Preterism

vis....why don't you go and study it from sources that support it and figure out why some people think its holds up?

I don't think you'll get anyone speaking for a full pretorist viewpoint here. Most people have a mixed approach to escathology.

GerTzedek said:

Not only is preterism not inherantly supersessionist (replacement theology) but neither is the Catholic Church. Rome has officially repudiated this false doctrine, and is working hard to reverse its effects.

Click to expand...

visionary said:

When Yeshua told the disciples about the abomination of desolation that was soon to come to pass, did that not start the preterism ideology?

Click to expand...

Now you are blaming preterism on Yeshua?

visionary said:

So how can preterism hold water?

Click to expand...

Preterism concerns the book of Revelation. Not the gospels or the prophets of the Tenakh.

visionary said:

So how can preterism hold water?

Click to expand...

Preterism generally, IIRC, involves a misplaced theology of bodily resurrection (amongst other things). Likewise, according to Preteists, as the parousia has already happened in 70AD it implies an ongoing judgment which takes place at the death of each individual. As such, preterists suppose a spiritual Second Coming and resurrection of the body - not a physical (on both counts). Preterism (in this discussion, properly Full Preterism) is usually visciously anti-Creedal. There are, of course, legitimate debates over the nature / inspiration of the Creeds but FP usually goes to the point where they don't even want to consider possible Scriptural backing. I know that MJs generally aren't Creedal but don't presuppose a link in (my) opinions.

Dangerous stuff indeed.

Partial Preterism, on the other hand (probably one the longest standing orthodox belief) understands that 70AD was Christ's judgment against Jerusalem but not a bodily Second Coming.

Regarding things eschatological partial preterism is generally amillennial. The Orthodox, Catholics, and most mainline Protestants are usually amillennial.

Both positions are pretty much diametrically opposed to dispensational theology. Both premillennial and amillennial theology existed side-by-side with the Early Church Fathers (with a substantial number being chialistic) but this fell out of favor over time and was declared heresy at the Fourth Ecumenical Council. It should be noted that the early Church premillennialism was / is substantially different than modern dispensational premillennialism.

At any rate, this is merely by way of explanation and not an attempt to "teach" other than to explain some of the differences in eschatological theology. If I've violated any Messianic rules let me know and I'll edit into compliance...I'm sure that I'll hear from Tishri if I have.

What I know of it - it's big in certain Protestant circles, the Reformed tradition especially... It runs contrary to mainline Messianic Jewish eschatology.

Tonks said:

Partial Preterism, on the other hand (probably one the longest standing orthodox belief) understands that 70AD was Christ's judgment against Jerusalem but not a bodily Second Coming.

Click to expand...

This simply isn't true. I was a Partial Preterist for well over two dozen years, and never once believed that the destruction of the Temple was a punishment against Israel -- as my parents before me. You are blending two different doctrines: Preterism and supersessionism, and while they CAN go together, they certainly NEED NOT.

GerTzedek said:

This simply isn't true. I was a Partial Preterist for well over two dozen years, and never once believed that the destruction of the Temple was a punishment against Israel -- as my parents before me. You are blending two different doctrines: Preterism and supersessionism, and while they CAN go together, they certainly NEED NOT.

Click to expand...

I am a partial preterist and orthodox partial preterism (odd combination of words) holds to replacement theology, generally. Not all take such a hard supersessionist line as I do. Like all else there are varying degrees of belief.

At any rate this isn't my forum so PM me if you wish as this is not my place to debate.

Tonks said:

I am a partial preterist and orthodox partial preterism (odd combination of words) holds to replacement theology, generally. Not all take such a hard supersessionist line as I do. Like all else there are varying degrees of belief.

At any rate this isn't my forum so PM me if you wish as this is not my place to debate.

Click to expand...

And yet you identify as Catholic, so I know if you are faithful to the magisterium, you will not hold to supersessionism.

I'll email you. We can talk more fully. Happy to meet you, and welcome.

GT:

I had never read about your history with preterism before. Very intriguing.

About 10 years ago or so, I read a book by Gary DeMar which came out after the initial hype of the LaHaye and Jenkins rapture books. I had picked it up to see if I can debunk it (even though I hadn't a clue as to what preterism meant). Anyways... I found that there are many "valid" theological points on the preterist side. It was at this point in my life that I left eschatology as an interest.

Just thought I would share.

muffler dragon said:

GT:

I had never read about your history with preterism before. Very intriguing.

About 10 years ago or so, I read a book by Gary DeMar which came out after the initial hype of the LaHaye and Jenkins rapture books. I had picked it up to see if I can debunk it (even though I hadn't a clue as to what preterism meant). Anyways... I found that there are many "valid" theological points on the preterist side. It was at this point in my life that I left eschatology as an interest.

Just thought I would share.

Click to expand...

Well, my whole history is unusual to say the least. Remember that I was raised fundamentalist protestant, a preacher's kid, in a home that functioned like a converso home. My father and mother attended Asbury Theological Seminary, and neither wanted ANYTHING to do with the trendy new ideas about "rapture," and I still utterly reject that notion.

However, I think I personally fell over a prophecy being fulfilled and landed on my face, and it has caused me to call into question my preterist beliefs in general, at least in the form they were. More than that I won't say. My own experience and interpretation of it is NOT a good reason for anyone else to change an opinion. For myself, however, such a thing is very unnerving. I hate it when I think I have things all neatly figured out and BAM! Ooopsie, this doesn't fit, it's not even close.

Is there a reason for your continuing hatred for the Catholic Church? no matter what that reason is, it does not have a place in this kind of forum. Catholics are fellow travelors along this road to redemption.

Give it a break and let's discuss something worth while.

visionary said:

Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the great harlot) and the conversion of the empire to the church.
Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Cæsar Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

visionary said:

One of my biggest questions is what do we do without a prophecy for us for the last 2000 years?.. let alone for who knows how much longer.

Click to expand...

Remember I'm no longer quite the preterist I was. I've become a "Panmillenialist" -- it will all pan out in the end.

Basically, Revelation is not the only source of prophecy in the scriptures. Yeshua says things. There is plenty in the book of Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekial, etc.

In addition to that, let's consider what the REAL basics of believer's eschatology is: Don't lose hope -- God wins. Our Lord and Messiah will come again. Be ready.

MJ eschatology particulars is basically concerned with the role Israel is to play -- how the age of the gentiles has come to fullness and the age of the Jews is beginning, and how this hastens the return of the Messiah. Of this I'm absolutely convinced.



If you are truly curious about how eschatology can work differently than you are used to, you might get a lot out of reading what protestants had to say on this subject before rapture doctrine was formulated in the 1800's. Because my family was Wesleyan/Arminian fundamentalists, closely associated with the Church of the Nazarene, I grew up without any of that stuff. Here is a link on Wesley's eschatology, and a link to a pastor in the Church of the Nazarene writing about premillenialism:

THE DESTINY OF MAN IN JOHN WESLEY'S ESCHATOLOGY
JERRY L. MERCER, M. Th.
(Assistant Professor of Religion, Azusa Pacific College)
http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/01-05/02-7.htm

Wild Truth Reeling But Erect: Dispensationalism, the Church, and the Scriptures
http://home.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/wildtruth.htm

Oh, and I am not advocating the Church of the Nazarene (although I like them very much) or Wesleyanism or Arminianism. This is all pretty peripheral stuff for MJ. Some MJ's might agree with this, others not.