Revelation prophecy; the futility of date-setting

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

My biggest problem is that date setting is expressly stated to be impossible, yet most of today's Christians still follow Jesuit Futurism that sets dates and markers for the end times. Futurism is Counter Reformation propaganda that is supported by the Roman Catholic Church, and was also latched onto by those who wish to garner support for modern Israel.


Francisco Ribera (1537–1591)
In order to remove the papacy of the Catholic Church from consideration as the Antichrist (as an act of countering the Protestant Reformation), Ribera began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, proposing that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse apply to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3½ literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy because of the Reformation cry stating that "the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist." (Martin Luther, Aug. 18, 1520). Then, he proposed, the Antichrist, a single individual, would:

Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
Abolish the Christian religion.
Deny Jesus Christ.
Be received by the Jews.
Pretend to be God.
Kill the two witnesses of God.
Conquer the world.

To accomplish this, Ribera proposed that the 1260 days and 42 months and 3½ times of prophecy were not 1260 years as based on the year-day principle (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6), but a literal 3½ years, hence preventing the arrival of the deduction of (i) the 1260 years to be related to the Dark Ages (according to the Historicism (Christianity) interpretation of eschatology from 538 A.D. when the papal power was fully established in Rome until its political blow in 1798 A.D., when Louis-Alexandre Berthier the general of Napoleon captured pope Pius VI as prisoner to Valence, France) and (ii) the Antichrist to be related to papacy.

The problem with this “Futurist” interpretation is that it gives a time line that is so exact, that it contradicts Christs statements that the end would come as a “thief in the night”. According to Futurism, we know that we only have 3.5 years after the claimed “peace treaty” in Israel.

In reality, I believe that the prophecy of Daniel, which futurists point to as being the peace treaty, is an intentional misinterpretation by Ribera as part of his cover story that the RCC is not specifically mentioned in Revelation. The whole verse is actually talking about Christ, and his fulfillment of Gods covenant with the Jews, not some Future Antichrist. The 70 weeks ended 3.5 years after the death of Christ, but Ribera would have Christians believe that for some inexplicable reason it is actually a 7 year period that is somehow magically moved into the future.

In reality, I believe that we are already in the Tribulation, and have been since the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. Revelation encompasses the entirety of the “age of the Church”, and the tribulation of the church has already happened under the Roman Empire, and Roman Catholic Church. This means that the “end” could literally come at any time now, and fits the biblical idea that it can come as a “thief in the night”.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
It should not really matter when Jesus will return. What matter, is you all should be prepared and ready for his return, so he can except you in his father kingdom.

The Bible never mention that Babylon is a nation, it mention it as the capital city of the anti-Christ. His empire is eight empire, which consist of the territory of the first six empires that had rule over Israel and control it people, plus the territory of the 7th empire that will rule over Israel and control it people. Babylon will be the capital of the eight empire.

Here's a clue for you all. The seals are seven years each. The trumpets are 42 months each, three and a half years. The bowls are 6 months each. Y'all should know that three seals had already been broken.
edit on 22-4-2012 by kennethmd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I've been banging on about this on ATS almost since day one here, and I must say that after going back and reading some of the posts in this thread, I'm really happy that other folks are starting to get that the whole Futurism racket is nothing more then a scam. A hoax perpetrated by one of the “beasts” to cause a delusion among protestant Christians so as to hide that “beast's” place in prophecy.
There have been some good posts in this thread so far.


If you doubt that there are still those who are working hard to hide the truth, and spread this propaganda, just watch Wikipedia on any of the relevant topics involving things such as the Pontifex Maximus. Watch how the apologists are constantly trying to muddy the waters there by casting doubt into the historically known facts. It used to be that when I would quote Wiki on ATS, within a week, the Wiki page would be altered from the quotes that I would use to show that the Pontiff was actually the “little horn”. This went on religiously for years, and the last time I looked someone had changed it again to make it appear that passing of the title from Emperors to Bishops happened at a much earlier time then it has been historically known to have happened.

