Are there any Catholic theologions that fully understand the last book of the bible ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter freesoulhope
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are right in your point i jsut wanted to qouted withother words what John Paul the second said about evolution.

John Paul the second said that the church will always teach the true about the creation, but that our belives dosent have to be completely contrary to the evolution.
 
jimmy85 said:
You are right in your point i jsut wanted to qouted withother words what John Paul the second said about evolution.

John Paul the second said that the church will always teach the true about the creation, but that our belives dosent have to be completely contrary to the evolution.
Click to expand...
I would like to see his statement in context… and also note, that if we are thinking of the same statement, that he was only speaking in the context of a personal opinion.
-Laurence
 
little scroll eat, sweet to the mouth ,sourer to the stomach
Click to expand...
figurative of sin. We find sin to be sweet, but when it finally gets too our stomach, it’s souring effect will prevent us from entering heaven…
 
See that is just what we can not do Rev.22/18 gives you the rules ,do not add or take away, any of the words ,of this book.Rev. was written to be self expiatory.the book is in the bible now,and that is just ,fine but it is to stand alone, lest you take part in its plagues that are written in this book, it has to be read as a separate book.walt2000 hear from you tomorrow walt2000
 
JoeyWarren said:
figurative of sin. We find sin to be sweet, but when it finally gets too our stomach, it’s souring effect will prevent us from entering heaven…
Click to expand...
RIGHT on, quitting for now ,see or hear from you guys tomorrow.
walt2000.
 
John Paul the second said it.
Everybody knows that he said it. It could be his personal opinion , the fact of the matter is that evolution dosent contradict our belives at all.

I belive in the eucarist cause the church teach it and its not my personal intepretation. some stuffs in the bible are not literaly for example Job could have exited or he couldnt have existed.
That dosent make the bible not to be sacred.
Moses didnt write the real law it was wroten several centurys latter. that dosent mean that the laws arent inspired by God.

The same with the parts of the bible that are not literal. They were inspired by God.
 
How accurate is Desmond Birch when it comes to the end times? I saw his series on EWTN and it made sense to me.

It seemed like he more or less said that yes most of revelation probably has already taken place many centuries ago and that only the last couple of chapters of it remain in the future.

That the Gospel would first be preached in all the world–I think John Paul II said this would be accomplished in the third Millenium.

That there would be a great chastisement followed by an era of peace–but how sevedre it is or even if we have to endure it is conditional on how the world reacts.

that after this period of peace there would be an Apostasy and the Antichrist would come to power. That as the Catechism says the Jews would be converted–of course this does not mean all Jews.

that the Two Witnesses against the anti-christ are thought by many catholic Theologians and church Fathers to be Enoch and Elijah who both went to heaven without tasting death.

That the anti-christ wouldd kill them and that god would raise them and that the Anti0Christ would ape what they do and try to simulate himself being raised but that god would strike him dead.

after that for a short period of time thins would be as they were in the days before naoah and when Jesus says that “of that day and hour no one knows” that he is taking about his return and the final judgement.

No literal 1,000 year reign! No messianic millenarianism.

Yes mary will be victorious over the Dragon or satan just as the church will be.

In other words it probably won’t happen tommorow but as history repeats itself tomorrow there could be “wars and rumours of wars” and there could be many small 'a" anti-christ between now and THE Anti-christ at the end of time.

It all made more sense to me than the Russians and the Chinese being killed by the millions and armageddon and reluctant Jews only believing in jesus after that final battle.

No rapture. Tribulation–yes–the type you read of in the “Left Behind” series–no!

If anyone has any thoughts on these things chime in --I certainly don’t know the future but here’s my guess–

I really do believe that the world may end in the next 300 years.

Why? the ever escalating swiftness of changes and swiftness of ever increasing sin in the world.

you don’t have to be a prophet to know that one day the world will be internet computer connected and with that connectiveness lies the possibility for THE Anti-Christ to come to power–Hitler was “a” anti-christ and look at all the millions who died.

And while you can believe “private revelation” with divine Faith I really do believe when Jesus gave the Divine mercy revelation to St. Faustina and said the end was coming he was telling the truth.

