Ed : "We must not allow Preterism to become a movement. It must be a way to understand scripture - putting things into their proper first century context. When we do, we can share scriptural understanding with others without having to totally attack their beliefs.
I've done so in previous bible studies and got a decent response. But if I were to go in with guns blazing I would not receive a good reception. Scott Hahn's work on Revelation, the Parousia, the Eucharist, etc. is a good way to show our futurist brothers the truths of Preterism, without having to say "you are either for us or against us." I fear that attitude has not only developed in the Preterist camp towards "outsiders" but it is now happening within the camp itself."
planetpreterist.com/news-5234.html#31053
R. C. Sproul: Differences between Preterists
R. C. Sproul: The Last Days According to Jesus (Page 157)
Invisible History: Who Can Argue With That?
ThomasS "It was not a man that was destroyed at the Parousia but a demonic spirit that worked through a man. spiritually -- but you do not have any proof for your idea. Facts are: (1) the Roman Empire did not fall in 70 CE. In fact, it grew more powerful after 70 CE; (2) the man that you think the invisible evil spirit was working through was not killed in 70 CE. He became more powerful, viz. emperor, after 70 CE. But I guess you can always make the following argument: IF the interpretation does not fit what is know from visible history, you may say that it was about invisible history......
When they/you say something happened in the invisible world, I cannot argue with that, right? :)"
planetpreterist.com/news-5441.html#38448
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/invisible-history-who-can-argue-with.html
When they/you say something happened in the invisible world, I cannot argue with that, right? :)"
planetpreterist.com/news-5441.html#38448
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/invisible-history-who-can-argue-with.html
New Covenant Age with No Historical Lines??
Chris Livingstone "My problem is with Tami's seeming idea that the New Covenant Age, which would likely include the New Covenant itself, began only at or after 70 AD. Of course, I've already pointed out many texts and points from the NT that make clear that the New Covenant was initiated and was being enjoyed well-before 70 AD, so to invent a New Covenant "Age" which began only after 70 AD seems silly to me."
It continues:
Hebrews 11:13 "These" all died in faith (dead OT saints), not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
The Old Testament saints did look for, through Faith, to the "Day" of Messiah's Kingdom. But that "Day" was not 70 AD.
And, Hebrews 11 tells us that they may have obtained what they were looking for, pre-70 AD:
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Hebrews 12 continues by calling Jesus the Finisher Of "Our" (the living NT believers) Faith.
Then Hebrews 12 goes on by saying to living believers, pre-70 AD, in contradistinction to the dead OT saints, that: 22 But ye (unlike the dead OT saints, who had to die first) are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
It's just ridiculous for you to suggest that Forgiveness from Sin occurred only after 70 AD for believers in the 1st Century AD.
And they (OT saints), as well pre-70 AD Christians, and ongoing generations of true believers all obtained what they were looking for.Mike, you don't really believe that the Hall of Faith and "substance" of what was "hoped" for revolved around the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, do you?
Maybe I'm just not getting why Preterists seem to need to create an artificial division between The New Covenant VS The New Covenant Age.
It continues:
Hebrews 11:13 "These" all died in faith (dead OT saints), not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
The Old Testament saints did look for, through Faith, to the "Day" of Messiah's Kingdom. But that "Day" was not 70 AD.
And, Hebrews 11 tells us that they may have obtained what they were looking for, pre-70 AD:
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Hebrews 12 continues by calling Jesus the Finisher Of "Our" (the living NT believers) Faith.
Then Hebrews 12 goes on by saying to living believers, pre-70 AD, in contradistinction to the dead OT saints, that: 22 But ye (unlike the dead OT saints, who had to die first) are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
It's just ridiculous for you to suggest that Forgiveness from Sin occurred only after 70 AD for believers in the 1st Century AD.
And they (OT saints), as well pre-70 AD Christians, and ongoing generations of true believers all obtained what they were looking for.Mike, you don't really believe that the Hall of Faith and "substance" of what was "hoped" for revolved around the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, do you?
Maybe I'm just not getting why Preterists seem to need to create an artificial division between The New Covenant VS The New Covenant Age.
Now how could Christ say those 70 were already in the Lambs Book of Life or that He saw Satan fall out of Heaven at that time, since Rev 21 and 70 AD were still 40 years away? I'm just saying that your supposition that "the New Covenant Age which began at AD 70" is unfounded.
planetpreterist.com/news-5448.html#38459
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-covenant-age-with-no-historical.html
Preterism: A Perversion of the Gospel
Tom G. "Preterism is clearly demonstrated to be the necessary and certain conclusion with the time statements in scripture as the cause. These time statements occur in many different places in scripture and in many different contexts and if the necessary conclusion to all or any one of these time statements is not preteristic than preterism is not a true doctrine. But that conformity of preterism to the time statements is not sufficient proof of the truth of preterism, in addition preterism must be demonstrated that it is the necessary and certain conclusion of the gospel that Paul preached. . .Without that demonstration or the inability to demonstrate that relationship, preterism is presumed to be false and a perversion of the gospel that Paul preached, with the resultant accursedness of anyone who would preach or teach it."
Tom G. "I think that the perversion of the Gospel of Christ is the Gospel of anti-Christ."
planetpreterist.com/news-5428.html#37621
(2 Timothy 4:6-8) For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
SO, Paul was not preaching 70AD, but preaching faithful living, living sacrifice, and crossing the finish line which was "at hand". UMM, I guess this means Preterism is presumed to be false and a perversion of the gospel that Paul preached.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/preterism-perversion-of-gospel.html
Tom G. "I think that the perversion of the Gospel of Christ is the Gospel of anti-Christ."
planetpreterist.com/news-5428.html#37621
(2 Timothy 4:6-8) For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
SO, Paul was not preaching 70AD, but preaching faithful living, living sacrifice, and crossing the finish line which was "at hand". UMM, I guess this means Preterism is presumed to be false and a perversion of the gospel that Paul preached.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/preterism-perversion-of-gospel.html
(Mark 3:25) “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
(Updated 2/25, Thanks to some recent comments towards me, I have decided to repost this entry.)
The creation of this blog is the direct result of interaction with the people listed here. Full Preterist leaders have NO MERCY towards those who hold their own view, no less those who disagree with them. Everyone is open to attack and, in virtually every case, if the conversation is extended, it becomes personal. There is no way to communicate how many problems Preterism faces – it is like a rebellious youth who refuses to own up to addictions. But the shallowness – and, ultimately, unChristlikeness, are displayed through the comments below. This site has always intended to hold a mirror up to these types of people. To speak in a “language” they can understand. And the accusations toward me are hypocritical to say the least.
At this time, the names are being withheld, because the point can be made without that unnecessary damage. If I were as evil as made out to be, this would never be the case. My goal remains the re-examination of the views, not the destruction of the individuals.
(Matthew 23:28-32) "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. "Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
____________________________________________________________
Ed Hassertt: "Dr Birks, you have shown yourself to be a moron with a lot of letters after his name!" "Are you deliberately being obtuse and idiotic? No verse of scripture can be exegeted in isolation from the rest of scripture, to do so is Gnostic and bordering on satanic! You reject the very nature of scripture itself and demand Dave interpret scripture according to your false view of scripture. Then you lie claiming you agree with using scripture to interpret scripture! How can you, in one sentence demand Dave not use scripture to interpret scripture and then in the next sentence claim we must use scripture to interpret scripture. Either you are being sinfully deceptive or are just too ignorant to have an intelligence conversation on the topic.
Davo: "Your world-vision is so stinted and narrow that your "neighbors" are obviously only in-house."
Jason Bradfield "Dee Dee is an ignorant coward who, like Rod, just loves to destroy people as she sits all high and mighty on her throne, insisting that us little village people dare not approach her."
Sam Frost "Virgil and I had a wonderful phone conversation today. We are pretty much in agreement. As far as Jeff's continued crap, I can't deal with it. But, Jeff Vaughn does not represent Planet Preterist. He is just one ignorant voice. I have to keep that in perspective."
"So, that's the criteria now for being a "jerk;" that we fought with people? In case you haven't noticed Rich, you have a fair number of people that you have fought with. But, we all know it can't be you - you are so smart after all. You make asinine statements and then call people "jerks" when they challenge you. You are incapable of defending your views with scripture, logic or reason. You merely go straight for whining and name-calling."
"If you cannot see that in your proposition of "in the dust of the earth" being a physical location of dead bodies that will be "raised" as not being a physical resurrection by implication, the I guess I see why you resort to the whining and name-calling. "
"I feel that you've arrived at a logically invalid conclusion concerning my logically valid assertion . . .""You keep claiming that you understand my position – it is evident that you don't; you are drawing your assumptive conclusions off your own faulty presuppositions."
"For heaven's sake bro. You're an idiot. Stop whining. Can't you make one single solitary point concerning what they wrote? I'm trying hard to be gentle and inclusive, here but your retardness is very pressing on me...idiot! "
"Your fundamental beliefs seem to be iron-clad and carven in stone! Perhaps that's the difference here...dynamic, fluctuating belief systems vs. a static, calcified one. The question is...on whose side do the Scriptures weigh in on as the ultimate Authority in establishing the veracity of that position?"
"I am not sure if Kurt is interested in any exchange; he likes to shout out what his perception of others is while he is covering his ears going "la la la la." My kids do that sometime too. :)"
"I simply raised that to show by way of example how inconsistent you are in the dogmatic claims you make and how such fly in the face of other conventions – again, just like your nonsense claim "it is not permissible to substitute one scriptural term for a different term than the one used by the author" about "the kingdom", that even Jesus himself by His very words, proves your novel notion wrong."
"Furthermore, like them, you now proceed with the childish baloney..."like he's a little wannabe Sam trying to suck up to his master."What the hell does that have to do with JL calling Sam a pathetic loser, a gnostic, a fool, and every other name he's called the man simply because Sam doesn't agree with his interpretation?"
"It is quite evident therefore that Mr. Stevens, when it becomes convenient, chooses to overlook doctrine for financial gain and does not hesitate to ignore even the most liberal of positions regarding the account of Genesis to make a few extra dollars. This, dear reader is the hypocrisy we are willing to expose within the Preterist movement, and I am hoping that by doing so we will reinforce the open nature of our movement and reclaim the ground lost to dogmatism, hypocrisy and judgmental attitudes."
"The second reason is that his logic and argumentation that he has given in the past to refute the confused and vagueness of Virgil's theology/eschatology, has now become meaningless and to be quite frank, hypocritical."
"If you are posting your complaints on multiple public lists, the members of those lists have the right to comment. If you wanted to keep your discourse private, you had that choice, but instead decided to involve all of us in the airing of your dirty laundry. Grow up and stop being a childish whiner! If you blanket bomb multiple lists for weeks and don’t expect people to comment on your posts you are either stupid or so self-absorbed you cannot see reality!"
"We have been cordial and answered your questions. You have responded with rudeness. Quite frankly, you are an ass. Please take us off your lists. You are a mean coward whose method of interpretation and begging for money is sickening. Don't write me again unless you write to apologize...sincerely apologize, not this fake crap you have offered up. It's disgusting, and your brand of Christianity is Pharisaically disgusting as well. I want nothing to do with it."
"If you have not stayed in touch, do you not care if people go through difficult times? Your response here is that YOU are blaming "my hateful"ness on what is going on in my private life. HUH?!?!? You HAVE GOT TO be kidding, Mike. Do you think that I respond to the doctors that way? What about the nurses? What about people that are actually concerned; even the people that I do not care to communicate with? Every thing that you write is so nasty. Not one person on this list, at least that contributes to it consistently, that I am aware has asked me, "Dallas, how is your daughter doing?" All the while knowing what she COULD be going through. Speaking of "it sounds like you and your partner need to spend more time with your family members and less time on this list trying to be a critic of things you know nothing about"(.. at least you put a question mark after it.) Do you think that you actually could guess how many hours that I have spent by my daughter's beside? What about my friend; do you have any idea what it is like to lose your wife to cancer? What a mother? Instead of spewing your angst (or whatever it is) on me, did you ever think of asking me "how are they doing?" Or making a nice comment about them. Do you ever take your eyes off of yourself, even for a brief moment?"
1) FACT: You and John have BOTH made the same false accusation without exegetical evidence. FACT: I could care less if you are working together privately or not - that wasn't my point. FACT: On this list, you BOTH have made the same type of comments/accusations. No slander on my part - good try though - don't seek to place your faults and sins on me. 2) Dallas, "thou art the man" - "if you don't know, don't speak" "you prove yourself every time you open your mouth." 3) From this post and others, it sounds like you and your partner need to spend more time with your family members and less time on this list trying to be a critic of things you know nothing about? Just a thought. * I think that sums up everything I have to say to you Dallas. You remain to be a very hateful man from my perspective. I realize you may be going through a lot in your personal life, but that is no justification for your tone and comments. Trying to believe the best of you, that is my take. But your level of communication just doesn't even warrant a response. If you have any questions or critical comments, please do not direct them toward me. You can always ask Roderick "solo" Edwards or someone else on this list.
