Talk:Preterism

A distinction needs to be made

... between a) Christian Preterists who believe that Revelation was a divinely inspired prophecy, which predated and predicted the sack of Jerusalem; and b) sceptics who would argue that it does indeed refer to these events, but was written later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.120.30 (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Second Coming

I was wondering if there might not should be some clarification noted on the Full Preterist section on the Second Coming. Of the full Preterist that I know, I do not know of any that believe that the Second Coming that happened in 70 AD was the Rapture. Since it links to a aritcle on the Rapture, it appears that the second coming in 70 AD was the Rapture, rather than just a coming in judgement.

Jerry Moon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelationist (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Links

Virgil I think you are correct that the sub-links (many of which I put up, being ignorant of the Wiki guidelines) need to go. For instance, on the ones I put up such as Darth Gill, Sharon Beverly and the like are already indexed on my site - so that is a master reference for sites such as that. I really do think we all need to agree on just few representative sites to list realizing that not all of views will be directly represented (i.e. in my case, I don't exactly represent the hyperpreterists who disagree with me on the heresy issue, but the fact still is, mine is the largest site, meaning site with the most material, focused exclusively on partial preterism nearly alone without large section dedicated to soteriology or other issues). If another site comes along that is in direct competition to what I provide, mine wouldn't have that position. Though Todd is no longer a full preterist, just by virtue of the articles and debates he has, his site does promote full preterism. That may change in the future, but right now that is the case. PlanetPreterist more geared towards articles (which are geared in a different perspective) but it generates discussion that seems to me to include more traditional full preterists.

If there are arguments to include different sites, or simply to have no links at all, I would love to hear them. It is back to the work week for me, I will likely once again disappear for a while.

Roderick, I am glad I didn't offend you. I don't want anyone to think I am disparaging or trying to exclude their site - I think I am trying to point out some dispassionate reasons for a few that might be included. I am open to hear flaws in my reasoning.

Dee Dee Warren 13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging by most of the comments here and by visiting some of the links provided in the article, it looks to me like ALL of the links are in violation of using this site as a soapbox. Some of the things Roderick E has said toe the line of violating the WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. I stand by my previous comment and say that all links should be removed unless they are used in a bibliographical sense.

Charleca 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Charleca - you are baffling to me. You have not provided any substantion that leaving a few prominent links is "soapboxing." I have perused many Wiki articles, and having a few reference links is extraordinarily common. Additinally, ALL of the informatoin in this article (written almost entirely by myself and Mike Beidler) WAS drawn from information in the three sites I recommended - they ARE source information. Also, I have a request to ask - your bringing up of Roderick to me served no purpose. I have not supported anyone in this discussion, not Roderick, not Virgil. I am trying to faciliate discussion and have us all put the personal attacks and personalities aside. You seem to use a comment to me to get in a jab at Roderick, and I don't appreciate that. My comments had nothing to do with that. And if Roderick makes any comments to me to get a jab in at Virgil, I also don't want anything to do with that. We have to take here in a dispassionate sense if at all possible. Hyper-linking to Roderick's name in an irrelevant fashion like that isn't helpful. Just as I don't think bringing up past issues in this discussion about Virgil by Roderick is helpful. Virgil and I have had pesonal discussions regarding a lot of our past confrontations, and they are history to both of us, and I for one don't wish to dredge up the past, nor have a war of personalities here. We already have very strong and upsetting positions on some things, let us strive to keep the personalities out of it.

Dee Dee Warren 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise. I didn't mean to associate you with Roderick E. I just lumped my concerns with what I see into one response. I'll try to avoid doing that in the future.

As for the links, in my view, if they are not used as a citation, then it is an advertisement for the site. Without diving deep into the contents, it looks like Todd's web site is the closest to the NPOV we are looking for. Virgil's looks like a collection of submitted articles that may or may not have something to do with the subject (only a few relavent "What Is" links on the side). Yours caught my attention at the start with "100% Certified Heresy-Free."

I have no problem at all with displaying a link to web site if, and only if, it was used to quote facts about a particular subject. But, I'm under the impression that all facts on any of these web sites were probably gleaned from other disinterested sources.

Charleca 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Charleca, just wanted to let you know I would be gone for a bit, but I don't like delaying in accepting an apology. I will be able to discuss your other points likely this weekend.

199.72.65.130 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

okay I am back to battle political correctness again for one more day [smile].

>>I apologise. I didn't mean to associate you with Roderick E. I just lumped my concerns with what I see into one response. I'll try to avoid doing that in the future.>>>

As I said before, apology accepted. I do not mind being associated with Roderick if we're talking about the same thing it was just out of place in a comment to me but I understand that you were just trying to get all of your points in in one point and did not mean to imply that they all related to me. No problem.

>>As for the links, in my view, if they are not used as a citation, then it is an advertisement for the site.>>

But that is not how they are used elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is very typical to give up to three links simply for further information. I and Mike Beidler, the primary authors of the original article, drew heavily on existing preterist material. In order to avoid "advertising" any one particular site, we avoided making any biographical references but generalized our material. I could easily make my site a biographical reference and all that would happen is that everybody could make their site a biographical reference. This is what is called following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law and is in my view silly and not what is typically seen on Wikipedia.

>>Without diving deep into the contents, it looks like Todd's web site is the closest to the NPOV>>>

Sites are not required to have a neutral point of view. Only articles on Wikipedia are. The real world on real subjects is not neutral. Todd is not neutral. Todd is a human being and inevitably will present either through format or article selection things that are closer to his point of view. This is just the facts. References for further information or to do just that give further information, not promote a spin, whether that's been be sanitized or overly biased, to any one point. most of the discussions on this page I have found do not really completely understand the wiki policy of NPOV, and factors one at it done appealing to "bias" that demonstrates this, I just do not have the time to deal with at this point. However with these articles if they are the major references to the various points of view (and we can make no mistake about it there are points of view presented with in the article but presented, and not advocated, that does not mean the sites of owners who hold these pointy views do not advocate for them, this is very very important to understand here) and therefore legitimate references. The three sites that I suggested are the three major sites to get reference material on all the points of view presented.

>> Virgil's looks like a collection of submitted articles that may or may not have something to do with the subject (only a few relavent "What Is" links on the side).>>>

I would disagree. Nearly 90% of Virgil's site has to do with the subject at hand with the other percentage being related. Now I disagree with nearly everything upon Virgil's site, and I think it is slanted towards his point of view, but that is its purpose and it is the major reference for his point of view as well as those who were opposing his point of view within his own framework (i.e. full preterism).

>> Yours caught my attention at the start with "100% Certified Heresy-Free.">>

So? It is a perspective that is presented in the article that many if not most Christians would consider hyper-preterism heresy. One cannot sanitize that utterly. It's therefore my society is a valid representation of a majority view. A majority view cannot be silent simply because some people don't like it. I don't like full preterism, I can't say that a link to a full preterist sites on an article that talks about full preterism is invalid because it advocates for full preterism. This is political correctness completely imploding upon itself. No doubt, my site advocates against full preterism, but the article mentions that this is something that happens, and there is without a doubt, by Virgil, Roderick, or Todd, or I would daresay nearly anyone in this community that my site is the foremost site doing that work. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone agrees with the contents but whether it is a legitimate, major, and relevant resource. The three sites that I suggested are.

