Why the Modern View of the Book of Revelation may be Flawed.

ADW ^ | 25th November 2012 | Msgr Charles Pope

[ealgeone]

Of course we might wonder if such an early date does not offend against the testimony of the Fathers of the Church just mentioned. But not, the most significant Father to attest to a mid-nineties date is Irenaeus. It is on him that most other Father’s based their conclusion. But it must be said, that in terms of dating, Ireneus is a bit unreliable. For example, he argues that Jesus was 50 when he was crucified. Thus, though Irenaeus gives us a lot of good biblical insight, he is less reliable for testimony referencing dates and time frames.

Yet, Roman Catholicism goes to the mat when the ECFs vaguely support their Marian dogmas.

[Cronos]

Daniel’s vision is pointing to the FIRST coming of Christ. Daniel’s visions were fulfilled in 70 AD.

[dangus]

You’re absolutely correct, but I don’t think that’s much of an answer. Here’s a fun one: See, in esoterism, there’s supposed to be a decoding in the text. So I looked to see if I could find 666 elsewhere.

When King Solomon was anxious about the growing strength of his enemies, he took a census to find out how much money he could raise for an army, and the answer was 666 talents of gold, worth about $4 billion today. He put his faith in gold and a standing army, instead of God, who had always provided a judge to lead them into battle.

This is also an interesting passage because the language is very similar in Kings as in Chronicles, but in one, it says the Spirit of God led him to build the army, and in the other, it says the Spirit of Satan.

[dangus]

The Catholic Church cites the Church Fathers as indicative of the ancient faith, where they are often accused of innovation by Protestants. If a Church Father is factually incorrect about a non-theological historical point, it doesn’t mean he was heretical; it only means he was uninformed. Irenaeus wrote of things he did not witness personally, so he takes a back seat to better evidence.

This sort of exegesis should be common sense to anyone who is not playing some proof-texting gotcha. If someone cites the right to bear arms in 1730, we know for a certain that it was not an innovation of the U.S. Constitution, but merely that the Constitution enshrined an existing right. If that same person refers to Robin Hood as a 14th-century hero, but we know references to him as old as the 12th century, that in no way calls into question whether the right to bear arms existed before the U.S. Constitution.

[ealgeone]

The Roman Catholic Church selectively chooses the ECFs they like and downplays those they don’t.

[dangus]

I am very open to the notion that Revelation describes a pattern that happened in 70AD that may repeat itself at the end of time. But...

Daniel’s 70 weeks is often thought to be a period of 490 years between the defeat of Judea and the defilement of the Temple. (I just discovered that the Earthquake of Antioch, the greatest in the history of the Roman Empire, was 490 years after Paul was struck down on the road to Antioch. Antioch rivaled Rome in population in 400 AD, and after the depopulation of Rome may have been the largest city in the Western world.)

The 144,000 are said to be the martyrs, the “firstfruits” who went to Heaven immediately at their own martyrdom.

Some say the Mark of the Beast is the image of Nero, on every coin, which had to be seen and held to conduct trade.

[HombreSecreto]

I should have been a bit more specific. Of the 70 weeks, 69 have elapsed. 1 week still to come.

Revelation describes some very unusual events. For a minority view to be viable - assuming the objective is to explain Revelation has completely occurred in the 1st Century - it will need to rationally explain all those events and in my opinion point to historical evidence.

For me, getting the gospel of salvation correct and out there to the unsaved world is most important.

[Philsworld]

——Daniel’s vision is pointing to the FIRST coming of Christ. Daniel’s visions were fulfilled in 70 AD.

Only the last week of Daniel’s 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9.

Overall:

4 kingdoms. The Little Horn (Papacy) comes out of the 4th kingdom and lasts until the second coming of Christ.

EVERY LAST REFORMER identified the Papacy as the Little Horn, Antichrist, Man of Sin, and Son of Perdition.

EVERY SINGLE ONE.

[delchiante]

Quote
Some say the Mark of the Beast is the image of Nero, on every coin, which had to be seen and held to conduct trade.
.......

Exodus 13:8
And you shall show your son in that day (15th Day, Unleavened Bread) saying This is done , because of that which the Lord did to me, when I came out of Egypt.
13:9 And it shall be a sign to you upon your hand and for a remembrance between your eyes , that the Law of the Lord may be in your mouth. For by a strong hand, the Lord brought you out of Egypt.

