicalism.
In the Revelation the last trumpet isn’t concurrent with the rapture like Paul says it is to be in 1st Co. 15:51-57, but it has it occurring at least five months after the day the rapture occurs — in chapter 11 verse 15 — if we look at it one way, and 360,000 days before the last day if we look at it another way in including the millennium. As already mentioned, Bible teachers like to make it seem like the resurrection will occur before the great tribulation begins, but only the Revelation alone supports this idea: none of the other Bible passages do. These preachers claim the Church is not mentioned after Rev. chapter 3, but then where did the saints come from that are to be persecuted by Antichrist if the Holy Spirit has been removed at “come up hither” (Rev. 4:1) or, according to them, at 2nd Th. 2:2, 7? Either Christians having the Holy Spirit are saints, or Jews not having the Holy Spirit are saints, but we cannot have it both ways if, as according to Paul in Romans chapter 9, the Jews now have to be saved the same way as the Gentiles do. The old way of Judaism has been made obsolete by God himself. Prophecy teachers point to the Church of the Philadelphia passage in Revelation chapter 3 and say that we “will be kept from the time of trouble which shall come upon all the world to test them that dwell upon the earth,” and by pointing to chapter 4 verse 1 they claim that “come up hither” is the rapture, and the crowns and white garments imply that it is the Church in heaven having already received their rewards by that time. Revelation contradicts itself by making rewards to the saints in chapter 11 verse 18 — well after the scenario of Revelation chapters 4 and 5 have already taken place.
As justification for their pre-tribulation rapture position they also point to 1st Th. 1:10; 5:9 and say that we are not appointed to wrath. This is true: we are exempt from the wrath of God, but that does not exempt us from the wrath of the Antichrist (Dan. 7:21-22, 25; 8:24-25; 11:31-37; 2nd Th. 2:4-12; and also Rev. 13:7-10, 15 if you will). Where do they come off saying this when Daniel says that the saints are given into his hand and he overcomes them? The inconsistency here is that there are no other scriptures other than these in Revelation itself that state so; and the multitude of resurrected saints in chapter 7 verses 9 through 17 are shown to be in heaven after the prelude passages of chapters 4 and 5 — interpreted by prophecy teachers to be a resurrection having already occurred — and again recapitulated in chapter 11 verse 18, and chapter 20 verses 4 through 6. They make it look like there are two separate and differing first resurrections — one at the beginning of the tribulation and one at the end — the second occurring after we are supposedly already in heaven if we calculate according to Revelation 20:5 alone, and then a third resurrection yet again in chapter 20 verses 11 through 15 for the millennium believers and the ungodly. This is insane! If the rest of the New Testament is taken as true, then when Jesus says he will raise us up on the last day, and Paul and Matthew always indicate that the second coming is one event in the singular (“parousia”), and that both the saved and the lost are dealt with at the same time (2nd Th. 1:3-10), and this all happens after the tribulation of those days, then Revelation does not fit into the plan at all, but skews all attempts at making sense of the singular second coming when it is included in the equation, and contradicts all of the scriptures outside of itself. Which will you believe? The Revelation? Or the other scriptures stacked up together against it? Mixing them together certainly doesn’t work well.
Again, in Revelation chapter 9 verses 5 and 10 it is stated that upon the sounding of the fifth trumpet in judgment, demonic locusts are released upon mankind, and they are to torment those who dwell upon the earth for five months. In consideration of all other prophetic issuances in scripture, all other scripture concerning the second coming of the Lord does not allow for five months of time following the rapture of the saved, and the judgment of the ungodly, before the wrath of God is concluded.
Further, prophetic teachers also lift up Daniel chapter 9 verse 27 and say that a peace treaty signed between the Antichrist and Israel is the start of the seven year tribulation and therefore that is when the rapture happens. As already shown, the resurrection does not occur seven years before the last day, and if the Church age commenced and ran parallel to Israel for the duration of the forty years of testing, from the cross in A.D. 30 to the dispersion of the Jews in A.D. 70, then why can’t the Church also run parallel to Israel for the last seven years of Israel depicted in Daniel 9:27? And also, why reveal all this prophecy stuff to us — “his servants” — if we are resurrected out seven years earlier, and won’t get to see it, nor put its admonishments into practice? What’s the point?