Also as I've said before, this isn't buttering my bread. I went back through my link tracking program and saw that I had a whopping total of two hits from this wiki article in the past 30 days. One of those hits was likely from me making sure my link worked. No one is getting any great advertising out of this, though potentially if there were fewer links readers wouldn't be so intimidated and we check out the resources more readily having only three to choose from rather than 10, 000, that remains to be seen. However I believe what I have presented is reasonable and I think I can say with some reasonable certainty that it would be supported by Virgil and Todd, Mike Beidler, and and perhaps to some degree by Roderick though I've conversed with none of them personally on this.

If my tone in this response seems combative, it is not intended to be as it is so easy for things to escalate on wiki. If you would rather discuss this with me first by e-mail to see if we can come to some sort of consensus (this invitation is open to all) that at least would be quicker for me because I tend to answer e-mail quicker than I visit this site. My e-mail address is preteristsite@gmail.com. Also if there are any funky spelling errors or nonsensical words in this post, I tried to proofread it, but I dictated it using a voice recognition program and sometimes it does somewhere thinks. Hope to talk to you soon.

Dee Dee Warren 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fleshy

An editor added the word "fleshy" in a way meant to be perjorative adding it as fact, rather than an opinion of fact. If the editor wishes to insert that, a NPOV way of doing so would be to say "physical body, which full preterists would state is 'fleshly'" instead of making one's opinion of someone definition a factual assertion.

Dee Dee Warren 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ActiveDiscuss

Are we all pretty much in agreement over the NPOV stuff and the generals of the article? If so, can we remove the ActiveDiscuss tag at the top of the article? --Virgil Vaduva 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Virgil - yes I think so. That was put there by the Wiki Admins back when things were unfortunately too heated. I am in agreement that it could be removed as I think we are all able to discuss things without getting too upset.

Dee Dee Warren 17:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on edits

Virgil - limiting it to some partial preterists (your last comment) seems to be ackward - for it is not only their position. Many outspoken persons aren't preterist at all.

With regards to the change Parousia 70 made - I have never met one full preterist meeting that description. While he might be able to round up a few, that is hardly any kind of substantial number to warrant an encyclopedia entry. That is the exact argument we made against Roderick's suggestion to include some other variations - right now it simply wasn't warranted. I do not think we can include this extreme minority and then not include Roderick's suggestions - thus, the article should stick with the basics IMHO.

65.8.107.9 12:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already removed Parousia70's change a day or two ago. As for Virgil's, my thought's were similar to yours, but I was having trouble thinking of a way to reword it. -- Charleca 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From that to thus

Dee Dee, someone contacted me with the concern that your most recent change replacing "that" to "thus" is "stating a conclusion regarding Full Preterism" rather than letting the reader decide. How about trying to rephrase the entire sentence? It currently states:

Naturally, their critics assert that the Resurrection has not happened and thus, the condemnation applies.

How about trying other versions and eliminating "naturally" and "thus?"

--Virgil Vaduva 18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see that, you have a point there. Let me think on it and I will do it this weekend.

Dee Dee Warren 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

reworked sentence - to Virgil

Virgil, I reworked the sentence. Is that one acceptable?

Dee Dee Warren 02:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dee Dee, thanks a lot...I really appreciate your spirit and willingness to resolve those issues. :) --Virgil Vaduva 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing thekingdomcome.com

I'm removing my website link, this time permanently as I am disassociating from preterism. Preterism requires a strong dose of 1 Cor 11:19 "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." before I am willing to associate with it again. Thanks Roderick E 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how does your puny website deal with the following 3 verses?

When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

“Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom of God with power.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.210.231 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing Book List and Website List

Having consulted with some of the major contributors to this entry, I will be deleting the book list and website list in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. However, if a book or website is referenced within the text of the entry itself, feel free to create and add it to a Bibliography section. --Mike Beidler 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh...clean, fresh air. :) --Virgil Vaduva 12:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Full Preterist Definition is WRONG and should not be assigned to 70AD

Your current definition of a Partial Preterist or a Full Preterist is TOO NARROW in focus and SHOULD NOT BE LINKED TO 70AD. It fails to classify those who believe all has been fulfilled like Samuel Lee who did not assigned all fulfillment to 70AD. Samuel Lee believed that the destruction of Pagan Rome completely fulfilled all prophecy. He did not look to the future and would fall in to a Full Preterist if the definition was not assigned to 70AD. If someone believes all prophecy has been fulfilled in the past, he is a Full Preterist. Maybe add a definition to include people like Samuel Lee and call them Full Preterist II (FP2)

We need to back up and define a Full Preterist as one who believes all things have been fulfilled and nothing is yet future, and define a Partial Preterist as one who believes some things have been fulfilled, and some things have not. The current definition is by no means good enough.

FULL Preterist MEANS all things have completely been fulfilled. Whether or not you see that fulfillment in the Cross, Pentecost, the Destruction of Jerusalem, or in the fall of Pagan Rome, it does not matter. If something is a Past event, it is past.

Please revise this definition. It is tooooooooo narrow in terms of classification.

Ls thomp 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be partly true, but I think we're trying keep the definition to one that believes the "End of The Times" occured at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Normally a "preterist" wouldn't view it as any other time. - Charleca 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a misrepresentation of what the terms Full (Complete) Preterist (past fulfillment) means. It does not include those who do not assign all prophecy as being fulfilled in another period of time besides 70AD. I mentioned Samuel Lee who was one of the greatest scholars of Preteristic history yet he did not assign the complete fulfillment to 70AD. Just become it is not the norm does not mean that it can not be opened to classify these others who were also Preteristic in nature and did not believe there were things that remained unfulfilled. Ls thomp 21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is not to represent every single person that holds to some odd position regarding preterism, nor would that be possible since almost nobody agrees with everyone else in every minute detail regarding theology or prophecy. The definition of Full Preterism is fine the way it is in my opinion and should not be changed. It will only confuse readers more than it probably already does. --Virgil Vaduva 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree Virgil and that is consistent with the way other minor variants were handled. This is a general popular audience piece, not an exhaustive treatise.

Dee Dee Warren 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, that is simply not under dispute by anyone even remotely credible. If you check a page that even would be anti-thetical to my views, www.preteristarchive.com - they concede that. Using the term "historical preterism" instead of partial preterism he states (see last sentence):

HISTORICAL PRETERISM (HP) - A) Umbrella term covering the whole spectrum of partially fulfilled eschatology, including systems of Partial Preterism, Historicism, Catholicism, and earlier forms of Preterist-Idealism. B) This class has roots dating back to the first century, and finds particular development in the writings of Justin Martyr and Eusebius. Today's contemporary "Partial Preterism" was primarily developed during the Reformation era in the hands of Calvin, Grotius and Hammond, though the Jesuit Alcazar is possibly the earliest to present a fully developed system. C) Generally teaches that some Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD70 -- and perhaps during the subsequent millennia -- but will be ultimately fulfilled in the future "end of the world". (Broadest Range in Time and Doctrine)

And describing "full preterism" as "modern preterism" he states (see last sentence):

MODERN PRETERISM (MP) - A) The whole spectrum of fully fulfilled eschatology, including (but not limited to) Full Preterism, and recent systems of Preterist-Idealism. B) According to known literature, this class did not emerge until the 19th century in the writings of Samuel Lee, although it can be seen as the natural progression in theological development (particularly anticipated in "Theophany" by Early Church author Eusebius). C) Generally believes that all eschatology was fulfilled by AD70, or by the conversion by heathen Rome to Christianity, or by the supposed "fall of Islamic persecution of Christianity". (Narrowest Range in Time and Doctrine - Only Known Representations of this View Are From 19th-21st Century)

