Rapture, a Revalations Timeline, and Confusion

[Tom317]

OH!!! So during and because of that “revolt” one third of mankind was killed off by four angels (9:15, 18)? And the rest who did not repent of their murders, sorceries, immorality and thefts? Who are these vast number of men described in 9:20-21? Western, Euopean Protestants?

We are living in the time between the first and second woes. The Revolt was the major attack on the Catholic Church during the first woe.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not if they could not interpret Revelation properly, plus the wide spread use of Bibles was not a 16th century reality.

So you’re saying the Church could not interpret the Bible, and the Church had no Bible?

Once again, to say a particular event was prophecied, one must show:

1. The prophecy was identified as foretelling that event before it happened, and
2. The actual event corresponds to the prophecy.

 

[Tom317]

So you’re saying the Church could not interpret the Bible, and the Church had no Bible?

Once again, to say a particular event was prophecied, one must show:

1. The prophecy was identified as foretelling that event before it happened, and
2. The actual event corresponds to the prophecy.

I never said the Church could that and you know it.

Those are your rules, and if we followed them then Christ as our Savior would come into question because plenty of Jews had an idea of the prophecies of the coming Messiah, but they did NOT read Scripture correctly. Plus, Revelation is far more cryptic then any other book in the Bible.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I never said the Church could that and you know it.

Those are your rules, and if we followed them then Christ as our Savior would come into question because plenty of Jews had an idea of the prophecies of the coming Messiah, but they did NOT read Scripture correctly.

Now there’s a smokescreen for you!

Our belief in Christ is not based on how we interpret prophecies, but rather on the reality of Christ – our interpretation of those prophecies is based on our belief, not the other way around.

Plus, Revelation is far more cryptic then any other book in the Bible.

Which is why one should be especially careful in claiming that it says things that can’t be solidly backed up.

 

[Tom317]

Now there’s a smokescreen for you!

Our belief in Christ is not based on how we interpret prophecies, but rather on the reality of Christ – our interpretation of those prophecies is based on our belief, not the other way around.

Which is why one should be especially careful in claiming that it says things that can’t be solidly backed up.

I agree completely again and will point that statement back to you as well. The Church makes NO formal interpretation of Revelation, yet you seem to think you hold the one true formal interpretation. Perhaps you should take your own advise to heart?

 

[Tom317]

Now there’s a smokescreen for you!

Our belief in Christ is not based on how we interpret prophecies, but rather on the reality of Christ – our interpretation of those prophecies is based on our belief, not the other way around.

I agree completely. My point is that Jews held those prophecies for a very long time, yet could not recognize the Messiah who fulfilled all of them. Likewise, the truths of Revelation are often seen after the fact.

Which is why one should be especially careful in claiming that it says things that can’t be solidly backed up.

I agree completely again and will point that statement back to you as well. The Church makes NO formal interpretation of Revelation, yet you seem to think you hold the one true formal interpretation. Perhaps you should take your own advise to heart?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree completely. My point is that Jews held those prophecies for a very long time, yet could not recognize the Messiah who fulfilled all of them. Likewise, the truths of Revelation are often seen after the fact.

Which is to say, they weren’t predictions of the historical future, but rather parallels that could be seen only after the fact.

I agree completely again and will point that statement back to you as well. The Church makes NO formal interpretation of Revelation, yet you seem to think you hold the one true formal interpretation. Perhaps you should take your own advise to heart?

Remember the rule, “The burden of proof is on him who advances the affirmative position.”

 

[Rawb]

Note to original poster: I think you can see by now, you pays your money and you takes your choice on interpretations of Revelation. I would stick with the generally accepted interpretation of the CC.

That’s for sure! Everyone has an opinion, everyone can back it up, but it’s all so complex and confusing (to me anyway!). It’s like you can pull any number of studies/apologists/commentaries to prove whatever. I agree, I’ll stick with the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

Not Nero, Domitian. Nero had been dead for about 30 years when Revelation was written. The current Emperor, Domitian, resembled Nero in many ways – including launching an Imperial persecution. There was a legend that Nero would come back to life (Nero Revividus) and John plays on that legend and on the similarities between Nero and Domitian.

I think I’ve heard this, thanks for reminding me!

 

[Tom317]

Which is to say, they weren’t predictions of the historical future, but rather parallels that could be seen only after the fact.

Would you say that about Christ?

Remember the rule, “The burden of proof is on him who advances the affirmative position.”

Mine is an interpretation of Revelation, just as everyone else here. I never made a claim to infallibilty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Would you say that about Christ?

Let me post what I said:

Which is to say, they weren’t predictions of the historical future, but rather parallels that could be seen only after the fact.

