http://rochesterfirst.tv/go.php

Today there is little agreement on exactly what the Apocalypse is saying. There
are several major ideas that believers tend to cluster around such as preterism
or futurism, premill or amill, pre-trib or post-trib, etc. Most modern views
have been developed primarily in the last couple of hundred years, and are based
on modern methods of interpretation. Historical/literal and historical/critical
interpretations see the symbols of Revelation representing the historical
existence and actions of kingdoms and rulers, or perhaps future rulers and
nations.

I see three periods of past influence on interpreting biblical prophecy that
have contributed to today's diverse views.

A. The pre-Christian teachings of Palestinian Jews
B. The post-Constantine period of Christianity
C. The post-reformation times until today

Daniel is one of the OT books most Christians refer to in regards to
understanding Revelation. It is interpreted in much the same kind of historical
way as pre-Christian Palestinian Jews understood the book. Daniel's four empires
found in chapters two and seven were interpreted as follows.

1. Babylon
2. Medo-Persia
3. Macedonia (Greece, Alexander the Great)
4. Ptolemies and Seleucids (Little Horn - Antiochus IV Epiphanes)

Daniel's "abomination of desolation" is identified in the book of 1 Maccabees as
the action of Antiochus Epiphanes.

>>1Mac 1:54  Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and
fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and
builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;  <<

Pre-Christian Jews interpreted Daniel's symbols on a somewhat literal level. The
author of Maccabees and the historian Josephus believed Daniel's beasts with
horns and heads, along with the statue in chapter two, represented earthly kings
and kingdoms.  (Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews X 11.7 XI.8.5, XII.7.6)

>>Now it so fell out, that these things were done on the very same day on which
their Divine worship had fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common
use, after three years' time; for so it was, that the temple was made desolate
by Antiochus, and so continued for three years. This desolation happened to the
temple in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of the month
Apeliens, and on the hundred fifty and third olympiad: but it was dedicated
anew, on the same day, the twenty-fifth of the month Apeliens, on the hundred
and forty-eighth year, and on the hundred and fifty-fourth olympiad. And this
desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given
four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would
dissolve that worship [for some time]. XII.7.6

He said that the ram signified the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians, and the
horns those kings that were to reign in them; and that the last horn signified
the last king, and that he should exceed all the kings in riches and glory: that
the he-goat signified that one should come and reign from the Greeks, who should
twice fight with the Persian, and overcome him in battle, and should receive his
entire dominion: that by the great horn which sprang out of the forehead of the
he-goat was meant the first king; and that the springing up of four horns upon
its falling off, and the conversion of every one of them to the four quarters of
the earth, signified the successors that should arise after the death of the
first king, and the partition of the kingdom among them, and that they should be
neither his children, nor of his kindred, that should reign over the habitable
earth for many years; and that from among them there should arise a certain king
that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away their
political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to
be offered for three years' time. And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation
suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision,
and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner
Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should
be made desolate by them. X 11.7 <<

Josephus didn't explain exactly which section of Daniel referred to the Romans,
and he didn't specify a "dual fulfillment." The twentieth century preterist
author, Philip Mauro, asserted that Daniel 11:31 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes
while 12:11 refers to the 70 AD desolation, even though 12:11 seems to refer
back to 11:31.

Is that the way Jesus and the apostles understood Daniel? When Jesus spoke of
Daniel's prophecy He didn't mention Antiochus or any of the historical
fulfillment, but simply referred to the abomination of desolation as future.

>>Matt 24:15  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken
of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him
understand:) <<(Mark 13:14)

Neither did the apostolic father Barnabas refer to historical fulfillment when
discussing Daniel's prophecy. Instead he warned of Jewish error and wrote about
the Decalogue (Epistle of Barnabas IV). Second century father's, such as Justin
Martyt and Irenaeus believed the abomination of desolation referred to a future
antichrist. Irenaeus explained the number of the beast (Rev 13:18) in and
allegorical way in one place (V.29), but later speculated on what the actual
name  might be.

>>Then also Lateinos (Lateinos) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it
is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the
four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will
not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Heresies V.xxx.3<<

Irenaeus argued against the early heretics, and claimed apostolic teaching was
found in the church. However, he makes clear that speculation about the name of
antichrist was his own and not something he learned from tradition. This is the
first mention of the historical interpretation of Daniel in the writing of the
Christian fathers, and is perhaps partially responsible for the later Christian
general interpretation of Daniel's four empires.

1. Babylon
2. Medo-Persia
3. Macedonia (including Ptolemies and Seleucids)
4. Roman Empire

Later fathers associated the future imminent break up of the Roman Empire with
the appearance of Antichrist.

As mentioned, neither Christ or Barnabas explain the historical fulfillment of
Daniel. Paul claims that wisdom has nothing to do with earthly rulers (1 Cor
2:6).  If so, then the beasts in Revelation probably shouldn't be interpreted as
a conglomeration of earthly kings and kingdoms, because they call for wisdom to
understand.

>>Rev 13:18  Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of
the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred
threescore and six.

Rev 17:9  And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth. <<

Wisdom is about success and happiness that come from living in accordance with
orderliness (Proverbs 22:17-24:22).  It really begins with God and one's faith
in Him as Lord and Savior (Proverbs 1:7), even though it involves observation
and instruction.

Jesus doesn't mention the historical interpretation of Daniel, and it isn't
mentioned in the New Testament. Neither is it found among the church fathers
until we reach Irenaeus, who makes it clear he considers it a coincidence.

In relation to Daniel's prophecy, Barnabas recalls the covenant was broken even
as Moses received the tablets. He warns of Jewish error, and calls on believers
to be spiritual minded and to obey the Law.

>>...Let us be spiritually-minded: let us be a perfect temple to God. As much as
in us lies, let us meditate upon the fear of God, and let us keep His
commandments, that we may rejoice in His ordinances... Barnabas IV<<

Irenaeus gives a similar teaching in regards to Daniel.

>>...Just as it is with those who break the laws, when punishment overtakes
them: they throw the blame upon those who frame the laws, but not upon
themselves. In like manner do those men, filled with a satanic spirit, bring
innumerable accusations against our Creator, who has both given to us the spirit
of life, and established a law adapted for all; and they will not admit that the
judgment of God is just. Wherefore also they set about imagining some other
Father who neither cares about nor exercises a providence over our affairs, nay,
one who even approves of all sins... V.26.2<<

According to Irenaeus, God has prepared a fire for all apostasy, and God has
"both given to us the spirit of life, and established a law adapted for all."

It is said that the Jews seek miracles and the Greeks wisdom (1 Cor 1:22), but
Christ came to both Jew and Greek with the power and wisdom of God (v24).
Scripture sometimes calls for wisdom (Rev 13:18, 17:9). Paul spoke wisdom to the
mature, but not about the rulers of this world (1 Cor 2:6).

Wisdom is called for in identifying the beasts in Revelation (13:18, 17:9). The
traditional interpretation uses the literal level of the pre-Christian Jews. The
idea is that the beasts represent earthly kingdoms and rulers, but according to
Paul the wisdom of God is not about earthly rulers or the literal level of
scripture (1 Cor 2:6,7). This would seem to rule out the traditional
interpretation of the horns and heads. The fact is Jesus and the apostles never
directly confirmed the traditional Jewish interpretation of Daniel's prophecies.
Indeed, Jesus seemed to contradict it (Mat 24:15, Mk 13:14).

The Greeks used many ideas and symbols similar to those in the Bible, and Paul
identifies a certain type of wisdom with the Greeks (1 Cor 1:22). In Plato's
Republic a mythical many-headed beast is used to represent the image of a man's
soul. Four ages of man are represented as gold, silver, bronze and iron, like
Daniel's image in Daniel two. The rulers of Plato's Republic are referred to as
philosopher kings. At one point in Book IX he says:

>>I understand; you mean that he will be a ruler in the city of which we are the
founders, and which exists in idea only; for I do not believe that there is such
an one anywhere on earth?
In heaven, I replied, there is laid up a pattern of it, methinks, which he who
desires may behold, and beholding, may set his own house in order. But whether
such an one exists, or ever will exist in fact, is no matter; for he will live
after the manner of that city, having nothing to do with any other.
(Compare to Gal 4:26, Heb 8:5)<<

  The Garden of the Hesperides is Hera's orchard in Greek mythology, where a tree
or a grove of immortality-giving golden apples grew. The guardian hundred headed
serpent receives the name Ladon.

The Jews who rejected Christ are said not to truly understanding the scriptures
(2 Cor 3:13-16, Rom 10:2-3) and did not recognize their messiah (Luke 19:44).

The New Testament talks more about correct belief and behavior than about
earthly rulers and political empires. The earliest church fathers also decline
to discuss the history based interpretation of Daniel, but instead associate
those teachings with the spirit and the law. This leads me to believe it is the
true apostolic teaching.

Christian interpretation is clearly influenced by Jewish teachings by the third
century, as can be seen in this excerpt from Clement of Alexandria.

>>These two thousand three hundred days, then, make six years four months,
during the half of which Nero held sway, and it was half a week; and for a half,
Vespasian with Otho, Galba, and Vitellius reigned. And on this account Daniel
says, "Blessed is he that cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five
days." (Dan. 12:12) For up to these days was war, and after them it ceased. And
this number is demonstrated from a subsequent chapter, which is as follows: "And
from the time of the change of continuation, and of the giving of the
abomination of desolation, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety
days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and
thirty-five days." (Dan. 12:11-12)

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the
periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years;
from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and
seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So
that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand
one hundred and thirty-three years. Stromata, Book I.21<<

1. The historical interpretation was found among pre-Christian Jews.
2. The Palestinian Jews didn't understand the scriptures in a manner that
allowed them to recognize their Messiah, according to the NT.
3. Neither the NT or the earliest Christian fathers mention the historical
interpretation of Daniel's prophecies. Instead Jesus speaks of an abomination of
desolation to come, while Barnabas and Irenaeus talk about the Spirit and the
Law in relation to Daniel's prophecies.  Barnabas warns of Jewish error.
4. Later Christian writers show the influence of Josephus on their
interpretation of Daniel.

My conclusion is that the historical interpretation of Daniel is not the
interpretation of the apostles or very early Christianity. Instead Daniel's
prophecies are spiritual teachings of theological content concerning Law and
Spirit (Romans 7-8). They concern biblical wisdom, perhaps similar to Greek
wisdom in some ways.

Paul and the other apostles probably saw the symbolism of the Garden of Eden
representing wisdom and the Gospel.

