PDA

View Full Version : what sort of preterism would this be



shootingdead
Sep 29th 2012, 11:03 PM
if Jesus returned (not visibly) and dead believers were raised and some alive believers were raptured in AD70 and we are in the 1000 years now? as i understand partial preterism is where Jesus came in AD70 only in judgement and full preterism is where the 1000 years was also completed by AD70. if that is correct is there a label for this preterism and is anyone in this category?

Indueseason
Sep 29th 2012, 11:46 PM
I'm a partial preterist. I believe that most of revelation happened in 70ad. We are in the 1000 year, and Satan is released for a short season, before Christ's returns and the judgement.

blessings to you :hug:

Diggindeeper
Sep 30th 2012, 02:47 AM
I don't know any partial Preterists who claim that Christ returned, but not visibly, and dead believers were raised and some alive believers were raptured in AD70.

That sounds more closely related to what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, except for the 'rapture' part.

shootingdead
Sep 30th 2012, 05:50 PM
I'm a partial preterist. I believe that most of revelation happened in 70ad. We are in the 1000 year, and Satan is released for a short season, before Christ's returns and the judgement.

blessings to you :hug:many thanks for replying, please can i ask when you think the new heaven and new earth is?

shootingdead
Sep 30th 2012, 05:53 PM
I don't know any partial Preterists who claim that Christ returned, but not visibly, and dead believers were raised and some alive believers were raptured in AD70.sorry i don't think you understood the question, this is full preterism.

Indueseason
Sep 30th 2012, 06:10 PM
many thanks for replying, please can i ask when you think the new heaven and new earth is?

When Christ returns :yes:

blessings to you :hug:

Beckrl
Oct 1st 2012, 01:45 AM
if Jesus returned (not visibly) and dead believers were raised and some alive believers were raptured in AD70 and we are in the 1000 years now?

If the resurrection of the dead and those that remained happened in AD70 that would be Full Preterism. I'm not sure of any Full Preterist that believes this and then also believe that after AD70 then the 1000 years.

That latter part would be more toward Partial Preterism, but I don't see them as believing that the resurrection happened in AD70.

So I don't think there is a label for that eschatology.

markedward
Oct 1st 2012, 03:27 AM
if Jesus returned (not visibly) and dead believers were raised and some alive believers were raptured in AD70 and we are in the 1000 years now? as i understand partial preterism is where Jesus came in AD70 only in judgement and full preterism is where the 1000 years was also completed by AD70. if that is correct is there a label for this preterism and is anyone in this category?
This would fall under the label 'progressive full preterism' (even less popular than typical 'full preterism').

shootingdead
Oct 4th 2012, 06:44 AM
This would fall under the label 'progressive full preterism' (even less popular than typical 'full preterism').thank you for this definition which enabled me to find the article linked to below. progressive full preterism seems to be all preterist views that donít fall into partial or full preterism which seems to be quite a wide ranging bunch however the author of this article has the same views as the OP.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/Progressive/1999_mckenzie_new-perspective.html

shootingdead
Oct 4th 2012, 06:49 AM
When Christ returns :yes:

blessings to you :hug:hello Indueseason do you think Christ returns at the end of the 1000 years?

Revelation 20v9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of Godís people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

Indueseason
Oct 4th 2012, 07:04 PM
Yes, after satans short season :yes:

blessings to you :hug:

shootingdead
Oct 6th 2012, 10:22 PM
Yes, after satans short season :yes:

blessings to you :hug:i don't understand:confused

Pastor Dave
Oct 9th 2012, 07:04 AM
if Jesus returned (not visibly) and dead believers were raised and some alive believers were raptured in AD70 and we are in the 1000 years now? as i understand partial preterism is where Jesus came in AD70 only in judgement and full preterism is where the 1000 years was also completed by AD70. if that is correct is there a label for this preterism and is anyone in this category?

