Preterism is a Better View of the Bible than Futurism for Someone Suffering

[Logos1]

Your quotes brother Jesusfan

Really hard to see how pretierism, especially hyper version fits the Biblical doctrine of the Sec Coming..

was NOT to be an invsible "in the dark" event, but
was to be seen by all men
Eyes would behold him coming back, how can one see invisible return/spiritual return?
All the saints would have come out of their graves, living one raptured stright up in air to meet coming Lord

Which historian recorded in in ancient times, any one?
Messiah returning with an army opf his Saints, dealing judgement upon World
Again, any record of that?

messiah returning ushers in his Millinual reign upon earth, satan bound, sickness disease wars famines etc all done away with at that time...

When did that happen? is this present age ruled full way God intends it to be under messiahnic rule?

just dont say biblical support...

You can get extra bible sources to refernce that...

strange cannot get jesus/peter/paul/or John to though!

Jesusfan—don’t you find it odd how you always clamor for verses to support the Preterist position but don’t offer any verses to support your own position—I see this time and again in your posts and it baffles me. Well at any rate let me refer you to my answer to John of Japan two posts above for numerous verses in support of the Preterist position. I trust you have some legitimate verses to offer in support of your own position and don’t stoop to empty copying and pasting of irrelevant verses just to spit something out.

Proudly proclaiming our already realized Victory in Christ,

Logos1

 

[John of Japan]

John I think it would be fair to wrap all your statements up into the last one about how a newbie would understand verses.

Obviously the seven Revelation I come quickly statements would be understood to mean a soon coming of Christ.

This would be too much for a newbie to handle unless you explained to him when you thought Revelation was written and why. And if it was written before 70 AD, in that case full preterism has just as big a problem as any other view. I plan sometime, maybe next week, to do a thread on the preterist dilemma in interpreting the time statements, which is just as real as the futurist dilemma.

Matt 24:34 Jesus said this generation would not pass away—anyone newbie or not can see he is talking about the generation alive at the time of the statement.

Back to my newbie persona, only that doesn't mean I cease being a linguist. What about polysemy?

Mark 14: 62 Jesus said to the high priest you will see the Son of Man come with the clouds of heaven…saying "you will see" to the high priest could only mean the person he was speaking to "the high priest" would live to see it.

Oh, cool, so Caiaphas lived until 70? He must have been really, really old then. And he actually saw Christ coming? Wow! He must have written something about it. What did he and the others who saw Christ write about that? Someone wrote something, right?

1 Thessalonians 4: 15 when Paul says we are still alive at the Lord’s coming…you have to pervert the word of God not to see he is saying some of them will still be alive when Christ returns.

1 Thessalonians 5: 4 he uses the term you again meaning those he was talking to saying they would not be overtaken like a thief.

1 Thessalonians 5: 6 we must not sleep…but we must stay awake and be sober--again meaning those reading the letter not some future readers thousands of years in the future.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 when he tells them may your spirit, soul, and body be kept sound and blameless for the coming of our Lord—he didn’t tell them of a future coming he is specifically telling them to keep themselves blameless when Christ comes back obviously meaning they will be alive when he comes. How can you not see that Paul is a full Preterist in this verse.

Oh, cool, so Paul lived to see the 2nd coming in 70 AD? What year did Paul die, after all? Oh. Wait. Wasn't it before 70 AD?

Out of my newbie persona: you know, you really have to quit accusing others of perverting the Word of God. And in the title of your post #28 you accused me saying, "You are making yourself more inspired by the Holy Spirit than the Apostles." That is so insulting. I am deeply committed to the verbal-plenary inspiration, and totally opposed to the "advanced revelation" view of the Charismatics.

I believe the full preterist view is not orthodox, and a physical 2nd coming is a fundamental, but I certainly haven't accused you preterists of perverting the Word of God. Most of the time you seem like a nice person, but these statements are over the top.