Even further, some prophecy teachers say that 2nd Thessalonians 2:2 is the departure of the Church into heaven. Nothing could be farther from the truth! The Greek word does not mean “departure” as in the sense of the Church leaving. It means apostasy — as in falling away from the Faith — the organized Church taking a stand away from/apart from its former stand as unbelief characterizes it membership. Apostasy happens one heart at a time, just as salvation happens one heart at a time. Is that not what is happening in the Church at large today? Almost everyone has created in their mind a God of their own making who caters to their every whim. This is unjustified and has become idolatry! The Church has also bought into the idea that all religions are equally valid, and are differing ways in which to find God. If we could get to heaven by any other way, then Christ has suffered and died for nothing. There also is an egregious error called syncretism, taking a little bit from each religion and adding it to Christianity! Rick Warren and his Chrislam — mixing Islam with Christianity — is the latest blasphemous affront to God. The preserving influence of the Church in the world has been effectively neutralized by false teaching, doctrinal compromise, incompetence and an inherent infection of worldliness; and the preserving influence of the true Church of Jesus Christ is what is taken out of the way, setting the stage for the Antichrist (2nd Th. 2:3, 7). Aside, with regard to worldliness, there is no contradiction with reference to the world when it is said that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son” (John. 3:16): it there means the aggregate of mankind. “Love not the world, nor the things of the world” (1st John 2:15-17) is what refers to worldliness — an inordinate affection for the world’s values — the cupidinous lusts of the carnal nature, the insatiable covetousness of the eyes, and the assuaging of the proud and inflated ego.
And further yet, when prophecy teachers point to 2nd Thessalonians 2:7 and say that the unspecified thing is the Holy Spirit that is taken out of the way at the rapture of the Church, do they then expect those so-called “left behind” ones to face the Antichrist without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit in their most crucial time of need, considering all that is depicted in all of Revelation chapter 13 and 14:9-13? The tribulation is to try/prove Israel, purify believers and also to persuade the unbelieving dwelling upon the face of the earth. Is God unfair and unjust? Will he expect us to choose between starvation and heaven? I don’t think so. (Remember that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works.) In spite of the fact that the book of Revelation in chapter 13 verses 16-18 says that all without exception are caused to receive the 666 mark of the Beast/Antichrist in order to be able to buy or sell, and (take note John MacArthur) chapter 14 verses 9-13 says that if any Christian receives this mark, they will burn forever in a tormenting hell (just for wanting to survive and provide for their family) — well, I’ve got news for you — in Luke chapter 21 verse 34 is revealed the fact that there will be an economy for the Christian; and in Matthew chapter 25 verses 31 through 46 it is revealed that there will be an economy for the Christian; and in Matthew chapter 25 verse 9 there will be an economy for the christian; for the things described in those places could not possibly be done if we were not able to buy or sell at all. Which would you rather believe: Revelation? or Luke and Matthew? Both scenarios can’t be right at the same time.
The Revelation has too many internal and external contradictions to be believable. According to Daniel, the sway of the Antichrist is only over the territory of the Middle East which includes Israel. It is most likely Russia and China that create problems for him at Dan. 11:44. They obviously can field armies apart from Antichrist’s so-called absolute “world-wide” economic control. There are presently three New World Orders competing for supremacy in the world today: The NATO alliance, the Russian, and the Chinese. The Antichrist is apparently out of the NATO Alliance. He will not control Russia and China.
What we all have suffered, as a result of poor scholarship, is the imposition of the doctrines of the Revelation and the doctrines of men upon the rest of the Bible — especially that of the pre-tribulation rapture beginning with John Darby and others in the mid-1800’s. It matters not how oft something is repeated by many — that does not make it necessarily true nor right.
