|
|
Post by bryan729 on Jan 7, 2010 21:47:07 GMT -5
Anyone out there know how the preterist theology got its start? A friend of mine was telling me Juan De Alcazar, a Jesuit Priest started it, but when I did a little research on the man, the only thing that he really did, was write a 900 page essay on Revelation. I hardly consider that, with any kind of credibility, that he would be considered a true advocate of preterism. Anyone out there care to enlighten me, on my question?
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 8, 2010 1:26:17 GMT -5
I have the book End Time Delusions by Steve Wohlberg (a Seventh-Day Adventist) and he credits Alcasar with the birth of preterism, too. He also quotes a Catholic writer, G.S. Hitchc0ck, who also named Alcasar as the one who started the "Praeterist School" and quoted him: "The Praeterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D." We're also informed that the "Futurist School" was founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591.
But here's part of the "great" reasoning we have from Wohlberg: "Think about it. Preterists say most (if not all) of God's great prophecies came to a screeching halt almost two thousand years ago. Does this make sense? Why would God inspire such a wonderful Book as "Revelation" and then stop its application around 70 A.D. (or with the fall of Rome), when He knew time would continue much longer?" He defines the "end times" as being the end of the world, then bases his argument against preterism on that.
Adventists are mostly historicists.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 8, 2010 10:12:17 GMT -5
I would answer Wohlberg like this: Because the people of God have entered into His rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 8, 2010 13:33:07 GMT -5
Alcazar wrote to refute the Protetant claim that the Pope was the Beast of Revelation. His "preterism" had the Revelation apply to the Fall of the Byzantine Roman Empire to the Moslems.
The majority position throughout history has been what I call "confused preterism." All of Matthew 24 was fulfilled. Every verse of it. Beyond that, there is no standard. Everyone was a partial preterist, but once in a while we see a full preterist claim.
From 1900 on, any and all forms of preterism mostly died to dispensationalism.
People like Voss and later McRay and King tried to systematize preterism and created Covenant Eschatology (modern full preterism). These three men knew essentially no preterists other than each other and there own students.
King as a writer and McRay as a speaker apparently started the turn around in the 1960's.
At that time, the John Birch Society was in its heyday. The JBS was the first conservative ecumenical movement. It appears that some of the early full preterists in the church of Christ were in the JBS and were interacting with conservative Presbyterian and Reformed such as North and company.
North's students developed partial preterism and through the JBS gained a following among the church of Christ. The JBS did not adopt any specific eschatology, but this contact allowed it to develop and spread.
Blessings.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 8, 2010 16:01:05 GMT -5
I have the book End Time Delusions by Steve Wohlberg (a Seventh-Day Adventist) and he credits Alcasar with the birth of preterism, too. He also quotes a Catholic writer, G.S. Hitchc0ck, who also named Alcasar as the one who started the "Praeterist School" and quoted him: "The Praeterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D." We're also informed that the "Futurist School" was founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591. But here's part of the "great" reasoning we have from Wohlberg: "Think about it. Preterists say most (if not all) of God's great prophecies came to a screeching halt almost two thousand years ago. Does this make sense? Why would God inspire such a wonderful Book as "Revelation" and then stop its application around 70 A.D. (or with the fall of Rome), when He knew time would continue much longer?" He defines the "end times" as being the end of the world, then bases his argument against preterism on that. Adventists are mostly historicists. Bev I have emphasized the above quote by using a blue, bolded underlining to reveal a tactic that is quite often IMPOSED upon us. There is quite a bit of difference between a prophecy being fulfilled and its continued application. It is narrow-minded thinking such as this that would suppose that