And you want other evidence the bible gives us that also which is backed up by the historical accounts of the destruction of the temple just as Jesus predicted:

Matthew 24 and Mark 13 and Luke 21 when Jesus said not one stone would be left upon another and if you read the historical account that is exactly the way the temple was torn down stone by stone. The disciples asked what would be the sign of his coming and the end of the age—notice when he comes it is also the end of the age—the age they are living in the Old Covenant age.

Well of course, reading those passages makes you know Jesus was predicting the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I believe that. Even as a newbie, I read a story that the Roman soldiers tore every brick down on the temple to get to the gold that melted when it burned.

Here's my problem as a newbie. The destruction of the temple was literal, right? Every brick torn down, right? But the 2nd coming was not literal, right? So how do I tell the difference, as a newbie? How do I know what prophecies in those passages are literally fulfilled and what are figuratively or spiritually fulfilled? You must have some principle you follow. As a newbie, I need to know this.

Since you wouldn’t argue with the apostles and Christ I think that should fairly settle the matter in your mind doesn’t it. It does for me.

Please. Give me freedom to disagree. A wise teacher guides his student, he doesn't force him.

 

[InTheLight]

In a futurists view you have to change the meaning of works like “coming soon” and “this generation” to mean things that are uncommon, not used anywhere else, and if you don’t know the futurists code to understand these words it makes no sense whatsoever.


On the other hand in the preterist’s view you can use the normal everyday meaning of the words just as you would anywhere else and you understand their meaning.

I'm a newbie to preterist vs. futurist debates. As of right now, I'm a futurist but am open to study.

Don't preterists have to change the meaning of "at hand" and "near" and "coming quickly" to mean 600 years (or more)? How do you explain these verses?

Isaiah 13:6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand!
It will come as destruction from the Almighty.



When Joel wrote this in 500 BC, he meant it would happen very soon, right? So why didn't it?

Joel 2:1 Blow the trumpet in Zion;
sound the alarm on my holy hill.

Let all who live in the land tremble,
for the day of the LORD is coming.
It is close at hand—


Same question with Zephaniah:

Zeph. 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near—
near and coming quickly.
The cry on the day of the LORD is bitter;
the Mighty Warrior shouts his battle cry.

Further if you needed comfort and wanted to feel like you could put your trust in what the bible says which is more comforting to see Christ promise to come back soon and still be waiting 2,000 later or realize he came back in 70 AD and kept his promise to come back soon. A promise made and a promise kept is far more reassuring than a promise with no fulfillment.

Where is the proof that He came back in 70 AD? Where is the writings of these people?

Rev. 1:7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.


It's really difficult to rebut your theory because you haven't proven the core principle--that Jesus has already returned in 70 AD.

Preterism is a far more understandable and comforting view of the bible than futurism to someone who needs comfort, reassurance, and something concrete to hold on to in times of stress.

I'd like the idea that Christ returned in 70 AD to be proven concretely. This has been asked on this board of preterists at least five times in the past month and there is silence on the issue. Prove that He returned in 70 AD.

Only then can we discuss if it is comforting and reassuring to someone.

 

[asterisktom]

I'm a newbie to preterist vs. futurist debates. As of right now, I'm a futurist but am open to study.

Don't preterists have to change the meaning of "at hand" and "near" and "coming quickly" to mean 600 years (or more)? How do you explain these verses?

Isaiah 13:6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand!
It will come as destruction from the Almighty.



When Joel wrote this in 500 BC, he meant it would happen very soon, right? So why didn't it?

Joel 2:1 Blow the trumpet in Zion;
sound the alarm on my holy hill.

Let all who live in the land tremble,
for the day of the LORD is coming.
It is close at hand—


Same question with Zephaniah:

Zeph. 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near—
near and coming quickly.
The cry on the day of the LORD is bitter;
the Mighty Warrior shouts his battle cry.

There are two general answers that come to mind here before getting into specifics.

1.There is more than one "Day of the Lord". Perhaps it is due to some futurists' thinking of TDOL as being one event that they assume that we Preterists believe also that it is one event, namely at or around AD 70.

