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

I know. I responded to you because he claimed he had made a response to me. He posted something but it was empty of anything but a weak anology and he did not like my source. Both of which are fallacies.

 

Ah! Correct. He didn't make a reply to either of us. Nor will he, not one that has any substance at any rate.

 

So I take it you just don’t believe me when I told you directly that “theo-political system of Christian Zionism that dispensationalism has morphed into” is in no way intended to be racist, the intent is exactly as the examples:

Christian Zionism: Dispensationalism And The Roots Of Sectarian Theology

Dispensationalism and United States Foreign Policy with Israel

God’s Foreign Policy: Christian Zionism

…“theo-political system of Christian Zionism that dispensationalism has morphed into” is referring to the fact that dispensationalism is no longer to be considered a benign harmless eschatology but is a potent political force that carries grave consequences.

I bet I could name at least two of ‘the offended’, there’s a history here, I’ve ‘offended’ them on several other occasions on the same exact topic in the same exact manner. Sounds like their efforts to silence me have now become concerted. And you’re going right along with them.

“Preterism...A Pox Upon Baptists” is decent and OK with you?

Being told that you as Baptists have abandoned the peaceful concept of Church/State separation for the sake of a foreign nation is not OK?

You’ve really disappointed me here with the favoritism you’re showing.

 

Have you produced links to these records/reference? I'd really like to see them.

 

Yes, I have. You might want to peruse the thread a bit more closely. :thumbsup:

 

2 points!

When one states a belief that God still has a plan for israel and the jewish peoples is error/wrong, and that we are supporting their Zionism, as in they have no more right to that area than anyone else, is that not being unbecoming?

And those holding to pretierism here seem to go for the full version of it, where he did return AD 70, as symbolic of overthrowing Jewish religion, and starting then new heaven and earth!

Denying physical resurrection to come, as we have now a spiritual one!

 

Your links are very biased.
Furthermore it seems that you should be posting in the politics forum and not here. I looked at the first couple of links. In the second one, the first paragraph is:

Notice the word I bolded, "presupposes."
The entire article is based on his presupposition, and therefore very biased. It is not really about dispensationalism but rather about politics and Israel. Dispensationalism fits in there somewhat. You should be posting these in the politics forum not here. Even the conclusion of the first link, after going through a biased history of dispensationalism, concludes with a conclusion which is totally political and has nothing to do with spiritual matters or the Bible.

I don't find these links very edifying at all. They are biased and the authors somewhat misinformed.

 

By John Gill
[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Abbot's NT Commentary [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Companion Bible Notes [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Coke's Commentary of the Holy Bible [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gabelein's Annotated Bible [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]F. B. Hole's Commentary on the New Testament[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Of course they aren't first hand witnesses. But they are scholars whose research does have some weight.
[/FONT]

 

No, that is not the case. I said a lot to you. You just aren't listening. And I told you why I did not like your source: the list they compiled is demonstrably incomplete and very misleading. I showed that was the case by providing another much earlier person to add to the list. If I knew that the effort would be appreciate I would even help fill out that second list myself from my notes. But, given the comments by you and Disconnected, I perceive that the effort would not be worth it.

 

Oh please. Out of the same mouth cannot come cursing and bitterness. A lot of Christians like to sanctify their churlish comments with a "God bless." or some such, thinking it makes everything acceptable.

We agree though that neither of us wants to waste our time writing to each other any more, given my "false teaching" and your false piosity.

 

Full blown Pretierism is heresy!

 

Thanks for the heads up. Good thing I am not a "Pretierist", whatever that is.

 

Here is just one of the writers who should have been included in your List B, witnessing (since you used the term) a Neronic date for Revelation. Emphases added.

"Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)"

Source:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/ApocalypseCommentaries/Dating/Early/index.html

I refenced this earlier as "Stromata", which is how I had known it. It is the same thing, Note also that, along with another writer or two (whose name/s escape me this morning) Clement speaks of John having died before Paul. I'm not sure of this, but this is not the focus here. The point is that Clement, as an early writer - much earlier than credited by your "authorities" - assumed an early date for Revelation.

