Why the Modern View of the Book of Revelation may be Flawed (Catholic Caucus)

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | November 26, 2012 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[PeaceBeWithYou]

I think you will find there are 2 major views and 2 or 3 minor ones.

Major view #1 - Historical.

Major view #2 - Futurist.

And the minor views - Preterist, Traditional, and Spiritual.

The author also missed several points that place Revelation in the earlier time frame.

1)The preface says it was written to the 7 Churches in Asia minor, that they know what was coming soon. That pretty much leaves us in 2012 out.
2)John was imprisoned on Patmos twice. First by Nero, the second by Domitian.
3)When John was caught up in the vision, and the angel told him to go measure the Temple, it was the Temple that existed prior to AD70.
4)The 2 witnesses are long gone.

There are numerous more, but these 4 are more than enough to falsify the Futurist view. Some of the other minor views have plausable arguments.

[Rashputin]

After reading, "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth L Gentry, I don't see how people can look at all the facts and still believe that the book of Revelation was written any later than the sixties during the rule of Nero. There are several other good books that make the same case but as I recall they aren't quite as thourough.

[muawiyah]

Vlad, how quickly you forgot Priscillian, the first of many, who was executed in 385.

There were many others who followed ~ Gnostics seem to have been hit pretty hard.

True enough execution for heresy didn't end until some time in the 1800s, but that period just after legalization seems rather hectic.

[vladimir998]

Now you resort to your shell game. You do this all the time. Whenever I point out you’re wrong, you use an example that doesn’t even come close to proving your point.

You originally made this claim: “Before that Christianity was a tad more vigorous and disposing of heretics was done up front with fire and the sword!”

Now you use this as an example:

“Vlad, how quickly you forgot Priscillian, the first of many, who was executed in 385.”

So, you’re claiming Christianity executed Priscillian? Not Christians, not the Empire, but “Christianity”? You’re wrong as usual. Also, one guy (and his companions), no matter who killed him/them or why, doesn’t prove your claim. You also ignore the bishops in Trèves who opposed his execution by the empire and how both Christian and pagan critics of it at the time said the imperial officials were after his wealth. Yeah, in other words, it doesn’t remotely prove your claim.

“There were many others who followed ~ Gnostics seem to have been hit pretty hard.”

No, not really.

“True enough execution for heresy didn’t end until some time in the 1800s, but that period just after legalization seems rather hectic.”

You seem to have no idea of what you’re talking about.

Found those 17th century Russian Vikings yet?

[muawiyah]

Vlad, 99.999999% of any of your commentaries on anything I might post usually have nothing to do with what I posted. There's stuff going on in your mind that's trying to get out but nothing is happening.

Next time take a look at something besides a single word that pegs your interest and see what the idea was.

Or, try these words on: "bear", "toad", "watermelon", "ecclesiastical"

[vladimir998]

What you said was incorrect - and not just because of one word.

[muawiyah]

But that’s not your point ~

[ConservativeMind]

Interesting reading. This Protestant thanks you!

[Cronos]

Thanks for this!! I would like to re-post it later for our FRiends to discuss — what do you think?

[Alas Babylon!]

Are either of you Catholic, that you must come on to a Catholic Caucus thread and quarrel about things having nothing to do with the OPs subject?

Please, if you are Catholic, keep to the OP’s topic. If you are not Catholic, take it to another thread...

[vladimir998]

You’re wrong again.