Excalibur

Interpreting the Apocalypse literally will result in all kinds of ridiculous and false assumptions. Fun fact: every Ash Wednesday the Pope and his false prophets put the mark of the cross upon the foreheads of the Catholic faithful, using their right hands. Coincidence? Might I suggest you read the historical studies found within the hundreds of commentaries on the Apocalypse written by historicists such as E. B. Elliott, H. Grattan Guinness, Leroy Edwin Froom, William Cartwright, William Fulke, Sir Isaac Newton and others over the past few centuries? They “appear to” because Christianity has had that idea drilled into our heads for generations. A) That prophecy was given strictly to Ahaz. B) The child born as a specific sign to Ahaz was named Immanuel, just as prophesied (7:14). C) Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was a completely different child who was NOT named Immanuel. D) Matt 1:21, 25 clearly say they were to (and did) call the child’s name Jesus, NOT Immanuel. E) Isa 7:14 was not a prophecy about Jesus. Ahaz was not told that the prophesied child’s name would be Jesus, but Immanuel. F) The birth narratives were added to Matt and Luke at a later date. (See Raymond Brown’s massive work on the topic). Your 2nd and 3rd examples are without merit. Rather than looking for dual fulfillments everywhere, why not just accept the primary fulfillments as the only fulfillments and adjust your theology accordingly? In my experience, those who see duel fulfillments everywhere are trying to maintain a specific doctrine or belief of theirs.

Do they call themselves vicars of Christ?

All daughters of the harlot.

There is no distinction. Anti-Christ and Vicar of Christ mean precisely the same thing. The Pope has taken upon himself the name “Antichrist” without any of his faithful followers realizing it.

Look up ANTI in a lexicon.

So does “anti.” Anti and Vicar are synonymous.

The Pope’s title “Vicar of Christ” literally means Anti-Christ.

The more I read that statement of yours, the more ridiculous it sounds. If either scheme had any “theological merit,” it would’ve been discovered, preached, and taught by the saints through the ages. Instead, you would have us believe God’s people knew nothing about the proper interpretation of the Apocalypse until two Jesuit priests published their Futurist and Preterist commentaries 1500 years later, to counter the interpretations of the Protestant Reformers.

I agree with what you said concerning the antichrist not being restricted to a singular individual. “Antichrist” is a category. This applies equally to the man of sin and all three beasts in the Apocalypse…the latter representing kingdoms or dynasties of men, not individuals (see Daniel). Ironically, your correct statement destroys the foundation of Futurist teaching.

You’re incorrect. My thread title made no argument. My first post made no argument. If that’s what you see, perhaps the issue lies with you? To be clear, I wasn’t attacking the argument because of who said it. My contention is not that Futurism is a false belief because Ribera said it or taught it, but that Futurism is a false belief because he created it out of whole cloth by pushing fulfilled prophecies back into the future once again to divert attention off the Pope. There is no ad hominem in pointing out the pedigree of a belief. You won’t find any Futurist commentaries on the Apocalypse before 1590, the year Ribera published his.

I will keep what you said in mind as I proceed.

How do you figure? I made no argument. Both of my statements are historically verifiable. Both schemes were crafted by jesuits to protect the pope from the darts of the Protestants that identified him and his church as fulfillments of prophecy. Historicism is the only scheme of interpreting the Apocalypse that says the antichrist is presently in our midst.

Futurism (Antichrist still to come) - crafted by the Jesuit Ribera in the 16th century. Preterism (Antichrist was Nero) - crafted by the Jesuit Alcasar in the 17th century.

And what’s the gauge you’re using to determine what has and hasn’t come to pass? Ah…and assuming for the moment that you’re correct with that assumption, what are the chances a single empire would split into ten kingdoms TWICE in its “lifetime?” And by “lifetime,” I mean where in scripture does it say the Roman Empire would split into ten kingdoms upon its fall, revive into a single empire again, and then split into ten kingdoms a second time? Answer: scripture teaches no such thing. Which means the division of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms via barbarian invasions circa the 5th century is the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. Which also means you need to adjust your eschatological beliefs.

