not necessarily Preterism

[marks]

Yes, Truth doesn't get it either, apparently. I'm trying not to judge. But I know you normally mean well, so I'll try to explain again.

Preterism isn't defined simply by believing some prophecies have been fulfilled in the past. Do you believe that Jesus fulfilled prophecy at the cross? Of course you do. Does that make you a Preterist? No, of course not.

You see, Preterism is a system of interpretation introduced by Louis of Alcazar (in the modern era), and it involved much more than just seeing prophecies fulfilled in the past. It was more than seeing the Olivet Discourse fulfilled in 70 AD. Instead, it was an entire system of prophetic interpretation in which most *everything* is viewed as fulfilled in the time right after the earthly ministry of Christ.

I guess I'll need to differentiate then between Alcazar's preterism and preterism in general. We are all partial preterists when you get down to it.

Maybe it's like saying "premil", it doesn't address pretrib or prewrath, for instance.

Thank you for the clarification!

To me these labels are messy, since they don't have clearly defined borders, so I don't find much usefulness in them.

Much love!

 

[APAK]

Here's a view from a US Marine with Certificates in Military Studies & Leadership and Management, Marine Corps Institute (Graduated 2014)..off the same quora website blog

"John the Baptist (Yehohanan) is an evangelical in all sense of the term, but not by title. He is the cousin of Jesus (Yeshua), and ushered in the ministry of Jesus by baptizing him in the Jordan River. He was beheaded (Martyr) during his ministry.

John bar Zebedee the Evangelist, was one of the Twelve Apostles of the New Testament. He was an illiterate fisherman, therefore could not write nor read, but he was given the ability to speak in tongues when the Holy Spirit came upon him. This leads to debate on who actually wrote the Gospel according to John, and the Epistles (Letters) of John 1,2, and 3; historically speaking, because the person who identifies himself as the writer of John 1–3, calls himself the Presbyter. He was brother to James bar Zebedee, and is one of the “ Sons of Thunder,” as nicknamed by Jesus. He, James and Simon Peter watched the Transfiguration of Jesus, and was with Andrew, following John the Baptist, when they first encountered Jesus of Nazareth.

Now John of Patmos the Seer, who by tradition, but not historical accuracy, is supposedly John the Beloved, or the Apostle, or the Evangelist. It is viewed though that John of Patmos was a learned older man. He wrote the Revelation in 96 A.D. He has been identified as John the Theologian, and has been noted as John the Elder, while a follower of Christ, was not one of the Apostles, and is listed in a list of followers along with John the Disciple in 120 A.D. and the author of Revelation never claimed to be an Apostle or ever knew Jesus first hand, just that he was what we would consider an early Christian or Judeo-Christian.

The Epistles of John have been dated to accuracy sometime around 100 A.D. meaning that a very weak and trembling hand malnourished elderly man would have written The Gospel of John, The Epistles of John 1–3, and Revelation before his death. Another issue is that the Gospel of John was written in simple Greek, with proper grammar, etc. While Revelations was written in crude Greek, and seemed to be an answer/confirmation to the Revelation of Peter, which was far more Apocalyptic.

What is known is that the Gospel of John is credited to John the Evangelist, the Beloved Apostle. The Epistles of John 1–3 are attributed to John the Presbyter. The Book of Revelations is authored by John of Patmos the Seer, the Elder Theologian. Each set of books are written differently with common themes found throughout Judeo-Christian authors. Furthermore, John the Baptist died long before the other books were written. We known John the Baptist is completely different from other John's in the Bible, and that John the Apostle is the Beloved Disciple; the rest is left to debate."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This review of the subject is fair and well balanced and I can agree with pretty much of the important areas that can and has causes controversy.

Something for all of us to ponder upon, I would think...?

 

[Timtofly]

Not as a base camp, you just said that. And then you have to know when it was used not only as an exile place and also as a logistics traffic point/stop over. So from at least the beginning of the 1st century, and for at least 100 years it was a significant tiny Island for the Roman Empire in moving goods and people in thar portion of the Mediterranean Sea.

And by the end of the 1st century this Island of Patmos was used much as place of exile for criminal or political prisoners.

Why don't you want to research this Island's history for yourself and step out of the legend that John was there in the 90s AD and stayed there for 15 years, with not a scratch on him, and wrote the Book of Revelation then being even over 100 years old if he was about Jesus' age. It would be hard to fathom he was only in his 40s or 50s say and was born around 50 AD...right?

