THE TRUE "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY/SUPERSESSIONISM" OF THE BIBLE

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE OP POST?


  • Total voters
    21
Status
Not open for further replies.

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
continuing...........

Christian soft supersessionism can mean accepting the historical fact that Jews have remained with the “un-supplemented” ancient covenant while Christians have been called by God to a higher level by their affirmation of Jesus as the Christ. Jewish exceptionalism should be respected because, as Christians acknowledge, no one should be forced, cajoled, or seduced into the Christian version of the covenant.
Indeed, Jews are a special case in this regard. Unlike others who do not believe in Jesus, we already know the protoevangelium, the technical term Christians use for the covenant and promises of the Hebrew Bible that allow one to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The combination of a commitment to free assent in faith with a recognition that Jews already know enough to make up their own minds is why soft supersessionists have largely abandoned evangelization that specifically and directly targets Jews.

Soft supersession is also supported by a theocentric view of the end time. Only God has the right to bring a person into the covenant. In the case of the Jews, that probably will have to wait for the final redemption, which for Christians will be Christ’s Second Coming. (One could say that Karl Barth was this kind of soft supersessionist.)
On this view, ultimately though not immediately, Judaism will be overcome by Christianity, because all Jews will finally become Christians. I call this the “eschatological horizon” of soft supersessionism. It enables Christians who advocate it to speak with Jews in good faith in the present, yet-to-be-redeemed interim or waiting-time. Yet that dialogue is still not an encounter of equals. Judaism is still taken to be proto-Christianity.


Hard supersessionists have a much lower and often anthropocentric eschatological horizon. They are too impatient to wait for the end-time to solve their “Jewish problem.” They engage in aggressive proselytizing of Jews. Or they presume that most Jews have already abandoned Judaism, becoming secularist and atheistic.
By this way of thinking, Jews are to be fought along with the other “enemies of religion.” (The voices of some Jewish atheists are more prominent in the public square than the voices of most faithful Jews. This can feed this misperception of all Jews and of the theologically grounded Jewish tradition.)
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Continuing.....

Just as Christian hard supersessionism has its Jewish counterpart (as we have seen), so does soft supersessionism have a Jewish expression.
The second-century Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah said that “the righteous of the nations-of-the-world have a portion in the world-yet-to-come.” He was, in that sense, a Jewish soft supersessionist who thought that unconverted Gentiles (who at present are living according to what Judaism teaches is universally binding divine law) will be made “honorary” Jews in the world-yet-to-come. (This sounds something like Karl Rahner’s notion of “anonymous Christians.”)
On the other hand, his colleague, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, thought the world-yet-to-come will be an exclusively Jewish domain. He could be called a Jewish hard supersessionist.

A soft Jewish supersessionism, unlike hard Jewish supersessionism, does not equate Christianity with the idolatrous past superseded by the Torah. Instead, it somewhat grudgingly accepts Christianity (and Islam) as monotheistic and not polytheistic, though demoting Christianity (and Islam) to the status, in effect, of a watered down version of Judaism for the Gentiles.

The great twelfth-century theologian-jurist Maimonides agreed with Rabbi Joshua’s inclusivism, not with Rabbi Eliezer’s exclusivism. He argued that, if Christians could be weaned of some of their erroneous theological interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, they could be persuaded to return to their true origin in Judaism. Most traditional Jews, though, tend toward hard supersessionism. They have not followed Maimonides’s soft supersessionist advocacy of proselytism, even though in modern secular democracies there is no prohibition of Jewish proselytism, as was the case when Jews lived in pre-modern Christendom (and under Islam).

Soft is certainly better than hard, but even soft Christian supersessionism leaves Jews with the unsettling feeling that Christians are looking upon us as eventually becoming what Christians already are. It leads us to suspect that Christian dialogue partners seem to be engaging us not as the Jews we presently are, but as they pray we will become in the eschatological future.
But can there be an authentic relationship—one that is truly “dialogical”—when the parties do not look upon each other as they see themselves, both now and in the eschatological future? At present, Christian soft supersessionism, while vastly better than the hard version, seems only to tolerate Jewish loyalty to the original level of the covenant.

