What Does Revelations Say?

[Tom317]

I wish I could agree that it was as simple as that…

I believe it is. I think we tend to make the book far more then it is.

I think the reformation, and all sorts of other events in history are contained in the book, hidden well in allegorical and symbolic language.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I believe it is. I think we tend to make the book far more then it is.

I think the reformation, and all sorts of other events in history are contained in the book, hidden well in allegorical and symbolic language.

I don’t think so. Revelation was written for the First Century, not the Sixteenth or the Twenty-First. Despite what the supermarket tabloids would have us believe, it is not a weather forecast or a stock market predictor.

We should interpret it in the light of the First Century, and apply its timeless teaching to our own day without looking for all sorts of signs and calamaties.

 

[spauline]

I don’t think so. Revelation was written for the First Century, not the Sixteenth or the Twenty-First. Despite what the supermarket tabloids would have us believe, it is not a weather forecast or a stock market predictor.

We should interpret it in the light of the First Century, and apply its timeless teaching to our own day without looking for all sorts of signs and calamaties.

spiritual historicism is not the same as tabloid #$%! or the left-behind crowd. Spiritual historicism is understanding the SPIRITUAL meaning of Church history and how the Plan of Christ for the redemption of humanity will be understood, in terms of its meaning.

Admittedly, on ONE LAYER, the book applies to the Early Church and its struggles, and in another layer, it can be idealistic for any age.

And, admittedly, Fundamentalist speculation about specific Gentile nations and times, etc, is absurd, I agree. But on the other hand, there must, at a bare minimum, be a level of meaning that addresses the full implications and meaning of all salvation history, questions that are deeper than any that are typically asked by any of the typical crowds today.

I have repeatedly called many persons on this boards’ attention to these, but they ignore it. this is a problem that has been caused by the fundamentalist stigma. Because the tabloids and fundies in general ask the wrong TYPES of Q’s about the subject, the common response has been to the opposite extreme: there are NO legitimate apocalyptic questions other than the lefty mushy wushy, “in the end, God will win, so forget about it…”

For exploring the depths of how Christ’s body has been wounded by division, a division that has led to a great loss of faith, and pondering if Christ can yet heal these wounds and restore humanity for a greater spiritual good that merely the Middle Ages is pertinent, for it in part involves the question of how much grace and redemption Christ can bring to humanity before their falling away is incurable.

I echo Tom317, that elements such as Islam, the Great Schism, or the Protestant Revolt, because they are SPIRITUAL developments in Church history, may in fact have some essence veiled in the Scriptures could be true, for such is to delve deeper into how man has fallen as far as he has now.

 

[vern_humphrey]

spiritual historicism is not the same as tabloid #$%! or the left-behind crowd. Spiritual historicism is understanding the SPIRITUAL meaning of Church history and how the Plan of Christ for the redemption of humanity will be understood, in terms of its meaning.

Admittedly, on ONE LAYER, the book applies to the Early Church and its struggles, and in another layer, it can be idealistic for any age.

And, admittedly, Fundamentalist speculation about specific Gentile nations and times, etc, is absurd, I agree. But on the other hand, there must, at a bare minimum, be a level of meaning that addresses the full implications and meaning of all salvation history, questions that are deeper than any that are typically asked by any of the typical crowds today.

I have repeatedly called many persons on this boards’ attention to these, but they ignore it. this is a problem that has been caused by the fundamentalist stigma. Because the tabloids and fundies in general ask the wrong TYPES of Q’s about the subject, the common response has been to the opposite extreme: there are NO legitimate apocalyptic questions other than the lefty mushy wushy, “in the end, God will win, so forget about it…”

For exploring the depths of how Christ’s body has been wounded by division, a division that has led to a great loss of faith, and pondering if Christ can yet heal these wounds and restore humanity for a greater spiritual good that merely the Middle Ages is pertinent, for it in part involves the question of how much grace and redemption Christ can bring to humanity before their falling away is incurable.