I have numerous citations as well from what that implication is clearly drawn in my article http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrensemantics.html

In my article I quote Roderick Edwards (definitely not an ally) as well in saying - Full/Modern Preterism is derived from an earlier, less developed version, called "historic preterism"

Dee Dee Warren 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see my comment placement might be confusing.... someone earlier asked for my support why I said partial preterism was historically prior... I should have inserted my comments there. Sorry :(

Dee Dee Warren 14:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

THEN HOW SHOULD THESE EXCEPTIONS BE CLASSIFIED IF THEY ARE NOT FULL PRETERISTS? They do not extend the fulfillment to the future but do not assign all fulfillment to 70AD. While it may be the norm, it certainly IS NOT a correct definition. These men are scholars with very high credentials. Samuel Lee and others blow any modern day scholar away. It is a very lititamate view that should be considered worthy of this classification. to say these don't matter shows idgnorance in these matters. It is certainly not from reviewing and investigating his views. It is very narrow minded IMOLs thomp 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How should the exceptions should be classified? Who cares and why should be classified at all? A reader searching to learn about Preterism has no interest in knowing what every preterist on the planet believes regarding any given topic under the sun. Did you read what was said above by three or four people? This article is not an exhaustive treatise on the topic of Preterism or a list of what every full preterist in this world believes about AD 70. It's a GENERAL description of the position, presenting the definitions as they are perceived by a majority of contributors. --Virgil Vaduva 17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Minutae in variations

I agree fully with Virgil.

Dee Dee Warren 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

please include some mention of double fulfillment

It would seem appropriate to have some mention of the notion or concept of "double fulfillment or double reference" in an article on partial or full preterism. Prophetic mention of the "abomination of desolation" has more than one reference in the Jewish mind. They were all aware of Antiochus Epiphanies. There is the prophetic reference to Titus. Could there be one yet to come? I'm sure that there are many theologians adopting some combination of the preterist and futurist viewpoints, immediate predictions that will be echoed in the end times. 209.191.208.162 10:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Preterism

I am stunned that no one will actually provide the well established history of Futurism and Praeterism in Western Christian thought. Both Positions are products of the Society of Jesus in their efforts to win the Historicist Amillennial arguments with the Reformed and Evangelical Protestants. These two views are innovations of the Counter-Reformation established by the Council of Trent. Neither view has any historicity in Pre-Reformation Latin Christian Thought, nor in the Teachings of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Apologists, Fathers, Synods and the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. Both Views anachronistically interpret select passages of this Undivided and Universal Tradition...though both reject their Authority. This is done in order to find some historicity for their views to cover the fact that the Printing Press has more antiquity.

Praeterism did not even exist in Protestanntism until the middle 17th Century...and it was adopted and adapted by Arian Unitarians and Universalists, and these authors eventually recanted their Praeterism as not reflected in the proper exegesis of the totality of Scripture. Both Counter- Reformation Praterism and Futurism have only taken root in Protestant Circles since the early 19th Century...with Praeterism being held by a minute fringe element of the Reformed Tradition and other non-Confessional Restorationist Movement groups, such as a small element of the Church of Christ.

Historicist Historic Pre-Millennialism was the predominant position of the Ante-Nicene Era. In the Nicene Era it was challenged by the Classical Historicist A-Millennialists, and it soon became a minority position in the Graeco-Semitic Eastern Churches and completely suppressed in the Latin-Gothic Western Church. Thus the Historicist View exists in two forms since Nicaea I onward in the Eastern Churches. The rival Historicist Views where the dominant view of the Catholic and Protestant Churches, which were both A-Millennialist.

Latin Futurism and Praeterism did not appear until the late 16th and early 17th Century....far too late to be considered part of Historic Christian Eschatology. Neither views were espoused by any of the Reformers, and many Confessional Reformed and Confessional Evangelical Churches reject both views as Latinate derivations and not part of their spiritual and confessional Theology.

So....if anyone actually wants to be honest about the late history of the Praeterist view...please correct your Article to reflect these historical facts. Do so in an unbiased fashion so as not to be dismissive of this history or to argue it away. If Physicians are making sure the Medical articles are correct and factual....Christians who are Reconstructionists (Praeterist) or Dispensationalists (Futurists) should at least be as frank and as honest as well. Priestly1@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.125.106 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to list a history of Preterist thought and perhaps who held such views? Minguo

Eusebius' Theophania does not contain the suggested quote. It is a copy over from the Preterist websites. revrunjim —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

Catholics are not preterists in any way shape or form. They do believe that Matt. 24 and parts of Revelation are about the destruction of the temple, but that was not the parousia which is a future event. This has been held by the Church since the earliest days from Ignatius and on down the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:8000:F5AA:D858:EDF5:4F41:647B (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Preterism versus Historicism

The article claims:

'Expositors of the traditional protestant interpretation of Revelation known as historicism have always maintained that Revelation was written in AD 96 and not AD 70.'

This isn't true. Over the centuries Historicists have accepted both dates. It was only as a result of Praterism emerging in the 17th century that the early date started to be rejected by Historicists, in order to remove support for the Praeterist position. As late as 1727 Sir Isaac Newton had argued that Revelation was written during the persecutions of Nero, but by the mid-19th century this theory was being completely dismissed, and Elliott’s description of it as ‘the baseless presumption of a Neronic date’ (Horae Apocalypticae, volume IV, 5th edition 1862), was typical of the later Historicist attitude generally expressed. Still, even at this time there were Historicists who believed in an early date. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation Removals

I'm really being caught off guard by the continual removal of several citations. Far from trying to advance some POV from any website, I was simply showing that there are known Partial Preterist writings that date back to the 2nd and 3rd century. This isn't disputable. I rightly edited the sentence about Church fathers to refer only to Eusebius. I did this out of respect for the quantity and substance of his content. Eusebius' writings are not necessarily the oldest of the Partial Preterist, but they're known to be the most concise and easily accessible.

Can someone also explain why the citation of Townley's Full Preterist book was removed? I can't find anything discussing it in the Talk Page. Can any earlier work be provided, that holds to a well-formed Full Preterist view, and not just bits and pieces of it? Please provide this as a reference if it is available.

Why, as well, are any references to Full Preterism's willingness to reject Creeds being removed? I'd like to know what will suffice as a citation for this? While these are POV articles I've been linking to, this claim has to be substantiated with a POV article, as the debate is mainly taking place on the internet.

I'm wondering about these types of citations. As far as Wikipedia's policy is concerned, I don't understand how anyone can view these as violations.

Thank you in advance.

Mise-en-page (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eusebius was a full preterist, not a partial preterist. Rather than making a general statement about this, I recommend including full quotes referencing what you are trying to communicate. I also fail to see what a historic reference to a 2nd or 3rd century has to do with either full or partial preterism or what value it bring to the article itself. We are not talking about the history of either one. The goal of the article is to define it and explain it to a reader. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

On what basis can Eusebius be called a Full Preterist? In his Proof of the Gospel, Eusebius wrote that the latter part of Isaiah 66:18-19 refers to "His second glorious Advent, when all nations shall see His glory, and when He comes in the heavens with power and great glory" (see 6.25) And also: "The prophecies about the Christ should be divided, as our investigation of the facts shews, into two classes: the first which are the more human and gloomy will be agreed to have been fulfilled at His first Coming, the second the more glorious and divine EVEN NOW await His second Coming for their fulfilment" (see 4.16).