Next we have a mixed bag of Revelation contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies as follows below in no particular order:
If, on the one hand, the resurrection of the righteous dead at the end of the tribulation period is depicted in Rev. 7:9-17; 11:18 and 20:4-6, and, on the other hand, John in 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; and 12:48 affirms that “No man can come to me unless the Father who has sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day,” then we see a conflicting scenario in Rev. 20:11-15, for that is a resurrection of the damned on the last day — not the righteous, and the Resurrection of the righteous is, at the least, 360150 days prior to the last day — a major Bible contradiction! For the Revelation also says in chapter 10 verses 6 and 7 that there shall be time no longer, and behold: we have a millennium thereafter consisting of one thousand years more time!
In Rev. 7:9-17 we have a vast multitude that no man can number; but in Matthew 7:13-14 we are told by Jesus himself that the gate is straight, and the way is exclusively narrow, and there are few that find it. Along this same line of thinking, in Acts 17:27, it is a remote possibility that men would actually seek after God and find him.
There is a lot of Gnostic numerology such as, “the seven spirits of God” (Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6), when we all know there is only one Spirit of God (part of the One God manifested in three persons) which is everywhere at the same time. If according to Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is God, then with seven spirits we have seven Gods making us all polytheists in violation of the first four commandments.
Why is Jesus given the title of the “Bright Morning Star” (Rev. 22:16) when that is clearly the title given to Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12? Also, how many morning stars does Jesus have to give away (Rev. 2:28)?
The false prophet of chapter 13 could not possibly allow competition by the many false prophets of Mark 13:21-23 and Matthew 24:23-28 if he had absolute control — so he obviously doesn’t. We are not to go running after those claiming to be something, or claiming to know something in our quest for Christ. As the vultures can find their carrion from afar-off without fail, so also, you do not need to go looking for Him — He will find you in his good time.
Paul says in Galatians 1:8 that even if an angel from heaven proclaims any other Gospel than the one he preached to them, then let him be damned. The angel in chapter 14 of Revelation preaches a different gospel.
If Jesus has gone ahead in order to prepare a place for us so that where he is, there we may be also, then why do we need a millennial reign?
The introduction in Rev.1:1-3 is written in the third person.
In Rev. 1:3 — imminence is not possible if Israel must be in the land, and the temple needs to be rebuilt in order for the Antichrist to be able to stand in the Holy Place (cf. Mt.24:15; Dan. 11:31).
A discrepancy of who is speaking with John is created in chapter 1 verses 1, 8, 11, 17-20. The Alpha and Omega of the universe is not an angel (vs. 1).
There is a voice contradiction between chapter 1 verse 10 and verse 15 — which will it be — a trumpet or many waters?
John already saw and knew the resurrected Christ who will be glorified together with us (Rom. 8:17). Why does he require reintroduction to him, and why is there no apparent personal intimacy or common knowledge between the Lord and the disciple he loved if this John supposedly is the apostle who has already seen the resurrected Christ?
Rev. 1:4-5 speaks of He who was, and is, and is to come and Jesus as two different persons.
In Rev. 1:5 Jesus should be the King of kings, not the Prince of kings (cf. Rev.19:16).
In Rev. 1:6 everybody cannot be a king — where is the advantage — where are the subjects?
In Rev. 1:13 the author uses the Greek word for feminine breasts instead of the word for a man’s chest.
In Rev. 2:23 there is a verbal redundancy — “kill with death.”
Rev. 2:27 — ruling with a rod of iron is Christ’s job — not our job.
If he is coming “quickly” (Rev. 3:11; 22:7, 12), then why are we waiting almost 2000 years and counting?
In Rev. 5:8-10 the four beasts or living creatures should not be singing/saying these things because they were not redeemed from among sinful men of the earth with the blood of the Lamb.
In Rev. 5:13 does every creature on earth saying these things include the ungodly who hate God and those creatures that have no faculty of speech?
Rev. 8:12 — these heavenly bodies were already dispensed with in Rev. 6:12-14.
