The millenium

[cothrige]

I don’t follow you on this. Where is the evidence that evil is any less present in last 2000 years ? The brutality of Roman Empire was much in evidence for next 300 yrs after Christ’s cross. Wars have never diminished. 8 Million Jews were recently starved, Pol Pot’s massacres in S.E. Asia ?? Rwandan genocide. Sex trade is ongoing. Sexual abuses … within the Church. Addictions are rampant.

My understanding of the millenium and the binding of Satan is that it is related to salvation and the Gospel, rather than general evil. Satan is strong and continues to tempt and lure away any who do not perservere in Christ. However, he could not, after having been bound, stop the Church from evangelizing the world and sharing the Gospel message. In that sense he was completely bound, but there will always be war, torture, death, sin, evil, etc. That is clear from Christ’s very words, and none of us can expect to avoid that.

Patrick

 

[spauline]

My understanding of the millenium and the binding of Satan is that it is related to salvation and the Gospel, rather than general evil. Satan is strong and continues to tempt and lure away any who do not perservere in Christ. However, he could not, after having been bound, stop the Church from evangelizing the world and sharing the Gospel message. In that sense he was completely bound, but there will always be war, torture, death, sin, evil, etc. That is clear from Christ’s very words, and none of us can expect to avoid that.

Patrick

It is not necessarily true that there will always be SIGNIFICANT evil. The general mystics prophesy an age of spiritual peace to follow the current minor apostasy and precede the times of the very end.

 

[COPLAND_3]

BRB

I think you may have misunderstood my point, which cothrige has cleared up by explaining that “it is related to salvation and the Gospel, rather than general evil.” But even at that, if Satan had not been bound and he had full reign and the Church did not exist then imagine how much more evil the world would look. If the world suffers the kind of evil that you see now, imagine if there were no Christians to make up a large population. What would America look like if there were no Christians? I am sure there are some that would like that, but they do not share the same values. But when we become a small minority and Satan has full reign, then we will see days on earth that Scripture warns us about, that will be worse than has ever been seen before.

 

[tnystrom]

Before I became Catholic, I was Presbyterian and Amillenial. The Bible does not lean toward millenialism. People have conviently read into scripture that which they want out of it.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is my explanation.

litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/The+1000+Year+Reign-Millennium.

 

[spauline]

BRB

I think you may have misunderstood my point, which cothrige has cleared up by explaining that “it is related to salvation and the Gospel, rather than general evil.” But even at that, if Satan had not been bound and he had full reign and the Church did not exist then imagine how much more evil the world would look. If the world suffers the kind of evil that you see now, imagine if there were no Christians to make up a large population. What would America look like if there were no Christians? I am sure there are some that would like that, but they do not share the same values. But when we become a small minority and Satan has full reign, then we will see days on earth that Scripture warns us about, that will be worse than has ever been seen before.

no, you all misunderstand, because you look with the eyes of FULL allegory instead of partial.

Genesis, in its primary sense, is NOT full allegory, only PARTIAL. If you interpreted Genesis 1-11 like you do the book of revelations, you would see Genesis 1-11 like liberals, fully allegorical, as completely parables of fiction.

In the same vein, the primary sense of the apocalypse is not FULL allegory, but PARTIAL.

The DEGREES of the dragon’s influence in the world is what in question, but since you look with the eyes of FULL allegory, you cannot see it.

FULL allegory sees Revelation 12 and 20 tallking about the same era of the Church from different angles.

PARTIAL allegory sees Revelation 12 and 20 as a literally chronological rendering of the WHOLE of Salvation history, so that in the first age of the Church, pagan Rome, the dragon is waging war in heaven.

From 300 - 1850 [roughly] is the rest of Revelation 12, when the dragon is on the earth.

from 1850 to now is Revelation 13.

The Minor Chastisement is Revelation 16

The Millennium is the Age of Peace.

The final release of the dragon brings Revelation 13-16 into fulfillment again in the Great apostasy and tribulation

it is about DEGREES and STAGES of the dragon’s relationsthip to the world and Church.

Because you are theological pink fairies who are content with utter nicely little cute vague cookies, you are satisfied with amill.

but persons who want substance are unsatisfied.

you are content to view the Church age as nothing but a millennium, because you are content with whipped cream for dinner.

Do you honestly think, you pink winged theological fairies, that all that God wants us to know about the age between the first and second comings is nothing but a vague millennium with darknesses on either end?

Do you think that this utter vagueness is all that God wants us to understand about the Church age?

If you are content with pink winged fairy theology, so be it.

But theologians who are real men will never be satisfied.

