@claire3gen710

thanks for the research bible scribe.  I've been researching the beginnings of dispensationalism and found your research very interesting.  As a full-preterist I agree with your findings.

@almostsk8terjamie

Its part of the lies we have inherited!! (Jer 16:19)

@Ben-qb4lj

Keep it up brother

@ranyokashung2514

Hey if you're still out there, can you tell me how I can get the book in English (the book alcasar wrote) and where, please.

@williambrewer

Do you have any source for Alcazar's book in English?

@Striaght-as-arrow

2 witnesses being doctrine I've heard many say same thing saying its the cannon the word or bible new and old testament  mainly historicism ( that's where I was at one point )

@str.77

As you clearly said, this idea is meant to discredit Preterism. The same idea is also said about Futurism. The source of this discrediting business are adherents of the Historicist interpretation of the Apocalypse, more specifically the Seventh-Day Adventists, an ever flowing pool of conspiracy theories. Regardless of what one thinks about Luis Alcazar and the Jesuits, there are two major faults underlying all these claims:
1. Every position has a first modern expounder, who gave a systematic account. This wasn't really done in the Middle Ages, when eschatalogical ideas would pop up here and there but not in a systematic manner. There was no systematic "Historicist" position in the Middle Ages (let alone earlier) either. So if Alcazar gave the first Preterist systematic, it is not because the ideas and interpretations hadn't been around for a long time. Futurism of course always has an edge as all positions, if transported into the 1st century, were Futurists.
And there you claims against Alcazar not being Preterist come in. All these positions (Futurism, Preterism, Historicism, Idealism) are just rough basic ideas that can be detailed in different ways. Yes, Alcazar did not believe the current Preterist system but he nevertheless was a Preterist (meaning, these prophecies were fulfilled in the past).
2. Any such writer developed his system because he thought it right. There was no "they didn't care if it was wrong or if it was right" involved, there was no "game". They were not "tasked" with "conjuring" up systems nor was the Pope ever "in their face: you have to get this done". (If you have any historical sources for this claim, I'd like to see them.) Alcazar honestly believed his position (however wrong), Riveria believed his (however wrong). To claim deceptive motives is a unprovable conspiracy theory. To espouse one of these conspiracy theories is to lay oneself open to the other one.
PS. There is no and never was an "official position" of the Church on the end times. Not Futurism, not Preterism, not Historicism, not Idealism.
PPS. That Apocalypse is largely about the pagan Roman Empire (and not Jewish Jerusalem) - this is where we differ.

@Striaght-as-arrow

Also the one who started the writing pret view was strangely dead within a yr of him starting 🤔 the pope didn't want people believe it was past BC then pope would have no say or power of his being god and his riches so they couldn't have that

@Striaght-as-arrow

A lot try claim it futuristic view saying catholic , but goes back way farther that roy runon did his last video on this type going to believe 100s ad

@iskaykabeya609

The Woman of Revelation 12 is the true church of God not a Jewish nation. Jewish nation were part of that woman. Her story started in the garden of Eden until the birth of Christ till the second coming