Ribera commentary on the Revelation

[JM]

see Tractarian or Oxford Movement

 

[Douggg]

Sheesh, I even had to study Latin my freshman yr. in high school.

I took two years of Latin in high school. And afterwards - I still couldn't read it.....

 

[Biblewriter]

Brightman, Thomas. Revelation of the Revelation, that is The Revelation of St. John. Against Bellarmine, the confuting of that counterfaite ANTICHRIST, whom Bellarmine describeth, and laboureth is prouve by arguments with all his might Booke 3. touching the Pope of Rome [p. 622-770] (1615) : MVT : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Check away.

Your turn.

I will check this out when I figure out how to download it and magnify it enough to read.

 

[Biblewriter]

Discovered by whom? Darby et al perhaps?

Certainly not unknown by the Reformers or any subsequent historicist up to the present, who have always been aware of its existence and significant contents.

It was one of the Historicists here that posted the information. That poster alleged that it was discovered by one S. R. Maitland, who supposedly republished it in 1826. That poster further alleged, without proof, that Darby had read Maitland's writings a,d therefore ASSUMED that Darby got is futurism from Ribera through Maitland.

 

[Biblewriter]

I'd be prepared to guarantee that not one of said individuals was a genuine recognized Reformer, inasmuch as the doctrine of the papacy as antichrist was integral, indispensable, and universal within the Reformation movement, and essential to its success.

But let's see. Your turn for some citations and quotes.

I find it startling that you would even think of this as a significant observation. It only shows your absolute prejudice, that no one but a Historicist could even possible be a reliable source of information.

Your claim that anyone who denied that the Pope was the Antichrist HAD to be following the lead of Ribera, only demnstrates your almost complete lack of even a basic understanding of the writings of the early church. For they very clearly described this future Antichrist in terms that totally excluded the Pope from even consideration as ""the Antichrist." AND they very clearly stated that Daniel's seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future.

For they distinctly presented him as an individual who would come at the time of the end of the world, and distinctly sated that he would rebuild the earthly temple in Jerusalem, and that he would sit in THAT temple (in Jerusalem) claiming, not to represent God, but to BE God. They also included many other details which would have made it physically impossible for ANY Pope to qualify for this title.

I am not going to bother to re-post all the places where they said these things in this thread, for I have already posted them in this venue a number of times, and you have simply ignored all the HARD PROOF of what they actually said.

 

[jgr]

I find it startling that you would even think of this as a significant observation. It only shows your absolute prejudice, that no one but a Historicist could even possible be a reliable source of information.

Your claim that anyone who denied that the Pope was the Antichrist HAD to be following the lead of Ribera, only demnstrates your almost complete lack of even a basic understanding of the writings of the early church. For they very clearly described this future Antichrist in terms that totally excluded the Pope from even consideration as ""the Antichrist." AND they very clearly stated that Daniel's seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future.

For they distinctly presented him as an individual who would come at the time of the end of the world, and distinctly sated that he would rebuild the earthly temple in Jerusalem, and that he would sit in THAT temple (in Jerusalem) claiming, not to represent God, but to BE God. They also included many other details which would have made it physically impossible for ANY Pope to qualify for this title.

I am not going to bother to re-post all the places where they said these things in this thread, for I have already posted them in this venue a number of times, and you have simply ignored all the HARD PROOF of what they actually said.

I have never seen you quote a recognized Reformer who was claiming a futurized antichrist and a futurized pretrib rapture.

If you have, my apologies, please repost it.

 

[Biblewriter]

I have never seen you quote a recognized Reformer who was claiming a futurized antichrist and a futurized pretrib rapture.

If you have, my apologies, please repost it.

I never so much as implied that I had such a quotation. But I have both from people both earlier and shortly later than "the Reformers."

 

[jgr]

I never so much as implied that I had such a quotation. But I have both from people both earlier and shortly later than "the Reformers."

Those earlier than the Reformation can be excused, as it was not until the Reformation that the prophetic fulfillments identifying the papacy as antichrist were accurately and widely recognized.

Those after the Reformation are without excuse, in their rejection of the prophetic faith and sacrifice of a movement ordained by God to spiritually salvage His true Church, and in their advocacy of the futurization associated with papalism. As former Catholic priest Joseph Zacchello observes: “The Jesuits, a militant order of priests... were the first ones to introduce a new theory in order to divert men’s minds from perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the antichrist in the papal church. The Jesuit Ribera brought out the futuristic system, which asserts that the antichrist is yet to appear. Protestants who advocate the futuristic system are pleasing the pope and are playing into the hands of Rome.”

 

[Biblewriter]

Those earlier than the Reformation can be excused, as it was not until the Reformation that the prophetic fulfillments identifying the papacy as antichrist were accurately and widely recognized.

Those after the Reformation are without excuse, in their rejection of the prophetic faith and sacrifice of a movement ordained by God to spiritually salvage His true Church, and in their advocacy of the futurization associated with papalism. As former Catholic priest Joseph Zacchello observes: “The Jesuits, a militant order of priests... were the first ones to introduce a new theory in order to divert men’s minds from perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the antichrist in the papal church. The Jesuit Ribera brought out the futuristic system, which asserts that the antichrist is yet to appear. Protestants who advocate the futuristic system are pleasing the pope and are playing into the hands of Rome.”