>>1Pe 2:24  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we,
being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were
healed.
the tree: <<( Gal 3:13)

The tree of life represent the cross. The tree of knowledge is the Law (Rom
3:20-22, Rom 6:21-23,  Rom 7:5-7, 7:21) The wisdom isn't just Greek, it is
biblical.

>>Sir 19:19  The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is the doctrine of
life: and they that do things that please him shall receive the fruit of the
tree of immortality.
Sir 19:20  The fear of the Lord is all wisdom; and in all wisdom is the
performance of the law, and the knowledge of his omnipotency. <<

The lamb in Revelation symbolizing Christ has seven horns and seven eyes (Rev
5:6) representing the spirits of God (2Ch 16:9 Zec 3:9 4:10). Anyone in Christ
is considered a new creature

>>2 Cor 2:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things
are passed away; behold, all things are become new.<< (Gal 6:15 Heb 8:9-13 2Pe
3:10-13 Rev 21:1-5)

Therefore the seven also represents the new creation in Christ,  and the ten
represents the Ten Commandments, the law and the Old Testament (Rev 13:18,
17:9).  The Book of Revelation is an allegorical treatise concerning the tension
between the Old and New covenants, much like the other books in the NT.  It
should be interpreted in a theological way rather than a historical/literal way
because the wisdom is theological.

Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

Very interesting article, Alan. Good to see allegorical readings of Revelation
being put forward again.

However, I see some areas that may be in tension with your reading and would be
interested to know how you handle them:

while Jesus doesn't refer to Antiochus, he seems to identify the coming
abomination with the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (e.g. comapre Matt24
with Luke 21)Revelation 1:1,3 seem to anticipate forthcoming event/s in real
time, as do 2:22; 3:10.the different beast passages seem to contain clear
allusions to the Roman empire, e.g. the seven hills of 17:9Rev.20:11-15 seems to
describe the final judgment as taught by, say, Paul.
There are others but these will do for a start

Jon


(Dr) Jon Newton
Harvest Bible College
Melbourne
Australia





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am really less concerned with the historically manifested schools of
interpretation of the Apocalypse than I am with interpreting it according to its
own principles.  First of all, it stands in the tradition of Jewish
apocalypticism such as Daniel.  Secondly, it makes use of certain tropes which
are standard to that literature and which must be understood to adequately
interpret the message of the book.  Thirdly, allegorical interpretation is not
to be followed unless the author himself indicates either by the tradition which
he follows or by his own writing that such an allegorical interpretation is to
be followed.  Fourthly, ALL elements of the narrative must be given due
consideration.  Why in cap 4 is there mention of the rainbow about the one
seated upon the throne?  Why is the "sea of crystal" mentioned?  Why is there
mention of the extent of the dispersal of the blood in the reaping of the
earth?  What is the significance of the dimensions of the New Jerusalem?  Why
is
the New Jerusalem depicted as "coming down from God out of heaven"?  Why is the
number of the Beast 666 (surely this does NOT depict a use of gematria since
many, many names could be derived by this method)?  Why is the number of
the Beast to be on the RIGHT hand?  Why is it that the 144,000 are mentioned
as
being on Mt Zion with the Lamb and singing the song of Moses and of the Lamb? 
Why are there THREE -- the Dragon, the Beast from the sea, and the Beast from
the Land?  Why are the martyrs in cap 6 which are under the altar said to be
Christians (I don't think they are to be considered such)? 


Charles mentions that ALL are to be martyrs.  At first I resisted such an
interpretation.  I have gradually come to think that he was correct in that
assertion though I don't think that they are to be considered to be physical
martyrs.  Those who were beheaded and sit on thrones and reign are not to be
considered to reign in a literal 1000 yr period since the 1000 year period is
one of those tropes which is manifest in both apocalyptic literature and in the
OT itself. 


There are three periods depicted in the Apocalypse (or two with a subdivision
of
the second):  The antediluvian period (the martyrs of cap 6), the Jews (caps
13,
14) and the Church.  Those who claim that there is no historical review in the
Apocalypse are incorrect.


 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 1:47:51 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Apostolic Interpretation

 
Today there is little agreement on exactly what the Apocalypse is saying. There
are several major ideas that believers tend to cluster around such as preterism
or futurism, premill or amill, pre-trib or post-trib, etc. Most modern views
have been developed primarily in the last couple of hundred years, and are based
on modern methods of interpretation. Historical/literal and historical/critical
interpretations see the symbols of Revelation representing the historical
existence and actions of kingdoms and rulers, or perhaps future rulers and
nations.



Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you very much Dr. Newton, and thank you for your questions.

In my scheme the association of the abomination of desolation with 70 AD is due
to a Jewish "non-wisdom," literal method of interpretation.

Irenaeus (Heresies V.XXV) associated the abombination of desolation with Daniel
7:8,23  8:12,23 and 9:27 along 2 Thess. 2 with a future antichrist.  Here is how
a successor, Hippolytus put it.

>> On this Hippolytus says, that in the siege of Vespasian this did not come to
pass;for nothing new happened to the world in his days beyond the things that
were before. If you speak of war, many times it has happened in former times :
and if again of captives, there have not lacked massacres or blood-shedding that
was more than that [of the siege]. And if of the eating of children and unclean
beasts, lo also in the days of Ahab these things were [2 Kings, vi. 28].
Also the Apostle has written that these things are concerning antichrist, Except
if there come first a falling away, and the Man of iniquity be revealed, so that
he as God shall sit in the temple, whom our Lord Jesus shall consume, etc. [2
Thess. ii. 3, 4, 8]. From these [words] it is evident that Vespasian did not
call himself God, nor did he sit in the temple, nor was he killed by the Spirit
of the Lord. Accordingly it is manifest that in the end tribulation arises
against the Church, such as was none like it.' HIPPOLYTUS ON
ST. MATTHEW XXIV. 15-22. ed. Roger Pearse, 2005<<
<http://tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_syrus_revelation_01.htm#C6>

Hippolytus like Paul, Barnabas and Irenaeus among others, saw the temple of God
as the church.  I believe Hippolytus did link Luke 21:20 with 70 AD like the
modern day dispensationalist Cyrus Scofield. Augustine said that Mat 24:15, Mark
13:14, and Luke 21:20 were all about 70 AD, but that's my point. It was due to
the influence of Jewish interpretation that these things came to be seen in a
more historical way.

It's not hard to see a connection between Luke 21:20 and the other passages if
we trace the abomination of desolation as does R.H. Charles in "The Legend of
Antichrist."

>>Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have
withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods,
which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask
diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such
abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of
that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is
therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt
gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn
with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God:
and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. Deu 13:13-16<<

The desolation of a city is caused by an abomination by the children of Belial.
Compare that to a passage in the Ascension of Isaiah.

>>4:1 AND now Hezekiah and Josab my son, these are the days of the completion of
the world.
2. After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will
descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from
his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his
mother: who himself (even) this king.
3. Will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have
planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.<<

Beliar is probably a Greek form of Belial. It is easy to see why the son of
perdition, the lawless one of 2 Thess 2 could be linked with the abomination of
desolation, Judas (John 17:12, 2 Thes 2:3), and the destruction of a city. Some
interpreters believe that this is referring to Nero who supposedly had his
mother killed. However, matricde was more common in the ruling classes of
ancient times. There were other historical figures such as Cleopatra III and
Berenice III that were killed by their sons, but the theme goes back far before
that. In Babylonian legend, the god Marduk slew his mother Tiamet, and in Greek
mythology Orestes and Electra murdered their mother Clytemnestra, also Alcmaeon
killed his mother Eriphyle.

The idea of interpreting an entire passage or passages based on a single word
may be what Paul had in mind is 2 Tim 2:14 or 2 Cor 3:16. I think the best way
to understand that sort of passage is explained by the concept of the continual
coming of Christ in the church, as found in Justin Martyr and Augustine.  Here
is the way Augustine put it.

>>And now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me." It was Himself who was
speaking as the Lord God; and yet we should not have understood that it was
Jesus Christ had He not added, "And now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent
me." For He said this with reference to the form of a servant, speaking of a
future event as if it were past, as in the same prophet we read, "He was led as
a sheep to the slaughter, "not "He shall be led;" but the past tense is used to
express the future. And prophecy constantly speaks in this way. City of God,
Book XX, Ch. 30<<

I deal with the subject at some length in my book "The Gospel Prophecy."

  I note that 17:9 might mean mountains instead of hills, but they are also kings
that Hippolytus said were ages. The imagery comes from the heads of the four
beasts in Daniel 7, and this influence is best seen in Rev 13:1-2. Again, I
think the influence of Jewish interpretation was widespread, and may be what
Barnabas referred to as Jewish error. I don't understand the relation of
20:11-15 to Rome, unless you are saying that amillennialism somehow infers Rome,
and I don't see a conflict with the final judgment.

I will attempt to explain further if things don't seem to make sense.

Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, Jon Newton <jonknewton@...> wrote:
>
> Very interesting article, Alan. Good to see allegorical readings of Revelation
being put forward again.
>
> However, I see some areas that may be in tension with your reading and would
be interested to know how you handle them:
>
> while Jesus doesn't refer to Antiochus, he seems to identify the coming
abomination with the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (e.g. comapre Matt24
with Luke 21)Revelation 1:1,3 seem to anticipate forthcoming event/s in real
time, as do 2:22; 3:10.the different beast passages seem to contain clear
allusions to the Roman empire, e.g. the seven hills of 17:9Rev.20:11-15 seems to
describe the final judgment as taught by, say, Paul.
> There are others but these will do for a start
>
> Jon
>
>
> (Dr) Jon Newton
> Harvest Bible College
> Melbourne
> Australia
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Thank you for your input.

The primary idea that I'm basing my theory on is that pre-Christian Palestinian
Jewish interpretation was wrong. The Jews didn't accept their Messiah because
they didn't recognize Him from scripture. Jesus revealed wisdom in His
allegorical teachings. Every parable is an allegory. Somebody was right and
somebody was wrong. Jesus was right and the Pharisees and Sadducees were wrong.

First I look in the record of the NT and the orthodox church fathers to find the
Jewish interpretation of Daniel. I don't find it in the apostolic fathers, or
the second century fathers until Clement of Alexandria, and he cites Josephus.
Josephus wasn't a Christian, or even a Rabbi. He was a Jewish historian for
Rome. When early Christian fathers talk about Daniel, they fail to recite the
Jewish interpretation as tradition until Clement of Alexandria. Instead they
talk about Jewish error, spirit and law.

I think the rules you give are post-reformation rules that were not likely to be
followed when Revelation was written or by second century Christians.

