Why it is wrong for a strong Christian to celebrate XMAS pub

[Paidion]

If a present day Protestant believed as the Reformation saints and martyrs ... that the papacy was one of the beasts of Revelation, and that the Church of Rome was that great harlot church that had reigned over kings of the earth ... it should not be difficult for a serious student of prophecy to recognize the identifying mark of the beast on RIGHT hand and/or FOREHEAD of it’s followers. Rev 13:16

Well, I'm not a "present day Protestant." I do not protest the Roman Church. Furthermore, I think identifying the papacy with one of the beasts of Revelation and the Church of Rome with the "great harlot" of Revelation is absolute baloney—merely an indication of the hatred of the first Protestants against the Catholics of the day. I neither support the Catholics nor the Protestants who lived in the days of the Protestant Revolution. Today's Catholics have changed for the better. So have some of the Protestants.

Also, there's no indication in the book of Revelation that the harlot was, or would be, a church.

[canada]

So, its all baloney ... the saints and martyrs of the Reformation and the Spurgeons of this world knew little about the book of Revelation in identifying the papacy with one of the beasts and Romanism as being the great harlot that has reigned over kings of the earth ... but you do?

Please provide YOUR explanation of the biblical mark of the beast on right hand and/or forehead as described in Rev 13:16.

Please provide YOUR explanation of how he makes FIRE to come down from "heaven on the earth" ... in the sight of men. Rev 13:13

Please provide YOUR explanation of the 666 numbered beast of Rev 13:18 and the language and numerical system to be used ... hopefully with some evidence.

[morbo3000]

So, its all baloney ... the saints and martyrs of the Reformation and the Spurgeons of this world knew little about the book of Revelation in identifying the papacy with one of the beasts and Romanism as being the great harlot that has reigned over kings of the earth ... but you do?

Being a saint, or martyr of the Reformation does not make one infallible. I can respect their opinion. But they are just as human as we are. And they didn't have access to the scholastic materials we do, including archaeology, contemporary histories of the 1st and 2nd century, textual studies, and different papyrus'. Heck, the number may even be 616, which would throw everything off.

Please provide YOUR explanation of the biblical mark of the beast on right hand and/or forehead as described in Rev 13:16.

Please provide YOUR explanation of how he makes FIRE to come down from "heaven on the earth" ... in the sight of men. Rev 13:13

Please provide YOUR explanation of the 666 numbered beast of Rev 13:18 and the language and numerical system to be used ... hopefully with some evidence.

Do you have a copy of Steve's four views of Revelation? I think you'd find it very useful to know what the historical interpretations of those verses have been.

[canada]

Yes ... I have a copy of Steve's 4 Views.
The historicists associated the second beast with papal Rome or the priesthood of the Roman Church.

I do not think one needs to be infallible to have an understanding of the book of Revelation.

[morbo3000]

Correct. My point is that being a martyr of the reformation does not make someone's opinion more legit than someone on this forum. We are all students of the word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[canada]

Which of the 5 views do you embrace?
Full preterism ... partial preterism ... historicism ... futurism ... idealism

[morbo3000]

I don't know.

My priorities in Bible study are
* the synoptic gospels, + the book of Acts (as sequel to Luke)
* the Psalms.
* Paul's epistles, especially the ones considered genuine by modern scholars, 1st Thessalonians, Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, and Romans

My study of the synoptics has taken me into the prophets as well, which I've lacked a decent grasp of.

[canada]

Thanks for your upfront answer regarding Revelation ... it is refreshing to hear someone say I don't know.

I was a futurist for the first ten years, then further study led me to historicism ... my son in law pastors a very conservative Reformed Church and they are partial preterist in their understanding.

I made mention some years ago about Steve's book being one of the most unbiased books I had ever read on Revelation ... I was banned from this fellas discussion forum ... he had a one track mind.

[Paidion]

Please provide YOUR explanation of the biblical mark of the beast on right hand and/or forehead as described in Rev 13:16.

Please provide YOUR explanation of how he makes FIRE to come down from "heaven on the earth" ... in the sight of men. Rev 13:13

Please provide YOUR explanation of the 666 numbered beast of Rev 13:18 and the language and numerical system to be used ... hopefully with some evidence.

Just because I label the early Protestant view as "baloney" doesn't imply that I have it all neatly tied up. In general, one may have reasons to see some position as incorrect without holding a correct position. For example, you may know that Carters Little Liver Pills that were on the market in the 1940s did nothing to alleviate liver problems without your knowing what medicine, if any, does alleviate liver problems.

I don't take any strong stance on future events in general — except the return of our Lord. And full preterists do not grant even that.

Revelation is John's description of various visions that He saw while he was in the spirit on the island of Patmos. The interpretations people have of these visions are basically guess work. I haven't made any guesses, but if there are any correct interpretations, I would be inclined to futuristic ones.

The book of Revelation was not accepted by some of the Christians in the first few centuries.

[morbo3000]

@canada

I found this very interesting. Pagels is a scholar. Not a Christian. She is talking about the book of revelation as literature, and comparing it to other apocalyptics from the time.

I like something I read in Marcus Borg's "Jesus" book recently. That believing the nativity stories as history or non-history isn't as important as making sure you get the meaning intended. He doesn't believe they are history. But he doesn't need to make an issue about it, because what's important is what the gospel writers were communicating about the kind of messiah Jesus was. If we miss the message by trying to track down the bethlehem star, we've missed the point.

In the same way, the book of revelation is apocalyptic literature. As Paidon said, when the canon was being identified, it was one of the last to be accepted, and many then (still) question if it should be. So if we can get past the book as a divine message, we can ask, what was John of Patmos trying to communicate in his context. That doesn't mean the book isn't divine. I don't need to make an issue out of that. What was the meta-narrative in the book. Get that wrong, and we miss the point of the whole thing.

However, I continue to say, "I don't know." That's just my approach to the Bible.

I really like Pagel's talk. But she's probably an acquired taste for someone who holds to inerrancy.

Blessings,

http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/aug/2 ... velations/