How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[KathleenGee]

Thank you Rags…I have not read all the posts very well.

Regarding Revelations, you might want to read Dr Scott Hahn, ‘Supper of the Lamb’, a former Calvinist, who discovered it is the Mass, the liturgy, that is the key that opens up understanding of the Book of Revelations. Martin Luther had pondered removing it as it did not make sense.

As Catholics, in the context of evangelization, we work with the Lord to restore sinners back to Him, and to make present the eternally lasting event of the death and resurrection of Our Lord, the Sacrificial Lamb, in the Mass. We stand with the Triumphant Lord Who continues His divine ministry from the altar of heaven and the Mass is the first step into heaven here on earth.

You speak of the Woman…and we see her as perfect Christian Mary and likewise the whole of the Church, and all those who witness for the Lord…our separated, but Trinitarian baptized Christian brethren.

During times of persecution, the woman is led into the desert…may be no Mass said, and lifted up by the wings of the Eagle…the Holy Spirit…to be in high level contemplative prayer on the Word of God during tribulations.

One priest’s take on 666 is the first 6 hundred years marking the event of Islam, the next 600 years where man becomes independent of God and we see a fragmentation not only of faith but of common unity, and the next 600 years…the 1800’s where man makes himself god…John Paul II saw Marx, Hegel, and Nietchzhe as the counter point to the Holy Trinity.

The 10 horns of the beast/antichrist/prophet…are the use of communications to blaspheme all 10 commandments.

The OT Jewish translation of Babylon was several times meant to describe the falling away and idolatry that Israel had fallen into in her mission as people in Salvation History.

So I don’t see anything inferring we as Catholics cannot also be part of the remnant. I mean, we believe in the 10 commandments, our catechism comes to us in parts, and one is Morality based on Christ and the 10 Commandments. And the Mass is totally Christ oriented that restores and unites us to the Heavenly Father.

So as far as your concerns are inferring…that we members might not be part of the remnant…well there are those who are who are Catholic…I don’t know about myself, I just trust in God’s Mercy.

 

[ragsbinwashed]

Of course he ultimately refers to the Roman Catholic Church. He is Roman Catholic, and is convinced that Church is the one founded by Christ. But his argument, as he presented it, starts a level above, and would be embraced by anyone who believes in a visible Church – including not only Orthodox, but also Lutherans, Catholics, etc.

The Church is visible, and visibly ordered. It is ‘the body of Christ,’ not ‘the soul of Christ.’ And by ‘visible,’ I mean visible to those outside the Church, who see that the word is preached and the sacraments administered. A Church constituted only by ‘believers’ is no Church. By that I do not mean that you need anyone else than believers for it to be a Church, but what constitutes the Church as Church, is not only that she has members – let’s call them the communion or congregation of saints (depending on whether you focus on the universal or local level) – but that these members gather visibly, around the pure teaching of the Gospel, and the rightful administration of the sacraments. This is basically the Lutheran definition of the Church, as we see in Confessio Augustana VII: “[Lutherans] teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”

So, if you have a congregation of true believers and there is no ordained priest there, you don’t have a church. I find that quite absurd.

I was referring to the office which only consists of those who are called and ordained to it.

The only priesthood that I am aware of was the Levitical priesthood and that was done away with at the cross.

rags

 

[ragsbinwashed]

I keep seeing Rev. being used in a way that does not appear to be interpreted correctly so far as I understand the verses used. Rev. 12:17 John is saying in this verse Keep God’s commandments. Simply put they are two: Love God and love your neighbor. Second,

These two are a synopsis of the Decalogue. Love God, the first four. Love neighbor as self, the last six.

Give witness to Jesus Being Christian means more than just keeping the commandments. It calls us to witness to our faith and relate to our personal lives.

Hence the last part “have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

Rev.12:14 hear John is saying that God does not delay in protecting his Church. We, then, when evil tempts us, can say, “Give us wings, O Lord, so we can fly to the desert of your protection.” God watches over His faithful ones, the ones who place their trust in the Lamb. So I really do not see how this relates to the Op’s question using Rev. in the manor so far has been used.

