Mark of the Beast
#91
(12-14-2009, 02:40 PM)Rosarium Wrote: That is a Catholic perspective isn't it?

The gist of his position seems to be that the "only future to the original reader in Revelation begins in ch. 20."  And no, I don't believe there is substantial precedent for that position, and I don't think it comports with the Catechism. Even Pope JPII warned the faithful about Revelation 12:4.

Reply
#92
(12-14-2009, 04:11 PM)59zvc Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 02:40 PM)Rosarium Wrote: That is a Catholic perspective isn't it?

The gist of his position seems to be that the "only future to the original reader in Revelation begins in ch. 20."  And no, I don't believe there is substantial precedent for that position, and I don't think it comports with the Catechism. Even Pope JPII warned the faithful about Revelation 12:4.

You'll see that "my perspective" is the most worthy of all Catholic perspectives.  It completely explains passages in the Gospels and equates 100% with St. Augustine's Amillenial position, a position that has been accepted by the Catholic Church!  This is NOT "my perspective."  This is historical preterism (known nowadays as "partial preterism") that was held at least in some form by Church Fathers such as St. Augustine, St. Eusebius (much preterism in his writings), St. John Chrysostom, St. Ignatius and others.

We know that the Catholic Church has accepted the amillenialism of St. Augustine.  It is widely accepted among Roman Catholics that we are now living in the millennium, the symbolic "thousand years" of Revelation ch. 20.  If you read the beginning of this chapter, you will see that the Catholic who upholds amillenialism is actually forced to agree that everything previous to those verses MUST be in the past.  Take a look:

1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended. After that he must be loosed for a little while. 4* Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

We know that Satan was bound either in 28 - 33 AD when Christ died and was resurrected, or in 70 AD when He came spiritually to judge Jerusalem, which seems to be the case according to this book (for Satan is bound after we read several recapitulations of the judment of Jerusalem from different perspectives, with the last showing full-force the judgment of the "Great Harlot" - Jerusalem).  We can agree on that as Catholic amillenialists.  NOW, if Satan was bound in the 1st century, then the "beast" and the "false prophet" must have been on the scene BEFORE Satan was bound in such a way.  Look at the text, it states that after Satan is bound, St. John saw the souls of those who were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus, and had not worshipped the beast or its image and hadn't received its "mark."  They came to life and ruled during the thousand years, the millennium.  So, if you believe that the "beast" is the future Antichrist and not Nero Caesar and the Roman Empire, then you must also logically believe that Satan has yet to be bound, for obviously the "beast," being the future Antichrist, has yet to show up, and that there is still a future "millennium" after the "beast" (Antichrist) is defeated. This notion is called premillenialism, which the Church declared "cannot be taught safely."  The only reasonable thing a Catholic can do is claim that the "beast" is Nero, and can be a type for the future Antichrist, and that Satan was bound after the "beast" (Nero/Roman elite) and the "false prophet" (Sanhedrin/Pharasaic elite) were thrown into the "lake of fire."

Another clue to the identity of the two evil personas is their descriptions.  The "beast of the sea" and the "beast of the earth (land)."  The sea was used in Hebrew esoteric language as the gentile nations, thus the "beast of the sea" would be Nero and the Roman Empire, which was red (color of Rome) had seven heads (representing the Roman Emperors) and ten horns (representing the Roman provinces).  The "beast of the land," and I use "land" becasue the Greek word "ge" is better translated as "land," would be the Jewish elite, the Pharasiaic Sanhedrin.  Israel considered themself the "Land," the 'Holy Land."  This beast had two horns like a lamb but spoke as a dragon.  A better clue for the Sanhedrin there is not.  This Jewish "land beast" supported the gentile "sea beast" in during the "Great Tribulation" - that period between 64 and 66 AD when Nero and the Jewish elite severely persecuted the Christians.  Why did Nero do such a thing?  On the testimony of the Jews, that's why!  The Jewish elite told Nero that the Christians would be the proper scapegoat for the burning of Rome, thus we see the two beasts side together.  Speaking of "fire falling from the sky" and the image that speaks is all Apocalyptic symbolism which all has its proper meanings.  The original Jewish readers would have made out this symbolism instantly, as all of the other symbols in the book.

So, those first few verses in ch. 20 will make or break your notions of the Book of Revelation, either forcing you into Amillenialism and the belief that the first 19 chapters deal with the 1st century -- or Premillenialism with the whole book in the future.  But that is really only at first glance, because there is SO very much evidence right in the book that proves that the scope of the apocalyptic symbolism is in the 1st century, dealing with the abolishing of Biblical Judaism via the destruction of the Jewish Temple circa 70 AD.  It was an old Hebrew legend that the transition time of the Messianic Kingdom would take 40 years.  The most accurate date for the Death and Resurrection of Christ is 30 AD.  Forty years later, the "covenental transition" was complete, and the Old way was forever destroyed so there could be no more confusion among Jewish Christians, hence there is no more "Jew or Greek."

