Amongst those who care, are preterists in the "extreme" minority here?

[dizzle]

Terral on another thread said that preterists are in a extreme minority here - I wonder where he got his data from - amongst those who care to participate in a poll on this subject indicate very much otherwise - did he just make that up?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=693

[TuckEverlasting]

Wow, that poll was a long time ago!

[dizzle]

It was started at the beginning but votes have been even up to the present. I doubt that "43" votes is considered "an extreme minority" when the leading view has 48 votes.

[studyhound]

It was started at the beginning but votes have been even up to the present. I doubt that "43" votes is considered "an extreme minority" when the leading view has 48 votes.
Particularly when some have made the jump from futurists to preterist so that may change the poll results.


:sh:

[{Undersecretary of Internal Affairs}]

Yeah, maybe you should do a new poll of people who've changed views.

[Terral]

Hi Dee Dee:
Dee Dee >> Terral on another thread said that preterists are in a extreme minority here - I wonder where he got his data from - amongst those who care to participate in a poll on this subject indicate very much otherwise - did he just make that up?
My “Preterist Debate Thread” ( http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767 ) is now over ten pages long, and my statement is based upon the poor turnout by the so-called Preterists on this Board. I am entertaining arguments from only a handful of people, and most are there simply to cast stones. Nobody has given me an answer to my ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) question that makes any sense. Maybe someone here can offer some suggestions on how I might come to understand the Preterist Interpretation of Scripture.

Please help me understand a few things. What makes you believe that Christ was speaking to the ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) of that day, when He has no clue about when any of those things would happen?


“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
Paul speaks of the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Matt. 24:15), saying,


“Let no one in any way deceive you, for unless the apostasy comes first [ Matt. 24:9-12 ] , and the man of lawlessness is revealed [ Matt. 24:15 ], the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.”
Nobody in 70 Ad used the Temple to display himself as being God. Caesar sent soldiers to level the city and loot the place. Where was the beast deceiving the nations into worshipping him? Christ, Paul and John are all describing the same events.

“And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven. It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.”
To God and all in the Lamb’s book of life the beast is speaking blasphemies against God, His name and the Temple, but to those deceived who bear the mark of the beast, he is God Himself coming to destroy their enemies. They shall gladly receive his mark and buy and sell in his name.

“And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.”
You believe that Caesar had the microchip technology to pull off that kind of thing 2000 years ago? “Yea sure, they just ran their hand across the scanner at the grocery store . . . The man of sin (beast) is coming at the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3+15) just like Christ prophesies to the Disciples in Matthew 24. Nothing like what Christ, Paul or John describes ever happened before on this planet.

“There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”
I am sure all the men of the world were fainting over those bad Romans knocking down all of those buildings . . . The Preterists on this site want you to believe that these things occurred in 70 Ad when the Romans leveled Jerusalem and carried away their goods. None of you can give a straight answer to simple questions. My problem is that I truly want to try and understand why a group of intelligent well intentioned people could possibly believe that all of these things were fulfilled in 70 Ad, when nothing I read from the Text says what you are saying. Please forgive if I am scratching my head half the time wondering how you guys are adding these things up and drawing these conclusions.

In Christ,

Terral

[studyhound]

Hi Dee Dee:

My “Preterist Debate Thread” ( http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767 (showthread.php?t=43767) ) is now over ten pages long, and my statement is based upon the poor turnout by the so-called Preterists on this Board. I am entertaining arguments from only a handful of people, and most are there simply to cast stones. Nobody has given me an answer to my ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) question that makes any sense. Maybe someone here can offer some suggestions on how I might come to understand the Preterist Interpretation of Scripture.




Sorry, if we preterist are busy spending time with family and friends this holiday season, and also sorry if you come totally ignorant of a POV and hardly take the time to bone up on it and then come to discuss it in an intelligent manner.




I will reply to the rest of this in the other thread since you cant keep your post on topic




:sh:

[John Reece]

Please help me understand a few things. What makes you believe that Christ was speaking to the ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) of that day, when He has no clue about when any of those things would happen?

:smile:

The quote above demonstrates my reason for not participating in any of Terral's threads: Silly assertions preclude any possibility of fruitful dialogue.

I am responding to the quote above only because Terral wants to make the number of people who respond to him the measure of preterist presence on TWeb.

So, let it be known that John Reece is a "preterist" = one who agrees with the biblical exegesis in the writings of R. T. France and N. T. Wright.

[dizzle]

Terral stay on topic or don't post on my thread. I will ask for moderator involvement if you continue to do this for this is the second thread in which you have done so.

With the only comment you made that was on topic - are you not revising your statement to say that only a few preterists participated in your thread? If that is all you said the first time there would be no issue. that is not what you said though - are you conceding that you were wrong in that statement?

This thread is only to examine the accuracy of your statement. It appears you are conceding it was inaccurate and should have been worded differently.

[InChristAlways]

Please help me understand a few things. What makes you believe that Christ was speaking to the ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) of that day, when He has no clue about when any of those things would happen? Hi Terral. Maybe it was because Christ knew the OT scripture better than them. After all His Father prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem thru the prophets themselves, yes, even Daniel and Jonah. Christ even knew He would die and be resurrected and He made Paul his Chosen Vessel to the world acts 9:But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 "For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake." and Paul knew time was getting short for God's "salvation" to come to the saints, thru the destruction and wrath upon the jews in Jerusalem as I am sure he knew the OT scripture prophecies also.. romans 13:11 And [do] this, knowing the time, that now high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation [is] nearer than when we [first] believed. [i]12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. By the way, the "temple" in revelation would be the same one as when the "manchild" is taken up so I would love to here what you have to say on that. So yes I am a firm believer in Bible fulfillment in the first century. God bless.


Daniel 12:4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

reve 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.


Daniel 9:26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it [shall be] with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.


reve 12:5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

reve 5:5 But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals." 6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain,

Revelation 11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. 2 "But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot [for] forty-two months.

[spiritmech]

I also think that most preterists aren't as concerned about as apologetics as many futurists. Some, like John Sparks are very smart but don't really feel much of a necessity to get down and dirty to defend their viewpoint or critique preterism. Other futurists may tend to think that believing in the rapture is a life/death issue with regards to one's salvation.

I know I'll be dinged for saying that, but what I mean is that, even as crazy as Dee Dee is, the rabid futurists are nuttier than the rabid preterists. Then again, partial preterism is an exercise in restraint as opposed to full preterism, so maybe there aren't that many rabid partial preterists.

So maybe I'll just stop talking and say, "No, they're not in the minority, but they don't have the time to defend preterism all the time."

Steve

[dizzle]

Or don't care too against folks that have no interest in true substantive debate for the endless assertion loop gets old.

[spiritmech]

Yeah. That's basically my two reasons for not engaging certain futurists on here. Little time and not interested.

And for now, I'm looking more into the ECF, rather than rehashing preterism over and over again.

SM

[InChristAlways]

So maybe I'll just stop talking and say, "No, they're not in the minority, but they don't have the time to defend preterism all the time." I really don't like labels put on christians as it is not a matter of defending a certain doctrine but defending the Bible itself.
Why not go to this site and refute the falseness and contradictions that he says are in the bible, as that is my main purpose, to refute these people, nothing to do with my salvation in Christ, but defending the Word itself against ferocious attacks by heretic books such as the Davinci Code and sites like these. No wonder more christians abandon Christ and join Islam, Judaism or just become atheists. I know of one Lutheren that turned to judaism and even moved to Israel from the US and is a leading guide for others wanting to convert to full Judaism(which means denying Christ ever came of course). God bless.

http://www.awitness.org/bible.html

I am making myself tired just thinking about all this. (Apologetics is to much work for me, so thank God I don't bother with it myself.) It should be noted that the only reason why some churches even bother trying to harmonize that book of Daniel into Christian eschatology is because that early church did so. As you might recall above, if you add up all the numbers and then pick a certain date you can land somewhere around 30 or 40 B.C.E. No doubt this is just what those churches did, and then ignoring the fact that the book of Daniel contains false prophecies about the Greeks that were never fulfilled, and ignoring the fact that the Bible contains many examples of prophets playing fortune tellers who fell flat on their faces, that early church got themselves worked up into a state of eschatological frenzy over that book of Daniel.

