The Father Of (Partial Preterism) A Catholic Jesuit "Luis De Alcasar" (1554-1613)

[Light of the East]

sure, they have Time Machines!

Why do you think the Dinosaurs died out?

Jesuits killed the dinosaurs??!

Oh, those rotten Jesuits!

 

[fhansen]

sure they did -- that's what CHILIASM was!

Yes, Church members learned their lesson centuries ago regarding this error.

 

[fhansen]

"Luis De Alcasar" Was A Jesuit Priest, A Dark Evil Order As My Study Finds, I Won't Continue In Response To Roman Catholocism, And The Jesuit Order, The Inquisition, Etc.

Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction

The following is the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction given to high ranking Jesuits only. This oath is taken from the book Subterranean Rome by Carlos Didier, translated from the French, and published in New York in 1843.

"When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers. Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:"

Superior:

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.

You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace. To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means.

You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death.

You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic; for "without the shedding of blood no man can be saved." Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me---

The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits:

"1, _ now, in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul and all the saints and sacred hosts of heaven, and to you, my ghostly father, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in the Pontificate of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear, that his holiness the Pope is Christ's Vice-regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation and that they may safely be destroyed. Therefore, to the utmost of my power I shall and will defend this doctrine of his Holiness' right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the now pretended authority and churches of England and Scotland, and branches of the same now established in Ireland and on the Continent of America and elsewhere; and all adherents in regard that they be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestants or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates or officers.

I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.

I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland or America, or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals' doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise.

I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any of this sacred covenant.

I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.

That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me.

I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.

In confirmation of which, I hereby dedicate my life, my soul and all my corporal powers, and with this dagger which I now receive, I will subscribe my name written in my own blood, in testimony thereof; and should I prove false or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the Militia of the Pope cut off my hands and my feet, and my throat from ear to ear, my belly opened and sulphur burned therein, with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth and my soul be tortured by demons in an eternal hell forever!

All of which, I, _, do swear by the Blessed Trinity and blessed Sacraments, which I am now to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolable; and do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further with my name written and with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and sealed in the face of this holy covenant."

(He receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point of his dagger dipped in his own blood taken from over his heart.)

Superior:

"You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to this rank.

In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then one cross his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the right hand to the center of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the left hand points to the center of the palm of the right; the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges. The other answers Impious." (The meaning of which has already been explained.) "The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:

Question —From whither do you come? Answer — The Holy faith.

Q. —Whom do you serve?

A. —The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.

Q. —Who commands you?

A. —The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.

Q. —Who received you? A. —A venerable man in white hair.

Q. —How?

A. —With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred order.

Q. —Did you take an oath?

A. —I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers, and to spare neither age, sex nor condition. To be as a corpse without any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation of murmuring.

Q. —Will you do that? A. —I will.

Q. —How do you travel? A. —In the bark of Peter the fisherman.

Q. —Whither do you travel? A. —To the four quarters of the globe. Q. —For what purpose?

A. —To obey the orders of my general and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfill the conditions of my oaths.

Q. —Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated."

There are Catholic-haters willing to lie born now and then, and thousands of gullible types willing to believe them, wanting to believe them it seems-born daily.

 

[GingerBeer]

The following is the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction given to high ranking Jesuits only. This oath is taken from the book Subterranean Rome by Carlos Didier, translated from the French, and published in New York in 1843.

The quote above is an excellent example of poor sourcing as backing for an unsustainable argument. The quote comes a web source that is available in many places one example is located here. The actual source appears to be "Source: Discourse in Commemoration of the Glorious Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, by S.S. Schmucker, D.D., reprinted from the original printing plates of 1838, Limited Edition, published by The Word Publications, 1984, P.O. Box 35695, Phoenix Arizona 85069, USA." The alleged oath is not a credible document. It's status is seriously challenged in the following source (The Jesuit Oath Debunked and also Debunking The Jesuit Conspiracy)

Don't trust sources that are clearly concocted to denigrate an alleged opponent. The oath is about as reliable as "The protocols of the Elders of Zion"

 

[Grip Docility]

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The whole Bible is about God's Son, based on His words above.

He is the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 and the seed of Abraham through which all the nations would be blessed in Genesis chapter 12.

He is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel found in Matthew 1:1 and confirmed by Paul in Galatians 3:16.

We find in John 1:1-14, that He is the Word of God from the beginning.