Now, with all of this being said, there could be some dual-fulfillment of Revelation in the future.  It is not unheard of in Scripture for prophesy to be fulfilled on different levels and at different times.  BUT, the primary scope of this book is the 1st century, which is who St. John was writing to, the 1st century Jewish Christians and established Christian Churches.  Just as St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians etc., we see that the writers of the N.T. were writing to specific groups of people during their time, for they did not know that their writings were going to be included in the Holy Bible, and be labeled the innerrant word of God.  For all they knew their letters could have been burnt up in some violent Roman raid and lost forever.  It was later on when the Church canonized these sacred writings that they were given to the whole Church - but keep in mind that these letters, now the books of the Bible, were at first letters to specific groups of people giving specific instructions
Reply
#93
I had heard of these theories before, but not from Catholic sources. Your post is very interesting, Nic.
Reply
#94
Please read Pope Benedict's statement on the apocalypse at the following web page. Our current pope is apparently a supporter of preterism and the idea that the Apocalypse up to Chapter 20 is a thing of the past.  Study carefully the verbiage he uses.  He repeatedly uses the word "history" over and over again, and says that the Apocalypse has been "inappropriately linked with impending disaster."   He says the same about Apocalypse 12.  Where others see this as referring to both past and future, he refers to it as solely part of history.

http://www.preteristvision.org/articles/...08-06.html

By taking this position, he is, in effect, trying to debunk the Message of Fatima. I believe that was his true aim in this speech.  Sr. Lucia said the Third Secret can be found in Apocalypse chapters 8-13.  He speaks directly about Apocalypse 12 in particular, using the word "history" three times in this context. 

Given how many provable lies that have been told by the Sodano/Ratzinger/Bertone trio about Fatima, why should I trust or believe anything they say about Fatima or the Apocalypse?  I don't.   Fr. Martin boldly stated in his last book, Winsdwept House, that Cardinal Cassaroli had aligned himself with evil and implied a connection to the Third Secret, and that Cassaroli did everything he could to keep it under seal.  And he inferred the same about Cassaroli's successor, Cardinal Sodano.  It was made clear in the 2000 release that it was Cardinal Sodano's interpretation of Fatima that was being affirmed and adopted by Ratzinger.  And when asked in an interview why the Third Secret was suppressed, Martin said it was because there were a "whole bunch of prelates in Rome who belong to Satan."  The chief exorcist, Fr. Amorth, said the same several years ago.  He said "legions of demons have installed themselves in the Vatican", and that it was "not a joke."  And I really doubt that Fr. Amorth knew about this taped interview with Martin at the time.

In another posting it was pointed out that Pope JPII said the Message of Fatima was a warning about Apocalypse 12. In Pope JPII's book, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" from the late 1990's, he said that Third Secret  events were getting "close to their fulfillment."  He didn't say that they were part of the past, or about his failed assassination.  And then he warned about it again in May, 2000 while in Fatima.  He told the faithful it is was a warning about Apocalypse 12:4.  It appears to me that JPII rejected this idea that everything before chapter 20 of the Apocalypse had been completed.  And it's quite obvious that Fr. Martin and various cardinals did, too. 

St. Augustine spoke of possibilities in his writings and engaged in objective analysis, and he also flip-flopped his position from premillennialism to amillennialism. Religious historians have pointed to other reasons why St. Augustine may have done this. We have visionary saints who claim their visions of the Apocalypse were divinely inspired.  Those saints are ignored.
Reply
#95
It is absolutely obvious to the adept scholar of Scripture that the Apocalypse of St. John is primarily about the destruction of Biblical Judaism circa 70 AD.  There is just WAY too much evidence that points to this, both internally and externally.  Now, with that being said, Revelation could very well be dual-prophetic - that is, some or even most of the prophesies could be fulfilled once again at a future time.  But...we do not know this for sure, but it seems that there could be some sort of inverse in fulfillment concerning this very difficult book of the Bible.

I declare myself a preterist (not a hyper-preterist, but what is nowadays called a "partial preterist," which is actually the most Catholic position).  I have absolutely no problem stating that the first 20 chapters of Revelation are primarily fulfilled during the 1st century with the destruction of the Jewish Temple.  Even the owners of this site claim the same thing as I do, and they have an excellent article on this very site about this subject:   http://www.fisheaters.com/endtimes.html   I also see the obvious Scriptural references of Christ stating that his "coming" is imminent.  This is because there are actually two separate "comings" that Christ and the Apostles speak of - the "spiritual" judgment coming upon Jerusalem, when the Kingdom of Heaven begins and Satan is bound -- and the final "physical" Second Coming of Christ at the end of time.  There are no two ways around this, it is a Scriptural fact - but the confusion is wrought because these two comings are mentioned in the same manner.  It only takes careful study to realize which of these are being explained.  Take a look at a few verses and see:

Matthew 10:23 -- When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.

Matthew 16:27,28 --  For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. 28* Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

We see NUMEROUS times in the Gospels of Christ speaking about His Kingdom, stating that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, was imminent.  Here are some examples in Matthew alone:

1. "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2)

2. "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees." (Matt. 3:10)

3. "His winnowing fork is in His hand." (Matt. 3:12)

4. "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:17)

5. "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 10:7)

Now, when did the Son of Man "come in His Kingdom?"  In 70 AD, when the Jewish Temple fell and Satan was bound - thus the Kingdom of Heaven was given to the world. "'When the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?' '...He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.' '...Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.' ...When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them." (Matt. 21:40-41,43,45)   

We see in Matthew 24:3 that there are actually two separate questions being asked. Jesus answers the first question concerning the spiritual "coming" of Christ.  Jesus gives several blatant signs that will occur before the Son of Man comes into His Kingdom.  Then after all of the signs are given, He states:  "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Matt. 24:34)  Indeed, 40 years later the spiritual "coming" of Christ occured. THEN in verse 36, Jesus begins to answer the second part of the question posed in verse 3, "when will be the close of the age?"  For this Christ says:  But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, * but the Father only. 37* As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man.   The mood totally shifts in this verse.  When speaking of the spiritual "coming" upon Jerusalem, Jesus gave specific signs that would be right before His coming.  For his physical Second Coming, nobody knows the day or the hour, not even Jesus Himself or the angels, but the Father alone.