I'm sorry, but this is not Full Preterism. Do you have any references that show Eusebius holding to Full Preterism? I just can't believe what you're saying.

Anyway, I do think the historicity matters, because preterism is a view that a large number of earlier commentators held to. If something has a grounded history, it tends not to be a crock. So why is talking about this history unimportant?

Mise-en-page (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Holy Scriptures foretell that there will be unmistakable signs of the Coming of Christ. Now there were among the Hebrews three outstanding offices of dignity, which made the nation famous, firstly the kingship, secondly that of prophet, and lastly the high priesthood. The prophecies said that the abolition and complete destruction of all these three together would be the sign of the presence of the Christ. And that the proofs that the times had come, would lie in the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies. The holy oracles foretold that all these changes, which had not been made in the days of the prophets of old, would take place at the coming of the Christ, which I will presently shew to have been fulfilled as never before in accordance with the predictions." - Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book VIII

Let's all do our homework before we present inaccurate information to readers; if not, your inaccurate references will be deleted, not just by me, but any other editor here. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly okay with doing the homework, and working to support any claims made in this article with the most specific citations. I agree and would maintain that all of us need to do so.

Now, unfortunately, you still haven't established clearly that Eusebius was holding to Full Preterism. Eusebius is still only talking about the First Coming of the Messiah here:

"You have then in this prophecy of the Descent of the Lord among men from heaven, many other things foretold at the same time, the rejection of the Jews, the judgment on their impiety, the destruction of their royal city, the abolition of the worship practised by them of old according to the Law of Moses; and on the other hand, promises of good for the nations, the knowledge of God, a new ideal of holiness, a new law and teaching coming forth from the land of the Jews. I leave you to see, how wonderful a fulfilment, how wonderful a completion, the prophecy has reached after the Coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ." (St. Eusebius: Demonstratio Evangelica [Proof of the Gospel]; Book VI - Chapter 13)

At this point, the burden only lies on you. I've already demonstrated that Eusebius saw the Second Coming (which means that glorious, final one on the Last Day; not the one in judgment against apostate Israel) as still future even in his time. Every idea he's talking about in what you've quoted is also contained in the Book of Hebrews. And it's in Jeremiah 31, as well as most of Zechariah and Malachi. These were just Messianic expectations, which sometimes went against what the Jews perceived, and which were absolutely fulfilled once Messiah came and even more so within the generation that followed. But it's only concerning the emergence of a new faith in Christ which would trump the Jewish temple system and its remaining nationalism. That's not Full Preterism, because he is saying nothing about the Final Judgment or the Final Resurrection having already occurred.

How old is Partial Preterism? How old is Full Preterism? That's all I'm trying to establish. We'd be talking about the same information concerning Dispensationalism, so why not Preterism? It's not a big deal.

Mise-en-page (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And, again, what about Robert Townley's Full Preterist book "The Second Advent of Jesus Christ: A Past Event"? Is this obscure in any sense? On what other basis can a concise Consistent Preterist book like that be removed? It just hasn't been touched on.

What of Full Preterism and the eucemenical creeds, too? I think that's an important aspect of this because it is a huge distinction between the two views. What was wrong with the sources for that? One source was Sproul's book, for goodness sake. Let's be honest.

Mise-en-page (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder on references

Mise-en-page - You are apparently under the impression that I am here to debate the merits of preterism (full or partial). I am not; this is not a place to debate theology, creeds of personal opinions. This is a place to write a relevant article on the study of fulfilled prophecy. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

Specifically, "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable" - Per WP:SPS, every single reference you provided initially failed the litmus test. Please, no blogs, no forums comments, no obscure references from websites that nobody ever heard of.

This is not the first time we had this debate here and I honestly am not going to spend my time arguing with you the merits of eschatology. I already provided references and challenges to your assertions and I restored the article to its original state pre-Eusebius modifications. If you want to present Eusebius in a general light and provide quotes from him about his eschatological work, I do not personally believe this is the place to do so. Again, this is an article about Preterism, and I would love to work with you to improve it as necessary. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgil, I appreciate your response and I do understand where you're coming from. My only contention was there are parts of the article that can be improved with a little more background and some relevant cites. We might let this sit for a while. Nothing is desperately needed at this point.

I should say that I'm not interested in a debate, but I haven't percieved you to be either. It was only that I saw your labeling of Eusebius as "Full Preterist" as incorrect. On the contrary, he appeared to me to be very relevant to the topic, and he at least places a date on one side of the Preterist camp. I wanted to understand where you were coming from, because this appeared to be your only basis for not wanting to cite his writing as being early Partial. I'm sorry for that misunderstanding and I'm glad we could work it out by referring back to our established ground rules.

In any instance, it's true that we should be keeping this entry as basic as possible. No problems there. We'll discuss it over time as issues get brought up. Mise-en-page (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I will try to work with you and everyone else to improve the article; it needs it and right now all the missing citation tags need to be resolved one way or another. Our disagreement over Eusebius illustrates the bigger problem we have here: the issue is not cut and dry over the history of Preterism, so it makes development of the article (if we decide to tackle the history of it) even more difficult. On the other hand, if we are only dealing with the basics of what Preterism is, then I personally do not think it is necessary to go over the historical aspects of it. Perhaps other editors can chime in about this? --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done some work on the references. Let me know if there are any issues. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • The article mistakening tagged the "judgment coming of Christ" in the partial preterism portion as the Final Judgment. That is not what partial preterists believe - and of course directly conflicts with the statement further down in the same paragraphs that partial preterists believe that the Final Judgment is future. I fixed the mistake.

Dee Dee Warren (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Irenaeus a Preterist?

I was surprised to see Irenaeus listed as a proponent of Preterism. Having recently completed a commentary on the Book of Revelation (cited as one of the references), I appealed to several passages in Irenaeus (Against Heresies, v.xxx and v.xxviii.2) to show he explicitly expects Antichrist to be a future figure who had not yet arrived on the stage of history. My understanding of Preterism is that both full and partial preterists consider the beast of Revelation to have been a historic figure, most often Nero of Roman times. The evidence I see in Irenaeus would seem to place him squarely in the camp of Futurism, not Preterism.

The citations I refer to from Irenaeus can be found online here too: http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Revelation/commentary/htm/topics/nero.html#4.12.2.4

TonyG (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said concerning the citation of Justin Martyr as a proponent of Preterism. “Variations of this view [futurism] were held by the earliest expositors, such as Justin Martyr (d.165), Irenaeus (d.c.195), Hippolytus (d.236), and Victorinus (d.c.303).” -- Johnson, Alan F. Revelation: The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. 1966), p. 12.

In his Dialogue of Justin, Justin Martyr cites Daniel 7:9-28 as a Second Coming passage which describes the destruction of the beast at the future arrival of Jesus: “But if so great a power is shown to have followed and to be still following the dispensation of His suffering, how great shall that be which shall follow His glorious advent! For He shall come on the clouds as the Son of man, so Daniel foretold, and His angels shall come with Him. These are the words: ‘I beheld till the thrones were set; and the Ancient of days did sit. . .’—Justin Martyr, Dialogue, xxx”—Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I, ECF 1.1.6.3.0.31.

