How many folks have switched to some form of preterism since joining this forum?

[dizzle]

Not necessarily what would be typical "partial preterism" but even what one correspondent referred to as semi-preterism?

[dizzle]

no persons who were committed preterists before joining, but if you were considering when joining you may vote, especially if that is one of the reasons you joined

[mossrose]

Never! Never!

Nope.

Not interested.

:rasberry:

[dizzle]

I wish to add to the poll not only in relation to this forum but also after meeting/reading my material

[Amazing Rando]

I think the Preterist understanding of the apocalyptic discourses in the gospels are pretty accurate (a la NT Wright), but I've got some definite misgivings about reading the entirety (or nearly so) of Revelation to be a prediction of the Jewish Wars and the destruction of the Jerusalem in AD 70.

[One Bad Pig]

It may take a good commentary on Revelation to fully convince me.

[dizzle]

Rando that is why I said "some form" - there are preterists who are preteristic to Revelation but more historicist or idealist

[technomage]

Nope. Them preterists are cra-a-a-azy! :rasberry:

[dizzle]

I voted in the joke option to easily see my own poll results

[technomage]

Nope. Them preterists are cra-a-a-azy! :rasberry:
Oops--didn't mean to send it that soon. :hehe:

Seriously, since leaving futurism, I've been a historicist--I simply cannot fathom the complete and total leap of faith to make Matthew and Revelation pre-70 books. *shrug* But I'm also not terribly exercised about it.

[Amazing Rando]

Oops--didn't mean to send it that soon. :hehe:

Seriously, since leaving futurism, I've been a historicist--I simply cannot fathom the complete and total leap of faith to make Matthew and Revelation pre-70 books. *shrug* But I'm also not terribly exercised about it.

It doesn't necessarily mean that Matthew is a pre-70 book. All it means is that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple before it happened (which given the fact that he's the Son of God doesn't seem like such a stretch to me!).

:eek:

[dizzle]

I was going to say that as well RAndo. In fact if Matthew is post-70 then I think you definitely would be some form of preterist.

[dizzle]

It may take a good commentary on Revelation to fully convince me.

I am considering writing one.

[Amazing Rando]

I was going to say that as well RAndo. In fact if Matthew is post-70 then I think you definitely would be some form of preterist.

I tend to defer to what seems to me to be the scholarly consensus- even amongst evangelicals- that Mark was around 65 or so, and Matt and Luke (which both seem to draw upon Mark as a source) coming 10-15 years later (at least in their final forms).

I guess when I read the Last Disciple, as much as I liked Hank's vision of Revelation, I didn't quite buy it all. Has the sequil come out yet?

[technomage]

I was going to say that as well RAndo. In fact if Matthew is post-70 then I think you definitely would be some form of preterist.

*shrug* Most of the Futurists I know hold that Matt 24 is a dual prophecy, fulfilled in AD 70 and in the future "Fig Tree Generation." Some even hold it to be a triple prophecy (remembering Bar Kochbah), but far to many Baptists don't have the slightest clue who that is.

[Amazing Rando]

*shrug* Most of the Futurists I know hold that Matt 24 is a dual prophecy, fulfilled in AD 70 and in the future "Fig Tree Generation." Some even hold it to be a triple prophecy (remembering Bar Kochbah), but far to many Baptists don't have the slightest clue who that is.

:lol:

I don't worry too much about it- Christians have been debating these same things since the scriptures were written. They certainly won't be solved in a day! :teeth:

Honestly, I love how God left our scriptures to be so amazingly ambiguous.

[Xavier]

Even Jaltus, straight futurist extraordinaire, notes the "already-not yet" view of the Kingdom of God. I'm not sure how you can state that without being preteristic in some sense of the term.

[technomage]

Honestly, I love how God left our scriptures to be so amazingly ambiguous.

*shrug* That's part of the reason I've had to take quite a bit of the Bible as we have it as non-literal. It wasn't exactly an easy decision on my part, but ... I can't wrap my mind around completel literality and retain faith in it.

[Geek Eclectic]

I've been considering Preterism lately. I don't know that much about it, and I'm too lazy to read all of the articles on your site(at least all at once...). What little I've read, though, seems to be a lot cleaner of an interpretation of certain prophecies than futurism/dispensationalism. Also, Preterism makes me a Jew, and that's just cool.

