Evidence for God from Science

I am opening this thread topic again for those wishing to examine, research, debate Preterism:

I left the Preterist view mainly due to Romans chapter Eleven and the fact that Irenaeus stated that the book of Revelation was written during the time of Domitian (Against Heresies 5:30:3) which means the book of Revelation was written around 95 AD. Since Nero died 68 AD, then the Preteristic interpretation of 666 should be held with suspect as well as all their interprations! So, for these main reasons, I forsook the Pretests view points.

Someone inevitably always ask me, then, are you a Futurist? A Historist? A Dispensationalist? A Partial Preterist?

My answer to these inquiries is simple: I am a Christian – are you?

So I am posting this here for anyone pro, moderate, inquiring, against, researching Preterism to post. I may post time from time but this thread is for those desiring to examine Pretersit views in more details.
-
-
-

Here are a three links posted below to help readers understand Preterism as bit better. First is a basic non-partisan summary from Wikipedia, it is okay for the basics. Next two links will be one Pro-Preterism article link and one against-preterism article link so anyone looking into this subject can try to gain a balance perspective about Preterism:

Non-Partisan overview link: Wikipedia Link

Pro-Preterism regarding Matt 24 link here Pro Preterist Link on Matt 24

Against Preterism response to Matt 24 link here: against Preterism article here Matt 24 - PDF

If you have any comments or other links regarding the topic please feel free to post
-
-
-

B.W.,

I curious as to how you see Romans 11 conflicting with preterism? It may conflict with Amillennial preterism, but it fits Postmillenial preterism just fine.

As for the dating of Revelation, would you hold Ireneaus as an authority on this matter? In his same work, Irenaeus holds that Christ lived to be over 50 years old and had an earthly ministry of 15 years. In light of the massive amount of evidence for an early date of Revelation, I would say that Ireneaus is a questionable authority at best.

See Dating the Book of Revelation

Regarding your second link, the author writes, "I must digress for a moment in order to establish what I believe is a fundamental error in preterism’s hermeneutic". he then goes on to suggest that "we will explore ... the kind of picture the Old Testament, without the aid of the New Testament, gives us concerning the coming of the Messiah." I would suggest that this is impossible. Why would we reject the authority of the New Testament in interpreting Old Testament Prophecy? Such a hermeneutic actually rejects the inspired nature of the New Testament in favor of "Jewish Tradition". Nathan Busenitz of Pulpit magazine also objects to using the New Testament to interpret the Old. He writes,

“if you take the verses at face value (just accepting what they say, and what their original audience would have understood them to say), it naturally leads to premillennialism. This is, in fact, how the Jews themselves have historically understood these passages. So I think it’s a little dishonest (not intentionally, of course) for amillennialists to contend that they are the ones actually taking the OT prophecies at face value. Historically speaking, that is just not defensible.”

I would have to ask, does it really matter how Jews would have historically understood a passage? There are many passages of Scripture that they clearly misunderstood, while Christ and his Apostles illuminated the true meaning as inspired by the Holy Spirit. (For a few examples, see Mark 9:11-13, John 5:46, Luke 6:2-5, Galatians 3:16). Busenitz concludes that his "literal" hermeneutic" of the OT leads to premillennialism, but it actually leads Judaism. Remember, the Jews rejected Christ based on this hermeneutic, because they were blind leaders of the blind.

I hold that if the New Testament holds that Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants have been fulfilled in Christ, there is no need for any future fulfillment of either.

Hi Pl, please post any pro-links you would like as this hopefully will be for anyone liking to research this subject.

The opposing side will be posted as well - for balance.

Have a Blest day!
-
-
-

I'll work on it, as I have a ton.

Blessings,

PL

If the 70th week of Daniel (Dan 9:27) has not occurred, does that nullify preterism?

1harpazo wrote:If the 70th week of Daniel (Dan 9:27) has not occurred, does that nullify preterism?

I would say so...
-
-
-

hey all I'm currently reading a book that expresses all the 4 major views on revelation. Historicst, preterist, futurist (dispensational and non) and finally spiritualist. I'm only up to the 7 sealed scroll and so far none of the veiws is totally flawless, but out of all of them, the preterist has the biggest issues with it. One of the oddest quotes ive ever found in any Bible study is presented by them concerning the 24 elders in the throne room vision. It states "the 24 elders probably do not represent any particular group.... they are included to complete the picture of the heavenly court....they are here to create the proper effect. Later in the book, they help carry the story foreward, much as the chorus in a Greek tragedy....beyond this they seem to do nothing and represent nothing" This was a quote from someone named Jay Adams so maybe its just his own personal idea because I highly doubt anything in the Bible, especially in the heavenly throne room vision, was included simply for effects.

