Featured Preterism...A Pox Upon Baptists & other denoms

Does it not strike you as strange, Robycop, (or anyone else) that there is no mention at all in Revelation of the fall of Jerusalem as a past event? That book - and the other epistles that were presumed to be written post AD 70 - pass over that astounding paradigm-shattering event without a single notice. Of course, assuming that these books were written before that year, the seemng silence is accounted for. It was still coming.

Additionally, both Revelation and John' gospel seem to imply a Jerusalem and Temple that were still standing at the time of writing.

As it has been said before, the evidence for a late date for Revelation is pretty thin; there is not a multiplicity of authorities for a late date. If you study it out you might find that it besically boils down to Iranaeus's initial blunder concerning the name of Nero, confusing Domitian with Domitianus.

Just for the sake of disclosure (I don't think I've met you here before) I guess I would be one of those on your "HIGHWAY TO HELL". Yet it was not the rejection of Scriptures that led me to my position, but the patient attention to details, cross-references, and red light that I found in Scripture. It was the eschatology I ditched that was man-made, not the theology I now embrace.

You really do need to study this more. Among other things, you really do not understand Preterism. BTW, I do not believe all things written in Scripture are passed. I wouldn't be typing here if they were. Moreover I don't believe that the things uttered by the seven thunders have come to pass yet.

I hesitate to get involved in this thread because it always involves writing the same things over and over again (just check the archives). It gets tiresome. Also I hesitiate to start something because, for some stupid reason, I am not able to even get Baptist Board here in China. Sometimes it is blocked for weeks on end, as are a lot of sites.

 

Despite my frequent postings the BB is sometimes blocked --or it's very,very slow.

Lately I have had trouble getting sermonaudio.com

I can't get Drudge. And there are a multitude of Christian sites that are completely inaccessible.

 

There was no anti-Semitism intended at all in the post. You have wrongly accused me.

It is not anti-Semitism, if anything it was anti-Dispensationalism exactly in the same vein that this thread is anti-Preterism.

There was no hateful racist language, I used common contemporary terms. The fact is Dispensationalism on the whole has gone beyond mere 'covenants and dispensations'. Perhaps since you're Canadian you're not so aware of the political ramifications of Dispensationalism. Perhaps many dispies here aren't aware of it.

I intended it as the United Nations has defined Zionism, a form of racism and apartheid.

The notion that "every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us." Grace Halsell.

The 911 commission determined that U.S. unconditional support for Israel was at the core of why we were attacked and why so much of the Muslim world now hates us.

I'm assuming someone(s) perceived their sacred cow was being marred and reported the post. If someone(s) were to report the OP for referring to Preterists as syphilis or gonorrhea, would you have given robeycop3 an infraction for 'Insulted Other Member(s)' also?

There were no racist terms. You, and other(s), have wrongly accused me.

 

Always scream "...ism", when your favorite false doctrine is challenged. It distracts the weaker minded, and allows the debate to shift from: priciples and ideas, to: people.
Zionism is racist.
It assumes the superiority of a people, simply by birthright.

Maybe Jesus can clear some things up:

Mat 23:37-39
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

...be bery bery careful, posting on this topic is offensive to some who may then complain.

 

I know that Preterism has its weaknesses, and strengths, but Dispensationalism does, as well.

These Baptists that are carried away with this present world (Zionist Neocon politics, or World Socialist politics, they are both steering towards the coming Satanic kingdom of the Great Tribulation of the Saints.), have joined Demas unknowingly, forsaking Paul (his epistles).
They don't see that they are being herded into the cattle pen, along with the charismatics, of the RCC.

 

I see we have another anti-semite on board. What a shame.

 

Kind of what I thought, but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Is Zionism more likely found in preterism or dispensationalism?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

So which group is racist?

Of course this all assumes there is a Jewish race:

http://worldwithoutend.info/wwewp/?p=116

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

 

Who, Jesus?

 

Told ya, now let's see if Rev reports the post as hateful and you recieve an infraction.

 

Seriously? How on earth do you see racism there?

Bingo!

So because they offend you they must be shoved off into the corner and kept from public eye? Gotta shelter the masses all because you are offended? DHK, I had no idea you were liberal...:BangHead:

 

It has already been stated in this thread, this is the real fallacy that history disproves. Records from the ancient Roman Empire prove that John was sent to Patmos by Domitian in 90 A.D. In Revelation 1:9 he references being banished to Patmos because of his preaching the gospel.

Revelation 1, NASB
9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. ​

Given that we can predate his other three epistles (1, 2, and 3 John) to the prophecy, and the changing paradigm indicated in each of those epistles, it is quite easy to determine that The Revelation was written about 95 or 96 A.D. It is on this fact alone that preterism is utterly overturned. It is a false teaching.

 

Define "Semite"( cuz I are one)

 

Right, lol. I quote Jesus, I'm called "anti-semitic", by someone who doesn't know that a third of the Earth's peoples are Semitic.

 

Guess that makes God a "Christian Zionist", then, as he has stated that he made an everlasting covenant between him and israel, and that one day they will welcome back jesus as their true messiah!

 

Goes way back, as our friend who posts that garbage keeps insisting that God ha no more plans/dealing with the Jews, and that any Chritian who supports Israel is racist.. Or as he labels us, "a christian Zionist"...

 

??? This is an outright false smear.

Provide posts where I've 'kept insisting that God ha no more plans/dealing with the Jews'. Don't confuse 'all promises to Israel fulfilled' with God no longer dealing with the Jews, because I very much believe He is still dealing with them in judgment. I've stated more than once that there may well be a general incoming someday of the Jews into the Church of Christ, and what a glorious day that would be!

Provide posts where I've stated 'that any Chritian who supports Israel is racist'. I've never said such a thing, and I would spell Christian correctly.

If you believe "Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us", you are indeed a Zionist, whether Christian or not. You dispies hold to a gross misapplication of Gen 12:3 by insisting if we don't unconditionally support political Israel God will curse us. As I stated, 911 commission determined that our lop-sided unconditional support of political Israel while turning a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinians is at the core of the cause of Muslim hatred towards us. That's no blessing, and we've hardly yet begun to reap the ramifications of it.

 

What are your "records from the ancient Roman Empire" that "prove" this? Yes, I read this thread. Give me something substantial that backs up what you so breezily assert.

Preterists are not alone in their early dating of Revelation. The notable scholar Phillip Schaff, who wrote the excellent History of the Christian Church, also came to accept this view.

"(On the Early Date of Revelation)
"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Enyclopedia 3:2036.)"

Source: http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/s/schaff-philip.html

BTW, I think that it is admirable that Schaff was brave enough to go on record as being previously mistaken on this topic. Like Augustine over a millenium before him he even published a detailed retraction of his earlier view, giving reasoned proofs for his new view.

 

It is the modern critics that believe in the JEDP theory, assign two authors to Isaiah, re-date Daniel in order to negate prophetic scripture, etc. The modern critics don't believe in the miraculous but explain them away. They are the enemies of the cross and no friend of the Bible.
No conservative scholar of this day believes in an early date of the Book of Revelation.

 

What kills Pretierism is that Jesus did NOT come back AD 70!