Today,the Beast has made Saturday more important than the 15th Day, Unleavened Bread, to Israel..

Thanks to the Son who is the Passover Lamb, who laid in the tomb on that 15th Day Sabbath, one no longer looks to Moses and bondage of Egypt, but to the bondage of sin, and to the Passover (14th Day) Lamb who died for our sins,the Unleavened Bread (15th Day) of Sincerity and Truth,and the First Fruits (16th Day) of those who have fallen asleep..

Isael has Saturday on their hands and on their minds/foreheads these days.

The Beast has set up its own 3 days as a direct alternative to what Paul called the first importance of the gospel and what the scriptures note that Israel was to have on their hands and on their foreheads as a sign/seal/mark.

Why can’t Friday,Saturday,Sunday be the Beast’s Mark, a counterfeit to the Father’s Passover, Unleavened Bread and first Fruits?

For those who follow Friday, Saturday,Sunday, could they buy Passover, Unleavened Bread and First Fruits as the same thing as Friday, Saturday and Sunday,or is the influence of the Beast system that overpowering?

Are those who wander after the Beast incapable of buying and selling anything other than what the Beast peddles?
Incapable of buying gold refined by fire?

[ealgeone]

Rome often claims for their dogmas they were believed everywhere by everyone.

Reviewing the ECFs on just the Immaculate Conception shows that to be a false statement.

[dangus]

The ECFs are unanimous about the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The element of the Immaculate Conception that causes problem is the corollary doctrine of Original Sin, ironically, since that’s the doctrine that causes trouble between the Eastern and Western churches that Protestants are pretty much all in on.

[ealgeone]

The ECFs are unanimous about the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

No they're not.

[sauropod]

.

[ealgeone]

Here's three. That rules out the dogma being unanimous among the ECFs.

*****

Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").

In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260).

St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

[Cronos]

“believed everywhere by everyone”.

Dangus wrote “The Catholic Church cites the Church Fathers as indicative of the ancient faith”

Indicative — quite different from your statement, ealgeone

[ealgeone]

I’m saying what Rome claims.

[dangus]

I have to look in to St John Crysostom.

St Basil seems to be making an awkward comparison, which if taken the wrong way would also seem to equate such a sin with fornication, an accusation against the woman St Basil definitely acknowledged as ever-virgin. And while Origen is often cited historically as if he were a Church Father, he (or at least his work) was in fact condemned as heretical and anathematized. (I like to believe it was actually just his writing, because he seems sincere and errs out of ignorance, but maybe there was more to it than we now know.)

St John pointedly notes that Jesus doesn’t condemn Mary by excluding her from the saved, but merely expands the concept to says that everyone who does his work is saved. It’s actually a nice, early explanation of the Catholic answer to Sola Fides that we are saved by grace through faith confirmed in works... except he does so with an example that certainly seems to proclaim the Blessed Virgin Mary to be a sinner.

Herein, I may have spoken inaccurately. I was trying to emphasize that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception isn’t simply that Mary was sinless, and that indeed the Eastern churches hold that Mary was sinless even if they’ve declined to define Original Sin in the way that they see as leading to the errors of Luther and Calvin. The “unanimous doctrine” specifically is that Mary was born without sin.

I’m very surprised if St John Chrysostom believes Mary committed sin. But I think it’s important to draw a distinction: Catholics believe we’re all pretty much perpetually committing VENIAL sins. Unlike MORTAL sins, they are not conscious decisions to rebel against God, they don’t risk your condemnation, and they don’t require reconciliation with the Church.

It appears St John Chrysostom is talking about a venial sin; he even explicitly says Mary was not condemned and then goes on to say that she obeyed Jesus and that anyone who obeys him is his mother and family. Nonetheless, it IS quite surprising to see someone like him make such an example of even venial sin out of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[Cronos]

Lurk - the destruction of the temple in 70 AD mirrors exactly what is in the book of the Apocalypse of St. John of Patmos.

This is validated in the writings by Josephus - a Jewish warrior who survived the wars. The book, the Wars of the Jews tells us of
1. the Jewish civil war INSIDE Jerusalem WHILE it was being besieged,
2. the famines induced by these factions burning granaries
3. cannibalism and disease etc.
4. the temple torn to the ground with no stone resting on another

This is exactly what was in the first part of the Olivet discourse.

The pre-tribulation rapture is not in the Bible