I've read a little explanation of the eschatology in the Left Behind series, and to me it seems they mash prophecies together in ways that don't always make sense to me in order to get the final result. So yes, even though it means disagreeing with many of my fellow churchgoers, I'm considering Preterism as a better interpretation of Matthew.

I'm in the air about Revelations, though, for the same reasons mentioned above. I voiced concerns about Revelations prophecies in the Paltalk room once and was met with the useless response of "Do you take everything in the Bible literally?" While I don't take every word of the Bible literally, there are many events detailed in Revelation that don't seem to have been fulfilled even figuratively around 70 AD, but my knowledge is limited(which may be the entire problem I'm having). I'd like to hear the explanations from someone who knows more about Preterism, the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple, and the Book of Revelations than I do.

But yes, seriously considering it.

[Amazing Rando]

*shrug* That's part of the reason I've had to take quite a bit of the Bible as we have it as non-literal. It wasn't exactly an easy decision on my part, but ... I can't wrap my mind around completel literality and retain faith in it.

Without knowing the specifics of what you mean, I can't say to what degree I concur there. :smile:

You're quite well-read in biblical studies material. In what sorts of contexts has your study come thus far?

[Ryokan]

I am an idealist. So, no.

[Ryokan]

I am an idealist. So, no.
I did become a Christian though! :blush:

[CatholicSage]

Nope, definitely not. Is it wrong that I have virtually no interest in eschatology at all? This is like the third time I've come to this forum.

[furay]

Nope, definitely not. Is it wrong that I have virtually no interest in eschatology at all? This is like the third time I've come to this forum.
Not at all. If eschatology is your thang, then that's cool and all, but if I had my way this forum would be replaced with one on the Lives of the Saints or something else edifying.

:eek: Uh-oh.... I'm in for it now. :eek:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Not necessarily what would be typical "partial preterism" but even what one correspondent referred to as semi-preterism?I was halfway there, from memory. You pushed me over the edge. Your influence has really spread far and wide, it is incredidble the extent to which God has used you in this way, beyond what any of us will know just by observing what happens at Tweb.

[Straylight]

Matthew is too focused on and draws too many pre-70 images of Judaism to be written post-70 imho....But as it was stated earlier, it wouldn't matter much anyways. Mark presents the Olivet discourse first, and very few date Mark after 70.

Secondly, Luke, who carries much of the same message as Matthew (and is either based on Mark and Matthew or based on Mark and draws on a similar source as Matthew), must have been written around the same time as Matthew. If Luke was drawing on Matthew, or drawing on sources similar to Matthew, then it would either

1) date Matthew as being earlier
2) date the sources common to both as being earlier than 70

Basically, the argument is that we can deduce a little about the date of Matthew from getting an estimate about Luke.

So how can we get a date for Luke?

In the Book of Acts, which Luke wrote after his gospel, he ends his chronicle with Paul still being under house arrest -- Which would be 60-62.

Don't you think that if he had written his gospel post 70, then he would have at the very least mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem in Acts (seeing that it was a catastrophe of major proportions)?

He doesn't even record the trials of Peter and Paul under Nero (around 67). He doesn't even record the antics of Nero when he set fire to Rome (around 64) -- The only explanation for any of this is that he didn't know about them....Because they didn't happen yet.

If you ask me, I think the gospels are earlier than even some conservative scholars would be comfortable with believing.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I am an idealist. So, no.Don't speak too soon! By "idealist" I assume you're talking about the imagery of the book of Revelation, and the thousand years in particular. This is totally compatible with, say, a preterist reading of the Olivet discourse.

[johnnybanano]

So basically, the question is, "Who has less confidence in futurism as a result of TWeb?"

[Ryokan]

Don't speak too soon! By "idealist" I assume you're talking about the imagery of the book of Revelation, and the thousand years in particular. This is totally compatible with, say, a preterist reading of the Olivet discourse.
I don't dismiss it as possible, but I it's not something I have any conviction about. But.... Its not something, as of yet at least, I ahve been hugely interested in.

[suffer for joy]

What is preterism specifically? The glossary definition is a bit vague.