This is really embarrassing stuff, and the church has been 'apologizing' for it ever since. I offer it for your examination to make the point that those churches should have been more critical, and that by swallowing a false prophecy they became false prophets themselves, which proves the point conclusively. Of course, there is an 'apology' for all this. What they meant to say was 'the generation that sees all these things will not pass away...' Unfortunately that is not what they said. It was clearly those disciples who were not going to pass away before the world ended. (This is another form of apologetics - force something to mean something else, and make someone say what they did not say, or rather, what you really wish they would have said, but didn't unfortunately - how embarrassing, but that is my point.)

[dizzle]

I find that labels are a convenient short-hand.

So I think we have established that preterists are not in the extreme minority here (not that it would matter anyways - not even sure why that statement was made)

[Terral]

Dee Dee:
Dee Dee >> So I think we have established that preterists are not in the extreme minority here (not that it would matter anyways - not even sure why that statement was made)
How did you arrive at that conclusion just fifteen posts into this thread? How many members are there to this Board? I made a few points in Post#6, and nobody had a response; except to give excuses about why no Preterists here are ready, willing and able to defend their views. The OP contains my name, a reference to my “Preterist Debate” Thread, and a question about where my data was derived. You came onto my thread and posted a dozen off topic posts containing personal attacks against Mickey and me in support of your buddies. I asked you time and time again to simply state your case and you refused. My post above is on points concerning Preterism and the unanswered questions I have for those adherents to your interpretation, and no personal attacks on anybody. And you talk about Mod action? Heh. Then you say this:
Dee Dee >> Or don't care too against folks that have no interest in true substantive debate for the endless assertion loop gets old.
This side of the discussion is willing to actually debate the Pros and Cons of the Preterist Interpretation of Scripture. Are those holding the Preterist view in the extreme minority on this Board? Absolutely. That is my finding from ten pages of posts on the Preterist Debates Thread that you addressed in your OP. What now? Do you want a thread of one sentence posts that say “Yes we agree” or “No we do not” and that is it? If you do not want my participation on your threads, then do not mention my name or my threads in your OP. I am not a toy to be controlled with threats, insults or innuendoes. Your thread is about Preterists and my points are about Preterists. You asked the question, “Did he [ Terral ] just make that up?” In your one sentence - connected – so, you referred to me four times (Terral - he, his- he?). Therefore, I believe the Moderator will agree that I have every right to come here and make a few points in defense of the fact that I am not making anything up. Right here is where the rubber meets the road in this discussion. Your friends can come onto this thread and say anything about anything to support you. The true “Preterist” (the subject of this thread) is the one who can answer this question and make sense at the same time:

How can you prove that Christ was speaking to the ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) of THAT TIME, when He had no clue about ‘when’ any of those things would happen?

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”

Are you seeing my problem? The common Preterist interpretation that ‘this generation’ equals 40 years cannot be true, when Christ Himself did not know if these signs would be fulfilled in 100 years, or 10,000 years. He ONLY knew ‘what’ would happen, and had no clue as to ‘when.’ The true “Preterist” of this Board MUST have a BIBLICAL reason for ascribing the WHEN part of the equation to the Son for their interpretation of these Matthew 24 events being fulfilled in 70 Ad to be TRUE. Somebody from the Board must have the answer to this problem that allows the rest of us to gain the same understanding of the truth of their interpretation. If nobody among you can solve this riddle and provide the Scriptural basis for allowing Christ to know for certain that ‘this generation’ was the one living in THAT DAY, then there are no ‘true’ Preterists on this Board at all. They only believe themselves to hold the views they have been told by others, but for which they have no Biblical evidence to prove. A man can call himself a fisherman, but is that true if he has never actually caught a fish?

When you sit down and really access the substance of each of my points above, then you will see that my points all speak to the topic of this thread perfectly. The person who can actually answer my questions and points represents the ‘Preterist’ I am seeking, and not any of these people offering me excuses. Are these threads about the thread starter controlling how everyone types their posts, or about our quest of the Truth?

In Christ,

Terral

[John Reece]

. . .

The person who can actually answer my questions and points represents the ‘Preterist’ I am seeking, and not any of these people offering me excuses.

. . .

Instead of simply asking a sincere question, you fuse a disingenuous question with a false assertion and then complain that no one is answering your "question". Thus you make it impossible for anyone to communicate with you.

[{Undersecretary of Internal Affairs}]

IIRC, somebody observed a while back that there was actually a greater proportion of preterists on TWeb than is typical....

FWIW I accept preterism, but I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to properly defend it (nor am I interested in arguing with you about it).

And Dee Dee has already told you that this thread is not the place to debate preterism; its sole purpose is to ask whether preterists are really an "extreme minority" on this board.
So please stop posting on this thread about why preterism is wrong.


Just as a reminder, you have been asked: Do you have any evidence for your statement that preterists are an extreme minority on this board?. In addition, Dee Dee gave you a link to a poll which tends to contradict your statement.

So, how plead you?

[dizzle]

I will deal with the part of your post that is on topic - the rest of your post I have reported as I made it clear to you that I would if you continued to debate off topic on this thread:

How did you arrive at that conclusion just fifteen posts into this thread? How many members are there to this Board?

I qualified my statement by those "who care" - meaning those that care to declare a position. I arrived at that conclusion by posting the poll results from this forum.

You came onto my thread and posted a dozen off topic posts containing personal attacks against Mickey and me in support of your buddies.

Incorrect, I made likely about three or four comments which were totally mocking as you guys were continuing to run in circles and show you were not interested in genuine debate. The rest of my posts were about statements you made in that thread and discussing statements made in the thread are not off-topic. However, when you made it clear you would not defend your statements I left the thread to you, for to continue in your thread to ask about something you would not address (unlike you who continue to harass when someone has already told you they have no interest at this time in pursuing certain points with you), would then be off-topic. I attempted to engage two of your points in your thread and you played the diversion game. That is fine, it was your thread and I left you to it, when you made that clear. I am makign clear, however, you will not do that on my threads.

Are those holding the Preterist view in the extreme minority on this Board? Absolutely. That is my finding from ten pages of posts on the Preterist Debates Thread that you addressed in your OP.

No, those holding the view and desiring to interact with you are in the minority. If you had said that from the start, there would be no issue. Are you revising your statement to say that?

If you do not want my participation on your threads, then do not mention my name or my threads in your OP.

I do want your participation, within the thread topic. You are half way there.

Your thread is about Preterists and my points are about Preterists. You asked the question, “Did he [ Terral ] just make that up?” In your one sentence - connected – so, you referred to me four times (Terral - he, his- he?).

Of course I was referring to you, and I want you to participate on the points. Are you revising the statement? Or are you thinking that you are so important that if someone doesn't want to debate you, that makes them in the extreme minority?

Therefore, I believe the Moderator will agree that I have every right to come here and make a few points in defense of the fact that I am not making anything up

Absolutely - when you do that, there is no issue. The posts in which you drag your debate thread over here with your off-topic questions are not.

The true “Preterist” (the subject of this thread) is the one who can answer this question and make sense at the same time

So you are the standard of a "true Preterist" and since you have predetermined that the question can never be answered with sense, you have by fiat decided that there are no "true Preterists" in other words, the status of other people and their existence or minority status depends upon YOU. Odd.



They only believe themselves to hold the views they have been told by others, but for which they have no Biblical evidence to prove.

Is that true Terral? Please, tell me who "taught" me this view. Was it my Church? And you are aware I have written a commentary right? But because I don't debate YOU, there is no evidence? You have quite an inflated opinion of your own importance.


