Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[trophy33]

Preterism is just plain unbelief, imho.

Or, futurism is just plain unbelief of many biblical verses saying it will all happen in the first century.

The main purpose of it is to avoid watching, as we were commanded to do.

The first church was commanded to do that, not us. You are ignoring the context of biblical writings.

Preterism lacks any comprehension of eternity

Does not make any sense. Its preterism that believes we are in eternity now.

 

[robycop3]

I'm trying get you to explain what you're saying. It seems you'd rather be cryptic instead.

I'm saying that it's best that a person know as much about the future as God has revealed and about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy in our time, so as to be better witnesses for Jesus and His saving Gospel.

 

[robycop3]

I am not a Preterist but your approach stinks and your arguments come across as a rant. Your posts lack Scripture.

You have been challenged multiple times to produce Scripture to support your beliefs but have yet to come up with anything of substance.

I've posted Scriptures many times, from Daniel thru Revelation. Evidently, you haven't been reading all my posts.

 

[robycop3]

Provide a quote of any Scripture which contains the exact expression "the antichrist" referring to dispensationalism's delusional single future antichrist.

There are none, but it's very-evident that the beast will be the worst human antichrist of all time. I shall continue to believe that, & post accordingly.

 

[jgr]

There are none, but it's very-evident that the beast will be the worst human antichrist of all time. I shall continue to believe that, & post accordingly.

It's not evident in Scripture.

It does not appear in Scripture.

You're free to believe whatever you wish.

As are the cults.

 

[robycop3]

It's not evident in Scripture.

It does not appear in Scripture.

You're free to believe whatever you wish.

As are the cults.

What I believe is based upon Scriptural evidence. There's no separate beast and antichrist. The false prophet, while also an antichrist, as is anyone not FOR Christ, won't be as evil as his boss will be.

 

[rockytopva]

If we are coming back with Jesus to reign a thousand years how could we do so if we do not rise first to meet him in the air? In which the dead in Christ will rise first?

 

[jgr]

What I believe is based upon Scriptural evidence. There's no separate beast and antichrist. The false prophet, while also an antichrist, as is anyone not FOR Christ, won't be as evil as his boss will be.

Based upon Scriptural evidence, Martin Luther and the Reformers recognized and declared the apostasized papacy to be the prevailing antichrist of their time.

Through God's inspiration and empowerment, they engaged it in spiritual battle, and won.

It was due to the Reformers' fearless proclamation of that truth, often to the death, that the antichrist of the apostasized papacy was defeated.

There was no Reformer who believed in a futurized antichrist. That was a contrivance of the Jesuit counter-reformation, in an attempt to blunt the effectiveness of the Reformation message.

That is the contrivance which dispensational delusionism embraces and perpetuates today.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I've posted Scriptures many times, from Daniel thru Revelation. Evidently, you haven't been reading all my posts.

Not true. You have presented nothing convincing to support your beliefs. You are going to have to show us some Scripture that teaches (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a 3rd coming.

 

[Hammster]

Not true. You have presented nothing convincing to support your beliefs. You are going to have to show us some Scripture that teaches (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a 3rd coming.

To be fair, he does post scripture. But where the argument gets abandoned is when you show how proper hermeneutics make his argument weak. Then the discussion gets abandoned, until a few pages later where the argument gets repeated.

 

[sovereigngrace]

To be fair, he does post scripture. But where the argument gets abandoned is when you show how proper hermeneutics make his argument weak. Then the discussion gets abandoned, until a few pages later where the argument gets repeated.

I know that. But i am talking about the test he applies of other views he does not meet himself. That was my point.

 

[trophy33]

But there is for preterism, & it's long-expired.

The problem that it did not happen to be global or too literal is not the "preterist problem".

Its your problem, because you expect something that did not happen in history, but should. Jews also expected the coming of the Messiah to look differently. And then they had to invent judaism to somehow continue in their religion after the temple was destroyed and prophets ceased to exist. So some Christians invented futurism.

A preterist may not know every detail who was who and how it exactly happened, but simply trusts the words of the Bible that it somehow happened. And some events are possible to be identified even after two millenia, because they were so significant.

 

[Timtofly]

I looked up 'great tribulation' in the scripture. It really only occurs in Matthew's gospel.

Matthew 24:19-21
But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. For then there will be a great tribulation.