Personally I am non-cessationist, so I'm not sure what that lies under.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Not me. I have been here fro near 3 years now, and have defended futurism that whole time. I've discussed the issue with Hitch, Faramir, Dee Dee, Adam Naranjo, and a few others here and there. I will however say that the LaHaye and John Hagee brands of futurism are now nauseating to me instead of entertaining.

I still see a pretty strong connection between Matt 24, Matt 13, and Dan 13, although I am still piecing together how they mesh and when they happen in relation to the events of Revelation 20. Lots more study to do, but I still love you preterist folks!

[suffer for joy]

As a side note, the glossary should be [heavily] updated to represent the other views. Why is preterism the only one on there?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

As a side note, the glossary should be [heavily] updated to represent the other views. Why is preterism the only one on there?
Actually, S4J, that is intentionally a long running joke here... Blame Dee Dee :egad:

[suffer for joy]

Dee Dee! :rant:

[dizzle]

Don't speak too soon! By "idealist" I assume you're talking about the imagery of the book of Revelation, and the thousand years in particular. This is totally compatible with, say, a preterist reading of the Olivet discourse.

Exactly.

[dizzle]

So basically, the question is, "Who has less confidence in futurism as a result of TWeb?"


Sort of - that is what the "I am considering it" category is for I guess.

[dizzle]

What is preterism specifically? The glossary definition is a bit vague.

Personally I am non-cessationist, so I'm not sure what that lies under.

That Matthew 24, at least up to verse 34, is not intendedt to be primarily aobut any future Great Tribulation, but refers to the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and Temple. Also, that dispensationalism is wrong, Jesus is reigning now, no future millennium - those are kind of the essentials.

[dizzle]

I was halfway there, from memory. You pushed me over the edge. Your influence has really spread far and wide, it is incredidble the extent to which God has used you in this way, beyond what any of us will know just by observing what happens at Tweb.

Wow theonomy thank you.

[suffer for joy]

That Matthew 24, at least up to verse 34, is not intendedt to be primarily aobut any future Great Tribulation, but refers to the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and Temple. Also, that dispensationalism is wrong, Jesus is reigning now, no future millennium - those are kind of the essentials.

Ok, then Im a futurist.

And you're all wrong.
:teeth:

[technomage]

Without knowing the specifics of what you mean, I can't say to what degree I concur there. :smile:

You're quite well-read in biblical studies material. In what sorts of contexts has your study come thus far?

Broadly speaking, I've had to take large passages of the OT as anhistorical: basically the entire Pentateuch, the Conquest, and the Patriarchal accounts. And I've had to look at other accounts as "legendized"--the United Monarchy being the most significant.

I've become persuaded that these accounts were never intended to be understood literally by the original authors--any more than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Enuma Elish were intended to be taken literally.

[Tux314]

What do I put if I came to accept partial preterism after joining this forum, but it wasn't a result of this forum? It was more reading Holding (on Tektonics, though I know he participates here) and DeMar...

[dizzle]

You select that you did - it didn't have to be directly because of this forum - I have done some writing on Tekton on the subject as well (and despite Holding's protests, I take credit for his conversion on the subject :smile:)

[dizzle]

Ok, then Im a futurist.

And you're all wrong.
:teeth:

Which part do you disagree with?

[dizzle]

As a side note, the glossary should be [heavily] updated to represent the other views. Why is preterism the only one on there?

Because it's the only right one :wink:

[mossrose]

Ok, then Im a futurist.

And you're all wrong.
:teeth:
:yipee:

Was thinking I was the only one!

Because it's the only right one :wink:

:doh:

:rasberry:

[Geek Eclectic]

Because it's the only right one :wink:
That's another thing that confused me about Preterism. The definition from the website glossary clearly states that Jesus returned in the clouds at the destruction of the temple in AD 70. When I asked about this in the Paltalk chatroom, I got the response that Preterism doesn't make any claim about Jesus's return...and I'm pretty sure the response was from DDW herself.

[semmie]

when i came to tweb, i basically held to historicism. i still basically do.

i will say that i'm open to preterism, and i am very interested in learning more about it. i'm not really "considering" it, though.