Rev. 9:4 contradicts Matthew 25:31-46; for those entering the kingdom on the last day are not mentioned in this verse together with the sealed Jews of Rev. 7:4-8. Do the scorpion demons torment the saints of Matthew 25:31-46 because they are not sealed together with the Jews of Rev.7:4-8?
In Rev. 7:4-8 the tribe of Dan should be listed instead of Manasseh; for the half-tribe of Manasseh is, as is the half tribe of Ephraim, already covered in the tribe of Joseph which was already listed (cf. Genesis 49).
The 144,000 sealed Jews of Rev. 7:4-8, also mentioned in Rev 14:4, are there called the first fruits of those redeemed unto God; but James 1:18 says that the first generation of Christians are the first fruits unto God; Christ also is a first fruit, though not needing to be redeemed. Also regarding the above passage, there is nothing defiling about women within the holy bounds of matrimony.
Rev. 8:7 contradicts Rev. 9:4. In verse 8 all green grass was burnt up, and after that in verse 4 the locust/scorpion demons are commanded not to hurt the grass of the earth.
Rev. 10:6-7 is a contradiction, because it says that when the seventh angel blows his trumpet, “that there shall be time no more/no longer.” What occurs in Rev. 11:15-19 is the end result of the seventh angel’s trumpet being referred to in that way; yet in Rev. 20:1-15 there is another thousand years tacked on to the end of the story. 1,000 years is still time.
Rev. 11:7 contradicts Rev. 13:1. The Beast cannot be both ascending out of the bottomless pit, and arising out of the seed of humanity (represented by the sea) at the same time.
Jesus said not that we would be angels, but that we would be sexless as the angels (Mt. 22:30); so Rev. 17:1, when it is compared with the statements made in Rev. 19:10 and Rev. 22: 9, an angel cannot remotely be our fellow-slave, let alone be one of our brethren, and of our brethren the prophets, and of those that “keep the sayings of this book.”
Rev.17:10-11 — There were a total of fifteen Roman emperors — not a mere seven emperors; thus these seven kings cannot be properly identified, let alone properly fitting them all into any sort of solid historical context with any concrete certainty. Only the king of the Babylonian empire could be one of the seven kings since he was represented as a bound tree stump awaiting future action.
Rev. 19:20 contradicts 2nd Thessalonians 2:8 on how Antichrist is dispensed with: 2nd Thessalonians 2:8 says the Lord shall consume him with the breath of his mouth, and shall destroy him with the brightness of His coming; whereas Rev. 19:20 says the Antichrist is cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
In Luke 21:34, we are admonished to not allow ourselves to be overcome by surfeiting and drunkenness and the cares of this life, lest the Day of the Lord come upon us as a snare, as it will upon the rest of mankind. As already stated above, this hardly sounds like we will not be allowed to participate in an economy because we lack the mark of the beast of Revelation 13! Also, the good works alluded to in the separation of the sheep and goats of Matthew 25:31-46 could not possibly be accomplished by the righteous in the tribulation for the same reason if they had to have a mark to buy. The foolish virgins are told to go and buy oil for themselves also.
The separation, reward and judgment of the sheep and the goats of Matthew 25 makes the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15 redundant. And if the saints have already been corralled into eternity, then why check the books again at all to see if any of the names are there when that distinction has already been made? This is redundancy and insults the omniscience of God.
Moreover, Abraham is promised that his descendants (those of faith) will be to a thousand generations according to Psalm 105:8. If we allow for the minimum of 40 years to a generation, Abraham’s seed will enjoy at least 40,000 years on the earth. The destruction of earth (Rev. 21:1) at the end of a millennial reign in Revelation contradicts this promise. Since there is no reproduction in the eternal state, this promise is cut short in Revelation.
