www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Revelation 12

Greetings all!

i was raised in a somewhat dispensational futurist pre-trib tradition but have since been led into a much more orthodox catholic tradition.

With the celebration of the assumption of our Blessed Mother on August 15th, i have been pondering Revelation 12 and 13.

Revelation 12 depicts a woman who gives birth and is chased by the dragon, etc. etc. In my past studies, this woman was always interpreted as either Israel or the Church. However, recently i have begun to read this as being Mary the Theotokos (and of course the symbolism that represents). In a historic and catholic view, she was the culmination of Israel - the second Eve in responding, "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord - be it unto me according to Thy word." The language in Rev. 12 fits this very nicely (the serpent, etc.) which also begs the question - what do the dragon and the beasts represent? i think one could see the dragon as Herod and i'm sure other Roman images are pervasive in the beasts (i'm curious if they refer to future groups like Islam, etc.).

Anyways, i am totally confused here, and if anyone has any clarification i'd like to hear it.

Adopt this basic rule...

all true revelation - before the appearance of Jesus Christ (his life, death, and resurrection) has its true meaning in looking forward to that one event. And all true revelation after the appearance of Jesus Christ looks back - to that one single historical event.

Therefore - nothing within Revelations refers to anything later (in the history of mankind) than the event of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ which took place within the history of Israel - more than 2000 years ago.

There is nothing further to be revealed about Jesus Christ. His life, death, and especially his resurrection - was a complete revelation of himself with nothing lacking and nothing to be further revealed at some future date.

So ignore anyone who suggests that they recognize signs given in Revelation in current history or world events.

Revelations tells a two fold story. Two perspectives running in parallel.

The first perspective is a history of Israel from Adam to the appearance and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is a theme repeated four times (first in the Letters, again in the Seals, again in the trumpets, and finally for the last time in the Bowels).

The second perspective running parallel to the first - is a trace of the events of the spiritual life all the way up to the event which the mystical writers call - the Spiritual Marriage.

The Dragon�
The image of the dragon begins within Genesis (as a serpents) and runs like a thread all through the Old Testament. At times it appears as what we would call a leviathan (a huge earthly beast), a huge fish (whale) and it finally �morphs� into the final figure of a dragon within Revelations. As the anti-Christ it should be thought of as the antithesis of Christ. It does not �fight� directly against Christ because it does not comprehend the God nature of Jesus Christ - in other words it does not know who and what Jesus Christ is.

Within the narration of Revelations as the history of Israel - it symbolizes that spirit which does not know, comprehended, nor understand - the divine nature of Jesus Christ.

The two beasts (there are two of them in Revelations) both a symbol of that portion of us which is animal human nature - one represents the human members of the Israel church (the corrupted religious leaders at the time of Jesus) and the second represents the corrupted human nature side of the civil governing of Israel at the time (the Roman occupation). It was the collusion of these two which brought about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

It is a pious view of some that the �woman� represents Mary as a symbol of the church. While it does represent Mary giving birth to Jesus in a secondary way - its primary meaning takes its force from its origin within the narration of Genesis. In that narration the �woman� represents the chaste church. It is difficult to explain without knowledge of the Hebrew involved. In a chaste and pure state this figure is �woman� a Hebrew term which means a virgin betrothed - and in a fallen state it is �Eve� and a harlot. This figure runs all through the Old Testament as a description of Israel (the people of God) who are the virgin bride of God - and Israel the harlot who is unfaithful.

Revelations is very difficult to read and understand - because it was written by a Jew and intended to be read by other Jews - who were all very familiar with the history of Israel as expressed in Old Testament literature.

The intention of the book was to display to Jews - that Jesus Christ was indeed the messiah that Israel expected. That he fulfilled all the prophesy of Moses and the Prophets - including being rejected by the Chief Priests (Sanhedrin) and put to death by civil authorities (the Roman governor). And that his death and resurrection is the end of exclusivity of the covenant to the Jewish nation and its expansion now to gentile nations.

The parallel story as a trace of a persons spiritual transformation on up to the event of the mystical marriage - is far to difficult for me to give here.

There is only one book that I know of that really nails The Revelation to John - down. It is out of print - but I have permission from the publisher to post it (a couple of pages are missing).
http://www.thegenesisletters.com/PrivateLibrary/Corsini/Corsini.htm

Another book which comes near is by Scott Hahn called �The Supper of The Lamb� - which is available. Actually I would recommend Scott first - to anyone with little background in the subject.