the fulfillment of the many OT Scriptures regarding Calvary means that the efficacy of Christ's atonement at Calvary has come " to a screeching halt" as well. The same goes for Romans 15:12 (Isaiah 11:10) and Acts 15:15-17 (Amos 9:11-12). The futurists believe that fulfillment = "filled full." This is an error to extremes... According to futurism, do their new heavens and earth come to a screeching halt once they come into existence? And if so, how long must it be in existence for the prophecy to be "filled full" - a second, a minute, an hour, a day, a year, 1,000 years, or 1,000,000,000,000,000 light years...that might be a little difficult to determine for those everlasting and infinite thngs... |
|
|
|
Post by bryan729 on Jan 8, 2010 16:32:04 GMT -5
I just want to thank everyone for your responses and comments. They're truly appreciated, and Lord bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 8, 2010 23:05:32 GMT -5
... But here's part of the "great" reasoning we have from Wohlberg: "Think about it. Preterists say most (if not all) of God's great prophecies came to a screeching halt almost two thousand years ago. Does this make sense? Why would God inspire such a wonderful Book as "Revelation" and then stop its application around 70 A.D. (or with the fall of Rome), when He knew time would continue much longer?" He defines the "end times" as being the end of the world, then bases his argument against preterism on that. Adventists are mostly historicists. Bev ... I have emphasized the above quote by using a blue, bolded underlining to reveal a tactic that is quite often IMPOSED upon us. Yup. Part of why I had "great" in quotation marks when I introduced it as Wohlberg's "'great' reasoning." |
|
|
|
Post by bryan729 on Jan 11, 2010 19:18:11 GMT -5
I got a link from a member in another group at Facebook, and according to the link he gave me, it goes all the way back to Eusebius, because of the preteristic overtones in his writings.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 11, 2010 22:24:35 GMT -5
I got a link from a member in another group at Facebook, and according to the link he gave me, it goes all the way back to Eusebius, because of the preteristic overtones in his writings. I cannot prove that which I am about to say... But I would say that it goes as far back to 70 AD + one second (if you know what I mean). But because of the dispersion and the Hellenistic influence, I am sure that appropriate writings were either willingly destroyed or completely suppressed. We have been raised on a 20th century non-Eastern cultural bias of the Bible for a long time - and so were the translators of our present Bible. Anyone know of a translation not based on a non-Eastern cultural aspect? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 12, 2010 12:23:52 GMT -5
Ted, The Peshitta. Unfortunately, two portions of the Aramaic tradition deemed Revelation as non-canonical. They didn't keep the text as carefully as they did that which they consider Scripture. When the Syriac tradition rejoined with the Greek Orthodox, they translated the Greek Revelation back into Aramaic and changed their Aramaic Revelation to match the Greek. So the likely Aramaic original has been lost. But translations are available of what they have. www.aramaicpeshitta.comBlessings, Jeff |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 12, 2010 13:03:27 GMT -5
Ted, The Penutsta. Unfortunately, two portions of the Aramaic tradition deemed Revelation as non-canonical. They didn't keep the text as carefully as they did that which they consider Scripture. When the Syriac tradition rejoined with the Greek Orthodox, they translated the Greek Revelation back into Aramaic and changed their Aramaic Revelation to match the Greek. So the likely Aramaic original has been lost. But translations are available of what they have. www.aramaicpenutsta.com/Blessings, Jeff Jeff, two things: 1. The link does not work 2. How would the Peshitta come into play? www.peshitta.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 17, 2010 20:14:24 GMT -5
Ted, I don't know what happened. It is the Peshitta. www.aramaicpeshitta.comIn Acts 6, the problem was the Apostles could not speak Greek. The early Greek church claimed some of the NT was written in Aramaic and translated to Greek. So where are these Aramaic "originals?" Either the Peshitta, or they don't exist. Blessings. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 17, 2010 20:16:29 GMT -5
OK Ted this is freakin' me.
