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.
 
Churchgoer said:
Then repent, born again, can marry, only in the Lord.
Click to expand...
I would agree just my opinion but seems like that’s where “ born again “ would apply . When I asked about divorce five times , remember when Jesus was preaching to the Samaritan woman at the well ?

She had been divorced 5 times and was with a man who wasn’t her husband . He didn’t stone her like the law demands he didn’t reject her because of her past sins he continued teaching her and revealing who he was even knowing she was a sinner who according to the law of Moses , was required to be executed by the people .


this is the findamental difference in the law and the gospel you would never hear Jesus teach Christian’s this forninstance “ if a young bride is discovered by her new husband in the first night to have had pre marital sex … Moses commanded israel this command

“But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭22:20-22‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Jesus would never teach us to do that but of this guy was in charge of our covenant he would for sure

“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭23:20-21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Because of this ordination over the law it’s veiled in tbat

adultery is still not allowed just like the law “ thou shalt not commit adultery anyone who commits adultery must surely be put to death “

same moral law but Jesus doesn’t teach us from the perspective of a slave to lust and sin beneath an angel who will not pardon any transgressions the contrary perspective of “ your sins can’t be pardoned you must surely die “ v “ believe , repent and be forgiven and have life everlasting “


It changes the entire nature of what’s taught but in regards to the content “ not killing anyone is still a law but rather we learn to love others and endure offenses rather than retaliate and initiate conflict like “ an eye for an eye tooth for a tooth justice of the law “

By learning to follow christ well learn to honor a marriage faithfully , to be peacemakers t rather than instigators and retaliators we’ll learn to not steal but work and share with the needy we’ll learn to not covet and not do violence and not lie and cheat and steal ect ect to not worship any other gods


It’s just a much better way for imperfect sinners to find thier way home to god

not pardoning transgressions was never going to save anyone it had a different purpose that was meant to come to him only

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,

till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; ( Jesus )


and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3:19‬ ‭KJV‬‬
 
  • Love
Reactions: Churchgoer
WayneNSO said:
Just saying you have to use the same standards of research to all views, not just the view you want to promote.
Click to expand...

I think you're going to get a kick out of what I found out about Francisco Ribera! 😂

2. He was a Jesuit. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1570 and spent his life in its service — 16 years teaching Scripture at Salamanca, confessor to Teresa of Avila. Jesuit vows of obedience and commitment to the Church made defection an extraordinary step.

3. His work was in service of the Church. Ribera wrote his commentary specifically as a Counter-Reformation tool — to counter the Protestant historicist interpretation that identified the Pope as the Antichrist. He was doing the Church's work, even if his specific eschatological scheme differed from Augustine's.

4. His view was closer to the Catholic position than it appears. He placed the millennium in heaven (the souls of the faithful departed ruling with Christ), not as a literal earthly reign. That's a much smaller departure from amillennialism than straightforward premillennialism.

5. He died young. He was only 54 when he died in 1591, barely a year after publishing his commentary. There wasn't time for the issue to become a prolonged personal crisis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneNSO
Revelation1v8 said:
I think you're going to get a kick out of what I found out about Francisco Ribera! 😂

2. He was a Jesuit. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1570 and spent his life in its service — 16 years teaching Scripture at Salamanca, confessor to Teresa of Avila. Jesuit vows of obedience and commitment to the Church made defection an extraordinary step.

3. His work was in service of the Church. Ribera wrote his commentary specifically as a Counter-Reformation tool — to counter the Protestant historicist interpretation that identified the Pope as the Antichrist. He was doing the Church's work, even if his specific eschatological scheme differed from Augustine's.

4. His view was closer to the Catholic position than it appears. He placed the millennium in heaven (the souls of the faithful departed ruling with Christ), not as a literal earthly reign. That's a much smaller departure from amillennialism than straightforward premillennialism.

5. He died young. He was only 54 when he died in 1591, barely a year after publishing his commentary. There wasn't time for the issue to become a prolonged personal crisis.
Click to expand...
That was interesting :)
 
Revelation1v8 said:
The two kingdoms becoming one is history repeating itself. With prophetic telescoping, you'll see a past event and a future event happening in the SAME chapter. When you get to the next chapter, it repeats the same pattern. It takes you back to a past event and then describes another future event. Every prophetic book appears to do it, clear up through Revelation.
Click to expand...

It does not make sense to "telescope" old testament tribes into the future.
There is no divide between the tribes of Judah and Ephraim anymore, nor do people know to which one they belong.
It is not possible to make reconciliation between tribes that no longer exist.

When you get to the next chapter (Ezekiel 38) there is a list of old Testament tribes involved:

MAGOG - Syria and southern Scythia, center of the Seleucid Empire (confirmed by Pliny, Josephus, and Grotius).
MESCHECH - Moschi, a Scythian tribe of North-Central Armenia; later called Cappadocians in the New Testament.
TUBAL - Thobelites, Scythians of eastern Armenia and northern Syria, later called Iberians in the New Testament.
PERSIA - A well-known nation that was located in today’s Iran.
ETHIOPIA - The African nation.
LIBYA - The northern African nation.
GOMER - A tribe of central Armenia, later called Galatians in the New Testament.
TOGARMAH - A tribe of southwestern Armenia, later called Phrygians in the New Testament.
SHEBA - Arabic tribe
DEDAN - Arabic tribe
TARSHISH - The northern Mediterranean coastal peoples stretching from Italy to Spain. Later, a seaport in Spain.

Some of these tribes continues into the early NT, and Persia Ethiopia and Libya have some sort of modern representation, but to "telescope" the whole lot into the future along with OT warfare, weapons and burying practices would be prophetic monkeying.
That does not mean it all has no relevance to the present and future, but relevance does not mean a repeat of the exact same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back