“Sam is a RINO. He thinks he is reformed; he thinks he is Calvinist; he thinks he is ______; he is Reformed In Name Only. He is also a liar, vow breaker, a coveter.”
"Once again you are speaking ignorantly (without any real knowledge) of any association, or lack thereof, that I have with John"
"watch your family in Indiana, buddy. You start throwing around comments about me or my friends and you have earned your just reward. Trust me on this one. If I see one more comment in this fashion, you *and* your family will ponder these things you have done for the rest of your life. I have three very good friends from my past in your neck of the woods who will consider it a pleasure working for their old friend. Last warning."
Using the eschatology message board as a springboard to further your rapture cause and try to discredit me was highly dishonest and very poor debate etiquette. Granted, it doesn't worry me because anyone who knows the content of eschatology.com is well-aware that the message board has nothing to do with the practice and philosophy Iteach. Everyone also knows that spam is a huge issue for messageboards, and unfortunately that particular message board has no spamcontrol. And I do not have the time nor desire to monitor thousandsof spam."Perhaps you were somewhat enticed by those spams. That is between you and God."
“Evil...where do you draw the line. You talk in circles when you claim. That God looks at you through the righteousness in Christ but then still speak as if God MUST pour out his wrath upon all evil as if it didn't happen at the cross. It's your own thought pattern that negates what you believe.”
“ou are a lying bastard. I see that you have no interest in the truth or anyone but yourself for that matter. I cannot believe you can sit here and say what you are saying with a straight face. I was seeking some fair treatment, but if you are too insecure to provide that then I can leave without fear that I am leaving anything worthwhile behind. You are just a loser whose only life is in cyberspace so forgive me for not giving a shit what you think about me.”
“You now I am getting really tired of your bullshit hypocrisy. These two spent days insulting my occupation claiming I was a degenerate boss and claiming I was trying to use this forum to make a profit and you said absolutely nothing to them. Then when I get angry enough to respond you spend days making little childish comments like this to condemn me for that. What is your lying about what happened, or misrepresenting me, or claiming my reaction to them for their bullying was somehow worse than their bullying. Your are so full of shit.”
“But what Virgil doesn’t tell anyone is that on the “John Calvin” page on Wikipedia, Virgil himself, who is an “unpublished author,” has posted a “self-promoting” link to an inflammatory and lie-packed article that Virgil himself wrote and posted on his own website. In other words, Virgil is spending his days judging and condemning the works of believers (on Wikipedia) while his own works fail to meet the standard that he himself is using to judge and condemn the works of believers. But if this were not bad enough, while Virgil is deleting links to biblical articles on other websites (Wikipedia), he is at the same time literally stealing large sections of believers’ articles (such as my article “Baptism Now Saves You”) and is posting them on his own website against the requests of the authors. Why do the words “liar,” “thief” and “hypocrite” come to mind?
“Virgil Vaduva lied to you, Yuser. I did not insert a "spam" link, or a "self-promoting deep-link," as Virgil said. I have repeatedly inserted a _legitimate_ link to my _well-sourced_ and _factual_ article critical of Brian McLaren. The article does not mention me or any "ministry" of mine. It is 100% about Brian McLaren. Here is the link:
preteristcosmos.com/mclaren.html
The _only_ problem is that Virgil Vaduva keeps removing the link, because Virgil practically worships Brian McLaren. I am not exaggerating. Virgil is EXTREMELY biased when it comes to his hero Brian McLaren and the "Emergent church." Virgil Vaduva demonizes all who tell the black-and-white truth about Brian McLaren.”
“You really are an arrogant ass!” “a whack job” “Self-righteousness seems to be the only thing you have going for you. and now “a hypocrite” “a sophist”"Sam likes to run over folks and I think we could proably find him under the truck on this one when you got finished. I try to stay as open minded to these guys as best I can and give them the benifit of the doubt but Sam's logic is the most convuluted mess I have ever heard from one person. He says he is highly trained and read in logic but if the world was built upon his understanding then I'm afraid man would have gone the way of the Neanterthals. His thinking just blows ones mind. Only his mother would buy into this logic that he professes. Oh well maybe Jason and Michael B as well."You hypocrite! I’m going to moderate you now, Mike [Bennett].
Preterist T shirt slogans
“We still can’t agree on Genesis 1:1"
"Change your views and we will call you every name under the sun"
"Isnt he/she PATHETIC ?"
"Preterism, excommunicating more people than the catholic church"
"Preterism, 45 strong and still declining"
"Preterism, we are still learning but dammit your wrong"
"I stood up for this man over and over again, going to bat with him,believing his lies of persecution and abuse and supporting him to th nthdegree.What was my repayment? a knife in the back and him sending all theseemails to others talking about how evil we are.Mental illness is a serious issue so I am to making light of it, but Rodreally needs some help, he is delusional, and really seems to be bipolaror at least suffer from sever depression."
"I'm simply tired of what I once saw as a group solidly focused on the > Bible having become nothing but a front group for liars, unethical, > licentious, antinomian, syncretistic, profane, often jelly-spine > people who now seem to desire unity over truth - even unity around > falsehoods & speculations." "You have on your web site accused full Preterists of being guilty of the Hymenaeus heresy. I charge you before the throne of Christ Himself with doing the work of satan.. I wish I had never read you web site.. I hate this very much but I will warn you that if you ignore what I have just written God will indeed judge you for it."
"You thrive on attention - in fact you are nothing without it. You are always claiming you do what you do "for the glory of God" and out of "love." What a total crock. If the rest of you want to watch Roderick eat grass for 7 years, or further apostatize, be my guest. I just don't have time to read such foaming at the mouth/key strokes."
"Although your misrepresentations are clearly calling attention to your “cause”, they are so skewed that they don't do your credibility any favors." "And you display the classic signs of an abused spouse. " "Most of your articles (I only say most because I have not read them all) are so far from reality that it's difficult to understand what is motivating you. It can't be truth. "
"Your site is a tomb of slander, lies and vicious attacks from a person who has no talent, or skills" "In other words, your a IDIOT"
"Well my copy of Beyond Creation Science arrived today and I was not at all surprised to find no exegesis of Genesis. Comments regarding verses, yes, but any real exegesis of Genesis - not at all.I would say that JL said that there would be an exegesis of Chapters 1 to 3 and the chapters on the flood but even when I reference exactly where he says something, he doesn't respond without saying I'm lying etc... so I won't bother."
"I've got no problem with dissent but I've tried to tell you that God is not pleased with distortions and fabrications. At some point they must be deemed intentional and God will hold all accountable who defame His word and the words of His followers." "Come on man...you don't see it? It has "Tim Martin" written all over it?? You babbling pathetic loser... SHHHEEESHHH..."
"So no JL, i don't take you serious. You're making stuff up. You're the one with the chip on the shoulder. It is impossible for you to have any decent conversation before you go linking someone with these nut-jobs over here or those nut-jobs over there...dude is a racist, Clark is a gnostic, Sam's a pathetic loser."
"You now even admit that the syllogism you created was stupid and false, using your own reasoning.How many times does it take for you to admit that you were caught asking for an answer to a stupid unscriptural question and now you can't back it up with a real scriptural question?That seems to be your MO, inventing stupid reasons and blaming them on someone else."
"I am sooo tired of platitudes and the inane people who use them. I mean how stupid can people be?? "
"Look, if you are going to accuse me of eisegesis, then spell it correctly. If you are smart enough to know the difference between eisegesis and exegesis, then you should know how to spell them. Otherwise, don't bring it up. Quit your whining about this crap, and present a cogent argument for a physical resurrection in Dan 12, rather than a questionable interpretation of what "dust of the earth/land" means." "Screw you Ed. Wasn't whining. Man you can be the biggest jerk I've ever come across on the Internet."
"Christ is not going to build His Church on a person (Peter) Parker. He is building it on Himself, hence the body of Christ(not body of Peter). Talk about willful ignorance. You would make a great Mormon. You buy into such crap so easily. Give up your delusions dude. Your pride is not worth it."
"So, it is not that I haven't, more telling would be that you just refuse to accept anything unless it agrees with you. So, spear me that whole line of crap. It's clear your mind is already closed and blinded to anything other than what you want to hear on that topic. Everything else, is just words from people too blind to see your truth."
"I do know how to spell them. I notice you changed the error. It wasn't that I misspelled anything. My mind merely substituted a different word for the word I meant to use. Are you now telling me you're so perfect you never make mistakes like that? I guess I should take the time every time you make a mistake and then tell you to drop the argument, because after all, since you made the mistake you should bring it up. SHeeeeesh, Ed you're a freakin' jerk. No wonder you get into fights with everyone here. "
"sheesh, you get me. This whole conversation has had nothing to do with whether or not universalism is true or not true, or heretical or not, or even biblical or not. It only consisted of whether or not you are one, period. Your entire argument this whole time is why you are not, and now suddenly you are proud of it. Like how can I say it, YOUR A FREAKIN' JERK!"
"I'm continually amazed and perplexed by your persistent sniping. Do you not understand how cowardly it is to hide behind a blog without revealing your name? Is there never any shame in the way you mischaracterize the motivations of those you know nothing about? Your venom is all over your sleeve. All you appear to live for is to distort what you apparently never understood."
"As for Norm, what the hell do you mean, man? When did I EVER SAY that I did not find science useful? This is why I am convinced that you guys have not studied or read much philosophy of science. I have for almost 15 years now. Amish? Huh? Wha? Just because science cannot make absolute statements (which many of the greatist minds have stated,which I have quoted in my articles on science, which you guys have never read, though you say you have), does not mean that science is not USEFUL....hammers are useful...Noah found one useful for arc building. Looking through a magnifying glass is useful, but don't expect to come to any ABSOLUTE conclusions (conclusions true always, all the time, in all possible worlds, every time). This is so simple, really. I have a suggestion for you guys...pick up a book on logic, and read about inductive logic. Better yet, google "the problem of induction" and you will find a man named David Hume....a great philosopher....and you see PROVEN that scientific methodology cannot EVER come to an ABSOLUTE statements about ANYTHING. Now, excuse me, I have to go warm my food in a scientific contraption called a microwave."
"I love what the Scriptures say. I just reject your pathetic interpretation, just as I reject the pathetic attempts of futurists when dealing with the NT time statements."
"You expect me to leave you alone, yet you continue to attack me with your lies and falsehoods. Pathetic."
"But here's the real question Rich - where have you seen me call JL a 'fool', a 'gnostic', a 'pathetic loser', and now, get this - here's the latest from JL - Sam is not even a brother in Christ anymore."
"1. I don't believe half of what you write anymore. Most of these "slurs" are your invention. Over on my forum, you painted one of Sam's posts as though he was implying that you deny miracles and that is NOT what he said. It's like you try to turn every single comment by him into some attack against you personally...so no, i don't buy half of your accusations most of the time.2. Regardless of Sam or I, what do we have to do with YOU calling someone a "pathetic loser"?Is this situational ethics or something? You sound like Adam, "but, but the woman thou gave me, she...." blah, blah, blah.It's uncalled for JL - bottom line. I don't care how Sam treats you. He's not your standard. I am not your standard."
"You professionals won't do the work. That leaves it to us amateurs.You are a pathetic joke."
"You accuse Sam of being inconsistent, yet it is your view that is.You accuse Sam of being "illogical" but it is you that uses fallacies often in your writing.There is nothing "illogical" or even "inconsistent" about Sam's conclusions " "Again Tom you are very confused. You have to ignore so much of the bible to come to that conclusion. "
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/01/mark-325-if-house-is-divided-against.html
The creation of this blog is the direct result of interaction with the people listed here. Full Preterist leaders have NO MERCY towards those who hold their own view, no less those who disagree with them. Everyone is open to attack and, in virtually every case, if the conversation is extended, it becomes personal. There is no way to communicate how many problems Preterism faces – it is like a rebellious youth who refuses to own up to addictions. But the shallowness – and, ultimately, unChristlikeness, are displayed through the comments below. This site has always intended to hold a mirror up to these types of people. To speak in a “language” they can understand. And the accusations toward me are hypocritical to say the least.