And the only other book I would recommend is one from which Scott Hahn borrowed heavily a Peterist named David Chilton �Days of Vengeance� but I caution you on that book because while his research is wonderful - his final conclusions are flawed. One needs to have some solid background to approach this one.

-ray

'Who is she that commeth forth? Fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army dressed in battle array."
Stephanos I

Through the prays of the Mother of God, O Savior, save our souls.

Thanks for the wonderful book rec... i'll have to keep an eye out!

Do you mean a preterist Ray?
Stephanos I

Greetings, brothers.
Ray's comments about Revelation are excellent regarding the historical and theological aspects. Let me add another important dimension about scripture. They are "living words" which are as meaningful to us today as they were when written.
Regarding Revelation, the Church always has suffered persecution, as it does today and is beginning to experience in the USA (my opinion).
15 years ago many interpreted the "red dragon" as Communism. Following that line, after the escape from Communism the Beast threatens the Church, the Beast being the Masonic influence and Materialism.
Now I'm not saying that this should be considered on a par with the traditional Church view of Revelation, but can you see the relationship of persecution today and what the young Church endured at the hands of the Jews and the Romans?
The Holy Spirit is present today and with prayerful contemplation one can relate 2000 year old scripture with our everyday experiences. This gift of Understanding can help us to be strong in our Christian life today. (Let me add -- sensationalism is not the object here. We must be cautious not to publicly declare that American materialism the "Great Satan" or they will carry us away wearing "white coats."

uh - er - I think so.

I wondered why they took the Pope's name (?!)

Anyway... (oh.. my spell checker is not installed!)

anyway...

If I can explain it simply (I doubt it!)...

I see the primary "coming" as being the crucifixion and resurrection. If Matt 24 is read properly - Jesus describes his "coming" as the moment of being revealed by the father - as the Son. Not his birth. But his death-resurrection. While Jesus spoke of himself as the Son before the event - it is the event itself which plants the 'seal' and is the Father's announcement - to the world. He then goes on to describe to the apostles a "coming" which boils down to the moment at - their own deaths. A 'coming' to each apostle at the moment of their death. Q: �When will you coming take place? A: when I resurrect and when you meet death. Two �applications� of the same �coming�.

Revelations describes the 'coming' in a two fold parallel - 1) his historic coming (within the history of Israel from Adam to the resurrection) and a personal 'coming' which fits the mystical writers description of the mystical marriage.

While portions of the church (certain members) has for a long time used the term "second coming" - whatever it has meant in the past when coined - today it automatically tends to mean to the common Christian - another - coming (just like the first thought to be his birth into history).

From my study of the subject Jesus only speaks of one - "coming"... no matter if he be speaking of his own death and resurrection - or what will take place at the moment of death (when time slips away with the body) or he be speaking of the mystical marriage.

This is very similar to our understanding of the sacrifice of the mass where the sacrifice is not 'done again' but it remains the one and only sacrifice done on the cross 2000 years ago. A perennial re-presentation of the original "one and only" sacrifice. It is just this wonderful parallel with the Eucharist that makes it all understandable.

It is one - final judgment - but three-fold in nature. Its pinnacle and origin being the judgment by God which fell on Jesus within the crucifixion-resurrection.

I can understand this because of the real meaning of the word "presence" which is totally a human experience not dependent upon exterior material. I will not explain that further.

So it is very easy to see the �coming� happened 2000 years ago in history. And it is relatively easy to imagine that same "coming" taking place outside of the bindings of the body (time is bound to the body).

The only that was a bit difficult to understand was the �coming� within the mystical marriage... but after some thought that also becomes clear.

So it is just like the Eucharist within the sacrifice of the mass (and why not?!) - that there is only one "coming" and it is experienced in three ways.

Now the preterists see something that those who expect another physical "coming" where Jesus' human body descends from heaven (a position clearly condemned early on by Council when it was proposed that Jesus�s human body descended from heaven and was not born through Mary) at some future date within history - the preterist see something that these do not see - because what they do see is a fairly good concept of Matt 24... so they do recognize that "coming" which took place "before the end of this generation". In other words - they see what amounts to that personal coming where the 'door' is opened at the moment of death and the first (and only) coming becomes a reality to the person who dies and time slips away to eternity.

BUT - they are not really sure what they are looking at because they also - hold a more materialistic and physical view of a second coming. So they claim Jesus already came - a second time - and that this took place before 70AD and the final destruction of the temple (but I do not yet know that much about their position in order to know �how� it is that they believe that coming to have been).

What they are lacking is a proper concept of the mystical marriage - and how the real presence bound to the Eucharist - 'works'.