So some of these Day of the Lord verses had already happened back in OT times.

2. "At hand" need not be taken always as temporal but spatial. Nearness as in proximity. You find this use of the term in Jeremiah 23:23

"'Am I a God near at hand,' says the LORD,
'And not a God afar off?'"

Where is the proof that He came back in 70 AD? Where is the writings of these people?

First of all, spiritual events will never give the proof or signs that will satisfy many people from Missouri. (For those who don't know, Missouri is the "Show me" state.) Well, the Parousia of Christ, like the moving of the Holy Spirit in John 3, cannot be shown in that way.

Also, since the canon of Scripture was closed before the Parousia (I know many here disagree, but I speaking here from my view) there will never be the inspired after-the-fact proof that many desire.

But we do have some writings by Christians after the event, looking back at it. But that is a different thread. I don't want to start that topic here when it is already ongoing on the ECF thread.

Rev. 1:7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.


It's really difficult to rebut your theory because you haven't proven the core principle--that Jesus has already returned in 70 AD.



I'd like the idea that Christ returned in 70 AD to be proven concretely. This has been asked on this board of preterists at least five times in the past month and there is silence on the issue. Prove that He returned in 70 AD.

Only then can we discuss if it is comforting and reassuring to someone.

There has not been silence. There has been discussion. I'm not sure where you have been that you would say such a thing.

 

[revmwc]

Dear Brother revmwc,

Instead of waiting till the future to claim victory in the Lord as futurists have to do I welcome you over to full Preterism so you can rightfully start claiming your victory in Christ today. In the futurists view since Christ’s coming is always put off and never arrives you never get to proclaim Christ’s victory in your earthly life time—but we Preterists know Christ has already conquered death and when you die you go straight to heaven to be with the Lord—try it and you will find it very comforting.

Just think about it—every single preacher who tells the family of a dead person that he has gone to heaven to be with the Lord is actually proclaiming full Preterism. They would have to say the dead won’t be with the Lord till Christ returns to be consistent with futurism. When you think that through and grasp the ramifications of it all I want to be the first to welcome you into hyper Preterism and the comfort of knowing the joy you can experience only in hyper Preterism. May God bless you in your new walk in the Lord.

Victory in Christ came when I called on the name of the Lord for Salvation, the seed was planted and it geminated and continues to grow, full completion comes when I have a glorified body, a body with no old sin nature, when I no longer sin. If yo ufeeel you have victory over sin and sin more you are definitely off on your theology. John says if you say you have no sin (old sin nature) you make God a liar and the truth is not in you. I can tell someone who lost a christian family member that while their soul and spirit are in heaven with God their body soul and spirit will be reunited at the rapture when we too go to meet Christ in the air, and I comfort them with those words just as scripture commands.

 

[Logos1]

For John of Japan

John you made my work a piece of cake here today. I would have been willing to call you the smartest futurist on the board and maybe you are—but what does that say of futurism—it is exposed as the empty shell which has to rely on twisting bible meanings to attempt to make its point. The slithering and twisting you have done here exposes futurism for the emptiness that it really is.

Mark 14:62
And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

To which you replied “Oh, cool, so Caiaphas lived until 70? He must have been really, really old then. And he actually saw Christ coming? Wow! He must have written something about it. What did he and the others who saw Christ write about that? Someone wrote something, right?”

I’ll leave you to nitpick with the words of Christ as to whether he meant Caiaphas specifically or the group of priests assembled there collectively, but either way you are mocking and making light of the words of Christ—not my words. But I’ll leave it to you to mock and make light of where you choose to do so.

The fact that you twist the words of Christ and then try to credit them to me—illustrates how hallow and empty futurism really is. This is what lies at the heart of futurism. Thank you for such a blatant display of its distilled essence John.

In response to 1 Thessalonians 4:15
15For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

You said “Oh, cool, so Paul lived to see the 2nd coming in 70 AD? What year did Paul die, after all? Oh. Wait. Wasn't it before 70 AD?”