Hal Lindsey's “Late Great Plant Earth” is probably the worst thing that happened to Christianity in almost 2000 years. It really helped to spread this lie among Christianity, including pastors who had no formal training in eschatology.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 4/22/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Ribera may have defined a specific form of Futurism, but he was hardly the first person to attempt calculations of the end-times. There was Joachim of Fiore, for example, who worked out that things were going to start happening in A.D. 1260. All through mediaeval times there were popular millenarian movements, and a detailed image of the Antichrist figure was being built up. So it seems to me that "futurism" in a more general sense well predates Ribera.

For that matter, I think of my own approach in these threads as "futurist", even though I resolutely refuse to make calculations, because it certainly isn't preterite or historicist. I see Revelation as a description of future events, where the labels describing the time-periods are not meant for calculation..


In reality, I believe that the prophecy of Daniel, which futurists point to as being the peace treaty, is an intentional misinterpretation by Ribera

I agree with you that the "peace treaty" is a fantasy, but I've got a completely different reason.
That theory builds on a verse where the king "makes covenant with many".
But a covenant, whether it be between humans or between God and the corporate Israel, is normally between two parties.
So I think that "makes covenant with many" is not talking about a single multiple-party agreement, such as a "peace treaty" would have to be, but about a whole series of one-to-one agreements.
Then I compare that verse with Revelation ch17 v13, where the ten kings "give over their authority to the Beast", and I think those two verses are talking about the same thing.
They are both describing how that ruler is building up a network of subordinate allies, as he covenants with each one of them (Daniel) and they give him their allegiance (Revelation).

On AD 70 as begiining the Tribulation; I have problems, which I will expound better in an eventual thread, with identifying A.D.70 with Mattthew ch24 v15, if that's what you've got in mind, either as prophecy or as "prophecy after the event".
edit on 22-4-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kennethmd
It should not really matter when Jesus will return. What matter, is you all should be prepared and ready for his return, so he can except you in his father kingdom.

Absolutely right. I could not agree more.


The Bible never mention that Babylon is a nation, it mention it as the capital city of the anti-Christ. His empire is eight empire, which consist of the territory of the first six empires that had rule over Israel and control it people, plus the territory of the 7th empire that will rule over Israel and control it people. Babylon will be the capital of the eight empire.

I would be reluctant to identify Babylon in such detail.
To me, the important points about Babylon and Rome are that each, in their time, are
a) World-dominant
b) Hostile to the Biblical faith.
So I see them as models for some similar power.


Here's a clue for you all. The seals are seven years each. The trumpets are 42 months each, three and a half years. The bowls are 6 months each. Y'all should know that three seals had already been broken.

Oh dear. We agreed that date-calculating was unnecessary, and now you're falling into it.
This paragraph illustrates how problematic such calculations are, because each of the first three statements are disputable.
As for the first three seals being broken; my own view of Revelation ch6 is that the first four seals, the "Four Horsemen", come in close proximity as aspects of one major time of catastrophe, which we haven't seen yet.
I've done two threads on the subject, one describing their purpose, and the other trying to envisage what the experience would look like.

edit on 22-4-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by kennethmd
It should not really matter when Jesus will return. What matter, is you all should be prepared and ready for his return, so he can except you in his father kingdom.

Absolutely right. I could not agree more.


The Bible never mention that Babylon is a nation, it mention it as the capital city of the anti-Christ. His empire is eight empire, which consist of the territory of the first six empires that had rule over Israel and control it people, plus the territory of the 7th empire that will rule over Israel and control it people. Babylon will be the capital of the eight empire.

I would be reluctant to identify Babylon in such detail.
To me, the important points about Babylon and Rome are that each, in their time, are
a) World-dominant
b) Hostile to the Biblical faith.
So I see them as models for some similar power.


Here's a clue for you all. The seals are seven years each. The trumpets are 42 months each, three and a half years. The bowls are 6 months each. Y'all should know that three seals had already been broken.

Oh dear. We agreed that date-calculating was unnecessary, and now you're falling into it.
This paragraph illustrates how problematic such calculations are, because each of the first three statements are disputable.
As for the first three seals being broken; my own view of Revelation ch6 is that the first four seals, the "Four Horsemen", come in close proximity as aspects of one major time of catastrophe, which we haven't seen yet.
I've done two threads on the subject, one describing their purpose, and the other trying to envisage what the experience would look like.

edit on 22-4-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)
I didn't mention about a time period. I give the clue that the events in Revelation take place in order, not point of view like most people.
Babylon could be New York, Rome, Babylon or any city.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kennethmd
 

Sorry- when you said the seals were "seven years each" etc, I thought you were talking about literal years.
If you understand them as symbolic years, then my comments don't apply (though I still don't see a reason for those identifications).