The New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and is specifically applied to the New Covenant Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.


.

God always can speak as He speaks...

We all deserve to be spoken to like that...

Acts 1... Jesus leaves in physical coorpreal form and is promised to return in the exact way and Zechariah 14 remains unfulfilled... and is pretty specific...

Mount of Olives?

Israel under attack again?

No worries... Hitler was a Preterrorist too.

Let me guess... you think God was joking when He declared Himself the God of Israel?

God coined the term Zion for Israel.

Preterrorism is a self exalting prattle of lofty Scriptural gymnasts that denies literal scripture spoken by Jesus Himself.

It is a theological idol that denies that Christ will return as He promised in Acts 1.

Romans 11:19 Do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.”

Look... I can use big red font too...

Roar...

 

[Grip Docility]

When it comes to the events of 70 AD, he has cut Luke 19:41-44, and Luke 23:27-31 out of his Bible...

.

70 AD...

The preterrorism warcry...

Oh the desecrated passages that are endless that preterrorism cuts out...

Crying laugh emoji!!!

 

[Ronald]

"He is?" Who is?

Why on earth would you entertain the idea that I might think a Catholic cannot be wrong? Why would you think I wouldn't know much about the Bible as a reason to think no Catholic could ever be wrong. I'm mystified.

You may sin, especially in the area of eschatology, but I don't think I do. And here's why. I don't pretend to understand it like some sort of expert who can pontificate on and on about it. Not for a second.

I'm not proposing any pet theory about what the book of the Apocalypse means. I'm a learner, not a pontificator. I can be quite content trying to figure it out and be able to admit I am still trying to figure it out. I don't at all have it figured out. I'm not defending or attacking any particular position. Not sinning. At least not sinning with respect to eschatology. Other areas I do though. Because as a Catholic I know I can be wrong and I can sin. I am wrong often enough. I sin all too often. I know that. That shouldn't be a surprise.

Wow.

That's theory, and as you say, you could be wrong.

Don't play dumb. You tried to be smart by making (what you call), a logical assessment about what Truth7t7, in his OP, was saying:
You stated he claimed a Roman Catholic Jesuit was responsible for partial peterism but extrapolated that Truth7t7 implied partial Peterson must be wrong because a Jesuit Priest contrived this doctrine. Why don't you read your post, that is what you did. I responded, No, I don't think Truth7t7 implied that at all, and that he just meant that this particular Jesuit priest was wrong.
You just didn't like your wise crack logic debunked.
The remainder of my post beyond that point had nothing to do with you particularly, I was just expressing that there are various views, while not being in favor of the preterist view, I pointed out some flaws that you, as a Catholic might ponder.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="Grip Docility No worries... Hitler was a Preterrorist too.

Really? Going for Godwin's Law a little early, aren't you?

Let me guess... you think God was joking when He declared Himself the God of Israel?

He is the God of Israel. You just need to learn who Israel is - the Church.

God coined the term Zion for Israel.

Preterrorism is a self exalting prattle of lofty Scriptural gymnasts that denies literal scripture spoken by Jesus Himself.

Actually, I find that more true of Pre-millenialism.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Don't play dumb.

I may not be playing.

You tried to be smart by making (what you call), a logical assessment about what Truth7t7, in his OP, was saying:

I looked at what appears to be his logic, that somebody cooked up some idea he was not at all fond of. In doing so he made certain that everybody knew this somebody was a Catholic, a Jesuit no less. Absent any real argument on the merits, his argument was a major premise that 'a Catholic/Jesuit made a case for X', a strongly implied and later confirmed minor premise that 'a Catholic/Jesuit is always wrong', therefore 'X is wrong'. Fairly simple. Its immaterial almost what X is. And in fact I'm not sure one way or the other whether I would have agreed with him or disagreed with him if he had a cogent line of argument. For myself I'm neither futurist nor preterist nor any other sort of end times advocate. I really don't play that game. Just like I don't play the predestination vs free will game.

You stated he claimed a Roman Catholic Jesuit was responsible for partial peterism but extrapolated that Truth7t7 implied partial Peterson must be wrong because a Jesuit Priest contrived this doctrine. Why don't you read your post, that is what you did. I responded, No, I don't think Truth7t7 implied that at all, and that he just meant that this particular Jesuit priest was wrong.