Jesus was very, very clear in saying that Jerusalem would suffer a judgement:

Matthew 23:34-24:2
"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Or as Luke puts it:

"...the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."


What else is stated about the spiritual judgment coming on Jerusalem?:  "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written (Luke 21:21,22)  ---  For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side, 44* and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation (Luke 19:43)

The absolute significance of Christ's spiritual judgment coming upon Jerusalem is not dealt with nowadays in Christianity as it should.  This is when Jesus came in His Father's glory, in His Kingdom.  Remember what Jesus said to Caiaphas when he was about to be executed:   But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt 26:64)  Coming upon the "clouds of heaven" IS a judgment coming, and was used many times in the Old Testament.  This made Caiaphas outraged, and he rent his garment. 

Now look at the first part of Revelation:   THE revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place ... Behold, he is coming with the clouds...

Thus, the book of Revelation IS about the spiritual "coming" of Christ upon Jerusalem.  The esoteric symbolism is used to present the physical realities of the Roman armies coming to destroy the city.  The evidence in support is overwhelming.  God the Father also used armies to act as instruments of judgment in Old Testament days, when He "came on the clouds" to judge.

Christ came in His Father's glory in His "spiritual" coming, His judgement coming upon Jerusalem that ushered in His Kingdom.  Jesus will come in HIS glory at the end of time, and Scripture tells us this most clearly.  We see in Matthew 16:27,28 that Christ is speaking about coming in His Father's glory, and we see the evidence -- For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. 28* Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." We know that this MUST be Christ's spiritual coming, for He stated that there were some in His midst who would not taste death until He came in His Kingdom.  He also stated that "this generation shall not pass until all this things take place." and He told Caiaphas that he would see "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven."  BUT, Jesus will come in HIS glory at the end of days, and we see the evidence in Matthew 25 -- When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.  Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

The confusion is wrought in Scripture when one cannot separate the two "comings" of Christ.  I am not saying that Christ's spiritual judment coming was the Second Coming as some hyperpreterist claim, but that it was something unique.  His true "Second Coming" is the second in a direct line of type, His Second physical coming.

Now, Revelation could also be about Christ's physical Second Coming, a judgment coming upon earth.  BUT, we must not jump to conclusions, or we would be no better than the John Hagee's of the world.  Just because the Third Secret may have something to do with Revelation 12 doesn't necessarily mean that ALL of Revelation is about the future.  It could just be related to that specific Scripture is some way.  We know that ALL of the Apocalypse of St. John is about the past.  Some, most or possibly even all of it could also be about the future, too.  The only way we will find out is to see what happens tommorrow...
Reply
#96
One of the points in my posting was that this view debunks the Third Secret of Fatima.

Cardinal Ciappi, personal theologian to five popes, is quoted as saying, "In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."
He didn't say that the falling away happened nearly two millenniums earlier.  So, here we have one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century saying that the "falling away"
predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2 has yet to occur.   And as already mentioned, Pope JPII seemed to agree with this.

Fr. Malachi Martin is quoted as saying on national radio to millions of listeners:  "Well, the prophecy of Fatima -- without going into my background in this matter -- the prophecy of Fatima is not a pleasant document to read. And it is not pleasant news. It implies, it doesn't make any sense unless we accept that there will be, or that there is in progress, a wholesale apostasy amongst clerics, and laity in the Catholic Church, that the institutional organization of the Roman Catholic Church, that is the organization of parishes, dioceses, archbishops, bishops and cardinals, the Roman bureaucracies, and the chanceries throughout the world, unless that is totally disrupted, and rendered null and void, the Third Secret makes no sense."    Also, in response to a question by a caller asking if the Third Secret involved a final pope coming under the control of Satan, Martin replied in the affirmative.

And Cardinal Ratzinger apparently didn't reject this view until later on, either.  His comments on Fatima in 1984 were quite different from those he made in the '90's and in his 2000 commentary to the supposed release of the Third Secret.  At that time, he didn't appear to be speaking from the "preterist" perspective.

It's quite clear to me that the Church has been wrestling with this issue for a long time.
Reply
#97
(12-19-2009, 07:45 PM)unknown Wrote: One of the points in my posting was that this view debunks the Third Secret of Fatima.

Cardinal Ciappi, personal theologian to five popes, is quoted as saying, "In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."
He didn't say that the falling away happened nearly two millenniums earlier.  So, here we have one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century saying that the "falling away"
predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2 has yet to occur.   And as already mentioned, Pope JPII seemed to agree with this.

Fr. Malachi Martin is quoted as saying on national radio to millions of listeners:  "Well, the prophecy of Fatima -- without going into my background in this matter -- the prophecy of Fatima is not a pleasant document to read. And it is not pleasant news. It implies, it doesn't make any sense unless we accept that there will be, or that there is in progress, a wholesale apostasy amongst clerics, and laity in the Catholic Church, that the institutional organization of the Roman Catholic Church, that is the organization of parishes, dioceses, archbishops, bishops and cardinals, the Roman bureaucracies, and the chanceries throughout the world, unless that is totally disrupted, and rendered null and void, the Third Secret makes no sense."    Also, in response to a question by a caller asking if the Third Secret involved a final pope coming under the control of Satan, Martin replied in the affirmative.

And Cardinal Ratzinger apparently didn't reject this view until later on, either.  His comments on Fatima in 1984 were quite different from those he made in the '90's and in his 2000 commentary to the supposed release of the Third Secret.  At that time, he didn't appear to be speaking from the "preterist" perspective.

