This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John, who testified to God's word, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, about everything that he saw (ch. 1). – The underlined is a late addition. In Revelation, one can notice such a feature that the Lamb himself never addresses John. That is, only the Almighty and his Angels conduct a dialogue with John. Therefore, it is not difficult to feel the dissonance in the phrase "testified to the testimony of Jesus Christ". (Did it occur to anyone to witness the testimony of the testimony?) Firstly, because there was no such evidence further down the text. And secondly, because these underlined inserts destroy the semantics of the sentence: the phrase "Revelation of Jesus Christ" is in itself a dead end, has no further textual semantic development. "Revelation to Jesus", and show the servants. "Elderberry in the garden, and uncle in Kyiv". Why does Jesus need to receive Revelation from God when John receives Revelation directly? Obviously, in the original version it was like this: "The Revelation of John, which God gave him to show His servants what should be soon. And He showed it by sending it through His servant John, who testified to the word of God and what he saw."
«The Lamb is the New Testament Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Savior from the past» – there is no such statement or anything similar anywhere in the text of Revelation. Although a lot of other similar important things in the text of Revelation are repeated many times. Whenever someone says or addresses something to John, John always points it out: who is speaking. Nowhere in the text of Revelation is there a place where John directly testified that Jesus Christ would have spoken to him. In the same way, nowhere in the text of Revelation is there a place where John would testify in plain text that the Lamb would speak to him. That is, the events that happen to the Lamb are described from the outside, but there is no dialogue with the Lamb himself. This means that the Lamb himself acts as a character in events, but not as their author. It also says that that at this moment (2022), personally, the Lamb himself, for the most part, is still poorly aware of the general plan of salvation. That is, the Lamb has yet to become fully acquainted with the plan of salvation in the future.
In the era of the absence of true law, the generally accepted does not coincide with the true. An interpretation with which no one will argue, and an interpretation striving for the true meaning, then obviously contradictory aspirations. It is not for nothing that it is said: "go through the narrow gates, for wide gates lead to hell". This interpretation does not deny others and, in particular, the canonical one. As this is a divine message, it is quite normal that the message has many readings, and it is quite normal that these meanings can change in different eras. The general principle of interpretation can be formulated as follows: the text is addressed to the one who is currently reading this text.
Part 3. Promised Communism
Methodological approach
Introduction to the problem
Communism itself is a good, kind, most promising social formation. This formation has an unconditional future. However, at the present moment the theory of communism is hopelessly outdated. It has not changed for three centuries. There are significant flaws in this theory. This theory needs to be revised and updated. It is necessary to correct mistakes, it is necessary to make changes in connection with the experience already carried out. In the form in which this theory of communism exists now, it is no good. With such a theory, no communism can be built. There are many important changes to be made to the theory.
To solve the mentally-activity problem posed, it is necessary to turn to the mental means of methodological SMD culture.
Concept of "communism"
The methodological approach prescribes the use of concepts only those that are constructive in themselves. That is, if the concept is not constructive, then, within the framework of the methodological approach, it cannot be considered a concept. Any correct theoretical concept within the framework of a methodological approach must meet the following criteria.
1. Abstraction.
2. Extra-situational.
3. Instrumentality.
4. Criteriality.
For this reason, without exception, all the concepts of "Communism", given both in Wikipedia and in the Tradition]], cannot be considered sufficiently correct concepts.
Wikipedia defines communism as a hypothetical social and economic system based on social ownership of the means of production, through which, in theory, social equality and social justice should be ensured.
This notion formally corresponds to the constructivity criterion, but is inherently erroneous. Insofar as, as such, the establishment of social ownership of the means of production does not in itself lead to social equality and social justice. In order to formulate a concept that is essentially correct, one must turn to ontology (experience) and seek out from experience the content that indicates the solution of the problem posed. Such an experience, for example, is a family. Relations in the family just fall under the definitions of "social equality" and "social justice".
Thus, within the framework of the methodological approach, the following can be accepted as a preliminary correct concept of "Communism".
Communism is the social structure that arises and exists in the family.
It must be understood that any concept only works if it is understood correctly. You need to understand that, of course, there are deviations in families, there are cases when there are no normal trusting relationships in families. Therefore, of course, in this definition, behind the scenes, obviously, there are many reservations. For example, that this is the social structure that arises "as a rule in any fairly normal" family.
The family is an example of a communist society
The family is the cell of society.
● It turns out that the family is not only a cell of society in general, but also a cell of communist society.
● A normal family usually lives according to communist principles.
● Communism in the family arises due to the unconditional trust of family members to each other.
● Communism in the family arises due to the unconditional, instinctive desire of each family member to selflessly work for the good of the family and improve its quality.
● Communism arises more easily in a poor family than in a rich one.
● The experience of raising children in orphanages shows that when a child is brought up not in a family, but in a state institution, then a psychological trauma, a feeling of inferiority, is formed in him to one degree or another. This proves that the best conditions for the development and upbringing of the child are the conditions of the native family.
● Therefore, the family does not disappear within communist society. However, it will change markedly. For example, in a truly communist family, intercourse will take place solely for the sake of the birth of a child.
● In the distant future, with the development of civilization, the education system will also develop. And the main, key aspect of this development will be the development of the institution of the family. A family in a highly civilized society will also be accordingly different, more civilized.
● Within communist society, the boundaries of the family are not erased, but, on the contrary, are strengthened. Tighter boundaries create a more comfortable stay for the child in the family. A more comfortable stay in the family does not lead to the fact that the child grows up weak and unprepared for life. Although it may seem so at first, if you think logically. However, in a normal family, a normal parental instinct always works, which in itself leads to the creation of intra-family requirements, a framework that leads to effective educational formation.