There is a better way, and it relies on a different kind of soft supersessionism. To formulate this approach, we need to correct a historical mistake many Christians and Jews make about the origins of both Christianity and Judaism. The mistake rests in the assumption that Christianity (however “softly”) comes after Judaism.
For Christians, that usually means Christianity arises from an already existing Judaism, bringing it up to a higher, fuller level of human existence before God.
For Jews, conversely, that usually means that Christianity comes after, bringing Judaism down to a lower, more diluted level of human existence before God.


But Christianity did not come out of Judaism, whether for good (the Christian supersessionist view) or for ill (the Jewish supersessionist view).
In truth, both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism come out of, and thereby supersede, a religion based on the Hebrew Bible, plus some developments coming from the elaborative interpretations of Second Temple Jewish theology, the time after the final books of the Hebrew Bible were written but before the first century of Christianity. This religion could be called “Hebraic Monotheism.” It is neither Judaism nor Christianity, at least as we know them from the second century on. Judaism and Christianity have been continually superseding this ancient religion. Both have done so without forgetting their ever-present, ever-necessary foundation in Hebraic Monotheism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Now with the internet, one can look up vast online resources for both Hebrew and Greek studies.

That aside, here are some more verses transalated pretty much word for word from the Greek concerning the 70Ad parousia shown in Revelation:

You can compare these to the KJV and Geneva Bible you and BABerean2 use.

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke's Temple/Jerusalem Discourses harmonized- Poll Thread

Matthew 24:3
Yet of Him sitting on the Mount of the Olives, the Disciples came toward to Him according to own saying "be telling to us! when shall these be being? and what the sign of Thy parousia<3952> and full-consummation<4930> of the Age?

Luke 21:31 Kingdom of God comes

Luke 21:31 Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming ye are knowing that nigh<1451> is the Kingdom of the God.

Romans 13:
11 And this knowing the time, that hour it-is already out of sleep to be roused, for now nearer<1452> of us the Salvation than when we believed.
12 The Night progresses, the yet Day is nigh<1448>.
We should be putting off then the works of the Darkness, we should be putting on the implements of the Light.

James 5:8 be ye patient!, also stand-fast the hearts of ye, that the Parousia<3952> of the Lord has-neared<1448>

1 Peter 4:7 "THE END OF ALL THINGS IS NIGH AT HAND"

1 Peter 4:7 Of all-things yet the End<5056> is nigh<1448>
be sane then, and be sober into the prayers,
=========================
Matthew 24:15 "Whenever then ye may be seeing the abomination of the desolation, the being declared thru Daniel the Prophet having-stood in a place, holy (the one-reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723) let him be minding/understanding<3539>" [Mark 13:14 Revelation 1:3]

Revelation 1:1
An-unveiling of Jesus Christ, which gives to Him, the GOD, to show to the bond-servants of Him, which-things is binding to be becoming In/en <1722> Swiftness/tacei <5034>.
Revelation 1:3
Revelation 1:3 Happy/blessed the one reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723) and the ones hearing the words of the prophecy and keepings the in it having been written
That the Time/Season is nigh<1451>.

Revelation 22:6
And said to me: "These the Words Faithful and True. And Lord, the GOD of the spirits of the holy Prophets commissions the messenger of Him to show to the bond-servants of Him which-things is binding to be becoming In/en <1722> Swiftness/tacei <5034>.
Revelation 22:10
And he is saying to me "no thou should be sealing the Words of the Prophecy of the Scroll, this.
That the Time/Season is nigh<1451>


It is because the KJV and Geneva were translated word for word that they have been rated as more trustworthy in the integrity and accuracy of their translation than many modern translations are. But if it is possible, why settle for second best?