Of course on the other hand—God’s time is much longer than our time.

I think the chastisement will concern radical Islam and will involve nuclear weapons. That is only a guess.

The age of peace that follows and The Great Chastisement could be farther off then I believe but I say withinn 300 years.

The best thing to do is live every moment like the final judgement or your own death can happen any second.

Come quickly Lord Jesus!
 
jimmy85 said:
John Paul the second said it.
Everybody knows that he said it. It could be his personal opinion , the fact of the matter is that evolution dosent contradict our belives at all.

I belive in the eucarist cause the church teach it and its not my personal intepretation. some stuffs in the bible are not literaly for example Job could have exited or he couldnt have existed.
That dosent make the bible not to be sacred.
Moses didnt write the real law it was wroten several centurys latter. that dosent mean that the laws arent inspired by God.

The same with the parts of the bible that are not literal. They were inspired by God.
Click to expand...
All passages in the Bible have a literal sense… Because they have a literal meaning, that is, what does the passage actually say… And another thing, just because something is not contrary to our faith, doesnt mean it is okay to believe it… If the pope said it, and everybody heard it, then you shouldnt have a problem quoting his actual words for us, in the original language, with the proper translation.
-Laurence
 
Jerry-Jet said:
How accurate is Desmond Birch when it comes to the end times? I saw his series on EWTN and it made sense to me.

It seemed like he more or less said that yes most of revelation probably has already taken place many centuries ago and that only the last couple of chapters of it remain in the future.

That the Gospel would first be preached in all the world–I think John Paul II said this would be accomplished in the third Millenium.

That there would be a great chastisement followed by an era of peace–but how sevedre it is or even if we have to endure it is conditional on how the world reacts.

that after this period of peace there would be an Apostasy and the Antichrist would come to power. That as the Catechism says the Jews would be converted–of course this does not mean all Jews.

that the Two Witnesses against the anti-christ are thought by many catholic Theologians and church Fathers to be Enoch and Elijah who both went to heaven without tasting death.

That the anti-christ wouldd kill them and that god would raise them and that the Anti0Christ would ape what they do and try to simulate himself being raised but that god would strike him dead.

after that for a short period of time thins would be as they were in the days before naoah and when Jesus says that “of that day and hour no one knows” that he is taking about his return and the final judgement.

No literal 1,000 year reign! No messianic millenarianism.

Yes mary will be victorious over the Dragon or satan just as the church will be.

In other words it probably won’t happen tommorow but as history repeats itself tomorrow there could be “wars and rumours of wars” and there could be many small 'a" anti-christ between now and THE Anti-christ at the end of time.

It all made more sense to me than the Russians and the Chinese being killed by the millions and armageddon and reluctant Jews only believing in jesus after that final battle.

No rapture. Tribulation–yes–the type you read of in the “Left Behind” series–no!

If anyone has any thoughts on these things chime in --I certainly don’t know the future but here’s my guess–

I really do believe that the world may end in the next 300 years.

Why? the ever escalating swiftness of changes and swiftness of ever increasing sin in the world.

you don’t have to be a prophet to know that one day the world will be internet computer connected and with that connectiveness lies the possibility for THE Anti-Christ to come to power–Hitler was “a” anti-christ and look at all the millions who died.

And while you can believe “private revelation” with divine Faith I really do believe when Jesus gave the Divine mercy revelation to St. Faustina and said the end was coming he was telling the truth.

Of course on the other hand—God’s time is much longer than our time.

I think the chastisement will concern radical Islam and will involve nuclear weapons. That is only a guess.

The age of peace that follows and The Great Chastisement could be farther off then I believe but I say withinn 300 years.

The best thing to do is live every moment like the final judgement or your own death can happen any second.

Come quickly Lord Jesus!
Click to expand...
His problem is he knows how to read the bible ,but he Doe’s not know how to interpret (Rev).so he gets his events wrong,not to say his timing of those events.When he interp’s Rev. he is not ready for it, it is a end time thing, and it will not be revealed until god ,through the holy spirit, reviles it.and in his time ,and his people.walt2000
 
walt2000 said:
His problem is he knows how to read the bible ,but he do’s not know how to interpet (Rev).so he gets his events wronge,not to say his timeing of those events.When he interps Rev. he is not ready for it, it is a end time thing, and it will not be revealed untill god ,through the holy spirit, reviels it.and in his time ,and his people.walt2000
Click to expand...
Has the prostitute drunk the blood of the saints yet? and treaded the wine press?
 