[Trout]

I used your Matthew 24 commentary to introduce my Sunday School class to Preterism. A room full of hard core dispies, were shaking in their boots at the end of the class.

I don't know - for certain - if the material is that compelling, or if my class has a poverty of knowledge in defense of their positions? But either way, I can see and feel your influence all over the world wide web.

[Straylight]

I just find it amazing that dispensationalism has pretty much become the de facto interpretation of the "end times" in such a short time frame (starting with Darby, I suppose). At this point in (at least American) 21st century church history, the basic model that it propogates has even stretched it's ugly tentacles to denominations other than pentecostalism or evangelicism.

I don't care if a majority ever adopts preterism or not, but at the very least, I would like to see dispensationalism completely squashed and forgotten for all time, never to be mentioned again. It's not only bad eschatology, it's bad theology. And not just "bad" in the sense of "ignorant" either, but "bad" in the sense of "wicked and fit for nothing except the fires of hell" (excuse the damning language, but that's the Pentecostal in me talking). It's representative of doctrine that denies the complete supremecy of Christ, whether consciously or unconsciously. I wish that I could just wring it out of anyone who holds to it.

[Harfelugan]

I was introduced to preterism by a friend at work , yes , they are spreading the word to the ignorant masses . He started by asking who I thought the seven letters were written to in an attempt lure me in . By the time he was done I had read the works of R. C. Sproll , Josephus' War of the Jews , and an actual commentary of revelation written by a partial preterist , some of the stuff on Holding's site and even dug through the old threads of Tweeb . Loved it all and consider it to have been fun valuable study time . Futurism answered the important questions for me that Preterism left hanging . I dont think I could make a full conversion unless I embraced Reformed Theology and Postmilliniallism at the same . It's all in the end game .

[Straylight]

I dont think I could make a full conversion unless I embraced Reformed Theology and Postmilliniallism at the same . It's all in the end game .

I wouldn't think that you'd have to embrace Reformed Theology per se. Reformed Theology in it's purest sense has it's own particular brand of eschatology (historicism). Preterism is an exclusive idea to it, though it can be compatible as well.

All that being said, the only eschatological theories that I wish would be dispensed of (pardon the pun) are those which try to sidebar the Covenant and Atonement of Christ. That's the bottom line. And sadly, up to this point, just about any brand of futurism does it. Otherwise well meaning futurist Christians aren't thinking it through from a theological standpoint.

[dizzle]

That's another thing that confused me about Preterism. The definition from the website glossary clearly states that Jesus returned in the clouds at the destruction of the temple in AD 70. When I asked about this in the Paltalk chatroom, I got the response that Preterism doesn't make any claim about Jesus's return...and I'm pretty sure the response was from DDW herself.

I have nothing to do with the glossary actually. I don't think I ever even saw the entry, I will take a look at it. The problem is an equivocation (which is not necessarily bad) but the word "coming" is very often flexible. If the glossary says "return" that is incorrect and needs to be fixed.

[dizzle]

I used your Matthew 24 commentary to introduce my Sunday School class to Preterism. A room full of hard core dispies, were shaking in their boots at the end of the class.

I don't know - for certain - if the material is that compelling, or if my class has a poverty of knowledge in defense of their positions? But either way, I can see and feel your influence all over the world wide web.

It could be just exposure to a new view and realizing that people had good reasons to hold it. I know when I was dispie futurist, I wrote off those crazy amills as folks who just couldn't "take the Bible literally' and that was that. I got a bit discombulated when I saw that such people weren't the "liberals" that I painted them as but had very good reasons for their position. Most futurists have very very little education to the reasons behind positions such as mine - I spend multiple pages at Rapture Ready just explaining how flexible the word "coming" is and I had to conclude it was just unwillingness to see the validity behind another's arguments. It is easier to write others off.

Sometime my goal is not necessarily to convince people but to at least have them understand WHY some people think differently and to avoid the inevitable ignorant comment - if Jesus came in AD70 how come nobody saw Him.

Now that is a perfectly acceptable comment from someone new to the view. That is a perfectly unacceptable comment from someone new to the view but has ALREADY decided it is wrong, which is unfortunately all to common.

