How come most YEC are not preterist?

[bar Jonah]

Fallacy of majority. What difference does it make? It doesn't invalidate either view if this is the case. If most Christians aren't preterist in the first place, it might follow that most YECs aren't preterists.

Most dispensationalists aren't Open. Most open theists aren't dispensational.

Truth is frequently in the minority. It is evidential neither for or against either view. :rired:

Dee Dee Warren:
It is not particularly common knowledge. You would know if you were one. A preterist is some who believes that things such as the Great Tribulation were first century events.

On a side note, if I agree that those events were supposed to happen in the 1st century, does that make me a partial-partial preterist?

[studyhound]

Today @ 10:49 PM post located here
Daedalus Netwrk:

Socrates: Preterism isn't just an issue for Bible believers. The "Jesus was a false prophet" concept if true sends Christianity crumbling far quicker than the loss of a literal 7 day Genesis. I believe these claims have lead some to apostasy or kept other people from the faith including Mark Smith of www.jcnotforme.com whom says he departed from the faith because "Jesus was a false prophet". Ultimately, a Messiah whom performed miracles and rose from the dead and was person 3 of the trinity but couldn't keep a promise would be strange indeed.

P.S. Just curious, have any Preterists bothered at a rebutal to the essay on Preterism at the site above?

Your link jcnotforme.com was site not found. might check the link.

p.s. is that link to the essay on preterism

[wdwwilder]

I think few christians views of escatology are informed by scripture everyone I know was tought what they believe as a child or young christian and that is that, we all have a hard time seeing out of the box of the paradigm we were indoctinated in. Creationism breaks across dominational lines and has people of all escatologyical lines I personally am a product of my early upbringing in the Church I was in as a child (Church of God , general offices Anderson Indiana )

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:49 PM post located here
Daedalus Netwrk:

Socrates: Preterism isn't just an issue for Bible believers. The "Jesus was a false prophet" concept if true sends Christianity crumbling far quicker than the loss of a literal 7 day Genesis.

I'd like to see proof of this. A sample size of one doesn't cut it. But there are oodles of people using evolution as an excuse for unbelief, starting with Darwin himself.

And there are preterists who oppose YEC and the global Flood on preterist grounds. It doesn't prove that preterism is wrong per se (most preterists seem to be sound on YEC and the Flood), but it does call into question the idea that preterism and YEC have identical hermeneutical principles in all cases.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 01:49 AM post located here
Daedalus Netwrk:


P.S. Just curious, have any Preterists bothered at a rebutal to the essay on Preterism at the site above?

Why don't you forward a good link to jpholding here at the site by Personal Message. He regularly trounces alleged rebutals to preterism. Make sure though before you do, that the rebuttal is not to the heresy of "full preterism" that preterists themselves denounce as incorrect and heresy.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 03:17 AM post located here
Socrates:



And there are preterists who oppose YEC and the global Flood on preterist grounds.

Who?

It doesn't prove that preterism is wrong per se (most preterists seem to be sound on YEC and the Flood), but it does call into question the idea that preterism and YEC have identical hermeneutical principles in all cases.

Actually it does not at all. It would simply show that at least one group isnot being consistent. We can then hash out which one is not, but to point to a few renegades who disagree is not a proof or means to call in question.

[Daedalus Netwrk]

Terribly sorry, the link is www.jcnot4me.com I made the mistake on the "for" with preterism at http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/theolo.../preterism.htm , I could answer some of the criticisms therein but wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel if I didn't have to, some of the material therein is stuff that has been answered before.

Socrates: My statement or it's meaning was like this:
If Jesus Was a false prophet, then he couldn't be one of the trinity. Jesus commented that he comes soon and that the events in the prophecy are near repeatedly in Revelations (Rev 22: 6 and 7, Rev 22:10, Rev 22: 20 are examples). Jesus said "This generation" wouldn't pass before the events of the Olivet discourse occured (Mathew 24: 33-34 while talking to the disciples and noticably not some future generation). John commented that the "last hour" was near because many antichrists (gnostics or their predecessors?) are on scene (1 John 2: 18 and 19). Similar things appear in the New Testament and I'll continue referrencing them next post. These prophecies had time limits, if they came to pass within the time limit Jesus and the New Testament writers are vindicated. If not, they fail the prophecy test and it's trouble indeed for Christianity if it's founders fail the prophet test. People who departed from the faith or resisted coming to it include Mark Smith of the above site and some people who wrote in sharing his observations. There is also the article at http://planetpreterist.com/modules.p...hold=0&catid=2 (DDW, if site is full preterist I apologize) describing one man on his deathbed who didn't come to Christ because "At least, I dont believe as the Apostles did,that Jesus was coming back in their lifetime" . Lee Strobel found the question on the "soon" type references relevant enough they asked about it in The Case For Christ though the answer there was more from a futurist prespective (I'll have the reference on my next post). The New Testament would flop from false prophecy for the same type arguments • Edited by a Moderator • gives for Genesis and it's loss being the end of the Bible. So, to my thought, Preterism isn't just a point of interest to believers. And I haven't seen preterists using the idea as an argument for a local flood to date though I can imagine why some would see it as nessecary. A first century Great Tribulation ultimately doesn't have a great deal to do with a literal 7 day creation or day-age or whatever else. DDW asks the question; for the same reasons you are young earth creationists (time literalism), why aren't you (hopefully Orthodox) Preterists (for time literalism, near=near, not near=far)?