You ask some interesting questions, but I think they can understood in regards
to the symbolism of the Gospel. Papias said that the creation week was an
allegorical representation of the Gospel, and I think that's true. The Creation
week and the Garden of Eden are a chiasm. The throne with the rainbow and the
crystal sea represent the tabernacle (ark and laver(Exodus 38:8)). The sixth
judgment is associated with blood because it is related to the cross. Here is
how Justin Martyr explained Jerusalem.

>>But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured
that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years.   We have
translated the text of Justin as it stands. Commentators make the sense, "and
that there will be a thousand years in Jerusalem," or "that the saints will live
a thousand years in Jerusalem."  in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned
(Rev 21:2):, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others
declare. Dialogue with Trypho, LXXX<<

I gave the reference to Irenaeus about 666 in the original post. The 144,000 are
the overcomers. The three beasts represent the three lying spirits (16:13). The
fifth seal corresponds to the little season (6:11, 20:3).

I discuss these things further in my book, but I'm sure each item could be
discussed in length, time is limited for the present. Basically, I see the
Apocalypse as the Revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the OT. The
sybolism of the beast/dragon shows the conflict between the Spirit in Scripture
that Christ taught and the Law that He is the fulfillment of. The Sadducees,
Pharisees and Judas are the beasts who misrepresent the Law and Spirit.

Thank You,
Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> I am really less concerned with the historically manifested schools of
> interpretation of the Apocalypse than I am with interpreting it according to
its
> own principles.  First of all, it stands in the tradition of Jewish
> apocalypticism such as Daniel.  Secondly, it makes use of certain tropes
which
> are standard to that literature and which must be understood to adequately
> interpret the message of the book.  Thirdly, allegorical interpretation is
not
> to be followed unless the author himself indicates either by the tradition
which
> he follows or by his own writing that such an allegorical interpretation is to
> be followed.  Fourthly, ALL elements of the narrative must be given due
> consideration.  Why in cap 4 is there mention of the rainbow about the one
> seated upon the throne?  Why is the "sea of crystal" mentioned?  Why is
there
> mention of the extent of the dispersal of the blood in the reaping of the
> earth?  What is the significance of the dimensions of the New Jerusalem? 
Why is
> the New Jerusalem depicted as "coming down from God out of heaven"?  Why is
the
> number of the Beast 666 (surely this does NOT depict a use of gematria since
> many, many names could be derived by this method)?  Why is the number of
> the Beast to be on the RIGHT hand?  Why is it that the 144,000 are mentioned
as
> being on Mt Zion with the Lamb and singing the song of Moses and of the
Lamb? 
> Why are there THREE -- the Dragon, the Beast from the sea, and the Beast from
> the Land?  Why are the martyrs in cap 6 which are under the altar said to be
> Christians (I don't think they are to be considered such)? 
>
>
> Charles mentions that ALL are to be martyrs.  At first I resisted such an
> interpretation.  I have gradually come to think that he was correct in that
> assertion though I don't think that they are to be considered to be physical
> martyrs.  Those who were beheaded and sit on thrones and reign are not to be
> considered to reign in a literal 1000 yr period since the 1000 year period is
> one of those tropes which is manifest in both apocalyptic literature and in
the
> OT itself. 
>
>
> There are three periods depicted in the Apocalypse (or two with a
subdivision of
> the second):  The antediluvian period (the martyrs of cap 6), the Jews (caps
13,
> 14) and the Church.  Those who claim that there is no historical review in
the
> Apocalypse are incorrect.
>
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
> To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 1:47:51 PM
> Subject: [revelation-list] Apostolic Interpretation
>
>  
> Today there is little agreement on exactly what the Apocalypse is saying.
There
> are several major ideas that believers tend to cluster around such as
preterism
> or futurism, premill or amill, pre-trib or post-trib, etc. Most modern views
> have been developed primarily in the last couple of hundred years, and are
based
> on modern methods of interpretation. Historical/literal and
historical/critical
> interpretations see the symbols of Revelation representing the historical
> existence and actions of kingdoms and rulers, or perhaps future rulers and
> nations.
>
>
>
> Alan Fuller
> http://www.lulu.com/arfuller
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I think you'll find that what was considered to be wrong in the Jewish
interpretation was an emphasis upon a literal 1000 year period of a messianic
reign upon the earth.  It has been held that this was the reason that Papias'
view was not accepted although we really know very little regarding how Papias
may have understood the Apocalypse.  It was not other matters which were
rejected.

 
I fail to see how you can reject Jewish understanding of the visions of the
Apocalypse when these visions were themselves based on Jewish understandings. 
If you reject the Jewish understanding then you have no basis for understanding
the message being given in the Apocalypse nor how it differs from the standard
Jewish understanding of the narratives recounted there.

I think it is fairly obvious that one must first reject the plain implications,
and indeed actual statements, of the book if you intend to understand the
144,000 as being anything other than actual Jews.  They are clearly
distinguished from the "great multitude which no man can number" which
constitute the Christian martyrs. 


My method of understanding Revelation is, of course, post-Reformation in that it
is based on a modern method of historical-linguistic-critical understanding of
texts.  To base one's understanding of the texts upon those of some (that is to
say, any) historical view of its interpretation is to abandon one's obligation
to deal honestly and rigorously with the texts.  One cannot completely ignore
what has gone on before in the Church's understanding of the texts, but even
more one cannot be controlled by it.

george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 7:45:26 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


Thank you for your input.

The primary idea that I'm basing my theory on is that pre-Christian Palestinian
Jewish interpretation was wrong. The Jews didn't accept their Messiah because
they didn't recognize Him from scripture. Jesus revealed wisdom in His
allegorical teachings. Every parable is an allegory. Somebody was right and
somebody was wrong. Jesus was right and the Pharisees and Sadducees were wrong.

First I look in the record of the NT and the orthodox church fathers to find the
Jewish interpretation of Daniel. I don't find it in the apostolic fathers, or
the second century fathers until Clement of Alexandria, and he cites Josephus.
Josephus wasn't a Christian, or even a Rabbi. He was a Jewish historian for
Rome. When early Christian fathers talk about Daniel, they fail to recite the
Jewish interpretation as tradition until Clement of Alexandria. Instead they
talk about Jewish error, spirit and law.

I think the rules you give are post-reformation rules that were not likely to be
followed when Revelation was written or by second century Christians.

You ask some interesting questions, but I think they can understood in regards
to the symbolism of the Gospel. Papias said that the creation week was an
allegorical representation of the Gospel, and I think that's true. The Creation
week and the Garden of Eden are a chiasm. The throne with the rainbow and the
crystal sea represent the tabernacle (ark and laver(Exodus 38:8)). The sixth
judgment is associated with blood because it is related to the cross. Here is
how Justin Martyr explained Jerusalem.

>>But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured
>>that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years. We have
>>translated the text of Justin as it stands. Commentators make the sense, "and
>>that there will be a thousand years in Jerusalem," or "that the saints will
live
>>a thousand years in Jerusalem." in Jerusalem, which will then be built,
adorned
>>(Rev 21:2):, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others
>>declare. Dialogue with Trypho, LXXX<<

I gave the reference to Irenaeus about 666 in the original post. The 144,000 are
the overcomers. The three beasts represent the three lying spirits (16:13). The
fifth seal corresponds to the little season (6:11, 20:3).

I discuss these things further in my book, but I'm sure each item could be
discussed in length, time is limited for the present. Basically, I see the
Apocalypse as the Revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the OT. The
sybolism of the beast/dragon shows the conflict between the Spirit in Scripture
that Christ taught and the Law that He is the fulfillment of. The Sadducees,
Pharisees and Judas are the beasts who misrepresent the Law and Spirit.

Thank You,
Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> I am really less concerned with the historically manifested schools of
> interpretation of the Apocalypse than I am with interpreting it according to
>its
>
> own principles.  First of all, it stands in the tradition of Jewish
> apocalypticism such as Daniel.  Secondly, it makes use of certain tropes
which
>
> are standard to that literature and which must be understood to adequately
> interpret the message of the book.  Thirdly, allegorical interpretation is
not
>
> to be followed unless the author himself indicates either by the tradition
>which
>
> he follows or by his own writing that such an allegorical interpretation is to

> be followed.  Fourthly, ALL elements of the narrative must be given due
> consideration.  Why in cap 4 is there mention of the rainbow about the one
> seated upon the throne?  Why is the "sea of crystal" mentioned?  Why is
there
>
> mention of the extent of the dispersal of the blood in the reaping of the
> earth?  What is the significance of the dimensions of the New
Jerusalem?  Why
>is
>
> the New Jerusalem depicted as "coming down from God out of heaven"?  Why is
>the
>
> number of the Beast 666 (surely this does NOT depict a use of gematria since
> many, many names could be derived by this method)?  Why is the number of
> the Beast to be on the RIGHT hand?  Why is it that the 144,000 are
mentioned
>as
>
> being on Mt Zion with the Lamb and singing the song of Moses and of the
Lamb? 
>
> Why are there THREE -- the Dragon, the Beast from the sea, and the Beast from
> the Land?  Why are the martyrs in cap 6 which are under the altar said to
be
> Christians (I don't think they are to be considered such)? 
>
>
> Charles mentions that ALL are to be martyrs.  At first I resisted such an
> interpretation.  I have gradually come to think that he was correct in that
> assertion though I don't think that they are to be considered to be physical
> martyrs.  Those who were beheaded and sit on thrones and reign are not
to be

> considered to reign in a literal 1000 yr period since the 1000 year period is
> one of those tropes which is manifest in both apocalyptic literature and in
the
>
> OT itself. 
>
>
> There are three periods depicted in the Apocalypse (or two with a
subdivision
>of
>
> the second):  The antediluvian period (the martyrs of cap 6), the Jews
(caps
>13,
>
> 14) and the Church.  Those who claim that there is no historical review in
the
>
> Apocalypse are incorrect.
>
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
> To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 1:47:51 PM
> Subject: [revelation-list] Apostolic Interpretation
>
>  
> Today there is little agreement on exactly what the Apocalypse is saying.
There
>
> are several major ideas that believers tend to cluster around such as
preterism
>
> or futurism, premill or amill, pre-trib or post-trib, etc. Most modern views
> have been developed primarily in the last couple of hundred years, and are
>based
>
> on modern methods of interpretation. Historical/literal and
historical/critical
>
> interpretations see the symbols of Revelation representing the historical
> existence and actions of kingdoms and rulers, or perhaps future rulers and
> nations.
>
>
>
> Alan Fuller
> http://www.lulu.com/arfuller
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I see three periods of past influence on interpreting biblical prophecy that
have contributed to today's diverse views.