We see Christ foreshadowed in the Old Testament because we know Yeshua bar Yoseph was the Messiah. The Jews refuse to believe He was, and they do not see Him there.

Mine is an interpretation of Revelation, just as everyone else here. I never made a claim to infallibilty.

Of course – but when you say Revelation predicts the Reformation, I’d like to see you present your evidence. Otherwise, it becomes a simple “I say, you say” discussion, with no scholarship or study on either side.

 

[Tom317]

Let me post what I said:

We see Christ foreshadowed in the Old Testament because we know Yeshua bar Yoseph was the Messiah. The Jews refuse to believe He was, and they do not see Him there.

That is my point. People before Christ knew the prophecies, but they could not see the truth that Christ literally fulfilled those prophecies, they were blind to the truth.

Of course – but when you say Revelation predicts the Reformation, I’d like to see you present your evidence. Otherwise, it becomes a simple “I say, you say” discussion, with no scholarship or study on either side.

Very good point and I agree. When time permit I will respond with reasons why I believe as I do…then you can tear it apart if you desire.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is my point. People before Christ knew the prophecies, but they could not see the truth that Christ literally fulfilled those prophecies, they were blind to the truth.

Which is a key point. Since we cannot see the future in Revelation with any accuracy, then either we are blind to the faith, or we are dealing with something that is not intended to predict the future.

Very good point and I agree. When time permit I will respond with reasons why I believe as I do…then you can tear it apart if you desire.

I look forward to it.

 

[Tom317]

Which is a key point. Since we cannot see the future in Revelation with any accuracy, then either we are blind to the faith, or we are dealing with something that is not intended to predict the future.

Or, we can see the future in terms of general terms, but not in specifics. We know a Great Tribulation will happen, yet deciphering the exact nature of that Tribulation is difficult to predict ahead of time. Prophecy can rarely be seen in its specific details until after the fact…that is the nature of prophecy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Or, we can see the future in terms of general terms, but not in specifics. We know a Great Tribulation will happen, yet deciphering the exact nature of that Tribulation is difficult to predict ahead of time.

We already know tribulations are coming – common human experience. There have been many since Revelation was written – Imperial persecutions, the Muslim conquest of many Christian lands, the Black Plague, the Protestand “reformation,” various brutal wars, and so on.

Prophecy can rarely be seen in its specific details until after the fact…that is the nature of prophecy.

Or it’s the nature of assuming that “prophecy” means “foretelling the historical future.”

 

[spauline]

How about understanding human history, and the spiritual process of the Redemption of humanity? For just as the saint passes through a spiritual process (the three ways of states of the saint), did not also the Jews go through a spiritual process that largely resembles this, and in light of this, is it not also likely that the Church must also pass through this?

For the way of the saint is not entirely only an endless full allegory, although in minor ways this is true. But in a BIG BIG sense, the saint goes through these BIG stages but once:

the Purgative
the Illuminative,
the Unitive

 

[Tom317]

We already know tribulations are coming – common human experience. There have been many since Revelation was written – Imperial persecutions, the Muslim conquest of many Christian lands, the Black Plague, the Protestand “reformation,” various brutal wars, and so on.

Yes, there have been many tribulations of one form or another. However, what is the point of having this conversation if we cannot agree on the very basic truth that a Great Tribulation will happen? I see no hope for a productive talk about Revelation if we cannot even agree on such an obvious fact, that Church holds us true.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, there have been many tribulations of one form or another. However, what is the point of having this conversation if we cannot agree on the very basic truth that a Great Tribulation will happen? I see no hope for a productive talk about Revelation if we cannot even agree on such an obvious fact, that Church holds us true.

The question is not will a Great Tribulation will happen, but will we recognize it? We might be living through it right now, you know.

 

[Tom317]

The question is not will a Great Tribulation will happen, but will we recognize it? We might be living through it right now, you know.

I have said many times that I believe we are at the beginning of the GT. Yet, the Church must still pass through its complete trial, and the anti-Christ has yet to emerge.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have said many times that I believe we are at the beginning of the GT. Yet, the Church must still pass through its complete trial, and the anti-Christ has yet to emerge.

Then again, we might not be in the Great Tribulation. We can’t tell.

 

[Tom317]

Then again, we might not be in the Great Tribulation. We can’t tell.

Well, there are an awful lot of signs that could easily be part of the GT. Yes, I know, we might not be…

The point has always been to be ready because we cannot know the hour and the day. However, with up to a billion babies slaughtered through abortion and birth control, and with the constant wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters, and climate changes, and an apparent global apostasy going on in our midst, I would say there is plenty of reason to think the GT has at least begun–if not already advanced.