The apostle Paul through the Holy Spirit addressed problems in the churches by epistle: the same should have been done, if it was indeed to be done by the apostle John, without the necessity of special revelatory instructions for those churches from an appearance of Jesus Christ himself. This could have and should have been easily done; for this John here said that he “was” in the Isle of Patmos; not that he “is” in the Isle of Patmos. Thus the lack of an amanuensis argument is flat. Also, compare Rev. 10:11 where this John is told to “prophesy again before many peoples and nations and tongues and kings” — I thought he was communicating to seven churches.
Jesus gave his disciples the signs concerning his coming and the end of the age already (Mt. 24; Mk. 13; Luke 17; 21) so this entire so-called Revelation is an exercise in confusing and perplexing Gnostic redundancy — if it can at all be sensibly incorporated into the second coming scenario. The hoops Bible expositors jump through to make sense of it all, merely because they believe it should be a part of the Bible as a whole, is absolutely amazing. They just will not let go of the doctrines of men, nor the book of Revelation. Most of them mean well, but they are merely repeating what they have been taught in school without independently checking out the facts for themselves.
Jesus was revealed already and empirically examined in his first coming (1st John 1:1-3), and testified of by those who walked with him. Why do we need another so-called revelation of him which is obscure at best? Besides, there seems to be no intimate knowledge or recognition shared between this entity and his beloved disciple.
Rev. 13:1; 17:7, 12-14, 16-17 has ten kings giving their power to the Antichrist for one hour to destroy the Religious Mystery Babylon, but in Daniel 7:7-8, 20, 24 the Antichrist puts down three of those ten kings leaving only seven to work with.
Rev. 20:1-15 is the only place in the Bible where there are depicted two separate resurrections one thousand years apart — one for the saved, and one for the lost. All other resurrection passages in the Bible have only one resurrection, with both the lost and the saved being dealt with at the same time (see Dan. 12:1-3; 1st Th. 1:3-10; and John 5:28-29 which has an anarthrous construction — an absence of the definite article before both words “resurrection” — therefore describing the quality of resurrection rather than describing two individual resurrection events).
Rev. 20:1-15 — a millennium (i.e. the idea that Christ’s reign is limited, lasting only 1000 years) is contradictory to Daniel 2:44 and 7:14, 17, 27 where, of the kingdom and reign of Christ, it is said that there will be no end — it is without end — everlasting — it lasts forever.
Rev. 21:9; 22:1, 6, 8-11, 14-15 — the same vial-angel ‘speaking’ and ‘showing,’ suddenly without explanation, or any apparent transition, becomes Christ ‘speaking’ in Rev. 22:7, 12-13.
If all of the ungodly are cast into the lake of fire at the great white throne judgment (Rev. 20:11-15), then in Rev. 22:15 there should not be any dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and liars at all outside the Holy City.
Gog and Magog along with others attack an Israel living peaceably without walls, bars nor gates in the last days according to Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39, and God then calls for a sword against them throughout all of his mountains, and Israel is burying the dead for seven months, and burning the weaponry for seven years. Now if according to Isaiah 2:1-4 — after this war when Christ reigns — swords will be beaten into plowshares, and nations will practice war no more, how could Gog and Magog be made do so in Rev. 20:8 at the end of the so-called millennium, when there will be no more time left afterward to live in the peace created by disarming and forsaking war, let alone having seven years to burn weapons? According to Daniel the reign of Christ is without end at his second coming. The Old testament places the Gog/Magog event in the last days (cf. Heb 1:2), but the Revelation places it at the end of the millennium. Which would you rather believe? Which makes more sense? Thus since the Holy Spirit indwelt and inspired the apostle John, he could not possibly have been the author of such contradictory material as this so-called Revelation is.