The person who can actually answer my questions and points represents the ‘Preterist’ I am seeking

Then you have "redefined" preterist as someone who thinks that debating you is a good use of their time? Then you are correct Terral, but your made-up self-cented, the world depends upon Terral definition, such are in the extreme minority. And probably need their head examined.

* [note I answered everythign to do with this thread - you arguments on certain points of Scripture are off-topic and ignored - you have your own thread for that]

[Terral]

Dee Dee:
Dee Dee >> I will deal with the part of your post that is on topic - the rest of your post I have reported as I made it clear to you that I would if you continued to debate off topic on this thread:
Very well, then there is nothing else to discuss on this thread. Nobody has a reply to my ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) and ‘Nor the Son’ (Matt. 24:36) question. You are selectively avoiding the very issue that defines what it means to be a Preterist in order to force feed everybody the false notion that a majority of members here hold to your interpretation of Matthew 24. The third party reader is more intelligent than you give him credit. All of you are backed into the corner over failure to address a few simple points. Now you want to bring the Moderator out of his neutral corner, when I am addressing Preterists on the points relating to Preterism and personally attacking nobody like you did in a dozen off topic posts on the Preterist Debate Thread. The chances are 99 out of 100 that this third party Mod is either you under a different name or one of your long time Preterist friends, and what you are doing is only proving my point.

The ‘true’ Preterist on this board is the one who can meet my points with answers based upon Scripture, and not your friends who can come here and raise their hand.

In Christ,

Terral

[InChristAlways]

I qualified my statement by those "who care" - meaning those that care to declare a position. I arrived at that conclusion by posting the poll results from this forum. HI DEE,
I think one problem is that there aren't many who really come to the eschatology forum itself.
I haven't counted the number of members who actually post on this forum, but it appears it isn't an amount that would typify the beliefs of the whole religious community.
I would like to know how much the percentage of believers in the christian world have turned preterists and how many have turned futurists in the past, say, 5 years, kind of like taking a "pulse". The way I feel and believe, the more that can find out what God and Christ did fulfill, the more the Holy Spirit is actually working today and the less controversion and confusing the Bible would be.
Anway to find that out? God bless.

[dizzle]

You are selectively avoiding the very issue that defines what it means to be a Preterist....

Attention everyone, the new definition of preterist is someone who wishes to debate Terral. I guess even Gary DeMar wouldn't be a preterist. Interesting. The ancients thought the sun revolved aroudn the earth - Terral thinks that the reality of other's beliefs revolve around whether they pay attention to him.

Under his false definition, he is correct. The number is a small minority. Of course redefinition is illegimitate.


in order to force feed everybody the false notion that a majority of members here hold to your interpretation of Matthew 24.

Where did I say that? Not that I expect you to EVER admit that you once again made a mistake. You have a really bad habit of not reading what people actually say.

By the definition that the real world uses, are preterists here in the extreme minority? Not in those who answered the poll.

[hint: the opposite of extreme minority is not majority]

[dizzle]

HI DEE,
I think one problem is that there aren't many who really come to the eschatology forum itself.
I haven't counted the number of members who actually post on this forum, but it appears it isn't an amount that would typify the beliefs of the whole religious community.

Most folks really don't care. Thus my qualification "of those who care" - of those who care enough to participate in a poll, preterists are not in the extreme minority here.

Of course, who cares if they were. But it is interesting that Terral won't (as he has refused numerous times) to admit his statement was factually wrong.

[InChristAlways]

Most folks really don't care. Thus my qualification "of those who care" - of those who care enough to participate in a poll, preterists are not in the extreme minority here.

Of course, who cares if they were. But it is interesting that Terral won't (as he has refused numerous times) to admit his statement was factually wrong.I understand. The way I understand it is that most futurists see Israel having a "seperate program" today and that 1000yr period is used to justify their belief that Christ is coming back for them(hardcore dispensationalists mainly) as much as coming for us. That 1000yr period and "first resurrection" is a real "stickler" to both eschatological views I think, as revelation is indeed the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century when God glorified Himself, no doubt about it in my view. Revelation wasn't even canonized untill about the 4th century I believe and has been pretty much "mangled" since then. Jews would have a better chance of interpreting it than us "gentiles" as it is mostly OT jewish apocalypse symbology. God bless.

[studyhound]

Dee Dee:

Very well, then there is nothing else to discuss on this thread. Nobody has a reply to my ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) and ‘Nor the Son’ (Matt. 24:36) question. You are selectively avoiding the very issue that defines what it means to be a Preterist in order to force feed everybody the false notion that a majority of members here hold to your interpretation of Matthew 24. The third party reader is more intelligent than you give him credit. All of you are backed into the corner over failure to address a few simple points. Now you want to bring the Moderator out of his neutral corner, when I am addressing Preterists on the points relating to Preterism and personally attacking nobody like you did in a dozen off topic posts on the Preterist Debate Thread. The chances are 99 out of 100 that this third party Mod is either you under a different name or one of your long time Preterist friends, and what you are doing is only proving my point.

The ‘true’ Preterist on this board is the one who can meet my points with answers based upon Scripture, and not your friends who can come here and raise their hand.

In Christ,

Terral
:troll:

[Terral]

Hi John:
John >> Instead of simply asking a sincere question, you fuse a disingenuous question with a false assertion and then complain that no one is answering your "question". Thus you make it impossible for anyone to communicate with you.
That, sir, is your conclusion based upon your own opinion. Where is your quote of my original question that you are judging as disingenuous, or shall we take your word for it? A Preterist is defined here:

“The belief that most of the prophetic literature and passages in the Old Testament and New Testament were either fulfilled in the person of Jesus or else fulfilled by His return in the clouds in 70ad at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.”
My thorough investigation of this topic on the Internet led me to realize that the Preterist Interpretation leans heavily upon the way specific terms are defined in Matthew 24. Specifically they concentrate upon importance the term ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) and phrase ‘fig tree’ (Matt. 24:32). This thread was started over my statement that “Preterists are in an extreme minority here” (paraphrased from Dee Dee’s OP). Therefore, the Preterists here are trying to prove the opposite of my supposition, while my job is to prove that my statement is absolute truth. I am proving my hypothesis by asking the question of how the typical Preterist interprets perhaps one of the most important and vital verses that proves their interpretation. After all, if Christ is truly speaking to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) of THAT DAY, then everything they are saying is truth. In that case I am ready, willing and able to jump onto the Preterist bandwagon and begin proving their points using Scripture. Since the typical Preterist on this Board believes Christ was indeed speaking to the generation of that day, then my question speaks directly to the OP while at the same time answering the question of whether Preterists are in the extreme minority on this Board.

What makes the Preterist in you believe that Christ was really and truly speaking to ‘this generation’ of that day, when He specifically told you that He had no clue about the day or hour (Matt. 24:36)? For Christ to know the true identity of that ‘generation,’ then He must know that all these signs (Matt. 24:3-31) would be seen by those living in that day. That is the supposition one must make in order to fit the definition of a Preterist given on this Board. All I am asking of the professing Preterists here is for them to give me the ‘Scriptural’ verse or verses that prove Christ really did know the ‘day and hour’ to prove that He was really and truly addressing the generation of that day. Then I can also use those same verses of Scripture to prove that case, when I also come to understand the reasons you believe that way. Are you beginning to see the reason for my asking this simple question? However, if none of the professing Preterists on this Board can provide the Scriptural support for their belief in this interpretation, then my conclusion must be that there is no ‘true’ Preterist on this Website at all. What we have is a group of people professing belief in a man-made interpretation for which they have no Biblical proof whatsoever. It is not about debating the topic with me on this thread. Dee Dee has made it clear that this is not the purpose of the thread at all, and I agree. We are here to determine if the ‘true’ Preterists here are in the majority, minority of if any exist at all. You believe that Christ was speaking to the generation of that day? Good! Show me and everybody else.

