Antichrist (was Re: President Clinton)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Robert Brown said:
> If your interpretation *IS* correct, then we must assume that the
> tribulation occurred before 325 and the Nicean Council, which would
> indicate that the rapture also occurred before then, 

Yes, in 70AD.

>                                                      and therefore
> that the middle (dark) ages were in actuality the golden age, or the
> millenium. 

Ah, no. That depends on how you interprete the millenium. I don't think 
there's any consensus among preterists what the milennium is. To a person=
 
reading the Bible alone (as Luther would recommend us to do <g>), it 
appears like the expression more or less fell down from heaven to be used=
 
in the book of Revelation. In fact the expression was severeal centuries =

old at that time! Second Henoch's book (from ~20AD) is one example of 
so-called deutero-canonical works using this expression.

The interesting point is that in Jewish thinking, the word thousand has 
many uses (making hard work for translators of the OT). The milennium was=
 
not usually understood as a *literal* thousand-year-reign in Jewish 
rabbinical thinking, and I'm very convinced it should not be taken 
literally.

>            This would also imply that about the time of the
> Renaissance this millenium ended and Satan was loosed a little while,
> which might indeed explain the situation the world is in today. 

The comments above should clear this up. 

What do you mean "the situation in the world today"? The world has never =

been in a better situation. Don't believe doom-sayers trying to convince =

you otherwise. Of course, this may say more about how it's been than how =

it is, but it is nevertheless the truth about our time.

I am very inclined to take the expression symbolically (Revelation was 
given in signs, after all). John may have meant that the full Jewish 
kiliastic expectations of the Middle Kingdom of the Messiah would be 
fulfilled at his coming. If the Milennium is an era, it would fit most 
clearly for the period between ~33 or whenever Jesus died and 70AD.

>                                                                 But
> all the above would also tend to indicate that the HRCC was the true
> church after all, and we have all been deceived!

Preteristic thought is very compatible with Roman Catholic as well as 
Greek Catholic thought, yes. According to this, the millenium is the age =

of the Christian church (or Church, if you will). However, most 
theologicans including Roman Catholic will agree that the "church" 
extends below one institution. In my thinking, the usage of "Church" in 
the Bible is just a neat trick to convince readers that the NT is talking=
 
about the institution, when it is in reality about the "ecclesia", the 
group of people. Institutions are, IMNSHO, practically incompatible with =

christianity. If members of churches are Christians, it is in spite of, 
not because of, being members of a church.

> Can you comment on this, Jan?

Sorry for taking so long. I had forgotten your message until OEyvind 
reminded me (thanks).


Cheers,
- Jan
-- 
          http://home.sol.no/jansh/wteng/jwindex.html