Middleism...
Stephen Whitsett BA
Giving an orthodox apologetic answer for Preterism / Dispensationalism
Systems: Preterism cont.
 “Preterism is a pseudo Christian eschatological view that interprets prophecies of the Bible, especially Daniel and Revelation, as events which have already happened in the first century A.D. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The term preterism comes from the Latin “praeter”, which is listed in Webster's 1913 dictionary as a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond," signifying that either all or a majority of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Adherents of preterism are commonly known as Preterist” In the Preterist view, the Tribulation took place in the past when Roman legions destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70 during the end stages of the First Jewish–Roman War, and it only affected the Jewish people rather than all mankind.
       The two principal schools of Preterist thought are commonly called partial preterism and full preterism. Preterists disagree significantly about the exact meaning of the terms used to denote these divisions of Preterist thought.

       Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in A.D. 70 or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero. Some partial preterists identify "Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17-18) with the pagan Roman Empire, though some, such as N.T. Wright, identify it with the city of Jerusalem. Most interpretations identify Nero as the beast, while his mark is often interpreted as the stamped image of the emperor's head on every coin of the Roman Empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no one could buy or sell. However, others believe the Book of Revelation was written after Nero committed suicide in AD 68, and identify the Beast with another emperor. The Catholic Encyclopedia has noted that Revelation was "written during the latter part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, probably in A.D. 95 or 96". Additional Protestant scholars are in agreement. The Second coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, have not yet occurred in the partial Preterist system.

        Full preterism differs from partial preterism in that full preterists believe that all eschatology or "end times" events were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia. Full preterism is also known by several other names: preterism (because the term itself means "past"), consistent preterism, true preterism, or hyper-preterism.
        Full preterists argue that a literal reading of Matthew 16:28Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) (where Jesus tells the disciples that some of them would not taste death until they saw him coming in his kingdom) places the second coming in the first century. This precludes a physical second coming of Christ. Instead, the second coming is symbolic of a "judgment" against Jerusalem that is said to have taken place when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. For this reason, some people also call full preterism "The AD 70 Doctrine." Full preterism is often referred to as hyper-preterism by its detractors.
       Christian Preterist believe that the Tribulation was a divine judgment visited upon the Jews for their sins, including rejection of Jesus as the promised Messiah. It occurred entirely in the past, around 70 AD when the armed forces of the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.
       A Preterist discussion of the Tribulation has its focus on the Gospels, in particular the prophetic passages in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, the Olivet discourse, rather than on the Apocalypse or Book of Revelation. (Preterist apply much of the symbolism in the Revelation to Rome, the Cęsars, and their persecution of Christians, rather than to the Tribulation upon the Jews.)

       Jesus' warning in Matthew 24:34Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) that "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" is tied back to his similar warning to the Scribes and the Pharisees that their judgment would "come upon this generation" (Matthew 23:36Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), that is, during the first century rather than at a future time long after the Scribes and Pharisees had passed from the scene. The destruction in 70 AD occurred within a 40-year generation from the time when Jesus gave that discourse.
        The judgment on the Jewish nation was executed by the Roman legions, "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (Matthew 24:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), which Luke presented to his Gentile audience, unfamiliar with Daniel, as "armies" surrounding Jerusalem to cause its "desolation." (Luke 21:20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))
        Since Matthew 24 begins with Jesus visiting the Jerusalem Temple and pronouncing that "there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (vs. 3), preterists see nothing in Scripture to indicate that another Jewish temple will ever be built. The prophecies were all fulfilled on the then-existing temple that Jesus spoke about and that was subsequently destroyed within that generation.

     "Hyper" Preterism is defined here as that form of "fulfillment eschatology" which goes too far in declaring AD70 prophetic fulfillment and/or completion. In many cases, this threshold is reached by declaring that the shadows and types which were given to point to the Eschaton were actually the fulfillments themselves. One need not be a "Full Preterist" to embrace aspects of Hyper Preterism ; however, Full Preterist systems consistently apply Hyper Preterism to all areas of doctrine. Therefore, one could consider Full Preterism to be "Consistently Hyper Preterism", "Fully Hyper Preterism" or "Systematic Hyper Preterism". The point being that Full Preterism is actually systematized Hyper Preterism... and is ever so much dangerous than the more inconsistent forms of Preterism, or Historicist and Futurist systems which may advocate particular hyper Preterist doctrines. http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/

        Foundations are "truths" to which they cling to that are not supported by any scriptural text. The principles are rooted in the rules of Hermeneutics in which they give lip service too but disregard in their interpretations. Preterists accept these principles as rules they can not violate and are truths etched in stone. The real truth of the matter is standard traditional rules of Hermeneutics undermine the Preterist position from the onset, therefore Preterist change the rules to achieve their intended goal. To arrive at "a "figurative" interpretation because they know the literal "wooden" meaning of scriptures did not happen in 70 AD.
     The rules of Interpretation are basis for understanding language interpretation, the primary of which is Definition, usage, context, grammar, and part of speech. Then based on these we account for form of literature, culture, idioms, historical back ground, audience, and letting scripture interpret scripture.

