Did the events in Revelation already happen?

[jinc1019]

Hi everyone...I was reading Scott Hahn's excellent book "Lamb's Supper" for probably the third time when I came across an argument he was making about the Book of Revelation where he argues many of the events in the Book of Revelation were foretelling the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Hahn goes into great "Hahn-like" detail about his ideas regarding 70 A.D. and the ties to the Book of Revelation, so what do people think? Did many of those events already occur or are they future events? Does the Church have a definitive teaching on this?

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by jinc1019

Hi everyone...I was reading Scott Hahn's excellent book "Lamb's Supper" for probably the third time when I came across an argument he was making about the Book of Revelation where he argues many of the events in the Book of Revelation were foretelling the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Hahn goes into great "Hahn-like" detail about his ideas regarding 70 A.D. and the ties to the Book of Revelation, so what do people think? Did many of those events already occur or are they future events? Does the Church have a definitive teaching on this?

Which specific verse in Revelation are you asking about?

[Robertanthony]

History repeats itself. The abomination of desolation refers to what Antiochus IV Epiphanes did in the Temple of the Jews but it also refers to the induction of the Antichrist in the Temple that will in most likelihood be rebuilt to its former glory. Same with Nero and 666, perhaps 666 referred to him, but it will also probably refer to the son of perdition.

[jinc1019]

I mean the various events that occur, no specific verse in mind...Doesn't the Church have an opinion on this or is it just up in the air?

[Robertanthony]

The Church specifically teaches that there will be a world deception lead by the Antichrist, so even though Nero or others were antichrist symbols, one has yet to come who will be the actual Antichrist. The rest is open to interpretation. Some see the revival of the Roman Empire that was foretold by prophet Daniel (ok not Revelation strictly speaking, but you get the idea) as the European Union (there are some eerie stuff about Javier Solana's position and how it was created, thru what resolution it was created etc.). But the CC does not have an ultimate ex cathedra interpretation of end-times events prophesied in the book or Rev.

[jinc1019]

Originally Posted by Robertanthony

The Church specifically teaches that there will be a world deception lead by the Antichrist, so even though Nero or others were antichrist symbols, one has yet to come who will be the actual Antichrist. The rest is open to interpretation. Some see the revival of the Roman Empire that was foretold by prophet Daniel (ok not Revelation strictly speaking, but you get the idea) as the European Union (there are some eerie stuff about Javier Solana's position and how it was created, thru what resolution it was created etc.). But the CC does not have an ultimate ex cathedra interpretation of end-times events prophesied in the book or Rev.

Thanks for the information Robert...any sources or just from your own knowledge on the subject?

[joshua_b]

Originally Posted by jinc1019

I mean the various events that occur, no specific verse in mind...Doesn't the Church have an opinion on this or is it just up in the air?

The Church leaves this up to the fundamentalist protestants.

[jinc1019]

Originally Posted by joshua_b

The Church leaves this up to the fundamentalist protestants.

It appears that way....I don't see them discussing this very often. I don't understand why they wouldn't just release a definitive teaching on the whole Book rather than just bits and pieces.

[bmullins]

Originally Posted by jinc1019

It appears that way....I don't see them discussing this very often. I don't understand why they wouldn't just release a definitive teaching on the whole Book rather than just bits and pieces.

One of the cool things about the Catholic church is they don't simply release teachings like many of our protestant counter parts do. They make sure they are definitive before they release them, which means lots of discussion, often building on centuries of theology. Where as many 'preachers' will simply say 'This is what it means, because that's what my mind tells me' the Catholic church makes sure that it is from the Holy Spirit, through much prayer, study and guidance.

Until that day, they simply won't release a teaching on something they aren't certain God has revealed.

[Robertanthony]

Originally Posted by bmullins

One of the cool things about the Catholic church is they don't simply release teachings like many of our protestant counter parts do. They make sure they are definitive before they release them, which means lots of discussion, often building on centuries of theology. Where as many 'preachers' will simply say 'This is what it means, because that's what my mind tells me' the Catholic church makes sure that it is from the Holy Spirit, through much prayer, study and guidance.