[dizzle]

I just find it amazing that dispensationalism has pretty much become the de facto interpretation of the "end times" in such a short time frame (starting with Darby, I suppose). At this point in (at least American) 21st century church history, the basic model that it propogates has even stretched it's ugly tentacles to denominations other than pentecostalism or evangelicism.

I don't care if a majority ever adopts preterism or not, but at the very least, I would like to see dispensationalism completely squashed and forgotten for all time, never to be mentioned again. It's not only bad eschatology, it's bad theology. And not just "bad" in the sense of "ignorant" either, but "bad" in the sense of "wicked and fit for nothing except the fires of hell" (excuse the damning language, but that's the Pentecostal in me talking). It's representative of doctrine that denies the complete supremecy of Christ, whether consciously or unconsciously. I wish that I could just wring it out of anyone who holds to it.

I agree. I oppose dispie-ism moreso than futurism. However, (I understand your hyperbole) I don't separate from dispies being a former dispie myself. But it is incredbibly bad theology much worse than simple futurism.

[dizzle]

I was introduced to preterism by a friend at work , yes , they are spreading the word to the ignorant masses . He started by asking who I thought the seven letters were written to in an attempt lure me in . By the time he was done I had read the works of R. C. Sproll , Josephus' War of the Jews , and an actual commentary of revelation written by a partial preterist , some of the stuff on Holding's site and even dug through the old threads of Tweeb . Loved it all and consider it to have been fun valuable study time . Futurism answered the important questions for me that Preterism left hanging . I dont think I could make a full conversion unless I embraced Reformed Theology and Postmilliniallism at the same . It's all in the end game .

I am not Reformed whatsoever. There are numerous non-Reformed prets here. However, Postmill or Amill are part of the game. I am Postmill. I think by Reformed you meant "covenant eschatology" and I agree wtih you there.

[dizzle]

The poll results are revealing. Four years ago and very few people would have answered that way. I am not dismayed or surprised by the high number of "not considering it" - though respectfully I say (I looked at some of the names) - some of those not considering it or definitely not don't have good reasons articulared why. Some of those listed in fact do as I am familiar with debating with them, such as manasseh.

[dizzle]

For instance, let me put some people on the spot:

Darth Jade: why not?

General Ripper: it was systematized in Catholocism, why not?

Just Joan: Why not?

mossrose: Why not?

suffer for joy: What exactly do you have an issue with.

I did not pick on Ryokan 'cause he is a new believer, and I think eschatology is one of those things that a new believer doesn't need anyone hounding them about.

[dizzle]

Darth Rubia: Chicken!!!!!!

I remember my visit to Boom's house. I never moved across a room so fast, Bible in hand, when you told me you were interested in learning more about preterism.

[Geek Eclectic]

Sometime my goal is not necessarily to convince people but to at least have them understand WHY some people think differently and to avoid the inevitable ignorant comment - if Jesus came in AD70 how come nobody saw Him.
That's exactly the question I asked one time, and someone gave me the answer that Preterism doesn't say He returned. I'm glad you're looking over the glossary definition because that was really confusing.
Now that is a perfectly acceptable comment from someone new to the view. That is a perfectly unacceptable comment from someone new to the view but has ALREADY decided it is wrong, which is unfortunately all to common.
Yeah. No preconceived notions of Preterism here! :thumb:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I just find it amazing that dispensationalism has pretty much become the de facto interpretation of the "end times" in such a short time frame (starting with Darby, I suppose). At this point in (at least American) 21st century church history, the basic model that it propogates has even stretched it's ugly tentacles to denominations other than pentecostalism or evangelicism.

I don't care if a majority ever adopts preterism or not, but at the very least, I would like to see dispensationalism completely squashed and forgotten for all time, never to be mentioned again. It's not only bad eschatology, it's bad theology. And not just "bad" in the sense of "ignorant" either, but "bad" in the sense of "wicked and fit for nothing except the fires of hell" (excuse the damning language, but that's the Pentecostal in me talking). It's representative of doctrine that denies the complete supremecy of Christ, whether consciously or unconsciously. I wish that I could just wring it out of anyone who holds to it.


Wow.

[Straylight]

Wow.

