Back
to top
The Book of Revelation - Muslim converts to Christianity
WatchPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
This question applies to Muslims who have converted to Christianity. It doesn't apply to lifelong Christians or Muslims.
What do you think of the Book of Revelation (aka the Apocalypse of John) which is the last book in the New Testament, and written in a style completely unlike any other?
What do you think of the Book of Revelation (aka the Apocalypse of John) which is the last book in the New Testament, and written in a style completely unlike any other?
0
reply
Report
#2
looks like it remains "a closed book" to them.
(Original post by Arran90)
This question applies to Muslims who have converted to Christianity. It doesn't apply to lifelong Christians or Muslims.
What do you think of the Book of Revelation (aka the Apocalypse of John) which is the last book in the New Testament, and written in a style completely unlike any other?
This question applies to Muslims who have converted to Christianity. It doesn't apply to lifelong Christians or Muslims.
What do you think of the Book of Revelation (aka the Apocalypse of John) which is the last book in the New Testament, and written in a style completely unlike any other?
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by Arran90)
This question applies to Muslims who have converted to Christianity. It doesn't apply to lifelong Christians or Muslims.
What do you think of the Book of Revelation (aka the Apocalypse of John) which is the last book in the New Testament, and written in a style completely unlike any other?
This question applies to Muslims who have converted to Christianity. It doesn't apply to lifelong Christians or Muslims.
What do you think of the Book of Revelation (aka the Apocalypse of John) which is the last book in the New Testament, and written in a style completely unlike any other?
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by Arran90)
This question applies to Muslims who have converted to Christianity. It doesn't apply to lifelong Christians or Muslims.
What do you think of the Book of Revelation (aka the Apocalypse of John) which is the last book in the New Testament, and written in a style completely unlike any other?
This question applies to Muslims who have converted to Christianity. It doesn't apply to lifelong Christians or Muslims.
What do you think of the Book of Revelation (aka the Apocalypse of John) which is the last book in the New Testament, and written in a style completely unlike any other?
0
reply
(Original post by Tootles)
Why?
Why?
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It's a drug-induced fantasy, so it should fit well with the tone of parts of the Quran.
It's a drug-induced fantasy, so it should fit well with the tone of parts of the Quran.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Arran90)
There's been a fair few of these folk on TSR over the years. I assume that before anybody converts to Christianity they would have read the Book of Revelation amongst other books of the NT. It's written in a very different style from the four Gospels and the letters from Paul.
There's been a fair few of these folk on TSR over the years. I assume that before anybody converts to Christianity they would have read the Book of Revelation amongst other books of the NT. It's written in a very different style from the four Gospels and the letters from Paul.
Also there were more people than just St Paul writing epistles - there was James, Peter, John, and Jude as well. And many more that aren't generally included in the Bible, but are authentic and inspired and worth studying, such as Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, and a whole library of letters written by Ignatius (collectively known as the "Apostolic Fathers").
The Bible is, contrary to Protestant opinion, just a book; biblical canon isn't "this is what's holy", it's "this is what's used in the liturgy". If, for instance, the poem Footprints had been used regularly in worship, that would have wound up in Bibles eventually, too.
0
reply
Report
#7
Revelation is an the end for a reason, it draws on symbols and terms previously encountered.
To understand it you will need to first understand the previous stuff.
John received it later in life, many disciples lived and died without reading it so it is not a requirement to understand it.
To understand it you will need to first understand the previous stuff.
John received it later in life, many disciples lived and died without reading it so it is not a requirement to understand it.
0
reply
(Original post by Tootles)
You assume wrong. Many people read one of the Gospels - usually John or Luke - or just convert once they've been going to church and hearing the readings for a while. I didn't read any of the Bible myself until after I'd converted.
You assume wrong. Many people read one of the Gospels - usually John or Luke - or just convert once they've been going to church and hearing the readings for a while. I didn't read any of the Bible myself until after I'd converted.
Also there were more people than just St Paul writing epistles - there was James, Peter, John, and Jude as well. And many more that aren't generally included in the Bible, but are authentic and inspired and worth studying, such as Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, and a whole library of letters written by Ignatius (collectively known as the "Apostolic Fathers").
In the past there was much controversy whether the Book of Revelation should or should not be included in the NT. Even today opinion of it varies between different sects of Christianity, and even different Christians themselves.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by Arran90)
You are probably right for the majority of converts to Christianity from a Christian heritage background, but Muslims (and possibly Sikhs and Hindus) are a different breed from a white indigenous Brit who wasn't brought up with any religion but their great great grandparents were Protestant.