I say you unto you left minded hypocrites, that there is a hell of a lot more theological meaning and depth to the age of the Church than you are willing to see.

 

[COPLAND_3]

spauline

no, you all misunderstand, because you look with the eyes of FULL allegory instead of partial.

I disagree. The understanding that the millennium is the Church Age is not full allegory, but it is an actual period of time, just not a literal 1000 years. As a matter of fact, I think I see it more partial than you do.

Genesis, in its primary sense, is NOT full allegory, only PARTIAL. If you interpreted Genesis 1-11 like you do the book of revelations, you would see Genesis 1-11 like liberals, fully allegorical, as completely parables of fiction.

I think you have closed your mind so tight that you are unable to see your own hipocrasy while you have blasted away. I interpret Genesis no differently that I do Revelation, I stay as literal as I can while understanding that the Word of God speaks in metaphors and other figures of speech. When is says (Gen 3:8) that they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden, I understand that has a figurative meaning, just like the Devil being bound with a chain for a 1000 years. I understand these events as something that is just as real as the keypad that I am typing on, which has no similarity to believing in some kind of fairy tale parable. I believe the words in Revelation are real events with real creatures, just like I also believe about Genesis. While I find your formula of interpretation to be very creative and original, I honestly believe that you take a vague position yourself. But if you are comparing me to some of the other amillennials who are radically allegorical to where nothing is what it appears to be, then I believe that I am in a different catagory of amillennials.

PARTIAL allegory sees Revelation 12 and 20 as a literally chronological rendering of the WHOLE of Salvation history, so that in the first age of the Church, pagan Rome, the dragon is waging war in heaven.

That is all a well if that is your position, and I think there is some entertaining thoughts of truth within it, but I see a lot of private analogical formulation envolved. What you are doing different from me is, that I understand some of the speech being used as figurative language that symbolizes something real, while you are taking these events and using what I would consider to be good analogy, but you are saying they represent different periods of time. I think the problem would be is just in the case that Church history goes on for another 2000 years then I think you are going to run out of chapters in the Apocalypse to apply to your formula, unless of course you know the date when Christ comes agains.

 

[Tammy111]

It seems that you all are trying to establish a circumstantial eschatologr; not a Scriptural and Historical.

 

[spauline]

spauline

I disagree. The understanding that the millennium is the Church Age is not full allegory, but it is an actual period of time, just not a literal 1000 years. As a matter of fact, I think I see it more partial than you do.

I think you have closed your mind so tight that you are unable to see your own hipocrasy while you have blasted away. I interpret Genesis no differently that I do Revelation, I stay as literal as I can while understanding that the Word of God speaks in metaphors and other figures of speech. When is says (Gen 3:8) that they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden, I understand that has a figurative meaning, just like the Devil being bound with a chain for a 1000 years. I understand these events as something that is just as real as the keypad that I am typing on, which has no similarity to believing in some kind of fairy tale parable. I believe the words in Revelation are real events with real creatures, just like I also believe about Genesis. While I find your formula of interpretation to be very creative and original, I honestly believe that you take a vague position yourself. But if you are comparing me to some of the other amillennials who are radically allegorical to where nothing is what it appears to be, then I believe that I am in a different catagory of amillennials.

That is all a well if that is your position, and I think there is some entertaining thoughts of truth within it, but I see a lot of private analogical formulation envolved. What you are doing different from me is, that I understand some of the speech being used as figurative language that symbolizes something real, while you are taking these events and using what I would consider to be good analogy, but you are saying they represent different periods of time. I think the problem would be is just in the case that Church history goes on for another 2000 years then I think you are going to run out of chapters in the Apocalypse to apply to your formula, unless of course you know the date when Christ comes agains.

you still don’t get it.

For you, in the end, the only thing that will ever be understood about the Church age dogmatically is, it was a field of wheat and tares, and all kinds of gray areas arose up (but what they are doesn’t matter, never mind the Church defines some of them), and eventually it was all weeded out to maturity, and then there was a final battle between the ultimate good and evil.

This is precisely what I am challenging, precisely because you ignore the greater context of Scripture, Tradition, and the approved mystics.

If we follow the mystics, what you have settled for is way too damn vague.

Here is what the Church will most likely define if the mystics are indeed correct in their general sense:

I. Pagans [Rome] persecute: the Purgative Way

II. The Illuminative Way:
A. Initial Christological and Trinitarian Heresies
B. Islam
C. The Great Schism
D. The Scandal of late Middle Age Clergy
E. The Protestant Rebellion
F. The [so-called] Enlightenment
G. The Dark Night of the Soul: the modern Minor Secular Apostasy

III. The Unitive Way:
A. The Minor Chastisement [vindication of Catholic Revelation through the experience of the consequence of all error]
B. The Millennium, or Age of Peace [reunion of Christians and fullness of Gentiles]
C. The Great Apostasy and Conversion of Jews
D. The Great Tribulation

The Second Coming and New Creation.

