Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[Jipsah]

LOL. Believing in a literal physical future coming of Christ is now deemed "dispensational futurism"?

You apparently missed this, so once more for lagniappe: All orthodox preterists confess that our Lord "ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."

So no, belief in the return of our Lord is part of the Apostles' Creed, which is confessed by most if not all orthodox Christian. DFs just add a lot of doctrinal rubbish to that fundamental belief.

That is ridiculous! This shows your ignorance of the broad biblical beliefs of most of Christendom over the years and particularly evangelical Protestantism. It shows a naivety to the facts. Petty name-calling doesn't cut it.

You've already demonstrated your skill at beating straw men, no further proof is necessary.

I have engaged with Preterists for years, mainly online.

Apparently you didn't pay any closer attention to what they said than to what I did. Of course, the advantage to that is that it allows you to declare a victory and go away thumping your chest without the onerous necessity of considering whether your position makes any sxense of not. Spoiler Alert: It doesn't.

I have found it hard to find them in the real world amongst solid Bible-believing churches.

I.E., those churches that peddle same doctrinal rubbish you embrace. Boy, now there's a surprise!

I am fully aware (and so is everyone else who engages with them) of what Preterism believes

Strange, you haven't demonstrated any at all.

and how they are fixated with Titus and AD70

A charge which you made no effort to defend at all, probably since it's based upon an utter dearth of any actual knowledge. It's simply "Preterism, bad!".

, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world.

Christianity 101, matey: All orthodox preterists confess: " He ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."
Got it this time?

The reader will see that your focus is on "what happened" on that date instead of what is coming when Jesus comes in majesty and glory to usher in the new earth. That is not something that ignites an interest with Preterists.

Sorry, that was simply babble. Acknowledge what I just posted, or I'll have to assume that you're simply repeating the same fatuous accusations without regard to what anyone else has said.

Scripture teaches a mixture of Historicism, Partial Preterism and Futurism. You and your fellow Preterists seem so obsessed with Titus and AD70 you are incapable or unwilling to talk about the future hope.

Again, I am forced to conclude that you've never actually talked to an orthodox preterist, but simply brayed at them as you've done here.

 

[Jipsah]

This is where you err. The future hope is not past but future.

All orthodox preterists confess that our Lord "ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."

If you have an iota of intellectual honesty then you'll have to acknowledge that, else your opinions are worth no more than those of a mindless chat bot.

 

[Jipsah]

... and rightly so. It is heresy!

So you get to make charges against preterists that they're forbidden to answer. Add intellectual cowardice to intellectual dishnesty.

 

[Jipsah]

This thread is obviously exposing where people are.

It has certainly done so in your case.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

But Jesus did not physically come then.

See the Apostle's Creed again. "...shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."

Are you saying that you think the Apostle's Creed teaches that Jesus came again to judge the quick and the dead in 70 AD or am I just misunderstanding what you were intending to say here?

 

[Jipsah]

By the bye, here's more stuff you ignored; I can't imagine why:

"...unfortunately your lot has to deny that Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, that the Temple was desecrated, that no stone of it was left standing upon another, that sacrifice and oblation have ceased, etc. "Oh, but those things didn't count", else our doctrine would be rubbish." Right?" Wanna respond to that, or just "dance a little sidestep"?

BTW, how many times does our Lord return in your doctrine? I've heard your lot come up with as high as five returns/fly-bys/near approaches, whatever. And I love the bit where y'all claim that the Temple was destroyed but it wasn't that destroyed, that blasphemous pagan abominations were performed there, but they weren't that abominable, and that sacrifice hasn't really ceased, but the priests are simply on history's longest lunch break. And anyway, None Of That Really Counted, right?

All to keep from admitting that what happened, happened.

Unadulterated rubbish.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So you get to make charges against preterists that they're forbidden to answer. Add intellectual cowardice to intellectual dishnesty.

