Wealth was centralized with the 'lord' or 'fiefs' and life expectancy was much shorter, especially among the majority (whom were poor.) On top of that, medicine wasn't as advanced and then there was the problem with the invading Islamic forces. And also the disputes between kingdoms. Just wars and wars. That was a difficult setting to come into and try and sort out. That was the goal of the Roman Church. In the process, all kinds of monstrous deeds occurred.Tzaousios said:That is a very generalized statement that you made about the history. I am not sure what you meant to dispute by saying the times were "extremely difficult."
No, it does not make prophecy illegimitate, but it does indeed call into question your particular interpretation of prophecy and the ways in which you try to make medieval history fit it.
Historicism makes up for what preterism and futurism lack. Preterism says that everything in prophecy, save for Christ's physical return, had occurred in the first century. That was one key interpretation that Rome used in the Counter-Reformation to combat the accusations it received from Protestants. Futurism is lacking because it ignore the last 2,000 years of history as if to say that God had nothing to say for them and the tribulations they went through, but instead insists that everything is reserved for a seven year period in the future. Preterism and Futurism do not work. I used to hold to them, but they lack a strong enough argument and draw on 'secret' fulfillments rather than obvious fulfillments (such as a secret rapture, or the return of Christ manifested in the rule of the Church of Rome, etc.)
Of course, I don't agree with Adventist historicism either. I'll explain why later in the post.
I disagree. By that logic, interpretations cannot be made because anyone can be wrong. If that applies to the past, then it applies to the future. That means that preterism is the strongest argument for Revelation and one must be forced to spiritualize the long delayed return of Christ in the same manner that the Church of Rome did. The point of eschatology is to interpret them. I'd argue further to say that the point of eschatology is to encourage and/or correct people according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't hate Roman Catholicism. I just don't agree with it.Yeah, what of it? Rome was in a long line of kingdoms and rulers to rule other nations with an iron fist. Just because one hates Roman Catholicism does not mean that a prooftext speaks about a specific era of Roman history. It can be made to appear to be such, but most people who know their history will recognize it as an artificial attempt at making it fit one's eschatological presuppositions.
Huh? I don't think you understood my argument. I wasn't talking about pagan Rome. I was talking about Catholic Rome.That is another nice attempt at self-justification. However, Pagan Rome does not equal the Roman Catholic Church, despite how much one might want it to. See my comments in the second post above.
I really would not expect you to admit that you do know of it, not to mention actually believe it is real history. I would not expect you to admit to anti-Catholicism, either. "Praying to Mary rather than Jesus" is just a rhetorical trope thrown in for added effect. It does not help you any. I would substitute "presuppositions" for "conscience" in your last sentence.
No, I'd say conscience. Every time I attend mass with my family, I try to pray with the community up until they mention prayer from Mary. My conscience starts screaming at that point and I stop praying.
In what manner did I gloat? What did I say that demonstrated any kind of gratification from saying that? If Rome is in trouble, I think it is the business of the Catholics to know.Yes, but it does not seem like you have any problem pronouncing doom over Roman Catholicism and then gloating over it.
I'll keep that in mind, thanks.You might want to reconsider your language, biblical, and historical interpretations if you do not want to appear as such. It does not differ much from the typical, run of the mill anti-Catholicism that is tossed about in GT on a daily basis.
Well, I wouldn't call it smug, gloating, or self-justification. As a historicist, I am of the belief that Christ was actively involved with the Church from the point he ascended, all throughout history, and will continue to be up until the point He returns. Jesus has the authority. All we were commanded to do was witness, baptize and teach. Not govern the world. If one is open to the idea, then perhaps that would be one less person that gets caught up in a bloody conflict in Rome.LOL...nothing new there. Her = Roman Catholicism; Mystery Babylon = Roman Catholicism; harlot of Babylon = Roman Catholicism. It is all the same kind of smug, gloating self-justification for one's theological and ecclesiological choices.
I was hoping that you'd quote some for me instead of making me go out and find it.Seriously? Have you read Cyprian, for example?
Oh, sorry, one would not think that you would actually want to portray Byzantine Christianity in a positive light since it is too "Catholic" and cannot be grandfathered in as proto-Protestantism.
I've never heard of proto-Protestantism before. Anyway, there is a problem with worshiping icons. That is why Rome was so opposed to it. It was not worship in truth or in Spirit. It was worship according to tradition.
"Worshiped objects" is just another rhetorical trope on par with "praying to Mary rather than Jesus."
What do you call it when someone prays to a picture?
LOL...so I suppose here is the point where you say that you are not Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox but merely follow Jesus and the Bible? Being a lonewolf Christian beholden to one's own interpretations and presuppositions is much worse. This is what every anti-Catholic and lonewolf Christian says to try to justify their choices, once again.
I'm not a lonewolf Christian. I strongly believe in Christian community, in Church, in prayer, worship, and having everything in common. I'm not out to separate myself from Church. I'm out in search of a Church that worships in Spirit and in truth. I haven't found it in Rome, in Protestantism, in Adventism, or in Eastern Orthodoxy.
There is the harlot of Babylon trope, just like I said. You may not be Adventist, but I have seen the very same type of anti-Catholic rhetoric and justifications spouted by some of the resident Adventists. What is holding you back from becoming one? Are they daughters of the harlot, too?
Back in early 2006, I began attending Adventist seminars about prophecy. That is where I learned about historicism and departed from futurism. However, the more I attended the service and got the gist of what they believed, I began to notice several things wrong about their views.
First, their eschatology was too exact and was outdated by almost 200 years. It made more sense to say that the ten horns of the beast of Revelation 13 were not ten literal Barbarian kingdoms that came out of the Roman Empire (since there were more than ten) but represented the division of a kingdom like the ten tribes separated from the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom and formed their own Northern kingdom. Therefore, the Western Empire was divided among many kingdoms while the Eastern Empire maintained that it was the 'true' Roman Empire.
Second, they were a church established by a woman (and others) who claimed to have visions and prophecies, and some didn't come true (especially concerning the unfulfilled prophecy of Christ's return in...what was it...1844?) Their answer to this flop? It was a conditional prophecy. Of course it was.
Third, their accusation that the mark of the beast was Sunday worship was just as legalistic as first century Judaism was. In fact, they observed Jewish law as a means of justification, which is antiChristian according to the New Testament, especially according to Paul's letter to the Galatians.
Fourth, they were evidently anti-Catholic. But not just anti-Catholic, but anti-anything-not-Adventist. I didn't like that. They claimed to be the true Church and that everyone else was doomed. The only resolution? Observe the Saturday Sabbath. They (at least that church) were strongly opposed to Catholicism. I actually like the conservative and patient love of the Catholic community (as opposed to the liberalness and nationalistic conservativeness of Evangelicals.) I like the strong compassion that they have on the poor and afflicted. I like that they don't argue over petty matters that cause nothing but division. I just don't agree with the Roman papacy and many of its doctrines. I don't feel like I should have to follow such practices to call myself a Catholic. From this perspective, I love and admire Catholics, but am not obligated to be subjected to the authority of the Roman Papacy. If great tribulation is headed towards Rome, I want Catholics to know.
If what I'm saying is correct, Rome is going to be devastated within the next four years or so. That means that I have a chance to warn people. That's it. I'm not a theological authority or anything like that. I just want to look out for my peeps. If I'm wrong, then it's back to the books for me. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding on some of my beliefs a little.
Upvote
0