I personally do not give any credence to any "partial" views. The word "preterist" comes from the Latin word "praeter", which means "past", or "in the past". Therefore, any view which leaves anything yet to be fulfilled, cannot, by definition, be "preterist".

No offense to anyone. I'm not trying to attack anyone. But I do state facts and the definition does not allow for it, that's all.

But as to your "1,000 year" comment, let me help you to understand something about Preterism and fulfillments.

Preterism does not exclude something from going on today. For example, the prophecy regarding Christ dying for our sins was fulfilled a long time ago, but people are still being saved today, amen?

The thousand years is symbolic, not literal and the term "thousand" normally symbolizes completeness of something. But the term "thousand(s)" has been used to symbolize an eternal thing, or endless number of something.

As for whether or not it is still going on now, I personally don't see it as being that. And I've actually been looking into the bimilennial view.

But if it were going on now and forever, that does not excluded from a Preterist view. As long as it started by the NT times. What would be excluded, is if you see other prophecies then happening after this 1,000 years, whether a literal, or symbolic number.

In other words, anything eternal can indeed still be going on today, like salvation. There just can't be anything that *will* come *after* that.

So to answer the question you didn't ask; Yes, one can be a Preterist and believe that a prophecy of the Bible is current. Just not that it hasn't happened yet.

Does that help? :)

Pastor Dave
Oct 9th 2012, 02:44 PM
thank you for this definition which enabled me to find the article linked to below. progressive full preterism seems to be all preterist views that don’t fall into partial or full preterism which seems to be quite a wide ranging bunch however the author of this article has the same views as the OP.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/Progressive/1999_mckenzie_new-perspective.html

I know the site well. It is a highly biased site! The guy used to believe that everything was fulfilled, but offered the different views without judgment. Then he changed his mind to believe in what is labeled as "Partial Preterism" and the site changed to a place that is almost all slamming of what is labeled as "Full Preterism". It used to be a site where different Preterist beliefs gathered and posted articles. But now it has become his personal place to make "Full Preterism" his whipping post. Many people abandoned the site, not because he changed his mind about what he believes, but because he has been on a vicious attack ever since doing so and no one wants to keep reading that. Even the article you referenced is the same way. "How could I think the unthinkable?!"

Yea, no bias there! Right! :)

divaD
Oct 9th 2012, 02:59 PM
But if it were going on now and forever, that does not excluded from a Preterist view. As long as it started by the NT times. What would be excluded, is if you see other prophecies then happening after this 1,000 years, whether a literal, or symbolic number.


One thing I can think of right offhand, if the 1000 years are now or already past, then anyone saved after this period of time, they don't get to reign with Chriat a thousand years like the text indicates. That would mean they have no part in the first resurrection, because those that do, clearly they reign with Christ a thousand years. My point then is, in the non premil view, the little season follows the 1000 years and occurs prior to Christ's return. Is one to believe that not a single person gets saved during this little season, if it indeed occurs before Christ's return? But if one is saved during this little season, then how is it logically posible for them to be a part of the first resurrection, since they can't reign with Christ a 1000 years now, because that period of time would be past history at this point?

Pastor Dave
Oct 9th 2012, 03:26 PM
One thing I can think of right offhand, if the 1000 years are now or already past, then anyone saved after this period of time, they don't get to reign with Chriat a thousand years like the text indicates. That would mean they have no part in the first resurrection, because those that do, clearly they reign with Christ a thousand years. My point then is, in the non premil view, the little season follows the 1000 years and occurs prior to Christ's return. Is one to believe that not a single person gets saved during this little season, if it indeed occurs before Christ's return? But if one is saved during this little season, then how is it logically posible for them to be a part of the first resurrection, since they can't reign with Christ a 1000 years now, because that period of time would be past history at this point?

Who's in first? :)

You like to drive yourself crazy, don't you? :)

Here's the thing... you're assuming the first resurrection happens when you think it does. I.e., what are you qualifying as "the first resurrection"?