A. The pre-Christian teachings of Palestinian Jews
B. The post-Constantine period of Christianity
C. The post-reformation times until today

A.
I wrote about (A.) in the original post. Later fathers after Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria, associated the future imminent break up of the Roman
Empire with the appearance of Antichrist.

B.
In the fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine made Christianity the
religion of the Roman Empire. Of course any talk about the breakup of the Roman
Empire wouldn't have been taken very favorably, and the writings of the church
fathers probably reflect that. Many writings that were popular with the early
Christians, such as the Enoch books, Jubilees and the apostolic father Papias,
become scarce in Europe. Those such as Augustine identify the abomination of
desolation as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, even as Josephus may have
mentioned. However, the future persecution of the church by antichrist was still
expected, and even the eventual break up of the empire. The western part of the
empire fell in the fifth century and Constantinople finally fell to the Ottoman
Turks in the fifteenth century.

C.
Martin Luther led the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Many
Protestants believed that the pope was the antichrist, and Catholics made
similar claims about the Protestants. The Protestants stressed a more
historical/literal approach to scripture in their arguments with the Catholic
church, and even the Catholics were inclined to follow. The grounds for modern
interpretation were firmly laid.

You may remember we discussed Papias in April. I don't think we ever came to a
meeting of the minds on these things, but in fifteen years of discussions on the
internet I have found that a meeting of the minds is a rare event. I do not find
evidence that Papias taught a literal thousand  year period of a messianic reign
upon this earth. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian did not teach
it, and none of them said Papias taught a literal reign upon this earth before
the final judgment. They consistently taught the 7th millennium was on the new
earth after the judgment. The thousand year periods came from 1 Enoch and
Jubilees and were based on Genesis 2:17. What those early fathers understood was
very close to amillennialism. Something close to modern premillennialism wasn't
taught in the Christian tradition, besides the heretic Cerinthius, until Nepos
of Egypt.

After the empire took over the church there was a reaction against the earlier
chiliasm because of its association with the breakup of the Roman empire. That's
where the confusion about chiliasm began. I've detailed these things in a You
Tube series.

http://www.youtube.com/AlanRussellFuller

The modern idea that chiliasm is like premillennialism is a misconception caused
by the confusion after Rome took over the church and tried to suppress the idea
that the Roman empire must soon breakup. This idea was a mistake caused by the
influence of Jewish interpretation in the first place, and was not part of the
original chiliasm. This can be proven by careful examination of quotes from the
church fathers through Tertullian.

The 144,000 are the spiritually pure and represent a number to be fulfilled.
(Rev 3:4, 14:4) the church is the true people of God and descendants of Abraham
(Rom 4:11-13).

What can be accepted as truth isn't different from what was taught to the early
church in the apostolic tradition.

Thank you,

Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> I think you'll find that what was considered to be wrong in the Jewish
> interpretation was an emphasis upon a literal 1000 year period of a messianic
> reign upon the earth.  It has been held that this was the reason that Papias'
> view was not accepted although we really know very little regarding how Papias
> may have understood the Apocalypse.  It was not other matters which were
> rejected.
>
>  
> I fail to see how you can reject Jewish understanding of the visions of the
> Apocalypse when these visions were themselves based on Jewish
understandings. 
> If you reject the Jewish understanding then you have no basis for
understanding
> the message being given in the Apocalypse nor how it differs from the standard
> Jewish understanding of the narratives recounted there.
>
> I think it is fairly obvious that one must first reject the plain
implications,
> and indeed actual statements, of the book if you intend to understand the
> 144,000 as being anything other than actual Jews.  They are clearly
> distinguished from the "great multitude which no man can number" which
> constitute the Christian martyrs. 
>
>
> My method of understanding Revelation is, of course, post-Reformation in that
it
> is based on a modern method of historical-linguistic-critical understanding of
> texts.  To base one's understanding of the texts upon those of some (that is
to
> say, any) historical view of its interpretation is to abandon one's obligation
> to deal honestly and rigorously with the texts.  One cannot completely ignore
> what has gone on before in the Church's understanding of the texts, but even
> more one cannot be controlled by it.
>
> george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>

7 And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words
of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a
hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently
by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have
not been uselessly adduced by us.
8 But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted,
other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events
which he claims to have received from tradition.
9 That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been
already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says
that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that
in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of
Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace
of the Lord, suffered no harm.
10 The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the
Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one
might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The
account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who
was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said."
11 The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through
unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and
some other more mythical things.
12 To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand
years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be
set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through
a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things
said by them were spoken mystically in figures.
13 For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see
from his discourses. but it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers
after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of
the man; as for instance Iranaeus and any one else that may have proclaimed
similar views.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iii.39

 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 11:02:15 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


I see three periods of past influence on interpreting biblical prophecy that
have contributed to today's diverse views.

A. The pre-Christian teachings of Palestinian Jews
B. The post-Constantine period of Christianity
C. The post-reformation times until today

A.
I wrote about (A.) in the original post. Later fathers after Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria, associated the future imminent break up of the Roman
Empire with the appearance of Antichrist.

B.
In the fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine made Christianity the
religion of the Roman Empire. Of course any talk about the breakup of the Roman
Empire wouldn't have been taken very favorably, and the writings of the church
fathers probably reflect that. Many writings that were popular with the early
Christians, such as the Enoch books, Jubilees and the apostolic father Papias,
become scarce in Europe. Those such as Augustine identify the abomination of
desolation as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, even as Josephus may have
mentioned. However, the future persecution of the church by antichrist was still
expected, and even the eventual break up of the empire. The western part of the
empire fell in the fifth century and Constantinople finally fell to the Ottoman
Turks in the fifteenth century.

C.
Martin Luther led the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Many
Protestants believed that the pope was the antichrist, and Catholics made
similar claims about the Protestants. The Protestants stressed a more
historical/literal approach to scripture in their arguments with the Catholic
church, and even the Catholics were inclined to follow. The grounds for modern
interpretation were firmly laid.

You may remember we discussed Papias in April. I don't think we ever came to a
meeting of the minds on these things, but in fifteen years of discussions on the
internet I have found that a meeting of the minds is a rare event. I do not find
evidence that Papias taught a literal thousand year period of a messianic reign
upon this earth. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian did not teach
it, and none of them said Papias taught a literal reign upon this earth before
the final judgment. They consistently taught the 7th millennium was on the new
earth after the judgment. The thousand year periods came from 1 Enoch and
Jubilees and were based on Genesis 2:17. What those early fathers understood was
very close to amillennialism. Something close to modern premillennialism wasn't
taught in the Christian tradition, besides the heretic Cerinthius, until Nepos
of Egypt.


After the empire took over the church there was a reaction against the earlier
chiliasm because of its association with the breakup of the Roman empire. That's
where the confusion about chiliasm began. I've detailed these things in a You
Tube series.

http://www.youtube.com/AlanRussellFuller

The modern idea that chiliasm is like premillennialism is a misconception caused
by the confusion after Rome took over the church and tried to suppress the idea
that the Roman empire must soon breakup. This idea was a mistake caused by the
influence of Jewish interpretation in the first place, and was not part of the
original chiliasm. This can be proven by careful examination of quotes from the
church fathers through Tertullian.

The 144,000 are the spiritually pure and represent a number to be fulfilled.
(Rev 3:4, 14:4) the church is the true people of God and descendants of Abraham
(Rom 4:11-13).

What can be accepted as truth isn't different from what was taught to the early
church in the apostolic tradition.

Thank you,

Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> I think you'll find that what was considered to be wrong in the Jewish
> interpretation was an emphasis upon a literal 1000 year period of a messianic
> reign upon the earth.  It has been held that this was the reason that
Papias'

> view was not accepted although we really know very little regarding how Papias

> may have understood the Apocalypse.  It was not other matters which were
> rejected.
>
>  
> I fail to see how you can reject Jewish understanding of the visions of the
> Apocalypse when these visions were themselves based on Jewish
understandings. 
>
> If you reject the Jewish understanding then you have no basis for
understanding
>
> the message being given in the Apocalypse nor how it differs from the standard

> Jewish understanding of the narratives recounted there.
>
> I think it is fairly obvious that one must first reject the plain
implications,
>
> and indeed actual statements, of the book if you intend to understand the
> 144,000 as being anything other than actual Jews.  They are clearly
> distinguished from the "great multitude which no man can number" which
> constitute the Christian martyrs. 
>
>
> My method of understanding Revelation is, of course, post-Reformation in that
>it
>
> is based on a modern method of historical-linguistic-critical understanding of

> texts.  To base one's understanding of the texts upon those of some (that
is
>to
>
> say, any) historical view of its interpretation is to abandon one's obligation

> to deal honestly and rigorously with the texts.  One cannot completely
ignore

> what has gone on before in the Church's understanding of the texts, but even
> more one cannot be controlled by it.
>
> george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>


 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

1 There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of
Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written
by him,378 in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an
ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth
book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenaeus.
2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that
he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by
the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those
who were their friends.
3 He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my
interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the
elders382 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not,
like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that
teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those
that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith,384 and springing from
the truth itself.
4 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned
him in regard to the words of the elders,—what Andrew or what Peter said, or
what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew,
or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the
presbyter John,386 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what
was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the
living and abiding voice."
5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by
him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew
and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John
he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number
of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a
presbyter.
6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two
persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in
Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called John’s. It is
important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is
not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is
ascribed by name to John
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iii.39

 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 11:02:15 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


I see three periods of past influence on interpreting biblical prophecy that
have contributed to today's diverse views.

A. The pre-Christian teachings of Palestinian Jews
B. The post-Constantine period of Christianity
C. The post-reformation times until today

A.
I wrote about (A.) in the original post. Later fathers after Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria, associated the future imminent break up of the Roman
Empire with the appearance of Antichrist.

B.
In the fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine made Christianity the
religion of the Roman Empire. Of course any talk about the breakup of the Roman
Empire wouldn't have been taken very favorably, and the writings of the church
fathers probably reflect that. Many writings that were popular with the early
Christians, such as the Enoch books, Jubilees and the apostolic father Papias,
become scarce in Europe. Those such as Augustine identify the abomination of
desolation as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, even as Josephus may have
mentioned. However, the future persecution of the church by antichrist was still
expected, and even the eventual break up of the empire. The western part of the
empire fell in the fifth century and Constantinople finally fell to the Ottoman
Turks in the fifteenth century.

C.
Martin Luther led the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Many
Protestants believed that the pope was the antichrist, and Catholics made
similar claims about the Protestants. The Protestants stressed a more
historical/literal approach to scripture in their arguments with the Catholic
church, and even the Catholics were inclined to follow. The grounds for modern
interpretation were firmly laid.