[studyhound]

Today @ 09:49 PM post located here
Daedalus Netwrk:

Terribly sorry, the link is www.jcnot4me.com I made the mistake on the "for" with preterism at http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/theolo.../preterism.htm , I could answer some of the criticisms therein but wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel if I didn't have to, some of the material therein is stuff that has been answered before.

I started to read his "essay" but after a while I saw through his rant, and he's just being augmentative for controversy sake and mixes his orthodox preterist with his heretical preterist. Plus he makes the same leaps that he accuses others of making. His essay is full of half-truths and leaps of understanding; he has no understanding of preterism and resorts to fowl language and tearing out verses out of context.

His whole propose is the “deprogramming” of Christians and his whole site is vulgar and demeaning.

I personally will just, deal with legitimate objections not joker running around half-cocked wannabe Freethinker.

Just my two bits.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And I haven't seen preterists using the idea as an argument for a local flood to date though I can imagine why some would see it as nessecary. A first century Great Tribulation ultimately doesn't have a great deal to do with a literal 7 day creation or day-age or whatever else. DDW asks the question; for the same reasons you are young earth creationists (time literalism), why aren't you (hopefully Orthodox) Preterists (for time literalism, near=near, not near=far)?

I can understand how some preterist ideas of global language not being literal being transposed to the flood quite easily. I believe it is wrong, but I can see how that can be done. I was not however refering to the flood per se, since I was meaning preterist time indicators in the hermeneutic, not the global issue. I was asking how come most YEC (a lot of YEC are dispie) do not consistently interpret time references. I can explain why I think the flood is global and the Great Trib was not.

And yes DN, we are referring to Orthodox Preterism... I denounce heretical preterism quite vocally.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:49 PM post located here
Daedalus Netwrk:

Terribly sorry, the link is www.jcnot4me.com I made the mistake on the "for" with preterism at http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/theolo.../preterism.htm , I could answer some of the criticisms therein but wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel if I didn't have to, some of the material therein is stuff that has been answered before.

This pillock is a total clown and the epitome of village atheism, with all sorts of rantings about why he rejects Christianity, but can't string two logical thoughts together. He hates biblical creation just as much as he hates preterism.

Socrates: ... There is also the article at http://planetpreterist.com/modules.p...=0&catid=2 (DDW, if site is full preterist I apologize)

No, just apologize for falling for the game of the neo-Hymenaean heretics of adopting their self-serving appellation.

describing one man on his deathbed who didn't come to Christ because "At least, I dont believe as the Apostles did,that Jesus was coming back in their lifetime" . Lee Strobel found the question on the "soon" type references relevant enough they asked about it in The Case For Christ though the answer there was more from a futurist prespective (I'll have the reference on my next post).

Right, you've just undermined your own case for the essentiality of preterism in apologetics

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 02:50 AM post located here
wdwwilder:

I think few christians views of escatology are informed by scripture everyone I know was tought what they believe as a child or young christian and that is that, we all have a hard time seeing out of the box of the paradigm we were indoctinated in.

The circle of people you know appears to be somewhat limited. Most people I know don't know very much about scripture and thus were not really "indoctrinated" into any specific view of scripture except that Jesus is Lord and died for our sins.

Most people I know apparently don't particularly care to increase their knowledge of scripture, since they tend to change the subject whenever scripture is mentioned.

However, in those rare instances when people do become involved in learning more about scripture I find that they do not generally cling to their previous superficial understandings of scripture, but instead are quite receptive to new viewpoints that can be shown to be scripturally sound.

It is true that there are many "myths" about Christianity but most of them come from the secular media, not the churches.

This might be because many churches prefer to discuss "modern" things instead of "old fashioned" scripture.

