Preterism Is Dangerous

[95th]

i'm not arguing, he asked me a question so i answered.

[95th]

Anyway, to get back on topic. The point is, preterists assume this happened. If they're wrong, then there will be a very powerful deception coming that will collectively fool the world. Those who have subscribed to preterism with unmovable conviction are in danger. It's difficult for someone to admit they were wrong. It's much easier to rationalize things away. That was the point I"m sure was initially being made.

I have subscibed to preterism but not with a unmoveable conviction.
If a one world leader rises up and forces everyone to have chips inserted into the hand or forehead i will consider becoming a futurist.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Anyway, most orthodox preterist do not believe that Satan has been released from his bondage. And from scripture, after his release comes the apostasy. So yes, some of us do expect a great heresy. But it's silly to think that even if we didn't believe in a future falling away that we would be easy pickings for one. It doesn't follow.

[seanD]

I have subscibed to preterism but not with a unmoveable conviction.
If a one world leader rises up and forces everyone to have chips inserted into the hand or forehead i will consider becoming a futurist.

The problem is that I"m not so sure it will be just a world leader, but that's another subject. You're an exception. Though I've met a few here who are flexible in their belief, in all honesty, most of the preterists I've confronted are arrogant and unmovable in their convictions. They get downright personal in some cases, resorting to ridicule and ad homs to protect it. IMO, those are the ones that are in danger.

[fm93]

I have subscibed to preterism but not with a unmoveable conviction.
If a one world leader rises up and forces everyone to have chips inserted into the hand or forehead i will consider becoming a futurist.

This needn't be the case. Some preterists believe there will be a second fulfillment of the prophecies; it's just that the first fulfillment (which Jesus mentioned) occurred in the first century.

[seanD]

This needn't be the case. Some preterists believe there will be a second fulfillment of the prophecies; it's just that the first fulfillment (which Jesus mentioned) occurred in the first century.

Wow, I didn't know this. But then is this still preterism? There are futurists who believe in double fulfillment.

[Manwë Súlimo]

If something is so thoroughly convincing to a person, it shouldn't be surprising that they have "unshakable" conviction. You'd be stealing a line from some religious pluralist that calls exclusivism arrogant. What's more important is how thoroughly they weighed both sides of the argument before coming to a decision and how they treat arguments against their beliefs that come after. And a tip - just because some use ridicule doesn't mean you can ignore everything else they say. If that's ALL they do, then you have a point.

[seanD]

If something is so thoroughly convincing to a person, it shouldn't be surprising that they have "unshakable" conviction. You'd be stealing a line from some religious pluralist that calls exclusivism arrogant. What's more important is how thoroughly they weighed both sides of the argument before coming to a decision and how they treat arguments against their beliefs that come after. And a tip - just because some use ridicule doesn't mean you can ignore everything else they say. If that's ALL they do, then you have a point.

Arrogance to me is someone who refuses to bend even an inch against admitting any sort of flaws in their beliefs (I've confronted such preterists). Every belief has some flaws. And we all engage in ad hom to some degree, but usually when someone resorts to over-the-top ridicule and ad hom, this tells me that their argument is more emotively driven, which is more of a psychological belief than a belief based on fact and logic. And the more of a psychological belief it is, the more dangerous it is. I'm sure this hasn't always been the case and I could be wrong in my assessment with past debates I've had with preterists.

[franktalk]

Yes, preterists are so retarded that we follow ever whim of heresy we hear. Lol, critical thinking - whuddat?

If you had critical thinking you would examine the history of Prophecy and lay out a time line for each as they were declared and then took place. You would see a pattern emerge. You would also notice that many prophecies were fulfilled when Christ came in the flesh. Now the number of prophecies fulfilled is an indication of the Spiritual significance of the event. So as prophecies were building in number and many were connected to end times you want me to believe that the fall of a city was as significant as the Coming of Christ. Or as I believe that the end times prophecies actually deal with the end of the world and Christ second coming.

2 Peter 1:19 (King James Version)

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Since the Preterist think that most all prophecies have been fulfilled then I guess Peter was really talking to a small group of people who just happen to read his letter before 70 AD.

I guess the rest of us just don't get to have a "more sure Word".

I think the Preterist have stumbled over scripture.

1 Peter 2:8 (King James Version)

8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Just tell me what is the spiritual significance of 70 AD? How does it compare with the second coming of Christ in the flesh? And that judgment of the earth thingy?

You see the Preterist wish to make the prophecies about man instead of Christ.