Well as one article says,.... "100 AD: Patmos is densely populated and prospers culturally, becoming an important fortress of the city-state of Miletus in Asia Minor.:"

So by 100 AD it may have been a Base of Operations, as a fortress and John was STILL on it before he was allowed to leave it and go to Ephesus in his 100s in a real sense...he lived a very, very long life, the longest by far of most people and this fact of significance not mentioned in history. Astonishing...

Because what I read never even mentions the Romans, so whatever it was for the Greeks, the Romans only viewed it as a place of exile.

What I believe about John is based on a lot of tradition. I would say John, did die, when boiled in hot oil. He was immediately resurrected into a permanent incorruptible physical body. John never aged after that point, nor physically died again like Enoch, Elijah, nor Moses. That is why John was exiled, because no one could kill him, unless God allowed it. I think Revelation does prove John went physically into Paradise and the future, and was writing, everything he saw, down as he went, because he was not old, nor needed help. How long John was on the earth until God took him to Paradise after he took those letters to each church is not known. It is assumed he died somewhere of old age. It definitely was not on Patmos.

Like I said, that is loosely based on tradition. It was pointed out that John looked physically better after coming out of the oil, not just not dead. The legend goes that he befriended a boy, and then had to go away. When John returned the boy was now a grown man of some age, and John had not changed at all.

 

[covenantee]

It was also in response to a person who had died, almost 400 years prior. There were protestors hundreds of years prior to when it became popular to be a protestor.

Many persons had died 400 years prior.

 

[APAK]

Because what I read never even mentions the Romans, so whatever it was for the Greeks, the Romans only viewed it as a place of exile.

What I believe about John is based on a lot of tradition. I would say John, did die, when boiled in hot oil. He was immediately resurrected into a permanent incorruptible physical body. John never aged after that point, nor physically died again like Enoch, Elijah, nor Moses. That is why John was exiled, because no one could kill him, unless God allowed it. I think Revelation does prove John went physically into Paradise and the future, and was writing, everything he saw, down as he went, because he was not old, nor needed help. How long John was on the earth until God took him to Paradise after he took those letters to each church is not known. It is assumed he died somewhere of old age. It definitely was not on Patmos.

Like I said, that is loosely based on tradition. It was pointed out that John looked physically better after coming out of the oil, not just not dead. The legend goes that he befriended a boy, and then had to go away. When John returned the boy was now a grown man of some age, and John had not changed at all.

Firstly, I have no issue with the fact that 'a John' or the same John of the Gospel was inspired and wrote the 'last' Book. I do have an issue however on the timing 60s AD versus 90s AD.

The traditional story of this John the Revealer of Christ being boiled in oil and not dying..., can be just a fable. And especially being actually resurrected into a glorious body. And then John not aging after that time. That is really hard for me to accept I'm afraid. Yes, he was placed into the heavenly domain of God and viewed reality in his new spirit of some type given by God, to then write in prophecy...

So BL: we both, or all of us still better heed the warnings given in this Book and rejoice in the blessings and future immortal life.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I guess I'll need to differentiate then between Alcazar's preterism and preterism in general. We are all partial preterists when you get down to it.

Maybe it's like saying "premil", it doesn't address pretrib or prewrath, for instance.

Thank you for the clarification!

To me these labels are messy, since they don't have clearly defined borders, so I don't find much usefulness in them.

Much love!

I appreciate the wish to understand the issue. But I don't think this subject is just an exercise in finding places to argue. Explaining just what Preterism is boils down to historical realities which, if they are to be referred to, must be recognized properly. It's like discussing the RCC without knowing the difference between Catholics and Protestants. The idea is not just to find differences to argue about, but to really understand the historical background of this relationship.

So Preterism is an historical theological system that hoped to focus prophecy on the time immediately surrounding Christ. One part of that is the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But it was really a system that tried to focus nearly *all prophetic interpretation* on that time period, and not just the Olivet Discourse. It integrates the book of Revelation, the Millennium, the 70th Week of Daniel, and the Olivet Discourse all into that time period making most prophecy something fulfilled in the past.

So when we admit that the 70th Week of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in 70 AD or thereabouts, we are acknowledging an important part of Preterism, yes. But it is not historical Preterism in the sense that it was a system that included the book of Revelation in that time period, as well. If we leave out the part about the book of Revelation, the Antichrist, etc. then is it really Preterism?