At this time, the names are being withheld, because the point can be made without that unnecessary damage. If I were as evil as made out to be, this would never be the case. My goal remains the re-examination of the views, not the destruction of the individuals.
(Matthew 23:28-32) "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. "Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
____________________________________________________________
Ed Hassertt: "Dr Birks, you have shown yourself to be a moron with a lot of letters after his name!" "Are you deliberately being obtuse and idiotic? No verse of scripture can be exegeted in isolation from the rest of scripture, to do so is Gnostic and bordering on satanic! You reject the very nature of scripture itself and demand Dave interpret scripture according to your false view of scripture. Then you lie claiming you agree with using scripture to interpret scripture! How can you, in one sentence demand Dave not use scripture to interpret scripture and then in the next sentence claim we must use scripture to interpret scripture. Either you are being sinfully deceptive or are just too ignorant to have an intelligence conversation on the topic.
Davo: "Your world-vision is so stinted and narrow that your "neighbors" are obviously only in-house."
Jason Bradfield "Dee Dee is an ignorant coward who, like Rod, just loves to destroy people as she sits all high and mighty on her throne, insisting that us little village people dare not approach her."
Sam Frost "Virgil and I had a wonderful phone conversation today. We are pretty much in agreement. As far as Jeff's continued crap, I can't deal with it. But, Jeff Vaughn does not represent Planet Preterist. He is just one ignorant voice. I have to keep that in perspective."
"So, that's the criteria now for being a "jerk;" that we fought with people? In case you haven't noticed Rich, you have a fair number of people that you have fought with. But, we all know it can't be you - you are so smart after all. You make asinine statements and then call people "jerks" when they challenge you. You are incapable of defending your views with scripture, logic or reason. You merely go straight for whining and name-calling."
"If you cannot see that in your proposition of "in the dust of the earth" being a physical location of dead bodies that will be "raised" as not being a physical resurrection by implication, the I guess I see why you resort to the whining and name-calling. "
"I feel that you've arrived at a logically invalid conclusion concerning my logically valid assertion . . .""You keep claiming that you understand my position – it is evident that you don't; you are drawing your assumptive conclusions off your own faulty presuppositions."
"For heaven's sake bro. You're an idiot. Stop whining. Can't you make one single solitary point concerning what they wrote? I'm trying hard to be gentle and inclusive, here but your retardness is very pressing on me...idiot! "
"Your fundamental beliefs seem to be iron-clad and carven in stone! Perhaps that's the difference here...dynamic, fluctuating belief systems vs. a static, calcified one. The question is...on whose side do the Scriptures weigh in on as the ultimate Authority in establishing the veracity of that position?"
"I am not sure if Kurt is interested in any exchange; he likes to shout out what his perception of others is while he is covering his ears going "la la la la." My kids do that sometime too. :)"
"I simply raised that to show by way of example how inconsistent you are in the dogmatic claims you make and how such fly in the face of other conventions – again, just like your nonsense claim "it is not permissible to substitute one scriptural term for a different term than the one used by the author" about "the kingdom", that even Jesus himself by His very words, proves your novel notion wrong."
"Furthermore, like them, you now proceed with the childish baloney..."like he's a little wannabe Sam trying to suck up to his master."What the hell does that have to do with JL calling Sam a pathetic loser, a gnostic, a fool, and every other name he's called the man simply because Sam doesn't agree with his interpretation?"
"It is quite evident therefore that Mr. Stevens, when it becomes convenient, chooses to overlook doctrine for financial gain and does not hesitate to ignore even the most liberal of positions regarding the account of Genesis to make a few extra dollars. This, dear reader is the hypocrisy we are willing to expose within the Preterist movement, and I am hoping that by doing so we will reinforce the open nature of our movement and reclaim the ground lost to dogmatism, hypocrisy and judgmental attitudes."
"The second reason is that his logic and argumentation that he has given in the past to refute the confused and vagueness of Virgil's theology/eschatology, has now become meaningless and to be quite frank, hypocritical."
"If you are posting your complaints on multiple public lists, the members of those lists have the right to comment. If you wanted to keep your discourse private, you had that choice, but instead decided to involve all of us in the airing of your dirty laundry. Grow up and stop being a childish whiner! If you blanket bomb multiple lists for weeks and don’t expect people to comment on your posts you are either stupid or so self-absorbed you cannot see reality!"
"We have been cordial and answered your questions. You have responded with rudeness. Quite frankly, you are an ass. Please take us off your lists. You are a mean coward whose method of interpretation and begging for money is sickening. Don't write me again unless you write to apologize...sincerely apologize, not this fake crap you have offered up. It's disgusting, and your brand of Christianity is Pharisaically disgusting as well. I want nothing to do with it."
"If you have not stayed in touch, do you not care if people go through difficult times? Your response here is that YOU are blaming "my hateful"ness on what is going on in my private life. HUH?!?!? You HAVE GOT TO be kidding, Mike. Do you think that I respond to the doctors that way? What about the nurses? What about people that are actually concerned; even the people that I do not care to communicate with? Every thing that you write is so nasty. Not one person on this list, at least that contributes to it consistently, that I am aware has asked me, "Dallas, how is your daughter doing?" All the while knowing what she COULD be going through. Speaking of "it sounds like you and your partner need to spend more time with your family members and less time on this list trying to be a critic of things you know nothing about"(.. at least you put a question mark after it.) Do you think that you actually could guess how many hours that I have spent by my daughter's beside? What about my friend; do you have any idea what it is like to lose your wife to cancer? What a mother? Instead of spewing your angst (or whatever it is) on me, did you ever think of asking me "how are they doing?" Or making a nice comment about them. Do you ever take your eyes off of yourself, even for a brief moment?"
1) FACT: You and John have BOTH made the same false accusation without exegetical evidence. FACT: I could care less if you are working together privately or not - that wasn't my point. FACT: On this list, you BOTH have made the same type of comments/accusations. No slander on my part - good try though - don't seek to place your faults and sins on me. 2) Dallas, "thou art the man" - "if you don't know, don't speak" "you prove yourself every time you open your mouth." 3) From this post and others, it sounds like you and your partner need to spend more time with your family members and less time on this list trying to be a critic of things you know nothing about? Just a thought. * I think that sums up everything I have to say to you Dallas. You remain to be a very hateful man from my perspective. I realize you may be going through a lot in your personal life, but that is no justification for your tone and comments. Trying to believe the best of you, that is my take. But your level of communication just doesn't even warrant a response. If you have any questions or critical comments, please do not direct them toward me. You can always ask Roderick "solo" Edwards or someone else on this list.
“Sam is a RINO. He thinks he is reformed; he thinks he is Calvinist; he thinks he is ______; he is Reformed In Name Only. He is also a liar, vow breaker, a coveter.”
"Once again you are speaking ignorantly (without any real knowledge) of any association, or lack thereof, that I have with John"
"watch your family in Indiana, buddy. You start throwing around comments about me or my friends and you have earned your just reward. Trust me on this one. If I see one more comment in this fashion, you *and* your family will ponder these things you have done for the rest of your life. I have three very good friends from my past in your neck of the woods who will consider it a pleasure working for their old friend. Last warning."
Using the eschatology message board as a springboard to further your rapture cause and try to discredit me was highly dishonest and very poor debate etiquette. Granted, it doesn't worry me because anyone who knows the content of eschatology.com is well-aware that the message board has nothing to do with the practice and philosophy Iteach. Everyone also knows that spam is a huge issue for messageboards, and unfortunately that particular message board has no spamcontrol. And I do not have the time nor desire to monitor thousandsof spam."Perhaps you were somewhat enticed by those spams. That is between you and God."
“Evil...where do you draw the line. You talk in circles when you claim. That God looks at you through the righteousness in Christ but then still speak as if God MUST pour out his wrath upon all evil as if it didn't happen at the cross. It's your own thought pattern that negates what you believe.”
“ou are a lying bastard. I see that you have no interest in the truth or anyone but yourself for that matter. I cannot believe you can sit here and say what you are saying with a straight face. I was seeking some fair treatment, but if you are too insecure to provide that then I can leave without fear that I am leaving anything worthwhile behind. You are just a loser whose only life is in cyberspace so forgive me for not giving a shit what you think about me.”
“You now I am getting really tired of your bullshit hypocrisy. These two spent days insulting my occupation claiming I was a degenerate boss and claiming I was trying to use this forum to make a profit and you said absolutely nothing to them. Then when I get angry enough to respond you spend days making little childish comments like this to condemn me for that. What is your lying about what happened, or misrepresenting me, or claiming my reaction to them for their bullying was somehow worse than their bullying. Your are so full of shit.”
“But what Virgil doesn’t tell anyone is that on the “John Calvin” page on Wikipedia, Virgil himself, who is an “unpublished author,” has posted a “self-promoting” link to an inflammatory and lie-packed article that Virgil himself wrote and posted on his own website. In other words, Virgil is spending his days judging and condemning the works of believers (on Wikipedia) while his own works fail to meet the standard that he himself is using to judge and condemn the works of believers. But if this were not bad enough, while Virgil is deleting links to biblical articles on other websites (Wikipedia), he is at the same time literally stealing large sections of believers’ articles (such as my article “Baptism Now Saves You”) and is posting them on his own website against the requests of the authors. Why do the words “liar,” “thief” and “hypocrite” come to mind?
“Virgil Vaduva lied to you, Yuser. I did not insert a "spam" link, or a "self-promoting deep-link," as Virgil said. I have repeatedly inserted a _legitimate_ link to my _well-sourced_ and _factual_ article critical of Brian McLaren. The article does not mention me or any "ministry" of mine. It is 100% about Brian McLaren. Here is the link:
preteristcosmos.com/mclaren.html
The _only_ problem is that Virgil Vaduva keeps removing the link, because Virgil practically worships Brian McLaren. I am not exaggerating. Virgil is EXTREMELY biased when it comes to his hero Brian McLaren and the "Emergent church." Virgil Vaduva demonizes all who tell the black-and-white truth about Brian McLaren.”
“You really are an arrogant ass!” “a whack job” “Self-righteousness seems to be the only thing you have going for you. and now “a hypocrite” “a sophist”"Sam likes to run over folks and I think we could proably find him under the truck on this one when you got finished. I try to stay as open minded to these guys as best I can and give them the benifit of the doubt but Sam's logic is the most convuluted mess I have ever heard from one person. He says he is highly trained and read in logic but if the world was built upon his understanding then I'm afraid man would have gone the way of the Neanterthals. His thinking just blows ones mind. Only his mother would buy into this logic that he professes. Oh well maybe Jason and Michael B as well."You hypocrite! I’m going to moderate you now, Mike [Bennett].
Preterist T shirt slogans
“We still can’t agree on Genesis 1:1"
"Change your views and we will call you every name under the sun"
"Isnt he/she PATHETIC ?"
"Preterism, excommunicating more people than the catholic church"
"Preterism, 45 strong and still declining"
"Preterism, we are still learning but dammit your wrong"
"I stood up for this man over and over again, going to bat with him,believing his lies of persecution and abuse and supporting him to th nthdegree.What was my repayment? a knife in the back and him sending all theseemails to others talking about how evil we are.Mental illness is a serious issue so I am to making light of it, but Rodreally needs some help, he is delusional, and really seems to be bipolaror at least suffer from sever depression."
"I'm simply tired of what I once saw as a group solidly focused on the > Bible having become nothing but a front group for liars, unethical, > licentious, antinomian, syncretistic, profane, often jelly-spine > people who now seem to desire unity over truth - even unity around > falsehoods & speculations." "You have on your web site accused full Preterists of being guilty of the Hymenaeus heresy. I charge you before the throne of Christ Himself with doing the work of satan.. I wish I had never read you web site.. I hate this very much but I will warn you that if you ignore what I have just written God will indeed judge you for it."
"You thrive on attention - in fact you are nothing without it. You are always claiming you do what you do "for the glory of God" and out of "love." What a total crock. If the rest of you want to watch Roderick eat grass for 7 years, or further apostatize, be my guest. I just don't have time to read such foaming at the mouth/key strokes."
"Although your misrepresentations are clearly calling attention to your “cause”, they are so skewed that they don't do your credibility any favors." "And you display the classic signs of an abused spouse. " "Most of your articles (I only say most because I have not read them all) are so far from reality that it's difficult to understand what is motivating you. It can't be truth. "
"Your site is a tomb of slander, lies and vicious attacks from a person who has no talent, or skills" "In other words, your a IDIOT"
"Well my copy of Beyond Creation Science arrived today and I was not at all surprised to find no exegesis of Genesis. Comments regarding verses, yes, but any real exegesis of Genesis - not at all.I would say that JL said that there would be an exegesis of Chapters 1 to 3 and the chapters on the flood but even when I reference exactly where he says something, he doesn't respond without saying I'm lying etc... so I won't bother."