We know it was before 70 AD and reading the verse we also see that Paul doesn’t say he specifically will live to see Christ return—he says “we who are alive” obviously meaning some will be alive without specific reference to who that will be.

Again we see the scripture twisting logic that is required of futurism.
And then you say I have to quit accusing others of perverting the word of God—LOL in view of your comments here I find that wonderfully amusing John.

Then in your newbie persona you said
“Here's my problem as a newbie. The destruction of the temple was literal, right? Every brick torn down, right? But the 2nd coming was not literal, right? So how do I tell the difference, as a newbie? How do I know what prophecies in those passages are literally fulfilled and what are figuratively or spiritually fulfilled? You must have some principle you follow. As a newbie, I need to know this.”

Christ himself answered you

Luke 17:20-21

The Coming of the Kingdom
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God will come, He answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with something observable; 21 no one will say, 'Look here!' or 'There!' For you see, the kingdom of God is among you."

Most newbie’s would be able to accept what Christ said at face value, but someone who had an opposing agenda to defend at all costs would probably mock it—hmm, sound like anybody we know John.

And finally you said—yet again complaining about the latitude I give you in this thread.
“Please. Give me freedom to disagree. A wise teacher guides his student, he doesn't force him.”

After a while all the whining about your freedom to disagree begins to sound like an excuse to hide behind when you can’t keep up with the points made in the thread.

Thank you John for making my day so easy here.

 

[Logos1]

I'd like the idea that Christ returned in 70 AD to be proven concretely. This has been asked on this board of preterists at least five times in the past month and there is silence on the issue. Prove that He returned in 70 AD.

I think Tom answered you well and I’ll ask you one thing in return. Read

1 Thessalonians 4:15

15For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

When Paul says “we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord”
Is that not a direct statement by Paul that some of those he is writing to will still be alive when Christ returns? Just how do you propose that means anything other than a first generation return of Christ.

Do propose to mean Paul was wrong and Christ didn’t come back in the life time of the first century believers thereby proving the bible not to be inerrant or do you suggest that those same people are still alive today 2,000 years later?

How many times has this been asked of futurists on the board and still there is silence on the matter. Prove that Paul was wrong and that Christ didn’t return—I say you can’t prove he didn't.

And while you are at it just ponder the consequences of that proof one way or the other. If futurists are wrong then the bible remains inerrant, but if preterists are wrong then the bible is not inerrant.

 

[John of Japan]

John you made my work a piece of cake here today. I would have been willing to call you the smartest futurist on the board and maybe you are—but what does that say of futurism—it is exposed as the empty shell which has to rely on twisting bible meanings to attempt to make its point. The slithering and twisting you have done here exposes futurism for the emptiness that it really is.

Talk about being completely, totally misunderstood!! I was acting the part of a newbie, for crying out loud. I was actually trying to get you to teach me your position so I could better understand it. That's what your OP was about, as you yourself kept telling me.

Mark 14:62
And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

To which you replied “Oh, cool, so Caiaphas lived until 70? He must have been really, really old then. And he actually saw Christ coming? Wow! He must have written something about it. What did he and the others who saw Christ write about that? Someone wrote something, right?”

I’ll leave you to nitpick with the words of Christ as to whether he meant Caiaphas specifically or the group of priests assembled there collectively, but either way you are mocking and making light of the words of Christ—not my words. But I’ll leave it to you to mock and make light of where you choose to do so.

The fact that you twist the words of Christ and then try to credit them to me—illustrates how hallow and empty futurism really is. This is what lies at the heart of futurism. Thank you for such a blatant display of its distilled essence John.

Once again, you totally, completely misunderstand what I was doing. I was trying to follow your OP, for crying out loud. Every time I tried to actually debate you on this thread, you dodged and said, "That wasn't in my OP." So I was approaching you just like your OP said, as a newbie to prophetic studies.

And I would never, ever, mock the Word of God. Proclaiming, studying, preaching and teaching it is my entire life as a missionary. I read and study much of it every day in several languages, and love it with all of my heart.

