The Jesuits invented Preterism (this) and Futurism to smokescreen the papacy, which all the Protestant Reformers had identified as the anti-christ. Historicism is what you want to look into.
I’d come up with these views just by running through potential options of how things are/have/will play out (obviously not fleshed out to the same degree as a strong preterist would have done). I don’t necessarily claim it’s the truth, but it is an option.
Now is it the most likely to be true? Is there a positive outcome to holding this view? Does it fully line up with scripture?
Separate questions.
One idea some of this hinges on is Matthew 16:28. What if the Bible’s promises of life in abundance meant that if someone truly lived out the fullness of scripture, they might live for a much longer time? Maybe even be able to, say… be boiled in oil, or thrown into a furnace and make it through just fine?
To be determined. I have seen some miracles, both directly and in aftermath, but I haven’t seen or heard of those particular ones happening again just yet.
As you and photobuf note, this likely isn’t the correct take, I’m only noting that it doesn’t need to be Jesuitical. Personally, I have a bigger issue with pre-trib theology. If it the tribulation hasn’t happened yet, and the tribulation shows up and pre-trib is wrong and it’s a mid or post trib “rapture” (which isn’t a word that can be found in the Bible), then everyone who bought into pre-trib theology is gonna be woooooeeeefully unprepared. I’m talking there’s gonna be some gnashing of teeth. It’s obviously an appealing theology. “Flip on cheat code, avoid any and all self-sacrifice and covenental obligation, no suffering, we win, yay!” Accept at own risk.
The way I see it, pretty much every group there is is responsible for something or other, and wrong in some way or a lot of ways - including our own selves, which is just a group of our own selves across days and times - and any group of any significant size or influence is gonna have people infiltrating it for money and power and control.
There’s also gonna be redeemable portions of most of those groups, and we should try to take what is good from each.
There’s probably plenty of people here that look at me with the same side eye. It’s not totally undeserved, I probably am a bit subversive in ways, but so was Jesus, so whatevs. Better question is if any posited ideas here are heading in good directions or bad ones, and that’s up to each individual.
Galatians 6:10 - So then, as we have opportunity, let's do what is good toward all men, and especially toward those who are of the household of the faith.
1 Thessalonians 5 16-22 - Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Messiah Yeshua toward you. Don't quench the Spirit. Don't despise prophesies. Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
the twit actually had the nerve to say what they did and also at the same time say "I didn't read your post but...."
I think you've got the wrong person as I did not say that. It must be those meds again.
your ‘ jesuit smokescreen’ theory is a bit of a stretch ...
I extensively showed how it's not a stretch at all.
preterism and futurism aren’t jesuit conspiracies.
Yes they are.
they’re interpretive frameworks that predate or exist alongside historicism, each with legit scriptural arguments.
Show me where Preterism and Futurism pre-date Historicism. I don't need to see what you think they have legit scriptural arguements because the arguements are all abysmal, I've seen them, but if you want to post some go for it.
the reformers leaned on historicism to dunk on the papacy, sure, but that doesn’t make it the only valid take.
They leaned on it because it's the truth. For the record I don't even think "historicism" was a term until these other views got injected into christianity. It was just either the right way to interpret prophecies, or some other way. Again, truth is not subjective here.
preterism ties Revelation to 70 AD (roman destruction of Jerusalem), futurism looks to the future, and Historicism stretches it across history -none are inherently ‘deceptive.’
That's not true. If two of the three are misdirections and flat-out impossible and wrong, (which the two short YouTube videos I linked in the reply you blew over clearly show), then they most certainly are deceptive. The only thing left to prove would be malicious intent
all you are doing is just parroting a tired polemic without engaging the text.
I dropped in to enlighten people on Preterism's origin because it was pertinant to what you posted.
if you’re gonna swing, at least bring some exegesis to back it up, not just ‘reformers said so.’ 🙄 ...
I posted exegesis but judging by your next reply you didn't view any of it.
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it around 1590. Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would fall away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the anti-christ, a single individual, would:
Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
Abolish the Christian religion.
Deny Jesus Christ.
Be received by the Jews.
Pretend to be God.
Kill the two witnesses of God.
Conquer the world.
Then we had Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, who published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini De controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, (Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time), in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of anti-christ into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years. (See Froom, Prophetic Faith, Vol. 2, pgs. 495 - 502). And there are more Jesuits who further ignited this which I can name.
PRETERISM
Proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. According to Alcazar (or Alcasar):
Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism ("the great harlot") and the conversion of the empire to the church.
Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by anti-christ, who is identified as Caesar Nero (54- 68 A.D.), and judgment.
Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church. (🤮)
If traces of these doctrines existed prior to these Jesuits' work, that really doesn't change my premise. These works were seminal in what we today have in our Protestant churches, and the confusion which results from it.
