The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
cv5

cv5

Well-known member
#2,601
Nov 20, 2018
23,801
8,618
113
#2,601
Phoneman-777 said:
Impossible. The 69 Weeks started in 457 B.C. and ended at 27 A.D., the only year when Tiberius, Pilate, and Herod reigned simultaneously and the year Jesus was "Anointed (messiah) the Prince" in the Jordan.
Click to expand...
Nope........ wrong decree buddy. It was not the first decree of Atraxerxes given to Ezra 7:11 (457BC).
It was his later decree of Nehemiah 2.....445BC. 173,880 days later was the triumphal entry.
 
cv5

cv5

Well-known member
#2,603
Nov 20, 2018
23,801
8,618
113
#2,603
Phoneman-777 said:
What curtain? I've always claimed to be a Protestant Historicist in the succession of the great Reformers who were never seduced by that Jesuit Futurist garbage you wish to establish as "Biblical".

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were all contemporaneous prophets who had much to say in warning and promise of restoration of Israel upon their return from captivity. So what?
Click to expand...
The reconstitution and immense blessing that comes TO ISRAEL in the millennial reign after the second coming.

The biggest mistake the reformers made was kicking Israel to the curb. Absolutely outrageous.
 
OldSage

OldSage

Banned
#2,605
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
#2,605
Oh ok. That's good. As long as it is friendly. Bro
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,607
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,861
113
#2,607
Phoneman-777 said:
I am a staunch opponent of Preterism, or what it should rightly be referred to as "Jesuit Preterism" because it was invented by Jesuit priest Luis Alcazar in the 16th century.

What do you say to that?
Click to expand...
While Alcazar may have been the first modern writer to articulate a preterist position, the position itself does not rest on Alcazar's ideas themselves, but directly on historical evidence and interpretation of Scripture.
 
OldSage

OldSage

Banned
#2,608
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
#2,608
Dino246 said:
While Alcazar may have been the first modern writer to articulate a preterist position, the position itself does not rest on Alcazar's ideas themselves, but directly on historical evidence and interpretation of Scripture.
Click to expand...
lol. Alcazar proposed that the New Jerusalem was the Holy See in Rome....

Rev: 21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Not 'prepared for her girlfriend...'

E.G.
 
Ahwatukee

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
#2,609
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,376
113
#2,609
Ahwatukee said:
Hello Gideon300,

To contend for the truth of God's word, is not absurd. Preterism is one of the most destructive teachings out there. The full preterist believes that all of matthew 24, as well as all of the events of Revelation have already taken place, including the resurrection. If anything is absurd, that is. I would also mention that when Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had already taken place which Paul called godless chatter and that it would become more ungodly and that they had wandered from the truth, that this teaching would spread like gangrene. It is the same today. These people are teaching that the Lord has already returned and the resurrection has already taken place. Therefore, the same condemnation can be directed at those who are teaching such things.

Though the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple and fatalities was truly terrible, it will pale in comparison to the severity of God's coming wrath.

Remember God's warning for those who add to or take away from the prophesies in the book of Revelation, which is what the preterist is doing by assigning historical events to the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments.
Click to expand...
Hi Dino!

May I ask which part of the information above that you disagree with?
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,610
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,861
113
#2,610
OldSage said:
lol. Alcazar proposed that the New Jerusalem was the Holy See in Rome....

Rev: 21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Not 'prepared for her girlfriend...'

E.G.
Click to expand...
Yikes!
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,611
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,861
113
#2,611
Ahwatukee said:
Hi Dino!

May I ask which part of the information above that you disagree with?
Click to expand...
Sure. While you may not have done so intentionally, you equated "preterism" with "full preterism". That is simply not valid. By doing so, you misrepresent partial preterism, demonize those who hold to it, and discourage those who are honestly curious from doing their own study on the matter.

Further, you equate the attribution of historical events to prophetic events in Revelation "taking away from the words of this book". Sorry, you're simply wrong there, and have nothing more substantial than fearmongering to support your assertion.

That all said, I do respect the irenic attitude that you display in the midst of these all-too-harsh discussions. :)
 
OldSage

OldSage

Banned
#2,612
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
#2,612
Dino246 said:
Sure. While you may not have done so intentionally, you equated "preterism" with "full preterism". That is simply not valid. By doing so, you misrepresent partial preterism, demonize those who hold to it, and discourage those who are honestly curious from doing their own study on the matter.