Until that day, they simply won't release a teaching on something they aren't certain God has revealed.

The Church doesn't want to mislead people and jeopardize its own authority, but sometimes I think it's so slow that it might wait until the Antichrist has ruled and been put to death to proclaim definitively that he indeed was the AC. That's not much help for those who were subject to him while he's alive. "We the Church proclaim that Jesus' glorious return, which happened yesterday for the entire human race to behold at once , was indeed Jesus' glorious return". There has to be a middle road between scrutinizing every and any event, both significant and insignificant, and trying to see how it connects to the Book of Revelation, and the Catholic Church's position of waiting 30 years after everything in the Apocalypse has come to pass to declare that we indeed lived through the apocalypse. Are we 1 generation away from seeing what John foretold, or millenia away? There must be some way to make sense of that whole book before evrything that is foretold in it happens.

[bmullins]

Originally Posted by Robertanthony

Are we 1 generation away from seeing what John foretold, or millenia away? There must be some way to make sense of that whole book before evrything that is foretold in it happens.

Didn't Jesus tell us that no man would know the day/time? Why would expect the church to attempt to tell us that the day was drawing close if Jesus said we would not know, that not even He knew?

[Robertanthony]

Originally Posted by bmullins

Didn't Jesus tell us that no man would know the day/time? Why would expect the church to attempt to tell us that the day was drawing close if Jesus said we would not know, that not even He knew?

Matthew 24:32-33.

[jinc1019]

Originally Posted by Robertanthony

The Church doesn't want to mislead people and jeopardize its own authority, but sometimes I think it's so slow that it might wait until the Antichrist has ruled and been put to death to proclaim definitively that he indeed was the AC. That's not much help for those who were subject to him while he's alive. "We the Church proclaim that Jesus' glorious return, which happened yesterday for the entire human race to behold at once , was indeed Jesus' glorious return". There has to be a middle road between scrutinizing every and any event, both significant and insignificant, and trying to see how it connects to the Book of Revelation, and the Catholic Church's position of waiting 30 years after everything in the Apocalypse has come to pass to declare that we indeed lived through the apocalypse. Are we 1 generation away from seeing what John foretold, or millenia away? There must be some way to make sense of that whole book before evrything that is foretold in it happens.

I think that is a fair criticism to some extent. I think part of the problem is there are a number of people who believe, in the Catholic Church, that many of those events in Book of Revelation already occurred and there are many more who believe they have yet to occur. Either way, why not just bring it up at a council or have the Pope speak about it to a deeper extent?

[joshua_b]

Originally Posted by Robertanthony

The Church doesn't want to mislead people and jeopardize its own authority, but sometimes I think it's so slow that it might wait until the Antichrist has ruled and been put to death to proclaim definitively that he indeed was the AC. That's not much help for those who were subject to him while he's alive. "We the Church proclaim that Jesus' glorious return, which happened yesterday for the entire human race to behold at once , was indeed Jesus' glorious return". There has to be a middle road between scrutinizing every and any event, both significant and insignificant, and trying to see how it connects to the Book of Revelation, and the Catholic Church's position of waiting 30 years after everything in the Apocalypse has come to pass to declare that we indeed lived through the apocalypse. Are we 1 generation away from seeing what John foretold, or millenia away? There must be some way to make sense of that whole book before evrything that is foretold in it happens.

You are still trying too hard to interpret the book of Revelations with a dispensationalist mindset.
The whole idea of the rapture, the great tribulation, the 1000 year reign, the anti-christ, mark of the beast, etc. is all the product of John Darby, and was never taught anywhere prior to the 1830's.

The Church has not given any difinitive teachings on the book of Revelations because Catholic teachings on eschatology do not view the book (or the "end times" in general) in the same light as pre-millenial dispensationalists.

[Robertanthony]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p1s2c2a7.htm #675