Either the citations for interpreting Irenaeus and Justin Martyr as preterists need to include more meat actually demonstrating that fact, or they should be removed since it seems they had more in common with futurism. I'm not here to debate the relative merits of Preterism vs. other interpretations, but it concerns me to see these two individuals listed as proponents of Preterism when most citations and quotations I've seen concerning them demonstrates otherwise and the citations given here lack definitive evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for hearing my concerns. TonyG (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Bias

Something ought to be resolved concerning the Anti-Semitic implications of Preterism. Historically, such thinking has negatively impacted society. Fascistic tendencies in religion must be identified whenever and wherever possible. Preterism creates a favorable climate for Anti-Semitism. It teaches that Israel was a "harlot" destroyed by God in A.D. 70, and that the Christian church 'replaced' Israel. These claims cannot be substantiated by the Scriptures. Moreover, such teaching frustrates Judeo-Christian relations, and demeans the dignity of the Jewish people.--Orthodox45 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for doing something about this (even if it is a genuine issue, which I disagree). Further, this article defines what Preterism is, not to cast judgement upon it. 82.43.199.163 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the section stating that the majority of preterists see Jerusalem as the Harlot instead of Diocletan is unsourced, and counter to most of the preterist sources I've seen. Looking further, the Partial preterism article appears to be a POV-coatrack article to hide a horrible sourcing job. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Objections Based On Canonical Argument

This entire section needs to be more robust. At presen tit looks too much like personal comment. It's not NPOV, and it needs proper citations and references. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Have already revised this entry, and given appropriate citation. --Orthodox45 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Proper terminology

I would like to see a more accurate representation of the terms. The words preterism/preterist did not originally refer to what has come to be know as "full preterism". The original terms defined what is now erroneously called "partial-preterism". This revisionism of terms would be like someone claiming a Calvinist who believed that since people are elected by God without freewill, there is no reason to evangelize should be called "full Calvinists", whereas the traditional Calvinists should be called "partial-Calvinists". Rather, the term "hyper" in a theological sense means to "go beyond original scope or intent". Thus, a person who believes we should no longer evangelize is often correctly termed a "Hyper-Calvinist", so too should a preterist who has gone beyond the original scope & intent of historic preterism be rightly called a "Hyper-Preterist" -- there is no pejorative intent in the labels -- it is just correct grammatical definition. As it presently stands, this entry has been unduly biased to misrepresent the true history of these terms. Please work to correct this or otherwise the reputation of Wiki as a place with biased entries will continue. Roderick E (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors should not be allowed to promote their own personal biased versions of the facts. If editor insists on a readjustment of terms, he ought at least to provide citations from reputable & published sources, instead of expecting the public to take his word for it. Also, editors oughtn't to be allowed to engage in link-spamming to questionable websites. Editor is administrator of two of these sites, and is unduly promoting his biased version of the facts. --Orthodox45 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User Orthodox45 undid changes I made to the entry & called those changes "biased" yet in giving his reasoning for undoing the changes he called them "twisted" -- ummm, no bias there eh? I believe that Orthodox45 is actually Virgil Vaduva, the very same user who is an admitted hyperpreterist & whom has threatened to sue Wikipedia if they didn't let him misrepresent this entry. This entry needs serious reconsideration by the admins & I am going to suggest Orthodox45 be expelled from editing this entry. Roderick E (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Roderick E. is clearly out of bounds in suggesting that I be expelled from editing. He removed valid links earlier, and replaced them with links to two sites which he and Dee Dee Warren administer. This is clearly a form of link-spamming. He also misrepresented the consistent Preterist view, alleging that it has only been around since the 1970's. A simple look at his material will show that he is attempting to re-define Full Preterist position as "hyper" based on his own concepts of the 'intent' of doctrine. Full Preterists cannot agree with his premise, as they believe that the 'intent' of any doctrine is governed by Scripture alone. What I am suggesting is that editor Roderick E. provide citations from published sources to back his claims, instead of simply revising articles to fit a partial preterist slant and directing people to his own blogs. --Orthodox45 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know Orthodox45's creds to even edit this entry. I WAS a hyper/full preterist for 15 years. I know the history, the players & current affairs within the hyper/full preterist movement. Who is Orthodox45? Where is his creds? Roderick E (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If I told Roderick E. that I had a Th.D, a D.D., and a Ph.D., was a preterist for 25 years, and had dinner with the most relevant people in the movement, would those credentials satisy him?--Orthodox45 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I want to know your real name. I've never seen this nickname used within hyper/full preterist circles. Send it to me privately if you want. Roderick E (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Roderick E., apparently you feel very uncomfortable with my making legitimate revisions to this article. My only wish is that there be fair-play between the two factions of preterism and partial preterism. Is there something wrong with making sure that the public has a balanced view of the facts? You should that most of the people who read this article are not preterists, but are simply looking for information. Therefore, the public has a right to know both sides of the story. Things get out of hand when partisan polemicists slant the information to serve their own ends. Not that I am accusing you of doing this... but your resistance to my revisions is a bit annoying. Would you care to explain yourself? --Orthodox45 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Email me I'd be glad to talk with you. But at present, I am even challenging the way you are presenting the "factions" -- For example, "full preterism" is a VARIANT of the historic original. So-called "partial-preterism" is actually the original form. For example, a traditional Calvinist would say God chooses/elects who will be saved YET, the traditional Calvinist will also say we should still evangelize because God commands & because we don't know who the elect are & God uses us to call His elect. Whereas a "Hyper-Calvinist" will claim God chooses/elects people & so there is no need to evangelize. It would be historically inaccurate to allow the Hyper-Calvinist to redefine the labels & start calling a traditional Calvinst, merely a "partial-Calvinist". This is what has happened with preterism. Let's you & I work to fix this, ok? Roderick E (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Roderick E., Full Preterists do not agree with your premise. Futurists could use the same argument to assert that partial preterism is flawed because is went 'beyond the original intent' of the orthodox faith. (See, e.g. the Chalcedonian Creed). Can I use this argument to claim that partial preterism is 'hyper??' No, because the distinctives of p.p. are based on an appeal to the Scriptures. How, then, would the same argument be valid with Full Preterism?? P.P. overrides the creeds, while F.P. overrides 400 years of p.p. interpretation (no pun intended). Both bypass historicity in favor "Sola Scriptura." Therefore, your whole premise is flawed. Now please stop tampering with the information. --Orthodox45 (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I second Orthodox45's take on the non-biased approach to this article, an issue which is creeping out every so often; this is not the first time attempts have been made to tamper with the article in order to remove Wikipedia:NPOV content (see history and Talk:Preterism for details), which is really against the spirit of Wikipedia. Let's not forget about Wikipedia:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and that Wikipedia:NPOV is critical to the quality of the content. The purpose of the article is not to promote either side of Preterism - the purpose of the article is to present a balanced article to the audience, regardless of theology, philosophy or religion. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet clearly both Orthodox45 & Vaduva are BOTH Hyperpreterists -- you can't have a NPOV when you have no other view represented. Remember, Vaduva was the one who ACTUALLY tried to trademark the term Preterism (see source at US Trademarks office: [1] ) & he is the same person that threatened legal action against Wikipedia if it didn't let him dictate the Preterism entry, so he is the last person to claim he is NPOV. Roderick E (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Roderick, cool it! You obviously have an issue with what Orthodox45 and Virgil are doing. And that's fine. But let's not have your also obvious hatred for Mr. Vaduva pour over into Wikipedia. Thank you. -Charleca (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop? Already? I was enjoying a classic example of what editing on Wikipedia is all about. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just stating a FACT. When you have people who are from one position dominating the editing, you will have a distorted representation. Add to that the FACT that Vaduva DID attempt to trademark the term & you really have the LEAST NPOV you can get. This Preterism entry has been a distortion the whole time it has existed. P.S. Charleca, you're a hyperpreterist too right? More NON-NPOV. Roderick E (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Roderick E., As you see, the consensus is against you. Would it hurt you much if I said I wasn't even a Preterist??? I could care less about your personal terminology. But when you enforce it upon others, that is clearly not NPOV. Calling Full Preterism "Hyper" reveals your own bias. Why don't you prove that it's hyper on your own websites and blogs, by doing the detailed exgetical work, instead of expecting people to take your word for it. I'm sure Full Preterists would love to see you defend your position openly. Futurists could use your same argument to show that P.P. is 'hyper'. But that wouldn't fly with you, would it?? Then please stop trying to push your slanted opinions on others. The public does not have to tolerate this behavior. --Orthodox45 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Roderick E has a pretty well-established history of bullying other users here and pushing an agenda alone against Wikipedia:Consensus; he often invokes personal attacks and personal matters in order to intimidate other editors and establish his biased point. In fact, anyone who frequents this article knows very well that he is guilty of violating every rule from Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, Wikipedia:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information, Wikipedia:HUSH#User_space_harassment, and of course ultimately Wikipedia:Consensus. I anticipate that once confronted with a consensus editing decision here, he will leave for a while and return a year or so from now trying to do this all over again, violating all the points I just referenced above. His Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules approach caused the article to be closed for edits previously, so this is a familiar sight with Roderick E --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So bringing up the FACT that this entry is dominated by one point of view AND the FACT that one of the main editors actually tried to trademark the term AND the FACT that this same guy has threatened to sue Wikipedia if he didn't get his way, is somehow NOT relevant??? Plus how is it a fair "consensus" if as has been demonstrated, the majority if not all of the editors of this entry are presently of one point of view. It would be like having the Nazi party write an entry on the SS & if someone opposed the claims of the entry, being over-ruled by a "consensus" of the Nazi editors. Roderick E (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Appealing to Godwins_law or taking the Reductio_ad_Hitlerum approach will not distract any of us from your biased edit attempts of Preterism. Nice try though. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgil, my analogy was NOTHING like what that 1990 "law" entails. My comment was valid. An example of using a REAL Reductio_ad_Hitlerum would be something like mentioning you are a Romanian who thinks that fighting for "freedom" is equal to your teen-age years of throwing rocks & bottles at your communist overseers. You haven't been in America long enough to understand that fighting for freedom is NOT riotous punks in the street. See, THAT is more like Reductio_ad_Virgilum (see I can make up "laws" too) Sheeesh. Roderick E (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please use the Talk page for discussion about the article - not your egos. -Charleca (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Blatant editorializing by hyperpreterists