Further, you equate the attribution of historical events to prophetic events in Revelation "taking away from the words of this book". Sorry, you're simply wrong there, and have nothing more substantial than fearmongering to support your assertion.

That all said, I do respect the irenic attitude that you display in the midst of these all-too-harsh discussions. :)
Click to expand...
:)We are only replying to the Preterism you endorsed - Alcazarian Preterism

While Alcazar may have been the first modern writer to articulate a preterist position, the position itself does not rest on Alcazar's ideas themselves, but directly on historical evidence and interpretation of Scripture.
Click to expand...
 
Ahwatukee

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
#2,615
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,376
113
#2,615
Dino246 said:
Sure. While you may not have done so intentionally, you equated "preterism" with "full preterism". That is simply not valid. By doing so, you misrepresent partial preterism, demonize those who hold to it, and discourage those who are honestly curious from doing their own study on the matter.

Further, you equate the attribution of historical events to prophetic events in Revelation "taking away from the words of this book". Sorry, you're simply wrong there, and have nothing more substantial than fearmongering to support your assertion.

That all said, I do respect the irenic attitude that you display in the midst of these all-too-harsh discussions. :)
Click to expand...
Actually I didn't equate preterism with full preterism, which is why I specified 'full preterism' after using on the word 'preterism.'
 
M

MattforJesus

Banned
#2,616
Apr 15, 2017
2,867
653
113
#2,616
OldSage said:
lol. Alcazar proposed that the New Jerusalem was the Holy See in Rome....

Rev: 21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Not 'prepared for her girlfriend...'

E.G.
Click to expand...
They want the push for homosexuality for population reduction, and acceptability, and when the New Age Christ starts working in the world they will forbid a man and a woman from coming together for population reduction.

Whoever is Pope at the time of the New Age Christ working in the world will be the head of the unified religious system, and the Vatican the headquarters.

We are in the end time big time.
 
Phoneman-777

Phoneman-777

Banned
#2,617
Aug 3, 2019
3,744
507
113
#2,617
cv5 said:
Nope........ wrong decree buddy. It was not the first decree of Atraxerxes given to Ezra 7:11 (457BC).
It was his later decree of Nehemiah 2.....445BC. 173,880 days later was the triumphal entry.
Click to expand...
I think you are referring to the later decree in 444 B.C., which was merely a reinstatement of his original decree in 457 B.C.

Furthermore, if we begin reckoning the 70 Weeks at 444, we end up at 39 B.C., which is well beyond everything:

Jesus was about 30 years old in 27 A.D....

which means the Triumphal Entry - which so many point to as the fulfillment of "Messiah the Prince", claiming "Messiah" means "Commander" - and Crucifixion could have been no later than 31 A.D....

which means the remaining 3 1/2 years of the 70th Week expired no later than 34 B.C. - well before 39 B.C.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,619
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,861
113
#2,619
Ahwatukee said:
Actually I didn't equate preterism with full preterism, which is why I specified 'full preterism' after using on the word 'preterism.'
Click to expand...
Here are your words:

“Preterism is one of the most destructive teachings out there. The full preterist believes that all of matthew 24, as well as all of the events of Revelation have already taken place, including the resurrection.”

You go from stating that “preterism is one of the most destructive teachings” to mentioning one component of full preterism. There was no distinction between the views. The unlearned reader would assume they are the same thing.
 
cv5

cv5

Well-known member
#2,620
Nov 20, 2018
23,801
8,618
113
#2,620
Phoneman-777 said:
I think you are referring to the later decree in 444 B.C., which was merely a reinstatement of his original decree in 457 B.C.

Furthermore, if we begin reckoning the 70 Weeks at 444, we end up at 39 B.C., which is well beyond everything:

Jesus was about 30 years old in 27 A.D....

which means the Triumphal Entry - which so many point to as the fulfillment of "Messiah the Prince", claiming "Messiah" means "Commander" - and Crucifixion could have been no later than 31 A.D....

which means the remaining 3 1/2 years of the 70th Week expired no later than 34 B.C. - well before 39 B.C.
Click to expand...
The second decree is not merely a reinstatement. It is an embellishment and reactionary to the request of Nehemiah. The accusation was that they were building a wall Ezra 4:13, which the first decree arguably did not allow. Nehemiah was allowed to return with letters in hand to accomplish this task.

Yes of course the math doesn't work. It isn't supposed to work it will never work. There are only 69 weeks of years between 445BC and the triumphal entry. There is no mathematical prophecy pointing to 70 A.D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.