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

[chevyontheriver]

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.

Actually it all depends on the dog. The neighbors have two dogs, big standard Poodles, and by looking I cannot tell them apart. One is a jumper but exceptionally friendly. The other likes to heel and lean on me. But a new dog I don't for a moment pretend is safe until I know for sure. But that's not analogical to anything.

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.

You're right. I should try to be polite and respectful and communicate without prejudice and without defensive walls. Even to people who are rude and disrespectful and prejudiced and offensive. I saw the following and I reacted badly:

Truth7t7: The False Teaching Of (Partial Preterism) From The Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest (Luis De Alcazar 1554-1613) During The Counter Reformation.

Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest, Luis De Alcazar, "A Corrupt Tree"!

Matthew 7:18KJV
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

To me, that was offensive. And I reacted. I still think the logic employed in the original post was exactly as I said. But I was, what's the word, snarky about it. I shouldn't be snarky.

I don't have a dog in the preterist vs whatever fight. I really don't. You guys can have whatever views of it you want as long as you don't force me to adopt any of them. I never heard of Luis de Alcazar before all of this. After it's all done I doubt I shall remember his name. For myself it comes down to being spiritually prepared for whatever end, today or whenever. Whenever the whenever comes doesn't matter. What does matter is being prepared if persecution comes, living faithfully every day. Christians are already persecuted in China, India, and many Muslim countries. Would I be a wimp if it began in earnest here? Eschatology doesn't matter to me except for the answer to that question.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

I didn't defend ANYTHING in my post about the logic employed in the initial post. I definitely did not defend preterism. Or any sort of non-preterism either. Not my game, arguing about the end of the world. That's not 'sound doctrine' to me.

 

[David Kent]

As per verse 20, who is fleeing to the mountains and
why would it be bad for that flight to take place on the sabbath?

The Christians in Jerusalem

Because the Romans attacked on the Sabbath at the time of Pompey and Herod. The Jews would not fight on the Sabbath/

 

[David Kent]

Will You Next Try To Convince Me That The Waters In The Atlantic And Pacific Oceans Don't Contain "Salt"?

They don't contain as much salt as the gulf stream, so where does its salt come from?

 

[David Kent]

I Believe There Will Be A Future Literal Human Man Of Jewish Decent That Will Be The Antichrist Of Daniel 9:27, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5

The EC Writers all believed, quite correctly, that he would be a Latin, but some also thought, somehow of Jewish connection.

Why Latin? because the little horn in Daniel came out of the 4th empire in its 10 kingdom period, immediately on the fall of the empire. This was true when the 10 Gothic kingdoms overthrew Rome. After Constsantine removed the empire to the east, no king ruled from Rome, except the Pope.

 

[David Kent]

I wonder if you know about the Jesuits sinking the Titanic?

Or that the Jesuit Oath you quote here is a fiction by the forger Robert Ware in 1689? Here's what a Seventh Day Adventist had to say about it (and Seventh Day Adventists are generally rabid anti-Catholics):

Maybe you have insulated yourself sufficiently by convincing yourself that all Jesuits are liars and that of course I would lie and deny being a Jesuit and lie about this when I claim it is a hoax.

I had a friend who was brought up in a Catholic orphanage in Ireland. He tells of constant beatings and sexual assaults by monks. He told me this years before the reports of sexual perversion and abuse by 'priests' or Rome. He said he once saw two Jesuits beat a boy to death. He said Jesuits didn't usually beat boys. He said the Jesuits would ask you questions from the catechism, and if you did not answer to their liking you knew you would get a beating from the monks. It was not that you answered incorrectly, as you had to know the Catechism from the age of six. It was that in your answer you didn't show due deference to them as Jesuits who, he said, always came in with both hands tucked in the opposite sleeve with their head bowed. He said in the bad winter of 1947, many boys died and their bodies were kept in the cold meat room. When the thaw came they were buried in a mass grave with a tarpaulin over them with a black cross on each. One of the boys said "Bye Sean." He said he was 9 at the time, the same age as me.

