Yes, it is.
I am not speaking of anyone's personal opinion of Revelation.
Neither am I, nor is Clete.
I am presenting a specific possible way of viewing Revelation for discussion.
Possible only in the sense that it's just one interpretation.
However, there is only one TRULY possible way of viewing Revelation CORRECTLY. If you're resistant to one view just because you don't like it, or you think it's irrelevant, or unnecessary, then you run the risk of confirmation bias, and that you will never achieve a proper understanding of scripture.
I assert that Jesus (through John of course) was writing to Jews in the seven churches.
I have presented multiple pieces of evidence for this premise. You have rejected all of it with nothing but logical fallacies and baseless assertions.
Just try to prove us wrong!
Until then, you truly will never understand all the details, and while it's not a necessity for your daily walk with Christ, not understanding what is written (and I assure you it CAN be understood) will lead to you being unable to provide a reason for the hope that is within you. (1 Peter 3:15)
We know that John wrote Revelation.
No argument.
We know that he wrote it to the seven churches of Smyrna.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you meant "Asia" and not "Smyrna" here.
If it was relevant to know the percentage of Jews and the percentage of Gentiles, we would have been told that.
It IS relevant to know which of the two John is writing to, because it makes a HUGE difference!!!
It's the difference between replacement theology and mid-acts dispensationalism! Two VERY different theological viewpoints!
What you are doing is simply trying to justify your particular view
That's how discussion works, Ariel. If you don't like it, then why are you even here?
and interpretation by an irrelevant rabbit trail
Saying it doesn't make it so, and both Clete and I have given you evidence to suggest that it is completely necessary to know WHO an author is writing to in order to understand what is being said and why.
about what apostles were preaching to what ethnic peoples.
"Christians" are not an ethnic people, in and of themselves.
Jews are.
Scripture says John agreed to go to the people of the circumcision.
That DOES NOT INCLUDE Christians, whom Paul specifically tells NOT to circumcise for religious reasons (as Israel does). (Things that are different are not the same...)
John didn't violate that agreement when he wrote Revelation. In fact, the entire reason we DON'T find letters written by the Twelve to Christian believers (despite the likelihood of their existence), is because there's a reason the Bible is written the way it is. See below.
By saying John wrote to Christians, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, then you're calling John a renegger, a liar.
I did not start this thread so that those who disagree with what I present can come in and fight about every irrelevant and unnecessary
Saying it doesn't make it so. They ARE relevant, and COMPLETELY necessary to understanding the book as a whole, and Clete and I have shown you why.
detail that isn't even in Revelation.
Here's the problem with your complaining: Revelation is part of the Bible.
So is Colossians, so is Galatians, so is every other book in the Bible. The whole Bible tells a story. When you ignore the story it tells in favor of your own personal beliefs, you WILL NOT be able to fully understand what is written.
Thus, when you talk about Revelation, you invite discussion about the relevant portions of scripture to it, which INCLUDES the rest of the Bible.
By only allowing discussion of one book of the Bible and one book alone, it's no wonder you "will never understand fully all the details."