You may remember we discussed Papias in April. I don't think we ever came to a
meeting of the minds on these things, but in fifteen years of discussions on the
internet I have found that a meeting of the minds is a rare event. I do not find
evidence that Papias taught a literal thousand year period of a messianic reign
upon this earth. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian did not teach
it, and none of them said Papias taught a literal reign upon this earth before
the final judgment. They consistently taught the 7th millennium was on the new
earth after the judgment. The thousand year periods came from 1 Enoch and
Jubilees and were based on Genesis 2:17. What those early fathers understood was
very close to amillennialism. Something close to modern premillennialism wasn't
taught in the Christian tradition, besides the heretic Cerinthius, until Nepos
of Egypt.


After the empire took over the church there was a reaction against the earlier
chiliasm because of its association with the breakup of the Roman empire. That's
where the confusion about chiliasm began. I've detailed these things in a You
Tube series.

http://www.youtube.com/AlanRussellFuller

The modern idea that chiliasm is like premillennialism is a misconception caused
by the confusion after Rome took over the church and tried to suppress the idea
that the Roman empire must soon breakup. This idea was a mistake caused by the
influence of Jewish interpretation in the first place, and was not part of the
original chiliasm. This can be proven by careful examination of quotes from the
church fathers through Tertullian.

The 144,000 are the spiritually pure and represent a number to be fulfilled.
(Rev 3:4, 14:4) the church is the true people of God and descendants of Abraham
(Rom 4:11-13).

What can be accepted as truth isn't different from what was taught to the early
church in the apostolic tradition.

Thank you,

Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> I think you'll find that what was considered to be wrong in the Jewish
> interpretation was an emphasis upon a literal 1000 year period of a messianic
> reign upon the earth.  It has been held that this was the reason that
Papias'

> view was not accepted although we really know very little regarding how Papias

> may have understood the Apocalypse.  It was not other matters which were
> rejected.
>
>  
> I fail to see how you can reject Jewish understanding of the visions of the
> Apocalypse when these visions were themselves based on Jewish
understandings. 
>
> If you reject the Jewish understanding then you have no basis for
understanding
>
> the message being given in the Apocalypse nor how it differs from the standard

> Jewish understanding of the narratives recounted there.
>
> I think it is fairly obvious that one must first reject the plain
implications,
>
> and indeed actual statements, of the book if you intend to understand the
> 144,000 as being anything other than actual Jews.  They are clearly
> distinguished from the "great multitude which no man can number" which
> constitute the Christian martyrs. 
>
>
> My method of understanding Revelation is, of course, post-Reformation in that
>it
>
> is based on a modern method of historical-linguistic-critical understanding of

> texts.  To base one's understanding of the texts upon those of some (that
is
>to
>
> say, any) historical view of its interpretation is to abandon one's obligation

> to deal honestly and rigorously with the texts.  One cannot completely
ignore

> what has gone on before in the Church's understanding of the texts, but even
> more one cannot be controlled by it.
>
> george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>


 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you for re-posting the comments of Eusebius that were discussed in April.
You may remember that Eusebius changed his eschatology after Rome adopted
Christianity.

Eusebius was a defender of Imperial Christianity. Please remember my earlier
statements.

Later fathers after Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, associated the future
imminent break up of the Roman Empire with the appearance of Antichrist. In the
fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of
the Roman Empire. Of course any talk about the breakup of the Roman Empire
wouldn't have been taken very favorably, and the writings of the church fathers
probably reflect that. Many writings that were popular with the early
Christians, such as the Enoch books, Jubilees and the apostolic father Papias,
become scarce in Europe.

  I do not find evidence that Papias taught a literal thousand year period of a
messianic reign upon this earth. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and
Tertullian did not teach it, and none of them said Papias taught a literal reign
upon this earth before the final judgment.

They consistently taught the 7th millennium was on the new earth after the
judgment. The thousand year periods came from 1 Enoch and Jubilees and were
based on Genesis 2:17. What those early fathers understood was very close to
amillennialism. Something close to modern premillennialism wasn't taught in the
Christian tradition, besides the heretic Cerinthius, until Nepos of Egypt.

After the empire took over the church there was a reaction against the earlier
chiliasm because of its association with the breakup of the Roman empire. That's
where the confusion about chiliasm began.

>>4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of
John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; <<


    Papias is mentioned by Irenaeus, Adv. Heresies. V. 33. 4, who informs us that
he was a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of the apostle John. The justice of
this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenaeus, has been
questioned by many, who have held that,in the passage, the same John is meant in
both cases.

Alan Fuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> 1 There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of
> Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written
> by him,378 in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an
> ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his
fourth
> book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of
Irenaeus.
> 2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares
that
> he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by
> the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those
> who were their friends.
> 3 He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my
> interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from
the
> elders382 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not,
> like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that
> teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those
> that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith,384 and springing
from
> the truth itself.
> 4 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned
> him in regard to the words of the elders,�"what Andrew or what Peter said, or
> what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew,
> or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the
> presbyter John,386 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that
what
> was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the
> living and abiding voice."
> 5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by
> him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew
> and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other
John
> he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the
number
> of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a
> presbyter.
> 6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two
> persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in
> Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called John’s. It is
> important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is
> not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is
> ascribed by name to John
> Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iii.39
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _

Offhand, I don't recall that Eusebius changed his eschatology though he did
change his Christology depending upon which direction the political winds seemed
to be blowing.  In any case, we know rather little regarding Papias, and
Cherinthus was rejected due to his millenial eschatology (though there were
undoubtedly other problems as well).  Whether only one or both were considered
to be millenialists it indicates that such a view was not favored in the Church
of the time. 

 
 
george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 7:50:25 AM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


Thank you for re-posting the comments of Eusebius that were discussed in April.
You may remember that Eusebius changed his eschatology after Rome adopted
Christianity.

Eusebius was a defender of Imperial Christianity. Please remember my earlier
statements.

Later fathers after Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, associated the future
imminent break up of the Roman Empire with the appearance of Antichrist. In the
fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of
the Roman Empire. Of course any talk about the breakup of the Roman Empire
wouldn't have been taken very favorably, and the writings of the church fathers
probably reflect that. Many writings that were popular with the early
Christians, such as the Enoch books, Jubilees and the apostolic father Papias,
become scarce in Europe.


I do not find evidence that Papias taught a literal thousand year period of a
messianic reign upon this earth. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and
Tertullian did not teach it, and none of them said Papias taught a literal reign
upon this earth before the final judgment.

They consistently taught the 7th millennium was on the new earth after the
judgment. The thousand year periods came from 1 Enoch and Jubilees and were
based on Genesis 2:17. What those early fathers understood was very close to
amillennialism. Something close to modern premillennialism wasn't taught in the
Christian tradition, besides the heretic Cerinthius, until Nepos of Egypt.

After the empire took over the church there was a reaction against the earlier
chiliasm because of its association with the breakup of the Roman empire. That's
where the confusion about chiliasm began.


>>4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of
>>John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; <<

Papias is mentioned by Irenaeus, Adv. Heresies. V. 33. 4, who informs us that he
was a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of the apostle John. The justice of
this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenaeus, has been
questioned by many, who have held that,in the passage, the same John is meant in
both cases.

Alan Fuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> 1 There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of
> Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written

> by him,378 in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an
> ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his
fourth
>
> book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of
>Irenaeus.
> 2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares
that
>
> he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by
> the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those

> who were their friends.
> 3 He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my
> interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from
the
>
> elders382 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not,
> like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that
> teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those
> that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith,384 and springing
from
>
> the truth itself.
> 4 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned
> him in regard to the words of the elders,â€"what Andrew or what Peter said,
or

> what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew,

> or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the

> presbyter John,386 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that
>what
>
> was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the
> living and abiding voice."
> 5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by
> him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew
> and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other
>John
>
> he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the
>number
>
> of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a
> presbyter.
> 6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two
> persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in
> Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called John’s. It
is
> important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is

> not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is
> ascribed by name to John
> Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iii.39
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you,

Here is the article about Eusebius.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1583992

I am saying what Cerinthius believed was something diffferent than Papias
understood from the apostolic tradition. Note that Irenaeus seems to think
highly of Papias, but considers Cerinthius a heretic. I doubt that would be the
case if their eschatology was the same.

Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

BTW, I earlier attributed "The Legend of Antichrist" to R.H. Charles. The author
is Wilhelm Bousset. I was thinking about a translation of "The Ascension of
Isaiah" by Charles.




--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> Offhand, I don't recall that Eusebius changed his eschatology though he did
> change his Christology depending upon which direction the political winds
seemed
> to be blowing.  In any case, we know rather little regarding Papias, and
> Cherinthus was rejected due to his millenial eschatology (though there were
> undoubtedly other problems as well).  Whether only one or both were
considered
> to be millenialists it indicates that such a view was not favored in the
Church
> of the time. 
>
>  
>  
> george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
> To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 7:50:25 AM
> Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation
>
>  
>
>
> Thank you for re-posting the comments of Eusebius that were discussed in
April.
> You may remember that Eusebius changed his eschatology after Rome adopted
> Christianity.
>
> Eusebius was a defender of Imperial Christianity. Please remember my earlier
> statements.
>
> Later fathers after Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, associated the future
> imminent break up of the Roman Empire with the appearance of Antichrist. In
the
> fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of
> the Roman Empire. Of course any talk about the breakup of the Roman Empire
> wouldn't have been taken very favorably, and the writings of the church
fathers
> probably reflect that. Many writings that were popular with the early
> Christians, such as the Enoch books, Jubilees and the apostolic father Papias,
> become scarce in Europe.
>
>
> I do not find evidence that Papias taught a literal thousand year period of a
> messianic reign upon this earth. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and
> Tertullian did not teach it, and none of them said Papias taught a literal
reign
> upon this earth before the final judgment.
>
> They consistently taught the 7th millennium was on the new earth after the
> judgment. The thousand year periods came from 1 Enoch and Jubilees and were
> based on Genesis 2:17. What those early fathers understood was very close to
> amillennialism. Something close to modern premillennialism wasn't taught in
the
> Christian tradition, besides the heretic Cerinthius, until Nepos of Egypt.
>
> After the empire took over the church there was a reaction against the earlier
> chiliasm because of its association with the breakup of the Roman empire.
That's
> where the confusion about chiliasm began.
>
>
> >>4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of
> >>John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; <<
>
> Papias is mentioned by Irenaeus, Adv. Heresies. V. 33. 4, who informs us that
he
> was a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of the apostle John. The justice of
> this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenaeus, has been
> questioned by many, who have held that,in the passage, the same John is meant
in
> both cases.
>
> Alan Fuller
>
> --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@> wrote:
> >
> > 1 There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of
> > Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works
written
>
> > by him,378 in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an
> > ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his
fourth
> >
> > book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of
> >Irenaeus.
> > 2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares
that
> >
> > he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows
by
> > the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from
those
>
> > who were their friends.
> > 3 He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my
> > interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from
the
> >
> > elders382 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not,
> > like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those
that
> > teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those
> > that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith,384 and springing
from
> >
> > the truth itself.
> > 4 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I
questioned
> > him in regard to the words of the elders,â€"what Andrew or what Peter
said, or
>
> > what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by
Matthew,
>
> > or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and
the
>
> > presbyter John,386 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that
> >what
> >
> > was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from
the
> > living and abiding voice."
> > 5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by
> > him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and
Matthew
> > and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other
> >John
> >
> > he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the
> >number
> >
> > of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a
> > presbyter.
> > 6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were
two
> > persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in
> > Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called John’s. It
is
> > important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one
is
>
> > not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is
> > ascribed by name to John
> > Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iii.39
> >
> >  george
> > gfsomsel
> >
> >
> > … search for truth, hear truth,
> > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> > defend the truth till death.
> >
> >
> > - Jan Hus
> > _
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to oppose a chiliast view before Eusebius
as well.
1 Besides all these the two books on the Promises were prepared by him. The
occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises to
the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish
manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this
earth.
2 As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation of
John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists.
3 Dionysius opposes this in his books on the Promises. In the first he gives his
own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of John,
and mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him in this manner:
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History vii.24

