IBelieveInHymn

John's writings were neat. Well written, and well spoken. Hardly from an insane person.

Nope, I don't have to backpedal. We know the words of Revelations is not from a schitzophrentic. Can you prove me wrong? Yes/No?

Archimedes

So when you mentioned his "neat handwriting" you didn't actually mean that his handwriting was neat - what you meant was that his writing was "well written and well spoken"? (BTW his written words were "well spoken"?) You have an extremely strange way with words if that's what you really meant. Just admit it, you made a claim about his "neat handwriting" and now you're desperately backpedaling because you clearly either made it up or heard it somewhere and never bothered to check it.

How do we know this? You claimed that ALL modern scholars agree that he wasn't crazy. All modern Biblical scholars? Psychiatrists who have studied the Revelation of St. John?

Name me some of these scholars who have examined Revelation and what expertise and methodology they used to determine that the author wasn't mentally ill. If ALL modern scholars are agreed upon this, then it should be very easy for you to name several them and reference their research.

Toto

link

Psychiatrists generally do not attempt to diagnose someone from a distance.

I have read more speculation that John of Patmos either took mushrooms or drugs of some sort, or that he was the victim of ergotism from a naturally occuring mold. (See THE ROAD TO ELEUSIS: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries

Failte

I personally don't care if revelations was written by a syphilitic monkey, and I don't have to make any comments on revelations validity -- YOU made the claim and YOU need to support it, IBIH.

You got caught claiming that the handwriting was neat, so the author was sane. Obviously you weren't aware there aren't any original versions of the document and are now trying to claim that you are still right. Back it up. What scholars? What research?

Why did you post this?

Sai

Someone said that "Hell is the absence of all reason". We may have just looked over the edge here.

Failte

Oh, I don't think we just looked over the edge, I think we just watched someone fling themselves into the abyss.

But, I'm sure the same arguments will show up in another thread somewhere, and we can see the replay.

Sai

yeah yeah.......its sad. i really dont understand it. they base their construct of reality on so many things that are just so utterly and easily demonstrated to be false. but they just-cant-ever-admit-they-are-wrong. About anything!

One little admission is like a pinhole in a balloon! Its way easier to say 'the river is dry" is the same as "the river is not dry" . I could hardly believe my eyes! The alternative i guess is so much worse... or they think it is.

im glad my mind isnt imprisoned like that.

renassault

I'm sorry that Christians don't believe in a mythical Christ which goes against 99% of biblical scholars. Or perhaps we need to think that Paul started a new branch of Christianity, which goes against virtually any evidence we have of the 1st century. The possibilities of an unimprisoned mind must be so tantalizingly logical.

Solo

Well, I don't think it's quite that. More and more, medical diagnosis is done via "remote", statistically based tools. But, generally, psychiatrists will not diagnose for non-medical ends. This has become something of a First Commandment with the APA, after all sorts of political pressure has been exerted on the association to modify its view of what either was previously considered a mental health issue (e.g. same-sex attraction) or naturally suggests itself as one (i.e. religious experiences and visions). In the latter case, most psychiatrists will agree that the symptoms and etiology of people with religious transports are identical (or close) to those of mental health patients who verbalize their delusions and hallucinations in mystical terms or religious symbols. But the profession still operates with the classifications of a diagnostic manual that classes them differently, based on the affiliations of the former group. The problem here is of course the stigma that a mental health label carries with it.

With the Book of Revelation there would be a range of medical concerns if the APA accepted a level playing field for "affiliated" psychotics. One, there is a consistent theme of "annihilation" which really is what an "apocalypse" is about. The psychotic idee fixe behind the Book of Revelation is that evil, Satan, bad people will be exterminated in the final battle, as a pre-condition to a state where 'night shall be no more'. The most likely "informing source" for these sorts of visions was a psychosis or psychoses with an overweening theme of annihilation. Beyond that, the acutely polar states of "eternal bliss" and "eternal destruction" are in evidence. The imagery is vivid, chaotic but exhibiting composition and keeping to common themes, which would be more in keeping with cycling affect and loss of mood control, as a likely agent of the psychosis, in contrast to the "flattened" affect exhibited in advanced schizophrenia.
One interesting aspect of the book shedding light on John's physical and mental state is the incident where "a voice from heaven" compels John to eat a scroll held by an angel. Apart from the compulsive, paradoxical nature of the act (like Eze 4:11-15) the scroll more agreeable to John's mouth than to his stomach may be evidence of a ruminating disorder, which in adults is sometimes associated with depression and anxiety.

Jiri

bacht

We all know that the author of Revelation was following in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, going back at least to Daniel if not to Isaiah. It seems clear that this strain of writing is "fringe", representing a combination of great imagination and polarized morality (black and white, us and them). I would label this genre escapist and idealistic, not unlike some forms of adolescent psychology.