Did some cross checking and while wording may be different, I see no differences in meaning between the Geneva/KJV and the passages you posted.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are the on who is playing word games. When did I ever say that the Jews could ever be saved apart from Christ?

Your doctrine claims modern Jews will be saved outside of the Church, during a future time.

Those who come to faith in Christ are members of the Church, based on Matthew chapter 16.

Do you deny the facts found above?


.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your doctrine claims modern Jews will be saved outside of the Church, during a future time.

Those who come to faith in Christ are members of the Church, based on Matthew chapter 16.

Do you deny the facts found above?


.


If Dispensationalists were claiming that Jews were going to be saved outside the Church, they would also be saying that the Jews would be receiving salvation apart from Christ. That is not the case with most Dispensationalists. Most Dispensationalists teach that the nation of Israel will finally come to repentance in Christ.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
But Christianity did not come out of Judaism, whether for good (the Christian supersessionist view) or for ill (the Jewish supersessionist view).
In truth, both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism come out of, and thereby supersede, a religion based on the Hebrew Bible, plus some developments coming from the elaborative interpretations of Second Temple Jewish theology, the time after the final books of the Hebrew Bible were written but before the first century of Christianity. This religion could be called “Hebraic Monotheism.” It is neither Judaism nor Christianity, at least as we know them from the second century on. Judaism and Christianity have been continually superseding this ancient religion. Both have done so without forgetting their ever-present, ever-necessary foundation in Hebraic Monotheism.
Continued..............

Both traditions base themselves on the same foundational revelation of the Hebrew Bible or “Scripture” (kitvei ha-qodesh). Because of this insuperable commonality, the two traditions cannot be totally different (as Christian and Jewish “isolationists,” both past and present, assert). On the contrary, there is commonality and difference. The two traditions are separate but interrelated, and this dialectic must be maintained until the end of this world. Commonality without difference can only lead to a Jewish-Christian syncretism. As Maimonides taught, we should be wary of the human fabrication of a “new religion” (le-hadesh dat), which is what syncretism is. To ensure this does not happen, we must respect the essentially different existential decisions we make as to who Jesus of Nazareth is and what he means for the covenant between God and His people, Israel.
This fundamental difference keeps our commonality partial and incomplete. On the other hand, difference without any real commonality leads to the notion that Jews and Christians are affirming two different covenants. This, in turn, quite easily leads to the notion that Jews and Christians do not worship the same God—the ever-present Marcionite temptation.

The commonality is not only found in our shared foundational revelation. In exegetical practice, Jewish and Christian theologians regularly supersede or go beyond the literal meaning of Scripture (what the Talmud calls peshaṭ and what Augustine called sensus literalis). But they must do so without ever leaving it behind.
An example of a doctrine directly inferred from Scripture by both Jews and Christians is the affirmation of the entire Mosaic Torah as normative. The difference between Jewish exegesis and Christian exegesis arises over analysis of which of the Torah’s norms were taken to be perpetually binding, and which of the Torah’s norms were only binding in the past and no longer apply in the present. By contrast, Jewish and Christian doctrines of the resurrection of the dead (tehiyyat ha-metim) are only alluded to by Scripture.
The difference between Judaism and Christianity is over when the resurrection of the dead begins. In the Christian view, it has begun with Jesus. The Jewish view holds it will begin in the future.

It is important to recognize that these matters are not the kind of differences where it can be said, “You have your truth and we have ours.” Based in a shared revelation, they concern the ultimate level of truth corresponding to ultimate reality. They concern our relationship to God. Here, the difference between Judaism and Christianity is the starkest. It is a matter of either/or. That is, either the Jewish people or the Christian Church is the fullest, most complete location for that ultimate relationship, the final purpose for humans created in the image and likeness (tselem u-demut) of God.
When a human person seeks the ultimate covenantal relationship with the Lord God of Israel, one can only be either a Jew or a Christian, but not both a Jew and a Christian, and certainly never neither a Jew nor a Christian. It is important to realize, however, that this “either/or” need not imply hard supersessionism. It has the gradation of “more or less.”