The ONLY way to maintain this falsehood, is to PRETEND that MOST of the details of the prophetic statements were simply unimportant. The historical records do not even approximately match up to MOST of the details contained in MOST of the prophecies involved. The ancients were not troubled by this fiction, and MANY those that came afterward have realized its flaws. This has included MANY that had never seen, or even heard of, the book written by Ribera. This has nothing to do with the Pope, or with Catholic doctrine of any kind. It is simply a matter of taking the word of God seriously, as He gave it.

 

[jgr]

The ONLY way to maintain this falsehood, is to PRETEND that MOST of the details of the prophetic statements were simply unimportant. The historical records do not even approximately match up to MOST of the details contained in MOST of the prophecies involved. The ancients were not troubled by this fiction, and MANY those that came afterward have realized its flaws. This has included MANY that had never seen, or even heard of, the book written by Ribera. This has nothing to do with the Pope, or with Catholic doctrine of any kind. It is simply a matter of taking the word of God seriously, as He gave it.

Bro. Zacchello would recognize that as representative of what he described.

And the Reformers would have had no idea what it was talking about.

 

[Biblewriter]

Bro. Zacchello would recognize that as representative of what he described.

WHO? I do not remember you using that name before. But I am not speaking of the opinions of ANY person, but of what the scriptures actually say.

 

[jgr]

WHO? I do not remember you using that name before. But I am not speaking of the opinions of ANY person, but of what the scriptures actually say.

Post #28. You even quoted it.

 

[Biblewriter]

Post #28. You even quoted it.

OK, I saw it now. Thank you.

 

[jgr]

OK, I saw it now. Thank you.

Here is an interesting admission, brought to my attention by Brother David Kent, from Clarence Larkin's "Dispensational Truth":

"The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

 

[Biblewriter]

Here is an interesting admission, brought to my attention by Brother David Kent, from Clarence Larkin's "Dispensational Truth":

"The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

even if Larkin actually made such an erroneous statement, it proves nothing. But as usual with your "quotations" this is accompanied by no citation, making it impossible to even check the accuracy of your claim.

 

[JM]

Larkin's admission: Dispensational Truth


From Wiki: Prophetic commentaries in the early church were often partial or incomplete, usually interpreting individual passages rather than entire books. The earliest complete commentary on the Book of Revelation, considered to be one of the earliest Historicist commentators, was carried out by Victorinus of Pettau around 300 AD. An overview of the various prophetic expositions from the third century to the fifth centuries demonstrates that prophecies were uniformly interpreted within a Historicist framework by the Latin (later Catholic) writers.

Looking to the future fulfillment of certain prophetic passages, Christian theologians concluded that the events of Biblical prophecy (especially as contained in the books of Daniel and Revelation) encompassed the entire Church Age from the Ascension of Jesus to his Second Coming.

Throughout the medieval era the Historicist interpretation became increasingly modified and developed by the expositions of Andreas, Primasius (both 6th century), Bede (730 AD), Anspert, Arethas, Haymo, and Berengaud (all of the ninth century). [end quote]

 

[Biblewriter]

Larkin's admission: Dispensational Truth


From Wiki: Prophetic commentaries in the early church were often partial or incomplete, usually interpreting individual passages rather than entire books. The earliest complete commentary on the Book of Revelation, considered to be one of the earliest Historicist commentators, was carried out by Victorinus of Pettau around 300 AD. An overview of the various prophetic expositions from the third century to the fifth centuries demonstrates that prophecies were uniformly interpreted within a Historicist framework by the Latin (later Catholic) writers.

Looking to the future fulfillment of certain prophetic passages, Christian theologians concluded that the events of Biblical prophecy (especially as contained in the books of Daniel and Revelation) encompassed the entire Church Age from the Ascension of Jesus to his Second Coming.

Throughout the medieval era the Historicist interpretation became increasingly modified and developed by the expositions of Andreas, Primasius (both 6th century), Bede (730 AD), Anspert, Arethas, Haymo, and Berengaud (all of the ninth century). [end quote]

Victorinus was most certainly NOT a historicist. The sections of the most widely circulated version of his commentary on the Revelation that have that appearance, do so because they were edited by a later writer.

 

[Biblewriter]

Wiki is hardly a reliable source of information.

Victorinus was most certainly NOT a historicist. The sections of the most widely circulated version of his commentary on the Revelation that have that appearance, do so because they were edited by a later writer.

 

[jgr]

even if Larkin actually made such an erroneous statement, it proves nothing. But as usual with your "quotations" this is accompanied by no citation, making it impossible to even check the accuracy of your claim.

Ever heard of google? It will find the citation for you. But not if you're afraid to use it.

Better exhume and excoriate Larkin. He's betrayed you.

 

[Biblewriter]

Ever heard of google? It will find the citation for you. But not if you're afraid to use it.

Better exhume and excoriate Larkin. He's betrayed you.

I really do not care what Larkin, or any other misinformed person had to say. But you van forget abut getting any credit for alleged "quotations" which are unaccompanied by a citation. They only prove that you did not even read the source yourself, but are just copying what someone else claimed someone said. I have seen too many times when it turned out that the alleged quotation was bogus.