What do 'peterism' and 'partial Peterson' have to do with anything? I presume you mean 'preterism'. Calm down and breathe. Then type. By the way, this particular Jesuit may be wrong. It would not be the first time, nor will it be the last time. Especially if he had to write under a pseudonym and the book he wrote was put on the Index.

You just didn't like your wise crack logic debunked.

Actually, considering some follow-up posts by Truth7t7, I think my analysis of the logic employed was dead-on. He is against a particular eschatological position because a Catholic was first for it. He has this anti-Catholic thing going where he posts myths, nasty things like the 'Jesuit Oath' as if true. But it really is, what, an oft repeated lie? I could suppose the poster didn't know it was a lie, and I'm willing to wait and see if he figures it out.

The remainder of my post beyond that point had nothing to do with you particularly, I was just expressing that there are various views, while not being in favor of the preterist view, I pointed out some flaws that you, as a Catholic might ponder.

Nothing I have seen here so far compels me at all. When all of the Biblical experts here agree on what it all means, wake me up.

 

[chevyontheriver]

QUOTE="Grip Docility No worries... Hitler was a Preterrorist too.

Really? Going for Godwin's Law a little early, aren't you?

Let me guess... you think God was joking when He declared Himself the God of Israel?

He is the God of Israel. You just need to learn who Israel is - the Church.

God coined the term Zion for Israel.

Preterrorism is a self exalting prattle of lofty Scriptural gymnasts that denies literal scripture spoken by Jesus Himself.

Actually, I find that more true of Pre-millenialism.

What is 'preterrorism'? Some kind of terrorism? Is that what this thread is really all about?

 

[Grip Docility]

QUOTE="Grip Docility No worries... Hitler was a Preterrorist too.

Really? Going for Godwin's Law a little early, aren't you?

Let me guess... you think God was joking when He declared Himself the God of Israel?

He is the God of Israel. You just need to learn who Israel is - the Church.

God coined the term Zion for Israel.

Preterrorism is a self exalting prattle of lofty Scriptural gymnasts that denies literal scripture spoken by Jesus Himself.

Actually, I find that more true of Pre-millenialism.

I just read the Bible and believe 1 John 2:27 and Acts 1... to the Zechariah 14

It’s no shocker that I don’t know “how” it will all go down...

God forbid people be honest...

 

[Ronald]

I may not be playing.

I looked at what appears to be his logic, that somebody cooked up some idea he was not at all fond of. In doing so he made certain that everybody knew this somebody was a Catholic, a Jesuit no less. Absent any real argument on the merits, his argument was a major premise that 'a Catholic/Jesuit made a case for X', a strongly implied and later confirmed minor premise that 'a Catholic/Jesuit is always wrong', therefore 'X is wrong'. Fairly simple. Its immaterial almost what X is. And in fact I'm not sure one way or the other whether I would have agreed with him or disagreed with him if he had a cogent line of argument. For myself I'm neither futurist nor preterist nor any other sort of end times advocate. I really don't play that game. Just like I don't play the predestination vs free will game.

What do 'peterism' and 'partial Peterson' have to do with anything? I presume you mean 'preterism'. Calm down and breathe. Then type. By the way, this particular Jesuit may be wrong. It would not be the first time, nor will it be the last time. Especially if he had to write under a pseudonym and the book he wrote was put on the Index.

Actually, considering some follow-up posts by Truth7t7, I think my analysis of the logic employed was dead-on. He is against a particular eschatological position because a Catholic was first for it. He has this anti-Catholic thing going where he posts myths, nasty things like the 'Jesuit Oath' as if true. But it really is, what, an oft repeated lie? I could suppose the poster didn't know it was a lie, and I'm willing to wait and see if he figures it out.

Nothing I have seen here so far compels me at all. When all of the Biblical experts here agree on what it all means, wake me up.

Fair enough, that was a better detailed argument than your first one.

This is an example of your playing dumb/ hit me back with scarcasm: You pretended not to know that I misspelled the word "preterism". That happens when you are typing on a phone that doesn't recognize the word and automatically corrects it - but its not correct , like Peterson or (preterrorism, the word you questioned the other poster about) . You know this, yet chose to ridicule, then, "Oh. you must mean preterism - which happens to be the MAIN TOPIC AND MENTIONED DOZENS OF TIMES ALREADY.
This sort of defensive stance with the cutting jabs communication won't resolve conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, it just further agitated and causes further division. Maybe you are comfortable with the division. I don't approve of it. Its like pulling on a dog's ear when you suspect he is going to bite you. You know to put your hand out for him to smell it and not stare him down, so he will possibly befriend you.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Fair enough, that was a better detailed argument than your first one.