[franktalk]

fm93,

So here you are a Jew in 30 AD. You know the prophecies and you are aware that the Messiah will come very soon. Good chance you may see Jesus as the Messiah.

Now another Jew read the scripture and determined that the Messiah must be a conquering King and will toss out the Romans. Good chance this Jew would miss Jesus being the Messiah.

It is a matter of interpretation.

So tell me, who is looking at current events through a scriptural lense and who is saying it is done? Who is more likely to miss the antichrist. The one who says he has already come or the one still looking for signs? If one does not recognize the antichrist as the antichrist then your guard would not be up.

[Chaotic Void]

So tell me, who is looking at current events through a scriptural lense and who is saying it is done? Who is more likely to miss the antichrist. The one who says he has already come or the one still looking for signs? If one does not recognize the antichrist as the antichrist then your guard would not be up.

This question is a bit loaded, don't you think? It assumes that the Anti-Christ hasn't come yet (and that there's just one anti-Christ.)

[franktalk]

This question is a bit loaded, don't you think? It assumes that the Anti-Christ hasn't come yet (and that there's just one anti-Christ.)

Gee, a loaded question on tweb, go figure.

In the history of the earth there will be only one person who will stand in the Holy place and declare himself god. It has not happened yet.

But of course you can believe in any number (of antichrist) you want. In fact you can believe that Satan is bound. Of course all of those scriptures that tell us to be careful of Satan, well I guess that was for those people who lived from 38 AD to 70 AD and those scriptures are meaningless to us. Or are you willing to say that we should be careful of Satan? Or does the word Satan really mean something else?

Mar 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

So Jesus knowing Satan would be bound 38 years later was telling this parable to only those people who would be alive during this time frame? I wonder why He did not use some other term and make this more universal? Could you please explain why Jesus used the name of Satan knowing he would be bound? Do you think that Jesus was trying to confuse us by using Satan's name? I mean that if the Preterist position makes scripture clear then please clear up Mar 4:15 And of course once you do that I will have a long list of verses that you will need to clear up as well.

[Hitch]

When Jesus meant the very elect could be deceived, I don't think Jesus had the Benny Hinns or Jim Jones in mind. Correlate this deception with 2 Thess 2:9-11, something extraordinarily unassailable that will collectively fool the entire world, and something that may not be humanly induced, but supernaturally induced. If this is future, this isn't suppose to happen based on preterist belief, so it must be true, and the rationales will begin. It doesn't take much for Christians to readjust their scriptural perceptions of Genesis, Luke's genealogy, and Paul's teachings about death via Adam just based on what human naturalists claim.

Scofield was every bit as good in Genesis as he was in Matthew.

[Hitch]

If you had critical thinking you would examine the history of Prophecy and lay out a time line for each as they were declared and then took place. You would see a pattern emerge. You would also notice that many prophecies were fulfilled when Christ came in the flesh. Now the number of prophecies fulfilled is an indication of the Spiritual significance of the event. So as prophecies were building in number and many were connected to end times you want me to believe that the fall of a city was as significant as the Coming of Christ. Or as I believe that the end times prophecies actually deal with the end of the world and Christ second coming.

2 Peter 1:19 (King James Version)

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Since the Preterist think that most all prophecies have been fulfilled then I guess Peter was really talking to a small group of people who just happen to read his letter before 70 AD.

I guess the rest of us just don't get to have a "more sure Word".

I think the Preterist have stumbled over scripture.

1 Peter 2:8 (King James Version)

8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Just tell me what is the spiritual significance of 70 AD? How does it compare with the second coming of Christ in the flesh? And that judgment of the earth thingy?

You see the Preterist wish to make the prophecies about man instead of Christ.

LOL In my bible it was Christ who prophecied the destruction, and gave the timeline for it.

You have at least heard of the Gospels?

You know those stories in which Jesus realted through parables how and why the jewish nation would soon be destroyed?

But how could fulfilling prophecy have any spiritual signifigance? Im mean its not as though the writer of Hebrews called it the end of the world er nuthin.

Some one stupid enough to miss that would be stupid enough to think God wants animal sacrfices to resume.

[Hitch]

The problem is that I"m not so sure it will be just a world leader, but that's another subject. You're an exception. Though I've met a few here who are flexible in their belief, in all honesty, most of the preterists I've confronted are arrogant and unmovable in their convictions. They get downright personal in some cases, resorting to ridicule and ad homs to protect it. IMO, those are the ones that are in danger.

The real problem you have Sean is that preterist can quote Jesus Christ in support and you cant.