In Christ,

Terral

[InChristAlways]

After all, if Christ is truly speaking to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) of THAT DAY, then everything they are saying is truth. In that case I am ready, willing and able to jump onto the Preterist bandwagon and begin proving their points using Scripture. Hi Terral.
Luke 21 pretty much explains the "that generation" but because it says all things written would be fulfilled upon the destruction of jerusalem and "that people", that poses an immense problem for preterists as the creeds state there are still things left unfulfilled. So unless preterists can "work around" that passage to avoid conflict with the "interpretation" of the creeds, I really don't see anything being resolved between futurists and preterists.
I did say I wouldn't post anymore, but I want to bring this up for fellow preterists to ponder on as the creeds as interpreted are the major "stumbling blocks" to the preterists position and why I will no longer post here in reference to "complete fulfillment". God bless.

Luke 21:20 " But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.

reve 12:5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.(3 and half yr period of preaching if this is the "messiah")

reve 5:5 But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals." 6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain,

Daniel 9:26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it [shall be] with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

[Terral]

InChrist:
InChrist >> Luke 21 pretty much explains the "that generation" but because it says all things written would be fulfilled upon the destruction of Jerusalem and "that people", that poses an immense problem for Preterists as the creeds state there are still things left unfulfilled. So unless Preterists can "work around" that passage to avoid conflict with the "interpretation" of the creeds, I really don't see anything being resolved between futurists and Preterists.
Since Christ does not know the day or hour (Matt. 24:36), then your conclusion that Luke 21 (same dissertation) explains anything appears meaningless. Again, we are not here to resolve anything between Preterists and the way practically everybody else interprets these ‘end of the age’ events of Matthew 24. We are only here to determine if those holding the Preterist Interpretation of Scripture are in the ‘extreme minority,’ in a majority or nonexistent. All of that creed business does not mean anything here.

You forgot to mention the verses that convince you that Christ is addressing 'this generation' living in 'that day.'

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

All of you Guys, InChrist and Terral OFF TOPIC. My opening post was clear - take it to the other threads, we are not having a "this generation" debate in this or my other thread. I have asked this several times now, cut it out. If ou wish to discuss the very narrow topic feel free.

[Amazing Rando]

I don't think preterists are in the majority in any sense of the word here on Tweb, but neither are they an "extreme minority." This is just based on my observations over the last 18 months I've been here.

[InChristAlways]

All of you Guys, InChrist and Terral OFF TOPIC. My opening post was clear - take it to the other threads, we are not having a "this generation" debate in this or my other thread. I have asked this several times now, cut it out. If ou wish to discuss the very narrow topic feel free.Sorry DEE. I enjoyed your forum but I will be leaving this part of it because of the "luke 21" dilemma.
Terral puts up a good fight, but my hands are more or less tied against him, but the way it looks, more evengelists/christians are joining the preterists side and the more they look at it, the more they will want to find out how much has truly been fulfilled and that is the most exciting part of the Bible for me along with being in Christ of course and the promise of eternal life through Him. God bless.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Below is my response to Terral's on topic response. I have responded to Terral's off topic response in a new thread I created here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=854236#post854236).

<snip>
“The belief that most of the prophetic literature and passages in the Old Testament and New Testament were either fulfilled in the person of Jesus or else fulfilled by His return in the clouds in 70ad at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.”
<snip>This thread was started over my statement that “Preterists are in an extreme minority here” (paraphrased from Dee Dee’s OP). Therefore, the Preterists here are trying to prove the opposite of my supposition, while my job is to prove that my statement is absolute truth. [quote]

So far so good. A little obvious maybe, but accurate as far as it goes.

[quote]I am proving my hypothesis by asking the question of how the typical Preterist interprets perhaps one of the most important and vital verses that proves their interpretation.

How does this prove your hypothesis, that preterist are in the "extreme" minority at TWeb. Are you trying to create a definition of preterist? I think you are? But why do that instead of using the one from TWeb's glossary that you already provided.

I can not think of any reason why you would want to create your own definition of preterist. Unless of course you made a blundering error and instead of admitting it you have to make up your own definition. One that no one else anywhere uses.


<snip>Since the typical Preterist on this Board believes Christ was indeed speaking to the generation of that day, then my question speaks directly to the OP while at the same time answering the question of whether Preterists are in the extreme minority on this Board.

How? How does your question relate to the OP, which is by the way about whether or not Preterist are in the extreme minority on this Board?


What makes the Preterist in you believe that Christ was really and truly speaking to ‘this generation’ of that day, when He specifically told you that He had no clue about the day or hour (Matt. 24:36)? For Christ to know the true identity of that ‘generation,’ then He must know that all these signs (Matt. 24:3-31) would be seen by those living in that day. That is the supposition one must make in order to fit the definition of a Preterist given on this Board.

And I would say that most (maybe even all) preterist on this board do hold to this "supposition" (I prefer the term interpretation myself). You have yet to prove your point that Preterist are in the extreme minority on this board.

All I am asking of the professing Preterists here is for them to give me the ‘Scriptural’ verse or verses that prove Christ really did know the ‘day and hour’ to prove that He was really and truly addressing the generation of that day. Then I can also use those same verses of Scripture to prove that case, when I also come to understand the reasons you believe that way.

How does asking this question prove your assertion that preterist are in the extreme minority here at TWeb.

Are you beginning to see the reason for my asking this simple question?

:idea: Yes, I am beginning to see the reason for you asking the simple **cough**loaded**cough** question. You want to cloud the issue. You want to look as if you are making a point about your assertion that preterist are in the extreme minority at TWeb, while really just evading the issue entirely.
However, if none of the professing Preterists on this Board can provide the Scriptural support for their belief in this interpretation, then my conclusion must be that there is no ‘true’ Preterist on this Website at all.

No we cut to the chase. What you really meant is that "true" Preterist, as defined by you, after the fact, are in the minority here at TWeb. But if that is the case, why did you not just say that?

What we have is a group of people professing belief in a man-made interpretation for which they have no Biblical proof whatsoever. It is not about debating the topic with me on this thread. Dee Dee has made it clear that this is not the purpose of the thread at all, and I agree. We are here to determine if the ‘true’ Preterists here are in the majority, minority of if any exist at all. You believe that Christ was speaking to the generation of that day? Good! Show me and everybody else.

In Christ,

Terral
Since you have been shown scriptural support, time and again, for the futurist position, I can only assume you mean scriptural support that you find persuasive. And in that case, since you do not find any scriptural support persuasive, there must not be any "true preterist". And taken to its logical extreme, there are no "true" anythings unless they happen to agree with Terral. There are no "tue Mormons", there are no "true Jehovah's Witnesses", there are no "true Muslims" only people who rely on man made theories and do not trust to the inspiration of God which is the sole property of Terral.

So what you were really saying is that the people who agree with Terral are in the extreme minority at TWeb. Well, shucks. I guess you are right.

But you used words that meant something totally different. Words that mean one thing to you and something else to every other person. No wonder no one wants to discuss things with you. You change the deffinition so that you are never wrong. (Hey. That's shifting the goal post, yet another falacy to add to your resume)

Lets face it. You made a rash, overly generalized statement, and got a little egg on you face. And instead of wiping the egg off and admit that it was an over generalization (it was just plain wrong, but you could have gotten away with claiming an over generalization), you purchaced 12 dozen more eggs, to emerse your whole body in.

Bad form.

:sig:

[Terral]

Dee Dee:

All of you Guys, InChrist and Terral OFF TOPIC. My opening post was clear - take it to the other threads, we are not having a "this generation" debate in this or my other thread. I have asked this several times now, cut it out. If ou wish to discuss the very narrow topic feel free.
No we are very much on the topic of whether Preterists here are in the minority. Why don't you explain how my post is on another topic from what is described in your OP. Preterists believe that Christ was addressing the generation (Matt. 24:34) of that day. Right or wrong? Those who have a Scriptural reason for believing that Christ is talking about the fulfillment of all those signs in 70 Ad are Preterists. Those who believe that these things occur at the 'end of the age' (Matt. 24:3) are our Futurists.