I wrote P e s h i t t a and it was changed to Penutsta.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 17, 2010 20:59:34 GMT -5
OK Ted this is freakin' me. I wrote P e s h i t t a and it was changed to Penutsta. it exchanged "s h i t" (bad word) for "nuts" (a little nicer) |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 17, 2010 22:08:46 GMT -5
OK Ted this is freakin' me. I wrote P e s h i t t a and it was changed to Penutsta. it exchanged "s h i t" (bad word) for "nuts" (a little nicer) I have administrated the bad word filter so it should be ok now. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 17, 2010 22:33:49 GMT -5
It's always reassuring to know that the administrator is administrating the administration administratively.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 18, 2010 7:06:12 GMT -5
It's always reassuring to know that the administrator is administrating the administration administratively.    |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 18, 2010 10:07:18 GMT -5
Why the link to a site that promotes Pantheism???
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 18, 2010 11:20:43 GMT -5
Huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 18, 2010 11:43:06 GMT -5
Jeff, Robin is referring to the link to "The First Church of Pantheism" on the Aramaic Pershitta website.
While I certainly do not agree with pantheism, I don't think we should disallow linking to websites, especially because of links they may have on them (unless they are links to porn or other morally objectionable material).
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 18, 2010 15:26:43 GMT -5
All sites are not equal, nor are all things men have to say of equal value. Find me a Christian who has investigated the bible view being offered and then I might consider it. Until then I will suspect it is tainted because of who is promoting it. I wouldn't expect to be able to glean the gospel from the book of Mormon either - though it might have enough plararism from the KJV in it...
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 18, 2010 20:24:01 GMT -5
Oh, the Breaking News. Sorry, that wasn't there the last time I used the site. Why would a non-christian give a rip about what language the Apostles wrote?
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 18, 2010 21:44:06 GMT -5
To prove no traditional understanding can be trusted?
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Feb 26, 2010 21:30:42 GMT -5
There is quite a bit of difference between a prophecy being fulfilled and its continued application. It is narrow-minded thinking such as this that would suppose that the fulfillment of the many OT Scriptures regarding Calvary means that the efficacy of Christ's atonement at Calvary has come " to a screeching halt" as well. The same goes for Romans 15:12 (Isaiah 11:10) and Acts 15:15-17 (Amos 9:11-12). The futurists believe that fulfillment = "filled full." This is an error to extremes... According to futurism, do their new heavens and earth come to a screeching halt once they come into existence? And if so, how long must it be in existence for the prophecy to be "filled full" - a second, a minute, an hour, a day, a year, 1,000 years, or 1,000,000,000,000,000 light years...that might be a little difficult to determine for those everlasting and infinite thngs... A very good point here. Just because a prophecy is fulfilled does not mean there isn't an eternal application. For example, Salvation. Just because Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies regarding His role in salvation, in that he was crucified, buried and resurrected, nearly 2000 years ago which fuflilled all the OT Messianic prophecies, does not mean that no one is being save today. Prophecy fulfilled, eternally applied. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 26, 2010 21:36:49 GMT -5
There is quite a bit of difference between a prophecy being fulfilled and its continued application. It is narrow-minded thinking such as this that would suppose that the fulfillment of the many OT Scriptures regarding Calvary means that the efficacy of Christ's atonement at Calvary has come " to a screeching halt" as well. The same goes for Romans 15:12 (Isaiah 11:10) and Acts 15:15-17 (Amos 9:11-12). The futurists believe that fulfillment = "filled full." This is an error to extremes... According to futurism, do their new heavens and earth come to a screeching halt once they come into existence? And if so, how long must it be in existence for the prophecy to be "filled full" - a second, a minute, an hour, a day, a year, 1,000 years, or 1,000,000,000,000,000 light years...that might be a little difficult to determine for those everlasting and infinite thngs... A very good point here. Just because a prophecy is fulfilled does not mean there isn't an eternal application. For example, Salvation. Just because Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies regarding His role in salvation, in that he was crucified, buried and resurrected, nearly 2000 years ago which fuflilled all the OT Messianic prophecies, does not mean that no one is being save today. Prophecy fulfilled, eternally applied. You also make a good point! The Sower |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Smith on Mar 8, 2010 18:21:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Mar 8, 2010 20:15:41 GMT -5
Hi Dan, Thank you, great site The Sower~ |
|
