Ribera commentary on the Revelation

[iamlamad]

How many of the Reformers wrote AFTER 1590, the year Ribera's book was published? And how many Historicists were influenced by a Futrist book?

You are grasping at straws, as you drown in a sea of FACTS.

Better learn to swim quickly!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

They're not hearsay if the book's originators, the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church, do not deny them. And they do not, for the book was commissioned at the church's highest levels as part of the desperation measures of the counter-Reformation. Thankfully, the strategy did not succeed at that time.

As written in Scripture,
everything that was hidden will be revealed..... and so much has been revealed no one need doubt, ever. Unless, of course, they are unable to think freely.

 

[jgr]

I really do not care what Larkin, or any other misinformed person had to say. But you van forget abut getting any credit for alleged "quotations" which are unaccompanied by a citation. They only prove that you did not even read the source yourself, but are just copying what someone else claimed someone said. I have seen too many times when it turned out that the alleged quotation was bogus.

I invite you to provide one single example of any quote I've ever cited which proved to be bogus.

 

[jgr]

You are grasping at straws, as you drown in a sea of FACTS.

Better learn to swim quickly!

It's a sea of...something, all right. But it can't reach me on "higher ground".

 

[jgr]

I really do not care what Larkin, or any other misinformed person had to say.

What blasphemy is this ?! I can hear the sound of dispensational robes tearing. Isn't Larkin regarded as just slightly below God in your circles? I think you're placing yourself in extreme jeopardy. I think you should reconsider. You would not want to be cannibalized by your own brethren.

 

[Biblewriter]

What blasphemy is this ?! I can hear the sound of dispensational robes tearing. Isn't Larkin regarded as just slightly below God in your circles? I think you're placing yourself in extreme jeopardy. I think you should reconsider. You would not want to be cannibalized by your own brethren.

While you walk in a world of opinion, I deal with facts. I do not normally circulate what other people claim to know, but publish the results of my own personal research. This results in indisputable facts.

In this thread I have made an exception to my usual process, and have cited the research of Others a few times. But for me, this has been the exception, not the rule.

 

[jgr]

While you walk in a world of opinion, I deal with facts.

In this thread, I've cited as evidence three different sources (including one from your own camp) corroborating Ribera and his role.

You've cited none contradicting them.

 

[Biblewriter]

In this thread, I've cited as evidence three different sources (including one from your own camp) corroborating Ribera and his role.

You've cited none contradicting them.

You have not cited EVEN ONE actual "source." What you HAVE cited it the opinions of three different people abut what the sources say. That is an exceedingly different matter.

In the specific detail of a future individual being explicitly called "the Antichrist," I have cited numerous ancient sources that CLEARLY taught this, but I have not yet found one after the reformation but before Ribera that included that detail. But I KNOW that this was being taught in England LONG before Ribera's book was discovered in London the early 1800s.

 

[Biblewriter]

I invite you to provide one single example of any quote I've ever cited which proved to be bogus.

I did not say any of yours were bogus. But I have seen so many alleged quotations that were bogus, that I strongly suspect ANY alleged quotation that is not accompanied by a citation.

 

[jgr]

You have not cited EVEN ONE actual "source." What you HAVE cited it the opinions of three different people abut what the sources say. That is an exceedingly different matter.

There is one "actual source". It is Ribera's book. It espouses a future end-time antichrist. That is the primary reason the book was written. If the word "futurism" had already been coined in Ribera's time, he would have agreed that futurism is what he was promoting.

Still waiting for your "actual source(s)".

 

[Biblewriter]

There is one "actual source". It is Ribera's book. It espouses a future end-time antichrist. That is the primary reason the book was written. If the word "futurism" had already been coined in Ribera's time, he would have agreed that futurism is what he was promoting.

Then post even one translation of Ribera's book into English.

 

[jgr]

Then post even one translation of Ribera's book into English.

I've been doing all the posting. Your turn.

 

[Biblewriter]

I've been doing all the posting. Your turn.

You say this because you are unable to actually post an English translation of the document you are so excited about.

 

[jgr]

You say this because you are unable to actually post an English translation of the document you are so excited about.

I've posted more than you have. That's sufficient.

I don't understand Latin, but I do understand dispensationalin. Translation of yours: "I got nuthin'".

 

[Biblewriter]

I've posted more than you have. That's sufficient.

I don't understand Latin, but I do understand dispensationalin. Translation of yours: "I got nuthin'".

The difference in the things we have posted is this. You have posted OPINIONS of various individuals, that all modern futurism is based on Ribera's book. But you have not posted even one actual statement by Ribera. I have posted HARD PROOF that futuristic principles were indeed being taught considrably before Ribera's book was published. And you have rejected this HARD PROOF on the basis of a claim that certain details of futurism were not included in what I posted.

MY research continues, and when I have more, I will post it. And as your are not even doing any REAL research, you will not be able to produce anything but more unfounded opinions.

 

[jgr]

The difference in the things we have posted is this. You have posted OPINIONS of various individuals, that all modern futurism is based on Ribera's book. But you have not posted even one actual statement by Ribera. I have posted HARD PROOF that futuristic principles were indeed being taught considrably before Ribera's book was published. And you have rejected this HARD PROOF on the basis of a claim that certain details of futurism were not included in what I posted.

MY research continues, and when I have more, I will post it. And as your are not even doing any REAL research, you will not be able to produce anything but more unfounded opinions.

As per your own title of this thread, we're not talking about futuristic principles before Ribera's book. We're talking about the contents of his book. You've presented nothing to counter the evidence of those contents that I've presented. Until you can, my evidence prevails.

Still waiting.

 

[Biblewriter]

As per your own title of this thread, we're not talking about futuristic principles before Ribera's book. We're talking about the contents of his book. You've presented nothing to counter the evidence of those contents that I've presented. Until you can, my evidence prevails.

Still waiting.

If you go back to the OP, you will see that the subject of THIS thread, is the TOTAL lack of ANY evidence that the claim is even true. And YOU STILL have produced zero evidence. For OPINION is not evidence.

 

[jgr]

If you go back to the OP, you will see that the subject of THIS thread, is the TOTAL lack of ANY evidence that the claim is even true. And YOU STILL have produced zero evidence. For OPINION is not evidence.

If my evidence is zero evidence, then let's have a look at yours.

Call mine whatever you will. Until you can produce something even remotely equivalent, mine prevails.

Still waiting for yours.

 

[Biblewriter]

If my evidence is zero evidence, then let's have a look at yours.

Call mine whatever you will. Until you can produce something even remotely equivalent, mine prevails.

Still waiting for yours.

I gave it, and you dismissed it because it did not include a detail that you think is critical.

 

[iamlamad]

Actually, I have yet to see even one CLAIMED doctrine of Francisco Ribera that was actually new with him. Without even ONE exception EVERY ONE of the doctrines he is even CLAIMED to have taught, was very clearly taught well over a thousand years before he was born. But that is beside the point. If the Historicists could actually prove what they are claiming, they would have published a translation of this book into English a long time ago.

TRUTH!

The truth is, Futurism is in the BIBLE, and therefore originated by the Holy Spirit and bible writers.