It is very clear to me that Scott Hahn - borrowed much of his positions in the book "The Lamb's Supper" from two main sources... Peuduo-Dionysus (On the Celestial Hierarchy) and - David Chilton - a preterist (Days Of Vengeance).

At some point I will research a bit of Chilton. But I do not recommend that to anyone not really already grounded - otherwise the 'sparkle of the diamond' might way one to 'buy the whole bracelet' and - and the whole - is flawed.

Anyway - such are my musings tonight.

Please mention me a Liturgy (in your head) when the miracle takes place... and peace to you for your sincere and priestly hands in which the Good Lord is surely pleased to rest during communion.

-ray

Some would agree with you in the sense that the 'pattern' within Revelations is perennial and repeating. In that sense - the beast - appears throughout history. And that is exactly what is represented in Revelations when the beast comes out of the waters.

Every generation experiences its great war and its �anti-christ�� and the world keeps turning - and the next generation goes through its cycle - and the next - and the next.

If one reads the biographies of past saints down through the decades - many of them thought that things could get no worst and surely the second coming was just around the corner - but they died and the world kept turning and the next generation of saints now think the same - and the next - and the next.

The individual waves pulsate upon the sands.
Greater than that the tide does its long cycle and the waves are contained in it.
Greater than that - the mass of earth water shifts around the globe.
Greater than even that the earth rotates its ellipse around the sun.
Greater than that our solar system spins inside the Milky Way.
Greater than that the Milky Way is just one spinner surrounded by many solar systems.
Etc.. ad infinum.

Manifested cycles caused by invisible patterns.

Repeating - repeating - repeating. Perhaps the entire creation is nothing but a yo-yo on the finger of God?

OK.. Now I am getting off track.

Anyways�

Cheers.
-ray

Thanks RayK - interesting stuff and causing me to think quite a bit.

One question... you said:
Can you link to a primary source on this (i.e. Council texts, etc.)? i'd like to do some research there.

Thanks again!

Millenarianism from the Latin mille (1000) and annus (years)� in the Greek it is chila ete (1000 years) or Chiliasm.

The first condemnation was within the Council of Ephesus (431) but it will not jump out at you because you will need to know the exact heresy(s) being addressed. One has to read the Councils in context and be family with history.

It was again condemned by the second Council of Constantinople and again at the Lateran Council of more recent years.

The heretical positions taken by Arain and Cerinthus Motanist and Nestorian and others seem a bit different on the exterior but all boil down to the same thing. Arain taught that the kingdom of God would be established on earth at some future date and that the divine nature replaced the human soul of Jesus (two - not one). Cerinthus taught that the new Jerusalem would descend to earth at some future date and predicted a location. Apollinarius taught that the divine nature was the higher functions of the human nature of Jesus (a robot like human nature taken over by God). Etc..

The �nut� of each boiled down to making Jesus not fully human in all ways. I think it was Arain who believed that Jesus� human body descended from heaven - was crucified and resurrected - then ascended back into haven - and will descend again from heaven again at a future date.

So therefore the Council insisted Jesus was fully human born of woman (his human nature was conceived and developed in the womb etc..) and swept all these away.

Bishops and saint - have held millenarianism view from even the earliest days of the church - and many still do so today. Being error free and able to understand all Church doctrines correctly - is not a requirement of sainthood.

I must tip my hat to John Chyrsostom (much persecuted to the point of violence by fellow bishops for his views) and Origin (much persecuted after his death) who both - vigorously fought any shade of millenarianism. Chyrsostom spoke wonderfully about the mystery of the Liturgy where �time and eternity intersect� and any time one is close to the presence of Christ Chysostom claims �time has no meaning�. What a brilliant and bold man!

Any idea that Jesus will enter history again in a human body (even a super-human body) that we can experience through our senses in some way - and establish an earthly geo-political kingdom on earth - is utopian - and makes the �first revelation� of Jesus Christ (revealed to humanity through his human nature) - incomplete. Third Reich anyone??

Jesus never used the wording that could possible be interpreted �second coming� � he often told people he was talking with �the next time you see me�� but at no time did he mention �I will come again� in the sense of a second entrance into - time. I agree with Chyrsostom that when we talking about Jesus in his death and resurrection (which is the specific event that Jesus considered to be his �coming�) we can talk of that as happening in - time and human history� but when speaking about the presence of Jesus Christ after that we must know that - time - has no reference and meaning.

I have written on this subject many time at this board - but some of those posts may now be so old as to be gone. Much of this has to do with proper biblical study.