Well if you look at the text in context you see that this is not teaching us to pray for wings so we can fly away from evil, but it is talking about a people a “remnant” that was guided into the wilderness where she was “nourished” and protected for times, time, and half a time or 1260 years from the onslaught of Satan. Hence, no “gap”

rags

 

[guanophore]

Rags, if I may insert, we Catholics likewise have an interpretation of Rev 12 as well that includes us.

What to you exactly is the remnant? You are not clarifying to me who they are.

Follow the link from post 752.

 

[KjetilK]

So, if you have a congregation of true believers and there is no ordained priest there, you don’t have a church. I find that quite absurd.

That you find it absurd doesn’t mean it’s untrue. And this is once again connected to the fact that the Church is visible – not only to Christians but to the world. Visible through preaching and liturgy.

The only priesthood that I am aware of was the Levitical priesthood and that was done away with at the cross.

Then why do Paul refers to himself as a priest? He doesn’t use the noun (Gk. hierevs), but he is using the verb, in participle form (Gk. hierourgounta, ‘acting as a priest’) in Romans 15:16. What he says is that he, in his work as an Apostle, acts as a priest, offering the Gentiles to God.

 

[guanophore]

The only priesthood that I am aware of was the Levitical priesthood and that was done away with at the cross.

rags

And again, your lack of awareness does not take away the existence of it.

 

[ragsbinwashed]

That you find it absurd doesn’t mean it’s untrue. And this is once again connected to the fact that the Church is visible – not only to Christians but to the world. Visible through preaching and liturgy.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
As far as I am concerned this is what designates a church.

Then why do Paul refers to himself as a priest? He doesn’t use the noun (Gk. hierevs), but he is using the verb, in participle form (Gk. hierourgounta, ‘acting as a priest’) in Romans 15:16. What he says is that he, in his work as an Apostle, acts as a priest, offering the Gentiles to God.

Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Paul calls himself a minister, not a priest

Here’s what Strong’s has to say about

leitourgos

Pronunciation

lā-tür-go’s (Key)

Part of Speech

masculine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

From a derivative of λαός (G2992) and ἔργον (G2041)
I.a public minister, a servant of the state

II.a minister, servant

A.so of military labourers

B.of the temple

i.of one busied with holy things

ii.of a priest

C.of the servants of a king

Paul is simply saying that he is ministering the word of God to the Gentiles.

rags

 

[ragsbinwashed]

And again, your lack of awareness does not take away the existence of it.

Right, there is also this

1 Peter 2

1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

rags

 

[KjetilK]

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
As far as I am concerned this is what designates a church.

Where did Christ say that this constitutes the Church, as Church? And what does it mean to ‘gather together in the name of Christ’? You can’t just cite a verse. You need to show why ‘gathering together in the name of Christ’ means what you think it means. It seems to me that ‘gathering together in the name of Christ’’ means to gather together for the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.

Paul calls himself a minister, not a priest

Yes, he does. I cited the verb. I was not referring to leiturgos. I was referring to the participle (hierourgounta, ἱερουργοῦντα). The translation you are using is hiding the word behind the verb ‘ministering.’ What Paul says is that he is “the minister of Christ to the Gentiles, acting as a priest with the Gospel of God…” Ἰερουργοῦντα is the participle of the verb ἱερουργέω (hierourgeo, ‘to act as a priest’). ‘Priest’ (the noun) is ἱερεύς (hierevs). I was referring to the Greek text, not a translation.

 

[spina1953]

These two are a synopsis of the Decalogue. Love God, the first four. Love neighbor as self, the last six.

Hence the last part “have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

Well if you look at the text in context you see that this is not teaching us to pray for wings so we can fly away from evil, but it is talking about a people a “remnant” that was guided into the wilderness where she was “nourished” and protected for times, time, and half a time or 1260 years from the onslaught of Satan. Hence, no “gap”

rags

I understand that there are a great many interpretations concerning Revelation. The Book of revelation is most likely the most difficult of all the books of the Bible. Of all the Books of the Bible Revelations, or the Apocalypse, offers the widest scope to private, as opposed to the official interpretation. Everyone can find something there and everyone who really tries can find parallels to presently evolving history, and if one is really sharp one can tell from the Bible what is going to happen next in one’s own life.