Let me give some advice: in Augustine’s time, it was not known by the Church that there is a BIG DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL that separates the illuminative way from the unitive.

But since we know, we need to rethink the Millennium.

If we do, the Millennium is no longer the conglomerate of the illuminative and untive way, but is ONLY the unitive way.

But, go ahead, be content with fairy wings, copland. Be content.

Personally, I am not. And there ain’t nothin you can do about it.

And if you think you are so smart, answer me this:

if amill is the only thing the Church will ever know, let us suppose that the modern world will come back to the Gospel, and fall away and come back 234 times in the bigger picture. And that the apostasy number 235 will be the final one. If amill is all that is revealed in the Deposit of Faith, how the hell will the Church KNOW that number 235 is the FINAL apostasy?

Because, if you read the CCC, and get your head out of your rear, you would see that it specifically states that the Church will RECOGNIZE WHEN the final manifestation of iniquity will be present.

How the hell will that be, if amill is all they have? If you say, that the Church will know simply because ONLY ONE apostasy will occur in Church history, I say, who said that? The Church? And then you will deal with PRIVATE Revelation that says, MAYBE, there will be TWO apostasies in Church history, and not merely ONE? And the issue of this debate is UNsettled.

So I throw the question back at you. Who determines which scenario is correct, and the theological implications of each? If you say, it doesn’t matter, you commit doctrinal suicide. Simply because, this very question presses the Church to settle it.

 

[spauline]

Here’s what I’m saying, copland.

Prior to Augustine (and even Augustine himself), the Fathers saw the days of creation as a metaphor for the Recreation of the world, that is, the stages of the Redemption of the human race.

The Tradition is consistent: the days of creation are not merely SEVEN, but, by Tradition, are EIGHT (don’t believe me, see the CCC on the keeping of the Sabbath day. Saturday is the seventh day, Sunday is the eighth day [and the first]). Similarly, in Revelation, the beast has SEVEN heads that are extended to EIGHT [Revelation 17:9-11]. In that text, five heads are delineated as having past. One existed, one had yet to come, and [presumably] an eighth was even anticipated. St. Hypollytus suggested that the heads of the beast could represent “ages.”

Augustine and St. Methodius of Olympus both testify that five ages are the Old Law “five heads of the beast have fallen”].

Note also the symbolism of the days: a day begins with “evening” [darkness, a stage of SIN], and is followed by “morning” [light, REDEMPTION].

Now, Augustine delineates the ages of the Old Law:

I. From Adam to Noah
II. From Noah to Abraham
III. From Abraham to David
IV. From David to the Babylonian Captivity
V. From the Captivity to Christ

Now, if we assume the mystics’ scenario, then, in effect, there are TRULY eight ages in total:

VI. From Christ to Catholic Christendom
VII. From Catholic Christendom to the Age of Peace
VIII. From the Age of Peace to the New Creation

But if we take amill, one of the seventh or eighth ages must be either eliminated or explained away, or else fused with the other one. Why? Because for Augustine [in his second solution, mind you, the one that is most attributed, that is, amill], the sixth darkness is clearly pagan Rome, and then there is simply, the “Millennium”, which, in this case, is simply the “morning” of the SIXTH day, and then there is the darkness of the GREAT apostasy [the “evening” of the SEVENTH day], followed by the New Creation, which is simply the “morning” of the SEVENTH day. But the Seventh day is NOT eternal Sabbath.

Hence, Augustinianism is really the NEGATION of COMMON SENSE: the sixth and seventh days are ONE in the same. Because, since Christ is “reigning”, there is rest [the seventh day], but it is also a day of work [the sixth day], because “take up your cross and follow Me.”

Hence, the field of wheat and tares.

But this negates common sense in two primary instances: there are SEVEN days in a week, and the sixth, seventh, and eighth days are MUTUALLY exclusive. Similarly, in any key in music, there are SEVEN notes, and sixth, seventh, and eighth are MUTUALLY exclusive.

Further, the eighth day ALONE returns one to the first, just as the eighth note ALONE returns one to the first.

Hence, Augustinianism is basically denying COMMON SENSE, that is, it explains away the Seventh day, or note, as though it is, in the end, nothing but the sixth.

With the mystics scenario, there is no need to do this. With the mystics, the SEVENTH day is itself DISTINCT from BOTH the sixth and eighth, and is, in effect, the Age of Peace that is prophesied to partition the MINOR Apostasy and Tribulation from the GREAT Apostasy and Tribulation.