I will help you more if you like - but start here.

Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 676 note the words �beyond history� meaning beyond the world of - time.

A Protestant resource and quick history.
http://www.christinyou.net/Outlines/millennium.pdf

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm

In my older posts I must have given about a dozen links to Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox sources.

Search on the web and stick with reliable sources (Catholic or Orthodox to begin with).

-ray

Ray,
Respectfully, I think your off the track on this one as this is not the position of the Church at all.
It was not the physical return or the appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ ( which is a matter of faith) but the literal idea of a millenial reign that the Church condemned. It is also know as Chilliasm.

Stephanos I

I suppose this is the part you meant! "The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism." Catechism of the Catholic Church #675

and in conjunction with the creed, "He will come again to judge the living and the dead"
# 1130 The Church celebrates he mystery of her Lord "until he comes again" when God will be "everything to everyone." Since the apostolic age the liturgy has been drawn to its goal by the Spirit's groaning in the Church; Marana tha! The litrgy thus shares in Jesus' desire; "I have earnestly desired to eat his Passover with you... until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." In the sacraments of Christ the Church already receives the guarantee of her inheritance and even now shares in everlasting life, while "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus." The Spirit and the Bride say , Come... Come, Lord Jesus!"

I am open to debate and discussion. Especially from someone of your caliber. If you are ready for the discussion - let us start. I will give my personal opinion (for the little it is worth) in short clarity and I am open. My posting time is limited - I am trying to get a new business off the ground so I may not reply right away.

I have no authority (and no one should mistake that I do) and you - do - so if you state a position in the name of the church (by your authority) and I am aware that that is what you are doing - I will readily defer to the authority vested in you and be silent. In the mean time I will consider this just an exploratory discussion which is by nature binding upon no one.


I see us dealing with two subjects here...

1) Just what did the Councils condemn?

2) Will Jesus enter history again in his physical body.

I think we can both agree that there will not be a 1000 year (plus or minus) kingdom established on earth. Tell me if you do not agree with that.

For my part I make a difference between what the Church teaches by way of central doctrine� by that I mean through Councils etc� and � what some members of the church teach. The first being much more trustworthy and the second being open to error and personal opinion (which can be in degrees of right and wrong).

Here is my stance. Feel free to throw stones at it - let us see if it chips away. I take none of this personally.

1) It is my current understanding that the Church (having to do with Councils) has condemned the �whole package� of the persistent concept that Jesus will come into history again (A) in some physical way - and - (B) establish a geo-political rein.

It is my understanding that millenarinism encompasses many variations and forms (premillennialism, postmillennialism, amillennialism etc..) which forms may ascribe any number of years (1000, less, more� an undefined number) but all containing A and B together. One necessitating the existence of the other. Making millenarinism to boil down to A+B (the human body presence of Jesus + earthy kingdom governing).

In other words if Jesus did step back into history in some form of de-spiritualized physical human body presence - that would imply a judgment happening and by judging that act would define the act of establishing God�s kingdom. Judgment being the forced (involuntary and against human will) governing.

2) It is my current understanding and belief that Jesus will come again - but I understand this to be in his resurrected form (Word and Logos) and I understand it to take place beyond time and beyond history. Meaning outside of the body experience of time and so also outside of history. Time necessitates history and history necessitates and experience of time. I understand this event to be in a twofold way - macrocosm and microcosm (if I may borrow these terms). That is that he will come (be fully present in his resurrected form as Word and Logos) to our conscious experience to A) all humanity and B) to each individual human.

Very little can be said about the �mode� of this experience except to say that we will consciously experience the full presence of the Resurrected Jesus. And that consciousness of Jesus as Word and Logos shall be forced upon us even against our will should we not voluntarily desire it.

3) That this full and personal experience of Jesus can be had to a lesser degree - voluntarily - while we yet live in the body. This experience is called the mystical marriage. It is a habitual union with God and the presence of Jesus. The stages to this union have been summarized as �
1) purgation
2) illumination
and finally 3) union

Union in Latin theology and deification in Eastern theology. It is the economy of the Son and Holy Spirit to bring about this voluntary deification (union) through the arrangement of all things and events (Providence) and our own voluntary cooperation.

Having said all that, one should not presume upon me more than I say. For example� if one were to presume that I do not believe that Jesus will come again - that presumption would be wrong. I believe he will come again - but not in some of the commonly believed ways. I also believe in the resurrection of the body - but not in some of the commonly believed ways.

