Ribera commentary on the Revelation

[Biblewriter]

I keep seeing claims that Francisco Ribera "Invented" futurism, including that he taught a pre-tribulation rapture. But oddly enough, though I have devoted quite a lot of searching to it, I have thus far been wholly unable to find even one translation of Ribera's book into English, so these claims can even be evaluated.

Does anyone here know where to find this book in English? Without it, all claims about what it says are based on nothing but hearsay.

 

[Hank77]

I keep seeing claims that Francisco Ribera "Invented" futurism, including that he taught a pre-tribulation rapture. But oddly enough, though I have devoted quite a lot of searching to it, I have thus far been wholly unable to find even one translation of Ribera's book into English, so these claims can even be evaluated.

Does anyone here know where to find this book in English? Without it, all claims about what it says are based on nothing but hearsay.

I've never seen them online in English.

The futurists rapture doctrine originated and was submitted by Francisco Ribera in 1585. His Apocalyptic Commentary was on the grand points of Babylon and Anti-christ which we now call the futurists or rapture doctrine. Ribera’s published work was called “In Sacram Beati Ionnis Apostoli ” Evangelistate Apocoalypsin Commentari (Lugduni 1593). You can still find these writings in the Bodleian Library in Oxford England.
....
S. R. Maitland (1792-1866) was appointed to be the Keeper of the Manuscripts at Lambeth Palace, in London, England. In his duties, Dr. Maitland came across Francisco Ribera’s futurists/rapture teaching and he had it republished for the sake of interest in early 1826 with follow ups in 1829 and 1830. This was spurred along with the Oxford Tracts that were published in 1833 to try and deprotestantize the Church of England.
The Origin of the false Pre-Tribulation Rapture Doctrine – James Japan

 

[jgr]

Does anyone here know where to find this book in English? Without it, all claims about what it says are based on nothing but hearsay.

They're not hearsay if the book's originators, the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church, do not deny them. And they do not, for the book was commissioned at the church's highest levels as part of the desperation measures of the counter-Reformation. Thankfully, the strategy did not succeed at that time.

 

[Biblewriter]

I've never seen them online in English.

The futurists rapture doctrine originated and was submitted by Francisco Ribera in 1585. His Apocalyptic Commentary was on the grand points of Babylon and Anti-christ which we now call the futurists or rapture doctrine. Ribera’s published work was called “In Sacram Beati Ionnis Apostoli ” Evangelistate Apocoalypsin Commentari (Lugduni 1593). You can still find these writings in the Bodleian Library in Oxford England.
....
S. R. Maitland (1792-1866) was appointed to be the Keeper of the Manuscripts at Lambeth Palace, in London, England. In his duties, Dr. Maitland came across Francisco Ribera’s futurists/rapture teaching and he had it republished for the sake of interest in early 1826 with follow ups in 1829 and 1830. This was spurred along with the Oxford Tracts that were published in 1833 to try and deprotestantize the Church of England.
The Origin of the false Pre-Tribulation Rapture Doctrine – James Japan

Actually, I have yet to see even one CLAIMED doctrine of Francisco Ribera that was actually new with him. Without even ONE exception EVERY ONE of the doctrines he is even CLAIMED to have taught, was very clearly taught well over a thousand years before he was born. But that is beside the point. If the Historicists could actually prove what they are claiming, they would have published a translation of this book into English a long time ago.

 

[Biblewriter]

They're not hearsay if the book's originators, the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church, do not deny them. And they do not, for the book was commissioned at the church's highest levels as part of the desperation measures of the counter-Reformation. Thankfully, the strategy did not succeed at that time.

Actually, there are numerous reports that the Vatican suppressed the book, which is alleged to be why it was not discovered until 1826, 236 years after its 1590 (not 1585) publication.

I have also searched for evidence of both of these claims, (that is, that it was endorsed by the Vatican and that it was suppressed by the Vatican) and have found zero evidence to back up either claim.