I echo Tom317, that elements such as Islam, the Great Schism, or the Protestant Revolt, because they are SPIRITUAL developments in Church history, may in fact have some essence veiled in the Scriptures could be true, for such is to delve deeper into how man has fallen as far as he has now.

Certainly there will be a struggle with sin, heresy and apostasy until the* Parousia*, but beyond that I don’t see any great predictions for modern times – Revelation seems straightforward when interpreted as relating to the world in which John lived.

 

[M-Dent]

I have always found Rev 22:11,13 was a wonderful summation of all the books.

11 Let the wicked still act wickedly, and the filthy still be filthy. The righteous must still do right, and the holy still be holy."

12 "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.

13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Free will in a nutshell.

Though the imagery throughout the Book of Revelation is absolutely fascinating, and well worthy of study, I for one am most concerned any day could be my last; and my own Particular Judgement could be tommorow. So these words are timeless. Whether it be in the past, present, or future Jesus is always coming soon, for someone. We just need to be prepared everyday.

 

[spauline]

Certainly there will be a struggle with sin, heresy and apostasy until the* Parousia*, but beyond that I don’t see any great predictions for modern times – Revelation seems straightforward when interpreted as relating to the world in which John lived.

I’m not sure what you mean by “great predictions for modern times”, and, again, I’m not talking about “predictions for the sake of predictions”, nor am I talking about predictions of temporal calamities. I guess at this point, it is your very disposition that is the problem, and it constitutes a great ignorance in regard to the subject. But I guess I don’t really know how to explain it to you and similar persons, because you lack, for whatever reason, the ability to grasp even what is being asked.

Again, it really centers around the “restrainer” section of 2 Thess. Which is to question how the Church will recognize what degree of Redemption Christ has willed to give to humanity before the final manifestation of sin, and what then also involves the Church understanding the psychology behind how the world will come to reject the Gospel in a near total and irrevocable manner.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not sure what you mean by “great predictions for modern times”, and, again, I’m not talking about “predictions for the sake of predictions”, nor am I talking about predictions of temporal calamities. I guess at this point, it is your very disposition that is the problem, and it constitutes a great ignorance in regard to the subject. But I guess I don’t really know how to explain it to you and similar persons, because you lack, for whatever reason, the ability to grasp even what is being asked. .

Thank you for the insult.

 

[Tom317]

I don’t think so. Revelation was written for the First Century, not the Sixteenth or the Twenty-First. Despite what the supermarket tabloids would have us believe, it is not a weather forecast or a stock market predictor.

We should interpret it in the light of the First Century, and apply its timeless teaching to our own day without looking for all sorts of signs and calamaties.

I disagree. I think the first century is revealed in the book, and yet so is the rest of Christian history.

 

[Tom317]

Certainly there will be a struggle with sin, heresy and apostasy until the* Parousia*, but beyond that I don’t see any great predictions for modern times – Revelation seems straightforward when interpreted as relating to the world in which John lived.

I don’t agree, I feel the book, taken as a whole, makes very little sense applied to the first century.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I disagree. I think the first century is revealed in the book, and yet so is the rest of Christian history.

I assume you mean eschatological history as opposed to temporal history – in other words, not assuming that things that are not in history will be realized in historical time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t agree, I feel the book, taken as a whole, makes very little sense applied to the first century.

How so?

Does it discuss things like aircraft and tanks in the war it portrays? Does it see Rome as representing the Church, and not the Roman Empire?

Does it not discuss things like the brands for slaves (on the forehead) and soldiers (on the hand) common to the Roman Empire, but not to today?

Does it not use the Pythagorian system of numerology and symbols? (Certainly Iraneaus said it did.) Does it not play on the legend of Nero Revividus, a common late First Century legend?

 

[Tom317]

I assume you mean eschatological history as opposed to temporal history – in other words, not assuming that things that are not in history will be realized in historical time.

I mean that the major events impacting the Church from its inception until Jesus returns. For example: Luther and the development and spread of Protestantism is revealed in chapter nine.