Background�

I recognize that down through the history of the Church - has run the two strains - of interpreting how Jesus will come again. Bishops, saints, theologians, etc� holding and expressing both views.

In my research I find that - what the majority of members believe (one way or the other) has swayed through the centuries. Our current sway of majority having its roots in the Protestant reformation with results that currently the majority of Catholics and Orthodox hold a common belief (with slight variations) in the concept that Jesus will somehow physically return to earth (enter time and history on an appointed day which no one knows) and he can then be experience by our bodily senses in some way - and at that time he will force his will upon mankind and bring about a utopia here on the earth.

I find that the Church has, for the most part, declined to define what the coming will be like� at the same time she has pronounced what it will NOT be like - through the condemnation of certain expressions that are false. Early Councils called these expressions - heresy - and there may have been more involved in these particular heresies than just A+B. But I do find that A+B is essential (a necessary ingredient) to many if not most - of these heresies.

By �Church� (in caps) I mean what the Councils have declared and/or what is infallible.

I am well aware that members of the church (be they bishops and/or saint and/or early fathers) have often given their opinions outside of Council pronouncements - as if their opinions were fact and proper or revealed teaching. I am aware that there is also human misunderstandings and misinterpretation of their opinions involved also (these can be difficult to read and easy to assume a misunderstanding).

I find the Church to be well aware that most of these millenarian variations stem from particular interpretations of portions of Revelations that have persisted despite Council efforts. Particular is Chapter 20 of Revelations - which chapter I believe was a focal point during the Council of Constantinople when Chilasm was addressed again. I would have to look it up to point out exactly how it was again thwarted at that Council - but I am aware that the argument centered around the idea that a New Jerusalem (Church) would descend to earth with Jesus at its head - and that would necessarily predicate the current church (Constantinople per se) as being - imperfect. Lacking. Not fully united to Jesus. And its sacraments not being able to supply all grace - to perfection. And so the interpretation of the New Jerusalem of Revelations descending into history to replace the current imperfect Church - was rejected. (I can give you reference to this).

While I have not read all things to do with �what it will be like� in Latin circles - I find that Vladimir Lossky (The Mystical Theology of The Eastern Church) expresses it well on page 234 Chapter �The Divine Light�. Lossky does not intend to give the event any physical (time, history, body) reference at all. He expresses it as an event of the spirit (the mind) and not an event of the body.

This I believe is as near a positive attribute statement that one can concisely make. And it should be held up to the negative (�it is not like�) statements that the Church - has made. The result then is pointing to the fact that the second coming - is NOT an event experience by the body senses - but is an event experience by - consciousness.

Consciousness is a property of - person (philosophical definition used) it is the �I� or �me� which has a relationship to the body and to the psychology - but is neither the body nor the psychological mind.

Now, unless you wish to debate the above - there are two areas remaining which are caked with misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The first area would be quotes from scriptures such as Matthew 24 and others� the second area would be non-infallible portions of general church teaching within Liturgy, prays, documents and so forth. All the errors in misunderstanding of the first (scriptures) has to do with readers lacking knowledge of context and Hebrew culture and interpretation lines and words as if they would mean what they mean today. The second (use in general church documents and such) has its misunderstanding to do in a few ways - one way is that the author is giving his opinion or another�s opinion but is under that impression that it is �official church teaching� and the other way (words of Liturgy and such) has to do with interpreting them without the light of understanding the more infallible Council pronouncements (in other words not anchored well to the Council pronouncements which should be shaping for us the meaning).

For example - anytime we hear the words �come again� we automatically tend to think of coming - in a similar way. Again = to repeat. And the phrase �second coming� gives us the same impression (to repeat what was done first - a second time). We assume the mode is the same or similar - that is - without the context of the Councils - we assume.

I am well aware that, across church documents and such, there are conflicting views. In that case we must always appeal to the �higher� documents.

As I said up top, dear Stephanos, if you ask me to cease presenting my opinions in the public of this board - I will cease - with a smile. Not only in respect of the authority of your priesthood, but also in respect of you as a person I trust. I am aware my posts and not easy for all to understand and if you think any readers might be harmed - I can understand your concern.

>I suppose this is the part you meant! "The Church has rejected even
I was referring to 676... My understanding is given in brackets�

[quote]
�deception�. every time the claim is made [by anyone] to realize within history [time and the body] that messianic hope [Jesus coming again] which can only be realized [happen as an event] beyond history [outside of time and body experience]��
[/quotes]
The key here is the word �history� which is the physical events which take place within - time. Body. History = the physical events of this material world of our bodies.