This is an example of your playing dumb/ hit me back with scarcasm: You pretended not to know that I misspelled the word "preterism". That happens when you are typing on a phone that doesn't recognize the word and automatically corrects it - but its not correct , like Peterson or (preterrorism, the word you questioned the other poster about) . You know this, yet chose to ridicule, then, "Oh. you must mean preterism - which happens to be the MAIN TOPIC AND MENTIONED DOZENS OF TIMES ALREADY.
This sort of defensive stance with the cutting jabs communication won't resolve conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, it just further agitated and causes further division. Maybe you are comfortable with the division. I don't approve of it. Its like pulling on a dog's ear when you suspect he is going to bite you. You know to put your hand out for him to smell it and not stare him down, so he will possibly befriend you.

I think the dog in this case is a well known quantity, and you have reminded me that the best approach is actually to stay quite far away from it.

 

[Grip Docility]

QUOTE="Grip Docility No worries... Hitler was a Preterrorist too.

Really? Going for Godwin's Law a little early, aren't you?

Let me guess... you think God was joking when He declared Himself the God of Israel?

He is the God of Israel. You just need to learn who Israel is - the Church.

God coined the term Zion for Israel.

Preterrorism is a self exalting prattle of lofty Scriptural gymnasts that denies literal scripture spoken by Jesus Himself.

Actually, I find that more true of Pre-millenialism.

Romans 8 - 11 is the tell all to your claim of Supersession... (Replacement)

Israel is directly cited by genetics and location... and contrasted with the body of Christ... all throughout the verses.

If you use a highlighter and catch what Paul is saying by marking everytime he links Israel to physical decent and location, the preterrorism goggles fall right off.

Supersession is Western eschatological effort to make something of Eastern origin all about the west...

What a shocker. Western people being arrogant enough to think the Bible revolves around the West.

Israel is the Bride of Christ, while the Body of Christ is already flesh of His flesh.

To be direct... Israel is Christ’s desire and the BOC is the bride he has before her.

If you read all books a pay attention... especially in Hosea, Zechariah, Romans, Isaiah, Song of Solomon and Deuteronomy... it’s impossible to refute or miss.

There is not one single verse in the Bible (when read in full context) that says Israel is the Body of Christ...

The question that the apostles ask Jesus in Acts 1 and Jesus’ answer that binds directly to the final days of this old earth (As in no man knows the day nor hour) annihilate Supersession falsehood in spades!

 

[Ronald]

I think the dog in this case is a well known quantity, and you have reminded me that the best approach is actually to stay quite far away from it.

So you have a fear of dogs. Yes, that is the natural response, to stay away from them. I have a dog and I love dogs and will give them the benefit of the doubt to pet them. I got bit once, because I approached this Doberman Pincer, stared him down and pet him without asking first. As soon as I turned away, snap. But that that was an analogy.
The point I'm trying to make is: To bridge the gaps causing division between Catholics and Protestants, we must be polite, respectful and try to communicate without prejudice, without putting up the defensive walls. All believers are in the Body of Christ, at least let's show the world we can get along.
I have a confession to make. I am and have been sarcastic and judgmental at times. But usually it takes a bit of dialogue to get me there, and usually it's with the atheists. Believe me, I have spent many chapters of dialogue with preterists and end up walking away, accepting our different views. But I never think that they are not Christian, because they are Catholic. I know some Protestants demonize Catholics and vice versa -- this is wrong. So how do we bridge the gap? Focus on Jesus, the essentials, which we all can agree on.
I just had a long dialogue with a non-Trinitarian and it didn't go anywhere. There was nothing else to say to the guy -- he knew it all, went into the "correct" Greek translations. I doubted that he could be a Christian, not believing that Jesus was God or that the Holy Spirit was actually a person. I told him all scripture is spiritually discerned -- he didn't get it. Probably because he didn't believe in the Holy Spirit, therefore, did not ask for Him and so could not discern scripture beneath the surface.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="Grip Docility

Romans 8 - 11 is the tell all to your claim of Supersession... (Replacement)

No, it isn't. You are not reading that correctly at all. Since you brought up Romans 8-11, go to Romans 9:6 and let's take a look:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Okay, that verse makes absolutely no sense at all unless you understand the word "Israel" proper and in its context. "Israel" means "the people of God." It does not mean "Jews." Once you understand that, you will stop making your Zionist mistakes with the Bible as well as denying other parts of the Bible which quite clearly teach that national Israel (i.e., Jews) are no longer in a covenant relationship with God.

