Prophecy is completed when history (and time itself) are ended.So I've seen Christ face to face and I am LIKE HIM right now? Yeah, no.
Prophecy is completed when history (and time itself) are ended.So I've seen Christ face to face and I am LIKE HIM right now? Yeah, no.
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?
i agree preterism is heresy..
The obvious answer would overwhelming noDid the second coming take place in the past?
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".I'm fine with throwing mud on Jesuits. They gave us the globe Earth lie. And a whole host of other evils.
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...
Some? No. ALL.some must be willing to be learners instead of teachers
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.
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.
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.
Yes it was.
Nope. Anything spoken before he sat on the mount was not part of the Olivet Discourse.
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.