The Appeal of Preterism

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Crit...p-critique.pdf

Michael, unless you are already into preterism(set in stone), you should check out this link.

I will not teach anything that has this much inconsistency. This, according to this website could be a heretical doctrine sweeping the churches in these last days. Most folks I am seeing are not looking at the negative side of it, only the positive. If you or I choose to "teach" a doctrine that is heretical, we will "oficially" become HERETICS, by Bible standards.

You owe it to yourself to research it well, before you make the final decision of what to teach...

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Sean

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Crit...p-critique.pdf

Michael, unless you are already into preterism(set in stone), you should check out this link.

I will not teach anything that has this much inconsistency. This, according to this website could be a heretical doctrine sweeping the churches in these last days. Most folks I am seeing are not looking at the negative side of it, only the positive. If you or I choose to "teach" a doctrine that is heretical, we will "oficially" become HERETICS, by Bible standards.

You owe it to yourself to research it well, before you make the final decision of what to teach...

Michael is a post trib believer not a preterist unless i have really missed something in his post.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hilarious. If you think that's the appeal of preterism, then you do not understand the preterist view point (regardless of its flaws)

First, pre-trib has way more in common with post-trib than preterism. The only difference between both views is when the rapture occurs. Everything else is virtually the same (as far as their interpretation of Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 17, Luke 21, Daniel 7-12, and the book of Revelation)

As for preterism, its appeal is mainly due to the fact that the interpretation is from a 1st century perspective. In other words, how the original recipients of the book of Revelations would have understood the message? (not interpreting from a 21st century perspective)

Take for instance, when the writer in Rev 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him..." How would the original audience have understood it?
Would they have said, "sure those that pierced him will be alive for 2000 years, so this ain't gonna happen for a very long time..." or would they have thought "this event would happen soon, since those that pierced him would still be alive at his coming to see him."

How about when it says "Behold, I am coming soon..." How would the original recipients have understood it? If "soon" means for not for another 2000 years, then language has lost its meaning...lol

Both views have inconsistencies. Both views have to face the cognitive dissonance associated with their view, of course, that's an entire different can of worms. At least, each camp should acknowledge its inconsistency instead of ignoring it and berating that of the other camp.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hilarious. If you think that's the appeal of preterism, then you do not understand the preterist view point (regardless of its flaws)

First, pre-trib has way more in common with post-trib than preterism. The only difference between both views is when the rapture occurs. Everything else is virtually the same (as far as their interpretation of Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 17, Luke 21, Daniel 7-12, and the book of Revelation)

As for preterism, its appeal is mainly due to the fact that the interpretation is from a 1st century perspective. In other words, how the original recipients of the book of Revelations would have understood the message? (not interpreting from a 21st century perspective)

Take for instance, when the writer in Rev 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him..." How would the original audience have understood it?
Would they have said, "sure those that pierced him will be alive for 2000 years, so this ain't gonna happen for a very long time..." or would they have thought "this event would happen soon, since those that pierced him would still be alive at his coming to see him."

How about when it says "Behold, I am coming soon..." How would the original recipients have understood it? If "soon" means for not for another 2000 years, then language has lost its meaning...lol

Both views have inconsistencies. Both views have to face the cognitive dissonance associated with their view, of course, that's an entire different can of worms. At least, each camp should acknowledge its inconsistency instead of ignoring it and berating that of the other camp.

[Sean]

Well, TGBTJ and JFROG, you guys both seem to be in the same camp.

May I ask, do you guys have a conclusive doctrine that is teachable, or are you a lifetime observer/critic ?

I believe a man must make up his mind and get out and teach it with(whatever it is) the big dogs. (or just stay on the porch)

Cmon, make the call...I can see if your mind is not made up, but dont spend the rest of your life trying to come to a conclusion.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Sean

Well, TGBTJ and JFROG, you guys both seem to be in the same camp.

May I ask, do you guys have a conclusive doctrine that is teachable, or are you a lifetime observer/critic ?

I believe a man must make up his mind and get out and teach it with(whatever it is) the big dogs. (or just stay on the porch)

Cmon, make the call...I can see if your mind is not made up, but dont spend the rest of your life trying to come to a conclusion.

I'm a lifetime observer/critic

[Sean]

LOL

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Sean

Well, TGBTJ and JFROG, you guys both seem to be in the same camp.

May I ask, do you guys have a conclusive doctrine that is teachable, or are you a lifetime observer/critic ?

I believe a man must make up his mind and get out and teach it with(whatever it is) the big dogs. (or just stay on the porch)

Cmon, make the call...I can see if your mind is not made up, but dont spend the rest of your life trying to come to a conclusion.

Hahaha...funny you should say that. I was telling my friend I am now an "observer." On a serious note though, as far as coming to a conclusion, how does one come to a conclusion when there are major holes in all the doctrine?

Like I said in another thread, I used to be fully pre-trib (I saw inconsistencies, but figured I would one day be able to reconcile it.) So I would search/study/pray to figure it out. As of now, I see no reconciliation. Matter of fact, I started a thread a while back asking probing questions on both preterism and dispensationalism, for which there were no answers per se.

The obvious truth (IMO) is that preterism and dispensationalism are faced with the same problem, which is "what to do with the last half of Matt 24?"

Both sides agree that the first half of Matt 24 is fulfilled, but the how about the last half?

Preterism says since Jesus said "this generation will not pass away till all these things be fulfilled..." therefore it must have been fulfilled. Since, it was not fulfilled physically, they are forced to spiritualize Jesus' coming, the sun and moon events..etc

On the other hand, dispensationalists say Jesus said his coming would be physically SEEN by all, therefore must be a gap (~2000 years so far..lol) between the first half of matt 24 and the last half, or some hold to double fulfillment of the first half of Matt 24 (of course, double fulfillment negates the fact that Jesus said the tribulation of that magnitude will be a one time event).

In any case, the real issue IMO is the cognitive dissonance both sides of the debate are struggling with.

So, as far as a conclusion, well, for now, I'd say I'm an observer because I find it difficult to teach a doctrine as truth when it is obviously & blatantly wrong, but that's just me.

[TGBTG]

Sean

Here's the thread where I posted some probing questions to the different view points. Feel free to respond to the question(s) directed at the dispensationalists.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=44467

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Luke

Michael is a post trib believer not a preterist unless i have really missed something in his post.

Thanks, Luke...Sorry Michael, I might have interpreted that post as what you believe. Maybe, clarify?