"I've got no problem with dissent but I've tried to tell you that God is not pleased with distortions and fabrications. At some point they must be deemed intentional and God will hold all accountable who defame His word and the words of His followers." "Come on man...you don't see it? It has "Tim Martin" written all over it?? You babbling pathetic loser... SHHHEEESHHH..."
"So no JL, i don't take you serious. You're making stuff up. You're the one with the chip on the shoulder. It is impossible for you to have any decent conversation before you go linking someone with these nut-jobs over here or those nut-jobs over there...dude is a racist, Clark is a gnostic, Sam's a pathetic loser."
"You now even admit that the syllogism you created was stupid and false, using your own reasoning.How many times does it take for you to admit that you were caught asking for an answer to a stupid unscriptural question and now you can't back it up with a real scriptural question?That seems to be your MO, inventing stupid reasons and blaming them on someone else."
"I am sooo tired of platitudes and the inane people who use them. I mean how stupid can people be?? "
"Look, if you are going to accuse me of eisegesis, then spell it correctly. If you are smart enough to know the difference between eisegesis and exegesis, then you should know how to spell them. Otherwise, don't bring it up. Quit your whining about this crap, and present a cogent argument for a physical resurrection in Dan 12, rather than a questionable interpretation of what "dust of the earth/land" means." "Screw you Ed. Wasn't whining. Man you can be the biggest jerk I've ever come across on the Internet."
"Christ is not going to build His Church on a person (Peter) Parker. He is building it on Himself, hence the body of Christ(not body of Peter). Talk about willful ignorance. You would make a great Mormon. You buy into such crap so easily. Give up your delusions dude. Your pride is not worth it."
"So, it is not that I haven't, more telling would be that you just refuse to accept anything unless it agrees with you. So, spear me that whole line of crap. It's clear your mind is already closed and blinded to anything other than what you want to hear on that topic. Everything else, is just words from people too blind to see your truth."
"I do know how to spell them. I notice you changed the error. It wasn't that I misspelled anything. My mind merely substituted a different word for the word I meant to use. Are you now telling me you're so perfect you never make mistakes like that? I guess I should take the time every time you make a mistake and then tell you to drop the argument, because after all, since you made the mistake you should bring it up. SHeeeeesh, Ed you're a freakin' jerk. No wonder you get into fights with everyone here. "
"sheesh, you get me. This whole conversation has had nothing to do with whether or not universalism is true or not true, or heretical or not, or even biblical or not. It only consisted of whether or not you are one, period. Your entire argument this whole time is why you are not, and now suddenly you are proud of it. Like how can I say it, YOUR A FREAKIN' JERK!"
"I'm continually amazed and perplexed by your persistent sniping. Do you not understand how cowardly it is to hide behind a blog without revealing your name? Is there never any shame in the way you mischaracterize the motivations of those you know nothing about? Your venom is all over your sleeve. All you appear to live for is to distort what you apparently never understood."
"As for Norm, what the hell do you mean, man? When did I EVER SAY that I did not find science useful? This is why I am convinced that you guys have not studied or read much philosophy of science. I have for almost 15 years now. Amish? Huh? Wha? Just because science cannot make absolute statements (which many of the greatist minds have stated,which I have quoted in my articles on science, which you guys have never read, though you say you have), does not mean that science is not USEFUL....hammers are useful...Noah found one useful for arc building. Looking through a magnifying glass is useful, but don't expect to come to any ABSOLUTE conclusions (conclusions true always, all the time, in all possible worlds, every time). This is so simple, really. I have a suggestion for you guys...pick up a book on logic, and read about inductive logic. Better yet, google "the problem of induction" and you will find a man named David Hume....a great philosopher....and you see PROVEN that scientific methodology cannot EVER come to an ABSOLUTE statements about ANYTHING. Now, excuse me, I have to go warm my food in a scientific contraption called a microwave."
"I love what the Scriptures say. I just reject your pathetic interpretation, just as I reject the pathetic attempts of futurists when dealing with the NT time statements."
"You expect me to leave you alone, yet you continue to attack me with your lies and falsehoods. Pathetic."
"But here's the real question Rich - where have you seen me call JL a 'fool', a 'gnostic', a 'pathetic loser', and now, get this - here's the latest from JL - Sam is not even a brother in Christ anymore."
"1. I don't believe half of what you write anymore. Most of these "slurs" are your invention. Over on my forum, you painted one of Sam's posts as though he was implying that you deny miracles and that is NOT what he said. It's like you try to turn every single comment by him into some attack against you personally...so no, i don't buy half of your accusations most of the time.2. Regardless of Sam or I, what do we have to do with YOU calling someone a "pathetic loser"?Is this situational ethics or something? You sound like Adam, "but, but the woman thou gave me, she...." blah, blah, blah.It's uncalled for JL - bottom line. I don't care how Sam treats you. He's not your standard. I am not your standard."
"You professionals won't do the work. That leaves it to us amateurs.You are a pathetic joke."
"You accuse Sam of being inconsistent, yet it is your view that is.You accuse Sam of being "illogical" but it is you that uses fallacies often in your writing.There is nothing "illogical" or even "inconsistent" about Sam's conclusions " "Again Tom you are very confused. You have to ignore so much of the bible to come to that conclusion. "
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/01/mark-325-if-house-is-divided-against.html
Jerry Bowers: Past Events ARE THE GOLD OF PRETERISM
Jerry Bowers "When the Heart & Mind open to examining the Scriptures again; while putting away pre-conceived ideas, even those espoused by me, many are closely re-examining the Scriptures and picking up on Audience Relevance (THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN TO US) & Time Statements (OH YES, The gospel is about TIMING) , these are the Gold of Preterism."
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/jerry-bowers-past-events-are-gold-of.html
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/jerry-bowers-past-events-are-gold-of.html
David Green: Preterism God Ordained Correction
LOL, Preterism corrects Christianity. God Ordained. GAG!
David Green "The Church Fathers did not “totally miss” the fulfillment of all things written. They exegetically mis-categorized it. They merely appended an extra-biblical scheme of future events onto their biblically sound, soteriological (full) preterism. The only thing the post-70 Church “totally missed” was the fact that it did not miss the fulfillment of all things written.So from the standpoint of the preterist interpretation, the eschatological error of the historic Church was not a radical or fatal error. And since it is historically possible that the Church could have been steeped in a non-fatal eschatological error, the historical possibility remains open that preterism is true and that it represents a God-ordained correction of the historic Church’s understanding of certain eschatological texts."
preteristcosmos.com/question6.html#note108
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/david-green-preterism-god-ordained.html
David Green "The Church Fathers did not “totally miss” the fulfillment of all things written. They exegetically mis-categorized it. They merely appended an extra-biblical scheme of future events onto their biblically sound, soteriological (full) preterism. The only thing the post-70 Church “totally missed” was the fact that it did not miss the fulfillment of all things written.So from the standpoint of the preterist interpretation, the eschatological error of the historic Church was not a radical or fatal error. And since it is historically possible that the Church could have been steeped in a non-fatal eschatological error, the historical possibility remains open that preterism is true and that it represents a God-ordained correction of the historic Church’s understanding of certain eschatological texts."
preteristcosmos.com/question6.html#note108
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/david-green-preterism-god-ordained.html
Rod Edwards: Heretical Logic
Rod Edwards "The thing about true heresies (& not everything is "heresy", we Christians tend to throw that word around too casually)...but the thing about true heresies is that they are typically always "friendly"...at first. Their objective is to disarm the perspective adherent..."kill them with kindness". As you study this & especially if/as you interact with hyperpreterists, be aware that of course they will come off as just "kind, sincere seekers of truth". They will use words & phrases like "tolerance" & "we have to be consistent", but in actuality they are simply trying to get their foot into the door of your heart & mind. Every smiling Mormon or JW that shows up on your doorstep operates in the exact same manner. And just as with the arguments of Mormons who for example appeal to "logic" when they say Jesus must have also came to the people in America back in the first-century (logically, why would God leave out a place that would obviously become so important???), so too do these hyperpreterists appeal to "logic". But the logic is flawed. It is the logic of Job's "friends". It is the logic of Jonah. It is the logic of Hymenaeus.
Just be careful when dealing with folks like this...they continue to lead people away like silly women may easily be led away with empty words disguised as "logic".
Just be careful when dealing with folks like this...they continue to lead people away like silly women may easily be led away with empty words disguised as "logic".
Todd Dennis: The inherent danger of Hyper-Preterism
Todd Dennis "Here is my plainest assessment of the form of danger inherent in Hyper-Preterism, in terms that any seasoned Preterist should be able to understand:The valor and determination of Full Preterists to conquer error is reminiscent of the Roman soldiers who first came upon Jerusalem, and who, simplistically seeing an opening overzealously charged up to her very gates, only to find themselves suddenly surrounded on all sides (with Providence alone saving the life of Titus). Full Preterism, driven by its initial sincere and noble desire in the pulling down of Futurist error, has charged too hard and far in the setting up of perceived truth, having incorrectly assessed the situation due to the speed of attack, and the pride that always comes with easy victories. There is no question that Jerusalem's history is rich with theological wealth and meaning ; however, she was - and will always be - a deadly harlot who betrays those who succumb to her alluring charms. If you approach too closely to her she will strike you like the serpent she is -- and her poison goes straight to the brain. Please consider my decade of leadership experience in the movement -- and my observation of countless people in this situation -- by accepting at face value my warnings for what they are - sincere attempts to help . If you have gotten too close to the harlot, having lost your senses in wonderment (as did John prior to being rebuked), AWAKEN AT ONCE while you are still able !! Set your eyes upon the spotless bride instead of the filthy whore, and you will be saved to carry on the battle with the Banner of Truth."
SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF TYPICAL FULL PRETERISM
-All Bible Prophecy was Fulfilled By AD70
-The Consummation of the Ages" Fulfilled in AD70
-The Millennium" is in the Past, From AD30 to AD70
-This Age" was the Mosaic Age Which Ended in AD70
-The Age to Come" Arrived Historically in AD70
-The New Heavens and Earth" Arrived in AD70
-The Day of the Lord" was Israel's Destruction in AD70
-The Second Coming of Jesus" Took Place in AD70
-The Resurrection" is Over, Having Taken Place in AD70
-Mystery Babylon" was First Century Jerusalem
-The Law, Death, Sin, Devil, Hades, etc. were Utterly Destroyed in AD70
-All Bible Prophecy was Fulfilled By AD70
-The Consummation of the Ages" Fulfilled in AD70
-The Millennium" is in the Past, From AD30 to AD70
-This Age" was the Mosaic Age Which Ended in AD70
-The Age to Come" Arrived Historically in AD70
-The New Heavens and Earth" Arrived in AD70
-The Day of the Lord" was Israel's Destruction in AD70
-The Second Coming of Jesus" Took Place in AD70
-The Resurrection" is Over, Having Taken Place in AD70
-Mystery Babylon" was First Century Jerusalem
-The Law, Death, Sin, Devil, Hades, etc. were Utterly Destroyed in AD70
Hyper-Preterism: Spiritually But Historically Fulfilled
This particular quote is actually quiet funny because it shows Hyper-Preterism's "STEPS OF LOGIC" that is used to make their assumption sound firm. Step 1: They tell you the how significant the destruction of Jerusalem really was. Step 2: They tell you that this particular event was the completion of God's redemptive plan. Step 3: They tell you that it happened, BUT you must have special glasses to see the magical moment. And it is ironic that these glasses are not something you can pick up down at the local Walmart. LOLThis assumption is the basis of their lies and distortions of scriptures. If you can't "SEE IT" then you just don't have a big enough faith, OR you are still living in your earthly man, OR you are just not able to see the heavenly “preterist” vision from on high. This is how Hyper-Preterism reinvents what faith is all about. They go on and on about the fulfillment being non-physical, and about spiritual things, AND YET they say the fulfillment occurred in 70AD. What they are really saying is that spiritual things are subjects of time and that "things historical" are really just spiritual "someTHIGNS". It then goes to reason, how fulfillment is historical, (earthly) and yet also be said to have spiritually (heavenly) occured within the context of time. Does anyone else see this? Can something really be spiritually fulfilled in history? This idea seems like such an anomaly, and backwards from that which is presented in the Bible!!! This idea promotes the idea that shadows are really the substance, rather than being mere copies of the substance.