It's not eschatology that I'm condemning per se. I really don't concern myself with eschatology as much as it would seem. What I'm condemning is the theological framework behind certain brands of futurism -- Dispensationalism being the biggest dog. It has zero (Yes, "zero") regard for the Covenant of Christ, and deserves to be shot down much worse than what I typed above.

[furay]

General Ripper: it was systematized in Catholocism, why not?
What does the Magisterium have to say about preterism? I'm not coming up with much info on the Catholic view of preterism online.

[dizzle]

Furay not in the magisterium, but look up Alcazar in the Catholic Encyclopedia. He was a Jesuit who was the first to systemize to some extent the view.

[technomage]

I must protest the wording of the poll: Option 1 is grossly mis-spelled. The correct spelling is "Resistance is futile."





:hehe:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I avoid preterism like a plague.
I hear it makes your mind calcify.
dlw

[technomage]

I avoid preterism like a plague.
I hear it makes your mind calcify.
dlw
Not calcify. But the Borg implants do cause skin irritation.

[Xavier]

Not calcify. But the Borg implants do cause skin irritation.
HA, Justin is the EMH... :hehe:

[jason]

Not necessarily what would be typical "partial preterism" but even what one correspondent referred to as semi-preterism?
Me too.

Jason

[Ishmael]

I was a preterist when I first met Dee Dee.

[dizzle]

I was a preterist when I first met Dee Dee.

I am not responsible for that :wink: nor your mistaken amillennialism.

[wraizyr]

:lol:

I don't worry too much about it- Christians have been debating these same things since the scriptures were written. They certainly won't be solved in a day! :teeth:

Honestly, I love how God left our scriptures to be so amazingly ambiguous.
I have, due largely to this site, along with the DeeDee blog, Tekton, and a Gary deMar book.

[Brandalf85]

I think the thing next to my avatar says enough! :fencing:

[eschaton]

I've been visiting here since July 2003 and I haven't seen anything yet that would make me want to become a preterist. In fact, if anything, I would think anybody that's read a substantial number of the threads would go just the opposite direction as fast as they could.

[dizzle]

thanks, I really appreciate it

[Harfelugan]

I am not Reformed whatsoever. There are numerous non-Reformed prets here. However, Postmill or Amill are part of the game. I am Postmill. I think by Reformed you meant "covenant eschatology" and I agree wtih you there.
Thank you for a better clarification. You are probably correct on that . However I never thought that the Jews being restored in Christ would be anything outside of the current New Covenant of Christ or the Covenant of Atonement but have believed and taught in agreement with Bill The Cats Post in this thread . In Sproll's book on the Olivet Discourse he outlined the best fit theology escatology mix to fit preterism into was the reformed/calvinist/ postmill but maybe he was just biased in his own theology as we all are.However there was almost no mix that he believed that preterism could'nt make a fit . What do you believe to be the best mix to allow someone to concede to preterism the quickest. Also I didn't mean to imply that a preterist had to be post mill , reformed only that I would have to befor I became a preterist. Thanks Again.......

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Thank you for a better clarification. You are probably correct on that . However I never thought that the Jews being restored in Christ would be anything outside of the current New Covenant of Christ or the Covenant of Atonement but have believed and taught in agreement with Bill The Cats Post in this thread . In Sproll's book on the Olivet Discourse he outlined the best fit theology escatology mix to fit preterism into was the reformed/calvinist/ postmill but maybe he was just biased in his own theology as we all are.However there was almost no mix that he believed that preterism could'nt make a fit . What do you believe to be the best mix to allow someone to concede to preterism the quickest. Also I didn't mean to imply that a preterist had to be post mill , reformed only that I would have to befor I became a preterist. Thanks Again.......
The discussion was split off to here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69527

[dizzle]

Thank you for a better clarification. You are probably correct on that . However I never thought that the Jews being restored in Christ would be anything outside of the current New Covenant of Christ or the Covenant of Atonement but have believed and taught in agreement with Bill The Cats Post in this thread . In Sproll's book on the Olivet Discourse he outlined the best fit theology escatology mix to fit preterism into was the reformed/calvinist/ postmill but maybe he was just biased in his own theology as we all are.However there was almost no mix that he believed that preterism could'nt make a fit . What do you believe to be the best mix to allow someone to concede to preterism the quickest. Also I didn't mean to imply that a preterist had to be post mill , reformed only that I would have to befor I became a preterist. Thanks Again.......

