Franktalk wrote:madeleine wrote:I can say with confidence, that you are imagining things.
I posted this before but maybe you did not read them.
I will now show a few examples of scriptural interpretation from the Roman Catholic Church. To start with I will quote some material from the Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 1 pages 597 and another on page 599. This section deals with the book of Revelation known as Apocalypse to the Catholics.
Didn't see this post until now.
I want to point out a few things. First of all they say that John wrote about the coming of Christ as very near (in time) and in this they declare him “fallacious”.
This isn't a negative commentary about John, it is a comment on the fact that a) Christians of the time believed Jesus was going to return soon, as in, their lifetime and b) that He did not.
They also declare “The church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurrection.” So they have redefined the millennium as meaning something completely different than John was told in his vision. In this they completely ignore the warning at the end of the book.
Who has redefined the millenium? I'd say Mormonism, and a few other religions have.
Revelations is a genre, that of resistence writing. This does not mean it is wholly resistence writing. John makes prophecies that have to do with the future, when Christ does return. This doesn't mean everything written in Revelation is a prophecy of the future. Most of it is, as I already said, resistence writing in regards to the persecutions the Christians were experiencing under the Roman emperors.
The prophecies are placed in this context, and are given to those who are suffering as their Hope. Jesus Christ, returning.
Of course this is relevant to all Christians, in all times.
Rev 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
And on page 599 of the Catholic encyclopedia we find this:
"…….To this objection, however, it may be answered that it was the custom of apocalyptic writers, e.g. of Daniel, Enoch, and the Sibylline books, to cast their visions into the form of prophecies of an earlier date. No literary fraud was thereby intended, it was merely a peculiar style of writing adopted as suiting their subject. The seer of the Apocalypse follows this practice."
The quote from the CE, in context, is not in referenece, at all, to the passage you quoted.
http://oce.catholic.com/oce/browse-page-scans.php?p=879ba9e476d2be23817001d46affb01d&o=g
the link doesn't work
and then search on apocalypse
Here they are saying that Daniel was written by someone else around 160 BC at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and it was not prophecy but a history of events that had already taken place. Daniel lived around 600 BC and wrote his book around 550 BC. But the big problem comes from scripture.
Yes, the book is named Daniel, for the main character. Why does the authorship matter to you?
And again,
Mar 13:14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains:
These are words spoken by Jesus. Here Jesus declares that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel and that Daniel was a prophet. I don’t see how the Catholic Church can reconcile this conflict that their interpretation causes. Also the Book of Daniel was in the Septuagint way before 160 BC. Ask your self why would the church want the Book not to be a prophecy?
First, who says it isn't a prophecy?
and second, who says that a prophecy passed on by oral tradition, and written down much later, isn't still a prophecy?
They also say that John followed the practice of writing after events had taken place
Site examples please. They aren't referencing everything John wrote.
yet John says:
Rev 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
I have a hard time believing that John wrote a book saying it is a prophecy when in fact it was not.
It is written in John's time, so please take it in context. Describing current events and then prophesying of the future in relationship to those events is not an instance of ignoring the prophecies.
I am a futurist so I believe the events described in the book of Revelation have yet to take place. In my view John is telling the truth.
Some of the events are a description of what is taking place, and some are prophecies as to what will take place.
So do you believe as the RCC believes that Daniel did not write the book of Daniel? Do you believe as the RCC believes that the Book of Daniel was written around 160 BC by some unknown person?
It isn't just the RCC who states this. It is solid Biblical scholarship. Again, why is the authorship important to you. Do you think it diminishes the prophecies? I don't.
Do you believe as the RCC believes that the first resurrection was for the spirit and we are now in an indefinite millennium?
The first resurrection hasn't occurred!
Yes, Jesus established His Kingdom on earth, while here. The call of all Christians is to live in such a way that indicates this is what we believe.
Do you believe that John the beloved of Jesus wrote about past events but declared them prophecy?
No. He wrote of past events, current events (for his time) and prophesied as well, incorporating all into one.
We see in John's writings our profession of faith. Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.
Do you believe that John is a liar?
No.
The reason I use the old version of the Catholic Encyclopedia is because the current version has some statements stripped out. If indeed you wish to have that solid unchanging church then seek directly to God. No institution of man will stay true.
I use the old encyclopedia all the time, because it is online and free.