We could open a discussion of - history and time - here� but let us just say that time (which comprises the contents of history) is entirely contingent upon experiences of the body. It is a �thing� proper to the body. For the person (the consciousness of the �I�) time ceases to exist when the body cease to function and relay its sense experiences.

All other scripture portions usually quoted to support a millenarian like return of Christ (in some bodily form) within history - and misinterpreted mostly from lack of knowing how these words or phrases were used, at the time of Jesus, in Hebrew theology and assuming that what the mean to us today - is what they meant to them back then.

For example - the word �today� means to us a 24 hour period - or it means the time between sunrise and sunset. But to the Jewish mind of the time, when speaking of scriptures and theology - the word which we translate as �today� had rather the meaning of �now�. If today [this moment right now] you hear his voice harden not your hearts. And the word �day� had rather the meaning of an undefined span of time defined only by the experience of some event. It had the meaning of coming to experience something. The �great day of the Lord� did not mean some Monday, or Tuesday, etc.. it rather had the meaning of �that moment in which you experience the presence of the Lord�. We still use it in a similar way when we say �Ahh�! It just dawned on me�.�. It is the moments or undefined span in which we are �enlightened� and come to consciously know - some thing.

Anyway - I could drowned us in these scriptural details - while the real �nut� of the case lay in the understanding of what millenarianism is (a physical and bodily return of Jesus within history - plus - his forcefully governing which ignores our free will) - and that it has been rejected.

If we should discuss it I would prefer we not go to scripture quotes - but I can disprove a physical return of Jesus within history - simply through theology. If we discuss further that is what I will do. I will show that that concept is contradictory to other portions of well know theology which the Church has pronounced.

In any and all events - these are all my own half-baked opinions and no one reading this should think that anything I say is really all that important. It is just a free wheeling discussion. Something just a bit more interesting than TV.

-ray

Ray, In short, you are "over spiritualizing" the resurrection. Yes Jesus body was transformed and glorified, but it is still physical. He is not a phantom or ghost as he proved to his disciples in eating "breakfast" on the shore, or demanding to Thomas that he thrust his hand in his side at his resurrection appearance.
And the Church has taken a stand in the theology of Agustine in the "Amillenial" postion.
It is true that Christ will not establish a earthly kingdom which will last a 1000 years (Chillianism). But he will physichally return at the end of time, to usher in the parousia, were God will be all in all.
Stephanos I

At that time the dead in Christ will hear his voice and come forth from their tombs having their bodies united with there souls and thus will they ever be with the Lord.
( I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.)

i would also propose the other line from the Nicene Creed regarding this issue (for discussion's sake):

�Lord, behold, he whom you love is sick� and Jesus replied �This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God.�

In our terms Lazarus died. In Jesus� terms Lazarus did not die.

�Lazarus our friend sleeps but I go to wake him.�

Jesus kept trying to turn them around to think of death in the way God thinks of death - a spiritual absence of God. They don�t get it - and Jesus gets exasperated gives up and reluctantly lowers himself to their level - OK.. OK.. ! �Lazarus is dead.�

Martha: �Lord if you had been here my brother would not have died.�
Jesus: �Your brother shall rise.�
Martha: �I know that he will rise at the resurrection, on the last day.�
Jesus: �I AM the resurrection, and the life, he who believes in me even if he die (physical death) shall live.�

Get it?

�I AM the resurrection� - here - now - right here! Right now!
�I am life� - the last day is - here - right now - standing in front of Martha. Any time that Jesus is present - it is the �last day�.

Now which is easier? To say � I am the last day, I am the resurrection, and I am life itself� or to rise Lazarus from physical death?? Talk is cheap� so to prove his statement - he raises Lazarus.

Raising Lazarus was entirely secondary to this event. What is primary is that anytime the presence of Jesus is near - it is - the last day - it is the resurrection it is the kingdom of God� or as Jesus himself put it when he began his three years �The kingdom of the heavens is upon you.� The kingdom of God is present any time that Jesus is present.

Raising Lazarus is meant to point us back to the fact that the presence of Jesus is the presence of the resurrection, the last day, the life. She was wrong - to see the resurrection as some event which only takes place at some future date and time - it was - there - now - in the very presence and person of Jesus himself.

Jesus said before the event �I am glad for your sakes that I was not there - so that {seeing Lazarus raise] you might believe.�

Q: What is the most important aspect of the resurrection of Lazarus?
A: So that we would believe that Jesus - himself - in his presence - anywhere at any time - is the resurrection - the life - the last days - etc..