I would say no, because no longer is nearly all prophetic interpretation centered on the earthly ministry of Jesus and that time period. The book of Revelation is much larger than just Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse. Without the interpretation of the book of Revelation being involved, and perhaps the future of Israel's Hope, we don't really have Preterism as it existed historically.

What is really left after Revelation and Israel are stripped from prophecy fulfilled in Jesus' time is a different kind of eschatological system--a kind of historicism, as such. So if we strip from any system of prophetic interpretation some of its basic components, we no longer have that system of interpretation. If we strip off of Preterism the belief that Revelation and Israel were rooted in the time period of Christ's earthly ministry, we no longer have Preterism.

But a fundamental part of Preterism did exist in the Early Church in the form of belief that Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the time of Christ and his generation. And I would fully endorse that part of Preterism, though as much as one may wish me to endorse all of Preterism I cannot do that. I'm Premillennial, I believe in a future national Salvation of Israel, and I believe a real Antichrist is coming and will reign for 3.5 years, presiding over a spiritually-bankrupt Europe.

Finally, I would point out that although I would label myself a Futurist, I'm not perhaps fully on board Futurism either. Just as Preterism tries to define all prophetic fulfillment at the time surrounding the Cross, so Futurism tries to see most all prophecy as having its ultimate fulfillment in the future.

I do agree it's critical to see all prophecy as fulfilled at the Cross, and all prophecy consummated in the future. However, prophecies should be differentiated between those which have been completely fulfilled in the past, and those strictly relegated to future fulfillment.

So unlike many Futurists I do not see many prophecies they think are future as truly future. Many Futurists see the Olivet Discourse, and Dan 7-12 as primarily Antichristian and future. By contrast, I see Dan 8 and 11-12 as mostly about Antiochus 4, although there are portions that are future, such as the 3.5 years of Dan 12. And as I said, I do not see the 70th Week of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse as being primarily future prophecies.

So let's distinguish the Futurist and Preterist positions, but let's just acknowledge what is essential in each position in order to apply that label. Seeing the Olivet Discourse and the AoD as being fulfilled in the past does not adequately define Preterism, since it excludes the book of Revelation, Israel, and a literal Millennium.

And let's recognize that even with an historical interpretation of the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse, Futurism recognizes that Revelation is largely future with a literal Antichrist, may or may not embrace the future national Salvation of Israel, and may or may not recognize a literal Millennium.

Historical beliefs about the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse does not render Futurism as anything more than peculiarities within the Futurist school, which acknowledges both past and future prophecies of various kinds. But Preterism is less tolerant, requiring not just a past fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, but more, a system that defines most all of biblical prophecy as fulfilled in the time of Christ. I do not adhere completely to that position, although a sympathize with some of its critical elements.

If I'm to define Preterism properly, I should probably define Futurism properly, as well? Since Futurism began with Ribera and Louis of Lacunza, it has to be recognized that at its core Futurism sees the Antichrist as a future apostate leader of the world. He is not a past Catholic Pope, Rome, or Hitler. He is the endtime Antichrist.

Beyond this, prophecies can be acknowledged as fulfilled in the past, as long as Antichrist is held to be a future phenomenon. Since I believe in a future Antichrist, I'm clearly a Futurist, and not primarily a Preterist. I hold to only parts of the mainstream of these two positions.

Thank you for your patience, Mark!

 

[marks]

Finally, I would point out that although I would label myself a Futurist, I'm not perhaps fully on board Futurism either. Just as Preterism tries to define all prophetic fulfillment at the time surrounding the Cross, so Futurism tries to see most all prophecy as having its ultimate fulfillment in the future.

My experience has been this isn't so cut and dried. I think pretty much everyone falls somewhere in between, even as you've described yourself.

Much love!

 

[ewq1938]

preterist | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

www.etymonline.com

preterist (n.) Look up preterist at Dictionary.com

"one who favors the past," 1864 (as a theological term from 1843, "one who holds that the Apocalyptic prophecies have begun to be fulfilled"), from preter- + -ist.




That is one of many different definitions. The word partial preterism literally means "partially historically fulfilled" and is not limited to only the second coming or AC as yet being future. If someone believes any part of the Olivet discourse is already fulfilled, they are a partial preterist. They may believes slightly differently from other partial preterists but they are all believing some or most of the discourse is history whereas futurists see it as all future.
A partial preterist is also a partial futurist as it is the same thing the other way around.