atheist here, i think it's important to stress that. although i had a long and intense abrahamic period, which i think is best aligned with a kind of gnostic delight in ritual. hard to explain. didn't ever care much for the church, found sheer eminence in abrahamic ritual.
anyways, point is, i'm an atheist, and i'm sympathetic to the idea of christianity, find a lot of beauty in a lot of it, including the poetry of the apocalypse, i'm just not convinced of it. and i'm not trying to convince you away from it. but i like to talk god. so here we go.
I went with the one they said was most likely "This makes option 3 the most reasonable interpretation."
If you prefer option 1 or 2, that is quite okay with me.
jesus wasn't written down until a fair bit post mortem specifically because his followers believed the apocalypse was right around the corner. early scripture reflects this. i presumed this was common knowledge in theology.
i don't know your source, and it's... kind of iffy. looks ok and isn't phrased in odd ways, but there's no identification of who wrote the explanations present, nor can i figure out where this organization is located. all huge red flags. it says, then, it's a subsidiary of GotQuestions.org which has the same purpose
and provides biblical counsel to life things - and is located in colorado, but it's just a mailing address, not a physical address, still no idea who these people are. the anonymity is a red flag, the location is a... pink flag i guess?
see, firstly, no cited authors is a huge problem for figuring out credibility for a strange christian website i don't know, particularly an american one. regardless of your relationship to christianity, there are
a lot of really bad small and weird apples in the united states. if you can dig up who makes this content, i'll be happy to see if i can figure out who they are.
secondly, i'm just going to be blunt. the pink flag. a lot of american christian denominations harshly reinterpret the bible instead of accepting it as the work it is, because they believe it has to be objectively correct to what they believe, and such. coming from denmark, who is admittedly much more atheist (even with our huge technical number of christians in our population, they are only affliated with the church without believing in it), our christians has a more appropriate relationship with the bible, drawing from bible studies and theology, noticing faults in scripture
and discussing them as such failures as part of proper faithful practice. the faults in the scriptures - whether incongruent or just outright stating wrong things, such as an apocalypse shortly after jesus' death - actually don't go against your faith.
maybe it's because we spawned søren kierkegaard idk but our relationship with god just isn't dependent on biblical perfection, because it isn't. and i'm not going to be convinced by a scarcely sourced website, sorry. i need a theologist to explain it to me, and they usually note the many, numerous errors of it, this being part of it.