I didn't care for Sproul's book by the way, so I would say he was likely pushing his own particular mix. In all fairness though most preterists are reformed, but there is a good bunch that are not. There are only two things that have to be abandoned to clear the road - dispensationalism and premillennialism.

If you would like a great and free book contra-dispensationalism I have one on my site. The author is a bit more strident than myself (he considers dispensationalism to be heretical - but he doesn't trumpet that on every page, just once in a while) I have it on my site. Very few dispesnationalists can read that book unshaken

It is Philip Mauro's, "The Hope of Israel" http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/maurohope.html

A more recent, but not free book is, The Israel of God in Prophecy by Hans K. LaRondelle a book which I anecdotally heard caused a significant defection from dispensationalism when it made the rounds of Dallas Theological Seminary.

I used to be a dispensational futurist myself so I understand the position I hope reasonably well.

[eschaton]

The only problem is that Mauro, published in 1929, promises us that there is no need for a national Israel. Then what happened in 1948?

[dizzle]

And Mauro is fallible. Fancy that. And just because soemthing happened doesn't mean there is a "need" for it. I wouldn't discount the Temple being rebuilt. It doesn't need to be, and if it is, it has nothing to with the fulfillment of prophecy. That is a really lame criticism of Mauro - though if you wish to do a better one, please start another thread. I don't want to get into too much debate on this one.

[eschaton]

I don't really disagree with you about "the need," as you might know. But Mauro is one of my least favorite eschatologist (is that a word?). I think his writings about Daniel are obscene (IMO). But if you read the beginnig of my recent Daniel thread you may understand why. Coincidently, I just stumbled into tons of information that supports my view. I haven't decided wether to make a post here or not though.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The only problem is that Mauro, published in 1929, promises us that there is no need for a national Israel. Then what happened in 1948?Can you explain what you think the problem is with this? Mauro says that something didn't need to happen. It happened anyway. Does that show that Mauro was wrong? I'm with DD on this one, the events of 1948 say nothing about whether Mauro was right. But can you explain why you said this?

[Hitch]

The only problem is that Mauro, published in 1929, promises us that there is no need for a national Israel. Then what happened in 1948?Huge numbers of people who believed in the Great Parenthesis saw this as fulfillment of prophecy, and only a few understood the implications. OPutside the rapture there can be no fulfillments of Biblical prophecy during the 'Church Age'. The GP and the 'Church Age' cant be separated, just as a event cannot be immanent if prophecied evets are being fulfilled in the mean time.

[eschaton]

Can you explain what you think the problem is with this? Mauro says that something didn't need to happen. It happened anyway. Does that show that Mauro was wrong? I'm with DD on this one, the events of 1948 say nothing about whether Mauro was right. But can you explain why you said this?

You're right, it doesn't necessarily show that Mauro was wrong about this IMO. Some people will doubtlessly look at it that way though.

I think Mauro was saying there was no need for a millennial kingdom for Israel. I don't think he believed in a millennial kingdom for anybody though. I just glanced through the article and I'm open for correction as far as what he was saying in his writing. But like I said, I don't care for much of Mauro's ideas expressed in other writings, although the one Dee Dee gives a link to is okay. I'm not a preterist and never will be. That's all for this week. God bless.

[dizzle]

I haven't read much else of his writings. I think a total of three books, and one pamphlet.

[gooner]

When I came to TWeb I was coming away from DF and trying to find a non disp Pre Millenialism.The little I knew about Preterism led me to assume that it must be essentially a form of liberalism and that was also my view of Post Milenialism....so steeped in Futurism I had become.
So hats off to Dee Dee for spreading the word around the net.Days of Vengence was the decider for me.

[A Cup of No]

I don't really remember, but I see that my join date was march 15, and I might have received my DeMar eschatology books by then so you might've been involved in the process. Regardless, my preterism has been strengthened by your work and your End of the World commentary is a good quick resource. Though, I must say the switch to preterism has made it difficult to stomach some class lessons and sermons in my little fundy baptist church/school.