 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 10:14:22 AM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 
Thank you,

Here is the article about Eusebius.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1583992

I am saying what Cerinthius believed was something diffferent than Papias
understood from the apostolic tradition. Note that Irenaeus seems to think
highly of Papias, but considers Cerinthius a heretic. I doubt that would be the
case if their eschatology was the same.

Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

BTW, I earlier attributed "The Legend of Antichrist" to R.H. Charles. The author
is Wilhelm Bousset. I was thinking about a translation of "The Ascension of
Isaiah" by Charles.

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> Offhand, I don't recall that Eusebius changed his eschatology though he did
> change his Christology depending upon which direction the political winds
>seemed
>
> to be blowing.  In any case, we know rather little regarding Papias, and
> Cherinthus was rejected due to his millenial eschatology (though there were
> undoubtedly other problems as well).  Whether only one or both were
considered
>
> to be millenialists it indicates that such a view was not favored in the
Church
>
> of the time. 
>
>  
>  
> george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
> To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 7:50:25 AM
> Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation
>
>  
>
>
> Thank you for re-posting the comments of Eusebius that were discussed in
April.
>
> You may remember that Eusebius changed his eschatology after Rome adopted
> Christianity.
>
> Eusebius was a defender of Imperial Christianity. Please remember my earlier
> statements.
>
> Later fathers after Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, associated the future
> imminent break up of the Roman Empire with the appearance of Antichrist. In
the
>
> fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of

> the Roman Empire. Of course any talk about the breakup of the Roman Empire
> wouldn't have been taken very favorably, and the writings of the church
fathers
>
> probably reflect that. Many writings that were popular with the early
> Christians, such as the Enoch books, Jubilees and the apostolic father Papias,

> become scarce in Europe.
>
>
> I do not find evidence that Papias taught a literal thousand year period of a
> messianic reign upon this earth. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and
> Tertullian did not teach it, and none of them said Papias taught a literal
>reign
>
> upon this earth before the final judgment.
>
> They consistently taught the 7th millennium was on the new earth after the
> judgment. The thousand year periods came from 1 Enoch and Jubilees and were
> based on Genesis 2:17. What those early fathers understood was very close to
> amillennialism. Something close to modern premillennialism wasn't taught in
the
>
> Christian tradition, besides the heretic Cerinthius, until Nepos of Egypt.
>
> After the empire took over the church there was a reaction against the earlier

> chiliasm because of its association with the breakup of the Roman empire.
>That's
>
> where the confusion about chiliasm began.
>
>
> >>4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of

> >>John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; <<
>
> Papias is mentioned by Irenaeus, Adv. Heresies. V. 33. 4, who informs us that
>he
>
> was a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of the apostle John. The justice of
> this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenaeus, has been
> questioned by many, who have held that,in the passage, the same John is meant
>in
>
> both cases.
>
> Alan Fuller
>
> --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@> wrote:
> >
> > 1 There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of

> > Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works
>written
>
>
> > by him,378 in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an
> > ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his
>fourth
>
> >
> > book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of
> >Irenaeus.
> > 2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares
>that
>
> >
> > he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows
by
>
> > the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from
>those
>
>
> > who were their friends.
> > 3 He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my
> > interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from
>the
>
> >
> > elders382 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not,

> > like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those
that
>
> > teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those

> > that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith,384 and springing
>from
>
> >
> > the truth itself.
> > 4 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I
questioned
>
> > him in regard to the words of the elders,â€"what Andrew or what
Peter
>said, or
>
>
> > what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by
>Matthew,
>
>
> > or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and
>the
>
>
> > presbyter John,386 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that
> >what
> >
> > was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from
the
>
> > living and abiding voice."
> > 5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by

> > him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and
Matthew
>
> > and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other
> >John
> >
> > he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the
> >number
> >
> > of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a
> > presbyter.
> > 6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were
two
>
> > persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in
> > Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called
John’s. It
>is
>
> > important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one
>is
>
>
> > not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is

> > ascribed by name to John
> > Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iii.39
> >
> >  george
> > gfsomsel
> >
> >
> > … search for truth, hear truth,
> > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> > defend the truth till death.
> >
> >
> > - Jan Hus
> > _
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes. I wrote earlier;

>>Something close to modern premillennialism wasn't
taught in the Christian tradition, besides the heretic Cerinthius, until Nepos
of Egypt.<<

Dionysius wrote in response to Nepos, and persuaded Nepos of his error. Nepos
belief was different than that of the earlier fathers.

I might add that there was a strong backlash against Montanism that also brought
criticism of the Apocalypse. But judging from what Tertullian wrote, the
Montanists were not premillennial although they probably could be considered
chiliasts. I am saying that premillennialism and chiliasm are really very
different beliefs, despite the later misunderstanding. I believe original
chiliasm was closer to amillennialism. The modern misunderstanding of these
things can be attributed to the reaction against the earlier fathers by the
post-Constantine fathers, and that reaction was because Jewish interpretation
had crept into the church in the second century.

1. There was the original apostolic teaching on prophecy, but it was a bit hard
for the average first and second century Christian to understand. (1 Cor 3:2)

2. In the vacuum Jewish error, that Barnabas warns of, crept in.

3. This error caused a backlash against the earlier beliefs by the
post-Constantine fathers. They were actually rebelling against an error, but
threw the baby out with the bath water.

4. Excessive literalism has contributed to this misunderstanding.


Alan Fuller



--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to oppose a chiliast view before Eusebius
as well.
> 1 Besides all these the two books on the Promises were prepared by him. The
> occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises
to
> the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish
> manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon
this
> earth.
> 2 As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation
of
> John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists.
> 3 Dionysius opposes this in his books on the Promises. In the first he gives
his
> own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of
John,
> and mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him in this manner:
> Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History vii.24
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>

Dionysius convinced Nepos of nothing.
4 "But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely
confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of Christ
upon earth, I confess that in many other respects I approve and love Nepos, for
his faith and industry and diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive
psalmody, with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold him in
the more reverence because he has gone to rest before us. But the truth should
be loved and honored most of all. And while we should praise and approve
ungrudgingly what is said aright, we ought to examine and correct what does not
seem to have been written soundly.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii.24
 

 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 11:02:23 AM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


Yes. I wrote earlier;

>>Something close to modern premillennialism wasn't
taught in the Christian tradition, besides the heretic Cerinthius, until Nepos
of Egypt.<<

Dionysius wrote in response to Nepos, and persuaded Nepos of his error. Nepos
belief was different than that of the earlier fathers.

I might add that there was a strong backlash against Montanism that also brought
criticism of the Apocalypse. But judging from what Tertullian wrote, the
Montanists were not premillennial although they probably could be considered
chiliasts. I am saying that premillennialism and chiliasm are really very
different beliefs, despite the later misunderstanding. I believe original
chiliasm was closer to amillennialism. The modern misunderstanding of these
things can be attributed to the reaction against the earlier fathers by the
post-Constantine fathers, and that reaction was because Jewish interpretation
had crept into the church in the second century.

1. There was the original apostolic teaching on prophecy, but it was a bit hard
for the average first and second century Christian to understand. (1 Cor 3:2)

2. In the vacuum Jewish error, that Barnabas warns of, crept in.

3. This error caused a backlash against the earlier beliefs by the
post-Constantine fathers. They were actually rebelling against an error, but
threw the baby out with the bath water.

4. Excessive literalism has contributed to this misunderstanding.

Alan Fuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to oppose a chiliast view before Eusebius
>as well.
> 1 Besides all these the two books on the Promises were prepared by him. The
> occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises
to
>
> the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish
> manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon
this
>
> earth.
> 2 As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation
>of
>
> John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists.
> 3 Dionysius opposes this in his books on the Promises. In the first he gives
>his
>
> own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of
>John,
>
> and mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him in this manner:
> Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History vii.24
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>


 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you George. You have corrected me on that point.


