Featured Partial preterism

What's 'Pretierism'?

 

You know, that thingy before tierism...

 

I could say "hogwash!", but you may take that wrongly.

So you wanna tell the majority of Baptists in the UK that lie?

Historically they got the teachings before the US.

And they understand it a bit different than you.

 

Some are not listening.

I am.

Listening to common sense is easy, yet minds that have been washed in the goop of modernismal style teachings may cause disturbances in the 'force'.

 

Pretierism denies the Second Coming and bodily resurrection, so is heresy!

 

The historical church has alway seen full pretierism as heresey, sJesus did NOT have second coming AD 70, and prtial form is ok, but worst ofall available ed time options!

 

I'm curious, has there been any full preterists that have posted on this thread?

Has there been anyone on this thread that has denied the bodily resurrection?

Has there been anyone on this thread that has denied that Christ is to return again?

I believe the answer is no to all the above.

 

One answered that the second coming was not in his bible version...
So you do hold that there is second coming in future, and we will be physically resurrected?

 

<sigh> Start here and work back. If you still don't comprehend go back to here and work this way.

I've answered your questions not only on this thread but numerous times over the years, whether it was when you were JesusFan, or when you were DeChaser1, or when you were Yeshua1, and I'm not repeating it again.

 

Ok, this is getting to me too, do you not have spell check, or proof read your posts?

 

No he didn't mean the subject wasn't in his Bible, the actual words were not in his Bible. It is never called the "second coming" in scripture.

The closest it gets is in Hebrews 9:28 - "So Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many, and unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

 

OK. So what actually is the difference between a 'second coming' and 'appearing the second time'?
And in what way do you think the destruction of Jerusalem and the deaths of a few hundred thousand Jews could be described as appearing 'without sin unto salvation'?
Who was looking for Christ? Was it the Philippians in Philippians 3:20-21, and if so, how were the hopes expressed in those verses realised in AD 70?

 

...already been addressed here.

 

Your reading comprehension is perhaps worse than your spelling.

Here is what you said:

"Immendiantly after that wouldhe been the Second Coming, do you claim that"

That statement was made in reference to this:

"In the light, therefore, of this comparison of scripture with scripture, we think it plain that the "great tribulation" of Matthew 24:14 was that unparalleled calamity, with its unspeakable sufferings, which befell the city and people in A.D. 70."

You see, the reference is Matthew 24, not the whole Bible. Understand? You claim the "second coming" is found in that text. I pointed out that my Bible has no such statement, perhaps your version does?

A little advice, do some study on other views so you can honestly represent them.

Here is a statement you made that shows your ignorance on this topic:

"Think one can support Amil/post/pre mil, not any Pretierism!"

Apparently you don't know that A-mill and Post-mill interpret many prophecies in a preteristic manner. Read and learn:

http://postmillennialism.com/

 

Thanks for that link Grasshoppah.

 

The majority of

I had no idea Preterism is so popular in the UK. I know it's gaining ground.

 

I am preparing a constructive/informative post to try to answer Yeshua's objections, rather than further antagonize.
That will be a further 30 hours time. Please keep it open/

My UK understanding is:
The majority of Baptists (denominational) in the UK are modernist;
The majority of reformed baptists are historical amil, not partial preterist - Revelation is generally (& IMO wrongly) accepted as post ad 70;
Partial preterism is generally considered a minority understanding of prophecy;
American Baptists are considered to be Christian Zionists (an oxymoron) with their focus on Israel rather than Christ as the fulfillment of prophecy, & have excessive power within the US establishment.

The sad fact is that UK Christian broadcasting - radio & TV is largely US Baptist preaching, with a focus on futurism & health/wealth & has an unhealthy influence on UK Christians - including my friends.

There is an ever-increasing boldness of Zionists causing a divisive effect in the churches & political parties.

 

Yes, Christian Zionism is an oxymoron. Zionism was practically non-existent in Baptist churches a century ago. And, even now, it's probably mostly non-Baptist Pentecostal preachers airing in the UK that are pushing Zionism.

Christian Zionists are like the racist anti-racists of the Left. They have disproportionate influence because of their intense commitment to their cause, because of their intolerance of people with different views, and because no one wants to be thought of as a racist or anti-Semite thus making those cards very effective.

 

I challenged John McArthur (on Premier Christian Radio) when he asserted that John the baptist would have been the prophesied Elijah if the Jews had accepted Jesus ....
I was sent p/cs from "The McArthur Study Bible" & told that if I wrote again, I would not get a reply.