If you can't see it, touch it, feel it, taste it, or smell it, then what this writer is saying is "to see, you must have faith." This is a very common form of deception which is common among Hyper-Preterism. The line of logic used to connect the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD to the finality of God's redemptive plan is quite absurd to place in the context of "mere past events". Redemption is NOT historical but personal in nature. The focal point of prophecy is within, not without. Meaning the world did not magically change as a result of 70AD. It has and will always be Christ “at the crux” who brings change to individuals bringing about redemption IN THEM. This process is not secondary, or second team to that which is historical. This process within us was the real substance which was always meant to be the primary focal point. Its purpose is to bring about New Life, IN HIM. If one fails to see 70AD as significant, this is neither a requirement for one to find redemption, nor does it give one redemption because it is not at the crux of the matter, nor will it ever.
Sjolander Road Fellowship: "Historically, we know that the destruction of Jerusalem took place in the year 70 AD. This event has long been recognized as significant to the Jewish people because in that year they ceased to exist as a nation in their promised land. What has been often lost is the overriding significance of this event in redemptive history. (GAG) In the careful evaluation of the Olivet discourse, one sees that the AD 70 destruction was actually the culmination of God’s total redemptive plan. In this event are included all the eschatological promises of the Bible. Not all these promises were fulfilled in the physical realm and not all were therefore discernible by everyone. Some saw but did not realize what they saw. (GAG) Only those who were looking with the right “minds eye” made the proper connection. (GAG)
knowingtodaysgod.com/articles/Significance%20of%20AD%2070%20in%20the%20History%20of%20Mankind.htm
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/hyper-preterism-spiritually-but.html
Hyper-Preterism: Redemptive Work "Mere Past events"
How many passages does Hyper-Preterism give to provide proof for their doctrine? How many passages can they give to prove that "final redemption" occurred in the year 70AD? Not one passage in the Bible says "it happened." The Bible is completely silent, and yet, on this issue, the divide and destroy everything in their path. Is this how God communicates to his people? Am I to believe that 70AD did ANYTHING, to allow me to have redemption? Impossible! Falling stones and the destruction of physical nations have nothing to do with bringing redemption to mankind. It is erroneous to maintain that "the way" is about surviving 70AD, or living in a certain era of time. These people have no idea what these "things" represent and they are determined to lead people away from the call of the gospel while making others bow down to their idol. The gospel is NOT Preterism.
Sjolander Road Fellowship "God's final judgment as prophesied by Christ in Matthew 23-25 is generally taken as marking the end of human history. Properly understood, however, this predicted judgment was the real beginning for mankind and not the end. In this culminating act, that Christ predicted for the generation of his day, God brought to a close all of the redemptive work which was necessary to establish full fellowship between God and man. (GAG) In a very real sense this was the beginning for mankind and not the end. The making of all things new (II Cor 5) consummated a new reality and marked the arrival of the coming day of Romans 13. This judgment was the final act of all that was required for redemption. (GAG) It was the end/fulfillment of the Old Covenant. It was not, however, the end of time, or the world, or humankind on earth. For mankind it was a glorious new beginning. It was the beginning of the rest of the story. After God had accomplished all he intended through Christ, man was in an entirely new situation, one which is poorly recognized and comprehended by us all. Instead of anticipating and dreading a future judgment which brings human history to a violent and frightful climax, we should REJOICE IN A PAST EVENT that established the potential for man to be all he can ultimately be." (GAG)
knowingtodaysgod.com/articles/Gods%20Final%20Judgement.htm
Sjolander Road Fellowship "God's final judgment as prophesied by Christ in Matthew 23-25 is generally taken as marking the end of human history. Properly understood, however, this predicted judgment was the real beginning for mankind and not the end. In this culminating act, that Christ predicted for the generation of his day, God brought to a close all of the redemptive work which was necessary to establish full fellowship between God and man. (GAG) In a very real sense this was the beginning for mankind and not the end. The making of all things new (II Cor 5) consummated a new reality and marked the arrival of the coming day of Romans 13. This judgment was the final act of all that was required for redemption. (GAG) It was the end/fulfillment of the Old Covenant. It was not, however, the end of time, or the world, or humankind on earth. For mankind it was a glorious new beginning. It was the beginning of the rest of the story. After God had accomplished all he intended through Christ, man was in an entirely new situation, one which is poorly recognized and comprehended by us all. Instead of anticipating and dreading a future judgment which brings human history to a violent and frightful climax, we should REJOICE IN A PAST EVENT that established the potential for man to be all he can ultimately be." (GAG)
knowingtodaysgod.com/articles/Gods%20Final%20Judgement.htm
Tami Jelinek: Physical Events of AD 70 ARE NOT Redemptive
What a great post. Tami Jelinek (a hyper-preterist), is setting her targets on a specific breed of Preterism who maintain a historical line of 70AD where things end and things begin. My understanding of her point, is that 70AD was not the defining point (nor was 30AD for that matter) which brought redemption to you and I. The process begins within us, as we die to our old man, and become alive and made new. This can only logically mean, that she does not view the "age to come" and/or "new heavens and earth", as post 70AD period of time, where by those who simply survived a 70AD judgment could enter in. This is a sharp contrast to what most Hyper-Preterist teach which is regardless of your relationship with Christ, one could be found "worthy" or made "righteous" to dwell in that which is specifically characterizing those who dwell "in Christ."
Tami Jelinek "The destruction of the building made with hands (and the vessels of worship contained within it) was merely a *sign* that the heavenly things themselves (Hebrews 9:23--our consciences) had been purified and our entrance into heaven had been opened by a "new and living way" (Hebrews 10:19,20). Sometimes a focus on the physical events of AD 70 misses that point, resulting in many subsequent false dilemmmas being set up (like preterists trying to globalize the physcial events of AD 70 *so that* they can prove that the "eschaton" was universal in its scope, *as if* these physical events in and of themselves were redemptive...it gets pretty crazy. And it's right up there with saying that Christ conquered death for us by His *physical* resurrection from *physical* death, which of course leads even "preterists" to physicalize and futurize their own salvation by looking for a "[physically] immortal body at death".)"
groups.yahoo.com/group/SGPList/message/9392
(Update 02/20/2008.
Brian Maxwell "The part about the difference between the New Covenant Age and the New Heavens and Earth is such an important distinction, and you bring that out beautifully. The bible is clear that the New Heavens and the New Earth is the church of Jesus Christ. To equate the two (NC age and NH/NE) is a grave error and would lead to universalism when taken to its logical conclusion."
So we can clearly distinguish NCMI from the rest of Full Preterism which equates the NH/E and the NC as being about time rather than about nature. I guess this is their way of saying that equating the two IS universalism???!!!????)
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/tami-jelinek-physical-events-of-ad-70.html
Tami Jelinek "The destruction of the building made with hands (and the vessels of worship contained within it) was merely a *sign* that the heavenly things themselves (Hebrews 9:23--our consciences) had been purified and our entrance into heaven had been opened by a "new and living way" (Hebrews 10:19,20). Sometimes a focus on the physical events of AD 70 misses that point, resulting in many subsequent false dilemmmas being set up (like preterists trying to globalize the physcial events of AD 70 *so that* they can prove that the "eschaton" was universal in its scope, *as if* these physical events in and of themselves were redemptive...it gets pretty crazy. And it's right up there with saying that Christ conquered death for us by His *physical* resurrection from *physical* death, which of course leads even "preterists" to physicalize and futurize their own salvation by looking for a "[physically] immortal body at death".)"
groups.yahoo.com/group/SGPList/message/9392
(Update 02/20/2008.
Brian Maxwell "The part about the difference between the New Covenant Age and the New Heavens and Earth is such an important distinction, and you bring that out beautifully. The bible is clear that the New Heavens and the New Earth is the church of Jesus Christ. To equate the two (NC age and NH/NE) is a grave error and would lead to universalism when taken to its logical conclusion."
So we can clearly distinguish NCMI from the rest of Full Preterism which equates the NH/E and the NC as being about time rather than about nature. I guess this is their way of saying that equating the two IS universalism???!!!????)
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/tami-jelinek-physical-events-of-ad-70.html
Theological Retards: Timing is the Most Important Thing, The Rest is just BS
It's so funny to watch a guy like Jerry Bowers, who shows all of the signs of being a addict of Preterism, send out complete trash like the quote below via SPAM emails. He has said "I personally believe the TIMING is the most important aspect. . We don't HAVE TO KNOW the details." In his narrow mind, this discussion of what, how, and why are unimportant questions as long as "TIME" is the true SUBSTANCE of the BIBLE. If Hyper-Preterism wants to allow people like this to RULE on their THROWN in their next wave of heretic teaching, or next generation of Heretics, they will be quickly shot down and destroyed. This only shows how incomplete their system truly is, since "timing is the most important aspect". If TIME is the only issue, and what, how, and why are details to be ignored, then how much more confusion will result from those seeking to understand those important questions. Maybe this is why, Hyper-Preterism has missed the mark. They have put so much emphasis on the WRONG THINGS, and it is manifested within their hearts.Jerry Bowers "The Addict" : " Arguments are levied against Preterism & Preterists based on assumptions by some outside of Preterism and erroneous statements made by some within Preterism. The “What” took place or even the “How” are nothing more than Doctrinal and/or Dogma differences many use to separate and divide and this is by no means any more peculiar and/or specific to Eschatology than it is in Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Christianity, Muslim, Atheist, Catholic, Protestant, how to bake the best chocolate chip cookie or reconfigure a building plot to get the most commercial square footage out of it. People just have to be seen as different, special, set aside so labels are designed, then sub-sets follow. Preterism at one point in time was easily understood and explained but then human nature got in the way and man had to begin de-constructing or re-constructing it into sub-categories of which, many have numerous sub-sub-categories underlying them.
"Many within Futurism believe that the Great White Throne Judgment is meant to be understood as a singular judgment that will take place, which involves and is for all mankind: (A once and for all thing) Is it such a stretch of the imagination to believe there would be those within Preterism that believe this very same thing, only they believe it already happened? Many within Futurism see the Kingdom & Resurrection as Spiritual in understanding & Nature: Is it another stretch of the imagination that some within Preterism also see, believe & understand this but that they believe it already happened? There are those within Futurism that believe Christ will return literally, actually & visibly: Many Preterists believes this as well except they believe He already did return literally, actually & visibly, what is the difference? Timing!"
"Many Preterists want to discuss, debate or even argue over the differences in understanding behind the Nature of things such as the Resurrection. Some believe this happens if nothing else, in a type when we accept or ask Christ into our lives while others argue that this is all Resurrection was ever meant to be understood as. This is a Doctrine and/or Dogma difference and in no way defines Preterism, it’s an Eschatological difference. Specifics, details and individual steps or instructions on the exact nature of how these things progress is not timing and therefore, not Preterism."
"Many Preterists want to discuss, debate or even argue over the differences in understanding behind the Nature of things such as the Resurrection. Some believe this happens if nothing else, in a type when we accept or ask Christ into our lives while others argue that this is all Resurrection was ever meant to be understood as. This is a Doctrine and/or Dogma difference and in no way defines Preterism, it’s an Eschatological difference. Specifics, details and individual steps or instructions on the exact nature of how these things progress is not timing and therefore, not Preterism."
Wedding Feast in 70AD and Famine Afterward !
The narrow focus of Preterism continues to results in many problems as a result of placing the fulfillment of prophecy within the historical year 70AD. Here is another example of how 70AD limits the interpretation of scripture. Preterist believe and will argue that the bridegroom came in 70AD. They also maintain 70AD as the TIME that the wedding feast occurred. It was a time when believers would dwell with Christ in his kingdom. However in Matthew 25:10, Jesus specifically says that at his Parousia, he would specifically gather those who "were ready" and to them alone he would allow them entrance into the wedding festivities. And yet, afterwards the door was shut. Those "who were not ready" would remain outside, and were not allowed to enter in. Amazingly enough, this is also pictured in the days of Noah when he and his family were allowed entrance, yet those outside could not enter in.The problem is, if the fulfillment occurred in 70AD, then how do we today enter in and join this feast. Preterists want it both ways. They want to say the wedding feast occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem, then want to say we as Christians, despite being born after the Parousia in 70AD, can enter in. That argument ignores the issue completely. Matt. 25:10 specifically says the "door was shut." If the door was shut in 70AD, when was it reopened? To say Christians continue enter in means the door has not been shut! So which is it? Is the door shut or open?
(Matthew 25:10) "And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut."
When comparing Matthew 25:10 to Like 13:24-25, we see a better image of what is being referred to in this parable that can only be SHADOWED by the events of 70AD, but are not the fulfillment in and of themselves.