It's quite clear to me that the Church has been wrestling with this issue for a long time.

This "view" really does not debunk the Third Secret.  If you re-read my post, most Catholic partial-preterists believe that the Book of Revelation, albeit being primarily fulfilled in the 1st century, could very well be dual-prophetic - that is, it could be fulfilled once again at a future time.  You speak negatively of the "preterist" perspective.  Well, to maintain Augustinian Amillenialism, you really HAVE to be a preterist!  Chapter 20 doesn't allow you to have it both ways.  That chapter will either make or break your millenial stance.  Either you believe that the "Beast" and the "False Prophet" were on the scene BEFORE Satan was bound, and we are living in the times of his bounded imprisonment via the millenium - OR, you believe that Satan has yet to be bound and the millenium is in the future.  The Catholic Church (and pre-conciliarly, I might add) has declared that the tenets of premillenialism "cannot be taught safely."  Also, the preterist position in interpretting Revelation places the greatest light on the establishment of the "Kingdom of Heaven" upon earth, which is the Catholic Church.  This "view" gives the most glory to our religion, the one and only true religon of Jesus Christ.  I believe that after these horrid times when the Church is renewed and doesn't have the guilt-complex it has now, this will be brought to the full attention of all the faithful (to do so in these days would equate the Catholic Church as the Kingdom of Heaven, which according to the "spirit of Vatican II" is a no-no, for the Church of Christ only subsists in the Catholic Church, just one of many Christian denominations striving for truth while all other heretical sects are a part of the "soul" of the Church of Christ.)

The part about a final pope coming under the control of Satan is what I don't understand.  Is he talking about THE final pope, or just one of the final popes?  I guess this could be legit concerning a couple post-conciliar popes, but according to other latter-day prophesies, the last pope is supposed to be a VERY holy pope ("Peter the Roman" or the "Angelic Shepherd") who will work hand in hand with a "Great Monarch" who will usher in an age of renewal of Catholicism across the world.  Of course, this period of renewal comes after a period of vast tribulation, beginning with a great apostasy (which we are seeing now), and culminating in a "Great Chastisement."  When the "Chastisement" is over (i.e the "Three Days of Darkness), then a period of peace will be had (The "Age of Mary.") Then after this period, it shall be the time of the "Antichrist."

I am of the opinion that the Book of Revelation is dual-prophetic - BUT, I also acknowledge that it was perfectly fulfilled with the coming of the Kingdom caused by the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.  There is just way too much Scriptural internal and external evidence to support this.  I believe that the Apocalypse of St. John is an outstanding work of perfection.  The primary fulfillment in our eyes is the end of the Jewish Age and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of Christ - the Catholic Church upon earth.  The secondary fulfillment could be the end of the Ages (the end of time) and the Coming of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity.  But do I believe that all of the Apocalypse will be included in the last times -- NO, I do not.  I believe it will be a poetic inverse of the prophesies.  The problem with people today, just as with the Pharisees of Christ's time, is that they are looking for too literal of a fulfillment.  It was prophesied that Elijah would come before the Messiah.  The Jews were awaiting the actual Elijah, but Jesus states that Elijah DID come, but not literally, but in the person of St. John the Baptist.  We must not look for the literal, especially in Apocalyptic literature that was a tool of the Hebrews to use elaborate symbols to portray spiritual and physical realities.
Reply
#98
Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis has a view that I think is reasonable, I'll post the relevant portion of his article here:
Quote:Who is “666”?

Although many people throughout history, especially in recent times, have sought to attach a specific person to the number 666 in Apocalypse 13:18, these are at best unproven speculations. As shown by various numerological enthusiasts, once given enough room for variant spellings, the names or titles of many people could equal 666 through the use of gematria (e.g., Nero, Hitler, Stalin, Kissinger, Nixon, the Pope, Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, etc). These, however, are all unnecessary, and, in fact, quite wrong.

One of the reasons for the rise of such speculative interpretations of 666 is that most translations of Apocalypse 13:18 read: “the number is that of a man and his number is 666.” The actual Greek is “arithmos gar anthropou estin.” Depending on the meaning of the noun “anthropou,” it should be literally translated as “for it is number of mankind” or “for it is a human number,” and with the remote possibility of “it is the number of a man.”

The word “anthropos” is the usual word in Greek to speak of “mankind” or a man in the general sense of the word (e.g., Mark 1:17; 2:10; Apoc 4:7; 9:5), although in rare instances it is sometimes used for an individual man (Mark 14:71). Of the 25 instances of “anthropos” in the Apocalypse, all are general references to mankind or man in general. The Greek word “aner” is the usual word for an individual man or individual men (e.g., Mark 6:20, 44). The Apocalypse does not use “aner” except for Apoc 21:2.

Prior to the mentioning of “anthropos,” however, John says in Apoc 13:17 that the number he has in view is “the number of the Beast,” from the Greek “to arithmon tou theriou.” Here a Greek article appears before “Beast” (Greek: tou theriou), whereas there is no article before “man” or “mankind” (Greek: anthropou) in Apoc 13:18. Hence the designation of “the Beast” is specific, whereas “man” is generalized, that is, John is most likely referring to mankind, not a single man.

This is also suggested by the fact that if John had intended to designate an individual man he would have used the nominative case noun (anthropos) or a nominative predicate rather than the genitive anthropou. The use of the genitive points to the fact that John intended to use an adjective to modify the number, that is, he wanted to say the number refers to man or mankind, not a specific man.