Please read this assessment of the Preterism entry on Wikipedia: http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=1226 Roderick E (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The above mentioned website was started anonymously & cowardly by associates of Roderick Edwards, the same guy who mocks efforts by Christians to help AIDS victims (see link), encourages the use of gun violence towards others (see link), who cyberstalks and is obsessed with Virgil Vaduva (see link) and continues to repeat the same trademark accusations against Vaduva on all articles where Vaduva is an editor (see link). If anyone has questions about the content of the website, please feel free to ask questions here. Screenshots and details about Roderick Edwards behavior and harassment/stalking history will be provided upon request.

P.S. notice that Roderick Edwards has not contributed with a single piece of text to this article. Instead he is spamming Wikipedia with advertising links to his own website and is harassing(Wikipedia:Harassment) and stalking Virgil Vaduva(Wikipedia:Stalking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.151.143.181 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusations???? Ummmmm... we have the ACTUAL link showing Virgil Vaduva attempted to trademark the word preterism. An accusation could not be true, whereas we have PROOF that Vaduva is a egotisical maniac. Any time anyone who is critical of hyperpreterism tries to edit the distorted wikipedia article on "preterism", Vaduva is there to make sure it is deleted. It is not called stalking Virgil, it is called Eph 5:11, maybe you should read less Brian McLaren books & more of the Bible. And why still no actual signature for all this posting you're doing? Roderick E (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

wow who knew that someone needs your permission to "attempt" to trademark a word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.146.97.41 (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, egomaniacs like Vaduva think they can do whatever they want. Vaduva is a Romanian punk who is no better than a masked terrorist throwing rocks. That is the reason he continues to post without signing. The rules of wikipedia says:

Purpose of signatures

Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wikipedia. They encourage civility in discussions, by identifying the author of a particular comment and the date and time at which it was made...Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages should be signed. (ref)

But just like the cowardly terrorist Vaduva is, he creates anonymous websites, without reference links. He tried to personal own a theological term & falsely threatened to sue Wikipedia unless it let him dictate the Preterism article. Vaduva is a real piece of work Roderick E (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You can sign all your stuff two or three times and civility is still missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.146.83.83 (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, most postmodernist/Emergent types such as Vaduva think "civility" means just letting him lie & lie. They don't seem to understand what Eph 5:11 is all about. Roderick E (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Like you lying about the time when you mocked people with AIDS (see link), made fun of homeless people (see link), and told people that Preterists need to die? (see link)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.146.83.83 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was & STILL am mocking people like you who think they are sooooo righteous because they have guilt trips like you & go out & buy red-ipods & such & actually think they are helping homeless people & people with AIDS. So, I'm not "lying" about anything. I take responsibility for the things I say, do & write -- starting with ACTUALLY signing my name. Are you going to ever admit to the fact that you are a postmodernist, socialistic, universalist, liberal who has come to America thinking that freedom = street-thug tactics? It is time for you to face who you are Virgil. You are STILL that little punk back in Romania throwing rocks, nothing more. Roderick E (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait forgot to address your last accusation that I have claimed "Preterists need to die". Even from the link you gave, the quote ACTUALLY says: "The Preterist movement needs to die! Preterism needs to die!". See, you can't even tell the truth here. You are a habitual liar. Roderick E (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I motion that Roderick Edwards become the lead editor for the Preterism entry since he wants Preterism to "die die die." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.146.66.42 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It actually sounds more like we have a Conflict of Interest here. Wikipedia is not the forum to discuss whether a particular topic is right or wrong - or to urge readers to believe one way or the other. It should only be used to show what the subject is...nothing more. As it stands, the Preterism article needs to be rewritten. It is full of weasel words and lacks citations throughout. Some of it looks OK, but for the most part, I feel like I'm looking at a bowl of messy spaghetti. -charleca (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point Charleca. It really isn't anything personal, but it is a major, major conflict of interest when a guy who actually tried to trademark this word AND threatened to sue Wikipedia is now trying to be the main & final editor. I personally would like to see the entire entry scrubbed & reworked with some truly neutral 3rd party looking simply at the structure of the entry. For example, if historic preterism is that from which all theses other forms derive, shouldn't this article be more about historic preterism BEFORE we even discuss the derivatives/sub-variants? (See the wikipedia Calvinism article for example -- it deals with historic Calvinism & branches off the derivatives/sub-variants; Hyper-Calvinism/Neo-Calvinism & such). I have more or less given up that this article will ever be a true representation of the history & definition of Preterism. I'm not even so much concerned with the merits or flaws of the various facets of Preterism & its derivatives as I am seeing the article accurately represent the history of the concept & its sub-variants. Roderick E (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Blatant editorializing by Roderick Edwards