The intent of both Futurism and Preterism was to be diversionary, to counter or offset the correct interpretation, and present alternatives, no matter how implausible they be. The result is evident: ANTICHRIST IS MOVED EITHER FORWARD OR BACKWARD IN TIME.
Ribera puts the anti-christ into a nebulous future 3.5 literal years while Alcazar identifies the anti-christ as Nero. Both of them put anti-christ safely outside the Middle Ages & Reformation period, identified by the Protestants as 'anti-christ's reign of 1260 prophetic years' and prior to the "deadly wound" which saw the complete loss of the pope's "temporal powers" in 1798 when Napoleon arrested the pope. (*some argue the wound was inflicted in 1867 with the fall of the Papal States, putting 606-607 as the beginning. In that time Pope Boniface III, in collusion with Emperor Phocas, obtained the declaration that the pope was now the head of all the churches). Regardless of any of that there's only one institution that's existed long enough to fit in the 1,260 years and that's the Catholic church. She also happens to love purple, scarlet, gold, jewels, and sits on Seven Hills..anyhoo,
The fact that these interpretations differed so greatly didn't matter. Catholicism, the supposedly divine and infallible interpreter of scripture, was presenting two vastly different and quite incompatible views of prophecy in a desperate effort to counter the claims of the Reformers. You may have heard of it---it's called the Counter-Reformation. They couldn't just kill all the Protestants to shut them up. The response was instead clandestine and insidious, infecting Protestant minds with this or that so long as they forgot about THAT one pesky fact that the popes are the anti-christs and always have been. Their Counter-Reformation tool of the trade was none other than the Jesuit Order, of which Napoleon had this to say:
The general of the Jesuits insists on being master, sovereign, over the sovereign. Wherever the Jesuits are admitted, they will be masters, cost what it may. Their society is by nature dictatorial, and therefore it is the irreconcilable enemy of all constituted authority. Every act, every crime, however atrocious, is a meritorious work, if committed for the interest of the Society of the Jesuits, or by the order of the general."
Does it make more sense now what we're dealing with? You poo-pooh my claim that the Jesuits invented these false eschatological doctrines in order to protect the papacy, when we see their origins to be right when the Counter-Reformation really got going, and both from Jesuit theologians! It is said that the Jesuit Order was formed precisely to combat the Protestants while the "Catholic church proper" continued business as usual.
u/AmateurExpert the problem is that we can't go back in time and live prior to these doctrines being absolutely saturated in the christian worldview. Had you come up back then you would either say "of course the pope is the anti-christ" or "of course the pope is Christ on earth". Or perhaps you'd be in some obscure sect somewhere, who knows. The point is precisely that, we can't know. Sure, the potential for the scriptures to be twisted in such ways is there... how do you think the Jesuits could come up with such a ruse 😅
God is not the author of confusion. The prophecies are playing out over time, in real-time, and that's the only thing that makes any real sense. All the other stuff does is make the prophecies useless to us, or make you frantically watch the middle east waiting on a bunch of unbelieving Jews who likely can't prove by blood to even be Jews to burn a cow 2,000 years after the Messiah put an end to offerings and oblations.
I look at pre-trib about like you seem to see preterism, and see preterism as a fairly unlikely but afaik possible option.
As far as the pope being the antichrist and whatnot, the main problem I have therein is seeing a good path to bring Catholics into the fold out of any scriptural misunderstandings they might have.
As endearing as “you’ve set yourself as a follower of the earthly incarnation of Satan himself!” seems like it should be, I can’t say I’ve had all that much success when applying that tactic in other areas of discussion.
Given that most likely every last one of us has some level of scriptural misunderstandings or some tradition or practice we’ve decided to uphold that is in error, in addition to failings branching from simply misexecution, it seems important to not blockade anyone off from being able to recognize and address those areas.
Jesus actually gave us the path to bring Catholics into the truth in Daniel and Revelation if they can be walked through the prophecies starting with Daniel. They can be shown the connections between the Catholic church, aka "Papal Rome" (as opposed to pagan Rome), and to put the cherry on top, tell them
“Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. Pay her back as she herself has paid back others, and repay her double for her deeds; mix a double portion for her in the cup she mixed. As she glorified herself and lived in luxury, so give her a like measure of torment and mourning, since in her heart she says, ‘I sit as a queen, I am no widow, and mourning I shall never see.’ For this reason her plagues will come in a single day, death and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire; for mighty is the Lord God who has judged her.”
Notice, this is written to true believers stuck within the whore. "my people"
This is the way to wake them up and it's been successful, along with simpler things such as pointing out the blatant idolatry, false doctrines, sexual perversion of clergy, child abuse, the crusades and Inquisitions, etc.