You do not seem anxious to know the results of what your OP is all about.

In Christ,

Terral

[spiritmech]

"No we are very much on the topic of whether Preterists here are in the minority. Why don't you explain how my post is on another topic from what is described in your OP. Preterists believe that Christ was addressing the generation (Matt. 24:34) of that day. Right or wrong?"

Hah. "No we are very much on the topic, so let me change it." I love that. It seems fairly obvious her OP was demographic in nature, while your concern is interpretive. Two separate things. If you would like to count preterists, do it here. Anything else, do it away from here.

SM

[Terral]

Faramir:
Terral >> I am proving my hypothesis by asking the question of how the typical Preterist interprets perhaps one of the most important and vital verses that proves their interpretation.

Faramir >> How does this prove your hypothesis, that preterist are in the "extreme" minority at TWeb. Are you trying to create a definition of preterist? I think you are? But why do that instead of using the one from TWeb's glossary that you already provided.
That is exactly what I did, and showed that they believe the signs of Matthew 24 were fulfilled in 70 Ad, when Christ came in the clouds (Not). The Preterist interpretation is that Christ’s coming (Matt. 24:30) already occurred, according to the Board definition. Therefore, they believe Christ was speaking to the ‘generation’ of that day, when speaking in Matthew 24. Since Christ Himself says the Son has no clue about ‘when’ (Matt. 24:36), my question is presented to find the Scriptural support for believing Christ was addressing that generation of that day.
Faramir >> I can not think of any reason why you would want to create your own definition of preterist. Unless of course you made a blundering error and instead of admitting it you have to make up your own definition. One that no one else anywhere uses.
The definition came from this Website.
Terral Original >> Since the typical Preterist on this Board believes Christ was indeed speaking to the generation of that day, then my question speaks directly to the OP while at the same time answering the question of whether Preterists are in the extreme minority on this Board.

Faramir >> How? How does your question relate to the OP, which is by the way about whether or not Preterist are in the extreme minority on this Board?
The ‘true’ Preterist has a Scriptural reason for believing that Christ is addressing ‘this generation’ of that day. Or are you insinuating that these people believe that way for no reason at all? I am trying to give them credit for being reasonable thinking human beings, and some Preterists appear to be offended. For example: I am a Futurist, because Christ is describing Global catastrophic events that affect the whole world. Here is one name that goes under the Futurist side of the page.

Luke 21:25 “There will be signs in sun and moon and stars [ Matt. 24:29 ], and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”
Terral’s Question >> What makes the Preterist in you believe that Christ was really and truly speaking to ‘this generation’ of that day, when He specifically told you that He had no clue about the day or hour (Matt. 24:36)? For Christ to know the true identity of that ‘generation,’ then He must know that all these signs (Matt. 24:3-31) would be seen by those living in that day. That is the supposition one must make in order to fit the definition of a Preterist given on this Board.

Faramir >> And I would say that most (maybe even all) preterist on this board do hold to this “supposition” (I prefer the term interpretation myself). You have yet to prove your point that Preterist are in the extreme minority on this board.
That is what I am here to prove, if one of you ever get around to answering my question. If my original hypothesis is correct, then the majority of people reading this thread believe ‘Your coming’ and the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3) are still future. They are also figuring out from the lack of Preterist response to my question that there is truly an extreme minority of ‘true’ Preterists on this Board. Dee Dee seems upset that my point is off topic, but the fact is that I am walking in tight circles around this single objective which demonstrates the truth of my original hypothesis given in her OP which bears my name.
Terral Original >> All I am asking of the professing Preterists here is for them to give me the ‘Scriptural’ verse or verses that prove Christ really did know the ‘day and hour’ to prove that He was really and truly addressing the generation of that day. Then I can also use those same verses of Scripture to prove that case, when I also come to understand the reasons you believe that way.

Faramir >> How does asking this question prove your assertion that preterist are in the extreme minority here at TWeb.
By the fact that I believe none of you have a Scriptural reason to prove that Christ knows the century or year, much less the day or hour. You want everyone to assume that Christ is addressing ‘this generation’ of that day without offering a shred of evidence at all. The context of Christ’s use of this phrase in the other places in Matthew (11:16, 12:41-45, 23:36) had a different context. I am hoping one of you will make the attempt at borrowing improper context to prove your case.
Terral Original >> Are you beginning to see the reason for my asking this simple question?

Faramir >> Yes, I am beginning to see the reason for you asking the simple **cough**loaded**cough** question. You want to cloud the issue. You want to look as if you are making a point about your assertion that preterist are in the extreme minority at TWeb, while really just evading the issue entirely.
Evading the issue? Please . . . This question speaks to the core of Preterism itself, and the master control center of what makes the Theology tick. The fact that nobody is coming out and saying, “Oh, Christ knows the day and hour because He says so here and here and over there,” tells me that Preterists are in the extreme minority here. That was my point and conclusion after ten pages of posts on the Preterist Debate Thread also. I am not looking to debate the topic, but merely seek the Scriptural evidence that justifies one calling himself a ‘true’ Preterist. You saying “I am a Preterist” is not good enough, as that is not the true definition of Preterism given on this Board.
Terral Original >> However, if none of the professing Preterists on this Board can provide the Scriptural support for their belief in this interpretation, then my conclusion must be that there is no ‘true’ Preterist on this Website at all.

Faramir >> No we cut to the chase. What you really meant is that "true" Preterist, as defined by you, after the fact, are in the minority here at TWeb. But if that is the case, why did you not just say that?
Because my opinion is already known from the OP. How many people here believe the ‘Board’ definition of Preterism? Go and read the hundreds of Webpages describing Preterism on the Internet and find the commonality of Matthew 24 that runs through most all of them. Here is one: ( http://www.preteristarchive.com/ (http://www.preteristarchive.com/) ) You find free books on commentary of Matthew 24 (left column) along with “Preterism: Matthew 24: Before the Second coming of Jesus.” Out of the sixty six books of Scripture, they bring you to Matthew to prove their case. And from twenty eight chapters they bring you to chapter twenty four. Therefore, I am standing in the middle of their favorite book and most important chapter and asking a qualifying question to determine who among us is a true Preterist, according to the accepted definitions of the term.
Terral Original >> What we have is a group of people professing belief in a man-made interpretation for which they have no Biblical proof whatsoever. It is not about debating the topic with me on this thread. Dee Dee has made it clear that this is not the purpose of the thread at all, and I agree. We are here to determine if the ‘true’ Preterists here are in the majority, minority of if any exist at all. You believe that Christ was speaking to the generation of that day? Good! Show me and everybody else.

