What is the non-Christian explanation to the origin and background of the Book of Revelation in the Bible?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Me either. I posted it, hoping you could help. And I so miss Athos!

I can't make noodles or donuts of it. And so do I.

The only non-Christian explanation I could speculate on would be the ravings of a severely deluded man.

My very intelligent and well-read son (autistic too) says it was a dream experienced by John of Patmos (not the Gospel-writer John). Magic mushrooms on the Isle of Patmos?

From Wikipedia:

"John of Patmos (also called John the Revelator, John the Divine, John the Theologian) is the name traditionally given to the author of the Book of Revelation. The text of Revelation states that John was on Patmos, a Greek island where, according to most biblical historians, he was exiled as a result of anti-Christian persecution under the Roman emperor Domitian."

My son says John of Patmos' visionary experience was similar to that of Joseph Smith.

From Wikipedia:

"Living in western NY, an area of intense religious revivalism during the Second Great Awakening, Smith reported experiencing a series of visions. The first of these was in 1820, when he saw "two personages" (whom he eventually described as God the Father and Jesus Christ). In 1823, he said he was visited by an angel who directed him to a buried book of golden plates inscribed with a Judeo-Christian history of an ancient American civilization. In 1830, Smith published the Book of Mormon, which he described as an English translation of those plates."

Then the author of Revelation lied.

Quote:

---

9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[d] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

---

If it had been a dream, he would simply have, "I had a dream last night." That very kind of statement happened repeatedly in the Bible (such as Joseph in the OT and Joseph in the NT), but John intentionally avoided that description.

Might add that the testimony of the early church fathers was that the Apostle John wrote the book.

Yes, he lied. Magic mushrooms? Mentally ill? Caught up by ecstatic hysteria?

Early church fathers were wrong (as they were about many things).

So I'm supposed to doubt the early church fathers, far closer in proximity, both in time and geography, than you or I, and instead believe he was drinking mushroom tea?

Moving on along.

John of Patmos

Let me now weave a curious little tale, constructed from factual evidence in relation to John of Patmos and his incredible chapter in the New Testament known as Revelation. Most scholars agree that this portion of the Bible was written by John of Patmos sometime between 68 and 95 AD. The meaning of Revelation is fiercely disputed, though. Some posit that it spells out the Apocalypse. Some think that is it simply a deeply symbolic representation of the struggle between good and evil. Apocalyptic literature was a fairly common form in the first century, and many academics believe that John was writing specifically to reassure the Christians of Asia who were being persecuted, and perhaps to pass them clandestine messages.Others believe that parts of it, such as the below quote, is a retelling of the Greek mythological story of a champion fighting a monster, which was John’s way of allowing as many as possible (especially new converts to Christianity) to identify with his vision. In the parallel mythological story, the pregnant goddess Leto is pursed by the dragon Python. She escapes to an island where she gives birth to Apollo, who later kills the dragon. That idea seems as viable as any of the other theories of its meaning and interpretations. With that being said, lets instead read it from the perspective that was the result of a vision induced by a trance state, so we can later examine if there’s any evidence to substantiate this seemingly wild speculation.
http://entheology.com/peoples/revela...hdelic-vision/

Quote:

---

Most scholars agree that this portion of the Bible was written by John of Patmos sometime between 68 and 95 AD.

---

No, they don't.

Completely idiotic nonsense from your site.

Quote:

---

Uncovering the use of entheogens ( in Early Christianity has been a subject of my research for quite some time now. The more I dig, the more obvious it becomes that an entire portion of Early Christianity has been systematically deleted, especially when it comes to the use of psychoactive substances as sacraments early on in the history of this and other religious systems that arose.

---

entheogens. psychoactive substances that induce alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, or behavior for the purposes of engendering spiritual development or otherwise in sacred contexts.

Yeah, Paul talked about the use of psychotic drugs all the time. Sorry, but I'm done with this ludicrous, unscholarly garbage. I should have known better from the outset, but I thought I'd give it one more try. As usual, the past is the best predictor of the future.

And how many male scribes have tweaked Bible writings?

Read this:
https://petergoeman.com/homosexualit...bible-in-1946/

It is becoming more and more popular to argue that the Bible speaking against homosexuality is a recent innovation that was added to the Bible to make Scripture anti-gay.

One very common iteration of the argument is that the word “homosexual” was not in any Bible prior to 1946. The implication of such argumentation is that the Bible does not speak against homosexuality, and that the church should therefore accept a gay lifestyle as being compatible with biblical teaching.