John uses the same modifying genitive of “anthropou” in Apocalypse 21:17 when he says “the measure of man” (Greek: “metron anthropou”), which is then followed by “which is of an angel,” also without the article. This means that the “measure” is neither of an individual man nor individual angel, but a number that both men and angels use.

John also uses the Greek genitive “anthropou” in Apocalypse 1:13 and 14:14 in the phrase “Son of man,” which really means “Son of mankind.” Besides Apocalypse 13:18, these three are the only uses of the genitive “anthropou” in the Apocalypse, and it is apparent that each usage is of “mankind,” not an individual man.

Moreover, since John has already said that the number 666 is “the number of The Beast” (Apocalypse 13:17) then it could not be the number of an individual man, since John nowhere states that the Beast is an individual man. He has said, rather, that the Beast is a monster resembling a leopard, bear and lion with seven heads and ten horns (Apocalypse 13:1-4).

Interestingly enough, attempts made to assign 666 by use of Hebrew or Greek gematria to an individual man always met with great difficulty, since, without severe manipulation, no single evil candidate had his name add up to 666. Nero was a close candidate, but his name had to have an “n” attached to it to equal 666 (i.e., “Neron Caesar”).

Lastly, Parker’s attempt at making Caligula a candidate for the number 616 is also not as precise as he assumes it to be. It could only refer to Caligula’s if his name is rendered “Cajus Caesar” (Greek: “Gaios Kaisar”), and this is probably the reason why a scribe of the third or fourth century made a variant text containing 616. It was a tempting interpretation, since Caligula erected an image of himself in the temple at Jerusalem, and he reigned from March 37 AD to January 41 AD, which is 3 years and 10 months (or approximately three and a half years, which would seem to equate with a literal rendering of the 3.5 years of Daniel 9:24-27 and Apocalypse 12:14).

In conclusion, 666 does not refer to any one man in history and 616 is not the proper rendering of Apocalypse 13:18.
http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/dial...gs/666.htm


Here is an hour long video of a class he gave on how to interpret The Apocalypse:
#


I'll link another article by Sungenis regarding the belief that the Apocalypse was written prior to 70AD; Sungenis cites numerous sources to show that the pre-70AD dating is false, here is a snippet from his article:
Quote:
There is no Father that supports a pre-70 AD dating for the Apocalypse. There isn’t a Father within 500 years that gives any explicit mention of Nero and Patmos in the same sentence, much less says Nero exiled John to Patmos prior to 70 AD, including the attempts of modern scholars to make Epiphanius depart from the consensus. Not until well into the Middle Ages does anyone suggest a pre-70 AD date for the Apocalypse, and they are few and far between (e.g., Theophlact, Andreas of Cappadocia).
There were only two Roman emperors who persecuted Christians on a massive scale, Nero and Domitian. In 67 AD, Nero killed St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome. But there is no record of Nero banishing any Christians to Patmos. Nero preferred to torture Christians by burning them and throwing them to lions.
Again, all the Christian and secular sources in the patristic era place the banishment of Christians to Patmos at the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). No one places the banishment of John, or any Christian, under the reign of Nero.
For the entire article, click on the link
http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissu...alypse.pdf

Reply
#99
I have personally read Robert Sungenis' CASB Apocalypse Bible with his interpretation -- it made my head hurt.  He shifts from symbolic to literal, then back to symbolic, then back to literal again.  If you want to read the BEST book out there about Revelation (as well as other prophetic Scriptures such as Daniel), pick up Rapture:  The End Times Error that Leaves the Bible Behind by David B. Currie.  This is an outstanding book!  The fact is that Futurists like Sungenis are left scratching their heads when it comes to Apoc. chapter 20.  They don't know how to equate the first verses of this chapter with the Amillennialism that we Catholics have been taught to believe.  Those Catholic Amillenialists who claim that the "Beast" is the Antichrist have much explaining to do when it comes to these verses.  Take a careful look:

1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended. After that he must be loosed for a little while. 4* Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years.

St. John saw the souls of those who were beheaded for their beleif in Christ, and who did not worship the "beast" and did not recieve its (spiritual) mark.  These souls came to life and ruled with Christ for the "thousand years."  As orthodox Catholic Amillenialists, we know that the "thousand years," the "millennium," is a symbol denoting the Church Age - that is, the time from AD 70 until the time that Satan is loosed for "a little while."  These souls survived the Beast BEFORE the "thousand years" began.  To say that the "Beast" is the final antichrist is absolutely illogical concerning this method.  This "beast," who was Nero Caesar - 666 - was on the scene BEFORE Satan was bound for the symbolic "millennium."

Sungenis sticks to what he THINKS the Early Fathers meant concerning the authorship of Revelation.  BUT, Sungenis, with his list of Fathers, fails to give you the TRUE picture.  There is a HUGE ambiguity concerning all of this, as you will see if you continue to read:

The late dating (AD 95) of the book of Revelation has its roots hanging on a very slender and precarious thread. This dating is determined from a single source statement by the Bishop of Lyons by the name of Irenaeus (AD 120–202). The statement he makes is not an eyewitness testimony, but is his recollection of what was said (verbal transmission) by an earlier man, Polycarp, who is supposed to have known John (who wrote the book) personally (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 20, AD 324). The Irenaeus statement appears in his book "Against Heresies, 5:30:3" dated AD 175–180.

Irenaeus spent his youth in Asia Minor, but his manhood and Christian work took place in Gaul, which is modern day France. It would not be a far fetched idea to think that for Irenaeus to remember a conversation from such a distant time in his life and at such an early age could have led to confusion of names and dates. This, however, is not the only basis for my personal doubts in this situation as you will see later.

