A different view of the Rapture.

[Melethiel]

Revelation isn't straightfoward? That's news to me! I think it is most straightforward book of prophecy in the Bible. Chapters 1-3 describe the church age, 4-19 describe the tribulation, 19-22 describes the victory of Christ over Satan. Of course, you have to read it from the perspective of a first century man witnessing things 2,000 years in advance.

No, it is not straightforward. It is an example of the genre of apocalyptic literature, and uses much symbolic language. And yes, you have to read it from the perspective of the first century men. How do you figure it was referring to events 2000 years in advance?
The problem is, you are NOT reading it from the perspective of the early Christians. You are reading it from a modern interpretation. Also, if it was so straightforward and easy to interpret, why was it such a controversial writing that almost didn't make it into the canon?

As for the crux of Scripture...tell me, what is the Gospel? Does Christianity preach Christ crucified and the redemption of man, or does Christianity preach blood, gore, etc? Scripture and the Church all point to the Gospels.

 

[knownbeforetime]

No, it is not straightforward. It is an example of the genre of apocalyptic literature, and uses much symbolic language. And yes, you have to read it from the perspective of the first century men. How do you figure it was referring to events 2000 years in advance?
The problem is, you are NOT reading it from the perspective of the early Christians. You are reading it from a modern interpretation. Also, if it was so straightforward and easy to interpret, why was it such a controversial writing that almost didn't make it into the canon?

I gather 2,000 years because it's been 2,000 years so far between the writing of that book and the fulfillment. Maybe it was controversial then because it didn't apply to them?

As for the crux of Scripture...tell me, what is the Gospel? Does Christianity preach Christ crucified and the redemption of man, or does Christianity preach blood, gore, etc? Scripture and the Church all point to the Gospels.

The credibility of Christ rests on prophecy. His credibility rests on prophecies made about Him and on prophecies made through Him, including Revelation. You might say that he could establish His credibility through miracles but Satan can perform miracles too.

Without Genesis 3 to Revelation 22 to prophecy about our Savior, Jesus Christ could easily be dismissed as a lunatic religious leader that was properly executed for his dangerous ideas.

Another thing, there is a difference between The Gospel and the gospels. The gospels tell about the life, death, and ressurection of Christ. The Gospel has been preached since Genesis 3:15.

 

[Melethiel]

Without Genesis 3 to Revelation 22 to prophecy about our Savior,

Precisely. They all point to Christ. It is on Christ that the Scripture stands, not prophecy for prophecy's sake. The gospels tell the Gospel, I see no problem there.

There are those who argue that Revelation has been at least partially fulfilled. The people at the time thought it referred to Nero and the destruction of the temple. If you read early church writings, however, the established position is that Revelation is symbolic, and that chiliasm is a heresy.

 

[knownbeforetime]

Precisely. They all point to Christ. It is on Christ that the Scripture stands, not prophecy for prophecy's sake. The gospels tell the Gospel, I see no problem there.

My problem is that you seem to think The Gospel is only preached in the gospels. My opinion, however, is really that all the books are equally important. They all point to Christ but just because His name is actually mentioned in four doesn't make those four more important.

There are those who argue that Revelation has been at least partially fulfilled. The people at the time thought it referred to Nero and the destruction of the temple. If you read early church writings, however, the established position is that Revelation is symbolic, and that chiliasm is a heresy.

I won't deny that Revelation may have had some appication back then. And Revelation is symbolic, the woman in Rev. 12 is plainly Israel and the sword coming out of Christ's mouth is the Word of God.

However, I don't see how chiliasm (had to look it up) is a heresy. Revelation plainly states that Christ will reign for 1,000 years. I don't see how one can 'explain that away'. What do you think Jesus meant when He said, "After this manner therefore pray ye:

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

 

[Melethiel]

However, I don't see how chiliasm (had to look it up) is a heresy. Revelation plainly states that Christ will reign for 1,000 years. I don't see how one can 'explain that away'. What do you think Jesus meant when He said, "After this manner therefore pray ye:

Christ is currently reigning through the Church. If most of Revelation is symbolic, why should 1000 years suddenly be literal? Why should the reference to the Kingdom of God in the Lord's Prayer mean a literal, earthly, kingdom? Like it or not, chiliasm WAS declared a heresy.

 

[Jig]

Christ is currently reigning through the Church. If most of Revelation is symbolic, why should 1000 years suddenly be literal? Why should the reference to the Kingdom of God in the Lord's Prayer mean a literal, earthly, kingdom? Like it or not, chiliasm WAS declared a heresy.
[/color]

I don't see Revelation as a purely symbolic text. I take it for what it's worth. The discriptions John give are merely His way of represtenting the almost impossible to discribe happenings taking place in his vision. He has no choice but to use his imagination in these things, for he has no knowledge of what is truely going on or what he may be seeing. If John had a vision of a television set...how would he discribe it without knowing what it did or was without sounding a bit off the wall in his 1st century elaborations.

 

[depthdeception]

I don't see Revelation as a purely symbolic text. I take it for what it's worth.

Who determines "what it's worth?"