All he's doing is agreeing with the ones who own this site. What do you think is the reason they are forbidden to answer it here? Because it's heresy. If you have a problem with calling it that then you must have a problem with this site as well since the obvious reason they don't allow that doctrine to be promoted here is because they believe it is heresy.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

By the bye, here's more stuff you ignored; I cfan't imaghne why:

"...unfortunately your lot has to deny that Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, that the Temple was desecrated, that no stone of it was left standing upon another, that sacrifice and oblation have ceased, etc. "Oh, but those things didn't count", else our doctrine would be rubbish." Right?" Wanna respond to that, or just "dance a little sidestep"?

LOL. His lot? Do you have any idea of who you're talking to? Apparently not. He doesn't deny that the things you mentioned here occurred in the past. You're not talking to some dispensationalist. Maybe you should make an effort to find out what the person you're talking to believes before making false accusations towards him, eh?

BTW, how many times does our Lord return in your doctrine?

I know he believes in one and so do I.

I've heard your lot come up with as high as five returns/fly-bys/near approaches, whatever.

Again, his lot? I would say I'm in his lot and I know neither of us are futurists or dispensationalists (or preterists), so he doesn't believe in any kind of convoluted views like that. His beliefs are similar to mine and we have more of an idealist view with some preterist, historicist and futurist views mixed in. I think having some balance in your perspective is much better than being too skewed towards one view or another.

And I love the bit where y'all claim that the Temple was destroyed but it wasn't that destroyed, that blasphemous pagan abominations were performed there, but they weren't that abominable, and thet sacrifice has really ceased, but the priests are simply on history's longest lunch break. And anyway, None Of That Really Counted, right?

The person you're talking to does not believe any of that nonsense and neither do I. Again, maybe you should try finding out what the people you talk to actually believe before making all kinds of assumptions like this.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You apparently missed this, so once more for lagniappe: All orthodox preterists confess that our Lord "ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."

So no, belief in the return of our Lord is part of the Apostles' Creed, which is confessed by most if not all orthodox Christian. DFs just add a lot of doctrinal rubbish to that fundamental belief.

Do you only believe in His future return because it's mentioned in the Apostle's Creed or do you base that belief on scripture? If so, which scripture do you base that belief on?

 

[Jipsah]

Do you only believe in His future return because it's mentioned in the Apostle's Creed or do you base that belief on scripture? If so, which scripture do you base that belief on?

I'm sorry, are you not familiar with the ancient creeds of the Church? They're they distillation of what Christians believe based on the teaching of Scripture. Try this one for starts: " Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. I assume you're familiar with it?

 

[Jipsah]

All he's doing is agreeing with the ones who own this site.

And taking the oportunity to bad-mouth the full prets knowing full well they're not allowed to respond. That's pretty sleazy, IMO.

What do you think is the reason they are forbidden to answer it here? Because it's heresy. If you have a problem with calling it that then you must have a problem with this site as well since the obvious reason they don't allow that doctrine to be promoted here is because they believe it is heresy.

I just have a problem with intellectual cowardice. Don't you?

 

[Jipsah]

LOL. His lot? Do you have any idea of who you're talking to? Apparently not. He doesn't deny that the things you mentioned here occurred in the past.

Ah, so you're partial preterists! I'm impressed.

You're not talking to some dispensationalist. Maybe you should make an effort to find out what the person you're talking to believes before making false accusations towards him, eh?

The sleazy attack on preterists told me all I needed to know.

I know he believes in one and so do I.

One what?

Again, his lot?

DFs

I would say I'm in his lot and I know neither of us are futurists or dispensationalists (or preterists), so he doesn't believe in any kind of convoluted views like that. His beliefs are similar to mine and we have more of an idealist view with some preterist, historicist and futurist views mixed in. I think having some balance in your perspective is much better than being too skewed towards one view or another.

Suits me. But come in guns blazing, making snide accusations, then don't act all surprised if someone shoots back. Your boy led with his chin, and the result should have been predictable.

 

[Jipsah]

Are you saying that you think the Apostle's Creed teaches that Jesus came again to judge the quick and the dead in 70 AD or am I just misunderstanding what you were intending to say here?