In truth, over the past two generations moral issues have been the main focus of Christian and Jewish dialogue. In these matters the issue of our difference can be bracketed. But it should not be suppressed. It needs to be in the background of our common discourse, ready to be invoked whenever our striving for commonality veers toward syncretism...................................
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But still left himself open to the possibility that the basis for modern Dispensationalism may have arisen elsewhere. If he didn't, he would have stated Ribera as a matter of fact instead of in theory, but that he mentioned him in theory suggests that it was not full proof. We may not know the faults in the "Ribera" theory---Larkin does not tell us---but when the context of a remark is presented in theory instead of fact, then it should be taken to mean that no matter the likelihood that it may qualify as a fact, there is still room for other possibilities to present themselves upon further research and discoveries.

Ribera may be labeled a suspected source for modern Dispensationalism, but that does not mean he is the source of it. What would disqualify him as the originating source is that modern Dispensationalists would object to much of his eschatology, that is if the Wikipedia article has given a truthful and accurate description of it.

"May be said" can mean either fact or theory. To Larkin it was fact as he identified no alternative.

Neither has anyone else ever identified any alternative.

Ribera wasn't the source of modern dispensationalism. He was the source of the futurism, in particular a futurized antichrist, which was embraced by, and is integral and indispensable to, modern dispensationalism.

No recognized dispensationalist is on record as disputing Larkin.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"May be said" can mean either fact or theory. To Larkin it was fact as he identified no alternative.

Neither has anyone else ever identified any alternative.

Ribera wasn't the source of modern dispensationalism. He was the source of the futurism, in particular a futurized antichrist, which was embraced by, and is integral and indispensable to, modern dispensationalism.

No recognized dispensationalist is on record as disputing Larkin.


Futurism is a tenet of Dispensationalism and a futurized Anti-Christ did not begin with Ribera but was believed widely by the second century church. The reason why Larkin identified no other alternative is because Ribera has been the "best guess" possible, but not necessarily a full-proof.

Ribera did not initially invent the doctrines that are identified with modern Dispensationalism or futurism. They had already been in existence but were suppressed by the Roman Papal empire and largely forgotten. It may very well be possible, however, that his actions had set a precedent for the revival of the doctrines that are identified as tenets of Dispensationalism/futurism as it is understood today.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Continued..............
In truth, over the past two generations moral issues have been the main focus of Christian and Jewish dialogue. In these matters the issue of our difference can be bracketed. But it should not be suppressed. It needs to be in the background of our common discourse, ready to be invoked whenever our striving for commonality veers toward syncretism...................................
continuing.....
============
Our difference also needs to be invoked by Jews whenever a fellow Jew is tempted to become Christian. Then we should say to him—only if asked, though one must judge in the unique circumstances—“Do not go from what is more of the covenantal reality to what is less of it.” And our difference needs to be invoked by Christians whenever a fellow Christian is tempted to become Jewish. Then you should say to him—only if asked—“Do not go from what is more of the covenantal reality to what is less of it.”
In both cases, the logic of our concern follows the Talmudic principle, “One rises but does not descend in sanctity.”
However, this principle should not be invoked to compel or pressure a fellow Jew to remain Jewish, or to strong-arm a Christian to become Jewish—that is, when we have not been asked for counsel.
The same should not be done by Christians to pressure a fellow Christian to remain Christian, or to pressure a Jew to become Christian—that is, when you have not been asked.

Let us always remember that all of our efforts reach toward an eschatological horizon. That horizon transcends the low horizon of hard supersessionists, and it transcends even the higher horizon of soft supersessionists. Both of their horizons can be anticipated in the present, one by rude, even coercive, actions, and the other by interior assumptions. But, in truth, neither Jews nor Christians can anticipate what God will do at the end of the world’s time.
The end time can only be hoped for, bringing another universe altogether, a universe that cannot even be imagined by us. Both Paul (1 Cor. 2:9) and the Talmud (Berakhot 34b) affirm about that end time: “No eye but Yours O God has seen what will be done for those who wait for You” (Isa. 64:4).

