Is this the lie that started many false teachings?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jul 23, 2018
12,199
2,775
113
#22
2 thes 3
4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.

5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
 
Jul 23, 2018
12,199
2,775
113
#23
I find it amazing that the pretrib rapture is the only position in eschatology that does not require and depend on the failure of another camp.

This thread is based on the premise that certain positions are wrong as a starting place, and a lackluster presentation of a "correct position", that does not convince me pretrib future rapture is error
 

Aerials1978

Well-known member
Dec 10, 2019
1,707
986
113
#24
When it come to eschatology, surely it is not always black and white.
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,916
1,256
113
#25
because there was no such thing as Futurism or Preterism until these Jesuits decided to invent them, and they invented them so the condemnation could be taken away from their church. These two invented doctrines have caused so much confusion and division. Historicism was what the unadulterated church believed until these theory's were invented.

I'm asking people to study History and then decide if Futurism is divinely inspired or was inspired by man causing many errors?
Preterism and Historicism are the same thing. Only futurism is a valid doctrine. The events of the Olivet Discourse and same timeframe in Revelation are future!
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,601
13,017
113
#28
I'm fine with throwing mud on Jesuits. They gave us the globe Earth lie. And a whole host of other evils.
That is a subject for another thread. Ribera was not misleading anyone when he postulated a future Antichrist. The problem with Historicism is that it is pure fantasy, making the papacy into "the Antichrist".
 
Sep 14, 2019
1,336
50
48
#29
With the advent of the printing press in the 15th century, and the resulting explosion of Bibles accessible in the common language from Protestant sources, it became readily apparent to those who could now study the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation in particular, that Bible prophecy identified by symbols a persecuting apostate entity generally known as antichrist.

The Catholic Church was losing its hold on people and protestants were rising.....

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy.
So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism.
The Jesuit Inspired Futurist Lie Spreads To America's Protestant Seminaries = many false teachings today...
What about the lie? Gen4:5,6: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil".
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,601
13,017
113
#30
Note: Christians must be very careful in not calling the truth lies, or calling lies the truth. We must go by what is revealed in Scripture, and some must be willing to be learners instead of teachers. There will be times when we cannot provide an adequate answer to some questions. And that is perfectly fine, since God has not revealed absolutely everything to us.

This title calls "Futurism" a lie that started many false teachings, which is a lie in itself. There are numerous prophecies which will only be fulfilled in the future. One of these is the rise of the Antichrist and his being allowed by God to take total control of the earth for 3 1/2 years (42 months): And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. (Rev 13:5). This period is also described as 1260 days or time (1 year) + times (2 years) + half a time or the dividing of time (6 months). The Antichrist will also be the Arch Blasphemer of God during that time: And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (Dan 7:25).

To claim that the Antichrist has been around since around 400 AD (when the papacy was fully established under Leo the Great) is to make a mockery out of Bible prophecy. God has severely limited his reign to just the first half of Daniel's 70th week (7 years). This is when Satan has complete control of all the inhabitants of the world and insists on the application of the Mark of the Beast.
 
Feb 24, 2022
1,346
288
83
#32
Preterism and Historicism are the same thing. Only futurism is a valid doctrine. The events of the Olivet Discourse and same timeframe in Revelation are future!
I believe in Revelation, from 4 to 19 is all about the Great Tribulation in the end times, but not the Olivet Discourse. Two critical verse to understand the timing are Luke 21:20 and 21:24 -

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. "

"And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

In Matthew and Mark this warning sign is called "Abomination of Desolation;" in Luke's account of the Olivet Discourse, though, it's clearly identified as the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD; however, 21:24 is a transitional verse. From 21:25 in the end, it's NO LONGER about 70 AD anymore, but the Great Tribulation at the end times and the signs of His coming, that's when "the times of the Gentiles" are truly fulfilled.. 21:25 talks about darkened sky, earthquake and disasters, in Matthew this started in Matt. 24:29, which means BEFORE Matt 24:29 it's about 70 AD, but after that it's about end times.
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,916
1,256
113
#33
I believe in Revelation, from 4 to 19 is all about the Great Tribulation in the end times, but not the Olivet Discourse. Two critical verse to understand the timing are Luke 21:20 and 21:24 -

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. "

"And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

In Matthew and Mark this warning sign is called "Abomination of Desolation;" in Luke's account of the Olivet Discourse, though, it's clearly identified as the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD; however, 21:24 is a transitional verse. From 21:25 in the end, it's NO LONGER about 70 AD anymore, but the Great Tribulation at the end times and the signs of His coming, that's when "the times of the Gentiles" are truly fulfilled.. 21:25 talks about darkened sky, earthquake and disasters, in Matthew this started in Matt. 24:29, which means BEFORE Matt 24:29 it's about 70 AD, but after that it's about end times.
No, the entire Olivet Discourse is about the end times. He starts with signs and events that happen before the Great Tribulation and tells us the Great Tribulation is near, then the events of the Great Tribulation, and he ends with his second coming and gathering of the saints and then gives multiple examples of what it will be like when he returns. Not a word of it is a reference to 70AD.
 
Feb 24, 2022
1,346
288
83
#34
No, the entire Olivet Discourse is about the end times. He starts with signs and events that happen before the Great Tribulation and tells us the Great Tribulation is near, then the events of the Great Tribulation, and he ends with his second coming and gathering of the saints and then gives multiple examples of what it will be like when he returns. Not a word of it is a reference to 70AD.
Disciples asked “when will these things happen”, that was specifically referring to Jesus’s prediction that “not one stone (of the temple) will be left upon another.” Don’t you think Jesus would at least cover that topic in his answer?
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,916
1,256
113
#35
Jesus’s prediction that “not one stone (of the temple) will be left upon another.”

That wasn't part of the Olivet Discourse. That was spoken at the temple as he was leaving to go to the mount. Everything said on the mount has not yet happened.
 
Feb 24, 2022
1,346
288
83
#36
That wasn't part of the Olivet Discourse. That was spoken at the temple as he was leaving to go to the mount. Everything said on the mount has not yet happened.
Yes it was. Disciples specifically asked when that will happen. You know what, I would’ve agreed with you if I had only read Matthew and Mark, but I can’t ignore those pesky details in Luke’s version.
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,916
1,256
113
#39
Yes it was. You're ignoring the context.

Nothing spoken before the mount is part of the discourse on the mount. You are trying to force that into it because you are a preterist.
 
Feb 24, 2022
1,346
288
83
#40
Nothing spoken before the mount is part of the discourse on the mount. You are trying to force that into it because you are a preterist.
I'm not, man. Luke 21:20 and 21:24 are part of the OD, read them carefully.