You insult me as perverting the Word and mocking the Word and not believing in its inerrancy, all totally false. Rather than debate, you have refused to answer my valid points about the precious Word of God all through this thread, and instead choose to mock me. You have not answered on this thread how you believe a preterist should determine if a passage is spiritual or literal, and no doubt will not (cannot?). You are all talk and no debate. I'm done. I can't debate thin air.

 

[Logos1]

I bid you adieu John

You insult me as perverting the Word and mocking the Word and not believing in its inerrancy, all totally false. Rather than debate, you have refused to answer my valid points about the precious Word of God all through this thread, and instead choose to mock me. You have not answered on this thread how you believe a preterist should determine if a passage is spiritual or literal, and no doubt will not (cannot?). You are all talk and no debate. I'm done. I can't debate thin air.

Nothing personal John. Of course what you choose to take offense on is up to you. When I see disregard for scripture I have to label it as such.

As a preterist I've learned to over look such things as your not responding to the scripture I give you and just going oh cool and disregarding it--maybe when you get to be a preterist you will develop tougher skin too.

It's probably for the best though. I can't get you to work straight up with me on any verses indicating an expected first generation coming of Christ just weave and dodge and ignore and proclaim your own opinion when you get called on it say you are limited in your ability to respond.

I think you if you will allow your analytical powers free reign and quit worrying about creeds, traditions etc. you be amazed at how much sense preterism makes--I know that worked for me.

When I started reading the bible without dragging my preconceived baggage into the reading--preterism was the only view that made sense.

So long John. Maybe later.

Logos1

 

[InTheLight]

Do propose to mean Paul was wrong and Christ didn’t come back in the life time of the first century believers thereby proving the bible not to be inerrant or do you suggest that those same people are still alive today 2,000 years later?

How many times has this been asked of futurists on the board and still there is silence on the matter. Prove that Paul was wrong and that Christ didn’t return—I say you can’t prove he didn't.

I ask for proof and you come back with questions for me. Then you ask me to prove a double negative.

 

[lastday]

John of Japan,
Logos is not only "mocking" you but accusing you of "disregarding scripture. This is the same method he used of me in a past discussion on whether Christ is coming in the flesh.
I would point to one of his quotes to show that he allows only his interpretation of what
Paul meant by not referring to himself when Paul said: "WE shall not all sleep...but WE
shall all be changed at the last trump":
Logos wrote:
Let’s put ourselves in the place of the first century Christians—do you think they would have gotten any comfort by thinking Christ would come back at some unknown point thousands of years into the future. They were persecuted then and comforted by holding on to the promise that Christ was coming back in their generation".

Logos contradicts himself by not allowing the "WE" to include every believer who reads
the promises made by Paul. He limits the application and interpretation to first century
based on two suppositions:
1. That "this generation" cannot possible refer to unbelieving Jews who will be given
the Kingdom "after the times of the gentiles are fulfilled" when they pray to "escape
all these things and to stand before the Son of Man on that day". Luke 21:24,28,31,36.
2. Logos refuses to allow the words "soon" or "near" to include these unbelieving Jews
who don't believe until the delay of "chronos-time" is no longer subject to countdown!

Preterism has no way of explaining how believers who "watch for Christ to come as a
thief" does not apply to who expect His second coming with armies from the far EAST instead of the Roman WEST invade Israel before they (including Caiaphas) see Him coming WITH all the Saints. That means the words "soon and near and generation"
apply to every believer who has yet to see the 70th Seven fulfilled in the FUTURE!!

Preterists actually deny that the 70th Seven will be fulfilled during a literal period of
360 Prophetic weeks, 365 Solar weeks on our calendar and 367 weeks on a Hebrew
calendar. Now watch Logos sidestep the points I make just as he has done to you!!!
Mel Miller

 

[asterisktom]

Preterism has no way of explaining how believers who "watch for Christ to come as a
thief" does not apply to who expect His second coming with armies from the far EAST instead of the Roman WEST invade Israel before they (including Caiaphas) see Him coming WITH all the Saints.