1. That verse says nothing about the setting up of a kingdom. 2. What kingdom did God set up in the days of the Roman Empire in the first century, per Dan 2:44?

What’s worse: A Jew who denies Jesus Christ is the Messiah because they claim he didn't set up his kingdom? Or a Jew who believes Jesus Christ IS the Messiah, but is STILL claiming he didn’t set up his kingdom?

Why not look into the origins of your Futurist scheme of interpreting the Apocalypse?

Version shopping doesn't prove anything. The last days began at Pentecost, at the rise of God's final kingdom that will never be destroyed -- Christianity.

You need to give examples, showing why they're wrong. Otherwise, every charge you level against them can be leveled against yourself. Hebrews 1 refutes your assertion. All fantasy. Even if you could calculate the time periods in the Bible all the way back to the year of creation week, that doesn't prove "the truth" of your 7000 year theory one whit. Irrelevant to my point, wrong as you are (the Roman empire was divided into 10 kingdoms via barbarian invasions -- no gaps between the fulfillments of the legs and toes). Daniel's prophecy concerning the feet and toes says the Roman empire (legs of iron) will be divided, not revived! How funny is it that you're arguing above against the idea that the phrase "last days" could be a couple thousand years long, but in the next breath you're claiming the fulfillment of the ten toes is still wanting almost 2 millennia from the time the legs of iron had come and gone! There were no gaps between any of the other parts of the statue. You have no biblical warrant to insert a gap of an indeterminable amount of time between the fulfillment of the legs and the fulfillment of the toes. Back to my original point-- You said all interpretations were sealed "until now." But the very existence of the Roman Empire in John's day proves that Daniel's prophecy concerning the various empires that would rule the world had been, in fact, unsealed for quite a long time. He even gives the starting point by which his prophecy could be rightly interpreted, by declaring that Nebuchadnezzar had been the head of gold. Knowing from history that the 4th beast of Daniel 7, also known as the legs of iron of Dan 2, is the Roman empire, we can know for certain what John is referring to when he speaks of the great dragon, the beast from the sea, and the scarlet colored beast in the Apocalypse. Add to that the identification in Rev 17 of the 7 heads of the scarlet colored beast with 7 mountains, and the only conclusion one can arrive at is that the dragon and beasts are several forms of the same Roman empire -- first pagan, then papal. It has. What you're referencing is the rise of the Papacy. Actually, you don't. I'm actually objecting to your pet ideas. I do.

I’ll reply more later. But for now, this will do: Heb 1:1,2- God,who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

An entirely meaningless statement when you can’t show how my argument against your assertions is unbiblical. Jesus Christ refutes you in the very first chapter of the Apocalypse. Daniel refutes you in chapter 7 of his book. Repeating your assertions do not make them true.

The book itself tells you it was given to John in SIGNS! (Symbols) Which means it is NOT to be taken literally. No wisdom or understanding would be required to interpret the book literally. Further, the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns in Chp 12, the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns in Chp 13, and the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns in Chp 17 are all forms of the same beast that Daniel tells us represents an empire! Beasts represent kingdoms, empires, and dynasties, not individual men.

Let’s remember that the Apocalypse was a prophecy of things that would occur future from John’s day, not things that transpired almost a century prior. The woman is not Mary. It’s symbolic of something else. The woman is the church. Secondly, the child the woman gives birth to is not Christ. It’s symbolic of something else. Constantine is the child the church “gave birth to.” His attempted christianization of the pagan Roman Empire is the earthquake (read: political and religious upheaval) referred to in the sixth seal. Thirdly, the woman is “in heaven” when she gives birth to the child. The dragon is also “in heaven.” The dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns is the same entity as Daniel’s 4th beast….the Roman Empire. Fourthly, we are not to interpret the Apocalypse literally. Jesus tells us as much in 1:20.

I agree with a lot of what you say above. See also Dan 2:44. “In the days of these kings….” God set up the final kingdom that will never be destroyed in the days of the Roman Empire. That kingdom is Christianity.

Make sure you’re not overlooking your own theories and doctrines.