Your Catholic Preterism is a mess, claiming you are not here to teach, because your pope is infallible.
You deny that the Lord Jesus Christ was the only infallible person to have ever walked the earth-that is satanic.
The Preterists and Matthew 24:34
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Your Catholic Preterism is a mess, claiming you are not here to teach, because your pope is infallible.
You deny that the Lord Jesus Christ was the only infallible person to have ever walked the earth-that is satanic.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It is helpful to know some church history re Darby and how D'ism started. The futurist set of beliefs (Jewish antichrist, temple in Jerusalem, etc) were developed by Ribera the Jesuit in the CounterReformation to save the Pope's face. No longer was Pope the antichrist which the Reformation was saying. That was in the 1500s. Now come 300 years later to the UK. There are still tensions between Protestants and Catholics over this. The Brethren movement wished to find some type of compromise and futurist eschatology was it.
I don't think it was a good idea to have the young woman (MacDonald) have her visions and all that to propel the beliefs, but the Brethren would have promoted them anyway. The intention was to find a way to stop the conflict between Protestants and Catholics in those areas, over the ID of AC.
Then, switching to the background of Jews in northern Europe at that time, we find this phenomenon: there was a bit of renaissance of the usage of Hebrew. At Princeton and Yale in 1700 every graduate had to be able to read Hebrew. In northern Europe this lead to higher literacy in the OT and more Jews began wishing they were in Israel to be safe, but also (more important as it is theological) the belief that their destiny was to be there.
This is not what the NT says, and the mission of the NT is quite different in message and nature. But in Judaism, God, the Torah and the Land are its Trinity. That means by the way, that they don't really accept the prophets as divine, that they measure everything by what Torah is saying. That being the case, we can understand Jn 12:34 and the general problem of the NT period: that if anything was going to happen through Messiah it would involve the Law, not be apart from it.
We know from Paul that the Gospel is a complete message apart from the law. We know from Eph 3:5-6 that the Israel that included all peoples existed through the Gospel. That made it a mystery to Judaism which could not be understood, because they were embedded in the torah. They could not really accept what the prophets were saying if it was conflicting with the role of Torah, which it was. That's the veil mentioned in 2 Cor 3-5.
So in Acts 13's sermon we have a really authentic sample apostolic sermon: Israel's destiny is fulfilled not in the Torah and Land, but in the Resurrection of Christ, which is proof from God that people can be justified from their sins.
So the Brethren--Dispensationalist movement had a major windfall happen out of a major misunderstanding. Jews started going back to Israel and the movement started to think it had scored unprecedented truth. (Gaebelein being quite an exception about modern Israel).
I empathize with the effort to calm down the conflict in the UK. But I can hardly blame the Reformers for finding major fault with the decadent church, pompous church. The accusation probably didn't apply quite the same to Irish Catholicism with its heritage of Patrick. But I hope you can see how the sheer distance from the 1st century can create all kinds of misunderstandings of what was being said in the NT.
I don't think it was a good idea to have the young woman (MacDonald) have her visions and all that to propel the beliefs, but the Brethren would have promoted them anyway. The intention was to find a way to stop the conflict between Protestants and Catholics in those areas, over the ID of AC.
Then, switching to the background of Jews in northern Europe at that time, we find this phenomenon: there was a bit of renaissance of the usage of Hebrew. At Princeton and Yale in 1700 every graduate had to be able to read Hebrew. In northern Europe this lead to higher literacy in the OT and more Jews began wishing they were in Israel to be safe, but also (more important as it is theological) the belief that their destiny was to be there.
This is not what the NT says, and the mission of the NT is quite different in message and nature. But in Judaism, God, the Torah and the Land are its Trinity. That means by the way, that they don't really accept the prophets as divine, that they measure everything by what Torah is saying. That being the case, we can understand Jn 12:34 and the general problem of the NT period: that if anything was going to happen through Messiah it would involve the Law, not be apart from it.