Looks to me anyway, that Jesus is referring to the demolition of the temple and Jerusalem.

If Jesus was about to return, why would Jesus say 'But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath'. If it was the end of all things He would not say that.

Obviously, Jesus is talking about the judgement of Israel.

I reject your interpretation of the 'great tribulation' as a world wide event.

Try reading both Matthew 24 and Luke 21, there are two distinct end time events. One Israel and one the world.

Are you suggesting the whole debate started between Luke and Matthew? Luke was a preterist and Matthew was a futurist?

 

[parousia70]

Prets try to reduce "inconvenient" Scriptures to "figurative/symbolic" status to attempt to cover their lack of evidence for their doctrine, but that won't work, either.

Says the Guy who must reduce the over 100 "inconvenient" scriptures that teach the event "must shortly come to pass, Without Delay, Is Near, At Hand, About to take place, in a very little while" to "figurative/symbolic" status to attempt to prop up his doctrine of Delay...

Maybe it's only ok when you do it?

 

[Timtofly]

The type of cloud that Jesus returns in is given in Jude. It's the same cloud that Hebrews talked about... the Old Testament believers in Christ that were raised with him

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

I think the clouds are irrelevant in the discussion of preterism because whether it was a cloud of witnesses or whether it was a water vapor cloud has no bearing on the timing. The timing was when redemption came.

Which was before the creation of the earth, so the Second Coming was in Genesis 1:1. Except Jesus was talking about a future event before the Cross happened.

The Cross was the day of Redemption. Not everyone has died yet. Until that last person dies, death has not been defeated. It takes more than two verses to make a point.

How do you reconcile 10k, when John defines 144k? Are they the same set, or a different set?

 

[Timtofly]

When comes to many of the views of eschatology, I'm pretty sure I won't know for sure in my present lifetime. I do know that I've been hearing the trib, the rap, the anti etc are right around the corner for the last 50 years.

And those since the Cross, have been hearing it for 1991 years. Meaning it still has not happened. Not that it cannot happen.

 

[Timtofly]

all Christians are partial preterists. If you answer yes to any of the following questions, you are, in fact, a partial preterist.

1.) was the Holy Spirit poured out In The last days?

Acts 2:17 In the last days, God says,
I will pour out My Spirit on all people.

2.) did Christ appear at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by his death?

Hebrews 9:26 But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself

3.) was the temple destroyed in 70ad?

Luke 21:6 As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Who is claiming the last days are over? Do partial preterist declare them over? Do partial preterist declare we are still in them? From whose perspective, and which last days are being defined?

 

[trophy33]

And those since the Cross, have been hearing it for 1991 years. Meaning it still has not happened. Not that it cannot happen.

But Bible says it will happen soon, not 2,000 years later. Thats the main problem of futurism.

 

[Timtofly]

Who was Jesus Christ of Nazareth speaking to: His Apostles.
Where was He speaking to them: In front of the Temple and at the Mt of Olives.
When was He speaking to them: First century Jerusalem and in the Apostels generation.
What was He speaking about: The end of the Temple age.
Why did He tell them this: The Apostels asked Him when the end of the age would be. He gave them several warnings as well as the escape route into the mountains.

This would be a partial Preterist view.
Blessings.

I think that would be a historist view. They did not ask when the age would end. They asked about the end of things, the time Jesus would come back and the end at that time, not the end of an age. They did not even understand about ages. Unless you are using ages like a dispensational, you can not even prove they understood their own question. God understood their question, and answered as if they asked the question properly.

So to you, was it the end of the OT age or the NT age they were asking about? Because if you do not recognize the different ages, then they were asking about the end of all things, not the end of the OT covenant. Jesus ended that at the Cross. There was no need to end it with the destruction of Jerusalem. 70AD had nothing to do with the NT and thus was never a point necessary in the NT. The second coming was about the end of the church and the fullness of the Gentiles, not the Law of Moses.

Preterist demand the end of all things is 70AD, which is clearly not the end of all things.

 

[parousia70]

Preterist demand the end of all things is 70AD, which is clearly not the end of all things.

Even in the futurist paradigm, the New Heavens and Earth abide for eternity, so whatever "end" they "demand" is still future, is clearly not the "end of all things" either, is it?

Seems that problem exists for futurists too...

Or, maybe it's different when futurists do it?