If we believed that, why woulld we confess it in the future tense now? Must we play at these sophomoric games? Or should I ask if you must play at these sophomoric games. It you have a doctrinal ax to grind, then by all means grind it, and leave off the pointless attacks.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm sorry, are you not familiar with the ancient creeds of the Church? They're they distillation of what Christians believe based on the teaching of Scripture. Try this one for starts: " Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. I assume you're familiar with it?

I'm not much into creeds, I'm into scripture. So, it seems that your belief is based on scripture and not just on the creed then? That's all you had to say. I know of someone who believes that Jesus will return because of what he read in that creed (or maybe some other creed, I can't recall), but not on anything he sees in scripture. So, that's why I asked.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And taking the oportunity to bad-mouth the full prets knowing full well they're not allowed to respond. That's pretty sleazy, IMO.

I just have a problem with intellectual cowardice. Don't you?

I don't believe that is what is happening here. I'm not seeing that. It's not a secret that the owners of this site consider it to be hypocrisy as well as probably most of the users here. It's not as if that's a secret. So, he just pointed out what most here believe. It seems that your real problem is with the owners of this site not allowing full preterism to be promoted here.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Ah, so you're partial preterists! I'm impressed.

Do you just enjoy being wrong? No, we're not partial preterists. Agreeing with them on a few things doesn't make us one of them.

The sleazy attack on preterists told me all I needed to know.

There was no sleazy attack. Good grief. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable on a site that allows full preterist views to be shared.

One what?

Come on. You're better than this. You asked "how many times does our Lord return in your doctrine?". So, the answer is one time.

DFs

I'm not familiar with that acronym. Does that mean Dispensational Futurists? If so, that is definitely not his lot.

Suits me. But come in guns blazing, making snide accusations, then don't act all surprised if someone shoots back. Your boy led with his chin, and the result should have been predictable.

LOL. Okay, tough guy.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If we believed that, why woulld we confess it in the future tense now? Must we play at these sophomoric games? Or should I ask if you must play at these sophomoric games. It you have a doctrinal ax to grind, then by all means grind it, and leave off the pointless attacks.

What is wrong with you? That is a serious question. I asked you a question and it was sincere. I truly wasn't sure what you were intending to say, so that's why I asked for clarification. I made no accusations. This response to my sincere question is completely unwarranted.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You apparently missed this, so once more for lagniappe: All orthodox preterists confess that our Lord "ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."

So no, belief in the return of our Lord is part of the Apostles' Creed, which is confessed by most if not all orthodox Christian. DFs just add a lot of doctrinal rubbish to that fundamental belief.




You've already demonstrated your skill at beating straw men, no further proof is necessary.

Apparently you didn't pay any closer attention to what they said than to what I did. Of course, the advantage to that is that it allows you to declare a victory and go away thumping your chest without the onerous necessity of considering whether your position makes any sxense of not. Spoiler Alert: It doesn't.


I.E., those churches that peddle same doctrinal rubbish you embrace. Boy, now there's a surprise!

Strange, you haven't demonstrated any at all.


A charge which you made no effort to defend at all, probably since it's based upon an utter dearth of any actual knowledge. It's simply "Preterism, bad!".

Christianity 101, matey: All orthodox preterists confess: " He ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."
Got it this time?


Sorry, that was simply babble. Acknowledge what I just posted, or I'll have to assume that you're simply repeating the same fatuous accusations without regard to what anyone else has said.


Again, I am forced to conclude that you've never actually talked to an orthodox preterist, but simply brayed at them as you've done here.

Just because you can quote a creed means nothing. Many have an intellectual knowledge of truth. The Preterist lack of desire in speaking about Christ and His glorious future Advent is massive red flag and damning to their doctrine.

 

[sovereigngrace]

So you get to make charges against preterists that they're forbidden to answer. Add intellectual cowardice to intellectual dishnesty.

This is the Preterist default when they are challenged - ad hominem. Your responses reinforce the Op. For that I am grateful.

 

[sovereigngrace]

If we believed that, why woulld we confess it in the future tense now? Must we play at these sophomoric games? Or should I ask if you must play at these sophomoric games. It you have a doctrinal ax to grind, then by all means grind it, and leave off the pointless attacks.

Do you in a literal physical visible future event of the return of Christ for His people?