The bed wetters. Those who wet their bed had to run around the grounds in just their shorts in all weathers holding their bedding above their heads.

The orphanage was run by the Christian Brothers who were more recently involved in child abuse in Australia.

Afterwards my teenage daughter who was with me at the time said "I thought he looked more than 20 years older than you."

We also had a foster son who was sexually abused in a Catholic Home, according to Social Services. He was with us from the age of 14 till he was out of care and lived with us after that until he was married.

 

[David Kent]

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"

Like the Donation of Constantine and the false decretals of Peter with which Catholics conned the gullible pagan Gothic invaders. Thus beginning of the power of the Roman Church.

 

[David Kent]

Oh, those rotten Jesuits!

If you want a good example of the Jesuits, read of Hitler's SS, which he said was based on the Jesuits.

 

[GingerBeer]

Like the Donation of Constantine and the false decretals of Peter with which Catholics conned the gullible pagan Gothic invaders. Thus beginning of the power of the Roman Church.

Something like that I guess. The fact remains that an unreliable source is unreliable and lies are lies. The alleged oath is a lie. That's all there is to it.

 

[David Kent]

Theological terrorism is Protestantism in all its many confused, chaotic, and argumentative forms. Premillenialism is just one of the terrorist doctrines.

THE REIGN OF ANTICHRIST

ANTICHRIST IS MOVED EITHER FORWARD OR BACKWARD IN TIME

Ribera's Futurism Puts the Antichrist Into A Future Three and One-half Literal Years.

Alcazar's Preterism Identifies the Antichrist as Nero.

Both of Them Put Antichrist Outside the Middle Ages and the Reformation Period,
Identified by Protestant Historicists as Antichrist's Reign of 1260 Prophetic Years.

 

[BABerean2]

Modern Dispensational Theology is a direct result of the book "Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty", written by the Jesuit Manuel Lacunza, under the assumed name of "Ben Ezra, a converted Jew".


Edward Irving had the book translated into English in about 1826.
He added his own commentary to the book and presented doctrine from the book at the Albury prophetic conference held in the UK.

After Irving died of TB in 1834, John Darby adopted the doctrine and then divided scripture into that for the Church and that for Israel.
He brought the doctrine to the U.S. about the time of the Civil War.

It was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.
After that time it spread like a virus through the evangelical Church in America.



Genesis of Dispensational Theology

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
PDF Files


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

.

 

[David Kent]

Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

Very well researched, A couple of things he missed was that in the Morning Watch Irving said that he first preached dispensationalism on Christmas day 1825 and next time the same day a year later. I know he came to that conclusion by a different route.

The second point is that the Irvingites dated the rapture to happen in 1833 and on the specified date met together to wait. Robert Baxter, Irvingism in its rise and present state, 1836 (Letter to Mr Armstrong) So by the time Darby caught the bug, the rapture should already have happened.

 

[David Kent]

Now that you have made this ridiculous assertion about Holy Orthodoxy, would you like to actually prove it by giving us some links? Something other than the long-disproven "Trail of Blood" or Foxes Book of Martyrs.

I'll let the Roman Catholics here defend themselves on this one.

You could try Gibbon and his article on the Paulicians.

 

[BABerean2]

THE REIGN OF ANTICHRIST

ANTICHRIST IS MOVED EITHER FORWARD OR BACKWARD IN TIME

Ribera's Futurism Puts the Antichrist Into A Future Three and One-half Literal Years.

Alcazar's Preterism Identifies the Antichrist as Nero.

Both of Them Put Antichrist Outside the Middle Ages and the Reformation Period,
Identified by Protestant Historicists as Antichrist's Reign of 1260 Prophetic Years.

Nice work.

Very few understand that the works of both Ribera and Alcazar were a part of the efforts of the Counter-Reformation, which began at the Council of Trent.

They wanted to make sure the Papal system was not identified as antichrist.


Council of Trent - Wikipedia

.

