A new preterist is born!

[thrillhouse]

Eschatology has always interested me. Now since I became a partial preterist it's strengthened my faith. It also makes Christianity easier to believe (something I had previously struggled with when I was a futurist)

Cheers

[TyRockwell]

Eschatology has always interested me. Now since I became a partial preterist it's strengthened my faith. It also makes Christianity easier to believe (something I had previously struggled with when I was a futurist)

Cheers

Before falling for preterism, you need to read the "Preterists are Stumped" thread, where I have crushed all their arguments.

Peace and Truth,
Ty

[eschaton]

Before falling for preterism, you need to read the "Preterists are Stumped" thread, where I have crushed all their arguments.

Peace and Truth,
Ty

You've probably recruited more people for preterism with your ridiculous arguments than G. W. Bush drove to Obama, and that was a lot. Has anybody ever said they weren't going to be a preterist because your arguments made sense?

[John Goddard]

You've probably recruited more people for preterism with your ridiculous arguments than G. W. Bush drove to Obama, and that was a lot. Has anybody ever said they weren't going to be a preterist because your arguments made sense?

Does it qualify as partial preterism to say the first half of Daniel's 70th week was fulfilled with Jesus cursing Jerusalem to desolation?

But acknowledging that the last half might be fulfilled completely with 1260 days of the two prophets before Jesus returns in the future? As Ty has done in the other thread, and I adhere to.

Rather than 70 AD being seen as the complete fulfillment of Daniel's 70th week, Olivet, and return of Jesus, as I suppose is the case with full preterism.

I don't see how anyone can be a full preterist in that manner when most Jews of the world are still desolate of Jesus and proper sacrifice through him as high priest.

[TyRockwell]

You've probably recruited more people for preterism with your ridiculous arguments than G. W. Bush drove to Obama, and that was a lot. Has anybody ever said they weren't going to be a preterist because your arguments made sense?

Since you've been paying so much attention to the "Preterists are Stumped" thread, you'll surely be able to let us all know what arguments I have not crushed, won't you?

Peace,
Ty

[eschaton]

Since you've been paying so much attention to the "Preterists are Stumped" thread, you'll surely be able to let us all know what arguments I have not crushed, won't you?

Peace,
Ty

I have to confess I've only paid passing attention to it, but I haven't seen you converting any preterists to your view. I know that you claim your ideas are unique. There may be some people that agree with you on certain items. I probably agree with you less than 5% of the time. I don't usually agree with people who deny the gospel as you do.

[Glenn P]

Since you've been paying so much attention to the "Preterists are Stumped" thread, you'll surely be able to let us all know what arguments I have not crushed, won't you?

Peace,
Ty

I've gone to the trouble of compiling an exhaustive list of all the preterist arguments that you have crushed. That list follows:

***beginning of list***

***END of list***

Merry Christmas!

[Faramir]

Before falling for preterism, you need to read the "Preterists are Stumped" thread, where I have crushed all their arguments.

Peace and Truth,
Ty

YES! If you are wavering on preterism, by all means read Ty's thread. If that don't convince you, nothing will.

[gharfish]

With his book as a solid foundation, he's singlehandedly whomped dispensationalism's eschatology here on TWeb too. "Brilliant" ! "Acting" !!

[gharfish]

.....what arguments I have...crushed..., by
Ty

The humble working title of a new book--a sequel ? (A webcam catches the action, in progress ?) I'm kidding Ty, but you come on now ! You can't have all the answers *that both sides do not* ?? WOT ?! Come on; these are brand new answers...of your's...alone. So, might you see how a red flag goes up for both camps ?


.

[TyRockwell]

The humble working title of a new book--a sequel ? I'm kidding Ty, but you come on now ! You can't have all the answers *that both sides do not* ?? WOT ?! Come on; these are brand new answers...of your's...alone. So, might you see how a red flag goes up for both camps ?

Guys, eschaton, Lizard, gharfish, and Bauer,

You were unable to overcome my points in response to your objections. You know that I'm neither dispy nor preterist, so just dispense with the pretense.

If you think my view is 'unique' then you should check to make sure you actually have an open Bible before your eyes. It isn't a matter for you to privately interpret. The eschatological positions you hold have not been proclaimed from On High as the correct interpretations.

Do you think only they are worthy of consideration, and then you decide the other one is wrong? It is a good idea to think that neither preterist nor dispys have it right. Based upon your own estimations of the other's interpretations, both camps are equally in error.

Get a new thought. Try to understand that both of your camps are wrong. Then make an intelligent effort to understand my position. Ask questions. So far, you've only been defensive of your own views. I may have presented new thoughts to YOU, but they are absolutely Biblical, and not 'mine alone.'

In Truth,
Ty

[eschaton]

Ty,

I guess you're Right. You've totally convinced somebody. Yourself. That doesn't really count though.

[TyRockwell]

Ty,

I guess you're Right. You've totally convinced somebody. Yourself. That doesn't really count though.

You do not know what I'm talking about!
And you are too self puffed-up to want to know. You may remain ignorant if you wish, but someday you'll know that you could have known better, sooner.

[eschaton]

You do not know what I'm talking about!
And you are too self puffed-up to want to know. You may remain ignorant if you wish, but someday you'll know that you could have known better, sooner.

That's not the question. The question is do you know what you're talking about. I haven't seen anybody voting for you. I know I don't. Not just about preterism, but about anything in general.

[TyRockwell]

That's not the question. The question is do you know what you're talking about. I haven't seen anybody voting for you. I know I don't. Not just about preterism, but about anything in general.

I know what I'm talking about, and you do not. That is why you cannot answer to what I've scripturally proven.

I told you to ask questions if you don't understand my position. Instead you claim a nonsense non-vote. Wake up, dude, a few hundred years ago I would have been out-voted by those who claimed the world was flat and if you sailed too far you'd fall off the edge of the earth.

Instead of believing hand-me-down ideas, learn for yourself what the Bible teaches. If you are so sure your eschatology is right and mine isn't, you should be able to point out the differences and explain why yours is right. If you cannot prove what you believe and why, you are just following the Pied Piper.

Peace and Truth,
Ty