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> Dionysius convinced Nepos of nothing.
> 4 "But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely
> confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of
Christ
> upon earth, I confess that in many other respects I approve and love Nepos,
for
> his faith and industry and diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive
> psalmody, with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold him
in
> the more reverence because he has gone to rest before us. But the truth should
> be loved and honored most of all. And while we should praise and approve
> ungrudgingly what is said aright, we ought to examine and correct what does
not
> seem to have been written soundly.
> Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii.24
>  
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>

I note that even Eusebius calls it a private opinion by Nepos, and not a wide
spread doctrine of the early church. He also refers to it as "Jewish."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii.24

>>1. Besides all these the two books on the Promises were prepared by him. The
occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises to
the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish
manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this
earth.
2. As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation
of John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists.<<



--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> Dionysius convinced Nepos of nothing.
> 4 "But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely
> confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of
Christ
> upon earth, I confess that in many other respects I approve and love Nepos,
for
> his faith and industry and diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive
> psalmody, with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold him
in
> the more reverence because he has gone to rest before us. But the truth should
> be loved and honored most of all. And while we should praise and approve
> ungrudgingly what is said aright, we ought to examine and correct what does
not
> seem to have been written soundly.
> Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii.24
>  
>
>

The text to which you refer is, in the Greek,

δόξας γοῦν οὗτος ἐκ τῆς Ἀποκαλύψεως
Ἰωάννου τὴν ἰδίαν κρατύνειν ὑπόληψιν
DOCAS GOUN hOUTOS EK THS APOKALUYEWS IWANNOU THN IDIAN KRATUNEIN hUPOLHYIN
 
This is most likely referencing 1 Pt 1.20
 
20τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα
προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ
γίνεται·
20 TOUTO PRWTON GINWSKONTES hOTI PASA PROFHTEIA GRAFHS IDIAS EPILUSEWS OU
GINETAI.
 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 11:52:39 AM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


I note that even Eusebius calls it a private opinion by Nepos, and not a wide
spread doctrine of the early church. He also refers to it as "Jewish."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii.24

>>1. Besides all these the two books on the Promises were prepared by him. The
>>occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises
to
>>the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish
>>manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon
this
>>earth.
2. As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation
of John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists.<<

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> Dionysius convinced Nepos of nothing.
> 4 "But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely
> confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of
>Christ
>
> upon earth, I confess that in many other respects I approve and love Nepos,
for
>
> his faith and industry and diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive
> psalmody, with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold him
>in
>
> the more reverence because he has gone to rest before us. But the truth should

> be loved and honored most of all. And while we should praise and approve
> ungrudgingly what is said aright, we ought to examine and correct what does
not
>
> seem to have been written soundly.
> Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii.24
>  
>
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It comes out like this on my screen.


>
> δόξας γοῦν οὗτος ἐκ τῆς Ἀποκαλύψεως
Ἰωάννου τὴν ἰδίαν κρατύνειν �`πόληψιν
> DOCAS GOUN hOUTOS EK THS APOKALUYEWS IWANNOU THN IDIAN KRATUNEIN hUPOLHYIN
>  
> This is most likely referencing 1 Pt 1.20
>  
> 20τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα
προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ
γίνεται·
> 20 TOUTO PRWTON GINWSKONTES hOTI PASA PROFHTEIA GRAFHS IDIAS EPILUSEWS OU
> GINETAI.
>  george
> gfsomsel

That's okay since I'm not a Greek scholar. Is it different than my English
version?

Thanks,

Alan Fuller

If you can't read what I sent then you need to adjust the settings in your
browser to show UTF-8 characters.  When I send Greek or Hebrew in any other
forum it comes through just fine.  My copy of the post which was returned to
me
also displayed accurately.
 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 12:47:53 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


It comes out like this on my screen.

>
> δόξας γοῦν οὗτος
�κ τῆς
Ἀποκαλύψεως
>Ἰωάννου τὴν ἰδίαν
κÏ�ατύνειν á½`πόληψιν
> DOCAS GOUN hOUTOS EK THS APOKALUYEWS IWANNOU THN IDIAN KRATUNEIN hUPOLHYIN
>  
> This is most likely referencing 1 Pt 1.20
>  
> 20τοῦτο π�ῶτον
γινώσκοντες ὅτι
πᾶσα
>π�οφητεία γ�αφῆς
ἰδίας �πιλ�σεως ο�
>γίνεται·
>
> 20 TOUTO PRWTON GINWSKONTES hOTI PASA PROFHTEIA GRAFHS IDIAS EPILUSEWS OU
> GINETAI.
>  george
> gfsomsel

That's okay since I'm not a Greek scholar. Is it different than my English
version?

Thanks,

Alan Fuller






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I apologize for my ignorance of Greek.  Here is what I get when I translate to
English.

At any rate the latter from the glory of his Apokal?pseos John id?an krat?nein
ypolipsin
Knowing the first place so that any prediction of solving my own Scripture is �


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> If you can't read what I sent then you need to adjust the settings in your
> browser to show UTF-8 characters.  When I send Greek or Hebrew in any other
> forum it comes through just fine.  My copy of the post which was returned to
me
> also displayed accurately.
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
> To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 12:47:53 PM
> Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation
>
>  
>
>
> It comes out like this on my screen.
>
> >
> > δόξας γοῦν ο�"τος
�κ τῆς
Ἀποκαλύψεως
> >Ἰωάννου τὴν ἰδίαν
κÏ�ατύνειν á½`πόληψιν
> > DOCAS GOUN hOUTOS EK THS APOKALUYEWS IWANNOU THN IDIAN KRATUNEIN hUPOLHYIN
> >  
> > This is most likely referencing 1 Pt 1.20
> >  
> > 20τοῦτο π�ῶτον
γινώ�'κοντες ὅτι
πᾶ�'α
> >π�οφητεία γ�αφῆς
ἰδίας �πιλ��'εως ο�
> >γίνεται·
> >
> > 20 TOUTO PRWTON GINWSKONTES hOTI PASA PROFHTEIA GRAFHS IDIAS EPILUSEWS OU
> > GINETAI.
> >  george
> > gfsomsel
>
> That's okay since I'm not a Greek scholar. Is it different than my English
> version?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan Fuller
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

No, it has nothing to do with "solving my own Scripture" it is simply 2 Pet 1.20
which states that no scripture is subject to one's own interpretation.  This
would particularly strike at the post-modern view that there can be different
understandings of a passage for different groups.

 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 2:03:39 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


I apologize for my ignorance of Greek. Here is what I get when I translate to
English.

At any rate the latter from the glory of his Apokal?pseos John id?an krat?nein
ypolipsin

Knowing the first place so that any prediction of solving my own Scripture is ·

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> If you can't read what I sent then you need to adjust the settings in your
> browser to show UTF-8 characters.  When I send Greek or Hebrew in any
other
> forum it comes through just fine.  My copy of the post which was
returned to
>me
>
> also displayed accurately.
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
> To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 12:47:53 PM
> Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation
>
>  
>
>
> It comes out like this on my screen.
>
> >
> > δόξα�‚
γοῦν
οá½â€"Ã�„οÃ�‚
>á¼�κ �„ῆ�‚
>Ἀ�€Î¿ÎºÎ±Î»á½»�ˆ\
ε�‰�‚
>
> >Ἰ�‰á½±Î½Î½Î¿�…
�„ὴν
ἰδίαν
>κ��α�„ύνειÎ\
½ á½`�€á½¹Î»Î·�ˆÎ¹Î½
> > DOCAS GOUN hOUTOS EK THS APOKALUYEWS IWANNOU THN IDIAN KRATUNEIN hUPOLHYIN
> >  
> > This is most likely referencing 1 Pt 1.20
> >  
> > 20�„οῦ�„ο
�€��ῶ�„ον
>γινÃ�ŽÃ�Æ'κονÃ�„Ã\
ŽÂµÃ�‚ á½…Ã�„ι
>Ã�€á¾¶Ã�Æ'α
>
>
>�€��ο�†Î·�„εί\
α γ��α�†á¿†�‚
>ἰδία�‚
�Ã�€Î¹Î»Ã��Ã�Æ'εÃ�â€�\
��‚ οá½�
>
> >γίνε�„αι·
> >
> > 20 TOUTO PRWTON GINWSKONTES hOTI PASA PROFHTEIA GRAFHS IDIAS EPILUSEWS OU
> > GINETAI.
> >  george
> > gfsomsel
>
> That's okay since I'm not a Greek scholar. Is it different than my English
> version?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan Fuller
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you very much for your kind patience. When you said the "text" I referred
to, I thought you meant Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii.24. I didn't
understand you meant the Bible "text." I understand now, and I agree.

I think it is interesting that Eusebius referred to Nepos' private opinion and
non-allegorical approach as "Jewish." A non-allegorical approach was thought of
as Jewish by many of the church fathers. However, in modern times an allegorical
approach is considered highly suspicious, and changeable at the whim of the
interpreter. So it seems the Jewish approach would be preferable today. Of
course Peter was right, but I don't think an allegorical approach has to be any
more of a private interpretation than the interpretation of a literalist like
Nepos, since his opinion was considered private and non-allegorical. But you are
right about post-modern interpretation.

Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller







--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> No, it has nothing to do with "solving my own Scripture" it is simply 2 Pet
1.20
> which states that no scripture is subject to one's own interpretation.  This
> would particularly strike at the post-modern view that there can be different
> understandings of a passage for different groups.
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>

While there was some use of an allegorical approach to understanding scripture
within scripture itself (note, e.g. Paul's allegorical use of Sinai as
representing Hagar), there is no place for an allegorical use of scripture
outside of scripture itself.  The only reason it can be tolerated in scripture
is because it involves the message which the author is attempting to impart and
not the method which he uses.  Allegorical interpretation is particularly
subject to the abuse of allowing the "interpreter" to make a passage state
whatever he may wish it to say regardless of what the author originally
intended.

 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 2:58:27 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


Thank you very much for your kind patience. When you said the "text" I referred
to, I thought you meant Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii.24. I didn't
understand you meant the Bible "text." I understand now, and I agree.

I think it is interesting that Eusebius referred to Nepos' private opinion and
non-allegorical approach as "Jewish." A non-allegorical approach was thought of
as Jewish by many of the church fathers. However, in modern times an allegorical
approach is considered highly suspicious, and changeable at the whim of the
interpreter. So it seems the Jewish approach would be preferable today. Of
course Peter was right, but I don't think an allegorical approach has to be any
more of a private interpretation than the interpretation of a literalist like
Nepos, since his opinion was considered private and non-allegorical. But you are
right about post-modern interpretation.

Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> No, it has nothing to do with "solving my own Scripture" it is simply 2 Pet
>1.20
>
> which states that no scripture is subject to one's own interpretation. 
This

> would particularly strike at the post-modern view that there can be different
> understandings of a passage for different groups.
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think Martin Luther said something similar to what you just stated didn't he? 
One has to wonder why Jesus taught in parables.  Wouldn't it have been better if
He just directly, literally stated what He needed to say? If the Apocalypse
would have been written in a more understandable way we wouldn't have much to
talk about though.

Thank you,
Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
>
> While there was some use of an allegorical approach to understanding scripture
> within scripture itself (note, e.g. Paul's allegorical use of Sinai as
> representing Hagar), there is no place for an allegorical use of scripture
> outside of scripture itself.  The only reason it can be tolerated in
scripture
> is because it involves the message which the author is attempting to impart
and
> not the method which he uses.  Allegorical interpretation is particularly
> subject to the abuse of allowing the "interpreter" to make a passage state
> whatever he may wish it to say regardless of what the author originally
> intended.
>
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
>

Time for me to jump into this interesting discussion again.