Damnit man you have out-textwalled me!
I'm gonna reply to that friggin message! Gah 😭
Given that most likely every last one of us has some level of scriptural misunderstandings or some tradition or practice we’ve decided to uphold that is in error, in addition to failings branching from simply misexecution, it seems important to not blockade anyone off from being able to recognize and address those areas.
I don't really get how I'm blockading someone by exposing the origins of Preterism and Futurism and calling the pope the anti-christ. Eschatology isn't really a salvific issue, people will likely just end up caught off guard. As for the pope... if he's the anti-christ I'd say that's damn important to tell
The Jesuits invented Preterism (this) and Futurism to smokescreen the papacy, which all the Protestant Reformers had identified as the anti-christ. Historicism is what you want to look into.
Not necessarily, as far as Jesuits go.
I’d come up with these views just by running through potential options of how things are/have/will play out (obviously not fleshed out to the same degree as a strong preterist would have done). I don’t necessarily claim it’s the truth, but it is an option.
Now is it the most likely to be true? Is there a positive outcome to holding this view? Does it fully line up with scripture?
Separate questions.
One idea some of this hinges on is Matthew 16:28. What if the Bible’s promises of life in abundance meant that if someone truly lived out the fullness of scripture, they might live for a much longer time? Maybe even be able to, say… be boiled in oil, or thrown into a furnace and make it through just fine?
To be determined. I have seen some miracles, both directly and in aftermath, but I haven’t seen or heard of those particular ones happening again just yet.
As you and photobuf note, this likely isn’t the correct take, I’m only noting that it doesn’t need to be Jesuitical. Personally, I have a bigger issue with pre-trib theology. If it the tribulation hasn’t happened yet, and the tribulation shows up and pre-trib is wrong and it’s a mid or post trib “rapture” (which isn’t a word that can be found in the Bible), then everyone who bought into pre-trib theology is gonna be woooooeeeefully unprepared. I’m talking there’s gonna be some gnashing of teeth. It’s obviously an appealing theology. “Flip on cheat code, avoid any and all self-sacrifice and covenental obligation, no suffering, we win, yay!” Accept at own risk.
The way I see it, pretty much every group there is is responsible for something or other, and wrong in some way or a lot of ways - including our own selves, which is just a group of our own selves across days and times - and any group of any significant size or influence is gonna have people infiltrating it for money and power and control.
There’s also gonna be redeemable portions of most of those groups, and we should try to take what is good from each.
There’s probably plenty of people here that look at me with the same side eye. It’s not totally undeserved, I probably am a bit subversive in ways, but so was Jesus, so whatevs. Better question is if any posited ideas here are heading in good directions or bad ones, and that’s up to each individual.
Galatians 6:10 - So then, as we have opportunity, let's do what is good toward all men, and especially toward those who are of the household of the faith.
1 Thessalonians 5 16-22 - Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Messiah Yeshua toward you. Don't quench the Spirit. Don't despise prophesies. Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
I think you've got the wrong person as I did not say that. It must be those meds again.
I extensively showed how it's not a stretch at all.
Yes they are.
Show me where Preterism and Futurism pre-date Historicism. I don't need to see what you think they have legit scriptural arguements because the arguements are all abysmal, I've seen them, but if you want to post some go for it.
They leaned on it because it's the truth. For the record I don't even think "historicism" was a term until these other views got injected into christianity. It was just either the right way to interpret prophecies, or some other way. Again, truth is not subjective here.
That's not true. If two of the three are misdirections and flat-out impossible and wrong, (which the two short YouTube videos I linked in the reply you blew over clearly show), then they most certainly are deceptive. The only thing left to prove would be malicious intent
I dropped in to enlighten people on Preterism's origin because it was pertinant to what you posted.
I posted exegesis but judging by your next reply you didn't view any of it.
Here is the TL:DR on how both views are impossible (for we know that no "alternate truth" may co-exist alongside the absolute truth):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YZctGIgFXTU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9AFdUA__N30
I'll now give more details on both's origins:
FUTURISM
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it around 1590. Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would fall away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the anti-christ, a single individual, would:
Then we had Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, who published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini De controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, (Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time), in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of anti-christ into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years. (See Froom, Prophetic Faith, Vol. 2, pgs. 495 - 502). And there are more Jesuits who further ignited this which I can name.
PRETERISM
Proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. According to Alcazar (or Alcasar):
If traces of these doctrines existed prior to these Jesuits' work, that really doesn't change my premise. These works were seminal in what we today have in our Protestant churches, and the confusion which results from it.
The intent of both Futurism and Preterism was to be diversionary, to counter or offset the correct interpretation, and present alternatives, no matter how implausible they be. The result is evident: ANTICHRIST IS MOVED EITHER FORWARD OR BACKWARD IN TIME.