One needs to remember that John was speaking to people of his time and they understood what he was saying. Modern man has been far removed from those times and this type of writing is no longer used. That being said, anyone can of course interpret the verses of Revelations to mean whatever one wants it mean, however it really does not have anything to do with what the OP is asking, so I think we should not go with revelation unless you want to start a new thread on it, I suggest we stick with the OP’s question.

 

[ragsbinwashed]

Where did Christ say that this constitutes the Church, as Church? And what does it mean to ‘gather together in the name of Christ’? You can’t just cite a verse. You need to show why ‘gathering together in the name of Christ’ means what you think it means. It seems to me that ‘gathering together in the name of Christ’’ means to gather together for the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.

Yes, you’re probably right. I should have put it in context. Here it is.
Matt1815 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This passage is Matthew teaching us how to deal with wayward brethren. Verse 17tells us the final step in the process, which is to “tell it unto the church” and then he goes on to tell some of the characteristics of the church. The last being v. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Yes, he does. I cited the verb. I was not referring to leiturgos. I was referring to the participle (hierourgounta, ἱερουργοῦντα). The translation you are using is hiding the word behind the verb ‘ministering.’ What Paul says is that he is “the minister of Christ to the Gentiles, acting as a priest with the Gospel of God…” Ἰερουργοῦντα is the participle of the verb ἱερουργέω (hierourgeo, ‘to act as a priest’). ‘Priest’ (the noun) is ἱερεύς (hierevs). I was referring to the Greek text, not a translation.

Ya, Ok, he is ministering the gospel to the Gentiles. Nothing in here about liturgy. Only the gospel of Christ, which is totally in line with

1 Peter 2

1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

rags

 

[ragsbinwashed]

One needs to remember that John was speaking to people of his time and they understood what he was saying. Modern man has been far removed from those times and this type of writing is no longer used.

So, you don’t think that we in this day and age have the ability to understand what John is writing about. Kind of discounts the power of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t it?

2Peter1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

That being said, anyone can of course interpret the verses of Revelations to mean whatever one wants it mean, however it really does not have anything to do with what the OP is asking, so I think we should not go with revelation unless you want to start a new thread on it, I suggest we stick with the OP’s question.

First you say that we can’t understand what John is saying, (all but you I guess), because then you say “however it really does not have anything to do with what the OP is asking”.

What I am saying is that it speaks directly to the op, in that it talks of a people, remnant, church, that was nourished of God in the wilderness for 1260 years. Not seen, or at least not apparent and this remnant keeps the commandments and continues to preach the gospel of hope to a sin sick world. And it is this remnant that will be translated to heaven when Jesus returns for His people. Are you counted in that number?

rags

 

[spina1953]

So, you don’t think that we in this day and age have the ability to understand what John is writing about. Kind of discounts the power of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t it?

2Peter1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

First you say that we can’t understand what John is saying, (all but you I guess), because then you say “however it really does not have anything to do with what the OP is asking”.

What I am saying is that it speaks directly to the op, in that it talks of a people, remnant, church, that was nourished of God in the wilderness for 1260 years. Not seen, or at least not apparent and this remnant keeps the commandments and continues to preach the gospel of hope to a sin sick world. And it is this remnant that will be translated to heaven when Jesus returns for His people. Are you counted in that number?

rags

It seems to me that over the centuries many have tried to interpret Revelation and so far it has not panned out so far as prophecy goes. I do not think the verses you have been quoting have anything to do with remnants or explaining the 1500 year gap. I do not worry about being counted in that number I will let God decide that one. yes, we live in a very sick world where it seems evil is everywhere but where evil is more so is God and His love and grace which abound all the more. There is official understanding that the catholic Church teaches and I believe that I will go with that and not what others want it to mean.

 

[ragsbinwashed]

It seems to me that over the centuries many have tried to interpret Revelation and so far it has not panned out so far as prophecy goes. I do not think the verses you have been quoting have anything to do with remnants or explaining the 1500 year gap.

spina, have you read the verses that I have posted?