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by DISRAELI
I see Revelation as a description of future events, where the labels describing the time-periods are not meant for calculation..

Even if you follow Historicism some of the events of Revelation are to happen in the future, for obvious reasons. I believe that only Preterism, another Catholic dogma intended to deflect blame away from the Pontiff, teaches that it mostly relates to past events.

The problem with Futurism, is that the whole thing is set up to follow a very strictly defined timeline, that eliminates any possibility of the “end” coming as a surprise.


Originally posted by DISRAELI
That theory builds on a verse where the king "makes covenant with many".
But a covenant, whether it be between humans or between God and the corporate Israel, is normally between two parties.

The key to understanding what the covenant was about is to understand why the “sacrifice and the oblation” was taken away. That is in the bible, here:

Matthew 27:51
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

The temple veil is this:

Tabernacle
The Holy of Holies was hidden by a veil, and no one was permitted to enter except the High Priest, and even he could only enter once a year on the Day of Atonement, to offer the blood of sacrifice and incense before the mercy seat.

The reason being that Christ made the ultimate sacrifice, and any lesser animal sacrifice is now unnecessary, and I would imagine would be rather insulting to God after he sent his son to die for us.

Continuing to give the animal sacrifice would be rejection of Christs sacrifice, rejection of Christ, and I would have to imagine an abomination to God. You want to know what your “abomination that makes desolate” is, there is a very good possibility it was continuing animal sacrifices. God then allowed to the Romans (the people of the price) to destroy the temple, and it to be “trodden under the feet of gentiles”, as he no longer accepts the sacrifice as valid:

Luke 21:24
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Jerusalem is no longer needed for Gods plan, and Gods covenant to them is fulfilled. Futurism has been used by some to support the idea that Israel had to be “rebuilt”, but the bible doesn't in fact ever say that. As a matter of fact, rebuilding the Temple, and resuming the sacrifice would most likely be seen as further rejection of Christ's gift of salvation.

Why would any Christian stand in support of that?
The fact is that they wouldn't, so the interpretation had to be be altered to make it appear to be a necessity to the return of Christ.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

At least rejecting the idea that "the Temple has to be rebuilt" is another area where I'm in full agreement.
I touched on that in my thread on "The Beast and the Temple".



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but John Wesley wrote his explanatory notes on Revelation around 1755. He knew that the 1260 years (42 months) were ending, and the Rome was about to be wounded. This is what he wrote:


John Westley's Explanatory Notes
Out of the earth — Out of Asia. But he is not yet come, though he cannot be far off for he is to appear at the end of the forty-two months of the first beast.


So he knew that the final beast was not “far off”, he was only wrong in thinking it would come from Asia. It never dawned on him that the last world superpower (“beast”) would be coming up in a little colony over across the sea from him in 1776. So here we have the US declaring independence, around the same time that Papal Authority was being removed from Europe by Napoleon. That is the wounding of one beast and the rise of the second beast that would have the appearance of a “lamb” (appearance of being a christian nation). The US was also the first nation to use nuclear weapons (call fire down from the sky). Three guesses which nation is also pushing all its allies into getting national ID programs since 911?

So your world superpowers are this:
Daniel
1)Babylon
2)Media/Persia
3)Greece
4)Rome
The little horn is the Pontifex Maximus.

Revelation:
1)Rome having ingested the preceding superpowers
2)The United States


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

The Papacy and the United States as the two beasts of Revelation ch13?
But the second beast "exercises all the authority of the first beast" and "makes the world and its inhabitants worship the first beast".
In what respect is the States doing this for the Papacy?
I find it easier to think of the second beast as the human leader of the state represented by the first beast- the relationship between Empire and Emperor, between the Nazi Reich and Adolf Hitler.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Well the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Empire were sort of mashed together. The Roman Empire never really ended, it just handed increasing amounts of its power over to the Pontiff. So what you want to really ask is whether or not the US is based on the same system or law and government as the Romans? The answer to this, is of course, yes.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

It's a little difficult to stretch "being based on same kind of law" into "causing to worship", especially since the refusal to worship is the reason for martydom.
If you make those identifications, you've got to think of some reason why a Christian refusal to give worship to Rome should cause the United States government to execute them.