Alan, I think you still haven't shown why Revelation (as opposed to Daniel)
should be interpreted allegorically. I agree there are problems with a fully
preterist reading but it seems closest to what the opening words of Rev suggest.
The old historicist reading is largely discredited, though it builds on some of
the fathers' writings you have referred to (i.e. the antichrist coming out of
the breakup of Roman empire). Parts of Rev (e.g. Rev.20:11-15) are best read as
future but modern futurism is unsustainable (as I argued in my book Revelation
Reclaimed). I tend myself therefore to a preterist-idealist reading, but this is
different to allegorical if I understand correctly because it still allows for
some historical reference and doesn't make Rev about the individual christian
life as some allegorical readings did. So can you give me a more specific
summary of how you read Rev and why one should follow this reading?

Second, since you guys know the fathers better than I do, do any of them espouse
views similar to postmillennialism?

(Pastor) Jon Newton


--- On Sat, 15/1/11, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:

From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...>
Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Received: Saturday, 15 January, 2011, 9:10 AM







 









       While there was some use of an allegorical approach to understanding
scripture

within scripture itself (note, e.g. Paul's allegorical use of Sinai as

representing Hagar), there is no place for an allegorical use of scripture

outside of scripture itself.  The only reason it can be tolerated in scripture

is because it involves the message which the author is attempting to impart and

not the method which he uses.  Allegorical interpretation is particularly

subject to the abuse of allowing the "interpreter" to make a passage state

whatever he may wish it to say regardless of what the author originally

intended.



 george

gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,

learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,

defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus

_________



________________________________

From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>

To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 2:58:27 PM

Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation



 



Thank you very much for your kind patience. When you said the "text" I referred

to, I thought you meant Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii.24. I didn't

understand you meant the Bible "text." I understand now, and I agree.



I think it is interesting that Eusebius referred to Nepos' private opinion and

non-allegorical approach as "Jewish." A non-allegorical approach was thought of

as Jewish by many of the church fathers. However, in modern times an allegorical

approach is considered highly suspicious, and changeable at the whim of the

interpreter. So it seems the Jewish approach would be preferable today. Of

course Peter was right, but I don't think an allegorical approach has to be any

more of a private interpretation than the interpretation of a literalist like

Nepos, since his opinion was considered private and non-allegorical. But you are

right about post-modern interpretation.



Alan Fuller

http://www.lulu.com/arfuller



--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:

>

> No, it has nothing to do with "solving my own Scripture" it is simply 2 Pet

>1.20

>

> which states that no scripture is subject to one's own interpretation. 
This



> would particularly strike at the post-modern view that there can be different

> understandings of a passage for different groups.

>

>  george

> gfsomsel

>

>

> … search for truth, hear truth,

> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,

> defend the truth till death.

>

>

> - Jan Hus

> _________

>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings,

An allegory is a story represented in figures, symbols or events in narrative,
dramatic, or pictorial form. Considering the strange nature of the Apocalypse
and apocalyptic literature I think it makes them good candidates for that kind
of interpretation, if we only knew what the story was about. Christ claimed the
scriptures are about Him (Luke 24:25-27, John 5:39, Heb 10:7). It is the
Revelation of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1).

Allegory is a Greek word, and when they found their myths a little hard to
swallow on a literal level, they decided they were allegory. Origen said the
Egyptian myths were considered allegory.

IMO Revelation should not be interpreted so much by its symbols, but by its
pattern, and the overriding pattern is the Word of God, the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.

I think Justin Martyr was the first to directly mention the Apocalypse and
Irenaeus writes quite a bit about it. Victorinus wrote the first commentary in
the 4th century. Before that, in the early second or maybe even in the late
first century, Hermas uses some of the same symbols, a false prophet, a beast of
tribulation, a tower rather than a temple of God, a series of seven angels,
white stones and garments of righteousness.

To me, one of the main differences between amillennialism and postmillennialism
is the latter's optimism. I don't know any of the early church fathers that
didn't expect a future persecution of the church by antichrist.

Thanks for asking,
Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, Jon Newton <jonknewton@...> wrote:
>
> Time for me to jump into this interesting discussion again.
>
> Alan, I think you still haven't shown why Revelation (as opposed to Daniel)
should be interpreted allegorically. I agree there are problems with a fully
preterist reading but it seems closest to what the opening words of Rev suggest.
The old historicist reading is largely discredited, though it builds on some of
the fathers' writings you have referred to (i.e. the antichrist coming out of
the breakup of Roman empire). Parts of Rev (e.g. Rev.20:11-15) are best read as
future but modern futurism is unsustainable (as I argued in my book Revelation
Reclaimed). I tend myself therefore to a preterist-idealist reading, but this is
different to allegorical if I understand correctly because it still allows for
some historical reference and doesn't make Rev about the individual christian
life as some allegorical readings did. So can you give me a more specific
summary of how you read Rev and why one should follow this reading?
>
> Second, since you guys know the fathers better than I do, do any of them
espouse views similar to postmillennialism?
>
> (Pastor) Jon Newton
>

I should say I don't know any of the early church fathers that denied a future
persecution by antichrist. That would be more accurate.


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n" <rocsy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> An allegory is a story represented in figures, symbols or events in narrative,
dramatic, or pictorial form. Considering the strange nature of the Apocalypse
and apocalyptic literature I think it makes them good candidates for that kind
of interpretation, if we only knew what the story was about. Christ claimed the
scriptures are about Him (Luke 24:25-27, John 5:39, Heb 10:7). It is the
Revelation of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1).
>
> Allegory is a Greek word, and when they found their myths a little hard to
swallow on a literal level, they decided they were allegory. Origen said the
Egyptian myths were considered allegory.
>
> IMO Revelation should not be interpreted so much by its symbols, but by its
pattern, and the overriding pattern is the Word of God, the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.
>
> I think Justin Martyr was the first to directly mention the Apocalypse and
Irenaeus writes quite a bit about it. Victorinus wrote the first commentary in
the 4th century. Before that, in the early second or maybe even in the late
first century, Hermas uses some of the same symbols, a false prophet, a beast of
tribulation, a tower rather than a temple of God, a series of seven angels,
white stones and garments of righteousness.
>
> To me, one of the main differences between amillennialism and
postmillennialism is the latter's optimism. I don't know any of the early church
fathers that didn't expect a future persecution of the church by antichrist.
>
> Thanks for asking,
> Alan Fuller
> http://www.lulu.com/arfuller
>
>
> --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, Jon Newton <jonknewton@> wrote:
> >
> > Time for me to jump into this interesting discussion again.
> >
> > Alan, I think you still haven't shown why Revelation (as opposed to Daniel)
should be interpreted allegorically. I agree there are problems with a fully
preterist reading but it seems closest to what the opening words of Rev suggest.
The old historicist reading is largely discredited, though it builds on some of
the fathers' writings you have referred to (i.e. the antichrist coming out of
the breakup of Roman empire). Parts of Rev (e.g. Rev.20:11-15) are best read as
future but modern futurism is unsustainable (as I argued in my book Revelation
Reclaimed). I tend myself therefore to a preterist-idealist reading, but this is
different to allegorical if I understand correctly because it still allows for
some historical reference and doesn't make Rev about the individual christian
life as some allegorical readings did. So can you give me a more specific
summary of how you read Rev and why one should follow this reading?
> >
> > Second, since you guys know the fathers better than I do, do any of them
espouse views similar to postmillennialism?
> >
> > (Pastor) Jon Newton
> >
>

Allegory is not simply the presentation of matters in a pictorial form.  In
such
a case Jesus' parables would be considered allegories -- "a sower went forth to
sow ...", a man was on a journey from Jerusalem to Jericho, a man's son was to
get married so he sent invitations to all to come to the wedding feast.  These
are not properly allegories.  An allegory is the pictorial representation in
which the characters and events take on a deeper meaning.  We see such a
situation in Hermas.  We see such in the interpretations of Philo of
Alexandria.  This is not a proper method for the interpretation of scripture
where the scripture itself does not state that such is the case.  Resort to
allegorical interpretation leads to "one's own interpretation" to use the
wording of 2 Peter.

 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n <rocsy@...>
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 10:07:12 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

 


Greetings,

An allegory is a story represented in figures, symbols or events in narrative,
dramatic, or pictorial form. Considering the strange nature of the Apocalypse
and apocalyptic literature I think it makes them good candidates for that kind
of interpretation, if we only knew what the story was about. Christ claimed the
scriptures are about Him (Luke 24:25-27, John 5:39, Heb 10:7). It is the
Revelation of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1).

Allegory is a Greek word, and when they found their myths a little hard to
swallow on a literal level, they decided they were allegory. Origen said the
Egyptian myths were considered allegory.

IMO Revelation should not be interpreted so much by its symbols, but by its
pattern, and the overriding pattern is the Word of God, the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.

I think Justin Martyr was the first to directly mention the Apocalypse and
Irenaeus writes quite a bit about it. Victorinus wrote the first commentary in
the 4th century. Before that, in the early second or maybe even in the late
first century, Hermas uses some of the same symbols, a false prophet, a beast of
tribulation, a tower rather than a temple of God, a series of seven angels,
white stones and garments of righteousness.

To me, one of the main differences between amillennialism and postmillennialism
is the latter's optimism. I don't know any of the early church fathers that
didn't expect a future persecution of the church by antichrist.

Thanks for asking,
Alan Fuller
http://www.lulu.com/arfuller


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, Jon Newton <jonknewton@...> wrote:
>
> Time for me to jump into this interesting discussion again.
>
> Alan, I think you still haven't shown why Revelation (as opposed to Daniel)
>should be interpreted allegorically. I agree there are problems with a fully
>preterist reading but it seems closest to what the opening words of Rev
suggest.
>The old historicist reading is largely discredited, though it builds on some of
>the fathers' writings you have referred to (i.e. the antichrist coming out of
>the breakup of Roman empire). Parts of Rev (e.g. Rev.20:11-15) are best read as
>future but modern futurism is unsustainable (as I argued in my book Revelation
>Reclaimed). I tend myself therefore to a preterist-idealist reading, but this
is
>different to allegorical if I understand correctly because it still allows for
>some historical reference and doesn't make Rev about the individual christian
>life as some allegorical readings did. So can you give me a more specific
>summary of how you read Rev and why one should follow this reading?
>
> Second, since you guys know the fathers better than I do, do any of them
>espouse views similar to postmillennialism?
>
> (Pastor) Jon Newton
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]