It appears that Irenaeus' statements, as they were understood, shaped the opinions of Eusebius and Jerome on this question, and this view was passed on to later authors and authorities. It is my belief that it is not good scholarship to accept a dubious statement from the Bishop of Lyons that was orally transmitted to him when he was a young man. This does not appear to be adequate and compelling evidence to cause a person to set aside the overwhelming weight of evidence, both external and internal to the book of Revelation itself being penned earlier, as proof that the Revelation was written during the AD 95 window.

It is important to examine not only where and how Irenaeus came by his opinion, but also what Irenaeus said because as you will shortly see it is possible that his testimony has been misunderstood. The statement that Irenaeus makes consists of a testimony about the number of the beast, 666, in Revelation 13:18. A translation from the original Greek is as follows:

"We therefore do not run the risk of pronouncing positively concerning the name of the Antichrist [hidden in the number 666 in Rev.13:18], for if it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it is not a great while ago that it [or he] was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign."

In this passage, it must be noted that the subject of the verb "was seen" is ambiguous in the Greek language and may be either "it" referring to the Apocalypse, or "he" referring to John himself. So the slender thread surfaces. If one chooses to select "it" meaning the vision, we have the Apocalypse being written at the later date. If "he" is chosen, meaning John, then the Apocalypse is written at the earlier date because he, John, would have been seen "almost in our own generation." Quite a situation to base your entire "end times" interpretation of prophecy on, wouldn't you say?  In all truth, to make any sense out of this statement by Irenaeus, one would HAVE to use HE, not IT, to make any sense out of it!  A PERSON, St. John (he), must announce something (the identity of 666), not a vision (it).  Therefore, it is most assuradely HE (St. John) that Irenaeus is referring to, which turns the "late-date" on its head!

I am convinced that what Irenaeus was attempting to communicate was something along the following lines. John would have announced the name of the Antichrist if he wanted to because he (John) was around during the reign of Domitian. Since John did not announce it, why should we (Irenaeus and his contemporaries) run the risk of announcing it! The reason for this approach would be that although Nero was gone, Domitian and the Roman threat was still present and quite capable of carrying out a swift reprisal in the name of Rome against anyone who spoke against Nero in such a manner as to identify him as the beast!

BUT, even if by some chance Irenaeus did actually mean that the Apocalypse was written under Domitian (which I highly doubt anyway), how sure can we be of his accuracy?  Irenaeus was infamous for his errors in dates and times.   He wrote a very strange and ridiculous dating for the age of Jesus Christ.  Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to the age of 50 years.

In another place in the writing of Irenaeus, again writing about the number 666, he seems to indicate an earlier date for the dating of Revelation. In his fifth book, he writes the following: "As these things are so, and his number [666] is found in all the approved and ancient copies." Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he writes of the Revelation being written in "ancient copies!" His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision" being seen in AD 95 which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as "ancient."

Indeed there were a few other Fathers who commented about Revelation being penned in the reign of Domitian, but their idea was, most likely, a product of an erroneous oral tradition.  Also, there were several other Fathers who seemed to point to Nero.  Clement of Alexandria says that John was banished to Patmos by "the tyrant," a title that was used nearly exclusively for Nero Caesar.

Eusebius, who was the bishop of Cesarea from AD 314–340, writes of John as being banished to Patmos and of seeing his visions there in the reign of Domitian. The problem with this source is that he quotes Irenaeus, in fact, the very passage we have under consideration (this appears in his history, book 3, chapter 18). He also refers to a tradition to the same effect, which may have grown out of the same leading of Irenaeus.

Jerome [331–420] held the same opinion, apparently on the authority of Irenaeus.

Victorinus of Petavio, who died in AD 303, in a Latin commentary on the Apocalypse, says "John saw this vision while in Patmos, condemned to the mines by Domitian Caesar."

Many others of a later age could be cited supporting this same connection between John and Domitian, but it would seem that this does no more than to continue a tradition which appears to have come from the language of Irenaeus. The conclusion most come to at this point is that the external evidence of John writing the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian's reign rests on the sole testimony of Irenaeus, who wrote a hundred years after that date, and whose words were from a verbally transmitted second source during the childhood of Irenaeus. To make matters worse, the words he used can easily have two different meanings!

Unfortunately, the earliest church fathers such as Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp and Justin Martyr, the very testimonies that would be the most helpful to us, are silent on the dating of Revelation. They either omitted this point because it was understood without their testimony, or what they wrote perished along the way.

There is also in existence, a number of Syriac translations of the book of Revelation which have the following inscription: "The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor." Most of the Syriac translations, which are known as the "Peshito," "Curetonian," the "Philoexenian" and the "Harclean" are supposed to have been translated late in the first century or very early in the second.  The superscription on this manuscript does provide support that the dating of the Revelation goes back to the time of Nero. It is thought that the Peshitto Versions, which are dated at 150 AD, were based upon original autographs (original documents).

Clement (AD 150–215) makes the following statement supporting an early dating: "For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero" (Miscellanies 7:17). Clement seems to indicate that he believes that the Scriptures were completed by the end of Nero's reign which ended in AD 68.

Epiphanies, AD 315–403, stated that the book of Revelation was written under Claudius [Nero] Caesar. This Roman ruler was emperor from AD 54 to AD 68.

Andreas of Capadocia, about AD 500, in a commentary on Revelation, dates the book as Neronian.

Arethas, about AD 540 assumes the book to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem and that its contents was prophecy concerning the siege of Jerusalem.