The Gospels and Acts are bread and butter stuff. I have my personal issues with Paul, and so do all Muslims (possibly in a different way), but that's largely outside of the scope of this discussion. The Book of Revelation is VERY different in nature from the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles. There are other apocalypses outside of the NT but they generally not very well known.
In the past there was much controversy whether the Book of Revelation should or should not be included in the NT. Even today opinion of it varies between different sects of Christianity, and even different Christians themselves.
You are probably right for the majority of converts to Christianity from a Christian heritage background, but Muslims (and possibly Sikhs and Hindus) are a different breed from a white indigenous Brit who wasn't brought up with any religion but their great great grandparents were Protestant.
The Gospels and Acts are bread and butter stuff. I have my personal issues with Paul, and so do all Muslims (possibly in a different way), but that's largely outside of the scope of this discussion. The Book of Revelation is VERY different in nature from the Gospels and Acts, and the epistles. There are other apocalypses outside of the NT but they generally not very well known.
In the past there was much controversy whether the Book of Revelation should or should not be included in the NT. Even today opinion of it varies between different sects of Christianity, and even different Christians themselves.
White indigenous Brit? Nonsense. What you mean is that Indians have their own special way of looking at it. The way we look at it is derived ultimately from the Orthodox perspective, and is still pretty much identical.
If you've converted from Islam to Christianity, your former (Muslim) views on St Paul are totally irrelevant, because you aren't Muslim. What issues are you speaking of?
Yes, Revelation is different. That's because while:
- the Gospels spoke of Christ's ministry and passion;
- Acts is a record of the foundation of the Church; and
- the Epistles are admonitions from various apostles to different arms of the Church;
The other apocalypses were not followed or used by more than a few Christians each, the Apocalypse of Peter being the only exception.
I actually know quite a bit about the evolution of canon, by the way, and it has nothing to do with what was believed to be "inspired" vs what wasn't, and everything to do with what was used in public liturgy. Revelation is considered inspired by all Christians, but some (for example the Greek Orthodox) don't use it in their services, and thus it isn't always in their Bibles.
0
reply
(Original post by Tootles)
If you've converted from Islam to Christianity, your former (Muslim) views on St Paul are totally irrelevant, because you aren't Muslim. What issues are you speaking of?
If you've converted from Islam to Christianity, your former (Muslim) views on St Paul are totally irrelevant, because you aren't Muslim. What issues are you speaking of?
Revelation is considered inspired by all Christians, but some (for example the Greek Orthodox) don't use it in their services, and thus it isn't always in their Bibles.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Arran90)
I'm neither a Muslim nor a Christian and I have never previously followed either religion. Therefore I'm approaching the subject from almost a neutral perspective.
As I previously stated, opinion of the Book of Revelation varies between different sects of Christianity. At one end of the scale some Orthodox sects do not recognise it and it isn't in their Bibles, and some independent and free churches in Britain do not use it but it is generally included in their Bibles. At the opposite end of the scale are Jehovah's Witnesses that are built on the bedrock of the Book of Revelation and the movement wouldn't exist without it.
I'm neither a Muslim nor a Christian and I have never previously followed either religion. Therefore I'm approaching the subject from almost a neutral perspective.
As I previously stated, opinion of the Book of Revelation varies between different sects of Christianity. At one end of the scale some Orthodox sects do not recognise it and it isn't in their Bibles, and some independent and free churches in Britain do not use it but it is generally included in their Bibles. At the opposite end of the scale are Jehovah's Witnesses that are built on the bedrock of the Book of Revelation and the movement wouldn't exist without it.
Also JWs aren't Christians.
0
reply
(Original post by Tootles)
You're neither Muslim nor Christian, and yet you're telling me - a Christian with a lot of knowledge of various Christian practices and beliefs among most denominations, and who has undertaken long study over many years - what Christians believe? Is that why you didn't want a Christian perspective; so nobody would tell you you're full of manure?
You're neither Muslim nor Christian, and yet you're telling me - a Christian with a lot of knowledge of various Christian practices and beliefs among most denominations, and who has undertaken long study over many years - what Christians believe? Is that why you didn't want a Christian perspective; so nobody would tell you you're full of manure?
Also JWs aren't Christians.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