Now let's look at Romans 9:6 again

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, (God's people) which are of Israel: (the nation)

In other words, St. Paul is saying that not all Jews who are of the nation of Israel, or "Israelites" are really part of God's people (true Israel). Matthew 21:33-46 also makes it abundantly clear that national Israel has been thrown out of the "vineyard" (i.e. the Kingdom of God) as the husbandmen and replaced by "another nation, bringing forth fruits in due season."

Finally, the Old Covenant is trashed and done by the death of Christ, murdered by the nation He came to redeem and offer Himself as the divine Bridegroom. You cannot have a covenant relationship between two people when one of them is dead. The Old Covenant is over, the veil of the Temple was torn asunder, showing that the covenant was ended and there would be no more Yom Kippur in the Holiest of All. It's done for the Jews.

Israel is directly cited by genetics and location... and contrasted with the body of Christ... all throughout the verses.

All the promises of genetics and location are covenant promises. When the Old Covenant was ended with the murder of the Messiah, those promises went by the wayside. You need to get your head around that fact. This is how covenant works.

If you use a highlighter and catch what Paul is saying by marking everytime he links Israel to physical decent and location, the preterrorism goggles fall right off.

Supersession is Western eschatological effort to make something of Eastern origin all about the west...

Read Matthew 21: 33-46, then come back and show me from the Bible where it says that the wicked husbandmen, who are destroyed (killed) by the owner of the vineyard, are ever restored to it.

What a shocker. Western people being arrogant enough to think the Bible revolves around the West.

Yeah, that's pretty much the argument I have with Roman Catholicism. They think they are the Church, instead of the Church being larger than just them.

Israel is the Bride of Christ, while the Body of Christ is already flesh of His flesh.

Israel is the Bride of Christ. Israel means "God's people," not "Jews"

To be direct... Israel is Christ’s desire and the BOC is the bride he has before her.

If you read all books a pay attention... especially in Hosea, Zechariah, Romans, Isaiah, Song of Solomon and Deuteronomy... it’s impossible to refute or miss.

Again, the promises there are based on fidelity to the covenant. Remember, covenant comes with blessing for obedience and curse for disobedience. The killing of the One who is Covenant Head is the maximum you can do to bring curse upon you, and in this case, as the Matthian text shows, that curse is to be "killed" as a nation. Or, as in the case of AD 70 - utterly destroyed.

There is not one single verse in the Bible (when read in full context) that says Israel is the Body of Christ...

The question that the apostles ask Jesus in Acts 1 and Jesus’ answer that binds directly to the final days of this old earth (As in no man knows the day nor hour) annihilate Supersession falsehood in spades!

You are guilty of reading into the text. No one knew that AD 70, or the specific day and time within that year, would be the final destruction of Jerusalem and the return of Christ to wreak vengeance upon those who had done such evil (Matthew 23)

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I think your line of reasoning is thus:

Preterism was developed by a Catholic
A Catholic cannot be right.
Ergo, preterism is false.

Is that about it?

Instead of blindly defending Catholic dogma. Do an honest study to see if preterism has any true foundation in the bible using sound doctrine for yourself.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Many citizens of Jerusalem starved to death or were killed in the war. In 70 AD the temple was toppled. Not one stone was left on another stone. The city was burned.

I would just like to add an interesting fact. Immediately the temple was not in a state of one stone left on another. That actually happened in the following years of the temples destruction. What happened is that the Roman army burned the temple when they were destroying it. Many people knew that there were lots of gold in the temple and they dug to the bottom removing stones to get to the melted gold. Thus totally fulfilling Jesus prophecy that one stone would not be on another. Kinda cool.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Jesuits killed the dinosaurs??!

Oh, those rotten Jesuits!

All joking aside. For your own edification you should not shy away from doing some actual honest research on the history of the Jesuits.

 

[Truth7t7]

And I assume that you have read the arguments of the Preterists against this?

Good To See A Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Posting, Hows the political climate, war?