Christianity

Many Jesuit Futurist Pastors deny that futurism originated with the Jesuits as part of the Counter Reformation. In this video I prove that futurism did indeed start with the Jesuits, and that same fact is stated by leading dispensationalist futurists like Irving, Darby and Larkin, just to name a few.

Without interaction there is no volk.

Partially what made me think of this was a book I stumbled upon "Biblical Literalism: The Gentile Heresy" in which I believe the author argues that certain traditional Christian understandings of Scripture contradict an interpretation Jews would give to reading certain stories in the New Testament. For example, the author argues the story of the multiplication of loaves and fishes was not a literal miracle that happened (as is traditionally believed) but is a retelling of some older story and is simply a narrative rather than something that actually happened. I wanted to comment on this in another post, but I was wondering if the author was basically rehashing the ideas of modernism and "judaizing" (note the links may be biased):
 
https://infogalactic.com/info/Modernism_in_the_Catholic_Church
 
https://infogalactic.com/info/Judaizers
 
https://infogalactic.com/info/Nostra_aetate
 
On Nostra Aetate, it is argued:
 
> (f) The Jews are not presented in Scripture as rejected or accursed.
 
> "It is true that the Church is the new people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this is followed from Holy Scripture." (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religious Nostra Aetate, paragraph 4).
 
> For evidence of the true doctrine in relation to this remarkable assertion, we may start with Our Lord's parable recorded in Matthew 21:33-45 and the Church's traditional interpretation of it. "The rejection of the Jews and the conversion of the Gentiles are here foretold, as Christ teaches in verse 43," says Cornelius a Lapide in his commentary on this passage.
 
> Then, of course, there is Matthew 27:25: "And the whole people, answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon our children." Presumably something follows from this passage in Holy Scripture, and one wonders what the Fathers of Vatican II had in mind. For the traditional Church teaching in relation to that passage, we return once again to Cornelius a Lapide, where he comments on it:
 
> "And thus they [the Jews] have subjected, not only themselves, but their very latest descendants, to God's displeasure. They feel it even to this day in its full force, in being scattered over all the world, without a city,7 or temple, or sacrifice, or priest or prince... 'This curse,' says St. Jerome, 'rests on them even to this day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken away from them,' as Daniel foretold (Daniel 9:27)."
 
> And out of interest, if we were asked which, out of all the Vatican II passages that we are offering, we believed to be the most difficult to explain away even with the most subtle debating devices, we should probably choose this one. We do not maintain that it is more definitely heretical than the others, but it does seem to present the fewest escape routes, especially as the Fathers of Vatican II expressly elected to have their doctrine judged against Holy Scripture, which is explicit in making it absolutely clear that the Jews have been collectively reprobated for their part in the Crucifixion. (Numerous other texts from the New Testament could be quoted to this end, but we think we have already given enough evidence.)
 
> Theological censure: HERETICAL.
 
from: https://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html