I'll let Logos answer for himself, but I will say why I "have no way of explaining", Mel: Half the time I have no idea what you are saying.

Your sentence above should be taken out into the street and shot.

 

[John of Japan]

Nothing personal John. Of course what you choose to take offense on is up to you. When I see disregard for scripture I have to label it as such.

You say such vicious things about me and then say "nothing personal"?!?!

Since 1970, I've preached and taught the precious Word of God in five different countries. I've preached and taught God's wonderful Word all over Japan and America in churches, camps, evangelistic meetings, colleges, radio and many other venues. In June, God willing, I will preach and teach God's Bible in three different cities. I currently teach the Bible in two different Japanese Bible schools. I've translated the entire NT into Japanese from Greek, and revised 76% of it.

How dare you question my love and committment to the precious, eternal Word of Truth. What have you done to spread the Word of God around the World, other than working to tear down our belief in the precious 2nd coming of Jesus Christ our Savior???

 

[Logos1]

I’m going to put on my Yoda persona to answer Young John Skywalker

You say such vicious things about me and then say "nothing personal"?!?!

Since 1970, I've preached and taught the precious Word of God in five different countries. I've preached and taught God's wonderful Word all over Japan and America in churches, camps, evangelistic meetings, colleges, radio and many other venues. In June, God willing, I will preach and teach God's Bible in three different cities. I currently teach the Bible in two different Japanese Bible schools. I've translated the entire NT into Japanese from Greek, and revised 76% of it.

How dare you question my love and committment to the precious, eternal Word of Truth. What have you done to spread the Word of God around the World, other than working to tear down our belief in the precious 2nd coming of Jesus Christ our Savior???

Oh John sometimes you are a side splitting laugh. God bless you for it, you old futurist you. I tell you it’s not personal and you refuse to accept it—it’s like you have to make it personal.

Viciousness you say--Pain, suffering, death I feel. Something terrible has happened. Young John Skywalker is in pain. Terrible pain.

Use the Force John. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.

Lost a temper, John has, how embarrassing.

Um, quick to anger you are. Um Preterist training you need. Only a fully trained Preterist Master can control his temper when the heat turned up it is on the BB.

I feel no anger John. Accustomed I am to insults, false comparisons, inaccurate quotes, and accusations of heresy, etc., etc. Tougher skin you need.

Only a fully trained Preterist can remain cool on the BB. Much to learn you still have.

Use the Force John. But beware of the dark side.

 

[Logos1]

Praise Be, It's the Second Coming of Mel!

Mel, Mel, Mel……. My Man Mel—It’s so good to hear from you again you old futurist you. How have you been man?

I thought you had gone away mad for good and remained true to your promise. This is a Red Letter day for me to hear from you again Mel. You were always the most entertaining character ever to grace the Baptist Board.

No wonder Tom can’t make heads or tails out of that sentence—when I read it I laughed so hard I thought some one was going to have to take me out and shoot me.

I can’t tell if I meant what you meant to say that I meant or I meant what you meat to say that I meant isn’t what I meant or oh never mind you always operated out there in some spatial realm of biblical hermeneutics that left us mere mortals eating your space dust.

For old time sake I wish you would do some dating for us—I always envied the way you ciphered out those complex biblical codes with hair splitting accuracy.

While we are revisiting Our old posts to one another remember this blast from the past? Wasn’t it our last exchange on August 28th of last year when you said in post #330

That's It!
You can call it humor but I am not interested in humor. I have completely lost interest in further exchanges with you.
The 10-foot Pole that AsteriskTom placed between him and me now exists between you and me with no mutual respect.
Mel Miller

And I replied: Whether you are mad at me or not is your call.
Either way I'm not mad at you (nor any one else here).
Next week you will miss my flippant remarks when I start a new job and I won't be able to post as much.
I'll try to do a little in the evenings.
I won't expect any replies from you; however, I doubt you'll be able to resist.

Now I’m not the kind of guy to say I can predict the future with anything like your accuracy, but I knew you would miss me and be back sooner or later.

