Number Of His Name

You can say that again! :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

I tend to agree. Also, Daniel was predicting someone who was an antitype of the antichrist who did come and do some bad stuff and that was a foreshadowing of the antichrist to come.

Is that crystal clear to all? :wavey:

There are many antitypes in the Bible and prophecies can be about someone who has already come and someone else still to come.

I lean toward pre-trib rapture.

 

Why are people taking The Revelation of John literally? It is apocalyptic literature. This type of literature is symbolic in nature. Look at Daniel. All the prophesy about Jesus and the Pharasees and the Saducees and the multitude of others got it wrong. Why so dogmatic about this we can't verify?

 

I'm guessing you didn't read Cornerstone magazine or Christianity Today's exposés on Alberto Rivera either.

 

Yep, the following statement misses the mark on so many levels:

//Alberto Rivera, former Jesuit priest, said they are preparing for a future inquisition against other religions.//

1.The Alberto Rivera myth is promoted by a COMIC BOOK COMPANY:

http://www.chick.com/default.asp

Chick Comics? I find it hard to base my doctrines on a comic book. Sorry, I'll stick with the MVs over comics :saint:

2. The very meaning of 'inquisition' refers to INTERNAL Roman Catholic Church (RCC) investigation and punishment. So the phrase 'against other religions' contradicts the meaning of 'inquisition'.

 

While I have not read any other posts in this thread, I heartily agree with this. There is a long scriptural tradition of using wild exaggerated imagery involving e.g. the destruction of celestial bodies in order to represent much more "mundane", earthly events.

 

Daniel was talking about Antiochus IV Epiphanies. I don't think Daniels prophesy involves periods after Jesus establishes his kingdom. (or christianity not some future kingdom.)

 

Ed Edwards:
"Chick Comics? I find it hard to base my doctrines on a comic book. Sorry, I'll stick with the MVs over comics"

GE
I want to give credit where credit is due. I once read in a Chick comic about Augustine who would have made it his life's task to destroy the trustworthy manuscripts of th New Testament - or something akin - it was long agao. So I wrote them a letter - it was BPC (Before Personal Computers). And they really wrote back to me, and said they cannot account for something like that having gone to print. They didn't retract or make a fuss; but they at least responded, which is much to their credit!

 

Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff
Why are people taking The Revelation of John literally? It is apocalyptic literature. This type of literature is symbolic in nature. Look at Daniel. All the prophesy about Jesus and the Pharasees and the Saducees and the multitude of others got it wrong. Why so dogmatic about this we can't verify?

Andre
While I have not read any other posts in this thread, I heartily agree with this. There is a long scriptural tradition of using wild exaggerated imagery involving e.g. the destruction of celestial bodies in order to represent much more "mundane", earthly events.

GE
Yes. But there's much quite plain and literal in the Revelation that should be straightforward Gospel. Like the title assures the reader: "The revelation / making known of Jesus". It's not the obscuring of Him. I call Revelation the Fifth Gospel.

It can be an edifying Book like no other, and we generally far too easily just parrot Luther in his complaints about Revelation. Luther I believe did not put in enough effort; the poor guy had too much hay on his fork and too many forks in the stack! No one should blame him; but therefor should also not follow him so blindly in this.

 

GE
Where does Daniel 'talk about' AE? It's nonsense. Least of any place, in chapter 9 where Daniel uses the seventy weeks-time-symbol --- everything in there shows Christ and the work of Christ.

 

And if I remember my history of the previous century right, the 'higher' or 'text'- critics had it against nothing but the unmistakable Christological significance of the passage. It has such a strong resemblance of the Jesus of Gospels that they said Daniel was written after Christ! ANYBODY ABLE TO CORRECT ME IF i'M WRONG - I never really learnt that history so well.

 

Daniel 11:31

I believe this refers to Antiochus Epiphanies when he erected the statue of Zeus in the temple.

 

Right! Daniel was given a prophetic vision of this before it happened. AE was an antitype of the antichrist, as I mentioned in a previous post in this thread.

Guess what? God knows the future, folks! And He chose to give Daniel some visions although Daniel may not have totally understood. But it was written down for us - at least the part God wants us to know.

I did a Kay Arthur study on Daniel with a small group, and then we did Revelation. Very enlightening and edifying!! I recommend it.

 

I'm sorry but I believe the book of Daniel was entirely fulfilled when Rome succumbed to christianity. Now their may be similarities in the Future and Revelations may refer to these. But for the most part Revelations has a lot of symbolic literature resembeling 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, The apocalypse of Baruch and some other Essene writings.

 

Wow, you and I are on a different page! Are you Preterist or Partial Preterist?

It doesn't matter if Revelation (not Revelations) has some similarities to 1 Enoch, Assumption of Moses, or those other non-canonical books. Revelation is part of the canon and that makes it different.