    The number one foundation of interpretation for Preterist is applying the figurative meaning over the literal, even if the literal meaning is contradicted by the figurative. There is metaphor, allegorical, hyperbole, figurative, and apocalyptic language used throughout scripture. Specific language, words, and verses from the bible reveal these usages of parts of speech. The majority of all biblical metaphors are explained and confirmed by scripture. Preterist insert their own “metaphors” of their own making that cannot be applied consistently throughout scripture and therefore must be rejected.
     Literal and figurative language is a distinction within some fields of language analysis. Literal language refers to words that do not deviate from their defined meaning. Non-literal or figurative language refers to words, and groups of words, that exaggerate or alter the usual meanings of the component words. A literal usage is the "normal" meanings of the words.
      It maintains a consistent meaning regardless of the context, with "the intended meaning corresponding exactly to the meaning" of the individual words. Figurative use of language is the use of words or phrases in a manner where the literal meaning of the words is not true or does not make sense, but "implies a non-literal meaning which does make sense or that could be true".
      Figurative language can take multiple forms such as simile or metaphor Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia Of Literature says that figurative language can be classified in five categories: resemblance or relationship, emphasis or understatement, figures of sound, verbal games, and errors.
     What we then understand the language “keys” determine the nature of the language being used. We cannot assume a passage is to be interpreted as Figurative if it is not presented by the author as figurative.
     The basic premise of disagreement that leads to the two different views is the “figurative” application on scripture demanded by Preterist because they know the literal did not happen, this is the mother of “Presuppositions” of all preterists. If it did not happen literally as we understand it should happen in “this generation” then it had to be “spiritual” events. It all boils down to “it had to happen in “this generation”. Then scripture must be reinterpreted to come to a correct understanding that fits their theology.
      We cannot overlay any verse with a figurative meaning if there is no intent by the author to do so and when the text does not call for such application we change the nature and reality of the event that is not supported by the meaning of the plain text, therefore literal must be applied.
      Every argument presented by Preterist why “a” verse does not mean what it says is because they deny the literal for the figurative regardless of the context, even to the point of denying the literal. Preterist see's that Eschatology is Primary and all theology must be interpreted through Eschatology understanding.

    "It was written to them, not you; Your reading someone else's mail. (as if the Old Testament is someone's else's mail). In this principle They make the assumption for audience relevance we are not the audience the intended recipients of the "epistles" therefore we can take the scriptures as if we are living in this days and then applying it to us two thousand years later. While it's true prophecy fulfillment is for the generation who experiences fulfillment this does not apply to the rest of scriptures. ANY scripture that sounds as if it is concerning prophecy in way shape or manner is for the first century only.
     We respectfully disagree in that the author of these letters, the Holy Spirit, gave scriptures for the whole body of Christ as what is taught is timeless. No one would claim the prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ is something we would look for today or for the coming of John the Baptist to pave the way. What was written as a way of instruction for Timothy is as valid for me today as it was to Timothy. The Book of Revelation was not just for the seven churches but for the whole body of Christ where ever they lived. AKA Full Preterism 5 Principles #1 5 Principles #2 5 Principles #3 5 Principles #4 5 Principles #5 Time Statements Conundrums More Conundrums It was said by one but believed by many... "Futurist Eschatology" does not allow for scripture to interpret scripture, Greek scholar definitions trump all." Thus revealing the "nature" of the Hermeneutics applied for Full Preterist Interpretation. The core Preterist principles redefine proper Hermeneutics. "Literal language refers to words that do not deviate from their defined meaning.
 A literal usage is the "normal" meanings of the words. It maintains a consistent meaning regardless of the context, with "the intended meaning corresponding exactly to the meaning" of the individual words."
Home
Preterism
Heresy
Problems
Gnosticism
Incarnation
Inconsistencies
Preterists Views
5 Principles
Players
Preterism 2