By golly it’s good to hear from you again Mel. I’ll say it again you are the most entertaining person on the board when you get cranked up I’d rather read your material than Joycelyn Elders’ most any day.


And of course what would an exchange with each other be without signing off with my favorite quote of yours (remember when you tried to get me banned from the board because I wouldn’t accept your sarcasm.) Oh man those were the days.

Here’s to us-two of the best buds on the BB.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

 

[John of Japan]

Oh John sometimes you are a side splitting laugh. God bless you for it, you old futurist you. I tell you it’s not personal and you refuse to accept it—it’s like you have to make it personal.

You call someone a perverter of Scripture, offend them, then say it's not personal, then you LAUGH at them? You, sir, are a terrible example for preterism of a Christian's walk.

All who know me personally know that I do not get angry easily. I am righteously angry at your attitude towards a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ. And you think anger is always sinful? Tell that to the blessed Lord Jesus Christ as He cleanses the temple. Mock if you will, the Bible says, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand" (Rom. 14:4).

 

[Logos1]

Ok so I'm the money changers and you are Christ--did I get that right?

You call someone a perverter of Scripture, offend them, then say it's not personal, then you LAUGH at them? You, sir, are a terrible example for preterism of a Christian's walk.

All who know me personally know that I do not get angry easily. I am righteously angry at your attitude towards a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ. And you think anger is always sinful? Tell that to the blessed Lord Jesus Christ as He cleanses the temple. Mock if you will, the Bible says, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand" (Rom. 14:4).

Oh Cool, another post for whining about your feelings. I should tell you to be a preterist for a while and get some real experience with your Christian brothers misunderstanding you and attacking you.

When you misrepresent my posts I take it as par for the course and I’m sure you won’t be the last to do such things. If I was going to let it make me mad and upset me I just wouldn't post.

You’re use to everybody patty you on the back and telling you how wonderful you are. Get a little real disagreement you don’t know how to rebut and it’s not fair.

So Young John Skywaker tell me how you really feel…don’t hold back give it to me both barrels, go nuclear, and just get all that nasty ol’ feeling out of your system and it will purify you and you’ll feel all better.

It’s ok. I have read that righteousness indignation (unlike the bad type of anger) doesn’t raise your blood pressure so you can go at it with abandon.

 

[thomas15]

Another preterist who missed his nap time.

 

[Logos1]

Living as in the Day

And getting back on topic of Preterism being more comforting to those suffering, distressed, or in need of care etc.. Preterism is more consistent with the notion of community missions, evangelism, care for the needy, and the general notion of bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to earth.

In futurism there is the ever present overhang of the Lord’s return, speculation about the antichrist, watching the news for the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, etc, but Preterism has put all that in the past.

With Preterism the return of Christ is in the past which allows focus on other matters that make the world a better place.

Indeed if you think the world is about to end there is no need to undertake projects with long-term schedules since you don’t think you will be around to finish the work. Preterism embodies the concept of a world without end that allows long-term projects to be started that may not even be completed in the same generation.

Kingdom work such as building facilities for the needy, church planting and planning, and providing training for missionaries are the focus here not speculation about the latest news involving Israel.

Getting past the second coming of Christ and realizing that we are living in the day as spoken of in Romans 13:13. The “in the day” is a reference to the period of time after Christ has returned. He is exhorting them to live Godly lives in their present time not wait for the return of Christ, but to start right then to live as they should live in the period after Christ has returned.

This is a reference to life in the period after Christ’s return.

Hence going about the Lord’s work makes Preterism a better view of eschatology for those who need comfort, assistance, and support from the church.

 

[John of Japan]

You’re use to everybody patty you on the back and telling you how wonderful you are. Get a little real disagreement you don’t know how to rebut and it’s not fair.

My turn to laugh. Shows how little you know about life as a missionary in a Gospel resistant country like Japan--only 1% Christian, only .5% evangelical. I've been here 30 years, young man, and you think I've not mixed it up with Buddhists?