(Luke 13:24-25) "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. "Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’
Luke makes it clear that our walk allows our entrance. The judgment referred to is not speaking of natural or historical events but that which occurs within us. It is of the Spirit which is the oil in our lamps that makes us ready to meet our Savior. It is the Spirit which feeds us, quickens us, and sustains us while in earthen vessels. And yet, the wedding feast seems more appropriately place by Paul than by Preterists.
(Philippians 1:21-26) For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again.
(2 Timothy 4:6-8) For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: AND NOT TO ME ONLY, but unto ALL THEM ALSO THAT LOVE HIS APPEARING.
Don Preston "The wedding of Matthew 22 would occur when the old covenant Jerusalem/Judah was destroyed (Mt. 22:1f). But, the wedding of Matthew 25 is the wedding of Matthew 22. Therefore, the wedding of Matthew 25 would occur when Old Covenant Jerusalem was destroyed."
Don Preston "If we compare the three texts, Matthew 16:27-28; 24:30-31 and 25:31-32) we will see: (a) That in all of the passages the subject referred to is the same, the coming of the Son of man- the Parousia. (b) In all of the texts, He is described as coming in glory. (c) In all the texts, He is attended by the holy angels. (d) In all texts, He comes as a King. "Coming in his kingdom;" "He shall sit upon his throne; Then shall the King," etc. (e) In the texts, He comes to judgment. (f) In all the texts, the judgment is represented as, in some sense, universal. "He shall reward every man." Before him shall be gathered "all the nations." (g) In Matthew 16:28, it is expressly stated that this coming in glory was to take place in the lifetime of some then present. This fixes the time of the Parousia within the limit of a human life, thus being in perfect accord with the period defined by our Lord in His prophetic discourse. "This generation shall not pass."
All of these texts are speaking of a first century event. This judgment of Matthew 25 took place in AD 70. The destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the judgment are all connected in Scripture. "
Ed Stevens "After AD 70 it became a glorious feast and celebration of our inheritance in the real promised land (the spiritual kingdom – the New Heaven and Earth – the New Creation – the New Jerusalem)."
preterist.org/articles-old/gentry/great_commission_and_lord.htm
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/wedding-feast-in-70ad-and-famine.html
Questions to Ponder: Nothing Changed in 70AD
(Update 2/20/08: From time to time, I feel it necessary to publish comments from those who I do not necessarily agree. For example, I have posted several posts from futurists like Thomas Ice as well as others who I believe make a solid point or raise specific questions against a specific breed of preterism called hyper-preterism. On this particular post, John (who is a atheist) addresses some serious questions that I considered to be valuable for the discussion. IMO, He was speaking directly to a Hyper-Preterist view. I would not agree with him on many topics, but I admit the questions he specifically addressed in this post is deadly to this particular viewpoint which maintains everything changed in 70AD. It really is amazing how a atheist has better eyesight than most Hyper-Preterists to see the fact that nothing changed in 70AD.)
I love this particular blog post because it raises serious questions that should not be ignored. Not only does it minimizes the importance of 70AD but shows how nothing changed after 70ad that was not already present prior to 70AD. And yet, this is the foundation of Preterism. These questions speaks volumes as to how God works and continually manifests himself.
John W. Loftus "In the first place, what was Jesus doing before he returned and inaugurated his kingdom in 70 AD? Was he not already reigning over the believer's hearts? If not, then what was he doing? Was there a time between 33 AD and 70 AD when there was no covenant, no promises, no Christian moral standards to live by? Were Christians still living under the Old Covenant until the temple was destroyed? Was Jesus not yet the King reigning over Christians?"
"In the second place, what is the difference for the Christian in the supposed return of Jesus in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem, if Jesus was already reigning over their lives. Preterists think it made a difference because the temple was destroyed along with their sacrifices, which leads them to say the Kingdom was inaugurated at that time. But according to the book of Hebrews, sacrifices had already ended in Jesus, and the Spirit had already inaugurated the community of Christians by indwelling believers. If Jesus' resurrection is the only proof that Christians needed, then the destruction of Jerusalem should have proved nothing additional to them, as Christians. This would be the case even if Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed! Think about it. If Jerusalem had never been destroyed with the temple and the sacrifices, then what would have changed for the Christian?"
"In the third place, did the destruction of Jerusalem prove anything to the Jews? Hardly. Did they become Christians? It only shows me that the Biblical God is barbaric in that he unmercifully destroys people for whom he hasn't given enough evidence to believe. The Jewish religion did go through a major change, though. But the Jewish religion was already supplanted by Christianity decades earlier, according to the NT. The Jews just changed their views of sacrifices, much like how preterists are changing their eschatology today because Jesus failed to return. But why should any of these Jewish theological changes matter to Christians?"
"Lastly, if the Trinitarian God has always reigned over his world, then what difference did it make to the world in general that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD? Presumably God (Father, Son, & Spirit) never had to ask anyone for permission to reign over his world. The Bible claims he just does, and that he always has done so. It really doesn't matter to God whether or not people acknowledge that he does--he just does. So if preterists are correct that God-in-Jesus started reigning in 70 AD, then who is Jesus now reigning over that he didn't reign over before then? Since his reign has always been over everyone, then it can only mean that he began reigning specifically over Christians in 70 AD. But ever since the inauguration of the church he was supposedly already their king!"
"So what difference did the destruction of Jerusalem make in the lives of anyone at all with regard to the reign of God-in-Jesus?"
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/11/preterism-is-admission-that-jesus.html
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/unanswered-questions.html
I love this particular blog post because it raises serious questions that should not be ignored. Not only does it minimizes the importance of 70AD but shows how nothing changed after 70ad that was not already present prior to 70AD. And yet, this is the foundation of Preterism. These questions speaks volumes as to how God works and continually manifests himself.
John W. Loftus "In the first place, what was Jesus doing before he returned and inaugurated his kingdom in 70 AD? Was he not already reigning over the believer's hearts? If not, then what was he doing? Was there a time between 33 AD and 70 AD when there was no covenant, no promises, no Christian moral standards to live by? Were Christians still living under the Old Covenant until the temple was destroyed? Was Jesus not yet the King reigning over Christians?"
"In the second place, what is the difference for the Christian in the supposed return of Jesus in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem, if Jesus was already reigning over their lives. Preterists think it made a difference because the temple was destroyed along with their sacrifices, which leads them to say the Kingdom was inaugurated at that time. But according to the book of Hebrews, sacrifices had already ended in Jesus, and the Spirit had already inaugurated the community of Christians by indwelling believers. If Jesus' resurrection is the only proof that Christians needed, then the destruction of Jerusalem should have proved nothing additional to them, as Christians. This would be the case even if Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed! Think about it. If Jerusalem had never been destroyed with the temple and the sacrifices, then what would have changed for the Christian?"
"In the third place, did the destruction of Jerusalem prove anything to the Jews? Hardly. Did they become Christians? It only shows me that the Biblical God is barbaric in that he unmercifully destroys people for whom he hasn't given enough evidence to believe. The Jewish religion did go through a major change, though. But the Jewish religion was already supplanted by Christianity decades earlier, according to the NT. The Jews just changed their views of sacrifices, much like how preterists are changing their eschatology today because Jesus failed to return. But why should any of these Jewish theological changes matter to Christians?"
"Lastly, if the Trinitarian God has always reigned over his world, then what difference did it make to the world in general that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD? Presumably God (Father, Son, & Spirit) never had to ask anyone for permission to reign over his world. The Bible claims he just does, and that he always has done so. It really doesn't matter to God whether or not people acknowledge that he does--he just does. So if preterists are correct that God-in-Jesus started reigning in 70 AD, then who is Jesus now reigning over that he didn't reign over before then? Since his reign has always been over everyone, then it can only mean that he began reigning specifically over Christians in 70 AD. But ever since the inauguration of the church he was supposedly already their king!"
"So what difference did the destruction of Jerusalem make in the lives of anyone at all with regard to the reign of God-in-Jesus?"
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/11/preterism-is-admission-that-jesus.html
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/unanswered-questions.html
Thomas Ice: Preterism cut off from its foundation
While I do not agree with Thomas Ice on MANY issues, I do believe his arguement here is a valid complaint against Preterism. Preterism see things ending and beginning in 70AD resulting in a "new kind of Christianity" from that of the first century generation. It is assumed by most Preterists that Christianity today is fundamentally DIFFERENT than that which was experienced in the first century. The assumptions based on a historical line of 70AD where things end and things begin, seems to confuse MANY on which things continue to apply and which things do not apply today (documented here). While most Preterist fail to see this issue, it is very common for this heresy to destroy both lives and churches just as Paul had warned. Many people faced with this doctrine find utter confusion and uncertainty left by the tornado of Preterism. They only see their "converts", but they have ignored its wreckage. I have no doubt, this is not what God wants. God is not the author of confusion. I have no doubt, that God has the slightest need to prove himself in this way as Preterists seem to want to do. Thomas Ice "The overwhelming majority of the eschatological events prophesied in the Book of Revelation have already been fulfilled," declares preterist Dr. Gary North. Since subjects relating to prophecy dominate virtually every page of the New Testament (NT) this would logically mean, for the preterist, that most of the NT does not refer directly to the Church today. Since so much of the NT is written to tell believers how to live between the two comings of Christ, it makes a huge difference if one interprets Christ's coming as a past or future event. If Preterism is true, then the NT refers to believers who lived during the forty-year period between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Therefore, virtually no part of the NT applies to believers today according to preterist logic. There is no canon that applies directly to believers during the church age."
ldolphin.org/preterism-ice.html
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/thomas-ice-preterism-cut-off-from-its.html
Symbols, Representatives & Classifications of the True Pattern
All I can say is AMEN! Praise the Lord for his goodness and mercy! I am wondering if this is a New (Partial?) Pret-Idealist site. Although the exact doctrinal nature of this site is to be determined.
The idea presented in this specific article is that nothing ends or begins in 70ad. These terms "age" or "heavens and earth" are used as a classification of the "old man" verses the "new man". All the garbage that has come out of Preterism, resulting in historical / natural periods of time (pre-70AD period and a post-70AD period) results in an unnecessary transition resulting in Universalism. The old is completely removed from the picture. Our perspective sees eschatology as the "the passing of the last remaining elements or remnants of the old man" NOT "the passing of the last remaining elements of the Mosaic/ Jewish system in 70AD." For more information click here.
Steven Haukdahl "As we recognize that the passing of Jerusalem is likewise used by Paul as a symbolic representation of one's passing from death to life in Christ i.e. old man, new man; then we can more clearly see how the elements of the earthly realm – such as the “present heavens and earth” or “present Jerusalem” or “this unbelieving generation” are also representatives used to define those who are not “in Christ”. As elsewhere, those new things which Paul says are to be found in Christ alone, are represented by the terminology “new heaven and earth,” “new Jerusalem,” “new man,” and the like, so they seem to sometimes be used to describe a different place with the saints there by virtue of resurrection and other times used as a symbolic representation aimed more towards encouraging, admonishing the church while they were still here on planet earth in mind."
"The “Jerusalem Which is Below” (Outside of Christ) was a symbol of slavery -- akin to bondage under the Jewish Law given by Moses. Considering his ultimate message regarding the liberty of the gospel, this is best understood as being a representation of those who were without a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. "
"The “Jerusalem Which is Above” (In Christ) on the other hand, is given by Paul as a representation of those blessed people who are freed from that yoke of slavery. In Gal 5:1 it is said that through the gospel, “Christ set us free.” Hebrews 12:22-24 also teaches that in Christ we come to “Mount Zion,” “the heavenly Jerusalem,” which is likewise used as a representative of the new covenant of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is within the new covenant that those who are Christ's move from the old things of bondage, to the new things of liberty in Him. To reiterate in the constructs of Second Peter, the old Jerusalem was given to represent the unrighteous, and the new Jerusalem was given to represent the righteous. "
"As we recognize that the passing of Jerusalem is likewise used by Paul as a symbolic representation of one's passing from death to life in Christ i.e. old man, new man; then we can more clearly see how the elements of the earthly realm – such as the “present heavens and earth” or “present Jerusalem” or “this unbelieving generation” are also representatives used to define those who are not “in Christ”. As elsewhere, those new things which Paul says are to be found in Christ alone, are represented by the terminology “new heaven and earth,” “new Jerusalem,” “new man,” and the like, so they seem to sometimes be used to describe a different place with the saints there by virtue of resurrection and other times used as a symbolic representation aimed more towards encouraging, admonishing the church while they were still here on planet earth in mind."
blog.properpreterism.org/2007/11/12/test.aspx
Click here for a similar article
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/things-that-did-not-end-in-70ad.html
The idea presented in this specific article is that nothing ends or begins in 70ad. These terms "age" or "heavens and earth" are used as a classification of the "old man" verses the "new man". All the garbage that has come out of Preterism, resulting in historical / natural periods of time (pre-70AD period and a post-70AD period) results in an unnecessary transition resulting in Universalism. The old is completely removed from the picture. Our perspective sees eschatology as the "the passing of the last remaining elements or remnants of the old man" NOT "the passing of the last remaining elements of the Mosaic/ Jewish system in 70AD." For more information click here.