Regarding Gog and Magog, the political revolutions and national alignments are now falling into place for the fulfillment of Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. This will be World War Three. Before this war though, United Arab nations will attack tiny Israel in concert and be defeated by her according to the following prophecies. Look for the fulfillment of Psalm 83 all; Isaiah chapter 17 all; Zephaniah chapter 2 all; Jeremiah 49:1-27; Obadiah all; Ezekiel 28:21-26 — all these scripture passages describe the conquest and destruction of united Arab/Muslim nations (the seed of Lot e.g. Ammon and Moab, Ishmael and Esau) by tiny Israel in the last days. The geopolitical changes and revolutions have been and are still occurring, setting the stage for these prophecies to be fulfilled. This Muslim defeat comes in two stages. The first stage was the 1967 Six Day War where the modern nations representing the above Arab/Muslim peoples first attacking Israel are: Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. This was the first round of warfare in the Middle East in which Israel defeated her enemies and occupied more Arab land than ever before. Thus Israel dwells in relative peace for a time without walls, bars nor gates. In the second round or stage the Mosque of Omar/Dome of the Rock will be destroyed, opening up the opportunity for Israel to rebuild her temple again on Mount Moriah/Mount Zion — the Temple Mount. (“That hindering until it is taken out of the way” 2nd Thessalonians 2:6-7, rather than referring to the influence of the Church being removed through apostasy, it could possibly be this Mosque of Omar/Dome of the Rock. It needs to be removed to make room for the Jewish Temple to be built in its place so that Antichrist can reveal/show/disclose himself to the Jewish people as a god publicly cf. 2nd Th. 2:4; Mt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14; but the real immediate context of that passage seems to be the Church’s influence holding Antichrist back until it apostatizes.) This second round or stage of warfare in the Middle East will be retributive or retaliatory in nature by a coalition of united nations, headed up by Gog of Magog, probably Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. He has already claimed deity for himself, and is calling for a coalition of all Muslim nations to raise an army of 250,000 men to push Israel into the sea once and for all. A preemptive nuclear strike may occur where nuclear armed Islamic participants attack the United States to get her out of the way, Ezek. 39:6, and then Turkey, Macedonia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Oman, Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, Mauritania, Morocco, Mali, Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Algeria, Tanzania, Zambia, Maldives, Senegal, Guinea, Ghana, Burkina, Cameroon, Togo, Sierra Leone, Bemin, Cote d Ivoire and Guinea Bissau will attack Israel, and then God will personally intervene and destroy them all: 2/3 of the Jews will die in this warfare, and 1/3 will be preserved and refined, Ezek. chapters 38 and 39, and Zech. chapters 12, 13 and 14. “Allahu Akbar!” will never ever be heard again in the Middle East, Psalm 83:18; Ezekiel 38:23; 39:21-29; for the God of Israel will reign supreme.
In Conclusion:
According to the work of Sir Anthony Kenny: “A Stylometric Study of the New Testament” ISBN 0-19-826178-0 (www.bookfinder.com), and the examination of common criteria refuting Johannine authorship by Dionysius as presented in The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, the apostle John cannot possibly be the author of the Revelation. Further, the results of careful internal examination presented herein effectively invalidate the so-called testimonies of those church fathers attesting to John’s authorship of the Apocalypse, which find their root of origin in the highly suspect statements of Irenaeus (It matters not how often something is repeated — or by how many — that does not make it true), who also falsely stated in connection with such statements that Christ lived to the age of 50 years. And since it has now been conclusively shown that the Revelation is evidently filled with internal and external contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies, we can safely disregard the Revelation of John as a forgery of no small magnitude and imagination. It would be great material for a movie script — what imagination and foresight this guy had! But there is no sense in getting upset about the so-called mark of the beast, if you know what I mean. The New World Order Globalists, rather than fulfilling prophecy, are using the Revelation as script material for their plot of global domination against us.