Usually, we think God will vindicate either Jewish supersessionism or Christian supersessionism in a zero-sum game. That is, either God will enable Christians to say to Jews, conclusively, “We have been right and you have been wrong all along,” or God will enable Jews to say to Christians, conclusively, “We have been right and you have been wrong all along.” But what if God Himself is a hard supersessionist?
What if God’s final judgment, ushering in the world-yet-to-come, supersedes our human triumphalism that looks at the final judgment as an either/or proposition? What if God’s final verdict is beyond our expectations, and thus displaces all of them, replacing them with what our eyes and minds cannot imagine? Wouldn’t that cure us of our Christian and Jewish triumphalist supersessionisms, hard and soft? Wouldn’t that also (and just as importantly in our relativistic age) save us from the corrosive theological apathy that arises when we refrain from making truth claims about covenantal reality for fear of stoking an eternal enmity between Christians and Jews?
Theological relativism cannot be the way forward, which is why supersessionism cannot be avoided in good faith. It can only be disciplined by nuanced theological reflection...................................
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Futurism is a tenet of Dispensationalism and a futurized Anti-Christ did not begin with Ribera but was believed widely by the second century church. The reason why Larkin identified no other alternative is because Ribera has been the "best guess" possible, but not necessarily a full-proof.
Ribera did not initially invent the doctrines that are identified with modern Dispensationalism or futurism. They had already been in existence but were suppressed by the Roman Papal empire and largely forgotten. It may very well be possible, however, that his actions had set a precedent for the revival of the doctrines that are identified as tenets of Dispensationalism/futurism as it is understood today.
Are there any church denominations today that view the Roman Papacy/Vatican/Rome as being in Revelation?

Martin Luther identifies the Antichrist over 500 years ago!
The quote copied below is from one of Martin Luther's last books. It was titled: "A Prelude by Martin Luther on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church".

Page 536, chapter 3.

"Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the tyranny of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his papists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon, yes, the kingdom of the real Antichrist! For who is " the man of sin" and "the son of perdition" but he that with his doctrines and his laws increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church, while he sits in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries. It has extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the Gospel."

I believe I have brought this up before as a reply in another thread, but it didn't get far. So I am starting a new thread for discussion.

My question: Was God behind the Reformation?

I may not hold the exact same positions as Luther or Calvin, but what I see in all the reformers was a common desire to love Jesus.

Today, there is a lot of Protestants who love Jesus and confess Him as Lord and Savior. (Romans 10:9-10).

I can not see Satan wanting people to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. I can not see Satan wanting people to repent for their sins and to be Christ-like. Therefore, since Satan (evil) was not behind the Reformation, God must have been. Look at how many people have been saved through Protestant/Non-denominational chruchs!

Yes, there might be a lot of different denominations, but they are all united in their belief in Jesus Christ, one of the only beliefs that truely counts! It is through Jesus we are saved.

I'm only bringing this up because a lot of Orthodox and Catholic brothers seem to look down on the Reformation (something that God had to have backed). I'm just trying to understand this position.

God bless...:holy:
Was God behind the Reformation?

Did God back the Reformation?