 

[Tom317]

How so?

Does it discuss things like aircraft and tanks in the war it portrays? Does it see Rome as representing the Church, and not the Roman Empire?

Does it not discuss things like the brands for slaves (on the forehead) and soldiers (on the hand) common to the Roman Empire, but not to today?

Does it not use the Pythagorian system of numerology and symbols? (Certainly Iraneaus said it did.) Does it not play on the legend of Nero Revividus, a common late First Century legend?

Yes, to most of that. Yet, a I said the book can be applied partially to the first century, but the majority of the book has nothing to do with the early Church. Of course, imo.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I mean that the major events impacting the Church from its inception until Jesus returns. For example: Luther and the development and spread of Protestantism is revealed in chapter nine.

If that’s true, why didn’t we know it before it happened, and prevent it?

It is one thing to look backward and claim something was prophesied, another thing entirely to look forward and see the future.

The Church in John’s time was beset with heretics – the seven letters discuss several of them. No need to claim that a specific heretic was prophesied far in the future - John understood there would always be heretics.

 

[Tom317]

If that’s true, why didn’t we know it before it happened, and prevent it?

It is one thing to look backward and claim something was prophesied, another thing entirely to look forward and see the future.

The Church in John’s time was beset with heretics – the seven letters discuss several of them. No need to claim that a specific heretic was prophesied far in the future - John understood there would always be heretics.

Two reasons: (1) Most people do not look at the book the same that I do; (2) The symbolic language entices people to think of other interpretations. Example: The woman clothed with sun is often seen by Catholic interpreters as being the Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes Israel and sometimes both. Whereas in my case I believe the woman to be literally the Church, but can only symbolically seen as being Mary or Israel. This multi-possible layering has caused great confusion over the course of history.

As for your point about the heretics, I agree. The letters to the Churches were intended for the universal Church of the first and second centuries.

Note: Being a deeply infallible lay Catholic, it is quite likely I am wrong, yet obviously I don’t think so.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Two reasons: (1) Most people do not look at the book the same that I do;

Are you saying the Church looks at it wrong?

(2) The symbolic language entices people to think of other interpretations. Example: The woman clothed with sun is often seen by Catholic interpreters as being the Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes Israel and sometimes both. Whereas in my case I believe the woman to be literally the Church, but can only symbolically seen as being Mary or Israel. This multi-possible layering has caused great confusion over the course of history.

Okay – but how does this not make Revelation a First Century document, oriented on First Century issues?

As for your point about the heretics, I agree. The letters to the Churches were intended for the universal Church of the first and second centuries.

Note: Being a deeply infallible lay Catholic, it is quite likely I am wrong, yet obviously I don’t think so.

'Fess up. You’re really Tony Shaloob, aren’t you?

 

[Tom317]

Are you saying the Church looks at it wrong?

No, not at all. The Church does not offer a formal view of Revelation.

Okay – but how does this not make Revelation a First Century document, oriented on First Century issues?

The first part of the book is about the early Church, the rest is post-inception Church history through the end of time.

'Fess up. You’re really Tony Shaloob, aren’t you?

Who is Tony Shaloob?

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, not at all. The Church does not offer a formal view of Revelation.

The first part of the book is about the early Church, the rest is post-inception Church history through the end of time.

Why is it not all about the early Church? That is, why is it not a First Century view of the Church and its ultimate triumph, without necessarily predicting anything other than that?

Who is Tony Shaloob?

“Detective Adrian Monk” on TV – his theme song includes “I could be wrong . . . but I don’t think so.”

 

[Tom317]

Why is it not all about the early Church? That is, why is it not a First Century view of the Church and its ultimate triumph, without necessarily predicting anything other than that?

Mainly because I believe that the text (after the first seection) speaks of events beyond the first century and because I feel the text proves that.

?

 

[Tom317]

Mainly because I believe that the text (after the first seection) speaks of events beyond the first century and because I feel the text proves that.

?