Steven Haukdahl "As we recognize that the passing of Jerusalem is likewise used by Paul as a symbolic representation of one's passing from death to life in Christ i.e. old man, new man; then we can more clearly see how the elements of the earthly realm – such as the “present heavens and earth” or “present Jerusalem” or “this unbelieving generation” are also representatives used to define those who are not “in Christ”. As elsewhere, those new things which Paul says are to be found in Christ alone, are represented by the terminology “new heaven and earth,” “new Jerusalem,” “new man,” and the like, so they seem to sometimes be used to describe a different place with the saints there by virtue of resurrection and other times used as a symbolic representation aimed more towards encouraging, admonishing the church while they were still here on planet earth in mind."
"The “Jerusalem Which is Below” (Outside of Christ) was a symbol of slavery -- akin to bondage under the Jewish Law given by Moses. Considering his ultimate message regarding the liberty of the gospel, this is best understood as being a representation of those who were without a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. "
"The “Jerusalem Which is Above” (In Christ) on the other hand, is given by Paul as a representation of those blessed people who are freed from that yoke of slavery. In Gal 5:1 it is said that through the gospel, “Christ set us free.” Hebrews 12:22-24 also teaches that in Christ we come to “Mount Zion,” “the heavenly Jerusalem,” which is likewise used as a representative of the new covenant of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is within the new covenant that those who are Christ's move from the old things of bondage, to the new things of liberty in Him. To reiterate in the constructs of Second Peter, the old Jerusalem was given to represent the unrighteous, and the new Jerusalem was given to represent the righteous. "
"As we recognize that the passing of Jerusalem is likewise used by Paul as a symbolic representation of one's passing from death to life in Christ i.e. old man, new man; then we can more clearly see how the elements of the earthly realm – such as the “present heavens and earth” or “present Jerusalem” or “this unbelieving generation” are also representatives used to define those who are not “in Christ”. As elsewhere, those new things which Paul says are to be found in Christ alone, are represented by the terminology “new heaven and earth,” “new Jerusalem,” “new man,” and the like, so they seem to sometimes be used to describe a different place with the saints there by virtue of resurrection and other times used as a symbolic representation aimed more towards encouraging, admonishing the church while they were still here on planet earth in mind."
blog.properpreterism.org/2007/11/12/test.aspx
Click here for a similar article
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/things-that-did-not-end-in-70ad.html
What is Preterism?
Here's what preterism REALLY is . . . .
1) Inflexible, except when it comes to deflecting criticism.
2) Consistent, except when carefully scrutinized.
3) The truth, except in all the many places where it is wrong.
4) Loving, except for all of the hatred and mockery.
5) Orthodox, except for its wholesale rejection of christianity.
6) Spreading like wildfire, except that it consumes all it burns.
7) Influential, except that nobody is listening.
8) Rich, except that nobody has a dime.
9) Mature, except for the childish behavior of all the ministers.
10) Exciting, until you realize that you have been burned.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-preterism.html
1) Inflexible, except when it comes to deflecting criticism.
2) Consistent, except when carefully scrutinized.
3) The truth, except in all the many places where it is wrong.
4) Loving, except for all of the hatred and mockery.
5) Orthodox, except for its wholesale rejection of christianity.
6) Spreading like wildfire, except that it consumes all it burns.
7) Influential, except that nobody is listening.
8) Rich, except that nobody has a dime.
9) Mature, except for the childish behavior of all the ministers.
10) Exciting, until you realize that you have been burned.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-preterism.html
Virgil Vaduva: First Steps for Preterists
Virgil Vaduva "The first step is to admit to Preterism has a problem...it's like the first admission of an alcoholic."planetpreterist.com/modules.php? name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=906
Virgil Vaduva "For some reason Preterists are still obsessed with proving they are right and everyone else is wrong. As far as I am concerned, I am as much a "futurist" as anyone. "
blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=1659
Also see Letter or Liar
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/virgil-vaduva-first-steps-for.html
STEALING PRIVATE INFORMATION A NEW MARKETING PLOY FOR PRETERISM
Recently, Preterists have been resorting to new tactics in order to spread their heresy. SPAM. Jerry Bowers (an extreme addict of Preterism) has apparently gained access to ("STOLE") ALL contact information submitted through various Preterist websites throughout the years. This includes names, email addresses, phone numbers, and WHO KNOWS what else. These "supposed leaders" I guess condone giving others private information for the "good of the movement" without asking their permission. These "ADDICTS" and their "PUSHERS" are nothing more than desperate whores who are willing to do anything for quick $20 dollars, and a book sale. This reminds me of the pharisees who would cover the earth to make a convert and then transform them into a child of hell. How despicable and pathetic. They should be ashamed!!!To Jerry Bowers "May I please ask how you got my contact information. I don’t remember signing up for your email list. Thanks"
Jerry Bowers Response " To be perfectly honest: Individually, I'm not sure how we ascertained your E-mail. We receive numerous Preterist communications from all over the world and many people have given us names & E-mail addresses of others."
Also See:
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/jerry-bowers-timing-is-most-important.html
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/stealing-private-information-new.html
Rod Edwards: Cultic Tactics of Preterists
It has been a tactic of cults to prey upon either weak or poorly equipped Christians. They seek out those who either have had bad experiences within some form of traditional Christianity or they seek out those who have little knowledge of the Bible. In this way they can convince the unsuspecting to join their cult or movement.
Another method of cultic movements is to appeal for "tolerance" & surely "loving" Christians would be "open-minded" & not "judgment" against fellow "seekers". This is the general sentiment expressed by cultic movements.
Theologian R.J. Rushdoony once pointed out:
When it comes to Hyper-Preterism, C.J. Seraiah had this pointed & accurate comment:
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/rod-edwards-cultic-tactics-of.html
Another method of cultic movements is to appeal for "tolerance" & surely "loving" Christians would be "open-minded" & not "judgment" against fellow "seekers". This is the general sentiment expressed by cultic movements.
Theologian R.J. Rushdoony once pointed out:
"[T]here can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion.In this case the cultic intend to call for "tolerance" so that they can introduce their new theological systems.
Tolerance is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new
intolerance."
When it comes to Hyper-Preterism, C.J. Seraiah had this pointed & accurate comment:
[The Hyper-preterist] contention (whether expressed verbally or not) is that the Church has been wrong for two-thousand years about such a major doctrine as the Final Advent & only recently has anyone figured out what the Bible was really saying. The presumption about one's abilities that it takes to affirm something of this sort is incredibly high. They are essentially saying the Holy Spirit was unable to properly teach the Church what was really involved in the Second Coming (or was unwilling & for some bizarre reason decided to leave the Church in the dark & allow her to promote errant theology for two thousand years). -- (End of All Things, pg 17)Every true heretic in history has used the mantra "No Creed but Christ" & then set about introducing a new creed to replace that which was the tradition of the Church. And here we see the liberals & especially the liberals within hyper-preterism using the same playbook & many are falling for it once again Think not to compare this to the Reformation as the Reformers only broke from a majority of what was being called Christianity...they did NOT break from THE majority of historic Christianity, but as you well know, they affirmed it.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/rod-edwards-cultic-tactics-of.html
Full Preterism and the Lord Supper
Full Preterism and the Lord’s Supper
by Michael W. Adams
The Lord’s Supper is a stumbling block for full Preterism. If one is a consistent full Preterist, he or she should abstain from taking the Lord’s Supper in order to be consistent. Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper are stated this way:
This brings up a couple of questions concerning Paul’s instructions about the Lord’s Supper that we must ask. First, if the Lord’s Supper is a celebration of the New Covenant, why doesn’t it get celebrated in the New Covenant era? Stated another way, how can the Lord’s Supper be a remembrance of the inauguration of the New Covenant for the early church if that Covenant was still future? On the night of His betrayal, the Lord clearly identified His death on the cross as the New Covenant:
This flies in the face of Hebrews 8:13 when the writer of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant has already been made obsolete by the coming of the New; "By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear" (Hebrews 8:13). The writer of Hebrews was under the impression that he was living in the New Covenant era prior to 70 AD and that the inauguration of the New Covenant, which was a past event from his perspective, had already rendered the first (old) covenant obsolete. Full Preterism is a complete denial of Hebrews 8:13, insisting instead that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated prior to the New Covenant era – an era that it is supposed to remember, not anticipate.
Second, Paul told the Corinthians "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26). Since full Preterism insists that the Lord came in 70 AD, how can the full Preterist, in good conscience take the Lord’s Supper? Paul is quite clear: in the Lord’s Supper we "proclaim the Lord’s death (the New Covenant) until he comes." Are full Preterists in disobedience to Paul’s imperatives by taking the Lord’s Supper after the second coming? Is the full Preterist sinning by doing so since Paul said to take it only until the second coming?
If the second coming occurred in 70 AD as full Preterism insists it did, then the Lord’s Supper was only applicable for the first 35+ years of the church. After that, it should have ceased. If the New Covenant era began in 70 AD as full Preterism insists it did, then why was the early church "remembering" something that hadn’t happened yet and participating in something that wasn’t for the age they were in? This is a serious flaw that full Preterism needs to wrestle with and one that cannot be answered without taking Scripture out of context or without abandoning the basic tenants of full Preterism. At the very least, full Preterists must stop taking the Lord’s Supper.
http://lovebrokethru.com/papers/Supper.pdf
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/full-preterism-and-lord-supper.html
by Michael W. Adams
The Lord’s Supper is a stumbling block for full Preterism. If one is a consistent full Preterist, he or she should abstain from taking the Lord’s Supper in order to be consistent. Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper are stated this way:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)Within the scheme of full Preterism, the New Covenant era doesn’t begin until 70 AD. The era of the Old Covenant continued until that time and its end was signaled by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Titus the Roman. For full Preterism, the “age to come” promised in the New Testament is synonymous with the era of the New Covenant: both the New Covenant and the age to come began in 70 AD and will continue forever. Full Preterism also insists that the Lord returned in 70 AD even though His return was not a literal physical one, but was a spiritual return. For the full Preterist, the second coming of Jesus Christ took place in 70 AD.
This brings up a couple of questions concerning Paul’s instructions about the Lord’s Supper that we must ask. First, if the Lord’s Supper is a celebration of the New Covenant, why doesn’t it get celebrated in the New Covenant era? Stated another way, how can the Lord’s Supper be a remembrance of the inauguration of the New Covenant for the early church if that Covenant was still future? On the night of His betrayal, the Lord clearly identified His death on the cross as the New Covenant:
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28)Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross is the New Covenant and according to Paul, the Lord’s Supper is a remembrance of it. This means that the first 35+ years of the church’s existence was spent remembering something that full Preterism insists hadn’t happened yet because in full Preterism, the New Covenant era doesn’t begin until the second coming in 70 AD. This means that when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and gave them these instructions he was telling them to remember and celebrate the New Covenant which was really still future because they were all still living in the era of the Old Covenant. He was instructing them to remember something that was still in the future.
This flies in the face of Hebrews 8:13 when the writer of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant has already been made obsolete by the coming of the New; "By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear" (Hebrews 8:13). The writer of Hebrews was under the impression that he was living in the New Covenant era prior to 70 AD and that the inauguration of the New Covenant, which was a past event from his perspective, had already rendered the first (old) covenant obsolete. Full Preterism is a complete denial of Hebrews 8:13, insisting instead that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated prior to the New Covenant era – an era that it is supposed to remember, not anticipate.
Second, Paul told the Corinthians "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26). Since full Preterism insists that the Lord came in 70 AD, how can the full Preterist, in good conscience take the Lord’s Supper? Paul is quite clear: in the Lord’s Supper we "proclaim the Lord’s death (the New Covenant) until he comes." Are full Preterists in disobedience to Paul’s imperatives by taking the Lord’s Supper after the second coming? Is the full Preterist sinning by doing so since Paul said to take it only until the second coming?
