Replacement theology? Yes or No.

  • 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.
HeIsHere said:
This story of the origin circulated online is debatable.

The early church knew of the fulfilled words of Christ Jesus but just like the Gospel it did not take long for it to be oppressed.

“The Historical Basis of Preterism,” Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry demonstrate a “Nascent Preterism in Antiquity.”
So there are early church writers who writing about first century events.
Click to expand...
Did we have an online in 1918 when that book by Larkin was published ? Plus the work published by the Jesuit Luis Del Alcazar, was in 1614, and was rejected at that time.

Not saying you are wrong about the early church writers, but it isn't a story that originated online.
 
WayneNSO said:
Did we have an online in 1918 when that book by Larkin was published ? Plus the work published by the Jesuit Luis Del Alcazar, was in 1614, and was rejected at that time.

Not saying you are wrong about the early church writers, but it isn't a story that originated online.
Click to expand...

How did this Jesuit priest devise his preterist views, what were they based on I wonder?
 
HeIsHere said:
How did this Jesuit priest devise his preterist views, what were they based on I wonder?
Click to expand...
Then you have to ask the question, what did the Jesuits who promoted futurism base their views on also.

In 1585 a Spanish Jesuit called Francisco Ribera was commissioned by the Pope to write a commentary on the Book of Revelation, which was published as footnote in the Catholic Vulgate Version of the Bible.

He proposed that the first chapters of the Apocalypse/Revelation applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest to a literal 7 year period in the future. Immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy, and the revealing of a single Antichrist would appear.

To do this he took the prophecy in the book of Daniel about the coming Messiah, commonly known as the 70 weeks, and took the confirmation of the New Covenant by Jesus Christs death on the cross, which caused all sacrifices and the oblations to cease, and said it was not about Christ, it was about a one man Anti-Christ who would appear during an end time great tribulation period.

Francisco Ribera's work was later furthered by an Italian Jesuit called Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. These works were published in 1591

Around 1791 a Chilean Jesuit priest called, Emmanuel Lacunza wrote a book called "The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty", but he wrote it under the name of Rabbi Ben Ezra, passing himself of as a Jew who had converted to Christ. He was an advocate of Ribera's futurism, and thought that by hiding the fact that he was a Roman Catholic, and pretending to be a Jew, might give the book a better chance of acceptance amongst protestants, who were the target. The book was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris, between 1811 and 1826.


The Jesuit Ribera had brought forth the idea of a Rapture, stating that the church will be taken up to heaven 45 days before the end of the three and half years of Daniels 70th week. What is called the Gap theory. According to Ribera only those who partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist (The Catholic Mass), will be raptured. The other Jesuit Emmanuel Lacunza also had a visible rapture of the church 45 days before the end of the three and half years.
 
HeIsHere said:
This story of the origin circulated online is debatable.

The early church knew of the fulfilled words of Christ Jesus but just like the Gospel it did not take long for it to be oppressed.

“The Historical Basis of Preterism,” Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry demonstrate a “Nascent Preterism in Antiquity.”
So there are early church writers who writing about first century events.
Click to expand...

I guess it helps to check out what was really said. No one is denying prophecy about the fall of the second temple as being fulfilled, but Preterists take it too far and misconstrue the message from the early church AND in the Bible.

The critics' counter-arguments (primarily Ron J. Bigalke, Jr., in "Preterism and Antiquity: Was Preterism a View of the Early Church?"):

  1. Historian, not exegete. Eusebius was writing a history, not a theological commentary. He was narrating what happened and noting the correspondence between Jesus' words and events. This is fundamentally different from making a doctrinal claim that all of Matthew 24 (including the visible Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment) was fulfilled in AD 70.
  2. Selective citation. Eusebius cites Matthew 24:19–21 and Luke 21:20, 23–24 — the verses about the destruction itself (woe, tribulation, captivity, trampling). He does not cite Matthew 24:29–31 (the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven), 24:34 ("this generation"), or 24:36 ("no one knows the day or hour"). These are the verses that full preterism depends on most heavily. If Eusebius believed the entire Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in AD 70, it would be strange to omit the most dramatic verses.
  3. The Pella conflation. Bigalke argues that Eusebius conflated Luke 21:20 ("when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies") with Matthew 24:15 ("the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place"). In his own Canons (a tool for comparing synoptic parallels), Eusebius listed Luke's "surrounded by armies" as a verse peculiar to Luke, not parallel to Matthew 24:15. So Eusebius himself recognized these as distinct statements. The flight to Pella fulfilled Luke's warning about armies surrounding the city, not necessarily the "abomination of desolation" in Matthew.
  4. No endorsement of hyper-preterism. Even if Eusebius saw the temple destruction as fulfilling some of Jesus' words, that is a far cry from the full preterist position that the Second Coming, the resurrection, and the final judgment all occurred in AD 70. No early church father — including Eusebius — ever claimed the Second Coming had already happened.
  5. The broader context. Eusebius elsewhere in the Ecclesiastical History and in his Proof of the Gospel speaks of the Second Coming as a future, visible, bodily event. His AD 70 references are historical observations, not eschatological conclusions
 
WayneNSO said:
Then you have to ask the question, what did the Jesuits who promoted futurism base their views on also.

In 1585 a Spanish Jesuit called Francisco Ribera was commissioned by the Pope to write a commentary on the Book of Revelation, which was published as footnote in the Catholic Vulgate Version of the Bible.

He proposed that the first chapters of the Apocalypse/Revelation applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest to a literal 7 year period in the future. Immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy, and the revealing of a single Antichrist would appear.

To do this he took the prophecy in the book of Daniel about the coming Messiah, commonly known as the 70 weeks, and took the confirmation of the New Covenant by Jesus Christs death on the cross, which caused all sacrifices and the oblations to cease, and said it was not about Christ, it was about a one man Anti-Christ who would appear during an end time great tribulation period.

Francisco Ribera's work was later furthered by an Italian Jesuit called Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. These works were published in 1591

Around 1791 a Chilean Jesuit priest called, Emmanuel Lacunza wrote a book called "The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty", but he wrote it under the name of Rabbi Ben Ezra, passing himself of as a Jew who had converted to Christ. He was an advocate of Ribera's futurism, and thought that by hiding the fact that he was a Roman Catholic, and pretending to be a Jew, might give the book a better chance of acceptance amongst protestants, who were the target. The book was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris, between 1811 and 1826.


The Jesuit Ribera had brought forth the idea of a Rapture, stating that the church will be taken up to heaven 45 days before the end of the three and half years of Daniels 70th week. What is called the Gap theory. According to Ribera only those who partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist (The Catholic Mass), will be raptured. The other Jesuit Emmanuel Lacunza also had a visible rapture of the church 45 days before the end of the three and half years.
Click to expand...
Just saying you have to use the same standards of research to all views, not just the view you want to promote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back