  1. Yes

    162 vote(s)
    58.5%
  2. No

    115 vote(s)
    41.5%
=================================
Reformation Papacy - Wikipedia

The institution of the papacy underwent attacks by many Protestant reformers, including Martin Luther. Luther, who had spent time in Rome,[1] said that Leo had vetoed a measure that cardinals should restrict the number of boys they kept for their pleasure, "otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy;" encouraging Germans not to spend time fighting fellow countrymen in defense of the papacy.[2]

Along with Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and John Knox identified the Roman Papacy as the Antichrist.[3] The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume "Magdeburg Centuries" to discredit the papacy and identify the pope as the Antichrist. The fifth round of talks in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue notes,

In calling the pope the "antichrist," the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the "antichrist" when they wished to castigate his abuse of power
Counter-Reformation
The Catholic Church did not mount an organized and deliberate response to the Protestant Reformation until the election (1534) of Pope Paul III, who placed the papacy itself at the head of a movement for churchwide reform. Pope Paul III established a reform commission, appointed several leading reformers to the College of Cardinals, initiated reform of the central administrative apparatus at Rome, authorized the founding of the Jesuits, the order that was later to prove so loyal to the papacy, and convoked the Council of Trent, which met intermittently from 1545 to 1563. The council succeeded in initiating a number of far-ranging moral and administrative reforms, including reform of the papacy itself, that was destined to define the shape and set the tone of Roman Catholicism into the mid-20th century.[citation needed]

Such reforms included the foundation of seminaries for the proper training of priests in the spiritual life and the theological traditions of the Church, the reform of religious life to returning orders to their spiritual foundations, and new spiritual movements focus on the devotional life and a personal relationship with Christ, including the Spanish mystics and the French school of spirituality.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Futurism is a tenet of Dispensationalism and a futurized Anti-Christ did not begin with Ribera but was believed widely by the second century church. The reason why Larkin identified no other alternative is because Ribera has been the "best guess" possible, but not necessarily a full-proof.

Ribera did not initially invent the doctrines that are identified with modern Dispensationalism or futurism. They had already been in existence but were suppressed by the Roman Papal empire and largely forgotten. It may very well be possible, however, that his actions had set a precedent for the revival of the doctrines that are identified as tenets of Dispensationalism/futurism as it is understood today.

Numerous of those in the early church did espouse a futurized antichrist.

There was no papal suppression. It was in the papacy's own best interest to encourage belief in any antichrist other than itself as it increasingly apostasized.

To no avail. The apostasizing papacy began to be declared antichrist in the 10th century.

By the time of the Reformation, belief in a futurized antichrist had disappeared as the Reformers recognized and fearlessly proclaimed the apostate papacy in their midst, which was warring against the true Church, to be antichrist.

The success of this unwavering proclamation shook the apostate papacy to its foundations, and precipitated the counter-reformation wherein Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera was commissioned to produce a countervailing interpretation of antichrist.

The result was his In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarii which futurized antichrist and associated events to the end time.

His futurized antichrist and other aspects of his futurism were embraced some two centuries later by dispensational futurism.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Numerous of those in the early church did espouse a futurized antichrist.

There was no papal suppression. It was in the papacy's own best interest to encourage belief in any antichrist other than itself as it increasingly apostasized.


The Papacy had not been recognized or established in the early church despite Catholic claims that Peter was the first Pope. Whether in history or tradition, the Apostle Peter was said to have been serving as the Bishop of Rome before his martyrdom, but in either case, there was no such thing as the Papacy in his day.

And because there was no Papal Caesar, there was none within the Church to effectively suppress the belief in a futurized Anti-Christ. It was the civic powers of Rome who would, off-and-on, do the suppressing of any Christian theology and anything associated therewith.


Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera was commissioned to produce a countervailing interpretation of antichrist.

The result was his In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarii which futurized antichrist and associated events to the end time.

His futurized antichrist and other aspects of his futurism were embraced some two centuries later by dispensational futurism.


Only Ribera, assuming that Catholic claims are true in this regards, did not produce any new doctrine. He rather rediscovered and revived an old doctrine that had long been forgotten by Protestants and Catholics alike.

And if his eschatology is as Catholicized as your Wikipedia source claims, it would be highly unlikely that his work had a central role in the establishment of modern Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists would reject much of his eschatology. But in order to confirm the truth of the matter, we would have to read the actual work itself and compare it to the current positions held by present day Dispensationalists.

