Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Beekeeper]

Or maybe this ?

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”
‭‭Malachi‬ ‭4:5-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

If we look at what Jesus is saying he interprets thngs

“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah , which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11:13-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

many can’t accept that but other do

“But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. ( they beheaded John ) Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. ( they crucified jesus )

Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭17:12-13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Your whole post makes sense to my understanding, but I have re-posted this part because it addresses a matter that I have only recently started paying attention to.
How many prophetic experts could ever have guessed that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the last prophesy of the OT, had Jesus not told them?
This should serve to humble us when we think we "know" prophesy.

When Abraham and Sarah concluded that they needed to have a son from Hagar they behaved like many who interpret prophesy in this day.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

@GaryA help me out here brother. do you also feel like a third wheel when you watch futurist and preterist debate? we're just sitting in the corner like "uhh.. yeah guys. you are both right and wrong."

i encourage everyone to look into historicism

I never knew there were so many "isms" till I came to CC. It is interesting learning about all of them, even if I disagree.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I just looked it up, preterism, my question...how did I miss the utter destruction of the world like never seen before?

Matthew 24:21 highlights a "great tribulation, unmatched from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again". Additionally, 2 Peter 3:10 states the earth and its works will be burned up, with elements melting in intense heat.

You think you'd notice blood as high as a horses bridle ...

 

[GaryA]

@GaryA help me out here brother. do you also feel like a third wheel when you watch futurist and preterist debate? we're just sitting in the corner like "uhh.. yeah guys. you are both right and wrong."

i encourage everyone to look into historicism

You are correct to use the phrase "both right and wrong" - let me briefly explain to all the folks why that is...

preterism-------------------------------------------------------historicism-------------------------------------------------------futurism

[extreme - at end of scale]----------[rests comfortably with scripture and history]----------[extreme - at end of scale]

[all is fulfilled]------------------------------[some is fulfilled, some is not]------------------------------[all is yet to be fulfilled]

[circa 70 A.D.]-------------------------[over a long period of time not a short one]-------------------------[over a 7-year period]

The true nature of end times biblical prophecy is in the middle of the scale while the other two views are at the ends of the scale.

There is a certain amount of overlap between the middle and each end; however, the complete biblical truth is found only in the middle.

I also encourage everyone to look into historicism.

No, brother - I do not feel like a third wheel sitting in the corner. Albeit, I understand the sentiment. We stand tall "right in the middle" in support of the real actual bona fide biblical truth - with the "extremists" of preterism off to one side and the "extremists" of futurism off to the other side. (Folks - please understand the context - I am not trying to put anyone "in a bad light" - I am only making a reference with regard to the "scale of viewpoints" - in order to make a point.)

It is the extreme 'all' that breaks both of the extreme views. Why? Because some end times biblical prophecy has been fulfilled while some has not. Which means, all has not been fulfilled already (makes preterism untrue) nor is all waiting to be fulfilled (makes futurism untrue).

Folks - the truth is not "extreme" - at either end of the scale; rather, it is found in the middle of the scale...

"Food for thought..."

 

[GaryA]

That guy was so confused he didn't know what even he was talking about let alone anybody else.
But yea, I dialogued with him and proved that NO mathematic time constrained prophecy fit 70AD nor 135AD for that matter.

There are not that many that even need to fit 70AD - but, the ones that do need to fit - do fit.

The fact is that Jesus and Paul CLEARLY indicated a "gentile Church gap" between the 69th and 70 week of Daniel.

I still have yet to see anyone show me any such of a thing in scripture. If it is so CLEAR, why is it not easily shown?

 

[GaryA]

A Jesuit priest invented preterism.
A Jesuit priest invented futurism.

No one invented historicism - "it just simply is [the way it is]"...

 

[GaryA]

Everybody really REALLY needs to understand that Luke 21 verses 12 thru 24 do in fact relate to (as a PROPHECY!) 70AD destruction of Jerusalem. This uniquely to LUKE ALONE. The other accounts in Matt 24 and Mark 13 DO NOT carry this information.

The quote above is just for reference; however, my comment below is with specific regard to this part:

This uniquely to LUKE ALONE. The other accounts in Matt 24 and Mark 13 DO NOT carry this information.

This is 100% absolutely not true.

While every detail is not written in all three accounts - from an events point of view - all three accounts include this event. In other words, for example - Matthew 24:15-22 (KJV), Mark 13:14-20 (KJV), and Luke 21:20-24 (KJV) are all describing the very same exact event at the very same exact time in history.

The rest of those verses you mentioned also have counterpart verses in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

Please see:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Olivet_Discourse.html

 

[GaryA]

It is things like my previous post addressed that throw people off so much from making a proper interpretation of scripture.

The thing itself is a misinterpretation of scripture. And, it then causes you to misinterpret other passages of scripture as well.

 

[GaryA]

There is no argument here, that is why there is no point in engaging the argument, you is you, when you see these things, the people in front of HIM!