I also came across some interesting Info pertaining to the date of the writing of Revelation. look up chapter 1 verse 9. Most Bible translations have John writting about his stay in patmos in past tense (....was in/on the isle/island that is called patmos....) My more accurate Bible says he "came to be in the isle that is called patmos" which could be an idea of past or present while writing it. So if these translations are accurate and he's saying he WAS on patmos, then wouldn't that mean he was not there when he was writing all this down? Wouldnt he have written something to the effect of "I am here on the island of Patmos" if he was in exile when he wrote it, especially if it were the very first couple years while Nero was still alive? I also came across a group of believers who say John may not have been exiled at all, or it was much later than previously thought.

something to ponder i guess

lol...there are so many "Preterism" views and how they differ, that i am still trying to get a hang of it just to comprehend the whole picture.

Full,
Half,
Amillennial
Reconstructionists
Transmillennialism
Postmillenial
Universalists
Creationists
Evangelical
Hyper
Orthodox-Historic
Modern "Partial-Orthodox-Historic"
Reformed
Historic

forgive me for being naive but i still think there might be a couple i left out. hmm...can anyone shed some light?

As with all things written in the bible, OT and NT, we have to regard who wrote them, when and to whom AND how did those that received the information view it.
It's great to sit back in the 21st century and say this that and the other thing base don what we know, almost 2000 years later, but the prophecies were not written for US nor directed to us, but to the people that they were sent to: The Hebrews in regards to the OT and the 1st and second generation Jewish and Gentile converts in regards to the Gospel.

PaulSacramento wrote:As with all things written in the bible, OT and NT, we have to regard who wrote them, when and to whom AND how did those that received the information view it.
It's great to sit back in the 21st century and say this that and the other thing base don what we know, almost 2000 years later, but the prophecies were not written for US nor directed to us, but to the people that they were sent to: The Hebrews in regards to the OT and the 1st and second generation Jewish and Gentile converts in regards to the Gospel.

Hi Paul, could you explain what you mean more clearly?

Thanks!
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:As with all things written in the bible, OT and NT, we have to regard who wrote them, when and to whom AND how did those that received the information view it.
It's great to sit back in the 21st century and say this that and the other thing base don what we know, almost 2000 years later, but the prophecies were not written for US nor directed to us, but to the people that they were sent to: The Hebrews in regards to the OT and the 1st and second generation Jewish and Gentile converts in regards to the Gospel.

Hi Paul, could you explain what you mean more clearly?

Thanks!
-
-
-

I mean that, when something is written or even passed on via oral tradition, those that came after the people it was aimed at, need to take it into the context of WHEN it was said, HOW it was Said, by WHO and WHY and to WHOM it was said.
When Luke wrote to Theophilus he told us to WHO he was writing, and why and what and how even, so we can take what Luke wrote as sort of an "investigative" report of sorts.
When Paul wrote to the church in Thessolonia he voiced an opinion about things and events but they got take out of context or erroneously that he had to clear things up with a follow up letter.
Paul's first letter was written in a very less formal or "researched" way than Luke's but his contemporaries took it to be "too literal" and made incorrect assumptions that Paul had to correct.
My point is that even contemporaries took and saw what perhaps they wanted as opposed to what was being written, so it is quite normal for us, almost 2000 years later to make mistakes but to make less we MUST, before we make ANY STATEMENT of "fact", take into account ALL factors because, unfortunatley for us, Paul and the other writers aren't around to write a follow up letter clearing up the confusion.

guys, on my post above, can someone please tell me which type of Preterism are we talking about in this thread???

neo-x wrote:guys, on my post above, can someone please tell me which type of Preterism are we talking about in this thread???

Neo-x-- All of them, or which ever is known by most. The Hyper side is admitted by the other to be incorrect so we can skip that side.


Paul - thanks for clarifying. Next, In light of what you wrote, what is your take on Preterism in a nutshell?
-
-
-