We know from Paul that the Gospel is a complete message apart from the law. We know from Eph 3:5-6 that the Israel that included all peoples existed through the Gospel. That made it a mystery to Judaism which could not be understood, because they were embedded in the torah. They could not really accept what the prophets were saying if it was conflicting with the role of Torah, which it was. That's the veil mentioned in 2 Cor 3-5.
So in Acts 13's sermon we have a really authentic sample apostolic sermon: Israel's destiny is fulfilled not in the Torah and Land, but in the Resurrection of Christ, which is proof from God that people can be justified from their sins.
So the Brethren--Dispensationalist movement had a major windfall happen out of a major misunderstanding. Jews started going back to Israel and the movement started to think it had scored unprecedented truth. (Gaebelein being quite an exception about modern Israel).
I empathize with the effort to calm down the conflict in the UK. But I can hardly blame the Reformers for finding major fault with the decadent church, pompous church. The accusation probably didn't apply quite the same to Irish Catholicism with its heritage of Patrick. But I hope you can see how the sheer distance from the 1st century can create all kinds of misunderstandings of what was being said in the NT.
Interplanner
Well-known member
John W,
there was a Catholic form of preterism developed by Alcaraz at the same time and same purpose as Ribera's futurism (to save the face of the Pope). But that preterism was anchored in events in 314 AD and was easily dismissed. it's harder to dismiss claims about the future, but they were mistaken any way, because they mixed the two things which NT eschatology does not.
there was a Catholic form of preterism developed by Alcaraz at the same time and same purpose as Ribera's futurism (to save the face of the Pope). But that preterism was anchored in events in 314 AD and was easily dismissed. it's harder to dismiss claims about the future, but they were mistaken any way, because they mixed the two things which NT eschatology does not.
Interplanner
Well-known member
John W,
I've never heard a Preterist make that denial. There aren't any core doctrines like that in the debate, just the meaning of AD 70 really.
I've never heard a Preterist make that denial. There aren't any core doctrines like that in the debate, just the meaning of AD 70 really.
Darby followers on TOL can't get enough Margaret MacDonald stories. :chuckle:
But hey, we wouldn't be talking about a secret rapture if it wasn't for Margaret MacDonald and John Nelson Darby.
Do you not know how to use the quote function?
Don't believe anything he says about me.
He makes up things about me hoping I'll respond to his posts, which I usually don't.
John W, like most Darby followers, can't defend Darby's false teachings, so he instead desperately tries to attack the person who is pointing out Darby's false teachings.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I'm new. If a person is not able to retain enough attention to what is being said that they have to see the quote each time, I don't think they should be doing this.
Have you not read Johnny's posts?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What about the OT? Who is being spoken of here:
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God" (Job.19:25-26).
Welcome to TOL!
Lots of 'em.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
There is nothing here that even hints that it might or might not happen:
"I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem" (Zech.14:2-4).
If this verse was conditional, then we would read:
"Then the Lord might go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet might stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem."
That is not what is said so you must try to pervert the meaning of what is said in those verses because your faulty eschatology has no place for the fulfillment of this verse!
Last edited:
Does he use the quote function?
I see an awful lot of quotes in his posts and some of them are awful.
The habitual liar of TOL, as usual, is caught in another lie:
"I am not here to teach, but to speak the truth...I am not here to teach. I am here to learn....I am not here to teach, advise, or evangelize anyone..."-habitual liar Craigie Tet.
Interplanner
Well-known member
John W,
can you defend the concept that there are '2 peoples / 2 programs' in the Bible?
can you defend the concept that there are '2 peoples / 2 programs' in the Bible?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
He can defend Darby's teachings, teachings which are way above your limited understanding.
The above prophecy was fulfilled at Christ Jesus's Incarnation in the first century.
Hebrews confirms Job 19
(Heb 1:2) but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
Jesus stood on planet earth "in these last days"
Are they in quote tags?