 

Some things that might help.

The best work on the dating of Revelation is Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell". A must read for this subject. Here it is free:


http://www.rpts.edu/media/BeforeJerusalemFell-Gentry.pdf

Page 45 of book, page 61 using pdf number deals with the Irenaeus problem.

Steve Gregg also deals with Irenaeus in his book Revelation Four Views

Irenaeus' Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Revelation Date Theory)
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ‘he’ [John?] or ‘it’ [Revelation?] was seen . . . towards the end of Domitian’s reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)

"Several church fathers indicate that Domition was emperor when John wrote Revelation. All of them, however, seem to base their information on the testimony of Irenaeus" (Revelation, p.17)

"The meaning of Irenaeus' statement has been debated. What was seen toward the end of Domition's reign? Was it the vision which John "beheld"? or was it the apostle himself, who was "seen... face to face" by those who testify? The phrase "that was seen..." may be a corruption of an original that read, "He was seen..." If this is true, then it only proves that John lived into the reign of Domition, though he may have written the Apocalypse much earlier." (Revelation, p.17)

"Those who originally translated Irenaeus' work into English complained of the poor condition of the manuscript evidence for his work. They wrote: *'The great work of Irenaeus, now for the first time translated into English, is unfortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of a greater portion of the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of the copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The text, in both Latin and Greek, is often most uncertain." (Revelation, p.17-18)

"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is *known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation, p.18)

"Earlier in the passage, Irenaeus refers to "all the.. ancient copies" of Revelation. This presupposes that that the book had been around a good long while before this statement was written. If there were "ancient copies," was not the original more ancient still? Yet, in Irenaeus estimation, the time of Domition's reign was not considered to have been very ancient history, for he speaks of it as "almost in our day." How could Irenaeus speak of ancient copies" of a work the original of which has been written "almost" in his own time?" (Revelation, p.18)

"With reference to his mention of Domition's reign, there are grounds for believing that Irenaeus was speaking of the time of John's last being seen by the brethren, rather than the time of John's having seen the apocalyptic vision." (Revelation, p.18)


This link shows that there are some current conservative Theologians who hold to a preAD 70 dating of Revelation.

http://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/writers-who-date-revelation-pre-70-a-d/

To say otherwise proves you are clueless or have a problem with the truth

 

The conclusions of my own study of Scripture, and finding that those conclusions were supported long before I drew breath by churchmen down through the ages since the Resurrection, are far more preferable to a "theory" that has barely been around for one hundred years and doesn't pass Scriptural muster. That said, I'm done here. Arguing with Preteristic amillennialists is about as effect an expenditure of time as is arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

Too bad you didn't understand to whom the link was targeted. Secondly, who do you think is Amill? Thirdly, you think preterist interpretations are only 100 years old? Perhaps it is best you bow out. BTW, it is ok to use a font size that people can read.

 

Thanks for this post, Grasshopper. I was going to mention some of the same things here, but Baptistboard is now getting slow to load where I am, so I can't post as much as I would like.

I also wanted to find the actual quote (I think I saw it in Schaff) concerning Irenaeus's misreading of Nero's name. I have Schaff's Church History set, but it is back in the States. Can't seem to find him online.

 

Thank you for this, Kyredneck. This was one of the quotes I was looking for.

The very fact that Irenaeus's mistake here is not very often quoted nowadays - certainly not in futurist sites - seems to show that people tend to avoid inconvenient evidences. It is clearly not a piece in the puzzle picture that they are working on.

 

Adam Clarke's view is both amusing and revealing at the same time.
It is amusing because from the beginning he admits he knows nothing of the book:

Nevertheless Clarke does have a commentary on the book of Acts.
What is more interesting are the outlines that he gives in his introduction. I believe they ought to be most interesting to either the preterist or to any person who interprets the book in a manner which dictates that the events are already fulfilled. We all have a different view of history. Many try to impose their view of history into the book of Revelation. As history goes on the historicist must change and the interpretation of the book must change. Thus the view is total nonsense IMO. I will post the outline for you or for those interested.

continued...

 

...continued