Replies

And how do you like living in a world where Satan is chained in a bottomless pit, so as to not deceive the nations any more (preteristic twisting of Rev. 20 to contradict 1 Peter 5:7).

Ping to that ! I have traditionally found myself at a loss to describe what scripture seemed to indicate to my non theological mind. then thanks to some charts I found that it had a name attached to it "historical premillenial"

I took a class in college on the Book of Revelation /Daniel taught from a Preterist view (I didn't know it had a name then) by a Catholic priest . The students used to meet a half hour BEFORE the class to pray for his soul LOL....I will read this thread and bump it if you all like. but like Dan..the pieces just do not seem to fit IMHO

If it was taught by a catholic, it was their version of it.

We can not deny the effect of Christ's words and the beliefs of His apostles as they taught a very near coming of Christ because Christ Himself declared their generation would see it (Matt 16, 23, 24, 26, Luke 21).

Just as many denominations struggle with understanding God, His fulfillment and consistant prophetic use of hyperbole are for His means and understood by those who needed to understand it most. Christ's contemporaries.

Doesn't it seem funny how confusing it all is? I'll bet it wasn't to them.
Why would God be so clear to those who didn't need the warnings? And so foggy to those who do?
Could you show a picture (word or drawing) of a donkey and elephant fighting 2000 years from now and expect common understanding of it's meaning?
We know what it means though. Beacause it applies to us.

False prediction after false prediction makes us all look as fools.
"They are failed prophets of a false premise." John Noe.

Oh, the pieces assuredly DO NOT fit. Like relativism, preterism is a self-defeating position. If prophecy is really "saying" what the "consistent preterists" say it is saying, then the Bible says NOTHING. All Scripture becomes a slave of the interpreter's notions, with no controls and no inherent meaning. Might as well go straight back to Rome, where at least irrational interpretations must be held "just because the Church says so." At least that's a reason. It's not a good reason, but it's a reason.

Or really, more to the point and more logically, just bail on the whole thing. Because if prophetic passages don't mean what they say, there is no guarantee that soteriological or Christological passages do, either. (I used to do this when I was a cultist.)

Dan