Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by VERITAS
Did "I" give you a preteristic answer? Huh! And here I thought I was letting the Scripture speak for itself...
Ultimately there is only one answer not how various camps "see the answer" and the angel says that he will tell John the mystery. So, if the mystery is revealed within the Text, then it is simply a matter of diligently looking AT THE TEXT and the Text no where says that Rome is a "mystery" or "a great whore" or like "Babylon the Great". As DeMar said, "Rome could not fornicate against God for only Israel was God's wife."
But I know, "yeah, yeah," you're looking for the various INTERPRETATIONS...
[Edited on 1-27-2005 by VERITAS]
Originally posted by Ianterrell
Yeppers, Jerusalem fits the description.
Originally posted by openairboy
[Veritas] Why are you so grouchy?
Do you really think you didn't interpret? Not even with "BTW, I was arguing on another board that the Church IS the new Israel when suddenly I had an epiphany: Israel wasn't Jacob's REAL name, it was a SYMBOLIC name that he was given by God and that by which his offspring became IDENTIFIED with him and thus with God."
openairboy
Originally posted by Scott
How did Jerusalem rule over the nations of the earth?
Originally posted by turmeric
The Mother of Harlots? Jerusalem? A harlot, surely, but the Mother of Harlots?
Originally posted by Scott
Is there any record of anyone belieiving it was Jerusalem until fairly recent history?
Originally posted by Scott
Is there any record of anyone belieiving it was Jerusalem until fairly recent history?
Cheri said:
(Luke 16:29-31) "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. {30} And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, then they will [believe]. {31} And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded..."
Originally posted by Scott
Is there any record of anyone belieiving it was Jerusalem until fairly recent history?
...
I will take that as a "no."
In terms of church history, the only discussion I have heard of the origins of preterism is that the system was first developed and promoted to Protestants by Jesuits as part of the counter-Reformation to undermine the then-universal Protestant eschatology of historicism. Allegedly, nobody before the 16th/17th century accepted preteristic analysis of Revelation. I have not seen an responses in terms of Revelation. I have not looked at the source material myself and am just offering this as something of interest.
"all the earliest Christian writers on the Apocalypse, from Irenaeus down to Victorious of Pettau and Commodian in the fourth, and Andreas in the fifth, and St. Beatus in the eighth century, connect Nero, or some Roman emperor, with the Apocalyptic Beast ." (Early Days of Christianity, p.541)
"But, apart from St. John's own words, it cannot be conceded that the central conception of the Præterist exegesis is a mere novelty of the 17th century. On the contrary, we can trace from very early days the application of various visions to the early emperors of Pagan Rome. ...Later on, I shall furnish abundant evidence that a tradition of the ancient Church identified Nero with the Antichrist, and expected his literal return, just as the Jews expected the literal return of the Prophet Elijah. St. Victorinus (about A.D.303) counts the five dead emperors from Galba, and supposes that, after Nerva, the Beast (whom he identifies with Nero) will be recalled to life. ["Bestia de septem est quoniam ante ipsos reges Nero regnavit."] St. Augustine mentions a similar opinion. [De Civ. Dei, xx.19] ... Bishop Andreas, in the fifth century, applies Rev. vi.12 to the siege of Jerusalem, and considers that Antichrist will be "as a king of the Romans."
"Epiphanius says that St. John was banished in the reign of Claudius, and the earliest Apocalyptic commentators, as well as the Syriac and Theophylact, all place the writing of the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero. To these must be added the author of the "Life of Timotheus," of which extracts are preserved by Photius. Clemens of Alexandria and Origen only say that "John was banished by the tyrant," and this on Christian lips may mean Nero much more naturally than Domitian - See Epiphan. Haer. li 23 and 33 ; Andreas on Rev. vi. 12 ; Arethas on Rev. vii. 1-8 ; Syriac MS. No. 18 ; Theophylact. Comment. in Joann."
"No, I wouldn't take my response as a "no," but rather as a "what difference would it make?"