 

[Anto9us]

I don't think it worked

 

[David Kent]

Your Tyburne Tree speaks loudly of Protestant intolerance, nay Protestant hate, where uncounted Catholics met the noose because they did not conform to Protestantism. It hasn't been that long in your country that Catholicism has even been legal. You used to hunt Catholics and kill them.

The reason Catholics were not tolerated in this country was that the Pope put England under an Interdict and said it was the duty of all Catholics to kill the Queen.

The were attempts on the sovereign's life like the Babbington plot. Guy Fawkes and his associates.

You have actually had a Catholic murder of the president which was successful, Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Light of the East]

You could try Gibbon and his article on the Paulicians.

You said that the "Orthodox and Catholics killed millions" I Googled an article on the Paulicians, but it nowhere says that they were killed in the millions. What I do see is that they were heretics and because of that, the Church went after them. This was, unfortunately, the way that heretics were dealt with in those times, and the heretics themselves were not above murdering the Orthodox. It cut both ways.

 

[jgr]

A priest is a mediator between God and man.

Not according to this.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Nor can an earthly priest forgive sin.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

"He" is not an earthly priest, but rather our Heavenly High Priest.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="jgr

Not according to this.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

The context of Christ's mediation is the New Covenant:

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

When it is speaking of Christ mediating between God and man, it is specifically speaking about our salvation, which no one can mediate except Christ. He has established the New Covenant in His Blood, and in Hebrews 7-10, you will find Him acting as the Mediator of the New Covenant by His actions as the Great High Priest in the heavenlies. This has nothing to do with our personal sins committed after we have entered the New Covenant by baptism. It has to do with the cleansing of our personal sins, not the salvation of the whole world.

The background for this is found in the Old Covenant. The high priest made once a year atonement for the sins of the congregation, or nation of Israel, in the ritual of Yom Kippur (Lev. 16). Did that mean that all the members of the congregation were exempt from offering sacrifices for their personal sins throughout the year? Absolutely not? There is a concise record of the various offerings which individuals were to make for their sins, even after Yom Kippur had been done.

In like manner, Christ offers the eternal Yom Kippur in the heavenlies, but that does not exempt us from having to confess our personal sins.

Nor can an earthly priest forgive sin.

An earthly priest acts "in persona Christi," that is, it is Christ who is in the priest who forgives the sin, not the priest himself. So you are technically right about that, but we are still commanded to confess our sins to an earthly priest, just as they did in the Old Covenant. That has not changed at all, and we know this because in John 20:23, Christ gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins, meaning that they had to hear them confessed first.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

"He" is not an earthly priest, but rather our Heavenly High Priest.

And what is the role of the high priest? The high priest offers Yom Kippur, which is not for personal and individual sins, but for the congregation of God. Individual sins are taken care of by the Levitical priesthood, the ordained priests of the congregation, not the high priest.

 

[BABerean2]

Why did they establish a priesthood?

What did the author of Hebrews and Peter say below about the priesthood in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?


Heb_7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Heb_7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Heb_7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (

Heb_7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb_7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
(Christ is now the only high priest.)

1Pe_2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(In the verse above Peter says all believers are a "holy priesthood".)

1Pe_2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
(Here once again, Peter says all believers are a "royal priesthood".)


Therefore, based on scripture, no Christian is above any other Christian in the New Covenant.

This is why Peter would not allow Cornelius to bow down to him.

For the same reason the angel would not allow John to bow down to him.

There is now only one mediator between God and man.
That mediator is Christ.

We bow the knee to Christ, instead of men.

..............................................................

"Christ gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins, meaning that they had to hear them confessed first."

Please provide the scripture for your statement above, about the Apostles having the authority to forgive sins.
Only the work of Christ at Calvary forgives sin.

Yom Kippur is now "obsolete", based on Hebrews 8:13.
You are trying to go back to the Old Covenant system to make your man-made doctrine work.


Heb 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

Heb 12:19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

Heb 12:20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

Heb 12:21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

We are not come to Mount Sinai, but instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion.


.