A more likely scenario at this point is that the writings of the ante-Nicene, Pre-Augustine church era would have played a much more central role in the shaping of Dispensational eschatology since the early church fathers took a much more literal approach to scripture when it came to prophecy than the later generations did.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Papacy had not been recognized or established in the early church despite Catholic claims that Peter was the first Pope. Whether in history or tradition, the Apostle Peter was said to have been serving as the Bishop of Rome before his martyrdom, but in either case, there was no such thing as the Papacy in his day.

True.

And because there was no Papal Caesar, there was none within the Church to effectively suppress the belief in a futurized Anti-Christ. It was the civic powers of Rome who would, off-and-on, do the suppressing of any Christian theology and anything associated therewith.

As I said previously, there was no suppression because there was nothing to suppress. No one was yet labelling the papacy as antichrist.

That would begin to change at the end of the 10th century.

Only Ribera, assuming that Catholic claims are true in this regards, did not produce any new doctrine. He rather rediscovered and revived an old doctrine that had long been forgotten by Protestants and Catholics alike.

Far from forgotten, the Reformers recognized that expectations of an antichrist, of which earlier post-apostolic defenders of the faith spoke, had found their fulfillment in the apostate papacy.

That recognition would endure in Protestantism for another two centuries after the Reformation, until its betrayal by dispensational futurism.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The text says the Messiah will be killed after the 69 weeks.
It does not say the Messiah will be killed on the day after the 69 weeks ends.
You are making that assumption to make your doctrine work.


.

It is you who is making the big assumption to make your doctrine work. You call for exactness except for the "after" 69 weeks or 483 years! YOu allow it to be 69 1/2 weeks and call it real fine! I accept it is five days after the 483 years of 69 weeks, so Messiah would be killed as the Passover Lamb on Passover!
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,563
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,794.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Usually, we think God will vindicate either Jewish supersessionism or Christian supersessionism in a zero-sum game. That is, either God will enable Christians to say to Jews, conclusively, “We have been right and you have been wrong all along,” or God will enable Jews to say to Christians, conclusively, “We have been right and you have been wrong all along.” But what if God Himself is a hard supersessionist?
Interesting article, thanks LLoJ.
But do the people who write such articles and who believe in an general Jewish redemption, actually read their Bibles?
If they did, they would find many scriptures that tell of a general Jewish demise and how only a remnant will survive to join with their Christian brethren. Jeremiah 50:4-5, Romans 9:27
And they will be so ashamed they will never open their mouths again, Ezekiel 16:63

Its very simple; there is only ONE people of God, John 17:20-23, that people are those who have chosen to believe in God, accept the Atoning sacrifice of Jesus and who keep the Commandments. Jew and every other race, color and language.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As I said previously, there was no suppression because there was nothing to suppress. No one was yet labelling the papacy as antichrist.


That is because the Papacy did not exist in that generation or at best, was not a formally recognized office.


Far from forgotten, the Reformers recognized that expectations of an antichrist, of which earlier post-apostolic defenders of the faith spoke, had found their fulfillment in the apostate papacy.

That recognition would endure in Protestantism for another two centuries after the Reformation, until its betrayal by dispensational futurism.


The Reformers did not take the literal approach to eschatology as the second century church had done. Their eschatological views were still heavily influenced by Augustinian thought and therefore probably did not see the Anti-Christ as being literally a man in the sense the second century church did since the Reformation abided through a succession of many Popes.

Far from being a betrayal, Dispensational futurism corrected the eschatology that had been removed from second century thought which took the literal approach Dispensationalism takes today.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have shown that Daniel 9:24 is fulfilled in Acts of the Apostles 10:38, and Hebrews 10:16-18. What more is needed to show that the angel Gabriel was referring to the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27?

Your attempts to ignore the fact that Christ fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, reveals the error of your Two Peoples of God doctrine.



What does a Hebrew scholar say below about the passage?


.

