The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

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.

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?

Why do you 'buddy' another Christian?

Why do you 'buddy' another Christian?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Hi Dino!

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

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.

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.

We are only replying to the Preterism you endorsed - Alcazarian Preterism

How did my comment "endorse" Alcazarian preterism?

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.

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.

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.

You've defined Preterism around Alcazar's work. Perhaps inadvertently.
But it helps - most of us know didly about it

Actually I didn't equate preterism with full preterism, which is why I specified 'full preterism' after using on the word 'preterism.'

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.