But in truth, neither claim is even significant. For there is HARD PROOF that a full blown Futurism was being widely taught in the English language, long before 1826, the year Ribers'a book was discovered and introduced to the English world. This is EXTENSIVELY documented in "Dispensationaism Before Darby," by William C. Watson, which was published in 2015.

Watson documents numerous examples of Dispensationalism being clearly taught in the 1600s and 1700s, and more than two dozen teachings of a rapture well before the Lord returns to judge the earth, also being taught in the same period (the 1600s and 1700s.) Also, He documented numerous writers in the 1600s that rejected the conclusion that Popery was the Antichrist, and several in the 1700s that clearly taught that the Antichrist was a future individual.

As ALL of there books were written in English, there is zero possibility that ANY of these MANY futuristic comments from the 1600s and 1700s, were based on a book unknown to the English speaking world until well into the 1800s.

 

[jgr]

If the Historicists could actually prove what they are claiming, they would have published a translation of this book into English a long time ago.

You seem to have overlooked that the Reformers were historicists, that virtually all of the most prominent of them came out of the papal system, and that they were thus fully conversant with the Latin in which Ribera's book was written.

There was never any need for an English translation. They were completely aware of the book's contents.

 

[Biblewriter]

You seem to have overlooked that the Reformers were historicists, that virtually all of the most prominent of them came out of the papal system, and that they were thus fully conversant with the Latin in which Ribera's book was written.

There was never any need for an English translation. They were completely aware of the book's contents.

How many of the Reformers wrote AFTER 1590, the year Ribera's book was published? And how many Historicists were influenced by a Futrist book?

You are grasping at straws, as you drown in a sea of FACTS.

 

[jgr]

How many of the Reformers wrote AFTER 1590, the year Ribera's book was published? And how many Historicists were influenced by a Futrist book?

You are grasping at straws, as you drown in a sea of FACTS.

Thomas Brightman, Reformer, 1562-1607:

“For when as I had by chance light upon Ribera, who had made a Commentary upon this same holy Revelation; of it even so (said I) doe the Papists take heart again, so as that book which of a long time before they would scarce suffer any man to touch, they dare now take in hand to intreat fully upon it? What? was it but a vain image or bug, at the sight whereof they were wont to tremble a few years since, even in the dim light, that now they dare be bold to look wishly upon this glasse in this clear sunshine, and dare proclaime to the world, that any other thing rather is poynted at in it than their Pope of Rome? O we sluggish and lazy creatures, if we surfer that! I thought it fit therefore that the croking of these fellowes should be somewhat repressed, thinking it worth my labour to make the lesuites see, how wickedly they rage, how foolishly they trifle, how they understand nothing of the mysteries, how it cannot be possible that they should have any wit or reach at all in this matter.”

 

[Biblewriter]

Thomas Brightman, Reformer, 1562-1607:

“For when as I had by chance light upon Ribera, who had made a Commentary upon this same holy Revelation; of it even so (said I) doe the Papists take heart again, so as that book which of a long time before they would scarce suffer any man to touch, they dare now take in hand to intreat fully upon it? What? was it but a vain image or bug, at the sight whereof they were wont to tremble a few years since, even in the dim light, that now they dare be bold to look wishly upon this glasse in this clear sunshine, and dare proclaime to the world, that any other thing rather is poynted at in it than their Pope of Rome? O we sluggish and lazy creatures, if we surfer that! I thought it fit therefore that the croking of these fellowes should be somewhat repressed, thinking it worth my labour to make the lesuites see, how wickedly they rage, how foolishly they trifle, how they understand nothing of the mysteries, how it cannot be possible that they should have any wit or reach at all in this matter.”

Where, and when, was this written? You attribute this to Thomas Brightman, calling him a "reformer," but that man was actually a Puritian, a group that was attempting to reform the reformation.Calling a Puitian a reformer is like calling J. N. Darby a reformer, for Both the Plymouth brethren and the Puritians protested against and withdrew from th Church of England.

But regardless of where and by whom this was written, the writer was obviously NOT influenced by Ribera. ALL you have proved was that some Englishmen knew about Ribera's book, long before it was lost. (The man to whom you attribute this statement died only 17 years after Ribra's book was written, and thus 222 years before Ribers's book was found.)