Secondly, you are excluding the bi-millennial view (two of them).

Thirdly, I never said what I believe about the 1,000 years. I was simply pointing out that Preterism does not exclude things from being in an ongoing state today and used the prophecy of Christ's sacrifice providing forgiveness of sins for folks as an example, so then, a person is not violating Preterist thought by stating that the 1,000 years is still going on now. That does not mean that I am saying that it is, or is not, a valid Biblical view (the 1,000 years still going on today).

I have an idea though... Why not forget about this view and that view and just see what the Bible has to say about it? Why does it have to fit a particular groups claims? I mean, I do not even label myself as a Preterist. I just use that word, because most people will know what my basic set of eschatological beliefs are. But I don't claim to align myself with anything but the most basic of a Preterist statement.

I will say, that I came to what I believe now, by letting the Bible speak for itself and I offer that suggestion to you, my friend. :)

If you want to discuss these issues further, that's fine with me. I just don't want to get caught up in trying to figure out what's right, based on "These guys say so, so how does that fit in there?". I'd rather just look at the Scripture for itself. I mean, with passages like the 1,000 years, you don't have to have any specific eschatological view to see that this comes after that, etc., do you? :)

markedward
Oct 9th 2012, 03:29 PM
I personally do not give any credence to any "partial" views. The word "preterist" comes from the Latin word "praeter", which means "past", or "in the past". Therefore, any view which leaves anything yet to be fulfilled, cannot, by definition, be "preterist".
The term is used to refer to the focus of fulfillment. Beyond that it's just an argument in semantics. (This would be like claiming a person can't be a 'futurist' just because they believe some prophecy was fulfilled in the past.) If people identify their beliefs as 'partial preterist', just leave it at that. It's their choice what to call their belief, not anyone else's.

divaD
Oct 9th 2012, 04:08 PM
Secondly, you are excluding the bi-millennial view (two of them).




And if Jesus doesn't come for another 1000 years, what will one come up with next? A tri-millennial view (three of them). :)

Since this thread doesn't seem to be related to what we're discussing, which is my fault for responding to something you stated, then it might be a good idea for me to nip it in the bud before I get us way off track. Maybe we can discuss this further in a more appropriate thread some time. :)

Pastor Dave
Oct 10th 2012, 03:45 AM
The term is used to refer to the focus of fulfillment. Beyond that it's just an argument in semantics. (This would be like claiming a person can't be a 'futurist' just because they believe some prophecy was fulfilled in the past.) If people identify their beliefs as 'partial preterist', just leave it at that. It's their choice what to call their belief, not anyone else's.

You know, I am constantly getting responses in which people are only concerned with protecting the idea that people should be able to promote any idea they want, as long as it can't be backed up by Scripture, or a dictionary.

The bottom line is, anyone can call anything, anything they want. That doesn't make it accurate and if you're concerned about not having arguments, then why did you respond with what you did?

I can also say what I want about my belief. I also supported my statement with a dictionary. So what is the problem? I stated my personal view and said it was such. By right, I could have said that I am correct, period, because I am. The dictionary says so. If you have a problem with that, then tell history to change and write your own dictionary!

I am sick and tired of people here acting like cops protecting only those who seek to undermine anyone who can back their claims up with Scripture and/or a dictionary! I just came from reading a message by someone scolding me for saying to an unbeliever who posts using the image of an atheist character and who called me "murderous", is not being honest when they claim that goo to you evolution and the Biblical account is true. Of course, no scolding for the atheist. Just for the believer! Now here you are, trying to scold me for simply citing a dictionary!

You people really should stop worrying about offending the world!

Now go ahead, delete my account! After all, I might have offended someone by saying that! I mean, what an unchristian thing to say, huh?! I mean, I should be telling people all about how we came from monkeys, right? Then people here will pat me on the back and threaten anyone who dares to say a word about it to me!