There is no shortage of those from the above date forward who support the earlier dating of the book of Revelation.

There is language in the book of Revelation itself that gives strong if not convincing evidence of its earlier dating. The Greek words that give us this evidence are "tachei" and "tachu." These words appear in the following verses of Revelation.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly [tachei] come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John" (Rev.1:1).

"Repent; or else I will come quickly [tachu], and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth" (Rev.2:16).

"Behold, I come quickly [tachu]: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown" (Rev.3:11).

"And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly [tachei] be done" (Rev.22:6).

"Behold, I come quickly [tachu]: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book" (Rev.22:7).

"And behold, I come quickly [tachu]; and my reward [is] with me, to give to every man according as his word shall be" (Rev.22:12).

"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly [tachu]. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rev.22:20).

These words, in their various tenses, are translated as "shortly," and "quickly." The words do not mean "soon," in the sense of "sometime," but rather "swift," "now," "immediately," "hastily," and "suddenly." The word meanings here are critical to understanding the "imminency" that is being communicated in the vision of the book! The vision is NOT something that would be expected to take place two thousand, or more years into the future!

Another word that reeks of the imminency of the revelation to John is the Greek word "eggus" which means "at hand" or "near." This word is found in the following passages.

"...for the time is at hand (eggus). (Rev.1:3).

"...for the time is at hand (eggus). Rev.22:10.

Another word we should look into is the Greek word "mello," and "mellei." These words appear in the following texts.

"Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall [mellei] be hereafter" (Rev.1:19).

"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall [mello] come upon the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth" (Rev.3:10).

The meaning of these words are given to us as: "is about to come." When these words are used with the aorist infinitive the preponderance of use and preferred meaning is "be on the point of, be about to." The same is true when these words are used with the present infinitive. The basic meaning in both Thayer's and Abbott–Smith is "to be about to" and the word "mellei" with the infinitive expresses imminence such as the immediate future. This causes us to understand that the word usage in Rev.1:19 and 3:10 portray an expectation of soon or quick future occurrence.

This kind of language should lead us to conclude that the prophecy in the vision was something that was to take place very close to its being revealed to John! I see this as being fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Now, it is clear that the prophesies of Revelation, concerning the time of its writing, were extremely imminent.  This is right in the text and cannot be avoided or explained away.  Now, if AD 68 was the true date of authorship, then something of extreme importance and devastating effect DID happen very quickly - the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, resulting in the abolition of Biblical Judaism.  BUT, if the date of authorship is 95 AD, then nothing of any importance happened soon thereafter.  This is why people try to force the book's prophesies now 2,000 years into the future from its authorship!  If the (true) date of authorship of 67-68 AD was held by all as a fact, then we wouldn't have all of this confusion about this fascinating book of the Bible.


With all of this being said, the "late date" of 95 AD seems to be the result of an erroneous ambiguity.  There is just WAY too much internal and external evidence that supports an earlier date of authorship for the Apocalypse of John, probably between 67-68 AD.

I believe wholeheartedly that the orthodox preterist view of Revelation is the proper one.  This view also glorifies the Catholic Church above all others, showing the divorcing of the Old Covenant and the ushering in of the New with the destruction of the one thing that kept the Jewish Christians confused - the Temple.  It had to be destroyed to allow the Kingdom of God to come in.

There are many other external evidences that attest to an earlier date of authorship, but I will show some of the INTERNAL evidence that also attests to this.  You have already seen above about the meaning of haste in the very first verse of Revelation, and how over and over again St. John states that "the time is at hand."  Here are a few others:

There can be no mistake that the city that is the center of the destruction described in the book of Revelation, Babylon, is no other than the ancient city of Jerusalem. I think the following gives adequate support for this conclusion.

John repeatedly refers to "Babylon" as "the great city." These references are found in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 18; 18:2, 10, 16, 18, 19 and 21. In addition, Revelation 11:8 identifies "the great city" as the place where our Lord was crucified.  Was Jesus crucified in Rome?  NO, he was crucified in Jerusalem.  In Jeremiah 22:8, Jerusalem is also referred to as "this great city." It would take a serious case of tunnel vision for anyone to think that the great city spoken of in the book of Revelation is any city other than Jerusalem!

The seven kings of Revelation 17:10 also help us to date the book of Revelation.

"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must remain only a little while" (Rev.17:10).

Many believe these seven kings to be the emperors of the Roman Empire. This line of succession consisted of (1) Julius Caesar followed by (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, (6, the one "that is") Nero and (7) Galba as the seven kings. The first four in this succession are confirmed by Josephus in his historical writing,
Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2; Book 16, Chapter 6, Paragraph 2; Book 18, Chapter 6, Paragraphs 9 and 10. The Revelation 17:10 verse states that five have fallen, one is and one is yet to come. The five heads of this kingdom that "are fallen" would mean that they had died. "And one is" would seem to signify that one is still living at the time the book of Revelation was written. This individual would be Nero in the succession. "The other is not yet come" would refer to Galba who had not yet come into power at the time of the writing of Revelation, and who indeed only remained "a little while," for he ruled not 6 months.  If all of this is true, John is indirectly telling us when the book of Revelation was written. This would place the vision in the time of Nero which is 54–68 AD with Galba to follow who ended up reigning for only six months!  But, for those who do not count Galba, Ortho and Vitellus as true Roman Emperors, then Vespasian could also be meant as the sixth, for indeed he remained only a "little while" concerning the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70 at the hands of his son and future Emperor, Titus.  It is of my personal opinion that Emperor Vespasian is indeed the 7th Emperor in the line of succession, with the three quick-fire "Emperors (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) not being true Emperors in the eyes of many due to the fact that they did not hold sway over the entire Empire - they did not hold total power.  I believe Vespasian is meant mainly due to something else mentioned in the following verses, of an "eighth" who belongs to the "seven(th)."  This fits Titus very well, since he was the Emperor directly after Vespasian - AND he was the son of Vespasian!  He was also the General of the war against Jerusalem.