 

[Douggg]

You seem to have overlooked that the Reformers were historicists, that virtually all of the most prominent of them came out of the papal system, and that they were thus fully conversant with the Latin in which Ribera's book was written.

There was never any need for an English translation. They were completely aware of the book's contents.

To me, if Ribera did write on the Antichrist as a future individual separate from the Pope, that is just saying to the reformers - hey you are wrong to say the Pope is the Antichrist.

It would not be something, a lie, Ribera is creating or concocting.

 

[Douggg]

Thomas Brightman, Reformer, 1562-1607:

“For when as I had by chance light upon Ribera, who had made a Commentary upon this same holy Revelation; of it even so (said I) doe the Papists take heart again, so as that book which of a long time before they would scarce suffer any man to touch, they dare now take in hand to intreat fully upon it? What? was it but a vain image or bug, at the sight whereof they were wont to tremble a few years since, even in the dim light, that now they dare be bold to look wishly upon this glasse in this clear sunshine, and dare proclaime to the world, that any other thing rather is poynted at in it than their Pope of Rome? O we sluggish and lazy creatures, if we surfer that! I thought it fit therefore that the croking of these fellowes should be somewhat repressed, thinking it worth my labour to make the lesuites see, how wickedly they rage, how foolishly they trifle, how they understand nothing of the mysteries, how it cannot be possible that they should have any wit or reach at all in this matter.”

Produce some direct copy and pastes from Ribera's book.

 

[Biblewriter]

Where, and when, was this written? You attribute this to Thomas Brightman, calling him a "reformer," but that man was actually a Puritian, a group that was attempting to reform the reformation. Caling a Puritian a reformer is like calling J. N. Darby a reformer. Bth the Plymouth Brethren And the PuritBut regardless of where and by whom this was written, the writer was obviously NOT influenced by Ribera. ALL you have proved was that some Englishmen knew about Ribera's book, long before it was lost. (The man to whom you attribute this statement died only 17 years after Ribra's book was written.)

To me, if Ribera did write on the Antichrist as a future individual separate from the Pope, that is just saying to the reformers - hey you are wrong to say the Pope is the Antichrist.

It would not be something, a lie, Ribera is creating or concocting.

ALL the references say that Ribera taught this, but NONE of them back it up with actual quotations. For as far as I have been able to determine, it seems that Ribera's book has, even yet, never been translated into English.

But, as an interesting side detail, NONE of the references attribute EVEN ONE concept to Ribera that was not CLEARLY taught by the earliest Christian writers, such as Irenaeus and Hyppolytus. So even if Ribera did indeed teach these things, he was UNQUESTIONABLY not their originator.

 

[Hank77]

If the Historicists could actually prove what they are claiming, they would have published a translation of this book into English a long time ago.

Why would someone publish something that they see as heresy or at very least an incorrect interpretation. Why didn't/hasn't the Roman Catholic church published it, it was their Jesuit who wrote it?

 

[jgr]

ALL the references say that Ribera taught this, but NONE of them back it up with actual quotations. For as far as I have been able to determine, it seems that Ribera's book has, even yet, never been translated into English.

You don't believe Brightman? Why not?

As I've said earlier, if the RC disbelieves Ribera, one of their own, as the originator of futurism, they would be denying that he was. They never have. First, because they recognize that he was the originator. Second, because they recognize the immeasurable value which his futurism has brought to the papacy through its infiltration of Protestantism via dispensationalism.

Speaking of quotations, we've yet to see a single one from yourself during the whole of this conversation. So let's have some.

But, as an interesting side detail, NONE of the references attribute EVEN ONE concept to Ribera that was not CLEARLY taught by the earliest Christian writers, such as Irenaeus and Hyppolytus. So even if Ribera did indeed teach these things, he was UNQUESTIONABLY not their originator.