[gooner]

I think his(Mauro) writings about Daniel are obscene (IMO). But if you read the beginnig of my recent Daniel thread you may understand why.

Love to hear more?

[Hitch]

I don't really remember, but I see that my join date was march 15, and I might have received my DeMar eschatology books by then so you might've been involved in the process. Regardless, my preterism has been strengthened by your work and your End of the World commentary is a good quick resource. Though, I must say the switch to preterism has made it difficult to stomach some class lessons and sermons in my little fundy baptist church/school.Ha ha

[eschaton]

Love to hear more?

Hi Gooner,

You can read some of what Mauro wrote about Daniel 11 Here:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks/ms-08.html

Mauro, who is a big favorite of many historicists and preterists, picks and chooses historical incidents to claim a fulfillment of Daniel 11. In my recent "Another look at Daniel" thread I re-examined some of the supposed history in Daniel. In message #25 of that thread I focused in on the beginning of Daniel 11 and gave comments frome Jerome and modern author Dr. Ernest Martin.

Of course I'm not the only one to find fault in Mauro's methods. Here are a couple of other discussions.

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/jewishpt.htm

http://www.harvestherald.com/_pfv/ltru3_pfv.html


If you wish to discuss further we can start another thread.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Thought I'd click in just so that I can see what the current standings are. I find it interesting that, at the moment I joined, the "Yes" and "No" results are even (at 14) and the "Thinking About It" and "Dodge the Question" results are even (at 8). Probably meaningless, but interesting.

The (might be interesting to run the opposite poll: Have you switched away from Preterism since joining TWeb?) Curtmudgeon

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Thought I'd click in just so that I can see what the current standings are. I find it interesting that, at the moment I joined, the "Yes" and "No" results are even (at 14) and the "Thinking About It" and "Dodge the Question" results are even (at 8). Probably meaningless, but interesting.

The (might be interesting to run the opposite poll: Have you switched away from Preterism since joining TWeb?) Curtmudgeon
I was strongly entrenched in preterism when I joined TWeb. But when I was first exposed to your writing (Quack Like a Duck on Tekton) I was just beginning my journey into preterism. I was already pretty sure that preterism was right, but had not made up my mind regarding the "Partial v. Full" debate.

My first impression was that your stance on Hyper Preterism was extreem, but it did make just a bit more cautious (as I was already leaning towards orthodoxy), and probably kept me from getting deeper into heresy.

I can say that since I have been at TWeb I went from thinking that Full Preterism was likely heretical, to seeing it for the foul heresy that it really is.

[dizzle]

bump

[lee_merrill]

I'm a not-head! Speaking of bumps.

My brother read a Preterist book, and so it became time for me to investigate this, and I hold to the view Justin mentioned of a double fulfillment.

The Preterists have a point, but also (I think) they stretch the point unduly, the prophecies in question fit a fulfillment in A.D. 70, but again, only up to (so to speak) a point...

Blessings,
Lee

[eschaton]

I'm a not-head! Speaking of bumps.

My brother read a Preterist book, and so it became time for me to investigate this, and I hold to the view Justin mentioned of a double fulfillment.

The Preterists have a point, but also (I think) they stretch the point unduly, the prophecies in question fit a fulfillment in A.D. 70, but again, only up to (so to speak) a point...

Blessings,
Lee

I hear the voice of reason. Good comments Lee.

[spitndirt]

Not necessarily what would be typical "partial preterism" but even what one correspondent referred to as semi-preterism?
I am certainly still open to consider at least some form of preterism. The 'some' being which of the prophesies considered to be 'end time' were fulfilled in AD 70.

However, I do still see room for debate over 'the millenium' period. Consider: '...and Satan will be locked in a bottomless pit....and will decieve [the nations] no more til...'. Couple this with the following thought - Paul said of the 'immoral brother' that the church should 'expel' him - or, hand him over to 'Satan' for the destruction of his flesh. Now, if the Church is to continue in this practice (yeah...since when?) then Satan cannot be locked up yet. Also, the bottomless pit cannot, IMO, be 'the world' outside the church since it is '...the nations...' that will not be decieved until the 1000 years are up - as opposed to the church. This would seem to indicate that the millenium is yet to come since Satan is still running around decieving the nations. Make sense...?

Peace