[Daedalus Netwrk]

Socrates: I did not say I agreed with all they had to say, I did say that the soon type stuff caused people to doubt the inspiration of the Bible. They may be wrong, but the reasons they were or are not Christians stand as reasons for departure to their minds. I am not a full preterist but I see the story of somebody having a supposed "soon" coming (in judgement like in the Old Testament and to set up the millenial kingdom as in Revelation 20:4) as a barrier between them and Christianity as a distinct possibility. Some of the reason I give the story some credit as I have seen rebuttals to similar objections somewhat randomly http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...alse.html#john and similar writings by other people http://www.infidels.org/library/mode..._prophet.shtml and realize somebody would probably take objections like this to heart. I don't care for the propaganda of the listed sites, I do take note of why they took what opinions they took though. I note that those objections were reasons why people left or stayed away from the faith, like some people use evolution as a reason to stay away from Christianity. Therefore, objections like these deserve rebutals, preterism has an easy one, though futurists can come up with fairly clever ones (see God and Science link with an example of the type of thing I refer to). With all the close by time referrences of different sorts, a sort of close by fulfillment would be required for New Testament Bible prophecy to be inerrant, which is where Preterism starts. Is a "repeat performance" (taking the quote from J.P Holding somewhere on the site, link to particular writing if anyone cares) possible? Perhaps. As to the Case for Christ, I found what I thought of when I did the comment on page 43, though the passage on my second reading isn't quite relevant enough for my argument though it is in a similar category. I'm about out of time and will have to save the rest of the close time markers for later.

studyhound: I wasn't very impressed with the above after seeing the Preterist view's arguments a bit ago. The author's counting on a supposed silence by Preterists ("refuse to debate me" hinting the stuff therin is not answerable), and the fact that most people aren't farmiliar with the preterist view to know how such criticism would be answered bugs me though. Article or writing would be a better description.

DDW: *Shrug* You said yourself that a good chunk of preterist stuff online is full. I hadn't the time to do a double check on all material at the site scrutinizing it to see if it consisted of mixed Preterists or just full, I did remember the site in my mind at the time. Sorry.

[Dee Dee Warren]

DDW: *Shrug* You said yourself that a good chunk of preterist stuff online is full. I hadn't the time to do a double check on all material at the site scrutinizing it to see if it consisted of mixed Preterists or just full, I did remember the site in my mind at the time. Sorry.

Yes but that is kinda important. Say for instance a Muslim in asking about certain arguments, mixed together any group that claimed to "Christian" in his analysis, Mormons, JWs, etc. You would object. Orthodox preterists in the same way object to such a mish moshing of their view with a extreme perversion of it.

I still would like to know though by the nonPreterist YEC here how they justify the day is a day, and yet soon etc is not soon etc?

[Daedalus Netwrk]

Socrates: I missed two arguments and will take care of them now. I only linked to the above as a scource for my thinking, I suspected the site of being full preterist but wasn't sure if it was a mixture of various Preterists or whether it was purely full. As a result I included an apology for DDW in case of the latter if true.
As to the passage in The Case For Christ on p 41, it amounts to this:
Stroebel asks if the miracles, sayings of Jesus, and the like could have been later additions because the early Christians were too busy waiting for Jesus to return during their lifetimes to record his real activities.

Bloomberg: First I think the premise is overstated. The truth is that the majority of Jesus' teaching pressupose a significant span of time before the end of the world. But second, even if Jesus' followers did think he might come back fairly quickly, remember that Christianity was born out of Judaism. For centuries the Jews lived with the repeated pronouncements that the Day of the Lord was at hand and the continuing history of Israel. And the followers of those prophets recorded, valued, and preserved the words of the prophets. Given that Jesus' followers looked upon him as being greater than a prophet, it seems reasonable that they would have done the same thing.

All in all the above doesn't hurt or help Preterism as I realized on my second reading. Bloomberg is right when he says Jesus' teachings presume a long gap between the end of the world but the Olivet Discourse and the start of the things in Revelations is still under time limit. Also, as well put by J. P. Holding, the Olivet discourse "couldn't be the end of the world as if it was he would have said to evangelize as many as possible in these last days, rather than running to the Judean Hills trying to save oneself by hiding in a measure of futility like Wile E. Cayote trying to save himself by holding up an umbrella against a falling boulder." (Paraphrased from http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&threadid=4524 ) All in all the closeness still stands after this anyway, and you can save your hammers.

[Algesan]

08-02-2003 @ 11:43 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

I know this could belong in eschatology, but I am wanting to focus on YEC hermeneutic and why its adherents do not follow that logically into preterism. As a futurist YEC, once confronted with the reality of the NT timing verses, I saw that if I were to be consistent (maybe someone here can prove me wrong in that consistency issue) I had to interpret NT timing issues the same way.

If God can tell and communicate time in Genesis can He not do so in Matthew, and Revelation?

Dee Dee,
I'm a pretrib rapturist, formerly opposed to all things preterist, but then the flavor of preterism I understood is the one you are opposed to. JPH's following of it bothered me (I was reading on Tektonics before TWeb was up), so I read up on his variation (for those with impaired understanding: as in the one he holds, not that he has exclusive rights to it). From what I know of your and his position, I have no problem with it as far as it being heretical, but that is as far as I took it. I've read a few things, but none seem compelling to me, merely that you may be correct, I may be incorrect, but it doesn't appear to be a salvation issue, so I let it go at that. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to studying it more, but that is a task beyond the scope of what I see myself doing in the forseeable future. Hopefully that will answer your question in the case of this YEC anyway.