Anyway, think back to what was happening in John's time.
The reason for the executions was refusal to sacrifice to the Emperor, who was really just a front man for the Empire as an object of worship- in other words, the Empire was worshipping itself in these sacrifices.
I look for something following the same model.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I should also point out where the title of Pope comes from.
Did you know that it is from the title Pontifex Maximus, which is where we get “holy pontiff” from.
The first Pontiff was not Peter as the RCC claims, but actually Damasus I, and before him the title was held by some of the most evil men on the planet. Men including Nero and Caligula.

The duties of the Pontifex match the description of the “little horn” exactly.
The most important of those is “changing the times and the laws”. The Pontifex used to set jus divinum (divine law), and we still live under a calendar that was created by a Pontifex. Much of our law today is still based on old cannon law. When he spoke as either the Emperor or as Pope he was considered to be speaking with divine authority (“speak great words against the most High”), and he would enforce justice on those deemed heretics (“wear out the saints of the most High”).

Its pretty hard to dispute that this is who John was talking about, the match is too exact, and why the RCC sought to hide its place in prophecy. There is also little doubt in my mind that men such as Peter wold have never accepted the title of the man that put them to death.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 4/22/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

The problem I was pointing out was the difficulty of fitting the Papacy and the United States together into the same Revalation ch13 system.
If you're so convinced about the place of the Papacy, you may need to re-think your view of the United States.
As I said, the way you're reading the symbols at the moment is that the United States is potentially putting Christians to death for refusing to worship the Papacy.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by DISRAELI
It's a little difficult to stretch "being based on same kind of law" into "causing to worship", especially since the refusal to worship is the reason for martydom.

I think that you're being too strict on what worship is. To worship something only means that you revere it more then you do God. The “martyrdom” part is from refusing to submit to the system that is put in place, not for refusing to worship it as you would in the classic sense. Back during the heyday of the RCC, you certainly were put to death if you refused to follow the dogma of the RCC, as a heretic. Today, though, you are expected to tow the line of the current government, and its policies are just now getting to the point where they conflict with religion. Believe me if you don't tow the line here you will still run afoul of the law. The US is still in the beginning stages of what it will yet become, but we are seeing the police state begin to develop now.


Originally posted by DISRAELI
If you make those identifications, you've got to think of some reason why a Christian refusal to give worship to Rome should cause the United States government to execute them.

It won't be to Rome, it will be to the US, which is based on the Roman system.


Originally posted by DISRAELI
The reason for the executions was refusal to sacrifice to the Emperor, who was really just a front man for the Empire as an object of worship- in other words, the Empire was worshiping itself in these sacrifices.
I look for something following the same model.

You wont have to look too far, the idolatry of today is about worldliness, and this country is quite firmly rooted in that. You don't think that you sacrifice to the government and the rich elites running this country? Do you pay taxes?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
the way you're reading the symbols at the moment is that the United States is potentially putting Christians to death for refusing to worship the Papacy.

I never said that, and I don't believe that the bible says this either.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I think that the problem here is that you're taking this too literally. So let me try and better clarify. It doesn't necessarily mean that the US is going to force you to worship the RCC, what it means is that it will force you to worship the system that came from the Rome to make the US system. Whether that be the whole system, the system of law, the system of government, or just the worldliness and control of the Roman system.

Does that make more sense?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

Apart from being strict about what "worship" is, I'm also fairly strict about what is meant by "put to death". I know nobody likes paying taxes, but taking the taxation system as the equivalent of judicial execution is stretching things again.
If the premise has to be strained so much to make it fit the text, why not try a different premise instead?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I should also point out where the title of Pope comes from.
Did you know that it is from the title Pontifex Maximus, which is where we get “holy pontiff” from.
The first Pontiff was not Peter as the RCC claims, but actually Damasus I, and before him the title was held by some of the most evil men on the planet. Men including Nero and Caligula.

So are you saying that the roman emperors were slowly transformed through time and became the popes? if so,thats "very" interesting and both of them had the same type of iron grasp upon society and held the same kind of power and sway over the world they lived in...
edit on 22-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)
extra DIV





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join