Allen Daves

Revelation: the First Gospel of the Kingdom Allen Daves

This is a text book....it is NOT "a little light reading for a rainy day"......This is Revelation presented in a way not done before or in this depth of contextual analysis with the rest of the scriptures. The book is meant to be used as a text book as well as (if you print out the pages from the workbook site) a workbook using your pin or pencil to circle the relationships much like you did when you were in grade-school.
 
The book of Revelation offers us an interesting theological dilemma. It states Rev 22:16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. Revelation also states it is "the true sayings" of Jesus and that it is "the testimony of Christ". If this is not "the gospel of Jesus Christ" then what is it and should we consider it accursed testimony of an angel? If it is not to be considered accursed, then it cannot be some other gospel message then what was already given previously. However, this is the conundrum, for if this is the gospel message, then why do so few understand it? There is a possibility which few consider but is the overall thesis of this apology. The reason people don't understand revelation is because they never understood what the gospel message was in the first place! .... Do you not find it quite curious that the most "Personally" given NT book By Jesus himself, is the least understood and given the least importance for Salvation in Christendom?..........
 
The book of Revelation tells us exactly, almost to the day, when it was scribed by John, which will be demonstrated to be March 1st AD69 + or -45 Days.  It is of further interest to note that while the word apocalypse is supposed to mean revealed, most folks who try to explain the book of Revelation do so by invoking "symbolic language", and metaphors of such abstract meaninglessness that it can mean almost anything or nothing at all. The truth is "symbolic" or "Apocalyptic language" is nothing but phrases used to disguise ignorance not reveal any meaningful understanding. It is an almost vulgar, albeit very popular, notion to suggest that God spent 22 chapters just to tell us that things get bad in the world, even for the saints, but in the end God's people will have "the victory"....... Really?.... It took 22 chapters to tell us all of that!?! While many, if not most, modern exegetes attempt to "explain Revelation by use of such terms a "prophetic" or apocalyptic language", the rest of us can only wonder where the "rosette stone" for this "prophetic language" could be found so that we could all understand it clearly. No, when these kinds of terms are used they are really just code words for "we don't have a clue what it means; but let us tell you all about it". Revelation is a relatively simple book to understand and to actually know for certain that you do properly understand it. It is little more then the same words phrases, and concepts repeated over and over again internally and drawn from various NT and OT passages with few exceptions. It takes those Concepts and or ideas and expounds more and more detail to them. Ironically, apocalyptic means to reveal but those who use "apocalyptic language" use it to describe a seemingly infinite ambiguous exegesis. None of them knows for sure what it means, but they seem confident that it is not important to understand because it is just "apocalyptic language" anyway. The very thing that is supposed to be revealing can't be understood except as "apocalyptic language" which can mean anything and everything or nothing at all, depending on who is defining all of that for God and everyone else. "Apocalyptic language" or "Apocalyptic literature" is by definition ignorance and perhaps the most popular but ridiculous descriptions made about this very elegant and important book. ........