>He will come again in glory
Right - but it does not say how. It is an unfounded assumption that the coming again will be for the physical body of Jesus to descend from heaven and step backing into human history.

>to judge the living and the dead,
You may assume that Jesus will be judging those who are physically alive and those who are physically dead. Of course if Jesus were talking about physically alive and physically dead only - then passing judgment on someone who is physically dead - is a mote point is it not? But Jesus assumes he will judge those who are spiritually alive and those who are spiritually dead. That is why Paul in the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians tells them that those who have died are judged before those who are still alive. But it is hard to tell that that is what he was saying because of the poor English translations which translators assume Christ�s coming to be exactly what Paul is saying that the Thessalonians should not assume it to be.

>and his kingdom will have no end.
And when will this kingdom begin? At some future date? What about �The kingdom of heaven is upon you.� which he proclaimed to people as he began his three years?? Was he wrong? Mistaken? Did it not exist yet? (put into questions for effect).

And this seems like one of the most important explanations he gave on the subject - just before he went off to be arrested: John 17 �Now THIS is life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.�

Several times he said to people �The next you will see me [experience my presence] you will see me at the right hand of God.� - the right hand of the king - the position of the �right hand man� who caries out the judgments of the king.

Q: When did Steven see [experience] Jesus standing in glory at the right hand of God?
A: Just before he was stoned to death.

Q: What was Jesus doing?
A: Judging him fit - for heaven.

Apparently Jesus did not feel that he had to wait until some future date and time. For Steven - the event of his own death - the moments in which Steven was removed from time and history - was - the last day - the end of the world - the moment in which the presence of Jesus Christ judged him to spiritual life even at the same moment his body died.

I do not deny there will be a physical resurrection - but I stand with Paul - that is that there is absolutely nothing that we may or can know about it or how it will be. We can not even imagine it. All we do know is that we will be like Jesus as he is right now in his resurrected nature.

For forty days after his resurrection from the tomb our senses could see him and Thomas could touch him - and he ate food (proof that he was not a ghost)� and then he ascended into heaven. But he did not LEAVE us (�I will be with you always�). So tell me - since he is still right here right now in his ascended �form� as the Logos who has returned to God (John 1.1 �and the Logos was with God�) - what sense of his physical nature may we have of him? Can our physical eyes see him? Can out hands touch him?

No. AFTER the ascension into heaven - our bodily senses are not adequate to know his nature. He is still here - but our physical senses are not capable of observing him.

Now I ask you - if he never left us - how is it that he can come back from where he never left?

The answer is that we may or may not experience his presence. But our experience of him is not an experience of the senses of sight and touch and bodily senses.

Stephen already experienced (2000 years ago) Jesus coming again in gory at the right hand of the Father to judge the living [spiritual life] and the dead [spiritual death] and Stephen was judged to - life! Which life IS the eternal (no end in time because it also has no beginning in time - it always was, is, and shall be).

Now let us quickly look at some other theological facts of the Church.

Jesus� physical body was ascended into heaven. Spiritualized. As such as according to the Church�s definition of what physical nature and what spiritual nature is - that body is no longer a physical body - it is not a physical object proper to our physical senses.
For Jesus to come again in some physical way - and step back into time and history in a body which we could physically grasp - he would have to be re-incarnated (become carnal flesh again). The church tells us he became incarnate only once.

The church tells us that between his birth and his ascension - Jesus Christ was fully and complete and perfectly - revealed to humanity. There was nothing lacking and nothing further to revealed. With the death of the last apostle who could tell us direct witness to the human nature of Jesus Christ - all revelation of Jesus Christ was closed - forever. If Jesus were to come again into time and history and in physical flesh that could be seen etc� then that would be a further revelation in history of the humanity of Jesus Christ. Making the first revelation (his birth to his ascension) incomplete - with more to follow.

The church has never declared or proclaimed and end to the physical world. It has always used the two senses of the two Hebrew and Greek words that the English has only one word to translate to - �world�. The church speaks of the �end of the world� and at the same time she declares �Glory be to the Father, and to the Son�. world without end�. Either she contradicts herself or she is using the two definitions of the Hebrew and Greek. She IS using the two meanings of the Hebrew and Greek. Neither means indicates a physical material world - but rather a type of governing law at work within the world. The first meaning (the world which shall end) is a governing by fate and destiny devoid of Providence. The second meaning is a governing by Providence. One form of governing is devoid of the kingdom of God and the other form IS the kingdom of God. The first will end when the other begins. The second always was, is now, and always shall be - while the first has never been, is not now, and never shall be excepting in the mind of those who do not know Providence personally. The personal presence of Jesus Christ is the �last day� of the first and the �coming� of the second. The perspective God uses here is - to the experience of each individual.