Faramir >> Since you have been shown scriptural support, time and again, for the futurist position, I can only assume you mean scriptural support that you find persuasive.
Nobody has shown me Scriptural support for placing knowledge of the day and hour of all the signs of Matthew 24 into the mind of Christ. If He had known the time of the fulfillment of these things, He could have simply given that information to the Twelve. He had to give all those signs, because He had no clue as to ‘when’ any of that would happen. By definition, He could not positively identify ‘this generation’ being the one living in that day. I have not seen any Scriptural support from anywhere else from anyone here showing that Christ really did know the day and the hour.
Faramir >> And in that case, since you do not find any scriptural support persuasive, there must not be any "true preterist".
I do not see any Scriptural evidence coming from anybody on this Board . . . period. However, I also believe that part of the lack of response is over Dee Dee’s behavior when anyone tries to discuss the points relating to this topic. She drew the conclusion at Post #15 that “preterists are not in the extreme minority here,” and before we even started the second page of posts. Up to that point only about a half dozen people had written on this thread, and you know I was not there as one of them.
Faramir >> And taken to its logical extreme, there are no "true" anythings unless they happen to agree with Terral.
No sir. You just showed the reason why I was required to use the Board definition of Preterism while defining those as ‘Preterists’ who hold to those ‘Scriptural’ beliefs. Are you trying to say that the true Preterist on this Board does not believe that Christ was addressing ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) living in that day? Please forgive, but I have now read enough on this topic to understand that those calling themselves Preterists believe Christ is DEFINITELY speaking to the generation living in THAT DAY in Matthew 24:34. All I am interested in are the Scriptural reasons for them believing that way to establish if they are truly a “Preterist.” Just toss me a bone that says something. I do not wish to debate with you of whether that particular verse proves your case or not. That is NOT part of this thread, as Dee Dee says.
Faramir >> There are no "tue Mormons", there are no "true Jehovah's Witnesses", there are no "true Muslims" only people who rely on man made theories and do not trust to the inspiration of God which is the sole property of Terral.
Those are different topics that have nothing to do with my hypothesis clearly outlined in Dee Dee’s OP. Please try to write on the topic we are discussing out of respect to the thread starter.
Faramir >> So what you were really saying is that the people who agree with Terral are in the extreme minority at TWeb. Well, shucks. I guess you are right.
No sir. We are using the Board definition that defines “Preterism” in order to establish who really believes that way by asking one qualifying question and one question only. Preterists are intelligent thinking human beings who hold onto their Theology for Scriptural reasons . . . right? That is what I am being led to believe here. When I see a Scripture reason for you to show Christ is addressing ‘this generation’ living in THAT DAY, then that is your evidence of being a Preterist. Let’s face it . . . I can call myself an Oscar Meyer Weiner, but does that make it so? You might want to ask for my credentials to prove my case . . .
Faramir >> But you used words that meant something totally different. Words that mean one thing to you and something else to every other person. No wonder no one wants to discuss things with you. You change the deffinition so that you are never wrong. (Hey. That's shifting the goal post, yet another falacy to add to your resume)
That is why we are using the Board definition of the term “Preterism,” which existed here long before I arrived. Do you believe that Christ came on the clouds and fulfilled the prophecies of Matthew 24 almost 2000 years ago? If so, then congratulations!, because you are a real live Preterist who believes Christ was speaking to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) living in THAT DAY. That is what it means to be a true Preterist, Faramir, and you can stop the doubletalk anytime. Just hand over the Scriptural reasoning behind believing that way, and I can put your name under the heading of Preterist.

Again, I have no inclination at all to debate with any Preterists on this thread. We are only here to establish whether or not anyone here truly fits the definition of the term. Just give the Scriptural reference in answer to the question, and I am happy to put your name under the Preterist heading on my list.

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

. Do you believe that Christ came on the clouds and fulfilled the prophecies of Matthew 24 almost 2000 years ago? If so, then congratulations!, because you are a real live Preterist who believes Christ was speaking to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) living in THAT DAY.

Every preterist who answered that poll believes so. Out of those who answered the poll, the preterists are not in the extreme minority.

Thanks for proving my point.

Wanting to debate you is not a requirement. You sure have a very hard time admitting when you mis-spoke.

[Terral]

Spiritmech:
Terral Original >> "No we are very much on the topic of whether Preterists here are in the minority. Why don't you explain how my post is on another topic from what is described in your OP. Preterists believe that Christ was addressing the generation (Matt. 24:34) of that day. Right or wrong?"

Spiritmech >> Hah. "No we are very much on the topic, so let me change it." I love that. It seems fairly obvious her OP was demographic in nature, while your concern is interpretive. Two separate things. If you would like to count preterists, do it here. Anything else, do it away from here.
Demographics are determined by the use of Polls. Please forgive, but where is the line to vote? Here is the OP again:
Dee Dee’s OP >> Terral on another thread said that preterists are in a extreme minority here - I wonder where he got his data from - amongst those who care to participate in a poll on this subject indicate very much otherwise - did he just make that up?
Her link goes to the “Tribulation Flavors” post on the top of the board. The topic of this thread appears to be more about me and my data, and did I just make this stuff up? Let’s truly look at this OP for what it says, and not for what some are trying to force it to say. When I basically call you a liar and start a thread bearing your name, and bring your testimony in question, then you will also feel the right to head over there and present your case. If this thread is about a Demographic Poll, then why is the very first word in the post “Terral . . .?” This thread is more about me than the ones I post.

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

Her link goes to the “Tribulation Flavors” post on the top of the board. The topic of this thread appears to be more about me and my data, and did I just make this stuff up?

It is a rhetorical question Terral - do I think you sat down, and said, "buahahahahahaha, let's see what I can deviously and purposefully concoct."

No.

I think you shot your mouth off WITHOUT thinking and that is what gets you i trouble with some of your comments that you then refuse to do the right thing and correct. Deviousness would make you a liar. What I am accusing you of is sloppiness.

You have NO data other than a willingness to debate you. On that grounds, you are correct, such are in an extreme minority. Unfortunately for you that is not what defines a preterist.

I choose to define futurists as only those wear elf suits and make cookies. There you go. There is not one futurist on this board.

Wow. Go figure.

[Terral]

Dee Dee:
Dee Dee >> It is a rhetorical question Terral - do I think you sat down, and said, "buahahahahahaha, let's see what I can deviously and purposefully concoct." No.
Deviously? Heh. Perhaps those things entered someone’s mind when starting this thread using my name. Is that like a Big Bad Wolf to Goldilocks sound above? Heh.
Dee Dee >> I think you shot your mouth off WITHOUT thinking and that is what gets you i trouble with some of your comments that you then refuse to do the right thing and correct. Deviousness would make you a liar. What I am accusing you of is sloppiness.
Accuse all you like . . . The proof is in the pudding, and I am not seeing evidence to disprove my original hypothesis. You believe Christ is speaking to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) living in THAT DAY. What Scriptural evidence to you have to support that theory? Nobody else among your friends here has provided the Scriptural evidence to support that interpretation. Where is yours?
Dee Dee >> You have NO data other than a willingness to debate you. On that grounds, you are correct, such are in an extreme minority. Unfortunately for you that is not what defines a preterist.
The definition of Preterism can be found by simply clicking on that word in this sentence. Preterists believe that Christ is addressing ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) living in that day. All I am interested in is the Scriptural proof you use to prop up that interpretation. That proves to me that you are indeed a Preterist. Simply having your friends come here and raise their hands is not proof of anything.
Dee Dee >> I choose to define futurists as only those wear elf suits and make cookies. There you go. There is not one futurist on this board.
Preterists are defined according to the Preterism Theology they hold to be truth. Revelation is a ‘book of prophecy’ (Rev. 22:7, 10, etc.) showing God’s will and plan for the ‘future.’ Regular Christian folks have no reason to invent the title “Futurist,” because they all believe the Book of Revelation (Matthew 24, etc.) is about the ‘day of the Lord’ being fulfilled in the future. I have worked in many churches of many denominations in the USA and abroad. This Preterist interpretation is held by a miniscule minority of professing Christians I have met in my travels. In fact, the people from this website are the first I have met who believe Revelation was fulfilled two or three decades, before it was even written.
Dee Dee >> Wow. Go figure.
Yes, go figure. It makes no Biblical sense to me either. Perhaps you expect a landslide of support to come out and support your Preterism on this thread, but I would not hold my breath . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

Thank you again for proving my point. Those who believe according to the forum definition are not in the extreme minority - ones status is not governed by whether or not they are willing to debate you. You are well aware that I have set out my Scriptural support in a lengthy commentary - thus I have satisfied even the requiremnet of having a defense in writing - debating you is not a requirement. This is the nonsensical circle you have presented:

There are no Scriptural reasons you think are valid
The only "true" preterists are the ones who can present Scriptural reasons you think are valid
Therefore there are no true preterists

Nice work there Terral, too bad is it utterly bankrupt.