IOW, Augustinianism either denies that an intermediate apostasy shall be cured before the great one, or else, says that Divine Revelation, in effect, has nothing to say about the intermediate apostasy that is healed, even if it will come.

THAT is what I am contesting.

If this is not clear, let me know.

IOW, if the mystics are correct, there are indeed, THREE great subages of darkness in the age of the Church [pagan Rome (the sixth), the Minor Apostasy (the seventh), and the Great Apostasy (the eighth)], rather than merely TWO, as with amill [pagan Rome (the sixth), and the Great Apostasy (the seventh [and what happened to the eighth?])].

 

[COPLAND_3]

spauline

Your points are so scattered that I am having trouble following you, which my ADD doesn’t help! And plus you are not giving any citations to your mystics or even the Catechism. In my critique I have backed up my position with the Catechism, Scripture, and Early Church Fathers. litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Eschatology

I hope you plan on giving citations to the mystics because I would sure enjoy exploring new ground myself. I am very open minded, but you are giving me almost nothing to work with.

And if you think you are so smart, answer me this:

if amill is the only thing the Church will ever know, let us suppose that the modern world will come back to the Gospel, and fall away and come back 234 times in the bigger picture. And that the apostasy number 235 will be the final one. If amill is all that is revealed in the Deposit of Faith, how the hell will the Church KNOW that number 235 is the FINAL apostasy?

I must say, I am not smart, which is obvious because I have no idea what you are talking about. Your question makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Lev23]

i am so overwhelmed by all these different interpretations i’m in rapture. oops

And go figure, they are all catholic interpretations.

 

[Lev23]

When we get caught up in the details we sometimes miss the message. That said, Biblical study of the end of times is intriguing!

ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL.

Yet no one on this thread with all their “studies” even hint at Israel, the land and the people.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Lev23

ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL.

Yet no one on this thread with all their “studies” even hint at Israel, the land and the people.

Well, we can start touching on it. I believe that the Church is the new Israel, the “Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:16) Whether or not Israel reorganizes as a nation has no necessary bearing on the New Covenant. The Catechism teaches that there will be at some point in time a ‘full inclusion’ of the Jews in the New Covenant (CCC 674 while quoting Romans 11:12), but nothing about how this might take place. It teaches about the future reality of repentance and spiritual renewal on the part of ‘all Israel’, it states nothing about the necessity of Israel returing to the Promised Land-the restoration of Israel as a nation is not the central issue in Catholic theology as is among Dispensationalists.

 

[spauline]

spauline

Your points are so scattered that I am having trouble following you, which my ADD doesn’t help! And plus you are not giving any citations to your mystics or even the Catechism. In my critique I have backed up my position with the Catechism, Scripture, and Early Church Fathers. litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Eschatology

I hope you plan on giving citations to the mystics because I would sure enjoy exploring new ground myself. I am very open minded, but you are giving me almost nothing to work with.

I must say, I am not smart, which is obvious because I have no idea what you are talking about. Your question makes no sense to me at all.

hey, man, I’m sorry for being so mean. Forgive me if you can.

If I explained better, then I think you would be able to see the order that i’m talkin about.

In part, I’m trying to look at history through a big spiritual lense.

My sense is, because you are ADD, you are constantly looking at details of big big eras that are exceptions, and because of the exceptions, you throw the baby out with the bath water, which is to say, “but look at all this little history, alot of which doesn’t fit the big big era…”

I’m trying to look at Salvation history through a ROUGH, GENERAL lense.

If you can handle that, and if I could explain better what I’m getting at, I think then you could see that I am not scattered but quite ordered.

I have a thread called Preterism cannot be full implications of Apoc, that would shed far more light.

I just don’t have the time to go into a long diatribe.

Again, I apologize, copland, for my harshness and lack of charity. I am a passionate man! ( )

For now, I will just leave it at this.

GB,
scott

 

[COPLAND_3]

spauline

No problem my friend. But I was concerned that somebody may have hyjacked your user name and password, it just did not sound like you. I bet that if you trace your linage back you will find that you have some St. Jerome blood in you!

What I am very interested in is some writings of the mystics that seem to inspire you and your position.

As for how I look at End Times, I rely on the Fathers and Doctors of the Church combined with our current Catholic theology. But I am not afraid to give other positions of the millennium in my critique because the Fathers who were considered heavy weights held some different positions, such as St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, St. Papias, St. Justin, etc But I highly reject some of the teachings that come from the modern Pre-millennialists who have a negative view of the Church within God’s plan.

But anyway, I don’t think that I am saying anything that you have not already known.