Rev 12
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

It certainly does talk of a remnant. This remnant is the remnant of the seed of the woman, which is symbolic of the church of Christ. This woman is led into the wilderness where she is nourished of God for times (2 years), time (1 year), and half a time (1/2 year). The years in bible prophecy are 360 days/years. So, if you add them up you get 1260 days/years. This of coarse is during the time of the so called gap. So, no gap.

I do not worry about being counted in that number I will let God decide that one.

Really, even though you have the criteria for God’s church and it is you and only you that can make the decision whether or not you "keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus. You are going to leave it to God to decide whether or not you do that. You don’t think that you have to be a little more proactive in you choices?

yes, we live in a very sick world where it seems evil is everywhere but where evil is more so is God and His love and grace which abound all the more. There is official understanding that the catholic Church teaches and I believe that I will go with that and not what others want it to mean.

What is that “official understanding that the catholic Church teaches”

rags

 

[spina1953]

spina, have you read the verses that I have posted?

Rev 12
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

It certainly does talk of a remnant. This remnant is the remnant of the seed of the woman, which is symbolic of the church of Christ. This woman is led into the wilderness where she is nourished of God for times (2 years), time (1 year), and half a time (1/2 year). The years in bible prophecy are 360 days/years. So, if you add them up you get 1260 days/years. This of coarse is during the time of the so called gap. So, no gap.

Really, even though you have the criteria for God’s church and it is you and only you that can make the decision whether or not you "keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus. You are going to leave it to God to decide whether or not you do that. You don’t think that you have to be a little more proactive in you choices?

What is that “official understanding that the catholic Church teaches”

rags

Yes I have and I do not agree with your interpretations.

 

[ragsbinwashed]

Yes I have and I do not agree with your interpretations.

You have what? What is it exactly about my interpretation that you disagree with? And again. What is that “official understanding that the catholic Church teaches”

rags

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So, you don’t think that we in this day and age have the ability to understand what John is writing about. Kind of discounts the power of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t it?

How do you account for differing, contradictory interpretations from different, sincere people? Do you think that the Holy Spirit is giving different interpretations to different people?

No, the Holy Spirit teaches through the institution that Jesus set up for the task: The Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.

2Peter1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Absolutely true! Prophesies are to be interpreted through the teaching of the Church, NOT through private individuals (not even E.G. White ).

We could start a thread on the meaning of Revelation 11 & 12 if you’d like.

Not seen, or at least not apparent and this remnant keeps the commandments and continues to preach the gospel of hope to a sin sick world. And it is this remnant that will be translated to heaven when Jesus returns for His people. Are you counted in that number?

rags

So long as I keep Jesus foremost in my mind & heart and obey His commands, yes.

 

[spina1953]

You have what? What is it exactly about my interpretation that you disagree with? And again. What is that “official understanding that the catholic Church teaches”

rags

I think that any debate as to what Revelation means or does not mean needs to be addressed in a new thread. I am right now only interested in how Protestants explain the 1500 year gap and how that might have happened from their point of view. Revelation does not enter into the discussion at hand.

 

[JonNC]

I think that any debate as to what Revelation means or does not mean needs to be addressed in a new thread. I am right now only interested in how Protestants explain the 1500 year gap and how that might have happened from their point of view. Revelation does not enter into the discussion at hand.

We’ve registered almost 800 posts on something that didn’t happen.
I can’t remember, Spina, did you notice any protestants that did claim a 1,500 year gap?

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, you’re probably right. I should have put it in context. Here it is…………

You didn’t answer my question. Where in the verse does it say that this constitutes the Church as Church, and not simply one aspect of it? The context is about a particular thing. And what is meant by ‘gathering in the name of Christ’? Is it merely gathering and thinking about who Christ is (and what he has done), or does it also include preaching, Eucharist, baptism, etc?

Ya, Ok, he is ministering the gospel to the Gentiles. Nothing in here about liturgy. Only the gospel of Christ, which is totally in line with

No, he is not merely ministering. He is acting as a sacrificial priest. You cannot escape the fact that Paul says that he is ‘acting as a priest.’ It is right there in the text.