Irenaeus and Hippolytus (check your spelling) could not have known that the fulfillment of their views regarding antichrist would not be delayed until the end of time, but would shortly begin to be realized in the emergence of the apostate papacy. Had they lived until the Reformation, there is every possibility that they would have been part of it. Otherwise, if not, they would have been part of the apostasy and in opposition to the Reformation, the movement of that era raised up by God to reclaim and restore His true Church.

Where, and when, was this written? You attribute this to Thomas Brightman, calling him a "reformer," but that man was actually a Puritian, a group that was attempting to reform the reformation

Brightman may not be recognized as an avid Reformer. But his unmistakable declaration of the papacy as antichrist identifies him with one of the core doctrines of the Reformation, sufficient to recognize him as a worthy ally of the cause.

 

[Hank77]

As ALL of there books were written in English, there is zero possibility that ANY of these MANY futuristic comments from the 1600s and 1700s, were based on a book unknown to the English speaking world until well into the 1800s.

What do you mean unknown? It was published in 1593.
You seem to think that there were few people who could read Latin, which is what the Vulgate was written in. Not only that anyone who was studying languages, sciences (especially biology and the medical fields), never mind theologians would have all read Latin.
Sheesh, I even had to study Latin my freshman yr. in high school.

 

[Biblewriter]

What do you mean unknown? It was published in 1593.
You seem to think that there were few people who could read Latin, which is what the Vulgate was written in. Not only that anyone who was studying languages, sciences (especially biology and the medical fields), never mind theologians would have all read Latin.
Sheesh, I even had to study Latin my freshman yr. in high school.

Actually YOU were the one that posted about Ribera's book being discovered in 1826, after lying unnoticed on a library shelf for AT LEAST 222 years.

 

[Biblewriter]

You don't believe Brightman? Why not?

As I've said earlier, if the RC disbelieves Ribera, one of their own, as the originator of futurism, they would be denying that he was. They never have. First, because they recognize that he was the originator. Second, because they recognize the immeasurable value which his futurism has brought to the papacy through its infiltration of Protestantism via dispensationalism.

Speaking of quotations, we've yet to see a single one from yourself during the whole of this conversation. So let's have some

Irenaeus and Hippolytus (check your spelling) could not have known that the fulfillment of their views regarding antichrist would not be delayed until the end of time, but would shortly begin to be realized in the emergence of the apostate papacy. Had they lived until the Reformation, there is every possibility that they would have been part of it. Otherwise, if not, they would have been part of the apostasy and in opposition to the Reformation, the movement of that era raised up by God to reclaim and restore His true Church.

Brightman may not be recognized as an avid Reformer. But his unmistakable declaration of the papacy as antichrist identifies him with one of the core doctrines of the Reformation, sufficient to recognize him as a worthy ally of the cause.

I did not even suggest that I did not believe Brightman. What I questioned was that your un-cited "quotation" was actually by Brightman, or was accurate. For you failed to give any citation which would make it possible to even check your claim.

I have repeatedly posted a very large number of exact quotations, again and again. The fact that I did not post enough of them to satisfy you in this particular thread is insignificant.

The HARD FACT is, that the ONLY alleged exact quotation YOU have posted in this entire discussion, has lacked ANY citation, making the accuracy of the "quotation," and even its source, impossible to check.

And you are contradicting yourself, in claiming that Brightman was a reformer" because he taught ideas similar to those held by the reformers, AFTER denying the suitability of saying that Theodore Beza published dispensational doctrines, when pointong out that the actual doctrines he published were some of the central points of Dispensationalism.

 

[jgr]

I did not even suggest that I did not believe Brightman. What I questioned was that your un-cited "quotation" was actually by Brightman, or was accurate. For you failed to give any citation which would make it possible to even check your claim.

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.

 

[jgr]

Actually YOU were the one that posted about Ribera's book being discovered in 1826, after lying unnoticed on a library shelf for AT LEAST 222 years.

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.

 

[jgr]

He documented numerous writers in the 1600s that rejected the conclusion that Popery was the Antichrist, and several in the 1700s that clearly taught that the Antichrist was a future individual.

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.