Please read this assessment of Roderick Edwards and his Wikipedia entries: http://www.thekingdomcame.com

The above mentioned website was started anonymously & cowardly by Virgil Vaduva, the same guy who not only tried to actually trademark the word "preterism" (see link) but he actually threatened to sue Wikipedia unless it allowed him to dictate the Preterism article (see link). If anyone has questions about the content of the website, please feel free to email me: [2]

P.S. notice that the website gives no reference links to the things it says -- that is because Vaduva purposely doesn't want anyone to know the context. Roderick E (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Full Preterism's Universalistic Bias

It's quite telling that attempts to show the connection between Hyper-Preterism and Universalism are being suppressed on this forum. This info needs to get out to the public. It is no coincidence that many of the foremost leaders of Hyper-Preterism are Universaliststic in their teachings.--Brian Simmons (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Brian, I don't think anyone here is interesting in your propagandistic comments. I want to present a fair article on Preterism to readers, not an article on Universalism. Can you please explain why Universalism needs to be referenced in the article and why this is relevant? Also, can you please provide a list of writings and references as to how "many" or "most" preterists are "universalists?" I would be happy to second your changes but you are purposefully using Wikipedia:WEASEL words in order to avoid explaining yourself. This is why the Talk page on an article exists; so I am listening. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Virgil, The history of the Full Preterist movement began with American Universalists. This is factual, not "propaganda." Info regarding what the whole "Full Preterist" was about from its very beginnings should not be subject to censorship. I understand your eagerness to control the content on this page, but your're taking your editorial supervision a bit far, don't you think? --Brian Simmons (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Brian, even if I grant you that point, you still cannot deduce what you want to deduce; this is nothing but speculation and goes against Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, and Universalism predates any hint of Preterism among Christians, starting all the way back with Origen. I would have no problem with inserting a passage on Universalism in the article, but it's a serious strain and that is not the point of the article. Not only that, but you would have to go into greater depth as far as disambiguation goes and explain which kind of Universalism you are talking about, which denomination you are discussing, and what theological approach you are taking here when discussing Universalism per se. And again, that is not the point of the article. In fact, even the way it is now, in my opinion the article deals with too much unnecessary stuff to begin with, as I already pointed out several times. On a second point, I am not controlling anything - this is an article which has arrived where it is as a result of collaboration. You just created your Wikipedia account less than 48 hours ago apparently in order to make this single change to the article. Now judging by other material I found written by you, and by the fact that your activity on Wikipedia is focused solely on this one entry, makes me think that your presence here is not primarily due to an interest in bettering the Wikipedia community; instead you are here to condemn Preterism, which also goes against Wikipedia:MORALIZE; to quote from the policy: "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." That is against the guidelines of this forum and therefore you cannot expect me and other editors to simply let you modify the entry however you wish to modify it. Please stick to the point of the article so we can all work together in improving the content. This is not a place to host theological disagreements and debates, or a place where you can prove Preterism wrong.--Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Virgil, Presenting facts is not "moralizing." It's being honest with the evidence. By showing that the earliest roots of Full Preterism are found in American Universalism, I am helping to flesh out the history of Preterism. If I can quote valid sources, what's the big deal? That is exactly what I intend to do, though it will take me a few days to gather the relevant information. --Brian Simmons (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a big deal then you should be able to provide enough evidence to prove the missing link between Preterism and Universalism; so far I am not aware of any such evidence, otherwise all Preterists would be Universalists, and that is simply not factual. The few Preterists who are Universalists were already Universalists before they embraced Preterism. Also, you just said above that Preterism was borne out of early American Universalism. If that is true, how do you explain that many of the early Christian theologians were Universalists? Are you saying they were Preterists too? And why is it that most Universalists have never even heard of Preterism and do not hold to a Preterist eschatology? Your suggestions make absolutely no sense and I cannot imagine how another editor would agree to your editing suggestions, unless you will present some evidence that nobody is aware of. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian, any news on this Universalism-Preterism connection, so we can update the article accordingly? --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional article improvements

In additional to things already discussed above, there are several other issues which need to be resolved with this article

1. The proponents list is nonsensical and out of place. Does the article need to have a proponents list, and what value does the list bring to the entry? In my opinion, near to none; the list should be removed altogether.

2. The "Preterism vs. ..." sections could be made more succinct and could be combine into one sub-header that does not sound as negative as what is currently there. Again, this entry is about Preterism, not about Historicism or Futurism.

3. Also, I am not sure why the "Preterist Divisions" section is there. It could also use improvement as it sounds broken-up and much of the content does not read smoothly.

--Virgil Vaduva (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

January 19, 2009: Fixed a mistake regarding Full Preterism:

There was a factual inaccuracy regarding Firmin Abauzit which needed to be fixed. Here is the previous content:

The first Full Preterist exposition was finally written in 1730 by the Swiss Protestant and Arian, Firmin Abauzit (‘Essai sur l'Apocalypse’).[21] This was the beginning of a series of Full Preterist expositions of Revelation, all of them deriving ultimately from Abauzit.[22]

Abauzit was not remotely a full preterist, nor was this work. [Evidence: "First, then, if by mysteries are understood truths which revelation discovers, and which were unknown to us by reason, it is certain that there are various mysteries of this kind in the Christian religion. Those truths, for example, that Jesus Christ is the saviour of men ; that he passed his life in an abject condition ; that he died upon a cross ; that he is risen again ; that he ascended into heaven ; that he shed from thence the effusions of the spirit upon the Apostles ; that he will come one day to judge the whole world ; that all the dead shall rise to make their appearance together at his tribunal ; and several other truths of this nature, are things of which our reason could not inform us, and which we have learned solely from Christianity. They are therefore all of them so many mysteries, which the Gospel hath revealed to us." (On Mysteries in Religion, Translated by Jared Sparks in 1823)] On top of that, it was another 115 years before an actual full preterist work arose, so the claim of a "series of full preterist expositions" is not correct. The only sense in which full preterism has been found prior to 1845 is in the almost full preterist writings of the American Universalists ; however, they do not strictly conform to accepted full preterist theology. Hence, the above was changed, and references were added as evidence:

Another early Preterist exposition was finally written in 1730 by the Swiss Protestant and Arian, Firmin Abauzit (‘Essai sur l'Apocalypse’).[21] This was part of a growing development of more systematic Preterist expositions of Revelation.[22] Later, though, it appears that Abauzit recanted this systematic Preterist approach after a critical examination by his English translator, Dr. Twells. [23].

