View of Revelation

Most of the people I know do not think that Revelation is real. They usually think that the person who wrote the book was crazy and that they were not a credible writer. It was interesting that most people in our class said that they believe that most of the events in the book still need to happen (meaning that we mostly believe that it WILL happen?).
Growing up in the Church has "made" me believe that the events will happen and are also spiritual because of symbolism. It would really be interesting to hear from someone who believes that all of the events took place a long time ago.  

Revelation.

It is really interesting the approach to Revelation that we had in our class.  We approached simply and looked at it for what it was.  I remember my church had a sermon series a couple of years ago, and the way we approached Revelation made it almost impossible to understand, at least in the way I thought about it.  The way we looked at in this class was far simpler.  It is very possible that is because I wasn't paying attention during the sermons, but still.  In church, which is also a different type of learning environment than our classroom. we dug deeper into the symbolistic meaning of things, almost to the point where we were lost in the meaning of things, rather than actually reading the book.  We would read a passage, and then break down what every section of that passage was.  It was almost as if "the" was actually a metaphor for some great prophet in the old testament if you cross reference with three other passages.  The way we approached in class seemed to make more sense, at least to me.  There are some great symbols and references in the book, but to dig to deep means you can't see the whole anymore, which I think a lot of people end up ding, especially with revelation because of the symbols that pervade the majority of the book.  At least that is a problem that I think I see in studies of Revelation.  

-Jacob Millay    

The "Insignificant Hero" Archetype: What is the Appeal?

When discussing Revelation, Keefer discusses how it is similar to the modern fantasy epics that surround today's culture. These include Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter. The storyline of these modern fantasies are all fairly similar - a seemingly insignificant person must stand for good and defeat some type of extreme evil.

Although Keefer's discussion of how Revelation relates to these stories is interesting, I was drawn to the idea of the archetype of these fantasy stories, especially of the "insignificant hero".

What I find so interesting is that essentially, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are all the same story. What is it about these stories - that all use archetypal characters and plots that everyone is used to - that draw in an audience? How can we be constantly attracted and entertained by a story that we have heard a million times?

I think that perhaps, because we all feel insignificant and overwhelmed by evil, humans can identify with the archetypal "insignificant hero". And, not only do we identify with this hero, but desire to be exactly as he is. We wish that if we were asked to carry the Ring to Mordor, we would be as brave as poor little Frodo. We wish that we could be like Harry Potter, who defeats Voldemort after sacrificing his own life.

So, if Jesus is this archetypal hero in Revelation - which comes way before any of the modern fantasies Keefer and I are talking about - what does that say about modern fantasy? Are authors purposely attempting to draw correlations between Jesus and their Hero? Is this just a natural tendency for humans because we were made to love Jesus? Or, are authors just buying into the archetype because they know it appeals to us?

Timothy and Titus.

I have never actually thought of the books of Timothy and Titus were personal letters that were then distributed to the whole church.  I mean, it should be obvious, all you have to really do is look at the name to realize, but I guess I just forgot about it.  The main thing to remember when considering this is that these letters were still sort of intended to be sent to the entire church.  Timothy easily translates to the entire church.  Both of the letters of Timothy do.  But with Titus and some of the other personal letters, it is less obvious as to why they were widely distributed to the entire church since they seem more like personal letters.  I don' really see the purpose of doing this.  There are still god lessons in these books, but they are less obvious and you have to dig through the personal information and messages to find them in some cases.

Was the early church simply looking for anything from Paul that they widely distributed letters that weren't really intended for that function, or is it that these letters were written in a different fashion intentionally to draw people and have them search for the lessons in them?  And if it is the second option, why would Paul do that?

-Jacob Millay