I suppose that it is now time to draw the inevitable conclusion which this expose` has been leading to: The Apocalypse, The Apocalypse of John, also known as The Revelation of John, or The Revelation of Jesus Christ, or just plain old Revelation, has been herein adequately shown not to be the work of the apostle John, but a work by either Cerinthus, or some other person also known by the name of John, and if so, most likely a so-called presbyter, who is allegedly confused with the apostle and elder, John, in Ephesus. Canonicity should be determined by apostolicity, or at least closeness of proximity such as disciples of the apostles. If a work is not by an apostle or one of their immediate disciples, then it should be relegated to the pseudepigrapha; and a work that is by an immediate disciple could be made part of the accepted books, but with notation that such is the case. Apostolic documents must be allowed to over-ride disciplic documents in cases where disharmony is encountered. Genuinely apostolic documents should rightly be considered canonical — having a part in the list of writings to be accepted as genuine, suitable for faith and practice. The criteria of a work having been used by the churches alone, for any length of time, is insufficient grounds for allowing writings to dictate faith and practice if their origins are questionable at best, and their internal inconsistencies readily apparent. It is my opinion that many of the controversial conflicts and disputes between the faithful, and many of the plausible objections to the things of our Faith by intelligent unbelievers, would be eliminated, if the canon of our New Testament was re-visited in an unbiased scholarly way, with an attempt at a resolution of the apparent, and many times obvious, difficulties identified in both classes of writings. This volume is such an attempt. The people who embraced the Revelation sure have made a mess out of present-day eschatology! It doesn’t seem likely that people will give up their love affair with the book any time soon — at least, not in my lifetime. They remain spell-bound with fascination and held captive by fear of its hollow threats.
In light of all of the foregoing, the Apocalypse of John should therefore be disregarded as an element in the determination of eschatological events, since its validity for canonicity has been shown to be questionable at best, and its traditional authorship refuted. This means forgetting about the dreaded mark of the Beast (666), the unholy trinity, the four horsemen, the seals, the vials, the trumpets, the millennium, the pearly gates, the golden streets, the sea of glass, the seven spirits, the 144,000, the marriage supper of the Lamb, and a whole host of other theological accretions directly attributable to this book’s influence. It means a complete overhaul of current eschatological thought and teaching — even a total repudiation of the weird, inexplicably unsubstantiated notion of a secret, pre-tribulation rapture thought up by John Darby and embraced by many today. Again (properly translated), Jesus said, “Watch out (so that) you all might not be deceived: for many shall pass themselves off with a view to my Name/reputation saying that I am, and the time has drawn near: you all should not go away/depart/follow after them (Luke 21:8).” This sounds so much like a description of today’s prophecy teachers. Throughout history the doctrines of man have been allowed to eclipse the teachings of God. This is not a new occurrence.
Subsequently brought into question also, as a result of this revelation, is the doctrine of imminence — simply because the second coming of Jesus Christ is necessarily tied to a rebuilt Jewish Temple in the last days — absolutely necessary for the Antichrists’ revelation before Jesus Christ returns — and Israel has been without a temple since 70 A.D. If no one knew the day nor the hour of Christ’s coming, not the Son, neither the angels in heaven, but the Father only. Then it would naturally follow that Jesus would teach with a feeling of imminence since the temple was still standing prior to A.D. 70. Also brought into question is the doctrine of infallibility and inerrancy that has indiscriminately been applied to the entire Bible in a wholesale manner, flying in the face of all of the above obvious internal contradictions of fact, as well as the exposure of the seven N.T. books shown to be pseudepigraphical by many scholars. The individual good books in the Bible are negatively impacted by the presence of the false books which are at least contradictory and replete with error, and this injures the integrity of God in the minds of many. We merely need to divide them from one another into separate collections, or at least preface our teachings and qualify our statements regarding them with disclaimers. But regarding the Revelation, which this section is about, the encouragement is in the comforting fact that the absolute global control of the Antichrist is a fabrication. He will not have absolute sway over the entire earth, but only over those territories mentioned in Daniel. If tidings from the North and the East trouble him, and he then goes forth to do away with many, then it is obvious that all nations are not under his dominion. It is appropriate, then, that the Antichrist should be presented to Israel alone, and be received and accepted by them, even as the true Christ was indeed presented to them two millennia ago, but summarily rejected (John 1:11).
Messiah said to the religious leaders of Judaism, “I have come in my Father’s Name, and you all receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him you all will receive”
A Second Opinion: Watch "The Book of Revelation is a Malevolent Hoax" on YouTube