The earliest known work which would strictly qualify as contemporary "full preterism" was 'The Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ: A Past Event', which was written in 1845 by Robert Townley. Townley later recanted this view. [24]

There are a couple of issues here. Firstly you didn't quote anything from Abauzit's actual work which proves that it wasn't a Full Preterist work. Secondly the quote from Abauzit you provided was written much later than his ‘Essai sur l'Apocalypse'. Thirdly you left in the quote from Moses Stuart which says it was. Fourthly you didn't actually address the reference from Moses Stuart, which demonstrates that Abauzit's work was the first of a series of derivative Full Preterist works. You even left in the reference to Stuart, and simply claimed that it says something else. I suspect you don't actually have either Abauzit's work or Stuart's (I do). Would that be correct? Fifthly, although your quotation of Lange to support Abauzit's recanting of Full Preterism is valid, your quotation of Townley to support Townley's recantation of Full Preterism isn't (a third party source is required). Finally, you didn't provide a reliable source to demonstrate that Townley's was 'The earliest known work which would strictly qualify as contemporary "full preterism"', or that 'it was another 115 years before an actual full preterist work arose'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blooming edit war

I can see an edit war approaching with the proponents/opponents topic. Honestly, I don't see any encyclopedic value by having either present. Both sections should be removed. -charleca (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing new - every few months, the whacko Anon from Indianapolis comes back here with nothing else to do and decides to waste everyone else's time with the same edit...nothing new. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How can Preterists believe Matt. 24:14 has been fulfilled?

Matthew 24:14 "And the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole inhabited earth for a testimony to all the nations and then the end will come."

Some say it has been fulfilled but regardless of any non-Revelation support which is [?insert here?] what about in Revelation such events as Rev. 8:8-12, 16:18-21, 21:1-2 have not yet happened? Since the end-time events haven't happened the precursor event of the Gospel being preached to the WHOLE earth hasn't been completed.

One may draw all kinds of type, shadow, and figure fulfillments but the real fulfillment must bring the real end time events. 75.139.214.136 (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is how (as a non-Revelation support [?insert here?]), regardless of belief:

From sections at http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/21-23.htm , the EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES) Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 23. no need of the sun &c.] Isaiah 60:19. It is impossible to say whether it is here meant that the sun and moon do not shine, or only that the city is not dependent on them. Pulpit Commentary Verse 23. - And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; hath no need. Vincent's Word Studies Compare Isaiah 60:19, Isaiah 60:20.

Isaiah 60:19, 20, "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting Light, and thy God thy Glory. Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended." https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/60-19.htm , the EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES) Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 19,20. "It is not implied that the sun and moon shall cease to exist; all that is said is that the new Jerusalem shall not be dependent on these natural luminaries."

So it is logically resolved in the affirmative that the sun, moon, and homo sapiens which were created by God could still exist after the fulfillment of all the LORD God's generational ages. {see also the difference of Genesis 1:1 thru Genesis 2:3 from Genesis 2:4 thru the end of the bible, and Ephesians 3:21 γενεά (genea 1074) αἰών (aiōn 165) - that the species continues on after the last Adam, who is Lord (1 Corinthians 15:45&47)} Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.31.244.97 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Eschatology-oriented edits

A lot of the content of all these eschatology pages was getting duplicated, because each of the views had to be heard on each of the pages. I've moved much of the interpretations to their respective view pages (for example, taken the Futurist view of the Book of Revelation and put it on the Futurism (Christianity) page), in the hopes of minimizing duplication, keeping source pages unimpeded by eschatological disputes, and making it more clear what comprises each of the eschatologies. I've moved some of the comparisons among these views to the Christian eschatology page, so that the core differences can be contrasted in one place. Skinrider (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopelessly biased

This entry is one of the most biased entries on wikipedia as its main author, hyperpreterist Virgil Vaduva threatened to sue wikipedia if it did not let him dictate the entry; falsely claiming he owned a trademark on the word "preterism". See here: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78224061&action=Request+Status Further, there is scant to no mention of Max King in the history which is important since King has repeatedly claimed to be the founder/creator/originator of the belief. See here: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-bad-to-worse-hyperpreterisms-coc.html Vaduva has merely made this entry a propaganda piece for his own agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.107.152 (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom, do not delete other's comments. According to the link you provided (which does not mention Wikipedia), the request was abandoned, and Wikipedia regards all attempts to own articles as unacceptable. Virgil Vaduva appears to be only one editor among many, he hasn't editted in months (almost years), and the most drastic action taken in the article I can find is the removal of a proponents list. I'm finding your claims hard to beleive or understand. The word Preterism is older than the English language, and the belief dates back to the early church, so the claim about Max King sounds implausible. Also, blogspot pages are not reliable sources since any monkey with a keyboard can make them. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Reworking the Partial Preterism section

It's unsourced (and counter to most of the stuff I've read), and the main article for it is a POV coat rack. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Second Coming and the Resurrection of the Dead did not occur in the partial preterist system

The Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, did not occur in the partial preterist system. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The article pretty much says that already. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Error in "Schools of preterist thought > Full preterism"

The second paragraph begins "Full preterists argue that a literal reading of Matthew 16:28 (where Jesus tells the disciples that none of them would taste death until the second coming)..." and cites an external source. However, the verse in question and the external citation do not agree with the quoted paragraph. The verse states that some would not taste death until they saw "..the Son of man coming in his kingdom." ( KJV - other translations read similar; see: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A28&version=ESV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:28&version=NIV ) - the end of the verse could be interrupted variously while the Wikipedia article implies a less ambiguous text.

The article should probably be edited to read: "Full preterists argue that a literal reading of Matthew 16:28 (where Jesus tells the disciples that some of them would not taste death until they saw him coming in his kingdom)..." or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.75.19 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Looked at this again and the edit was made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Preterism&diff=465539300&oldid=465536682 - it looks like a simple mistake by an editor covering a lot of ground at once. Correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.75.19 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions

Healinglvs has been adding unsourced material using his both his account and his IP address.

The material does not cite any sources, even though he says "adding source" in this edit summary.

@Healinglvs: are you or are you not interested in operating within this site's policies and guidelines? It looks like you could make valuable contributions -- if you'd pay attention to help from others! Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been on here in years and am trying to figure out how to add a footnote. I am an author of a Full Preterist book and run www.fullpreterism.com. I am more qualified to define what full preterism is than this person that keeps trying to get me blocked (because they are not a full preterist). This needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglvs (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Healinglvs: New additions go at the bottom. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website or book. Wikipedia does not care about imagined personal authority, it only cite professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. If you bothered to pay attention to the guidelines I sent you, you'd know how to add footnotes. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "I haven't been on here in years"...? Did you have a previous account? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course my book (House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology...) is by a credible publisher - Vision Publishing in Ramona, CA. I think I figured out how to add a footnote. Who do I talk to that can mediate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglvs (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Healinglvs: Once again, new talk page additions go at the bottom. If you aren't capable of understanding that simple instruction, how can we trust you to write a credible source? ;P Seriously though, Vision publishing ("Making writers dreams come true") sounds a lot like a "pay-to-print" publisher, which we do not accept. And again, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your book. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preterism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112104451/http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Pauline Preterism into Preterism

Looks like this topic could be covered at existing article with better context. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This article has no sourced content. If any can be found, merge. Otherwise, it should be deleted. —Confession0791 ^talk 02:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Let the article remain here for reading purposes while it's being sourced since the Preterist camp have the schism for ten plus years. See sample list of Preterism views here —Transformium (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Problematic section moved here

I have moved this problematic section here for any discussion. It's been marked up with several problem categories and these should be resolved here or discarded entirely.Wjhonson (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Preterists, full and partial, believe that preterism is becoming increasingly popular due to more recent translations of the Bible – with Young's Literal Translation (1862) being a key work.