NO there will be War that man has not seen ,since there was a man, on this earth .
they have bombs that fit in baseballs that will take out four city blocks at once.
 
walt2000 said:
His problem is he knows how to read the bible ,but he Doe’s not know how to interpret (Rev).so he gets his events wrong,not to say his timing of those events.When he interp’s Rev. he is not ready for it, it is a end time thing, and it will not be revealed until god ,through the holy spirit, reviles it.and in his time ,and his people.walt2000
Click to expand...
Jerry-Jet
His interp. is hogwash.
 
Do you know what a parable , a med-afore,and a ala-gory is.Well that is what Rev. is written in.walt2000
 
Ok Walt you should read the writtings of Flavious Josefus urgently and the history of the church of Eusebio Cesarea a church father. 30 years after christ the jews almost were Anihilated eniterly by the roman.
there are documents tat confirm that it was a time that happened n it wont happen again , mothers ate their children , there was a huge hunger and all types of calamity to them , and I mean it that race of people was almsot entirely anihiladed ww2 was nothing in comparison with what happened 30 eyars after the acention of christ. everythign that is in the deutronomy about the curses from God to them if they ended their alliance happened all.

the whore drinking the blood of the martyrs is the pagan roman empire , read and you will understand

I have read like 4 bible explanation in my native language spanish and they all confirm that Revelations is like another epistle that it dosent forecast nuclear bomb. I think thats is a huge blow for many but I think the english catholic scholars were influenciated by protestan about revelations.

Plenty of the church father watched Revelation as something that had already happened in there time the victory of christ and his martyrs over the romans in order to give birth to the church the bride of the Lord

So jstu in the english interpratations I ahve found that revelatiosn are about the future , however every catholic explanation in spanish says revelations is like a epistle for the 7 chruches that were udnergoing extreme persecution , it was a letter to cheer them up in their struggle n ,to let them know that they will win the struggle with christ, and that with their blood they will establish the church the bride of the lord.

when you look at it this way everything make sense , beside revelatiosn is not about exoterism nor nuclear bombs nor computers thats a bad thing to do its a sacret book and we shouldnt look to it as a horoscope of what is going to happen tomorrow.
 
check this books they will be very usefull in order to study revelations.

freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2226_47e.htm

That book is of David CHilton he is a protestan but his expanations are very good and his book is under the catholic doctrine and under the church.

gutenberg.org/browse/authors/j#a1050

Flavious Josefus is also a great resource for studyign revelations, there you have his works.

newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

also a cool book is the history of the church by Eusebio of Cesarea a Church Father.

have fun 😉
 
jimmy85 said:
thats why we have the church for they tell us what especifically is literaly n what isnt.
Click to expand...
ALL, not SOME, passages have a literal sense… Like I said, you are using it differently… Go to the catechism and check it out… Here, I’ll do it for you:

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
-Laurence
 
pacislander4lif said:
ALL, not SOME, passages have a literal sense… Like I said, you are using it differently… Go to the catechism and check it out… Here, I’ll do it for you:

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
-Laurence
Click to expand...
My catholic bible explanation say that the Genesis is a poem with a mythological language inspired by God and it says that one must not take everything in genesis literaly.

the church stance of the pope was that we dotn have to be agaisnt evolution.
I have no problem in belvie that Adam n Eve existed or in beliving that God by his grace made us from dirt and injected us a soul.

But however the first men came from africa n not from Israel. so there is a little of non literaly stuffs in genesis. this dosent contradict our belives.

Father Loring a jesuit priest that give speches in seminarys n in EWTN in spanish said that the stance of the church is twofold that evolution dosent contradicts our belives.

genesis is a spiritual true, we are spiritual beings.
we can take it literaly or not. tahts what the priest said that is teh stance of teh chruch.

Personately I dotn belive uttely in evolution. my whole message was that evolution dosent contradicts the true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top