Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    I don t think that we can simply speak of a future persecution by the antichrist.   Antichrist is simply a spirit or tendency.  We are told that whoever
    Message 1 of 43 , Jan 14, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't think that we can simply speak of a "future persecution by the
      antichrist."  "Antichrist" is simply a spirit or tendency.  We are told that
      whoever denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is the antichrist and that
      there are many such already in the world (at that time already). 


       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 10:26:44 PM
      Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Apostolic Interpretation

       

      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
      > >
      >







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • George F Somsel
      You must also remember that this would have been read more than once so there would be opportunities to pick up further details later.  george gfsomsel …
      Message 43 of 43 , Jan 15, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        You must also remember that this would have been read more than once so there
        would be opportunities to pick up further details later.

         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: Jon Newton <jonknewton@...>
        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, January 15, 2011 4:05:32 PM
        Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Apostolic Interpretation

         
        Thanks for those comments George

        I fully agree about the intended audience which is clearly stated in Rev.1

        I also fully agree about the centrality of Jesus is the text, which seemed to be
        Alan's key thought too.

        Not sure about your comments about the details and speed reading. While I'm sure
        each detail is by no means random, the original audience would have been
        hearing, not reading, the text. This helps explain the sevens and other
        structural features in Revelation. But it makes it unlikely they could
        concentrate on the intricate detail of each stage of the revelation.

        Jon

        (Pastor) Jon Newton

        --- On Sun, 16/1/11, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:

        From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...>
        Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Apostolic Interpretation
        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
        Received: Sunday, 16 January, 2011, 3:31 AM

         

        I really don't know why we should discuss either Constantine or Justinian or any


        other figure subsequent to the penning of the Apocalypse.  It was not written

        primarily for a later age.  It was written for those to whom the book was

        delivered by the author's courier in his circuit around the loop which

        constituted the diocese of the author of the Apocalypse.  It was meant to be

        understood by them -- one must accept that it would have been compreshensible to


        them with their knowledge of the OT and the apocalyptic literature as well as

        the intimate knowledge they would have of their own age.  This was not something


        which would only become clear years and centuries or even millenia thereafter. 

        It was a message to the bishop's parishoners.  It is only a message to us today

        in the sense that they still convey the same vital message which was set to

        "paper" when it was written just as Paul's letters were primarily letters to

        living and breathing people of the time in which he lived.  They are still

        meaningful and even vitally significant to us today, but we understand them much


        less easily than the original recipients would have.

         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: asteresplanetai <asteresplanetai@...>

        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com

        Sent: Sat, January 15, 2011 6:27:46 AM

        Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Apostolic Interpretation

         

        +++

        > Posted by: "e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n" rocsy@... e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n

        > In the fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine made

        > Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.

        Just a minor correction, although it may color the way one sees some

        things: Constantine did *not* make Christianity the religion of the

        Roman Empire. Constantine made Christianity *legal*-- that is, he

        stopped the persecutions-- by the Edict of Milan, and he certainly

        encouraged it-- but it was Justinian who made it officially 'the

        religion of the Roman Empire', about 2 centuries later.

        And as usual, it's good to keep in mind that 200 years back then were

        the same as 200 years today. From Constantine to Justinian would be

        the same length of time as between, say, Thomas Jefferson and Barack

        Obama.

        kind regards,

        John burnett.

        Help Uganda high school students graduate!

        http://jbburnett.com/africa/uganda%20kids%2020090111.pdf

        My South Africa education mission:

        http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=johnbburnett

        Contribute through Paypal at

        http://jbburnett.com/blogs/blogafrica.html

        or send checks to---

        St Nicholas African Education Fund

        102 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960

        Tel 415 454 0982

        Thanx!

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

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







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.