If the second coming occurred in 70 AD as full Preterism insists it did, then the Lord’s Supper was only applicable for the first 35+ years of the church. After that, it should have ceased. If the New Covenant era began in 70 AD as full Preterism insists it did, then why was the early church "remembering" something that hadn’t happened yet and participating in something that wasn’t for the age they were in? This is a serious flaw that full Preterism needs to wrestle with and one that cannot be answered without taking Scripture out of context or without abandoning the basic tenants of full Preterism. At the very least, full Preterists must stop taking the Lord’s Supper.
http://lovebrokethru.com/papers/Supper.pdf
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/full-preterism-and-lord-supper.html
Resurrection NOT ONGOING after 70AD.
Daniel Harden "Resurrection is used in the NT in only 2 ways - (1) Christ's resurrection, and (2) the eschatological resurrection. The eschatological resurrection is spoken of in the NT as a one-time event (meaning 70AD). It is not ever limited to only OT saints, nor is it an event that would continue long after the Parousia."
groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/17416
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/resurrection-not-ongoing-after-70ad.html
groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/17416
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/resurrection-not-ongoing-after-70ad.html
John McPherson: NO BODY of Christ After 70AD
There is NO END to the amount of confusion that is cuased by an assumed 70AD line. This is a extreme example of how many harmful views within Preterism are simply "TOLERATED". How far is too far when the entire NT structure is fundamentally different than that of the first century. Talk about a eschatology of assumptions.John McPherson "In terms of the subject at hand in this article, “the church” (Gk. “ekkleisia”) has no clear textual support in terms of its perpetuation as an entity for time indefinite, beyond the First Century era (pre-70 AD in particular). The passages dealing with “church structure” and authority, as well as the goal and hope of “the church”, in its various metaphorical incarnations as both “the Body” and “the Bride” of Christ are clearly time-limited in nature, and have as their focus the saints of the NT period of history. A very specific number of people/saints were “elected” to make up the membership of that foundational generation of the New Covenant Kingdom of Christ. THEY were the “Body of Christ” and His “Bride”. WE are not. As FPs, we believe that the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb” and His “Bride” occurred @ AD 70. There is, of course, ample evidence of the fulfillment of ALL prophecy in the Scriptures at this time, and it is not the goal of this article to elaborate on the fundamentals of this position. However, it is instructive to note that the metaphor of “the Bride” is directly associated with this historically accomplished event, and thus it is plain that this spousal metaphor has no application to any corporate gathering of the saints today (within the FP paradigm).
planetpreterist.com/news-2395.html
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mcpherson-no-body-of-christ-after.html
On whom does the Burden of Proof fall?
Virgil Vaduva "Well we are the ones bringing the affirmative to the table, so yes, the burden is on us to show why "Jesus came back in AD 70." planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=38115&sid=5444&pid=38111&mode=&order=&thold=#38115
Click Here to see Preterism's Burden of Proof. Their "LOGIC" is their proof.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-whom-does-burden-of-proof-fall.html
Click Here to see Preterism's Burden of Proof. Their "LOGIC" is their proof.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-whom-does-burden-of-proof-fall.html
Don Preston: The Universalism of 70AD
Don Preston "According to the Bible, the Book of Life was to be opened when the Messiah came in judgment against Israel. At that time, salvation for the remnant would be perfected, Israel's sin would be cleansed and the Gentiles WOULD ENTER FULLY INTO THE SALVATION that is "of the Jews" (the mystery of God would be complete, Rev. 10:7). The Messianic kingdom would stand perfected and ALL MEN COULD ENTER THE BLESSINGS OF THE KINGDOM AND PARTAKE OF THE LIFE THEREIN. Because of the unity of concepts and because of the time limitations in all these passages, we are forced to conclude that the Great throne judgment of Revelation 20, when the book of life would be opened, occurred at the coming of the Lord in judgment against Israel IN 70 AD."
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=127&Itemid=61
Don Preston "I consider it A DANGEROUS ERROR to take the position that there is no such thing as sin today, and that ALL MEN, regardless of their faith in Christ or lack thereof, are destined to receive the blessings of his atonement."
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=221&Itemid=61
eschatology.org eschatology Don K Pretson
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=127&Itemid=61
Don Preston "I consider it A DANGEROUS ERROR to take the position that there is no such thing as sin today, and that ALL MEN, regardless of their faith in Christ or lack thereof, are destined to receive the blessings of his atonement."
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=221&Itemid=61
eschatology.org eschatology Don K Pretson
Preterism: Where is your emphasis?
Terry Benton "Now, the proposition in THIS discussion revolves around the cross as the point in time when obligation to the Law of Moses was cancelled and obligation to the full authority of Jesus Christ began. As you can see, we both agree that in some point in time in the first century obligation to the Law of Moses ceased to be a binding obligation. Jews do not generally agree with us about either time slot or the annulling of the old covenant. One of us is definitely wrong. Either Don Preston is placing too much emphasis upon AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem and not enough emphasis upon the significance of the cross of Jesus Christ, or, I am placing too much emphasis upon the cross of Christ and not enough upon the significance of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=558&Itemid=61
eschatology.org eschatology Don K Pretson
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=558&Itemid=61
eschatology.org eschatology Don K Pretson
Don Preston: Present Heavens and Earth "Removed" OR "Reserved"
Preston comments below that the "heavens and earth" were "removed" in 70AD. It is interesting that Preston says that which was "removed in 70AD" was "reserved" and "kept" "for the day of judgment of ungodly men." Preston clearly replaces "removed" with the word "reserved". Obviously, Preston does not understand what the present heavens and earth signifies (which is a category, or symbol of those after the flesh.)
(2 Peter 3:7) But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Does Preston believe ALL are in the New Heavens and Earth? Preston assumes the establishment of the "new heavens and earth" in 70AD. Notice that Peter uses "WE" as a reference to those "IN CHRIST" who "according to His promise" looked for it. Yet Preston maintains that the old is "removed" completely. Which implies ALL are now in the NEW heavens and earth "in which righteousness dwells". I guess by his own system that, those outside of Christ some how survived God's wrath in "the present heavens and earth". AND SINCE 70AD Preston maintains ALL are allowed to dwell in that which "righteousness dwells." This shows their highly Universalistic nature of Preterism and represents the compounding errors of their assumptions.
(2 Peter 3:13) But according to His promise we (those IN CHRIST) are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
Presterism has become a replacement theology making 70AD as a ending and beginning to MANY things. It assumes that the OLD ends in 70AD resulting in ALL being placed in the NEW. Although some Preterists may argue that fulfillment is "fulfilled but ongoing", others (like Preston) continue to show by comments like this that fulfillment is definitely NOT ongoing.
Don Preston "Hebrews 12:25ff spoke of the passing of the "heaven and earth" so that the unshakable kingdom might remain. It says they were at that time "receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken," vs. 28. Since the heaven and earth were to be shaken/removed so that the unshakable could remain, and since they were at that time receiving the unshakable kingdom, it follows that the "heavens and earth" was being removed at that time! Again, not physical heaven and earth, but the Old World of Israel, created and sustained by the Law was about to be completely destroyed when Jerusalem and the Temple fell in 70 AD."
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=61
eschatology.org eschatology Don K Pretson
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/don-preston-present-heavens-and-earth.html
(2 Peter 3:7) But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Does Preston believe ALL are in the New Heavens and Earth? Preston assumes the establishment of the "new heavens and earth" in 70AD. Notice that Peter uses "WE" as a reference to those "IN CHRIST" who "according to His promise" looked for it. Yet Preston maintains that the old is "removed" completely. Which implies ALL are now in the NEW heavens and earth "in which righteousness dwells". I guess by his own system that, those outside of Christ some how survived God's wrath in "the present heavens and earth". AND SINCE 70AD Preston maintains ALL are allowed to dwell in that which "righteousness dwells." This shows their highly Universalistic nature of Preterism and represents the compounding errors of their assumptions.
(2 Peter 3:13) But according to His promise we (those IN CHRIST) are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
Presterism has become a replacement theology making 70AD as a ending and beginning to MANY things. It assumes that the OLD ends in 70AD resulting in ALL being placed in the NEW. Although some Preterists may argue that fulfillment is "fulfilled but ongoing", others (like Preston) continue to show by comments like this that fulfillment is definitely NOT ongoing.
Don Preston "Hebrews 12:25ff spoke of the passing of the "heaven and earth" so that the unshakable kingdom might remain. It says they were at that time "receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken," vs. 28. Since the heaven and earth were to be shaken/removed so that the unshakable could remain, and since they were at that time receiving the unshakable kingdom, it follows that the "heavens and earth" was being removed at that time! Again, not physical heaven and earth, but the Old World of Israel, created and sustained by the Law was about to be completely destroyed when Jerusalem and the Temple fell in 70 AD."
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=61
eschatology.org eschatology Don K Pretson
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/don-preston-present-heavens-and-earth.html
Futurist Full Preterism
There are a few different doctrines parading themselves as Full Preterism, which actually do not view AD70 as the complete fulfillment of bible prophecy. Various elements of prophetic fulfillment are treated as future, such as the personal resurrection, the personal judgment, and the Parousia of Christ. Ward Fenley clarifies this distinction while focusing on the resurrection as seen by these futurist full preterists. The question becomes... how can it be called truly consistent "Full Preterism" is one believes, for instance, that prophecy is ongoing, though it may be stated as starting at ad70. This, in effect, is a form of idealism... or perhaps just plain futurism. So maybe it is best to distinguish between the two halves of the Full Preterist movement... the consistent Full Preterists, and the Futurist Full Preterists.. because they are clearly not teaching the same doctrine.
So, Full Preterist reader, let me ask you: are you a consistent Full Preterist, or just another Futurist?
Ward Fenley "These same (FULL) preterists pride themselves on seeing the spiritual nature of the coming in AD 70, yet they are essentially futurists. After all, though they believe the second coming happened, they believe that their full redemption remains future. So they are not really preterists simply because they don't believe that all the promises of God are *actually* fulfilled."
groups.yahoo.com/group/SGPList/message/9374
So, Full Preterist reader, let me ask you: are you a consistent Full Preterist, or just another Futurist?
Ward Fenley "These same (FULL) preterists pride themselves on seeing the spiritual nature of the coming in AD 70, yet they are essentially futurists. After all, though they believe the second coming happened, they believe that their full redemption remains future. So they are not really preterists simply because they don't believe that all the promises of God are *actually* fulfilled."
groups.yahoo.com/group/SGPList/message/9374
Jerry Bowers: Timing is the most important thing!
Tami Jelinek speaking about Jerry Bowers "I keep getting these emails from a preterist minister (maybe some of you are getting them also) asking for people to send him audio messages to play on the radio, to spread preterism, and he emphasizes repeatedly that he *only* wants messages that deal with the timing of the second coming, and states in no uncertain terms that he doesn't want to distract from that focus by getting into defining what the fulfilled kingdom of Christ actually is. The timing is the most important thing. And I am suggesting to all of you that he has it completely backwards, and proving timing in a vaccuum, apart from the revelation that forgiveness is heaven (?), will minister comfort to no one. "
Rod Edwards The Inattentional Blindness of Hyper-Preterism
Rod Edwards "It takes no "prophet" to see the false premises & conclusions of hyper-preterism, it just takes someone willing to slow down from all the hype & "we're-all-in-this-together" group-think & see it for what it really is; a dramatic departure from anything & everything that has ever been considered historically Christian."
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/rod-edwards-inattentional-blindness-of.html
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/rod-edwards-inattentional-blindness-of.html
Top 10: How to know your Addicted to Preterism!
Just because Preterist Heresy is pointing out the A2P (Addicted to Preterism) tendencies of many, doesn't mean that we don't love them all the same ; in fact, thanks to the many A2Ps who follow this site regularly, my webcounters are spinning. How do you know if you are a A2P? Easy. You MIGHT be Addicted 2 Preterism if:
1) The first place you go to on the Internet every morning is a preterist website.
2) You visit the same preterist website more than once a day.
3) You feel compelled to make a defensive comment on a blog post which criticizes preterism.
4) You eagerly await the next debate between your preterist hero and some schlup who doesn't know his end from his beginning.
5) You have been a Preterist for less than a year and you are set to start your own ministry
6) The ignorance of other preterists makes you very angry.. very angry, indeed!
7) You can't find any substantive reason in the explanations of ex-Preterists who left the view.
8) You open the Bible to your favorite time text each day.
9) You start each day thinking about what happened 2,000 years ago.
10) You regularly come to PH to see what outrageous misrepresentations and lies are being said against hyper preterism.
And two to grow on . . .
You don't think there is really such a thing as hyper-preterism.
You don't have a sense of humor about your beliefs, and take all criticisms (including humerous ones like this) as personal attacks. LOL
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/top-10-how-to-know-your-addicted-to.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)