Would you like me to get my Hebrew Scholars who believe in a literal interpretation of SCripture to rebut your Hebrew Scholar?

The only problem with your Acts 10 verse?

A normal, usual grammatical and literal reading of Daniel 9:24 tells the world that it is the Jewish people who have to anoint the Most Holy which in Jewish thought, has always referred to the holy of holies. But let us assume for a minute that God knowing this decided to have it refer to the Messiah just here. It is for the Jew to anoint the most holy not God!

Daniel 9:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Let us remove the list of things and do just the one.

Seventy weeks are determined upon your people and upon Jerusalem to anoint the most holy. When did the Jews anoint the most holy? It is not determined upon god to anoint teh most holy but upon Daniels people the Jews!

Your problem with making Daniel 9:27 fulfilled by 34AD?

Daniel 9:27 King James Version (KJV)
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

You and your preachers declare that the baptism of Jesus is the start of the seventieth week. And 34 AD is the end of the 70th week of Daniel! and that the seven year period fulfills the new covenant.

1. When did Jesus stop the sacrifices and burnt offerings to end? Not their efficacy which is not described but their physical event from stopping which is written (unless of course God said one thing normally but meant another thing secretly) He had to do this on 30 AD according to you and your preachers!

2. By 34 AD when did Jesus for the spreading of detestable things and idols to the wings of the temple, make the temple desolate??

NOw as for the new covenant:

First let me say I agree that the blood of Jesus is the basis of the New Covenant and His death is a partial fulfilment of the New covenant. But like all other covenants God made with man in the bible- not all parts of the covenant go into effect all at once!

Heb. 10:
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Jeremiah 31:31-37 King James Version (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.

Once again , a normal, usual, grammatical reading of Jeremiah without allegorizing it shows the following facts.

1. the covenant is made with ALL Israel and not just the remnant.

2. This will go into effect "after those days" which you and yoru preachers declare was 34 AD

So show that Israel had Gods law put into their heart God will be Israels God and Israel will be Gods people!

In verse 34: You and your preachers are declaring that their is no longer a need for evangelism to jews- For all the house of Israel and Judah shall know the Lord from the least to the greatest ( a Jewish euphemism meaning everybody), so you and your preachers must assume all Jews are saved since 34 AD-- For ALL, I repeat< ALL from the least to the greatest of the house of Israel and Judah will know the Lord! Even you and your preachers are not silly enough to believe this has occurred yet! Unless of course you allegorize the passage and cause it to mean things that are not written there.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Far from being a betrayal, Dispensational futurism corrected the eschatology that had been removed from second century thought which took the literal approach Dispensationalism takes today.

Had the Reformers believed antichrist to be the antichrist of dispensational futurism, there would have been no Reformers and no Reformation, and you and I would not be having this dialogue on this forum today.

The Reformers did not take the literal approach to eschatology as the second century church had done. Their eschatological views were still heavily influenced by Augustinian thought and therefore probably did not see the Anti-Christ as being literally a man in the sense the second century church did since the Reformation abided through a succession of many Popes.

The man of sin was a collection of men, as the man of God is a collection of men (2 Timothy 3:17).

There's nothing more literal than burning at the stake.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Seventy weeks are determined upon your people and upon Jerusalem to anoint the most holy. When did the Jews anoint the most holy? It is not determined upon god to anoint teh most holy but upon Daniels people the Jews!

Did the Jews make reconciliation for iniquity?
Did the Jews bring in everlasting righteousness?
Did the Jews seal up the vision and prophecy?

What makes you think that it is the Jews who anoint the most Holy?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A normal, usual grammatical and literal reading of Daniel 9:24 tells the world that it is the Jewish people who have to anoint the Most Holy which in Jewish thought, has always referred to the holy of holies.

He was also anointed by at least one of His own people.

Mar 14:6 But Jesus said, "Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me.
Mar 14:7 For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always.
Mar 14:8 She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial.
Mar 14:9 Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her."

.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.