Message from staff - all please read!

[A New Dawn]

Preterism is not allowed to be discussed in this forum (or any other forum in the CO area) because it conflicts with the Nicean Creed. I have already closed two threads for that reason, and I will close any others I find that discuss preterism. Please refer to the forum's Statement of Purpose to know what can be discussed in this forum. If you wish to discuss preterism vs. orthodox beliefs regarding the eschatological end of the age, please go to Unorthodox Theology, where preterism is allowed to be discussed.

 

[granpa]

One can be a preterist and a futurist at the same time.
they aren't mutually exclusive.
prophecies fulfilled in the past are but a shadow of things to come in the future.
there is no conflict with the Nicean creed.

In fact, I was of the impression that this was the mainstream view

 

[Interplanner]

there is a qualifying line at the top of Eschatology and it has been adhered to, that I can see.

 

[Notrash]

Woukd it be possible to add a 'preterist' subheading to eschatology since it seems to be a hot topic. Or pergaps the unorthodox section if need ve.?

 

[John S]

Preterist Eschatotology is NOT a hot topic except when it is brought up by preterists. Otherwise, no one mentions it.

 

[parousia70]

Preterist Eschatotology is NOT a hot topic except when it is brought up by preterists. Otherwise, no one mentions it.

Since the majority of Christians are preterist to some degree, it tends to get brought up a lot. It's only when the minority of Hyper futurists feel the need to loudly protest ANY form of preterism that it becomes a "hot" topic - otherwise it's always been a topic of reasoned, sober, edifying discussion among the majority here.

 

[parousia70]

In fact, I was of the impression that this [preterism] was the mainstream view

You are correct.

 

[parousia70]

Woukd it be possible to add a 'preterist' subheading to eschatology

christianforums dot net does it that way and it works pretty well

 

[Gottservant]

One can be a preterist and a futurist at the same time.
they aren't mutually exclusive.
prophecies fulfilled in the past are but a shadow of things to come in the future.
there is no conflict with the Nicean creed.

In fact, I was of the impression that this was the mainstream view

This is my position too.

I think they mean that you are saying it only happened in the past (and cannot happen in the future), if you are preterist.

 

[Interplanner]

Investigating history is a matter of self-discipline. If you are organized and stable enough to realize that Jesus is not necessarily talking about us today when he talks about the future, you are on your way to grasping the historical meaning.

I think it would help enormously why New Dawn closed what he/she did in view of the header that is already in place and was being adhered to.

 

[bibletruth469]

You are correct.

Main stream view is not preterism. The bible is full of prophecies that have not occurred yet. look at the book of Revelation for instance. Any one who thinks that this scripture has already happened has some serious studying to do. It also can not be allegorized into some type of past occurance. It just hasn't[ happened yet.

 

[ebedmelech]

Main stream view is not preterism. The bible is full of prophecies that have not occurred yet. look at the book of Revelation for instance. Any one who thinks that this scripture has already happened has some serious studying to do. It also can not be allegorized into some type of past occurance. It just hasn't[ happened yet.

Well that works the other way too!

Look at 70 AD and read Josephus, Tacitus, and many church fathers...anyone who can't see Revelation 1-18 was fulfilled in 70 AD have simply been taught to ignore the language of prophetic scripture because the symbolism wrong and for the most part are inept in the OT prophesies.

So you can hold on to your literal view...but the facts stand that:

1. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in 70 AD, and the Jews were dispersed by Rome.

2. As Jesus said NOT ONE stone of the temple remained standing...(the wailing wall was NOT part of the temple).

3. No third temple has been built...and God does call the church His temple in the NT.

4. God does call Gentile and Jewish Believers Abraham's seed and ONE in Him.


I can name a few others, but you get the picture...when you ignore history...you're bound to come up short.

Don't act as if you're on solid ground...because you KNOW the above to be true,

 

[Biblewriter]

Originally Posted by granpa

In fact, I was of the impression that this [preterism] was the mainstream view
​

You are correct.

Actually, although Preterism did indeed become widespread in later centuries, all of the oldest Christian writings on Bible prophecy are distinctly futurist. Some Preterists try to claim that some first century documents contained Preteristic fragments, but not even one of these documents can be conclusively demonstrated to actually teach any form of Preterism. For these same documents also contain fragments that are clearly futuristic.

But many documents from the second through the fifth centuries clearly and unambiguously teach futurism. This was so all pervasive that in the fifth century Jerome wrote, "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

 

[Interplanner]

It is accurate to say there was more futurism and less historical fulfillment. That has to be becaue of the delay, which is what 2 Pet 3 says, agreeing with Mt 24B. It is not accurate to say they were futurist, because that sounds like all of it is exclusively future, which is neither the historic case nor the case of Jerome in particular.

As far as the historic case goes, both the high priest and Josephus (trained as priest) knew that Dan 9 was happening soon; and the high priest thought the death of Jesus might save the nation as a token of showing control of rebels (Jn 11 and 18).

 

[Notrash]

There are also some preterists who do not say that ALL was fulfilled by 70 AD. The Gog/Magog war iccurred after the milleniums which I believe culminated in 70 AD. Thus, I believe Gog/Magog was the Bar Kochbah revolt of 132-135 AD. This would have also been the double honor of Is 61 to the Peace group because the christians did not participate in this conflict either. The secondary judgement and further mentions of the double honor are seen elsewhere.

After 132/135 Ireneous and Justin Martyr (and similar persons) were demanded to codify their doctrines and interpretations for the Romans. Especially Irenous applied a literal/futurist hermeneutic to the epistles without taking into consideratiin their original first century audiences in asia minor. (the area of Epraim/Israel) for the joining and coming together of the two branches "outside of" the mosaic covt; and other numerous prophecies.

Some of what has been passed down since then as the majority/futurist perspectives (the church of Ireneous or the ECF's) contains some faulty doctrines/interpretations based on Ireneous not on the positive Gospel of Shiloh. (GEN 49:1,10; Hosea 1:10,11; Ez 37:22 framed by 11-28)

 

[John S]

Even partial Preterism is wrong. NOTHING in the Book of Revelations pertains to the past.

 

[parousia70]

Even partial Preterism is wrong. NOTHING in the Book of Revelations pertains to the past.

So you claim the 7 Churches John wrote to were NOT actual 1st century Churches in Asia Minor that Christ told John to send the Letters to?

 

[Interplanner]

JohnS, we already know that is your position. We need reasons to believe you or not. Have you read "The Dating Game" by Van Meter? It is a short article in SEARCHING TOGETHER on how to arrive at a realistic date for the Rev. It should be about 2008 or 9. It is easy to read even though dealing with all the technicalities.

 

[Metal Minister]

Mod Hat On

FOLKS, WHAT DID A NEW DAWN JUST GET DONE POSTING? IF YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS PRETERISM, UNORTHODOX THEOLOGY AWAITS. THIS WAS A THREAD TO CLARIFY AND REINFORCE THE FORUM RULES, NOT A DEBATE. THANK YOU.
Mod Hat Off

 

[Gnarwhal]

Thanks to the staff for your hard work.

I think with this message in mind, those of us whom are Partial-Preterists need to qualify any of our comments by noting that we are Partial-Preterists, which as demonstrated in the link provided by A New Dawn, is a valid and acceptable form of eschatology here at CF.

Those who disagree with Preterism would do well also to understand the difference and not paint us with broad strokes, we Partial-Preterists desire for the rules to be followed just as much as anybody else, and agree that Full/Hyper-Preterism isn't orthodox and belongs in the Unorthodox Theology forum.