Those who put forward such argumentation typically point to Luther’s German translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9, which uses the word Knabenschänder, or “boy molester” rather than the typical idea of homosexual found in modern translations. Additionally, proponents point to the KJV translation, done in 1611, which translated 1 Corinthians 6:9 as, “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” It was not until 1946 with the translation of the RSV that the term homosexual came to be utilized in Bible translations. How should Christians respond to such argumentation? Is it true that the Bible is accepting of homosexual behavior, and that it was only recently (after 1946) when the Bible was twisted to be anti-gay?There are multiple arguments which are important to work through in order to think accurately about this issue.First, a translation does not determine meaning, but is a reflection of the translator(s) understanding of a text, conveyed through the capacity of a target language.

Quote:

---

One very common iteration of the argument is that the word “homosexual” was not in any Bible prior to 1946.

---

It's a very poor argument that I have answered before. "Homosexual" was not in any Bible prior to 1946 because it was not in common usage even at the turn of the century. The word prior to that was "sodomite" or sometimes other expressions. Practically all modern translations render it as "homosexual", "sodomite", or an expression meaning the same thing. The Old Testament provides very direct descriptions. Marriage is always between a man and a woman. It is a very clear picture, and that the Bible condemns same gender sex is very plain. To suggest otherwise is to do a terrible disservice to those caught in that sin.

A good book on the subject is Born Again This Way. It was written by a woman who lived her life as a lesbian until her early twenties.

Quote:

---

And how many male scribes have tweaked Bible writings?

---

The "tweaks" of NT texts are well-known and noted in most modern translations. It is another dead-end argument.

I am glad you have abandoned the idea of the Gospel being due to the use of psychotic drugs.

How many scribes have tweaked the Bible writings? Not that many. Textual criticism tells us that what we have, even before modern methods developed, is well over 99% exactly as it came from the writers' hands. There are problems, such as the book of Jeremiah, but all in all we know that, as one scholar put it, "we have not got a bad text."

As for the word homosexuality, the plain fact is, all our translations are guesses. We have no solid idea what the word means because it appears Paul invented it. It doesn't show up anywhere else in all of ancient Greek literature, biblical or otherwise.

Building a theological principle on that is leaning on a broken reed, as my dad used to say.

The word Paul possibly coined comes from two Greek words, "man" and "bed". The meaning is pretty clear. But even at that, that marriage is the only proper relationship for sexual expression, and that marriage is always between a man and a woman, and that same-gender sex is never, ever endorsed in the Bible, are all very clear.

There has been an lgbtq+ community on Earth since the beginning of time.

You have no way to know that, but even if true, it establishes nothing. It is no more compelling than to say that racists have been around since the beginning of time, therefore racism must be an acceptable condition. Christ came to give us victory over sin, not to teach us to celebrate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The word Paul possibly coined comes from two Greek words, "man" and "bed". The meaning is pretty clear.

---

Yep, the meaning is VERY clear: STRAIGHT men grooming and luring children to bed, especially young boys, to bed. And you also say humans have always been bisexual, no homosexuals. Those straight Catholic priests get tired of masturbating and need to enjoy an altar boy now and then. (Btw, Athos and I were friends since 2006. He had been a Catholic altar boy....told me about his experiences. Maybe that priest was gay....bwahahaha.) Of course, straight translators deliberately redefined Paul's word to protect themselves and other straight men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

As for the word homosexuality, the plain fact is, all our translations are guesses. We have no solid idea what the word means because it appears Paul invented it. It doesn't show up anywhere else in all of ancient Greek literature

---

And what fun times straight Greek men had with each other, women, and children -- especially boys -- during temple worship!

Quote:

---

Yep, the meaning is VERY clear: STRAIGHT men grooming and luring children to bed, especially young boys, to bed.

---

Complete nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the two Greek words (men + bed) that would lead to that conclusion unless, like you, a person was resistant to the simple truth of the matter. It is far, far more likely that the word means what it clearly seems to mean, and that is men going to bed with each other in the same sense that a woman and man would. And to your comment about translators, you have no evidence at all for that. It's all the product of a mind that knows the truth but doesn't like it, and so grabs any alternate explanation no matter how foolish it might be.

I might add that the Catholic Church was not responsible for the vast majority of Bible translations, so a desire to protect those sordid priests certainly was not a motivation. You really should know these things if you want to comment on this. So the fact that the vast majority of recent PROTESTANT translations (and there are many) translate the word as homosexual, sodomite, or other clear terms really works against your idea as do the contributions of Greek lexicons. I have found NO translation that renders it as male pedophiles. It's a ridiculous idea.