Ribera puts the anti-christ into a nebulous future 3.5 literal years while Alcazar identifies the anti-christ as Nero. Both of them put anti-christ safely outside the Middle Ages & Reformation period, identified by the Protestants as 'anti-christ's reign of 1260 prophetic years' and prior to the "deadly wound" which saw the complete loss of the pope's "temporal powers" in 1798 when Napoleon arrested the pope. (*some argue the wound was inflicted in 1867 with the fall of the Papal States, putting 606-607 as the beginning. In that time Pope Boniface III, in collusion with Emperor Phocas, obtained the declaration that the pope was now the head of all the churches). Regardless of any of that there's only one institution that's existed long enough to fit in the 1,260 years and that's the Catholic church. She also happens to love purple, scarlet, gold, jewels, and sits on Seven Hills..anyhoo,
The fact that these interpretations differed so greatly didn't matter. Catholicism, the supposedly divine and infallible interpreter of scripture, was presenting two vastly different and quite incompatible views of prophecy in a desperate effort to counter the claims of the Reformers. You may have heard of it---it's called the Counter-Reformation. They couldn't just kill all the Protestants to shut them up. The response was instead clandestine and insidious, infecting Protestant minds with this or that so long as they forgot about THAT one pesky fact that the popes are the anti-christs and always have been. Their Counter-Reformation tool of the trade was none other than the Jesuit Order, of which Napoleon had this to say:
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17ph4rr/is_this_quote_from_napoleon_real_or_fake/
Does it make more sense now what we're dealing with? You poo-pooh my claim that the Jesuits invented these false eschatological doctrines in order to protect the papacy, when we see their origins to be right when the Counter-Reformation really got going, and both from Jesuit theologians! It is said that the Jesuit Order was formed precisely to combat the Protestants while the "Catholic church proper" continued business as usual.
This Wiki touches on what those noble Protestant pioneers all knew, but don't expect the nitty gritty to be showcased here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_Papacy
Here you may find numerous quotes from numerous christians of the era https://www.semperreformanda.com/creeds/the-reformers-on-who-is-the-antichrist/
Let me know if I can clarify anything further.
u/AmateurExpert the problem is that we can't go back in time and live prior to these doctrines being absolutely saturated in the christian worldview. Had you come up back then you would either say "of course the pope is the anti-christ" or "of course the pope is Christ on earth". Or perhaps you'd be in some obscure sect somewhere, who knows. The point is precisely that, we can't know. Sure, the potential for the scriptures to be twisted in such ways is there... how do you think the Jesuits could come up with such a ruse 😅
God is not the author of confusion. The prophecies are playing out over time, in real-time, and that's the only thing that makes any real sense. All the other stuff does is make the prophecies useless to us, or make you frantically watch the middle east waiting on a bunch of unbelieving Jews who likely can't prove by blood to even be Jews to burn a cow 2,000 years after the Messiah put an end to offerings and oblations.
Ahhhhhhhh!!!
Damnit man you have out-textwalled me!
Here’s my TLDR take on approaching it all:
https://greatawakening.win/p/19BZz3wACa/x/c/4eU47QIvame
I look at pre-trib about like you seem to see preterism, and see preterism as a fairly unlikely but afaik possible option.
As far as the pope being the antichrist and whatnot, the main problem I have therein is seeing a good path to bring Catholics into the fold out of any scriptural misunderstandings they might have.
As endearing as “you’ve set yourself as a follower of the earthly incarnation of Satan himself!” seems like it should be, I can’t say I’ve had all that much success when applying that tactic in other areas of discussion.
Given that most likely every last one of us has some level of scriptural misunderstandings or some tradition or practice we’ve decided to uphold that is in error, in addition to failings branching from simply misexecution, it seems important to not blockade anyone off from being able to recognize and address those areas.
Jesus actually gave us the path to bring Catholics into the truth in Daniel and Revelation if they can be walked through the prophecies starting with Daniel. They can be shown the connections between the Catholic church, aka "Papal Rome" (as opposed to pagan Rome), and to put the cherry on top, tell them
Notice, this is written to true believers stuck within the whore. "my people"
This is the way to wake them up and it's been successful, along with simpler things such as pointing out the blatant idolatry, false doctrines, sexual perversion of clergy, child abuse, the crusades and Inquisitions, etc.
I'm gonna reply to that friggin message! Gah 😭
I don't really get how I'm blockading someone by exposing the origins of Preterism and Futurism and calling the pope the anti-christ. Eschatology isn't really a salvific issue, people will likely just end up caught off guard. As for the pope... if he's the anti-christ I'd say that's damn important to tell
Wow