You have though given me yet another foolish statement of yours to examine. :thumb:

[Terral]

Dee Dee:
Dee Dee >> Those who believe according to the forum definition are not in the extreme minority.
You just keep on believing that way. The Preterist Interpretation is being defeated on many threads here while you sit idly by and claim victory after proving nothing. The last post I read from Elizabeth on the Preterist Debate Thread ( http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=855040#post855040 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=855040#post855040) ) shows you losing the undecided vote. Running from the debate is not very convincing to anybody. Keep up the good work . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

Terral, when anyone is convinced or edified by ANY orthodox view I consider that a victory for God. Many persons on this board have become convinced of preterism, others haven't, another good friend was once convinced and later changed his mind. That is all a mark of Christian growth. So is admitting when you made rash statements, a bit of growing you have yet to do.

[spiritmech]

Dee Dee:

You just keep on believing that way. The Preterist Interpretation is being defeated on many threads here while you sit idly by and claim victory after proving nothing. The last post I read from Elizabeth on the Preterist Debate Thread ( http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=855040#post855040 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=855040#post855040) ) shows you losing the undecided vote. Running from the debate is not very convincing to anybody. Keep up the good work . . .

In Christ,

Terral

Perhaps you can bring forward proof of this. I want numbers. I want the stories of how they went from preterism to futurism. I don't believe you. I think you're lying and are just trying to sound bombastic to cover up the fact you made an assertion that you have no way of backing up.

The fact is, your critique of preterism isn't that forceful since you always write giant posts that bring in tangential arguments that lessen any force your argumentseseseseseses [multiple arguments] might have had.

SM

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

<snip>The Preterist interpretation is that Christ’s coming (Matt. 24:30) already occurred, according to the Board definition. Therefore, they believe Christ was speaking to the ‘generation’ of that day, when speaking in Matthew 24. Since Christ Himself says the Son has no clue about ‘when’ (Matt. 24:36), my question is presented to find the Scriptural support for believing Christ was addressing that generation of that day.

Right. And there are many people here at TWeb (not the majority, but certainly not an extreme minority either) who hold to that belief. Belief being the key word.

The definition came from this Website.

To refresh our readers here is the defintion from the web site:


“The belief that most of the prophetic literature and passages in the Old Testament and New Testament were either fulfilled in the person of Jesus or else fulfilled by His return in the clouds in 70ad at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.”


That is definition from the board. Note it says nothing about a "True Preterist having Scriptural reason (even though we do :grin: ) for our position the only requiment imposed by the boards definitino is belief.

Which is why you have to add a new requirment in order to avoid admitting an error:
The ‘true’ Preterist has a Scriptural reason for believing that Christ is addressing ‘this generation’ of that day.

To see how absurd this is let us once again turn to our alter ego, anti-Terral. For those of you not familiar with anti-Terral, he is the personna I made up to demonstrate the poor arugments used by the real Terral. But anti-Terral is making these poor arguments from the preterist perspective.

Futurist here are in the exreme minority. I base this on the definition of futurist here at the web site*:


“The belief that most of the prophetic literature and passages in the Old Testament and New Testament is still future, including a future 'great tribulation' that is yet to come.

The ‘true’ Futurist has a Scriptural reason for believing that Christ is addressing a future generation.

So by anti-Terral's defi

Or are you insinuating that these people believe that way for no reason at all?

No sir. You are the one insinuating that. You have been given the biblical reasons for the preterist position time and time again. You don't agree with those reasonings, fine. But to insinuate that there are no reasons at all

I am trying to give them credit for being reasonable thinking human beings, and some Preterists appear to be offended. For example: I am a Futurist, because Christ is describing Global catastrophic events that affect the whole world.

But you have not provided any scriptural support for this man made belief of yours.

You see Terral I would never say that you have not provided any scriptural support for you position, because you have. You have not provided any scriptural support that I find in the least bit persuasive, but you have refferenced scripture. But then that is the difference between you and I. I have provided scriptural support, yet you say I have not. You have a real issue with overstatement. That is not too bad, if you recognize this and/or admit when you overstate a position.

But this thread is a clear indication that when you overstate something, instead of admitting it you back peddle, change definitions, and genneraly avoid admitting your obvious overstatement.

It is techniques like this that make preterist not want to debate you. And I am not the only one saying this. You might just want to consider that the problem lies with you and not with the preterist on this board. And just to double check, why not search for discussion between me and Bill the Cat or Atantasius. These are futurist with whom I have not had to point out there obvious errors again and again. Once I point them out, they admitt it.

And guess what else? When they point out my obvious errors I admit them too. We have very cordial and productive discussions. I really hope that you can begin to have productive discussion, but until you either quit overstateing or admit to your overstatements, then productive discourse is not possible.

That is what I am here to prove, if one of you ever get around to answering my question. If my original hypothesis is correct, then the majority of people reading this thread believe ‘Your coming’ and the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3) are still future. They are also figuring out from the lack of Preterist response to my question that there is truly an extreme minority of ‘true’ Preterists on this Board.

Well by anit-Terral's definition there is an extreme minority of 'true' Futurist on this board. Hint: You ain't one of them. You have failed to answer my question. (In the same sense that I have failed to answer your question.)

Dee Dee seems upset that my point is off topic, but the fact is that I am walking in tight circles around this single objective which demonstrates the truth of my original hypothesis given in her OP which bears my name.


Dee Dee is upset that you are walking a huge circle around the topic by defining preterist as a 'true' preterist who can support thier position with scripture. It is upsetting to me for several reason:

1. The preterist here have used scripture to support thier arguments. You may not find their arguments persuasive, but guess what, they dont find your arguments persuasive either. We could say the same thing, that you have failed to support you position with scripture, but that would not be true. And preterist are interested in the truth. I think you are too, but honestly, when you say that preterist do not have scriptural support for our position is just not true.

You may not think it is very good support, but it is scriptural. Just like I think your scriptural support for your position is not very good.

By the fact that I believe none of you have a Scriptural reason to prove that Christ knows the century or year, much less the day or hour.

The scriptural reason was given. A good debater would address the reasons why they disagree with the scriptural support, not just assert that there is none. (Note I have not checked out the thread I started addressing these issues. Terral may have addressed these points there. If he did I will apologize for thinking that he did not. )
[quote]You want everyone to assume that Christ is addressing ‘this generation’ of that day without offering a shred of evidence at all.

Again, not true. I provided evidence. I doubt you find it convencing evidence but to say "not a shred" is just not true!!!! I do not think you are lying as in intentional mistatement, but I do think it is a sloopy overstatement. If you are going to participate in a debate forum, you really need to be more careful with you choice of words.

The context of Christ’s use of this phrase in the other places in Matthew (11:16, 12:41-45, 23:36) had a different context. I am hoping one of you will make the attempt at borrowing improper context to prove your case.

Bring this up in the other thread. This is getting off topic for this thread.


Evading the issue?

Please...I started another thread to discuss this issue. Give me a break. I want to discuss this issue, but I also want to respect the thread starter.

Please . . . This question speaks to the core of Preterism itself, and the master control center of what makes the Theology tick. The fact that nobody is coming out and saying, “Oh, Christ knows the day and hour because He says so here and here and over there,” tells me that Preterists are in the extreme minority here.

The fact that nobody is coming out and saying that, "Oh, Christ could not know the month and year, becuase He says so her and her and over there," tells me that Futurist are in the extreme minority here.

Let me repeat:

I have not said that Jesus knew the day and the hour. This is a straw man (see I even spelled it right so you wouldn't get confused). For the preterist interpretation to be right, Jesus does not need to know the day and the hour just the Generation.

That was my point and conclusion after ten pages of posts on the Preterist Debate Thread also. I am not looking to debate the topic, but merely seek the Scriptural evidence that justifies one calling himself a ‘true’ Preterist.
Well, I have been debating futurist here for ten years, and I have yet to see scriptural evidence the justifies one calling himself a 'true' futurist. At least not by your definition of 'true'.

You saying “I am a Preterist” is not good enough, as that is not the true definition of Preterism given on this Board.