You and @cv5 are both part right and part wrong. The word 'you' is used in both ways - as you describe and as he describes - in scripture. The word 'you' may mean a specific someone or "someone" more abstract. (e.g. the 'Church')

But, as I have said before many times - in the Greek, it is saying "[when you see these things] begin to occur" (to come about, to happen).

And that they did - in the first century.

 

[HeIsHere]

No one invented historicism - "it just simply is [the way it is]"...

I am not so sure about that....

Joachimitism
Joachim of Fiore was an early historicist theologian.[22] Joachimites divided history into three overlapping "stages" which each correspond to the persons of the Trinity. The first stage, of the Father, began with Adam, peaking with Abraham, and ending with Jesus. The second stage, of the Son, began with Uzziah, peaked with Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, and was ending around Joachim's time. The third stage, of the Holy Spirit, began with Benedict of Nursia, was peaking around Joachim's time, and would end with the end of history.[23]
Link

as well...

The Historicist interpretation was the standard interpretation from Wycliffe to Spurgeon (500 years) and is known as the Protestant interpretation in distinct contrast to Preterism and Futurism, which were Jesuit interpretations contrived during the counterreformation. The Reformational confessions have adopted the Historicist interpretation, including the Irish Articles (1615), the original Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), the Savoy Declaration (1658), and the London Baptist Confession (1688).
Link

 

[HeIsHere]

You and @cv5 are both part right and part wrong. The word 'you' is used in both ways - as you describe and as he describes - in scripture. The word 'you' may mean a specific someone or "someone" more abstract. (e.g. the 'Church')

But, as I have said before many times - in the Greek, it is saying "[when you see these things] begin to occur" (to come about, to happen).

And that they did - in the first century.

If I am listening to Jesus talk to me and others around me, and He says you right in front of me and them, I am going to believe Him and that He means me and them (you) and not some 2000+ future you.

 

[GaryA]

If I am listening to Jesus talk to me and others around me, and He says you right in front of me and them, I am going to believe Him and that He means me and them (you) and not some 2000+ future you.

Okay - I can agree with that. But, just remember that what was actually said [back then] was "[when you see these things] begin to occur"...

(NOT - "when you have seen the very end of every detail of every prophecy completely having been fulfilled")

 

[HeIsHere]

Okay - I can agree with that. But, just remember that what was actually said [back then] was "[when you see these things] begin to occur"...

(NOT - "when you have seen the very end of every detail of every prophecy completely having been fulfilled")

Why do people always say that, are the words of Jesus THE Christ not enough.

 

[GaryA]

Why do people always say that, are the words of Jesus THE Christ not enough.

Those ARE the words of Jesus THE Christ - as written down in the original manuscripts. It is there in the Greek (the 'begin' [to] aspect of it).

Why will you not believe those words?

Why do you refuse to look it up and study it?

Are you or are you not in search of truth above all else?

Do you not want to know the real actual truth - even if it is not what you currently hold to?

Are you willing to look into it - with an open mind and serious intent - to see if it has merit?

Why do people always "blow off" the words of Jesus THE Christ?????

 

[HeIsHere]

Those ARE the words of Jesus THE Christ - as written down in the original manuscripts. It is there in the Greek (the 'begin' [to] aspect of it).

Why will you not believe those words?

Why do you refuse to look it up and study it?

Are you or are you not in search of truth above all else?

Do you not want to know the real actual truth - even if it is not what you currently hold to?

Are you willing to look into it - with an open mind and serious intent - to see if it has merit?

Why do people always "blow off" the words of Jesus THE Christ?????

I have.
Partial preterist makes far more sense according to scripture that the historisict position which continues to try to map currents events to prophecy
Begin to ...... does not mean it did not happen.

 

[GaryA]

I have.
Begin to ...... does not mean it did not happen.

No - that is the point - it did happen - just exactly as scripture said it would. Only, as of this present moment, not all of end times prophecy has occurred.

If you or anyone does actually believe that it has - I should surely like to get you/them to explain to me from scripture how certain aspects of end times prophecy have actually already occurred in history. However, I do not "spiritualize" all of the 'physical' aspects of end times prophecy into something that is not physical so that nothing remains to be matched to history.

 

[GaryA]

Partial preterist makes far more sense according to scripture that the historisict position which continues to try to map currents events to prophecy

'Partial preterist' - where do you draw the line?

Where does it cross over into full preterism?

Where does it cross over into historicism?

 

[GaryA]

I never knew there were so many "isms" till I came to CC. It is interesting learning about all of them, even if I disagree.

Be careful what you disagree with - if it should happen to be the truth.

In other words, try not to disagree with truth - be very careful lest you do.

 

[GaryA]

You think you'd notice blood as high as a horses bridle ...

What you are suggesting is true. Only, remember that the only literal fulfillment of the prophecy would occur in the valley where the scene takes place in the prophecy. Still - I do not know of any occasion when such a battle was recorded in history...

(So - your point is indeed well made.)

 

[GaryA]

I am not so sure about that....

In any case, I think you missed the point - that [what is now called historicism] was the truth before the two extremes were invented.