The resurrection of the dead - is primarily to be understood as a raising to life (into the presence of Jesus Christ) from a spiritual death. While a physical resurrection is also implied - the mode - the time - the date - are unknowable - for the simple fact that - these physical measurements - simply do not apply. One might as well ask �What color is - colorless?� or �How long in inches - is the color red?� Time, date, physical attributes - have no meaning. Any imagining - or speculation - would miss the mark and be faulty. We can only know anything about it - in the moment in happens to us.

Jesus only incarnated once. And in a fully human way (conceived in the womb of Mary). Jesus did not and will not incarnate (become human body) in any other way. His human body did not and will not - descend from heaven. Incarnate once only - by being conceived in the womb of Mary.

The physical body of Christ present at Mass is not transported through time to be physically present in another place in time and location. Neither is it another (other) body of Christ. It is the very same body at the moment of crucifixion and resurrection - now present to us and we present to it. It is his body before the ascension. Time - is suspended� or as Chrysostom said it �time and eternity intersect.� during the mass. Jesus� physical body stepped into time - only once - and we are allowed to be present to it and it to us. Since the ascension it will not step into time and history again nor become de-spiritualized and re-incarnate again. Even so (that it is in substance the physical body of Jesus Christ) the human attributes of that body are not allow to us and our experience. Neither will they be in the future at any future date or time in history. The humanity of Jesus was only allowed to be experienced between the time of his birth and ascension. Any further or future experience to our senses of the human attributes of the body of Christ would be - a further revelation of the humanity of Jesus Christ - which was done fully and completely between his birth and ascension� nothing further will be revealed through and experience of his human body.

The final judgment and �second coming� of the messiah is an event �beyond history�. Beyond - sense perception. It will not be an experience from the exterior to the senses.

The members of the church are not �the church�. Jesus Christ in his presence - is the church. The members of the church are the participating members - they are �the members of the church�. That is simple. Participants in the presence of Christ. That presence is not inherently and essentially theirs. It does not belong to them in essence of procession. It is a grace. Freely given as an experience but never theirs to posses (a man can do what he wants to with his possessions). Grace can be withdrawn. The experience of the presence of Christ can be withdrawn. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is only present when it is received in grace. So said St. Paul and so said the Councils. The sacraments are not magic (says the Councils).

The presence of Jesus - as the church - in the members of the church - is full, complete, and perfect, now. The presence of Jesus Christ is not imperfect in any way. Nothing is lacking. The �New Jerusalem� has already �descended� with the establishment of the Catholic church through the apostles. No - �more complete� or more perfect church is yet to come at some future date in history. The �end days� began with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ and are moved toward perfection in each member of the church in as much and to the degree that each member may strive (by voluntary cooperation with Providence) and obtain what measure of perfection in this life (a perfection by habit of virtue) is made available to them by grace. So reads the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

To Moses God said "Tell them that the God of Abraham, Issac, etc.. sent you. The God of the living, not the dead." So Abrham, Issac etc.. had already recieved thier judgements - to - life! They are physically dead but have been already sealed with eternal life in God.

And the many people who rose from the graves and walked around at the moment of Jeus' crucifixtion.

For an end times jugment of all humanity living and dead - there seems to be a lot of people excluded - as already judged??

No - there is something wrong with the common and popular interpretation of a physical return of Jesus... and a judgement which takes place in time and history - after time and history cease to be anymore.

The answer is not found in the opnions of saints or bishops - it is found in Council documents condenm the whole package (a physical return within history and a time of earthly utopia) which is grouped under the title millenarianism.

Anyway - it is time for me to end my part. I can not deal with every misconception and misinterpretation that has cemented itself to the opinions of church members since St. Paul and which persist today. At the same time, I do recognize that a literal and physical interpretation of a second coming - in the sense of Revelations being misinterpreted - and Church doctrines also being given a materialistic interpretation - are a stepping stone that I would be wrong to disturbed in some people least they have no stepping stone at all. And, I run the risk of being thought by assumptions to holding beliefs that I do not hold.

It is not an easy subject to discuss without misunderstandings.

If I have offended anyone, it was unintentional. And bottom line is that God judges us day to day by how we cooperate with daily Providence and how well we listen to his voice within our conscience. All these other matters will sort out for us individually as we go.

-ray