Once again the board's definition:

[box]The belief that most of the prophetic literature and passages in the Old Testament and New Testament were either fulfilled in the person of Jesus or else fulfilled by His return in the clouds in 70ad at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.”

Where in that defintion does it say that in order to be a true preterist, you must have scriptural suport for thier position?

Answer it is not there.

I believe that that most of the prophetic literature and passages in the Old Testament and New Testament were either fulfilled in the person of Jesus or else fulfilled by His return in the clouds in 70ad at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Yet according to you I am not a true preterist, based on that very definition? Give me a break!!!!

If the definition of a slinker dinker was the "belief" that the ten comandments were written on an etch-a-scetch, one wouldn't need scriptural proof (there is none) of this to be a 'true' slinker dinker, all they would need is the belief.

You say that you use the definition of the board, but then you add to it. Fess us, you used your own definition.




Because my opinion is already known from the OP. How many people here believe the ‘Board’ definition of Preterism?

Quite a lot. Howver, no one fits your definition of preterism which is a person who believes preterist theology, and can prove it to you.

What makes you the arbiter of what a true preterist is? I think I am going to say that no one is a true futurist unless they can convence that futurism is true. That is the extreme of arogance, and I would never say that. But then, I would also admit when I a make an overstatement or even an outright mistake.

Go and read the hundreds of Webpages describing Preterism on the Internet and find the commonality of Matthew 24 that runs through most all of them. Here is one: ( http://www.preteristarchive.com/ (http://www.preteristarchive.com/) ) You find free books on commentary of Matthew 24 (left column) along with “Preterism: Matthew 24: Before the Second coming of Jesus.” Out of the sixty six books of Scripture, they bring you to Matthew to prove their case. And from twenty eight chapters they bring you to chapter twenty four. Therefore, I am standing in the middle of their favorite book and most important chapter and asking a qualifying question to determine who among us is a true Preterist, according to the accepted definitions of the term.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You are making the ability to prove thier position to you an additional requirement for preterism. That is absurd. And like I said earlier the logical conclusion is there are no 'true' Mormons, JW, Islams, etc. because none of these can convence Terall of their position either.

Nobody has shown me Scriptural support for placing knowledge of the day and hour of all the signs of Matthew 24 into the mind of Christ.

Either you acknowledge that preterist have shown scriptural support (i.e. our interpretation of Matthew 24:34) or admit that you have not shown any scriptural support either, because I for one am not convenced by your "scriptural support" .

It is circular to claim that becuase scripture supports your position, you are the only one with scriptural support. I believe scritpur suports my position and your position is a man made fabrication. Yet I do not go around saying you have no scriptural support. You do. I address why my scriptural support is the correct interpretation. This is what debate is about not asserting that your opponent has no scriptural support, but showing why your scriptural support is better than his/hers.


<snip> Off topic. Please address in other thread <snip> She drew the conclusion at Post #15 that “preterists are not in the extreme minority here,” and before we even started the second page of posts. Up to that point only about a half dozen people had written on this thread, and you know I was not there as one of them.

Her conclusion was based on a poll where people identified themselves as preterist. Address that issue please.


No sir. You just showed the reason why I was required to use the Board definition of Preterism while defining those as ‘Preterists’ who hold to those ‘Scriptural’ beliefs. Are you trying to say that the true Preterist on this Board does not believe that Christ was addressing ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) living in that day?

No sir you are trying to say that, by adding an unreasonable qualification that they prove to you the validity of thier position.
Please forgive, but I have now read enough on this topic to understand that those calling themselves Preterists believe Christ is DEFINITELY speaking to the generation living in THAT DAY in Matthew 24:34.

It took you this long to figure it out. At this rate we may be able to convince you of preterism by AD 2119.
All I am interested in are the Scriptural reasons for them believing that way to establish if they are truly a “Preterist.”
By the boards definition, why do we need a scriptural reason. The definition only required belief. You added the requirement for scriptural reason to wiggle out of your gross overstatement.

Just toss me a bone that says something. I do not wish to debate with you of whether that particular verse proves your case or not. That is NOT part of this thread, as Dee Dee says.

I did that, and provided a link to the new thread I started.

Now put your money where your mouth is.

Those are different topics that have nothing to do with my hypothesis clearly outlined in Dee Dee’s OP. Please try to write on the topic we are discussing out of respect to the thread starter.

No those were examples of the logical conclusion of your requirment that 'true' preterist provide you some acceptable scriptural proof, before they can be considered 'true' preterist.


No sir. We are using the Board definition that defines “Preterism” in order to establish who really believes that way by asking one qualifying question and one question only. Preterists are intelligent thinking human beings who hold onto their Theology for Scriptural reasons . . . right?

I hold on to my preterist position for scriptural reasons. I have given you those reason. You have dismissed them out of hand without even addressing them. That does not mean I do not have scriptural support for my position. It just means that you do not accept my scriptural support as valid, as I do not accept yours. Does that mean you are not a 'true' futurist?

That is what I am being led to believe here. When I see a Scripture reason for you to show Christ is addressing ‘this generation’ living in THAT DAY, then that is your evidence of being a Preterist.

Matt. 24:34. That is scriputre is it not? Do I pass your test?

Let’s face it . . . I can call myself an Oscar Meyer Weiner, but does that make it so? You might want to ask for my credentials to prove my case . . .

Right, but if preterist meant someone who called themselves an Oscar Meyer weiner, then you would, by definition be a preterist. Whether or not you were an Oscar Meyer Weiner.

You are wanting to define preterist as people who hold to the preterist position, only if it is true to you. That dog won't hunt.

That is why we are using the Board definition of the term “Preterism,” which existed here long before I arrived.

You are modifying the board defintion in an attempt to make your clearly wrong statement look right. Hint: You are making yourself look even worse.

Do you believe that Christ came on the clouds and fulfilled the prophecies of Matthew 24 almost 2000 years ago? If so, then congratulations!, because you are a real live Preterist who believes Christ was speaking to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) living in THAT DAY. That is what it means to be a true Preterist, Faramir, and you can stop the doubletalk anytime.

Now you are back peddling. If the only thing required is belief, then Dee Dee was right. Those who professed to be preterist in the poll are 'true' preterist, and are not in the extreme minority at TWeb. Thank you for conceding the point.

Just hand over the Scriptural reasoning behind believing that way, and I can put your name under the heading of Preterist.

...and you acuse me of double talk? :lmbo:

First you say proof is required, then you say only belief (which is the boards definition). Now you are requiring that I provide scriptural reasoning (which I have already btw. Just becuase you ignored it does not mean it ain't there).

Now all you have to do is give me scriptural reasoning why you believe the futurist position and I can put your name under the heading Futurist.

Oh, wait, you have done that havn't you. Not that your scriptural reasoning was sound IMHO, but you did provide scriptural reasoning.

I have no problem accepting that you are a futurist, even a 'true' futurist. Because I accept the definitions that everyone else uses.

Why do you have such a hard time giving me the lable 'preterist'.
And please do not say I have not provided scriptural reasoning because I have!!!! You may not agree with the reasoning, but that does not make it any less scriptural reasoning.

I disagree with your scriptural reasoning, but I acknowledge it and address it. Maybe the reason you have such a hard time ackowledging it is because you can't address it. Pretend it is not there and maybe it will go away? Is that your plan.

I don't play that way. So I will address your scriptrual reasoning.

Again, I have no inclination at all to debate with any Preterists on this thread. We are only here to establish whether or not anyone here truly fits the definition of the term. Just give the Scriptural reference in answer to the question, and I am happy to put your name under the Preterist heading on my list.

Wrong. We are here to establish wheter or not preterist are in the extreme minority on TWeb.

According to the definition that everyone else uses the answer is no.

According to the definition you use yes.

The real question now is why should we accept your bogus definition?



*Note: There is no definition for Futurist in TWeb's glossary, so I made one up. This is something that needs to be changes. Even though I am a preterist, I think it is wrong to have a definition of preterist and not futurist.