Also of much interest is the number "666."  When the Hebrew name for Nero, Neron Ceasar, spelled NrnCsr due to the fact that ancient Hebrew was without vowels, is computed using the Hebrew Gramatica, we get 666.  But here is the kicker!  There are several ancient copies that the number is NOT written as 666, but as 616.  This was obviously an error on the part of the translator, who was probably used to saying "Nero" instead of "Neron due to his Latin influence.  When the "r" is dropped, we get 616!  This little fact screams to the fact that Nero Caesar is meant when 666 is mentioned.

Also we see a lot in Revelation about the "42 months," or the "1,260 days."  These two periods are identical:  that which the Two Witnesses prophesy, the woman flees from Satan and the Holy City is trampled.  Revelation is a recapitulation of events!

But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (Rev 11:2).

Now how long was the Roman War with Jerusalem?  Exactly 42 months!  According to the most reknowned authority concerning the war, Josephus, the daily sacrifices dedicated to Nero in the Temple of Jerusalem was halted in July of 66 AD.  This Jewish provocation led to the full declaration of war by Rome in February of 67 AD.  The war ended PRECISELY forty-two months later when the Temple was burned by Titus's troops in August of 70 AD.  Daniel predicted this over six centuries earlier, Jesus predicted four decades earlier and John expands on their prophesies.  Also, the book of Revelation continually refers to "Gentiles," but after the Temple was destroyed and Biblical Judaism along with it, there is no more Jew or Gentile, only Christian and non-Christian.

The instructions to John to measure the Temple are also important:

"And there was given to me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months" (Rev. 11:1–2).

In this part of the vision, John is asked to measure the Temple. If the vision was before AD 70 there was a Temple that could be measured. If the vision was given at the late date of AD 95, there was no Temple to measure as it had been destroyed in AD 70! Since there is still no Temple 2,000 years later, and the vision was supposed to have been fulfilled in "tachu" time, which is real quick, then there is a problem with the vision having been given at that late date. The only logical answer is the earlier date (AD 67-68) prior to the destruction of Jerusalem when the Temple would have still been standing!

The scripture above is probably all a person should require to properly understand the time frame and context of the book of Revelation. The verse shows that the focus of the book is Jesus Christ and that it was written about "things which must shortly come to pass." This wording supports a time frame where its internal prophecies had to take place "shortly" and cannot by the rational reader be placed in any other time frame than the near future at the time it was written.

There are several other internal references in the book of Revelation for the serious Bible student to study, however, I feel this is an adequate treatment to convince those who may be open to what the Scriptures say. To regard this book as a revelation of the distant future, as some Christians do, when it expressly declares that these things of which it speaks are at hand, is to ensure misconception and failure in interpretation. Much confusion has been introduced into the Church when those who exegete this book engage in such gyrations as interpreting "near" as being "distant," "quickly" to mean "thousands of years hence" and "at hand" signifying "afar off."

One thing is clear concerning the book of Revelation:  it was written during a time of extreme persecution.  Without a doubt, the Neronian persecution was the most fierce upon Christians.  The late date advocates, that is of the 95 AD date, places it in the reign of Domitian.  There is much scholarly debate as if a massive persecution of Christians even occurred under Domitian - only a rather localized, personal persecution.  The Neronian persecution was Empire-wide, it was the "Great Tribulation" spoken of by John in the book of Revelation and by Jesus Himself in the Olivet Discoure.  This persecution wrought by Nero claimed the lives of Sts. Peter and Paul along with MANY others, who are spoken of in Revelation as awaiting underneath the altar.  Nero Caesar was known as a madman, a sociopathic, sadistic individual who delighted in chaos and death.  He was even eventually labelled by the Roman Senate as an enemy of the State, something unheard of to happen to the Emperor.  Nero was indeed the "Beast of the Sea," with the sea always being symbolic in Hebrew esoteric language as the Gentile nations.  The "Beast of the Earth," better translated as "the Beast of the Land," was none other as the beast of the "Holy Land," the Pharasaic Sanhedrin, who worked together with Rome to persecute Christians.  When the book of Revelation is seen as it ought to be seen, it truly is one of the most wondrous books in all of Scripture!  For even though the two Beast were extremely cruel and tried to extinquish the infant Church, the Lamb overcame and His Kingdom was established.  Satan was bound in the sense that he could no longer hinder the Gospel, and the Church grew by leaps and bounds.

In conclusion, there is a great deal of external evidence that attests to an earlier date for the authorship of the Apocalypse of St. John, including a steady patristic voice.  The statement of Irenaeus contains too much ambiguity to base a final conclusion upon, and this erroneous ambiguity was inherited by many other of the Fathers who commented that Revelation was written at the later date.  But, all in all, the Bible is it's own best reference for interpretation.  Internal evidence -- words found in the book of Revelation, itself, prove it to be pre-AD70 in dating.  There is nothing within the book of Revelation itself that attests to the AD 95 date, but there is SO much that attests to a pre AD 70 date of authorship, and that is more than enough for me to believe in the earlier date and thus see the true meaning behind this fantastic, awe inspiring final book of the Holy Bible.

God Bless.
Reply
too long didn;t read
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)